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.
LA's decentralization has always existed. Today's city includes a lot of separately-developed areas that are now part of the greater whole. Further, even if it was post-60s, that would have a huge effect on demand for highrises in the core during the big skyscraper waves.
That's not the same as having a separately-developed area that is in actual competition with downtown for primacy, which seems to be what people are implying when they roll out those big words.
Decentralization doesn't imply competition for primacy at all. It only implies less focus on the one core area. That's always been the case in greater LA.
Specifically, high-value tenants have always had multiple options, limiting demand in the main core.
Very important to boldface and underline, just in case it wouldn't be apparent which parts of my post you're replying to by quoting alone!
What can I tell you? Watching you backpedal from:
“Philly’s real, existing, multi-supertall skyline just isn’t on par with the skyline’s of peers like Miami and Houston. And btw: those old East Coast city “height restrictions” are excuses for losers. LOL.”
To:
“The, uh, hypothetical, unbuilt, Los Angeles skyline in my imagination, that I firmly believe, uh, *could* have existed, is totally on par with the real, existing skyline’s of peers like NYC and Chicago. And, uh, anyway L.A. was unfairly handicapped by height restrictions.”
Was funny.
Like “Benny Hill chase scene” funny.
Happy New Year.
Thanks for the laughs.
Last edited by LiveFrom215; 01-01-2024 at 10:18 AM..
“Philly’s real, existing, multi-supertall skyline just isn’t on par with the skyline’s of peers like Miami and Houston. And btw: those old East Coast city “height restrictions” are excuses for losers. LOL.”
To:
“The, uh, hypothetical, unbuilt, Los Angeles skyline in my imagination, that I firmly believe, uh, *could* have existed, is totally on par with the real, existing skyline’s of NYC and Chicago. And, uh, anyway L.A. was unfairly handicapped by height restrictions.”
Was funny.
Like “Benny Hill chase scene” funny.
Happy New Year.
Thanks for the laughs.
Happy New Year.
Glad you're getting a laugh, admittedly I'm also laughing a bit at your apparent overconfidence that you've caught me in some kind of contradiction or hypocrisy.
Los Angeles had height restrictions for aesthetic reasons. When they finally did lift them, a majestic neighborhood with Victorian homes was razed in favor of ugly, boxy skyscrapers. It looked like crap and everyone knew it. So they kept building, more and taller, and now have one of the top skylines in the country.
So comparing L.A.'s pre 1960 skyline to New York or Chicago would be no different than comparing the D.C. skyline of today to Houston or Atlanta. As in, D.C. isn't trying to have skyscrapers, but I'm pretty sure if they were, they would be there in full force. People mostly aren't looking at D.C. and saying lol no skyscrapers in the same way they wouldn't have looked at L.A. that way-they know the context.
So thats the difference-a city with a longstanding design aesthetic that did not allow for skyscrapers reluctantly builds a skyscraper. That city quickly realizes they have crossed a rubicon and now must keep building skyscrapers, so they don't end up with a half baked skyline.
I can look at each city's skyline and be cognizant of the context behind it (Austin not even considered a major city until recently, San Francisco in a seismic zone, Atlanta in a region with few skyscrapers, etc) and then be impressed or not impressed on a case by case basis.
Most people don't look at skylines through the prism of history. They just look at aesthetics, even many of us on CD. Same with skyline size relative to the city's size.
LA's skyline falls into the Dallas/Philly/Seattle/Houston/Atlanta/SF group. People expect it to compete with Chicago. So it's disappointing.
Glad you're getting a laugh, admittedly I'm also laughing a bit at your apparent overconfidence that you've caught me in some kind of contradiction or hypocrisy.
Los Angeles had height restrictions for aesthetic reasons. When they finally did lift them, a majestic neighborhood with Victorian homes was razed in favor of ugly, boxy skyscrapers. It looked like crap and everyone knew it. So they kept building, more and taller, and now have one of the top skylines in the country.
So comparing L.A.'s pre 1960 skyline to New York or Chicago would be no different than comparing the D.C. skyline of today to Houston or Atlanta. As in, D.C. isn't trying to have skyscrapers, but I'm pretty sure if they were, they would be there in full force. People mostly aren't looking at D.C. and saying lol no skyscrapers in the same way they wouldn't have looked at L.A. that way-they know the context.
