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, NYC, and Chicago is easily debatable. Chicago controlled and defined the modern skyscraper. Just because there are more in NYC does not mean it came first. Take a history lesson and look up skyscraper and Louis Sullivan. Then modern skyscrapers and really the land use of setbacks and creating first floor plazas was created also in Chicago by Mies Van Der Rohe. Compare his Lake Shore Apartments to the Seagram Building.
I just emailed the owner of this site to ask if I could post some of his pictures but in the meantime go take a look at Los Angeles architecture - its a lot more diverse than you all seem to believe. Just because its not a dense urban core like NYC doesn't mean it doesn't have significant, diverse (including historic), and wonderful architecture. Los Angeles architecture photo gallery - Buildings + more
I wasn't even talking about NY/Chicago... I'm just saying that LA definitely is not that architecturally diverse compared to other places. The combined LA area might, but if you were to look at any individual city or town in LA, for the most part you see the same kind of architecture. In the bay, you see all different kinds of architecture on the same block. And its not just Oakland and SF... even the suburbs are architecturally diverse. Take these pics of Redwood City for example (I took the pics)...
^These are all in the same neighborhood (Centennial), let alone the same city. I don't see that same diversity when I'm out in LA. The areas of LA I've spent the most time in are Inglewood, Crenshaw and El Segundo. Inglewood, El Segundo and Crenshaw didn't look too different from each other.. maybe its because they're in the same general area but it was pretty indistinguishable.
Greatest & Most Diverse Architectural Gem 2: New York City or Los Angeles?
New York has far more buildings from different style periods than LA. You could combine all of the west coast cities together and the list would still fall short. If LA had 10 quality buildings NYC would have like 100 more to match for each style. Manhattan alone is simply a big beast and that's not counting the rest of the boroughs.
Well for one housing is only one architecture market, and not necessarily the best to judge a city. Most people cannot afford custom designed houses which is why most areas tend to look the same. Also because of how many are built and coding requirements they all use locally available supplies and similar designs to fit their context. But even with that in mind Los Angeles houses (not even looking at the custom mansions) definitely look just as diverse as those other places. And then when you look at all the architectural significance of Los Angeles it greatly outshines anywhere else except Chicago and NYC (which it can compete with).
Well for one housing is only one architecture market, and not necessarily the best to judge a city. Most people cannot afford custom designed houses which is why most areas tend to look the same. Also because of how many are built and coding requirements they all use locally available supplies and similar designs to fit their context. But even with that in mind Los Angeles houses (not even looking at the custom mansions) definitely look just as diverse as those other places. And then when you look at all the architectural significance of Los Angeles it greatly outshines anywhere else except Chicago and NYC (which it can compete with).
I'd say housing is one of the better ways to judge a city... if your downtown looks great but the houses all look exactly the same, then the residents aren't really seeing the architectural diversity unless they go downtown. LA is not one of those cities where everybody is always downtown.
And the other thing is that the bay is almost a full century older than LA. The Gold Rush attracted a lot of development to house all the people who were trying to strike it rich... there's some very eastern influenced architecture in the bay. On the same token, its next to LA... the bay is like a mix of both worlds.
Whoa... how can someone criticize LA for not being architecturally diverse going strictly by city limits, then turn around and say that San Francisco IS? I love SF, and think that the Bay Area as a whole has a great deal of architectural diversity, but you have to go beyond just city limits to really get much diversity. The uniformity of the architecture (with variations, of course) is in some places part of its charm.
And I don't get where people can possibly suggest that LA doesn't have much architectural diversity. Those people can't have spent much, if any, time exploring the various parts of LA. And while NYC obviously beats it for 19th century diversity, LA is very strong in 20th century, and is, possibly, stronger than NYC in that regard.
I'm not arguing that it's more diverse and more significant than NYC, but the idea that it's lacking in architectural diversity, is "bland," or is low on the list of American cities of architectural importance just doesn't make much sense. It's definitely up there as a top contender.
Whoa... how can someone criticize LA for not being architecturally diverse going strictly by city limits, then turn around and say that San Francisco IS? I love SF, and think that the Bay Area as a whole has a great deal of architectural diversity, but you have to go beyond just city limits to really get much diversity. The uniformity of the architecture (with variations, of course) is in some places part of its charm.
And I don't get where people can possibly suggest that LA doesn't have much architectural diversity. Those people can't have spent much, if any, time exploring the various parts of LA. And while NYC obviously beats it for 19th century diversity, LA is very strong in 20th century, and is, possibly, stronger than NYC in that regard.
