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.
Los Angeles has nothing like the row house neighborhoods of Chicago with narrow streets and a ton of tree coverage.
However Chicago has nothing like the very-hilly neighborhoods of Silverlake, Echo Park, Mt. Washington, etc.
I think generally Chicago seems like a cleaner city, but then it has portions of the city that are just large empty fields and abandoned homes, something that you don't see in Los Angeles really at all.
I prefer Los Angeles' look but also like the way Chicago looks.
Phoenix and Houston may aspire to look like Los Angeles, but they really do not resemble it at all. Sort of the same way St. Louis, Kansas City and other Midwest cities aspire to look like Chicago but really look nothing like it.
What makes you think St. Louis (and definitely Kansas City) aspire to look like Chicago? You do realize that places like St. Louis and Cincinnati specifically are older than Chicago and have their own architectural legacy/style? That's just like saying San Francisco aspires to look like Los Angeles when San Francisco is older.
Chicago for built environment. Los Angeles for landscape and beautification efforts.
Los Angeles has nothing like the row house neighborhoods of Chicago with narrow streets and a ton of tree coverage.
However Chicago has nothing like the very-hilly neighborhoods of Silverlake, Echo Park, Mt. Washington, etc.
I think generally Chicago seems like a cleaner city, but then it has portions of the city that are just large empty fields and abandoned homes, something that you don't see in Los Angeles really at all.
I prefer Los Angeles' look but also like the way Chicago looks.
Phoenix and Houston may aspire to look like Los Angeles, but they really do not resemble it at all. Sort of the same way St. Louis, Kansas City and other Midwest cities aspire to look like Chicago but really look nothing like it.
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.
LA does have way more diversity of neighborhood looks than Chicago. I think topography has to do with it. There truly is something for everyone. Beach neighborhoods some very vibrant, some quiet, very urban neighborhoods like downtown or Koreatown, modern highrises along Wilshire in Westwood, hilly, country feel in Montecito Hts/Mt. Washington, southwestern look and feel in Chatsworth/West Hills, back east look with tudors and deciduous trees in Hancock Park, an old port town of San Pedro (yes thats in LA proper), I could go on.
I think the street grid of Chicago with ALL two/three brick flats surrounded ALL by brick bungalows, etc. The only difference is the socioeconomic and racial differences. The few neighborhoods that have truly a distinct look would be Hyde Park, Beverly too.
Of course, Chicago wins in turning its core area into a shining jewel. Downtown is way more impressive and yes there are fewer homeless and less trash/graffiti. Nothing in the country can compare to the Mag Mile/River North.
The funny thing is so do many other forumers use this defense against LA, seems to me like a double standard.
Chicago has always been a rough town from way back, and I know some of it's history because I'm probably much older than many of you. I grew up in the 70's and even back then people here viewed Chicago as bad, run down, and dirty just like the cities of of recent such as Camden, Detroit, and St Louis. I remember telling one of my uncles when I was a teenager I had a desire to visit Chicago one day. He asked me why would I want to visit such a crime infested city that was run down, and filthy. He as spent some time there in his younger days and had a very negative view of this city. My parents have some really good friends who are from Chicago, they moved to LA to escape the bad conditions in that city, this was back in the 60's. I had recently talked to my moms friend about Chicago since she go back often to visit her family. In her opinion it's still raggedy, even though I mentioned how much to city has improved over the years since when I lived there briefly back in 1990.
Her opinion was she would never live in Chicago again, and it's still the same old dirty crime ridden city it was when her and her husband left back in the early 60's.
My nephews' mom is from Chicago and her parents move back and forth every few years (they are bit special IMO. Pretty much the poster child for phony people who gives LA a bad name. Anyway they only like downtown & the adjacent north side of Chicago, oh and I almost forgot Hyde Park. Outside of these few areas, to them Chicago is a dump. My nephew grandmother said to me once during a recent visit to pick up my great niece that "white folks love downtown and the north side but anything outside these areas there isn't much worth seeing". BTW they are back in Los Angeles again.
Well, to be totally honest, this is not too far off the mark. Outside downtown, adjacent north sides, and Hyde Park there really isn't much to see or do. Its either a dump, or its neighborhoods that are nice, but still nothing really to see.
And I agree, that from the 1960s-1980s, LA was by far the more popular city. These decades, LA was its high point in popularity, Chicago was at its lowest point in both perception and reality.
Well, to be totally honest, this is not too far off the mark. Outside downtown, adjacent north sides, and Hyde Park there really isn't much to see or do. Its either a dump, or its neighborhoods that are nice, but still nothing really to see.
And I agree, that from the 1960s-1980s, LA was by far the more popular city. These decades, LA was its high point in popularity, Chicago was at its lowest point in both perception and reality.
Yea, it seems culture-wise, that was the time of LA's biggest influence. Even with both riots.
What? are you serious? LA is even worse than Chicago in both perception and reality.
"...The most unpopular is Detroit, which only 22% see positively and 49% negatively.Americans have net-negative impressions of only two other of these cities: Oakland, CA (21-39) and Los Angeles (33-40).
Between the pack are Boston (52-17), Atlant
a (51-19), Phoenix (49-18), Dallas (48-21),
New York (49-23), New Orleans (47-24), H
ouston (45-22), Salt Lake City (43-20),
Philadelphia (42-22), San Fran
cisco (48-29), Baltimore (37-
24), Las Vegas (43-33),
Chicago (42-33), Cleveland
(32-25), Washington, D.C.
(44-39), and Miami (36-33). "
And I agree, that from the 1960s-1980s, LA was by far the more popular city. These decades, LA was its high point in popularity, Chicago was at its lowest point in both perception and reality.
Haha are you trying to come with a comeback? I rather be a city like San Francisco, Boston etc, that is not one of the largest cities in the country but yet has great urbanity, density, city culture.
If you gave me the choice to decrease Chicago size in population so that it is more like SF or Boston or 2nd choice to make it the 2nd largest city and it's more like LA or Houston, I would take the first option a million times over.
It's fine by me. Population for me I could care less. Watch what you say anyway, cause you never know if Houston will pass up LA with the way it's going. For 2nd spot, Chicago dethroned Philly, LA dethorne Chicago, what makes you think that Houston won't do that to LA?
Honestly when i think of L.A's architecture I like comparing it to Houston and even Dallas. Its nice but nothing special.
Add some palm tree's and its inhabitants believe they have world class architecture Lol.
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.
when San Francisco is older. 
