# ULTIMATE AERIAL PICTURE OF L.A



## JfromL.A (Oct 22, 2006)

YOU'VE PROBABLY HAVE SEEN THIS BEFORE BUT ITS THE BEST IMO


----------



## Bond James Bond (Aug 23, 2002)

Yep.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan (Oct 20, 2004)

Very Nice! i wish i could fast forwad ten years to see all the new towers in Downtown, Wilshire and Century City.


----------



## samba_man (Dec 26, 2004)

Impressive


----------



## Xabi (Nov 8, 2004)

Not my cup of tea...


----------



## _zner_ (May 24, 2005)

breath-taking!


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

One big suburb


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

Hmmm...it's a city of 4 million people with a metro population of about 18 million. One big suburb my ass. You're stupid. :|


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

And LA is a suburb of what?


----------



## JfromL.A (Oct 22, 2006)

^ thanx westside i was just gonna comment on that stupid shit earlier but wasnt in the mood


----------



## will.exe (Aug 9, 2006)

I think he meant aesthitically its one big suburb. It is after all a very sprawling city. It doesnt have a very defined downtown like other North American cities.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

Here's another view. This was saved on my hard drive -


----------



## JfromL.A (Oct 22, 2006)

wjfox2002 said:


> Here's another view. This was saved on my hard drive -


dont get me wrong i like this one to but it doesnt show the other multiple skylines, whilshire, century city, westwood etc.


----------



## cmoonflyer (Aug 17, 2005)

Nice shots , should add more !


----------



## ArchiTennis (Jul 3, 2006)

nice shots....i still have to say that this one is my favorite:


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

^^That's my favorite too. I love how that picture exposes the natural beauty of LA with the mountains, beaches, bluffs, etc.


----------



## zzibit (Apr 17, 2006)

JfromL.A said:


> YOU'VE PROBABLY HAVE SEEN THIS BEFORE BUT ITS THE BEST IMO


What is the name of the main strip which all the towers are on?


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

Wilshire Blvd. It runs from DTLA all the way to the ocean.


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

Westsidelife said:


> Hmmm...it's a city of 4 million people with a metro population of about 18 million. One big suburb my ass. You're stupid. :|


It sure is impressive however not my cup of tea. I bet that there are cities outisde the US with 1/5 of the population of LA that still have bigger city centres.


----------



## PanaManiac (Mar 26, 2005)

JfromL.A said:


> YOU'VE PROBABLY HAVE SEEN THIS BEFORE BUT ITS THE BEST IMO


*Top to bottom distribution of highrise clusters:

1-Downtown L. A.
2-Wilshire Blvd. corridor
2-Century City
4-Westwood

I could be wrong, but I think the UCLA campus might be near the bottom left of the picture.*


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> How on earth does that LA pic make it look like a suburb, when those are either 50 story buildings, 5 - 6 story apts or businesse?


Er...again from 1000 feet.

LA



Paris


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

See there you go again, picking certain spots rather than looking at the whole. Plus, those parking lots are being filled. Why do you keep arguing? Suburbs from the air are green and spread out.


----------



## JfromL.A (Oct 22, 2006)

SuomiPoika said:


> Er...again from 1000 feet.
> 
> LA
> 
> ...


alrite just give up already your getting older images, a lot of those parking lots are gone or gonna be gone


----------



## ArchiTennis (Jul 3, 2006)

SuomiPoika said:


> Er...again from 1000 feet.
> 
> Paris


you're ridiculous...choosing certain spots...well, I'll choose a spot for L.A. too:


----------



## Kiss the Rain (Apr 2, 2006)

Good to see the city of angels finally getting some density.


----------



## Elsongs (Oct 18, 2006)

JfromL.A said:


> i doubt this makes it look like a suburb


I like this shot better than the first one. It's basically the same shot, but from the opposite direction. I don't like how in the first pic DTLA looks small. Also, you can see the ocean in this picture, and it's not as Westside-centric (I HATE Westisdecentrism!). To many outsiders, they either think there's no downtown or that it's all a fake Hollywood special effect! (I'm sure Mr. "One Big Suburb" Euro Guy probably thinks so, LOL). BTW 2/3 of the buildings in the Downtown LA skyline are taller than the tallest building in Europe!

The truth and reality is, if you live here, you know about the things going up and have a vested interest in it. You can see the city in various layers and dimensions. LA Live might be a hole in the ground, but you know there's something there. But if you're an outsider, no matter what the *real* Los Angeles looks like, and no matter how dense it will be, it will always be "one sprawling suburb" to them. 

Let's face it, in this world, ignorance shouts louder than the whispers of truth.


----------



## Elsongs (Oct 18, 2006)

SuomiPoika said:


> Er...again from 1000 feet.
> 
> LA
> 
> ...


