A Chicagoan's review of LA (Los Angeles, San Francisco: live, activity, suburb)

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by Cowboy310

Thread's about L.A from out of towners are always something to ignore in my opinion.

It'll always be LA is great but it ain't that or this lmao.

If you don't like LA than why make a thread about it ?

That isn't at all what h/she said. Re-read the OP.

[2Easy]

Originally Posted by Nafster

South Park is totally different than the rest of Downtown because of LA Live and the resurgence there.

It’s in my opinion one of the nicest parts of the city - agreed - no it does not smell like poop and pee there - but I stand by my statement for the rest of DTLA. It’s filthy and the homeless in particular are much more aggressive than other parts of the city.

I think the cops make sure South Park remains sanity but that’s it. The rest is typhus central - particularly Pershing Square.

I love our city and want it to be clean and be fixed - we need to get rid of our mayor and corrupt city and county officials. All these taxes and what are we getting!

I'm leaving South Park in 2 months for a more central location. Only 3 blocks away but it'll be different. I guess I'll see more, but I'm there a lot now.

Regarding the sad state of affairs, I think that it's time for all of us to accept some blame. We elected the politicians, we voted for harmful propositions. We've all created this mess.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by 2Easy

I'm leaving South Park in 2 months for a more central location. Only 3 blocks away but it'll be different. I guess I'll see more, but I'm there a lot now.

Regarding the sad state of affairs, I think that it's time for all of us to accept some blame. We elected the politicians, we voted for harmful propositions. We've all created this mess.

Only about 1% will admit this.

[frimpter928]

Originally Posted by Cowboy310

Thread's about L.A from out of towners are always something to ignore in my opinion.

It'll always be LA is great but it ain't that or this lmao.

If you don't like LA than why make a thread about it ?
Why say what it needs to get better at ?
It doesn't need to be NYC or Philadelphia lol

People need to realize that California is a totally different culture from back east so the cities out West we're built different.

The closest thing you'll get to an Eastcoast city is San Francisco.

But In the real world L.A is a top 5 world city based on influence and impact. And it's the only other mega city in North America next to NYC. You take it or leave it.

The same things can be said about New York.
The bad weather,the rats,the old buildings...No city is perfect so it's better to say what you like and leave the bad opinions alone 😉

Did you read my original post?

[HiIQ]

I disagree. LA's downtown is pathetic anyway you look at it. Houston is a larger, more spread out city land wise and still has a better downtown (in terms of density of skyscrapers than LA). Houston also has its "pockets" of skyscrapers but that is in addition to a decent central downtown. I'm not trying to compare the two cities, but the point of it being spread out as a justification of a crappy downtown doesn't jive.

Chicago's downtown is probably my favorite as it is cleaner than gritty NYC.

Originally Posted by saybanana

When people compare Downtowns, they expect a similar experience to one they like. All the shopping, public transit, people walking everywhere, very clean and modern meets old, lots of shopping, nightlife and bars, lots of buildings and less parking lots all in the center. outside of the Downtown/city center there really isn't anything that can compete or come close.

LA is not that type of city. It is so large and a vast collection of neighborhoods that it distributes the things you expect in a large singular Downtown.
Shopping is nicer at Glendale, Santa Monica, Culver City, Fairfax District, Beverly Hills with its malls or shopping streets.
Nightlife is equally as strong in Downtown LA as in West Hollywood, Hollywood, Santa Monica but also small ones in lots of areas.
Cultural institutions like Museums, concert/music venues, historic buildings are all over the city
Skyscrapers/Highrises are spread out from Hollywood, Koreatown, Westside to Glendale and Long Beach.
All the ethnic areas are spread out all over creating a sprawled out ethnic enclave rather than a few city blocks of intense density like you find in SF or NYC.

[frimpter928]

Originally Posted by HiIQ

I disagree. LA's downtown is pathetic anyway you look at it. Houston is a larger, more spread out city land wise and still has a better downtown (in terms of density of skyscrapers than LA). Houston also has its "pockets" of skyscrapers but that is in addition to a decent central downtown. I'm not trying to compare the two cities, but the point of it being spread out as a justification of a crappy downtown doesn't jive.

Chicago's downtown is probably my favorite as it is cleaner than gritty NYC.

I think pathetic is a bit much. Disappointing is more appropriate in my regard.

LA still has a better downtown than 90% of the cities in US. It's just when it comes to its peers, it's definitely disappointing and a tier below. Hands down for sure it falls behind NYC, Chicago, SF, Seattle, DC, Philly and I would even through Boston in there.

[2Easy]

Originally Posted by HiIQ

I disagree. LA's downtown is pathetic anyway you look at it. Houston is a larger, more spread out city land wise and still has a better downtown (in terms of density of skyscrapers than LA). Houston also has its "pockets" of skyscrapers but that is in addition to a decent central downtown. I'm not trying to compare the two cities, but the point of it being spread out as a justification of a crappy downtown doesn't jive.

Chicago's downtown is probably my favorite as it is cleaner than gritty NYC.

I was just in downtown Houston in April and live in DTLA and don't find the bolded true at all. DTLA is both taller and denser than Houston's downtown. But that's not what is being discussed as making a good downtown. I think everyone is discussing activity, things to do, etc and DTLA is way ahead of Houston in that area.

[HiIQ]

Houston skyscraper density is ranked 33 in the world, LA is at 43. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...st_skyscrapers

I didn't know the ranking until I looked it up, I guessed it on the "eye test."

Sorry, I like the LA area, am thinking of maybe moving there, but its DT just sucks.

Remember, in Houston, the real action is in the tunnels underground (largest tunnel system in the US). Hope you noticed that....

[frimpter928]

Originally Posted by HiIQ

Houston skyscraper density is ranked 33 in the world, LA is at 43. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...st_skyscrapers

I didn't know the ranking until I looked it up, I guessed it on the "eye test."

Sorry, I like the LA area, am thinking of maybe moving there, but its DT just sucks.

Remember, in Houston, the real action is in the tunnels underground (largest tunnel system in the US). Hope you noticed that....

Dude, Houston's downtown is so blah, and no way surpasses LA, I don't care if LA has less skyscraper density. Even with that LA's skyline is more interesting than Houston's.

Also who cares about it's tunnels underground. It doesn't beat LA's streetlife in downtown. And since when is a draconian underground tunnel something to cheer about. If anything I think that is a hinderance to Houston. Underground mall essentially. It sounds depressing.

[HiIQ]

If you READ my original response, I clearly stated the density of skyscrapers is more in Houston. The other poster responded he/she didn't think so, I merely pointed out they were incorrect.

Houston did the intelligent thing to do when you have to work around brutal summers and humidity - go underground. The only point in me pointing out the undergrounds is that the "street life" you see in most downtowns is diluted by the underground activity. These posts are not about a "streetlife" contest. You could be very correct. It is specific to skyscraper density, and LA's, for being the 2nd most populated city, has a surprisingly low skyscraper density. I think this is what a lot of others have pointed out.

When people think about impressive downtowns (I am sure most would agree), they think about skyscraper density. Places like Manhattan set the bar, Chicago does well too, and, from what I've seen in pictures, Tokyo and Hong Kong.

Originally Posted by frimpter928

Dude, Houston's downtown is so blah, and no way surpasses LA, I don't care if LA has less skyscraper density. Even with that LA's skyline is more interesting than Houston's.

Also who cares about it's tunnels underground. It doesn't beat LA's streetlife in downtown. And since when is a draconian underground tunnel something to cheer about. If anything I think that is a hinderance to Houston. Underground mall essentially. It sounds depressing.