Better scenery: Los Angeles or Chicago (largest, living, best, places)

[DavePa]

Not to lessen any pictures posted of downtown LA or its Greater region..... But Downtown Chicago and its extended shore of high-rise. Overlooks MAJESTIC and blue to blue-green Lake Michigan. To photo-shop mountains behind Chicago's Skyline .... adds little really as it stands alone in its own Majesty.

I've seen photos of a Photo-shopped Atlanta skyline (in their forum) with some mountains in the southeast that were added to its skyline. As to why that idea came to mind.

Much of LA proper is flat. Downtown is on the flats. If we were to compare a Photo of downtown Chicago having the Lakefront vs over merely having distant mountains in its background .... instead of on Lake Michigan. I'M SURE HAVING THE LAKEFRONTS BEAUTY WINS.

Chicago does not have a Malibu or Beverly Hills. But its SKYLINE, clearly stands on its own. Adding Lake Michigan. Its downtown Parks, Harbors and Beaches .... right there. Is what IMPRESEES.

Again, not to lessen LA with its weather to attributes. But Chicago's Core and Lakefront. Takes no back-seat in adding to the city-scape and it manages to be a green-city in tree-lined and w/frontage neighborhoods.

I realize this thread is not on skylines. But a LA one was posted .....

Photos already outdated with some new buildings.

[Enean]

The scenery is beautiful in California, but the land is too uncertain. Not for me.

[Justabystander]

Originally Posted by grapico

we are talking scenery not buildings. if he wanted to ask about buildings, he would have said skyline.

Then why start this thread? It is the buildings and lake and river and the way that they interact that makes Chicago a beautiful city. The lake alone can be found along hundreds of miles of lakeshore in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Canada, but the buildings and architecture coming together is a rare sight in thie world, and tops LA in the beautiful city department. LA, however, has the mountains and the ocean, and is better NATURAL scenery.

[CCrest182]

Originally Posted by pwright1

Those are amazing pictures. But further proves how unfair a thread like this is. I can see why some people are thinking this was created just to put down Chicago.

[Drewjdeg]

The actual built environment of LA is far uglier than Chicago. Even working class neighborhoods in Chicago have nice brick architecture and tree-lined streets. Most middle to lower class neighborhoods in LA are ugly, TBH. However, you can't beat LA when it comes to the mountains and the oceans. LA wins.

[WholeNotherLevel]

Originally Posted by Drewjdeg

The actual built environment of LA is far uglier than Chicago. Even working class neighborhoods in Chicago have nice brick architecture and tree-lined streets. Most middle to lower class neighborhoods in LA are ugly, TBH. However, you can't beat LA when it comes to the mountains and the oceans. LA wins.

I find Chicago's hoods depressing between the dark brick and plastic vinyl siding.

I prefer Spanish architecture and the colorful hoods in LA.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by Enean

The scenery is beautiful in California, but the land is too uncertain. Not for me.

What the land is is fragile. It is the type of environment that never should have grown to the size it is. Los Angeles is desert. It is green from water pumped in from Owens Valley. In 1960 California's population was about 15 million. In the 1960s, the American Dream generated an offshoot that surpassed it. It was called the California Dream. The Mamas and Pappas put it to words.

15 million then. almost 40 now. You do the math. We are perhaps on the cusp of California being three times its size of the middle of the last century.

So sorry to my conservative friends out there: the liberals and the left didn't destroy California and kill paradise: overpopulation and the destruction of this (as noted) fragile environment is what did it.

[Maintainschaos]

Originally Posted by Drewjdeg

The actual built environment of LA is far uglier than Chicago. Even working class neighborhoods in Chicago have nice brick architecture and tree-lined streets. Most middle to lower class neighborhoods in LA are ugly, TBH. However, you can't beat LA when it comes to the mountains and the oceans. LA wins.

I think this is a far assessment. Built environment easily goes to Chicago, in my opinion. Natural scenery easily goes to LA.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by Justabystander

Then why start this thread? It is the buildings and lake and river and the way that they interact that makes Chicago a beautiful city. The lake alone can be found along hundreds of miles of lakeshore in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Canada, but the buildings and architecture coming together is a rare sight in thie world, and tops LA in the beautiful city department. LA, however, has the mountains and the ocean, and is better NATURAL scenery.

Natural Chicago's beauty comes from Lake Michigan. There is nothing inherently beautiful about the site of Chicago. Chicagoland is a bit different from the city. There are areas of natural beauty beyond the lakefront on the North Shore suburbs. Chicagoland is hillier than the city (but by no means a truly hilly area) and the countryside itself (pre-development as well as post-) can be quite attractive. I think people would be surprised at how much rolling land and real hills (particularly along our rivers, like the Fox) we have.