Um, Excuse me Eurodude, but I don't think it's quite fair to compare a 225-year old American city that was urbanized less than 100 years ago with a 1600-year old French city that has been urbanized for more than half a millennium...

If I point to two people, one a teenager and another an elderly person and ask, "Who is smarter?" Of course you will favor the elderly person. 

But when that teenager grows up, that person could very well be much smarter than the elderly person...You just wouldn't know it yet.


----------



## ArchiTennis (Jul 3, 2006)

^^^ good point


----------



## alex3000 (Oct 20, 2002)

Kiss the Rain said:


> Good to see the city of angels finally getting some density.


That's been there for decades. :sleepy:


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

I chose a random spot in Paris and one in LA. That´s the results i got, I could do it over again and get the same result. But you´re probobly right, LA is the ultimate city for an urban experience...


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

Elsongs said:


> Um, Excuse me Eurodude, but I don't think it's quite fair to compare a 225-year old American city that was urbanized less than 100 years ago with a 1600-year old French city that has been urbanized for more than half a millennium...


Ok, then, this is St Petersburg one of the youngest European cities (founded 1703) Btw. Paris is over 2000 years old 

LA



Stetersburg




Just face the fact that this has nothing to do with age.



Elsongs said:


> If I point to two people, one a teenager and another an elderly person and ask, "Who is smarter?" Of course you will favor the elderly person.
> 
> But when that teenager grows up, that person could very well be much smarter than the elderly person...You just wouldn't know it yet.


What? Sounds really fancy and all that, but exactly what are you trying to say?


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Los Angeles is more 'suburban' (in layout) than most major European cities. That doesn't make it any less impressive, though.


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

^^Just because one part of the city has a plethora of parking lots makes it suburban like? Again, your statement is invalid. You're picking and choosing certain spots and drawing conclusions from there. The point we're trying to make is that you don't need high-density to be a city. Please tell me you're not one of those people who characterize LA as not being a "real city". That's just ridiculous. I think you're ignorant in implying that parking lots make a place suburban.


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

And here is a picture of the historic core in Downtown Los Angeles:


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

Also, European cities are not as auto-dependent which allows them to be more cramped in.


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

I´m picking certain spots?? You´ve just done the same by trying to find pics that show LA from a more urban point of view.


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

Except you're the one who is concluding that LA is more of a suburb rather than a "real city" based on pictures that show a few parking lots here and there. I'm not saying Los Angeles has density like New York City, but to say it has no density is ridiculous. And to say that it's more of a suburb than a "real city" because of a few parking lots here and there is even more ridiculous. And that aerial of DTLA you provided is a bit dated because it doesn't show the construction at LA Live. The majority of those parking lots are going to be filled up. Why are you even still in here?


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

And here is a picture of Chicago:










And that's located in Downtown Chicago. Yet I wouldn't say Chicago is aesthetically suburban. You see my point now?


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

They have to build a helluva lot to fill all those parking lots.


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

Westsidelife said:


> And that's located in Downtown Chicago. Yet I wouldn't say Chicago is aesthetically suburban. You see my point now?


Don´t be ridiculous. You know full well that Chicago has *a lot* more "real" buildings and skyscrapers than LA.


----------



## ArchiTennis (Jul 3, 2006)

SuomiPoika said:


> When you want to start arguing in Finnish, let me know. I do belive my English is so much better than your Finnish.


Now it all makes sense. At first I thought your were dumb and somewhat illiterate, but since English is your second language I kinda' understand. Even so, being as you don't even seem to know what you're reading, why bother posting your very closed minded take on L.A.? other than to troll. I still say that you should be banned :banned:


----------



## LANative (Aug 28, 2005)

edit


----------



## LANative (Aug 28, 2005)

SuomiPoika said:


> Well it is suburban and it´s architecture is nothing like London, Paris and NYC.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well I was just outside, it aint smoggy today and all cities have highways and parking lots so whats your point? Suburban or not L.A. is still a world class city.

Do you even know what suburban means??


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

Your claim that New York, London, and Paris has better architecture is such a laugh because we all know that all of those cities have more classic architecture in which you refer to as "real buildings". 

As for your claim that LA has smog, traffic, and highways. That's true. There's smog, traffic, and highways. There's also the uncomparable weather and recognization and status of this city that Helsinki CAN NEVER COMPARE TO. 

And it's apparent that you don't understand what makes this city special. There's really no other city like Los Angeles. Why do I like LA? Because it's a multicultured city with the mountains, ocean, deserts, palm trees, etc. in one region. It's got great weather and it's located on the California coast. There are all types of people from the filthy rich to the dirt poor (no other city is as extreme) all living together in one city. This city has been bashed many times (including by you) yet it still manages to hold strong. The city has been in worse condition than it is now and look where we are today.


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

Westsidelife said:


> Because it's a multicultured city with the mountains, ocean, deserts, palm trees, etc. in one region. It's got great weather and it's located on the California coast.


