When people tell me that LA is an ugly city... (Los Angeles: houses, live)

[DynamoLA]

Originally Posted by DistrictDirt

...I'm just going to send them this video:

[vimeo]97726387[/vimeo]

Seriously, of all the LA timelapses that have come out over the past 2 years, this one is my favorite by far. It perfectly illustrates the lights, the topography, the reflections on the buildings during that beautiful dusk light...everything I love about how this city looks.

Awesome video. Love the timelapse shots from above. Reminds me of LA Light (also on Vimeo)

[vimeo]27235856[/vimeo]

[Mr. Opinionated]

Los Angeles is as beautiful for what it is as any other large city. Like people, there is no one standard for beauty or taste. A positive outlook will reveal the beauty of life itself.

[bruhms]

When people tell you LA is an ugly city you show them a biased video?

[Chicano3000X]

Only thing ugly is stripmalls and suburban aesthetics.

[GatsbyGatz]

Originally Posted by Chicano3000X

Only thing ugly is stripmalls and suburban aesthetics.

^This.

LA isn't ugly. People just complain about its architecture because it looks a lot more suburban than Manhattan, Paris, London, etc.

[jm1982]

The reason la looks like that is because many of the neighborhoods developed when cars were more common.

The early developments like downtown LA were denser more walkable and resemble more an urban city like NYC because people didn't have cars back then .

The nice thing about strip malls is they have parking and they can be convenient if it's a strip mall that has a good variety of stores .

Otherwise you have to repark and drive or take a bunch of public transit to where you want to go .

There are some really crappy strip malls though I live by one , id like to see that demolished or bought by a landlord that cares .

Also regarding architecture , I find the architecture of NYC , manhattan specifically to be more homogenous than la . In la you have a mix of architecture , tall buildings , mid sized , single family, strip malls and then a variety of styles too .

I think that la is a lot more aesthetically pleasing and interesting versus manhattan .

[munchitup]

I wouldn't say Manhattan is homogenous by any means, but yes it is not nearly the hodgepodge of styles and densities that LA is.

In lots of places in LA, you can find a streetscape like this: Half a block has residential apartments that look like they are straight out of the Lower East Side, turn the corner and there's a row of Craftsmen SFHs (except with the random enormous stucco apartment buildings sprinkled in between), then hit the commercial street and there is a row of single story street-facing retail, with a high-rise on one corner, a gas station on another, a fast food joint on the third and a two-story strip mall with underground parking on the third.

Some people find this set up disorganized and unattractive, but I find it fascinating and full of opportunities for exploration and discovery.

[chessgeek]

LA has its nice, beautiful areas, but also several ugly areas. Let's be honest. It is a challenge when you are in the same state as beautiful cities like San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, and Monterey. Those cities have their downtowns much closer to the coast than downtown LA which helps IMO. The riverfront areas of Sacramento are also nice. Almost any city might be considered lackluster in beauty compared to those cities.

However, in the "things to do" department, LA is near the top.

[saybanana]

I think thats why I find LA ugly. It's such a hodgepodge of everything; a confused mix and disorganized mess. I find that really unattractive. In many beautiful cities there are several elements that unify a street to make it attractive. The same architecture in buildings such as row homes, or craftsmen or spanish bungalows all in on a street. Sometimes it's a row tall palm trees evenly spaced at the same height like you see in postcards. Large trees hanging over Vermont on the way to the Griffith Observatory. Huge ficus trees on Green street in Old Town Pasadena. Even suburban divisions that have the same looking house for blocks and blocks is beautiful. Nicely trimmed grass lawns all on the same street. Mid-rise buildings on Broadway in Downtown of different styles but many have remarkable details on their facade that unify the street. If there is something to break the pattern they are usually something exquisite like an old church or taller old Victorian on a street of craftsmen. In Downtown, all these tall buildings of glass and steel surround the amazing LA Central Library building.

Unfortunately, most neighborhood streets in LA have been broken up over time with very little to unify it. Most of the time the things that break up a street are often ugly. munchitup does describe most commercial streets in LA pretty accurately. In residential streets, ever see a home or apartment that breaks up street with maybe a clashing style or no setback like other homes? Or someone tear down a house to build a McMansion that is taller and wider than other homes? Or a row of craftsmen homes but there are homes with gray fences, or white fences, black fences, no fences or even those new flipped home side wood fences? Some ripped out green lawns for a cement driveway for multiple cars. Worse than that are street trees. Tall palms on part of the street, then some overgrown, sidewalk breaking ficus, while on the other side, it's sycamores, or a magnolia, pine tree, or a different type of palm tree. Some parts of the street have no trees. Cities like Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Pasadena and some parts of LA city have done a great job in maintaining beautiful streets that are great to drive on, bike, or walk.

[rzzz]

LA is ugly but few American cities are good looking. Even in NYC, most of the outer boroughs are unattractive. Outside of downtown, Chicago is nothing special to look at. Houston is a huge mishmash of suburban nothing, Phoenix is ugly, etc. San Francisco is good looking, but most of it is due to geography. Personally, I like the LA wabi-sabi look.