Los Angeles needs much more scyscrapers/buildings ! (San Francisco, Brea: lofts, how much)

[Jax419]

Originally Posted by LauraC

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

[atlantagreg30127]

City-specific topics belong in that city's room and not general u.s... so moving.

[thepinksquid]

Originally Posted by 04glow

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).

[califantastic]

Originally Posted by tijlover

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.

[shadesofthesky]

Originally Posted by jjacobeclark

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.

[tijlover]

Originally Posted by miamiman

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.

[Hollywood Inquirer]

Originally Posted by shadesofthesky

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.

Originally Posted by Jax419

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?

[califantastic]

Originally Posted by tijlover

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.

[uptown_urbanist]

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.

[808n310]

Originally Posted by tijlover

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...