Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
People undersell LA when it comes to architecture... People tend to come here, drive around the Westside and think that represents LA. If you want to see the best LA has to offer, the older parts of LA east of La Brea is where the true heart of LA lies. Echo Park, SilverLake, West Adams, Hancock Park, Los Feliz, Downtown, Boyle Heights, Lincoln Heights, Mt. Washington, K-town, even Westlake has its Gems. Chicago is more compact so all the best stuff is pretty close. In LA, There are parts that dont even make you feel like your in Los Angeles anymore. Ranch homes with horse trails in Chatsworth? Canals in Venice? The wilderness of a home in the Hollywood Hills? Or even a cute Midwestern style neighborhood in Rancho Park. LA has it's beautiful areas too; even more so than Chicago in some respects.
I often find that when talking about LA and its pros, a lot of people resort to bringing up other areas within LA's metro region or within LA County. For example, LA is great because Santa Barbara is nearby. Okay, but that's not LA and only LA. That's like me saying NYC is great because the Hamptons are near it. Or like you said, saying Michigan's west coast makes Chicago so wonderful.
As for the topic, Chicago is by far more beautiful than LA architecture wise. No contest, really.
Or saying New Jersey is great because it's near Manhattan .
I don't see anything wrong with citing positives from anywhere within LOS ANGELES County.
So let's EXCULDE mountains, the ocean and lake. I am talking about the architecture of the city, the urbanscape, the streets, sidewalks, buildings etc.
Which do you think is prettier, Chicago or LA?
LOL it would be like me making a thread about which city (LA vs Chi) is more beautiful excluding the urban environment, the 2 go hand in hand, SF, LA, Pitts, Miami, NYC, Seattle etc. are all cities that are and look they way they do because of the natural environment it's built on and surrounded by, if anything this thread shows the inferiority complex that Chicago still has towards LA that residents have to come up with threads like this, LA is much more recognized and much larger than Chicago will ever be so just let the complex go and like someone already else said you have to worry about that bayou city down south rather then to hold on to grudges of being passed for #2, just my 2 cents
Or saying New Jersey is great because it's near Manhattan .
I don't see anything wrong with citing positives from anywhere within LOS ANGELES County.
There isn't anything wrong with it, but if you're comparing two cities and just the cities, especially when it comes to something like architecture, bringing up nearby areas not part of the city is irrelevant, and something that I frequently notice people doing when discussing LA.
Residential architecture belongs to LA imo. So many different styles and periods and its endless. And some of the most beautiful neighborhoods are right here in LA.
There isn't anything wrong with it, but if you're comparing two cities and just the cities, especially when it comes to something like architecture, bringing up nearby areas not part of the city is irrelevant, and something that I frequently notice people doing when discussing LA.
Cause LA is huge and it wouldn't make sense having to explain to people which places are part of the city of Los Angeles and what Parts are not. Plus, cities like Santa Monica, Pasadena, Inglewood, Culver City, West Hollywood, Marina Del Rey, Beverly Hills, Etc.... Are so interwoven with the fabric of "LA" that it is basically like one big city. But if we are going to just talk about the City of Los Angeles, then I would go as far as to say the city of LA has better architecture than the rest of the cities I mentioned COMBINED.
Some areas of the City of LA that are really great on architecture:
Brentwood, Venice Beach, Palisades, (West of Vine)Hollywood, Sherman Oaks, Chatsworth, Encino, Liemert Park, Boyle Heights, Hancock Park, Silverlake/EchoPark, Westlake, KoreaTown, West Adams, Downtown, San Perdro.
Last edited by jamills21; 07-26-2013 at 02:36 PM..
Cause LA is huge and it wouldn't make sense having to explain to people which places are part of the city of Los Angeles and what Parts are not. Plus, cities like Santa Monica, Pasadena, Inglewood, Culver City, West Hollywood, Marina Del Rey, Beverly Hills, Etc.... Are so interwoven with the fabric of "LA" that it is basically like one big city. But if we are going to just talk about the City of Los Angeles, then I would go as far as to say the city of LA has better architecture than the rest of the cities I mentioned COMBINED.
Some areas of the City of LA that are really great on architecture:
Brentwood, Venice Beach, Palisades, (West of Vine)Hollywood, Sherman Oaks, Chatsworth, Encino, Liemert Park, Boyle Heights, Hancock Park, Silverlake/EchoPark, Westlake, KoreaTown, West Adams, Downtown, San Perdro.
