Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which city has a better skyline and why? Which has better architecture, buildings, etc. I think that San Fran's skyline is better because the buildings have such a diverse range of many things.
LA has height on SF, and also has more highrises, seeing as it's such a huge city. Many of the highrises are separated out into different clusters though. When it comes to just downtown LA, minus places like century city, etc, Downtown SF wins hands down. LA's downtown is impressive but it's not on the same scale as SF's, and and doesn't have as much density or pedestrian activity overall.
According to emporis.com, when it comes to all buildings of 12 stories or more, SF has 414, and LA has 497...SF's are all concentrated within just 46 square miles though, and most are in and around downtown, rather than having a bunch spread out all over the place.
In pictures SF's looks better and more impressive as it's denser. Plus the Transamerica Pyramid has always been one of my favorite skyscrapers.
But in person I think LA's skyline is more impressive b/c it is taller and more imposing. I believe the US Bank Tower, or whatever its called now, is the tallest building west of the Mississippi River.
SF just winds by a landslide.
La has one of the most pathetic skylines in America, even with it being the 2nd largest city in America.
SF has a really impressive skyline
I picked San Francisco as well, but come on, LA's skyline is by no means pathetic.
I'm in the same boat as you. Los Angeles gets a real bad wrap on this forum. Whether it's skyline, urbanity, etc., everyone seems to love to trash Los Angeles. I think even though its skyline isn't gigantic, it's pretty big. It's got a building over 1,000 ft which can't be claimed by any American cities with the exception of New York City Chicago, and Houston by two feet (I guess Atlanta's birdcage counts too.
Century City is a seperate skyline from downtown, and it's pretty impressive too. Los Angeles may not be a top five skyline, but it certainly isn't pathetic.
Being a city with peers like New York and Chicago, it's expected that LA would have a large skyline. I wouldn't care much if it had no skyline in the city proper at all, like Washington and most European cities. It's dense enough to make up for that.
But it's the fact that they try anyway...and don't do as well as you'd expect. For a city like LA, I'd rather it have no skyline at all.
Being a city with peers like New York and Chicago, it's expected that LA would have a large skyline. I wouldn't care much if it had no skyline in the city proper at all, like Washington and most European cities. It's dense enough to make up for that.
But it's the fact that they try anyway...and don't do as well as you'd expect. For a city like LA, I'd rather it have no skyline at all.
It looks wonderfully Mediterranean. A skyline just kind of skcuf that up.
That picture shows the main problem with Los Angeles: Major Smog.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.