Skyscraper Cities; LA vs Chicago (America, Los Angeles, life, people)

[Metro Matt]

Originally Posted by frischee112

How come Chicago has more (many more) skyscrapers than LA despite LA being bigger? Why did Chicago develop densely and LA more sprawled?

Uh...because LA sits on a fault line maybe?

[munchitup]

Pretty sure the fault line doesn't have a ton to do with it (Although Dub King is probably right that more would go into building supertall buildings in LA ($$$) to make sure they can withstand earthquakes).

For years the city had a height limit set at City Hall, so Chicago had a head start.

Sprawl really has nothing to do with how dense / large a city's skyline is. Take Atlanta and Houston - both sprawl more than Los Angeles and are significantly less dense, yet have skylines that compete (and in some opinions are better / bigger than) Los Angeles'.

[ndongo]

I am quiet sure if you take every building in los angeles and bring them to downtown los angeles, you will have your downtown chicago or manhattan in new york. but why? didnt chicago was the second largest city in America and los Angeles is now the second largest . everything starts with a design. you want to built a house you start with a design. you cannot built a house without a design and when you read the history of los angeles, los angeles was designed to be a combination of cities in a city. the land scape being so wide spray, intead of one driving for 2 hours to go get a loaf of bread, have your own business center that provides you with what you need was a better idea than driving a long distance. as the city grew bigger every thing is coming togheter. to me this is a better concept in growing cities. sooner or later you will have skycrapers in all of los angeles. just imagine skycrapers all over los angeles. just imagine that. if you think manhattan is a skycrapers city, wait until all of los angeles become skycrapers. it will be a blast, it will be incredible and it is just a matter of time as the matter of fact it has already started. los angeles is now growing vertical rather than hotizontal. all the holes are being filled. not in one area but every where. this is the reason why I think los angeles in the future will be the biggest city in america and only an earthquak will stop that. with that nice weather, nice beaches the land scape. i just do not see how it will not. hey, people who once called los angeles the city of the future didnt make a mistake. I can tell you that. it will happen may be not in our times but it will. you can make of los angeles everything you want. build a lot of building in downtown LA and you have manhattan or chicago downtown. you make it paris if you want. but you will not make new york los angeles or paris for that matter. I rather leave in a non sens city that make sens than to leave in a city that make sens but yet doesnt make sens. los angeles is too big to be built in a bigger area and new york or chicago is too big to be built in one area

[munchitup]

Originally Posted by ndongo

I am quiet sure if you take every building in los angeles and bring them to downtown los angeles, you will have your downtown chicago or manhattan in new york. but why? didnt chicago was the second largest city in America and los Angeles is now the second largest . everything starts with a design. you want to built a house you start with a design. you cannot built a house without a design and when you read the history of los angeles, los angeles was designed to be a combination of cities in a city. the land scape being so wide spray, intead of one driving for 2 hours to go get a loaf of bread, have your own business center that provides you with what you need was a better idea than driving a long distance. as the city grew bigger every thing is coming togheter. to me this is a better concept in growing cities. sooner or later you will have skycrapers in all of los angeles. just imagine skycrapers all over los angeles. just imagine that. if you think manhattan is a skycrapers city, wait until all of los angeles become skycrapers. it will be a blast, it will be incredible and it is just a matter of time as the matter of fact it has already started. los angeles is now growing vertical rather than hotizontal. all the holes are being filled. not in one area but every where. this is the reason why I think los angeles in the future will be the biggest city in america and only an earthquak will stop that. with that nice weather, nice beaches the land scape. i just do not see how it will not. hey, people who once called los angeles the city of the future didnt make a mistake. I can tell you that. it will happen may be not in our times but it will. you can make of los angeles everything you want. build a lot of building in downtown LA and you have manhattan or chicago downtown. you make it paris if you want. but you will not make new york los angeles or paris for that matter. I rather leave in a non sens city that make sens than to leave in a city that make sens but yet doesnt make sens. los angeles is too big to be built in a bigger area and new york or chicago is too big to be built in one area

LA will never have as many skyscrapers as Manhattan (I hope to God, at least). The appeal of Los Angeles is its vast stretches of mid-rise density with pockets of high rises. When you have weather like LA does, you don't block out the sun with huge buildings; when you have the incredible natural setting LA has, you don't block out mountain/ocean views with a wall of high rises.

Eventually I think LA will look kind of like a "bowl" with DTLA at one end and Century City at the other. Highrises along the Wilshire Corridor all the way from DTLA to CC, and highrises (roughly) following the 101 freeway through Hollywood to West Hollywood/Sunset Strip. The center of the bowl would be the low-rise (and for LA) low density areas of Hancock Park.

If you added up the skyscrapers in LA there would not be as many as in Chicago, just looked on wikipedia and Chicago has about 2x as many as LA - that is a fact I am okay with, Chicago/NYC are the places I go to see mind-blowing high-rise density.

[Chicago60614]

Originally Posted by runnerXT

Fact check much?

Yes you are right that Chicago's are pretty much clustered in a small area but other than you are totally off base, come on Google things lol before posting.

Chicago is not too far off as having as many highrises as the whole state of California.

But a highrise is defined as only 12 stories or taller. How about a true highrise 500 feet or higher? Chicago has almost 4 times as many as LA and more than the whole state of California by what twice as many or something similar.

