all right,
I'm not directing this to any particular person, just the ones that have completely missed my point (and the question from the OP) which has absolutely nothing to do with me, my knowledge of architecture (though, yeah, even if I was ignoring the OP's question, which I am not....Chicago is world renown, LA is not, and that is for a reason, reasons which I am familiar with...)
Anyway. the question was regarding perception internationally. This should not require me to provide a laundry list of little known (some mildy known...) landmarks in LA. Whether I like them or not, doesn't matter. Whether they are important or not, doesn't matter. People do not travel to LA for architecture, now get over yourselves.
I am quoting the ARTICLE about the Los Angeles Architecture History Exhbition (this opened a year ago, not 20, 30 or even 5)
The exhibition seems to have been inspired by the FACT that Los Angles IS routinely over looked for contributions to architecute, and known of more for its freeways.
Quoting: People don't think about Los Angeles in architectural and design terms," exhibition curator Wim de Wit told Reuters. "People think about Los Angeles as an accident that sort of happened."
Quoting: "Los Angeles is often seen as a sprawling, smoggy concrete metropolis or a kitschy Hollywood movie set but that image is getting a shiny new makeover in an exhibition that highlights the city's often overlooked contributions to modern architecture."
Quoting: "There are so many myths and clichés that are just misunderstandings," de Wit said. "We're trying to straighten out and create different views of Los Angeles as a city ... One point we're trying to make is that it's a planned city with thought behind it."
Ahem....Chicago doesn't have to make this point...
The oft mentioned Freeways of LA: "Indeed, the area's vast freeway system was able to connect far-flung suburbs to the city's center while Los Angeles International Airport was the first of its kind to create modern terminals amenable to automobile traffic."
that's a nice spin on "modern" but that was the 1950's -- usually spoken of in more of a negative way but I like that they are trying to make it positive...
"The big difference between the prewar and postwar Los Angeles architecture was chiefly a matter of scale, and one of the major manifestations of this was the freeway system," said Thomas Hines, an architectural historian at the University of California, Los Angeles.
...
"The consensus would be that Los Angeles and Southern California have been one of the half dozen or so most important places in the world in the development of modern architecture," he said, noting the roots of its heritage in the prewar designs of architects Richard Neutra and Rudolph Schindler
could be, but if those in LA are still trying so hard to make this point its really not the consensus in terms of being known as "iconic" or "cuturual" in terms to the average foreigner noticing....the image of freeways and lacking an urban core persist, with a less than notable skyline.
The first time I saw LA's skyline I thought 'that's it'?
anyway, again not about me.
Those responsible for this exhibition acknowledged LA's reputation -- I don't know why these posters can't.
What I think really doesn't matter. As I mentioned (of course, I'm just a stupid person by all accounts) the question was about perception.
Trying to get me to acknowledge the architecture in LA has absoltuley nothing to do with the perception.
I like SoCal that is why I live here.
I also like modern art and architecture. If I couldn't stand to live in an area lacking in "sophistication" I wouldn't have moved here.
I probably won't visit this area of the forums much though....talk about ridiculous!
I posted this article that I am quoting from, a few pages ago. If the curators and those involved with this exhibition can acknowledge LA's reputation (the good, the bad and the mundane) why can't you? They are doing something to change that, great.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...93E10G20130415
first you have to acknowledge it exists...and why. Because there is truth to it.
In 100 years LA might be a great example of city planning and the architecture that influences the rest of the country or world and sets the bar for others to follow. So far, its not that.
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.
