U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-25-2009, 04:33 AM
 
Location: The Misc
114 posts, read 241,627 times
Reputation: 69

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post
Why would you want big ugly buildings blocking beautiful blue skies?

I'm not a fan of LA because of its traffic but it certainly is a lot better outdoors-looking/more inviting than NY, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia. I think its look matches its attitude.
You can't see the skies b/c of the smog anyway..lulz
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-25-2009, 09:40 AM
 
Location: West Cobb County, GA (Atlanta metro)
9,128 posts, read 21,723,654 times
Reputation: 4746
City-specific topics belong in that city's room and not general u.s... so moving.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2009, 08:27 PM
 
Location: San Diego, California
2,496 posts, read 5,734,568 times
Reputation: 1816
Quote:
Originally Posted by 04glow View Post
My guess why LA does not have skyscrapers is because of the earthquakes.
It's very possible to engineer extremely tall buildings to withstand earthquakes in seismically active areas (i.e., Taipei 101 in Taiwan, Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2009, 09:09 PM
 
337 posts, read 1,177,392 times
Reputation: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by tijlover View Post
Just along the anti-highrise California coast, for one. If the developers had the freedom to build high rises like they have had on the southeast coast of Florida, you'd see 30-40 story highrises starting from Malibu and going all the way down to Dana Point. Never, ever will you see that happen. Too many selfish people who want the whole coast to themselves.
Not having high rises along the coast is one of the things that makes California so wonderful.

Socal has such a beautiful coastline with all of the mountains and cool beach towns. If you go Florida style and build a 50 story tower on every square inch of waterfront you would destroy one of America's greatest assets.

And no I don't live in a mansion in Malibu. Or anything close to it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2009, 09:56 PM
 
1 posts, read 1,946 times
Reputation: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjacobeclark View Post
The threat of earthquakes doesn't seem to stop Tokyo and Hong Kong from constructing massive skyscrapers.
Let me clarify... I grew up in Hong Kong- we don't get earthquakes there. Been in SoCal for 10 years and have to admit that the thought of massive skyscrapers here freak me out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2009, 11:20 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
11,720 posts, read 9,982,055 times
Reputation: 15045
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamiman View Post
What's the purpose of having highrises just for the sake of having highrises? Skyscrapers along the Pacific coast WOULD ruin Los Angeles. Who in the world wants to go to Manhattan Beach with an endless row of 35 story condos cascading over the beach? No thanks. Let's not even talk about the devaluation of the homes on the bluffs that face the ocean.
One gain from having more highrises along the coast would be less sprawl. How many in L.A. have always dreamed of living along the coast, but can't afford it because there's so little availability of coastal housing that's more affordable.

And, no, the whole coast need not be one high rise after another, but why can't one city or two allow verticality, like Redondo, Seal Beach, Manhattan Beach, Santa Monica or Laguna? One or two pockets of density, would that destroy the coastline?

Devaluation of the homes on the bluffs? Well, we all know who they are!
No secret there. Same with San Francisco. The hill people don't want anything blocking their selfish views of the Bay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2009, 11:25 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles (wilshire/westwood)
805 posts, read 1,564,592 times
Reputation: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadesofthesky View Post
Let me clarify... I grew up in Hong Kong- we don't get earthquakes there. Been in SoCal for 10 years and have to admit that the thought of massive skyscrapers here freak me out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jax419 View Post
You can't see the skies b/c of the smog anyway..lulz
Stupid things like this pisse off. Go away trolls!!!!!! You can see air in LA fine. Earthquakes are not the reason why LA dosen't have more buildings/skyscrapers it's because LA already has so many city centers thanks to all business moving into the suburbs and besides LA skyline has grown have you seen it lately?



Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2009, 01:02 AM
 
337 posts, read 1,177,392 times
Reputation: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by tijlover View Post
One gain from having more highrises along the coast would be less sprawl. How many in L.A. have always dreamed of living along the coast, but can't afford it because there's so little availability of coastal housing that's more affordable.

And, no, the whole coast need not be one high rise after another, but why can't one city or two allow verticality, like Redondo, Seal Beach, Manhattan Beach, Santa Monica or Laguna? One or two pockets of density, would that destroy the coastline?

Devaluation of the homes on the bluffs? Well, we all know who they are!
No secret there. Same with San Francisco. The hill people don't want anything blocking their selfish views of the Bay.
Go live in Florida rather than trying to turn California into Florida.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2009, 01:30 AM
 
10,151 posts, read 14,937,193 times
Reputation: 6130
I agree that pockets of high density along the coast make sense. Long Beach has some high rise buildings near the water; I don't know the prices and assume it's not cheap, but on the other hand, they're presumably a lot more within the realm of possibility for many people than a mansion in Malibu.

Just one comment about SF, though; in San Francisco places with views towards the Bay are expensive, but it's actually pretty affordable (well, San Francisco "affordable") to live by the ocean. It's a longer commute from most jobs and it can be cold and foggy, but price-wise parts of the Outer Richmond and the Sunset are some of the most affordable neighborhoods in the city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2009, 01:59 PM
 
Location: South Bay, CA
113 posts, read 351,307 times
Reputation: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by tijlover View Post
One gain from having more highrises along the coast would be less sprawl. How many in L.A. have always dreamed of living along the coast, but can't afford it because there's so little availability of coastal housing that's more affordable.

And, no, the whole coast need not be one high rise after another, but why can't one city or two allow verticality, like Redondo, Seal Beach, Manhattan Beach, Santa Monica or Laguna? One or two pockets of density, would that destroy the coastline?

Devaluation of the homes on the bluffs? Well, we all know who they are!
No secret there. Same with San Francisco. The hill people don't want anything blocking their selfish views of the Bay.

Have you spent any amount of meaningful time in any of the cities you suggest dropping a 40 story building on??

Most beach cities in LA are older (and BTW not even LA, as MB, HB, RB etc are all their own cities) and have high densities of smaller homes that are clustered near to each other, they also have lots of little side alleys and such...the infrastructure would need to be vastly changed to accomodate a tall building, let alone a bunch of them, which, in turn, would completely destroy the vibe of those cities. Part of the allure of these areas is the walkable nature, little shops, views of the water, and small town feel....Marina Del Rey is probably the closest thing to 'high rises' on the beach / water....and thankfully it's pretty well contained in height....

People ***** and moan about LA and the LA metro and it's lack of definition and how it's just a collection of random cities...but to me that's the allure...walking along the Strand in Manhattan or going to a bar in Hermosa is a completely different experience from eating BBQ in Koreatown or chilling at The Standard downtown...the diversity of setting is mindblowing...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top