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.
New York City, easily. I find LA's architecture to be underwhelming. LA is not well-known globally for its architecture compared to many other U.S. cities.
Ever hear of Frank Gehry??....he designed a museum in Bilbao, Spain which put that once unknown city on the cultural map of Spain and Europe. The museum's design solidifed Gehry's place as a force to reckoned with in architecture.
Gehry is just ONE of many internationally acclaimed architects with practices based in LA. These architects often use LA as their laboratory before they move on to the international stage.
Gehry, to note just ONE example, had the designs for a new concert hall in downtown LA about 20 years ago; however, funding delays caused the building to be delayed until about 2005.
In the interim, the Bilbao museum was built in about 1997 and bears a striking resemblance to Gehry's original designs for the Disney Concert Hall design which was not actually built until 2004/2005.
Cities like San Francisco and Boston have some of the finest architecture in the country.
I could care less about a few elite buildings that a handful of architects rave about. The Frank Lloyd Wright architecture of the Guggenheim does not represent the majority of New York to New Yorkers anymore than the Disney Concert Hall looks like typical Los Angeles to residents of LA. Its the everyday residential architecture that millions of us dumb non-architects have to live in that matters to most people.
In other words, what makes San Francisco architecture so great is not just a handful of downtown buildings and museums like the Transamerica Building but the sum total of EVERY building in the city from the Golden Gate Bridge to the Presido and the Victorian rowhouses.
Actually, one of LA's biggest contributions to 20th century architecture was in the form of residential architecture. From Frank Loyd Wright to Neutra to the Green Brothers...the LA region is HUGE in terms of residential design.
Also, you should look into the Case Study House Program...which was a cutting edge attempt to create innovative and affordable residential homes from the 1940's to the 1960's. LA was the home base for this movement which had a MAJOR influence on residential design. See the linkbelow.
I love the architecture in Boston and San Francisco....but I get tired of people who leap to conclusions and snub their noses at LA architecture. If you dig deeper you'll see it has a very rich, admirable tradition.
Culturally and globally, NY is the most important city in the US. Bar none. Does it have the best quality of life?
Completely off-subject, but that's extremely subjective. "Quality of life" can't be quantified. I'm guessing you live in Oakland...most Americans would probably equate quality of life there to hell. But to you, it's probably wonderful.
That's extremely subjective. "Quality of life" can't be quantified. I'm guessing you live in Oakland...most Americans would equate quality of life there to hell...to you, it's probably wonderful.
Correction: Most Americans who don't know anything about it would. Oakland has some of the most greenery in the entire US... the climate is temperate. It's one of the best integrated cities in the country. I could go into a lot more detail...
Yes, Oakland as a high crime rate. However, like in most cities, its not the be all end all...
Correction: Most Americans who don't know anything about it would. Oakland has some of the most greenery in the entire US... the climate is temperate. It's one of the best integrated cities in the country. I could go into a lot more detail...
Yes, Oakland as a high crime rate. However, like in most cities, its not the be all end all...
Yes, because you know it all.
You aren't authoritative on what and what is not considered high quality of life. Unless there's some mathematical formula out there that computes quality of life, that term is useless and completely subjective. Especially coming from someone who lives in one of the most dangerous cities in the country. Oakland is dangerous as ****. Crime rate is not subjective and is very serious. Newark has access to greenery too. Point?
Most people living in rural America would probably think quality of life in New York, SF, Chicago, Boston, is disgusting, but many of those city folk in NY, Chicago, SF, Boston would probably rather die than live on a farm in Kansas.
Last edited by CapeTownSA; 06-10-2010 at 02:10 AM..
You aren't authoritative on what and what is not considered high quality of life. Especially coming from one of the most dangerous cities in the country. Oakland is dangerous as ****. Crime rate is not subjective and is very serious. Newark has access to greenery too. Point?
It's too subjective and pretty arrogant for one to judge who's life is high quality and who's isnt.
Likewise.
And I haven't lived in Oakland the whole time... I was born and raised in Redwood City in the south bay. Despite it not having a high crime rate, quality of life in Oakland >>> RWC
And I haven't lived in Oakland the whole time... I was born and raised in Redwood City in the south bay. Despite it not having a high crime rate, quality of life in Oakland >>> RWC
I never said Oakland was bad or had bad quality of life. Just saying that people see these places in different ways. I personally think Oakland is cool place.
I love urban living, so living in Oakland would come naturally to me.
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.