L.A. or Chicago, more famous landmarks? (population, school, districts)

[LakeShoreSoxGo]

Originally Posted by munchitup

Architects around the world would definitely disagree.

There is no doubt some terrible architecture in LA, - I guess when you make a point of only focusing on the bad that is the impression you will come away with.

When you say "urban architecture" are you referring to the high-rises? I guess they are kind of sub-par, but honestly could care less about shiny steel buildings.

I would say every thing from high rise to single family attached. I like some of the older parts of LA that have storefronts below residential but overall that is few and far between.

Some of the suburban I like, but you can find also find a lot of ugly Bakersfieldesque tract developments. -It's no surprise that Levitt learned his trade from observing 1940's tract development in California. Suburbia is king of California, with really only SF left standing when looking at the cities on a whole.

I also think that stucco really just does not age well, though it is most practical given the local climate.

[munchitup]

Originally Posted by LakeShoreSoxGo

I would say every thing from high rise to single family attached. I like some of the older parts of LA that have storefronts below residential but overall that is few and far between.

Some of the suburban I like, but you can find also find a lot of ugly Bakersfieldesque tract developments. -It's no surprise that Levitt learned his trade from observing 1940's tract development in California. Suburbia is king of California, with really only SF left standing when looking at the cities on a whole.

I also think that stucco really just does not age well, though it is most practical given the local climate.

I guess I see a lot of similarities between the architecture of LA and Chicago, particularly in the residential architecture. Especially in the detached homes, like the Craftsman Bungalows. Chicago's beloved Frank Lloyd Wright spent a lot of time designing homes in LA, in fact. Got to disagree that the historic architecture is few and far between - get out of the Westside/Valley!

[git45]

Originally Posted by CaliSon

Couldn't agree more

Aside from LA winning this poll, I would say we wouldn't agree on much...

[mas23]

Originally Posted by git45

Americans would probably know more about Chicago if they were better educated and traveled, but since Chicago doesn't have locations seen in the Hills or Keeping up with those Slutty Armenians (that's the name of the show, right?) and Justin Bieber doesn't drive up and down Wacker in his little Batman car, why even give a hoot about Chicago? Has a socialite been found in the gutter there with their head shaved off? SHAME ON YOU CHICAGO YOU DON'T HAVE THESE THINGS.

LA wins though, obviously, but considering how stupid most tourists are, Orlando probably has more landmarks than Chicago too.

this +1

Originally Posted by CaliSon

Couldn't agree more

I hope youre kidding

[CaliSon]

Originally Posted by git45

Aside from LA winning this poll, I would say we wouldn't agree on much...

LOL I was being sarcastic obviously, I like Chicago a lot, I like BIG cities where you can drive for miles on end and still be in an urban environment, I just don't see people from other countries knowing much about Chicago, if you were to show someone a picture of downtown Chicago I would assume most people would think its New York, its not a bad thing either just my 2 cents on Chicago

[git45]

Originally Posted by CaliSon

LOL I was being sarcastic obviously, I like Chicago a lot, I like BIG cities where you can drive for miles on end and still be in an urban environment, I just don't see people from other countries knowing much about Chicago, if you were to show someone a picture of downtown Chicago I would assume most people would think its New York, its not a bad thing either just my 2 cents on Chicago

No, I know what you mean. NYC embodies American urbanity for the rest of the world, which is convenient because it is the best example. Cities like Chicago or Philly do a great job but they fall in a category in which no one could ever beat NYC. NYC embodies America as a country, let alone a city.

LA has more landmarks than any city other than the old Colonial cities who've been there from the beginning. Hopefully one day Chicago will have something people give a hoot about, but until then its keeping up with the joneses. There's just no "lore" about Chicago. LA's best locations evoke a movie or story. Unless you count the Ft. Dearborn Massacre or the Jungle, Chicago doesn't offer much in that way. There's cool stuff, but cool stuff doesn't mean it has anything like DC's huge monument count (probably the most imho). LA's monuments are mostly contemporary or recent so people are still dubious as to what counts as a landmark from the eyes of an older east coast city. If you count film locations alone, however, LA could have the most monuments by a very long shot.

[KodeBlue]

LA kills Chicago in landmarks. Honestly, the Michael Jordan statue is pretty famous..don't know why nobody mentioned it.

[pwright1]

Originally Posted by git45

I don't really consider myself ignorant. It's LA's urban architecture I'm more disappointed with. Its suburban/residential architecture is top notch on par with anything else the country could offer, if not the best.

I completely disagree. LA shines in this dept.

[drunk on kool aid]

Here's the perspective of someone who's lived his whole life in LA and never been to Chicago.