So let's get back to Chicago: a lakefront stretch of land in a region (the Great Lakes) where lakefront land is a dime a dozen.

So what do you get?

In Chicago, you get a flat, broad plain. No hills. No geographical separation or isolation. The sky is an open sky which is very much a thing of beauty. In Chicago, you get a whole half dome of sky. And it's nice.

It also works. If San Francisco is the city that does hills better than any other than Chicago is the city that does flat better than any other. You can't have Chicago without that flat platform, that ideal platform for building a building on the right kind of site, for being able to walk with ease and pleasure, with the ability for each neighborhood, even though it has its own personality and stands out (Chicago being the ultimate "city of neighborhoods") flows almost imperceptibly from one to another.

You want to break down Chicago, here is what you get:

• the endless blue waters of an inland sea

• the lakefront that starts with beaches and is backed up by parks

• a progression from blue lake to yellow beach to green park to spectacular skyline (throw in some harbors here and there for extra beauty)

• a lakefront up and down (well, mostly downtown and north to be honest) lined with high rises

• take the core of the city and run a river right through its middle. Make it a Y shaped river which is the reason the "Y" is a symbol of Chicago. Then let the river flow through neighborhoods both north and south

• take all the above and put it on a perfectly flat plain. And while you keep the lakefront a truly high density area, the areas to the west are what I would call "ideal density" (not too tall or two short, not too dense or two sparse....basically a Chicago (baby) Bear "just right"

• and from whoever you are, that skyline looms overhead in the distance, Lori Lightfoot replacing Rahm Emanuel as the reigning wizard of this emerald city.

That's it. And without all above, certainly that incredibly wonderful flatness, Chicago could never be what it is.


In contrast, LA is loaded with natural beauty, arguably some of the best in the nation. In LA, the skyline can (and does) grow and it doesn't matter how high: the Hollywood Hills/Santa Monica Mts and the distant San Gabriels are going to dominate. And that's a good thing.

LA is a mosaic of different places, different environments, not a unified whole like Chicago. And that, too, is a good thing. It works. Chicago centralizes everything, arguably more so than any other city, the ultimate spoke-and-wheel, concentric ring town. core. periphery. LA is the opposite: different worlds. A downtown that some 30-40 years back was just another neighborhood (and not a great one at that), a downtown that has come back with a vengeance, but still in a way that never could happen in Chicago, just a neighborhood (ok. a hyper neighborhood, I admit). If Chicago's essence comes from downtown (while still delightfully being a city of neighborhoods) than LA's true image is an area removed from downtown, removed from the physical Hollywood (as opposed to the conceptualized Hollywood). LA's power center is its westside in places like Beverly Hills and Santa Monica which aren't even in Los Angeles and Westwood, Bel Air, Brentwood, Pacific Palasades and the canyons winding up to Mullholland that are. And LA, unlike every other city out there, spreads its attractions far and wide. In LA, attractions are everywhere. Try to connect places as spread apart from each other as Olivero Street, Griffith Observatory, the Hollywood sign, Farmers Market, Rodeo Drive, Sunset Strip,the Santa Monica Pier, the canals of Venice, Universal Studios, the Tournament of Roses and the beaches of Malibu in any other metro area...and you can't. That's pure LA.

Which city is more beautiful. I'm prepared to call it a tie. Both incredibly beautiful in their own special ways. Both incredibly great Ameircan cities by any measure. And Chicago and Los Angeles don't need to be and are not at each other's throats: both of them are such great cities and they know it that they can enjoy each other with no sense of threat.

anyone wanting to start a "Better Fruit: Apples or Oranges" thread don't. You can't compare apples with oranges.

[WholeNotherLevel]

Originally Posted by edsg25

What the land is is fragile. It is the type of environment that never should have grown to the size it is. Los Angeles is desert. It is green from water pumped in from Owens Valley. In 1960 California's population was about 15 million. In the 1960s, the American Dream generated an offshoot that surpassed it. It was called the California Dream. The Mamas and Pappas put it to words.

15 million then. almost 40 now. You do the math. We are perhaps on the cusp of California being three times its size of the middle of the last century.

So sorry to my conservative friends out there: the liberals and the left didn't destroy California and kill paradise: overpopulation and the destruction of this (as noted) fragile environment is what did it.

As much as I wish the narcissistic brash opportunists that are attracted to California these days would stay in their home state and watch from home, it is what it is.

The wrong people are willing to pay to live in California now unfortunately. Seems like even only over the last 10 years I've noticed a big loss in California's laid back vibe. Can't imagine what people who are 50+ years old have noticed.