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.
Everyone saying that the Hollywood sign is recognizable sort of bothers me because it's literally a sign with words naming a neighborhood. That's like saying the "Welcome to Las Vegas" sign is recognizable for Las Vegas. Obviously...
LA has many other traits that people could recognize, but the Hollywood sign is sort of a dumb one to point to for purposes of this thread. This thread is about people's ability to recognize cities by their appearance... And not really about "which city has a big old sign with its name on it!?"
Watch the video I posted. LA's pretty damn recognizable with or without the sign. Flat basin, tall mountains, palm lined boulevards, lots of deco, midcentury modern, and googie architecture, the beaches, the piers, Hollywood boulevard, DTLA, the ribbons of freeways cutting through the canyons and basin...its unmistakable. Even the light has certain quality in Southern California.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,172,934 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by GatsbyGatz
Everyone saying that the Hollywood sign is recognizable sort of bothers me because it's literally a sign with words naming a neighborhood. That's like saying the "Welcome to Las Vegas" sign is recognizable for Las Vegas. Obviously...
LA has many other traits that people could recognize, but the Hollywood sign is sort of a dumb one to point to for purposes of this thread. This thread is about people's ability to recognize cities by their appearance... And not really about "which city has a big old sign with its name on it!?"
Not quite the same. Hollywood isn't Los Angeles, though. It's the famous neighborhood in L.A. synonymous with the film industry, but isn't quite as obvious as the fabulous Las Vegas sign. More like recognizing NYC by a photo of a Fifth Avenue street sign, but even more recognizeable.
As far as city appearance, I think the US Bank Tower juxtaposed with skyscrapers and palm trees is pretty recognizable at this point. Indeed, it was just hammered home again in this year's 3rd highest grossing blockbuster, Furious 7.
Everyone saying that the Hollywood sign is recognizable sort of bothers me
Find something that actually matters, to bother you
Quote:
Originally Posted by GatsbyGatz
LA has many other traits that people could recognize, but the Hollywood sign is sort of a dumb one to point to for purposes of this thread. This thread is about people's ability to recognize cities by their appearance... And not really about "which city has a big old sign with its name on it!?"
Don't know who you are preaching to. If its who I quoted, then fine. If its me, then you completely missed my point.
Out of all cities listed on the poll, these cities are most easily recognized:
Chicago (Lakefront with black Willis Tower, formerly Sears), Honolulu (Waikiki Beach and Diamond Head), Los Angeles (Hollywood sign; Malibu/Santa Monica/Venice Beaches; Beverly Hills/Rodeo Drive; and anything about movie stars), Las Vegas (famous casinos/hotels; bright lights; and various mini wonders of the world), Miami (South Beach), New York City (World Trade Center; Broadway; Brookyln Bridge; Central Park; Statue of Liberty; and Manhattan), Saint Louis (Iconic Gateway Arch), San Francisco (Golden Gate Bridge, cable cars, and steep hills), Seattle (Skyline with Space Needle), and Washington, D.C. (White House and various memorials of historical figures).
I couldn't tell you the difference between Honolulu or Maui.
Find something that actually matters, to bother you
Don't know who you are preaching to. If its who I quoted, then fine. If its me, then you completely missed my point.
Oh I wasn't trying to target you at all. I was just commenting on how so many people are simply putting the Hollywood sign as LA's point of recognition which I think is rather lazy. For purposes of this thread, it's more worthwhile to mention the palm trees and power lines, blend of early 1900's architecture mixed with 50's-60's styles, the prevalent use of stucco for housing, etc.
Oh I wasn't trying to target you at all. I was just commenting on how so many people are simply putting the Hollywood sign as LA's point of recognition which I think is rather lazy. For purposes of this thread, it's more worthwhile to mention the palm trees and power lines, blend of early 1900's architecture mixed with 50's-60's styles, the prevalent use of stucco for housing, etc.
As far as street scenes, without factoring skylines and monuments, interesting question...
SF...hilly terrain and the accompanying views, cable cars
LA...Hollywood has trained us over many generations to recognize LA
NYC...even without the skyline, some scenes are straight up New York...Manhattan especially has a particular feel to it
DC...DC has a particular look to it as well, monuments and iconic buildings are a part of the street scene in this city
NO....French Quarter...nuff said
Miami...certain parts of the area instantly recognizable
Vegas...the strip...no where else in the city though
Philly and Bmore are instantly recognizable to me but not sure how widespread this is within the overall culture
Of course, all of these cities have areas that are not recognizable and that can be mistaken for other areas
It only takes the Hollywood sign to recognize LA. It only takes the GG bridge to recognize San Francisco.
It only takes one landmark as well, to identify NYC. Why can't you understand that the same holds true for another city?
Yes, NYC is more well known, but thats not the question.
I'm thinking more from far away. If you take a photograph of the skyline of Lower Manhattan from 20 miles away (or less), it is instantly recognizable. Not so much LA, unless the Hollywood sign happens to be in the shot (somehow....).
Chicago is the only other city that comes close to satisfying that criteria. Again, maybe St. Louis, just because it's hard (or, counter-intuitive, at least) to take a skyline shot of St. Louis without including the arch.
Oh I wasn't trying to target you at all. I was just commenting on how so many people are simply putting the Hollywood sign as LA's point of recognition which I think is rather lazy. For purposes of this thread, it's more worthwhile to mention the palm trees and power lines, blend of early 1900's architecture mixed with 50's-60's styles, the prevalent use of stucco for housing, etc.
None of those things are distinctive to LA....
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.
