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.
Chicago's manufacturing prominence has evalorated, which has caused subsequent decay. Los Angeles, by contrast is America's manufacturing capitol. Industrial areas are productive, and poor areas are still populated with people.
Is this statement actually true? LA area has lost a significant fraction of its manufacturing jobs over the years and, while #1 in manufacturing jobs as raw numbers, the Chicago area is #2.
Chicago's manufacturing prominence has evalorated, which has caused subsequent decay. Los Angeles, by contrast is America's manufacturing capitol. Industrial areas are productive, and poor areas are still populated with people.
You seem to have a aim of making Chicago into the Rust belt city it once was. Yes I do mean was. I know of far more rust belt declines in PA I live and its cities. As for Chicago's manufacturing prominence has evalorated you say? This is nationally too. Chicago's Stock Yards are long gone. But it's neighborhoods remain and Norhern Indiana's Steel mills quieted. The city isn't devoid of all manufacturing.
I've seen in Chicago's neighborhoods I have relatives and neighborhoods going through. I see brick bungslows dating to the early 1920s that held up darn well with exteriors that are looking as good as when built. Great Craftsman workmanship went into them. Also many areas I've seen had newly paved roads and sidewalks in these neighborhoods. All with front lawns and most blocks tree-lined. Even other areas of styles held up as most get upkeep and well constructed.
In NYC, old unrestored older areas even if gentrified inside. Are seen as Gritty and showing this grit is a badge of honor. As opposed to deteriorated and tarnished by age. So knowing Eastern cities too. I find Chicago cleaner and a housing stock that held up very well. Some relatives live in 50s early 60s neighborhoods. Really look great yet. Most age shown is in the streets that could use repavings. Even looking over Google streetviews of areas seen as gangland and most murders have been. Look good. Far from ghetto looking I've seen more in the East.
I think your views on how the city actually looks today as it did remove more of its post-industrial remnants to re-purposing it has many see it has overcome its rust belt past.
Hearing Chicago removed its ghetto housing projects and worst blight that 70s 80s pictures use to show looking like a war zone. Seem all gone. I found boarded up homes among decent ones. But falling down ones I did not.
I have no doubt LA has its older Bungalow areas still looking good too try. But seeing far more exposed powerline poles in LA then Chicago, who has them in alleyways. Does not help some areas in LA. The Elite suburbs surely have them underground. But I have no aim to lessen any city.
My comments are because Chicago impresses me for especially its downtown and North Shore neighborhoods highly desired and impressive too as you noted. Others further north west also and southwest do too. But most even Far west side and Southside areas with the high gang murders. Do not look for the most part like a real ghetto. Chicago's old stock homes I believe look much better then of the Eastern States and much any of its older cities.
I am not claiming Chicago far superior to LA. Though Chicago's Core neighborhoods sought after and its downtown. I do find superior in their Victorian features. Realizing much of LA's most sought after communities are not LA proper. But city-suburbs and their own principality.
That's what I love about LA. There is literally so much to choose from. You can hop on a train an go from a built in enviornment of the Westside or Hollywood, to something like Downtown.
There are some cool areas in LA with interesting buildings and architecture but I find a lot of the city pretty ugly. There are way too many apartment complexes which were built in the 70's and 80's that make a lot of areas look cheap and run down. I hate walking through the Westside and Hollywood and seeing a beautiful Spanish style complex right next to an ugly run down 70's apartment and then next to that is a super modern complex which was only built a couple of years ago. Each to their own I guess!
I feel the same way about Chicago or alot of big cities for that matter. Every city isn't an architectural gem around its entire piece of land.
Yea, that's right on. I think this was especially bad for tourists visiting LA up until fairly recently. LA's always had some very nice residential neighborhoods, but those generally aren't major tourist attractions. Of places tourists might go to, several westside neighborhoods are pretty great, but Hollywood and downtown were really run down and shuttling between sites in LA generally meant over the freeways where you don't see much of anything. Nowadays is a bit different with large chunks of downtown looking much better, but it'll probably be a while for tourists who visited a while ago (and even residents in the metro) to update their previous perceptions of the city.
There are some cool areas in LA with interesting buildings and architecture but I find a lot of the city pretty ugly. There are way too many apartment complexes which were built in the 70's and 80's that make a lot of areas look cheap and run down. I hate walking through the Westside and Hollywood and seeing a beautiful Spanish style complex right next to an ugly run down 70's apartment and then next to that is a super modern complex which was only built a couple of years ago. Each to their own I guess!
Are you talking about all the dingbats? I sort of like them and feel they can look pretty good when they've been well-maintained and have a modicum of landscaping around it. I think the thing is a lot of them were really cheaply constructed so when they're worn down, they do end up looking really run down compared to brick or masonry buildings that have gone through similar wear.
I was recently wondering if there's ever been a dingbat in Los Angeles where they tried some interesting adaptive reuse of the drive way and the overhung parking area.
Are you talking about all the dingbats? I sort of like them and feel they can look pretty good when they've been well-maintained and have a modicum of landscaping around it. I think the thing is a lot of them were really cheaply constructed so when they're worn down, they do end up looking really run down compared to brick or masonry buildings that have gone through similar wear.
I was recently wondering if there's ever been a dingbat in Los Angeles where they tried some interesting adaptive reuse of the drive way and the overhung parking area.
Any LA posters here seen anything like that?
I never have and I sincerely hope they're all bought up and torn down because they're hideous The original core neighborhoods of LA have awesome architecture, though. The Westside with its dingbats and boxy ranch homes is not pleasant on the eyes.
No doubt LA has those 50s and 60s ranches but they're in places just like the ones you posted like the Valley, Culver City and of all the places you posted, Buena Park which is at least 35 miles south of Los Angeles.
I still like what I look at everyday in LA. As far as those Chicago bungalows go, I just dont like them all together one after another. Same look, same floor plan, house after house. Chicago has beautiful architecture around the city but I was never a fan of those bungalows.
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.