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.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,035,535 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by downtown1
Boston, D.C, Philadelphia & San Francisco are arguably higher on the list. And I don't even need to mention Chicago & New York.
I can see San Francisco and DC yeah, but IMHO I would always place Los Angeles above Boston and Philadelphia on architecture. But then again, that's just my personal take on it.
nyc has so much more diverse architecture than LA. it has the statue of liberty, columbus circle, union square, the BRIDGES, the art deco buildings, the newer glassy buildings, different archways and brownstone rowhouses. There is no way that LA can even hold a candle to NYC.
#2 would be Chicago
#3: Boston
washington dc
#4: philly
pittsburgh
...
...
...
...
LA would rank like #49. The only thing blander is Oklahoma city and the texas cities.
Walt Disney Concert Hall, Getty Villa, Gamble House, Capitol Records Building, FLW's Ennis House, the theaters on Broadway, Union Station, Griffith Conservatory, Bradbury Building, Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, Colorado Street Bridge, Hollyhock House, the Coca-Cola Building (the one that looks like a ship) etc. And the OP was asking about diversity; LA certainly has that in great quantities. More so than SF or DC, I think (and have lived in both of those cities -- they are amazing in their own ways and incredibly beautiful, but I think LA has more variety of architecture). So does NYC, of course.
I think it's very clear that some posters have never been to LA. LA being home to a diverse variety of architecture, including world-famous examples, does not somehow mean NYC is any less significant. I often don't understand many of the posters on these forums; if you like the sheer variety of things found in NYC you'll probably appreciate that about LA, too. The diversity and sheer range of things is something that I love about both cities.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,035,535 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist
Walt Disney Concert Hall, Getty Villa, Gamble House, Capitol Records Building, FLW's Ennis House, the theaters on Broadway, Union Station, Griffith Conservatory, Bradbury Building, Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, Colorado Street Bridge, Hollyhock House, the Coca-Cola Building (the one that looks like a ship) etc. And the OP was asking about diversity; LA certainly has that in great quantities. More so than SF or DC, I think (and have lived in both of those cities -- they are amazing in their own ways and incredibly beautiful, but I think LA has more variety of architecture). So does NYC, of course.
I think it's very clear that some posters have never been to LA. LA being home to a diverse variety of architecture, including world-famous examples, does not somehow mean NYC is any less significant. I often don't understand many of the posters on these forums; if you like the sheer variety of things found in NYC you'll probably appreciate that about LA, too. The diversity and sheer range of things is something that I love about both cities.
It's not just that some posters have never been to Los Angeles, it's also that they will never see anything besides New York City or their one track hatred for cities that aren't in their region. That goes in line with some of the posters.
Anyways, I thank Endersdrift for these, and yes some here need to be better visual learners:
http://brst440.commons.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/getty_museum.jpg (broken link)
And this is when you'll see a lot of people come out and say things like this, "well LA has great architecture there is no doubt, but it is not at the same caliber as NYC." I already call it, someone who has previously stated "NYC no competition" will now go back and try to redeem their biased ways by stating and "publicly trying" to give LA some props while shooting it down at the same time.
My reason for picking in NYC was the mass amount that can be visually appealing without having to search for it, it's a very subjective case, but I have before given Los Angeles props for it's architecture, so I never did discredit it.
I definitely wasn't saying that LA doesn't have a diverse array of architecture...I'm just saying that it doesn't match New York's diversity. Very few cities do. I think London may be the only city in the world that outright tops New York in terms of architectural diversity.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,035,535 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr
I definitely wasn't saying that LA doesn't have a diverse array of architecture...I'm just saying that it doesn't match New York's diversity. Very few cities do. I think London may be the only city in the world that outright tops New York in terms of architectural diversity.
Rome. Can't forget about that one, and I think Paris can as well. They have a lot of predated cathedrals. And Athens, Greece can also, IMHO.
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.