So thats the difference-a city with a longstanding design aesthetic that did not allow for skyscrapers reluctantly builds a skyscraper. That city quickly realizes they have crossed a rubicon and now hmust keep building skyscrapers, so they don't end up with a half baked skyline.
I can look at each city's skyline and be cognizant of the context behind it (Austin not even considered a major city until recently, San Francisco in a seismic zone, Atlanta in a region with few skyscrapers, etc) and then be impressed or not impressed on a case by case basis.
You keep typing several hundred words, just to circle back to, “muh vibes.”
I mean that’s your prerogative, but yeah: don’t expect us not to notice the hypocrisy, or that you just keep doubling down on it.
Cities you prefer, you extend the benefit of the doubt.
Cities you don’t care for, you don’t.
It’s not that deep.
The only problem is, for some reason, instead of just acknowledging your biases (we all have them) you keep pretending to some objectivity that you clearly lack: which leads to you ridiculous rhetorical positions: like defending hypothetical skylines you believe could exist, as if they’re as valid and tangible as skylines that actually exist.
And expecting us not to notice the ridiculousness.
Last edited by LiveFrom215; 01-01-2024 at 12:32 PM..
Most people don't look at skylines through the prism of history. They just look at aesthetics, even many of us on CD. Same with skyline size relative to the city's size.
LA's skyline falls into the Dallas/Philly/Seattle/Houston/Atlanta/SF group. People expect it to compete with Chicago. So it's disappointing.
I don’t really expect L.A.’s skyline to compete with Chicago or Manhattan.
I actually like it quite a bit. I think it’s much more impressive than people generally give it credit for. It’s one of my Top Ten.
I was just using L.A. as a counterexample, to ask Losfrisco if they have the same aesthetic issues about it, in terms of it’s size relative to the rest of the city/metro, and in comparison to it’s peer metros, that they’ve repeatedly expressed toward Philly.
Personally, I don’t think there’s any definitive “right” or “wrong” about something so subjective as skylines. Just trying to make a point.
Last edited by LiveFrom215; 01-01-2024 at 01:31 PM..
I don’t really expect L.A.’s skyline to compete with Chicago or Manhattan.
I actually like it quite a bit. I think it’s much more impressive than people generally give it credit for. It’s one of my Top Ten.
I was just using L.A. as a counterexample, to ask Losfrisco if they have the same aesthetic issues about it, in terms of it’s size relative to the rest of the city/metro, and in comparison to it’s peer metros, that they’ve repeatedly expressed toward Philly.
Personally, I don’t think there’s any definitive “right” or “wrong” about something so subjective as skylines. Just trying to make a point.
You don't expect LA, the 2rd largest city/metro (by far), to have a skyline in competition with the 3rd largest city/metro but Philly is expected to?
Not saying LA is underwhelming, but the argument is that Philly is underwhelming for it's size. You gotta appreciate the double standard.
You don't expect LA, the 2rd largest city/metro (by far), to have a skyline in competition with the 3rd largest city/metro but Philly is expected to?
Not saying LA is underwhelming, but the argument is that Philly is underwhelming for it's size. You gotta appreciate the double standard.
I don’t expect either Philly or L.A.’s skyline to compete with either Chicago or Manhattan:
”I was just using L.A. as a counterexample, to ask Losfrisco if they have the same aesthetic issues about it, in terms of it’s size relative to the rest of the city/metro, and in comparison to it’s peer metros, that they’ve repeatedly expressed toward Philly.”
You don't expect LA, the 2rd largest city/metro (by far), to have a skyline in competition with the 3rd largest city/metro but Philly is expected to?
Not saying LA is underwhelming, but the argument is that Philly is underwhelming for it's size. You gotta appreciate the double standard.
Don't see a double standard.
Using this "skyscrapers per metro area" ratio that L.A. has somehow failed at, Philadelphia metro is half the size of Los Angeles and has about half as many skyscrapers. How can someone observe that one has a shortcoming without acknowledging the other?
So Los Angeles needs to aim higher but Philly doesn't?
Los Angeles can be compared to New York and Chicago but Philly can't be compared to Miami (or even Houston)?
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.