Geez you can even search this site!
Ranking the 50 largest MSAs by the number of existing skyscrapers 500+ feet tall and by maximum skyscraper height

I am not even from Chicago, Boston here and just living here for now, but your stores and anecdotes about Chicago are off the wall and all the time.

I was going to say, Chicago has over 1,200 highrises, LA has 500.

If you weight it based on how tall buildings are, according to the most looked at stats, Chicago comes in 3rd in the world with 19,565 points, and LA 39th, with 2,959.

Skyline Ranking | Statistics | EMPORIS

Chicago has a history and culture of having skyscrapers, it's part of the city's blood. Geographically there's no huge reason the city needs to build up like Manhattan. One reason the city is able to build them is that there are 8 heavy rail lines and 11 commuter lines coming into the downtown area from all over the metro. Those, along with dozens of bus routes, carry hundreds of thousands of people downtown every day. It wouldn't work to have such a huge concentration of office workers and highrise residents in a small area like that if everyone was expected to drive. Public transit is the key to opportunity, but doesn't fully explain the sheer will of the city and developers to build up. Much of it is status.

One of Chicago's biggest highrise boom actually took place during the 2000's, with 214 buildings buit/under construction since 2000.

[MB8abovetherim]

Originally Posted by munchitup

Pretty sure the fault line doesn't have a ton to do with it (Although Dub King is probably right that more would go into building supertall buildings in LA ($$$) to make sure they can withstand earthquakes).

For years the city had a height limit set at City Hall, so Chicago had a head start.

Sprawl really has nothing to do with how dense / large a city's skyline is. Take Atlanta and Houston - both sprawl more than Los Angeles and are significantly less dense, yet have skylines that compete (and in some opinions are better / bigger than) Los Angeles'.

I'm pretty sure THIS is the main reason. When the skyscraper boom was taking place a lot of American cities starting building skyscrapers as well out of competition with other cities or to boost status. But if I'm not mistaken, Los Angeles in 1911 enacted an Ordinance that banned buildings being built taller than 150 ft with a couple being exceptions. That ban lasted until the late 50's! By then New York and Chicago already had huge skylines while LA had none. Also, the way firecodes are in LA and realestate prices, earthquakes...etc. LA has kinda gotten along without needing a massive skyline.

[git45]

I live in LA (echo park) and I LOVE it here, but I was born in Chicago. Chicago is THE Skyscraper city (whereas NYC is simply the EVERYTHING city). The skyscraper was born here and, albeit with little time remaining, The Willis Tower is still the tallest building in the western hemisphere. Growing up in Chicago, I only saw mountains in storybooks until I was old enough to travel, but I didn't miss it because Chicago's skyline is a mountain range unto itself and I spent most of my childhood craning my neck upwards walking down the streets. Supertalls aside, Chicago's classical skyscrapers are beautifully crafted with incredible masonry/brick-work. The Wrigley Building, Tribune Tower, the Jeweler's Building (my favorite!), The Monadnock Building, Board or Trade, The Rookery, The Montgomery Ward tower and many more. Conversely I don't think LA needs needs more towers and modern skyscrapers, maybe small one and more mid-rises. What's the point when the downtown skyline is dwarfed the majesty of the Santa Monica mountains, the San Gabriel mountains and the Hollywood hills. With such amazing topography, are skyscrapers really necessary?

[Chicano3000X]

Originally Posted by git45

I live in LA (echo park) and I LOVE it here, but I was born in Chicago. Chicago is THE Skyscraper city (whereas NYC is simply the EVERYTHING city). The skyscraper was born here and, albeit with little time remaining, The Willis Tower is still the tallest building in the western hemisphere. Growing up in Chicago, I only saw mountains in storybooks until I was old enough to travel, but I didn't miss it because Chicago's skyline is a mountain range unto itself and I spent most of my childhood craning my neck upwards walking down the streets. Supertalls aside, Chicago's classical skyscrapers are beautifully crafted with incredible masonry/brick-work. The Wrigley Building, Tribune Tower, the Jeweler's Building (my favorite!), The Monadnock Building, Board or Trade, The Rookery, The Montgomery Ward tower and many more. Conversely I don't think LA needs needs more towers and modern skyscrapers, maybe small one and more mid-rises. What's the point when the downtown skyline is dwarfed the majesty of the Santa Monica mountains, the San Gabriel mountains and the Hollywood hills. With such amazing topography, are skyscrapers really necessary?

I say yes. I think L.A. deserves it. Not all L.A. needs to be skyscrapers, but living in L.A., I admire NYC for it's skyscrapers. I don't want L.A to be NYC but I want L.A. to have recognition for skyscrapers.

[jorge112597]

Originally Posted by Chicano3000X

I say yes. I think L.A. deserves it. Not all L.A. needs to be skyscrapers, but living in L.A., I admire NYC for it's skyscrapers. I don't want L.A to be NYC but I want L.A. to have recognition for skyscrapers.

it will probably soon, if wilshire grand gets built to its maximum height at 1,250 it will make a huge diffrence in the LA skyline, as well as many other project that are approved and waiting to break ground like Grand Avenue, Metropolis, LA Central, and the newly proposed Avenue of Angels.

[jorge112597]

LAstyles from Flickr

I like the LA skyline how it is, in fact IMO its the third best skyline in America, but I can't wait for wilshire grand.