Quote:
Originally Posted by alki
Quote:
otoh, this pic of dt from the 1930s shows alot of what I'd consider as type devlpt. And even if it were in color, I don't think it would make most ppl think it was a fantastic looking hood.....
What I see is a photo taken from a less dense part of DTLA that is a mix of residential and commercial looking at a more dense part of the DT area. There are no parking lots which you consistently complain about but there are telephone/electric poles........of course those were visible in the Pittsburgh photo as well. So what is there are about the bldgs in this photo you don't like.....beyond simply saying "yuck"?
|
|
Well actually, that part of LA in the immediate foreground of that photo was not part of DTLA back then. What is now considered "downtown" has massively grown over the decades. Changes in zoning have altered the character of what were once single-family residential neighborhoods and industrial areas around the old historic core of Los Angeles. In fact, I read an article recently (from KPCC, maybe?) that said that LA was one of the first cities in the US to introduce specific land-use zoning; LA's city leaders in the very early years of the 20th century did not want what the older east coast cities had at the time, like people living on the same block as, or even next-door to, smoke-belching factories, apartment buildings with meat-packing plants on the first few floors, etc.
Considering the gripes people make about the aesthetics of LA's built environment and the negative, supposed "image-conscious" artificiality that people in other parts of the US associate with LA, for a place that's accepted me and many other people for who and what they are, I must say, somewhat ironically, that I find LA to be a city that's very real.
Prev
& 
cities on the list that score better than LA. Still, to be stuck on the bottom with a long running disaster like detroit & a longtime joke like oakland means we got a big problem. 
IDK
Linear Mode
