Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej
I would think anyone from Seattle would think that any other city larger than theirs would be intimidating.
|
I think what bothers them is the climate and its effects on the appearance of the city. In Seattle, Portland, and the NW in general, trees and foliage are everywhere, so ugly, low-rise sprawl isn't as obvious even though there's plenty of it: The greenery hides it both from a distance and up-close. In LA, the greenery is subordinate to the built environment - which only looks good when the built environment is vertical (e.g., New York, Tokyo, etc.), but LA is painfully horizontal. There's also the quality of the light filtered through smog, which washes out colors and makes everything look less vibrant.
Compare these two images: The first is Seattle as it really looks on rare sunny days, and the second is Seattle with washed-out colors, brighter light, and less foliage (done in the crudest way possible, so don't bother criticizing my 'shop skills):
seattle by
troubadour1, on Flickr
alternateseattle by
troubadour1, on Flickr
The second one looks a lot more like LA, doesn't it? So critics of LA should be mindful of the difference between things that are under the control of residents - zoning, street design, etc. - vs. things that aren't (the color of the damn sunlight, and the availability of water for foliage, being two examples).