I think East Hollywood has some really unique architecture. I really love the little apartment buildings . Also the upscale residential buildings in Franklin Village and Los Feliz.
East of Vine you are also seeing some huge new developments, with the Emerson Building just recently topping out, the Sunset / Bronson tower across the street about halfway to topping out. The Emerson Campus really adds some unique contemporary architecture to the area.
I'm sorry, but LA is NOT famous for its architecture or built environment. If anything, LA is loved for everything but--its beaches, mountains, weather. LA's built environment is actually what people complain about LA most; LA's ugly freeways, ugly strip malls, ugly boxy skyscrapers (the few that LA has), stucco buildings. LA was built around cost effectiveness so many buildings are simple and understated.
For architecture, most people look to SF for its Victorians or to Chicago for its skyscrapers or to the architecture of Philly/NYC/older Eastern cities. LA attracts tourists for its lifestyle and geography.
LA's houses, on the other hand, are very pretty and large.
LA is famous for its architecture, but not to the degree of Chicago (I'm mainly referring to commercial architecture though). LA, however, has better and is more famous for its residential architecture than Chicago.
Cause LA is huge and it wouldn't make sense having to explain to people which places are part of the city of Los Angeles and what Parts are not. Plus, cities like Santa Monica, Pasadena, Inglewood, Culver City, West Hollywood, Marina Del Rey, Beverly Hills, Etc.... Are so interwoven with the fabric of "LA" that it is basically like one big city. But if we are going to just talk about the City of Los Angeles, then I would go as far as to say the city of LA has better architecture than the rest of the cities I mentioned COMBINED.
Some areas of the City of LA that are really great on architecture:
Brentwood, Venice Beach, Palisades, (West of Vine)Hollywood, Sherman Oaks, Chatsworth, Encino, Liemert Park, Boyle Heights, Hancock Park, Silverlake/EchoPark, Westlake, KoreaTown, West Adams, Downtown, San Perdro.
New York is also huge but you don't see New Yorkers claiming Valley Stream, NY or Long Beach, NY as part of the city. Either way, you're missing the point. I understand that there areas are near LA that one from those areas may say they are from LA to make things easier, but when comparing city propers they are irrelevant. Why was Santa Barbara brought up when comparing architecture in LA vs Chicago? Santa Barbara is separate from LA, it is not part of the city. That's like someone from Chicago bringing Cicero, for example, into the conversation.
I'm not here to argue, I just pointed out something I noticed happening often here - someone tried comparing Santa Barbara to Chicago when in fact the comparison should be LA to Chicago - not LA and its nearby cities and towns to Chicago. I don't doubt LA has nice architecture, I'm simply saying I think Chicago's is better and more world renowned.
New York is also huge but you don't see New Yorkers claiming Valley Stream, NY or Long Beach, NY as part of the city. Either way, you're missing the point. I understand that there areas are near LA that one from those areas may say they are from LA to make things easier, but when comparing city propers they are irrelevant. Why was Santa Barbara brought up when comparing architecture in LA vs Chicago? Santa Barbara is separate from LA, it is not part of the city. That's like someone from Chicago bringing Cicero, for example, into the conversation.
I'm not here to argue, I just pointed out something I noticed happening often here - someone tried comparing Santa Barbara to Chicago when in fact the comparison should be LA to Chicago - not LA and its nearby cities and towns to Chicago. I don't doubt LA has nice architecture, I'm simply saying I think Chicago's is better and more world renowned.
Don't get so hung up on one poster. They were way off topic, let it go. Plenty of LA posters have talked about areas within Los Angeles that have great architecture.
NYC doesn't have anything like West Hollywood or Beverly Hills, which are completely surrounded by Los Angeles, and are pretty much firmly entrenched in Central Los Angeles / the Westside. Same with Santa Monica, though on one side is the ocean. I think it is reasonable to count those areas, though the OP does specify within the city limits.
IMO the best architecture is in Central Los Angeles, South Los Angeles and the Eastside anyways, so no need to count those non-municipal areas for LA to be a top architecture city.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
.
Either way, you're missing the point. I understand that there areas are near LA that one from those areas may say they are from LA to make things easier, but when comparing city propers they are irrelevant. Why was Santa Barbara brought up when comparing architecture in LA vs Chicago? Santa Barbara is separate from LA, it is not part of the city. That's like someone from Chicago bringing Cicero, for example, into the conversation. 