I'm not arguing that it's more diverse and more significant than NYC, but the idea that it's lacking in architectural diversity, is "bland," or is low on the list of American cities of architectural importance just doesn't make much sense. It's definitely up there as a top contender.
I didn't just say SF, I said the whole bay. Why would I compare SF (800,000 people) to LA (3,000,000 people) and NY (8,000,000 people)? That would be pointless.
I didn't just say SF, I said the whole bay. Why would I compare SF (800,000 people) to LA (3,000,000 people) and NY (8,000,000 people)? That would be pointless.
Your quote:
"...I'm just saying that LA definitely is not that architecturally diverse compared to other places. The combined LA area might, but if you were to look at any individual city or town in LA, for the most part you see the same kind of architecture.... "
I agree that it's pointless to look just at city limits, as they're artificially drawn and don't reflect the big picture, but it also doesn't make much sense to look at the city of LA versus the entire Bay Area, which may be what you're attempting to do??
I have lived in both the Bay Area and in Los Angeles, and have a completely different opinion than you do. LA has a great deal of diversity, even within single blocks or single neighborhoods. Obviously our experiences may have been different, but I'd encourage you to spend some more time exploring the many different areas of LA the next time you're down there. It's much more diverse than most people here are willing to acknowledge.
And, for what it's worth, LA is older than you seem to think it is. (since you reference the Gold Rush in an earlier post as presumably being your start date for SF, and seem to think LA starts a century after that?)
Your quote:
"...I'm just saying that LA definitely is not that architecturally diverse compared to other places. The combined LA area might, but if you were to look at any individual city or town in LA, for the most part you see the same kind of architecture.... "
I agree that it's pointless to look just at city limits, as they're artificially drawn and don't reflect the big picture, but it also doesn't make much sense to look at the city of LA versus the entire Bay Area, which may be what you're attempting to do??
I have lived in both the Bay Area and in Los Angeles, and have a completely different opinion than you do. LA has a great deal of diversity, even within single blocks or single neighborhoods. Obviously our experiences may have been different, but I'd encourage you to spend some more time exploring the many different areas of LA the next time you're down there. It's much more diverse than most people here are willing to acknowledge.
And, for what it's worth, LA is older than you seem to think it is. (since you reference the Gold Rush in an earlier post as presumably being your start date for SF, and seem to think LA starts a century after that?)
LOL obviously LA didn't start in the 1950's... However, SF's been around since the 1780s. Not quite 100 years but pretty close.
And I don't just mean the city of LA... people not from LA just say LA to mean the whole area (not including OC).
EDIT: nvm... apparently LA's been around for about the same amount of time. lol... then why isn't there as much spanish architecture in LA (or at least why isn't it as publicized)?
I'd say housing is one of the better ways to judge a city... if your downtown looks great but the houses all look exactly the same, then the residents aren't really seeing the architectural diversity unless they go downtown. LA is not one of those cities where everybody is always downtown.
Sorry but this just isn't how it works. Housing isn't as significant. When you're talking architecture its about using new materials or rethinking space. Very few house ever achieve this the most notable being Frank Lloyd Wright (Chicago). Whether houses look slightly different or not they don't present any real significance to the architectural world.
Museums, skyscrapers, schools, transit hubs, airports, research facilities, hospitals, galleries, pavilions, public spaces, office complexes - these are the thing that really define an urban landscape and architecture.
While New York City has the most it has actually had very little in the way of innovation and firsts. The firsts actually come from Chicago and Los Angeles.
TWA Terminal by Eero Saarinen is a style known as Googie for example. This style actually started 30 years earlier in Los Angeles.
Seagram Building as mentioned already is a direct descendant of the Lake Shore Drive Apartments done 13 years earlier in Chicago. Both by Mies van der Rohe.
These are just two examples, I could go on.
And sorry but these other cities like San Francisco, Oakland, Philly, Pittsburgh, Boston. They just don't compare.
EDIT: nvm... apparently LA's been around for about the same amount of time. lol... then why isn't there as much spanish architecture in LA (or at least why isn't it as publicized)?
If you look at the site I linked earlier it shows a lot of the older "historical" architecture of LA in addition to its modern. Los Angeles is the premier city for modern architecture from Frank Gehry and the power of Sci-Arc, USC, and UCLA. But it does have the older buildings in all different styles just like any other major city. Its just overshadowed by modern architecture.
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.