Chicago

I think I only recognize the Sears/Willis Tower in establishing shots of Chicago. If it didn't have it's antennae, I don't know if it's truly distinctive or good looking. It does have a cool "evil" look, however. The John Hancock Center superficially looks too much like the Sears to quickly ID it in brief establishment shots. It's exoskeleton is beautiful and iconic, however. I laughed when I heard Smurfit-Stone Building (aka Crain Communications Building) but I've definitely seen it before. I love the architecture but I wouldn't necessarily associate it with Chicago. Another building that I didn't know was in Chicago is the stunning Marina City, probably known as the the cover subject of Wilco's Yankee Hotel Foxtrot.

The University of Chicago is world famous but I'd never recognize it from a photo; ditto for the Art Institute of Chicago.

The Field Museum and Shedd Aquarium, I know are famous, but I couldn't place them in Chicago.

I really didn't know about the Adler Planetarium (looks nice) or Navy Pier until going through this thread.

Cloud Gate is something I've definitely seen but didn't associate with Chicago (notice a pattern)? With more repetition, it's a shoe-in to become an instantly recognizable Chicago landmark.

In summary, Chicago has many worthy landmarks but to someone who's never spent time outside of the west coast, Chicago, Detroit, Boston, Philadelphia, etc. tend to get blurred and absorbed into the overwhelming media shadow of New York.

Los Angeles

I guess it's undeniable that the Hollywood sign is recognizable within a nanosecond. Do people outside of SoCal know that Hollywood is a neighborhood of Los Angeles? I have to admit, I'm a little embarrassed that an advertising sign has become the most famous landmark of LA, even though it does have an interesting history. On the other hand, it's simple and direct, unlike a skyscraper that might take a moment to recognize.

As far as LA skyscrapers, the U.S. Bank/Library/First Interstate Tower is probably the most famous. Its greenish white hue and crown are pretty recognizable: U.S. Bank Tower

The Frank Gehry designed Walt Disney Concert Hall has become an LA landmark. It would have been even more iconic if dawdling hadn't delayed its construction until the Guggenheim at Bilbao was finished. Everyone thinks that the Disney is a copy of the Guggenheim when it's the other way around.

Grauman's Chinese Theater and the handprints are well known Hollywood landmarks as is the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

The Hollywood Bowl, nestled in the Hollywood Hills is often seen in photos.

Santa Monica is an independent city which is completely enveloped by LA, and the entrance to the Santa Monica Pier is pretty famous.

I think the 2nd Street tunnel in Downtown LA, between Figueroa Ave. and Hill St. is widely seen in movies and advertisements but most people probably don't know that it's in LA and Angelenos probably don't know where it is in the ctiy. The western opening at Figueroa is particularly distinctive with its fluted detail as is its glossy white interior: 2nd Street tunnel, DTLA - Wikipedia

Chris Burden's Urban Light, an outdoor installation on the Wilshire Blvd. entrance to the LA County Museum of Art has a chance of becoming an LA icon--distinctive and easily captured in a photo.

Venice Beach, which is in LA proper has a few landmarks. The boardwalk with its eccentrics and Muscle Beach are well known but hard to capture in a photo. On the other hand, there is the Jim Morrison mural and the Frank Gehry designed Binoculars Building (now occupied by Google).

My personal preference for LA landmarks would include Los Angeles City Hall since it's been on film for decades and has an iconic shape; Simon Rodia's wonderful Watts Towers; the Griffith Observatory. The Griffith Observatory is gorgeous, doubly so because of its hilltop location.

My personal first choice for LA landmark would be that Googie masterpiece, the LAX Theme Building. Instantly recognizable and it's seen by everyone who flies in or out of LAX. A companion landmark might be the LAX sign and kinetic light pylons.

In summary, LA has tons of terrific landmarks but it's undeniable that the city has greatly benefited from the exposure afforded by Hollywood.

p.s. Please, everyone, Disneyland is not even located in Los Angeles County, much less the city. It's in the city of Anaheim, in Orange County. I'd love for LA to claim the Magic Kingdom but it rightly belongs to Anaheim. Same with the Angels baseball team. Give Anaheim its due.

[git45]

Originally Posted by LakeShoreSoxGo

I would say every thing from high rise to single family attached. I like some of the older parts of LA that have storefronts below residential but overall that is few and far between.

Some of the suburban I like, but you can find also find a lot of ugly Bakersfieldesque tract developments. -It's no surprise that Levitt learned his trade from observing 1940's tract development in California. Suburbia is king of California, with really only SF left standing when looking at the cities on a whole.

I also think that stucco really just does not age well, though it is most practical given the local climate.

Thank you for conveying my views more accurately!!
I just don't think Angelenos give that much of a hoot about architecture because the weather's so damn great all the time. Nothing to be ashamed of.