In other words, like I said, you like the weather and the surroundings, not the city itself.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

I knew you were ignorant, Suomi, but I had no idea you were such a jerk.

Look at yourself--you're actually trying to convince someone else that they don't like their own city.


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

SuomiPoika said:


> In other words, like I said, you like the weather and the surroundings, not the city itself.


I just explained it to you. It is quite apparent that you can't read.


----------



## LANative (Aug 28, 2005)

pottebaum said:


> I knew you were ignorant, Suomi, but I had no idea you were such a jerk.
> 
> Look at yourself--you're actually trying to convince someone else that they don't like their own city.


This guy is retarded if you reread his posts throughout this thread his definition of "suburban" means a city with little or no European style architecture, highways and parking lots. WTF??


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

^^Exactly.


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

Suomi, you have got to be the most superficial forumer I've encountered here on SSC. You just don't get it do you? A city's attractiveness not just lies in its physical beauty but rather the insight into the city and the understanding and appreciation of its culture. That's what discovering a new place is all about. Don't bash a place and call it "non-attractive" just because it doesn't have as much European style architecture as you would like it to have or because there are parkings lots here and there. By doing that, you're making yourself look VERY dumb and it really shows. For example, if one visits New York City and Houston, it's possible that person could enjoy his time in Houston more so than New York City. A city's attractiveness is only part of it. But your overall experience in the city and the knowledge of its culture and vibe is more important. A city doesn't have to be physically attractive for one to enjoy it. One could appreciate a dumpy city just as much as an "attractive city". 

As for you calling LA "non-attractive", I couldn't disagree more. Yes, LA certainly has its share of negatives (smog, traffic, etc.) but that's all you mentioned. You didn't mention its great weather, beaches, recreational activities, unique neighborhoods, etc. Malibu, Beverly Hills, Hollywood are just as much LA as the ghettos are. LA has its nice spots and its not so nice spots as the same goes for other major cities. But it's just not as extreme. 

LA's beauty lies in its natural beauty and private architecture. But I also think the glamorous Hollywood lifestyle contributes to the beautiful image. So, in response to your comment about how I prefer the city's climate/setting as opposed to the city itself, I like both. What makes the city special IS it's natural beauty and climate. After all, they are part of the city.


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

LANative said:


> This guy is retarded if you reread his posts throughout this thread his definition of "suburban" means a city with little or no European style architecture, highways and parking lots. WTF??


And he still hasn't explained how all of those aspects contribute to a city's lack of urbanity.


----------



## LANative (Aug 28, 2005)

And anyone who tries to compare L.A.'s archictecture to cities like London, Paris And New York (Which are all European-style cities) cannot be taken seriously. It isn't fair to compare L.A. to those much older cities.


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

^^Because LA is laid out differently and those cities are much older.


----------



## LANative (Aug 28, 2005)

Westsidelife said:


> And he still hasn't explained how all of those aspects contribute to a city's lack of urbanity.


He won't answer anyones question because he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. And I also asked him earlier in the thread what is a suburban because his definintion of it is bullshit.


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

LANative said:


> This guy is retarded if you reread his posts throughout this thread his definition of "suburban" means a city with little or no European style architecture, highways and parking lots. WTF??


And if his explanation of why LA is more suburban is due to the fact that it doesn't follow the "model" or that "urban cities must follow a European model and its architecture must reflect that of a European style" or something like that then I say, "Give me a break!"


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

SuomiPoika said:


> Which is denser/more urban?


WITHOUT A DOUBT, LOS ANGELES. According to Webster's Dictionary, the definition of the word 'urban' is:

ur ban [*ur*-b_uh_n]
-_adjective_
1. of, pertaining to, or designating a city or town. 
2. living in a city. 
3. characteristic of or accustomed to cities; citified: He is an urban type.

Now tell me. Which place is more characteristic of a city? A city with a population of about 4,000,000 with a metro population of about 18,000,000 OR a city with a population of about 600,000? Not once does the above definition mention anything about architecture or density. Your typical urban city might possess European style architecture and have density (built-up and population), but there is no "rule" to that. Based on the definition, we can conclude that LA is MORE URBAN than Helsinki. AGAIN, NOWHERE DOES IT SAY ANTHING ABOUT ARCHITECTURE OR DENSITY!!! AND AGAIN, JUST BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FOLLOW THE "MODEL" DOESN'T MAKE IT ANY LESS OR MORE URBAN!!! Oh, please. To compare LA to Helsinki is a complete joke, A COMPLETE JOKE. It's okay to compare NYC, London, and Paris to LA BUT DEFINITELY NOT HELSINKI. So we've established that LA is more urban. Now for density, according to that aerial of Helsinki you unnecessarily provided, Helsinki appears to be denser in terms of a built-up environment. But in terms of poulation density, LA is denser:

Los Angeles:

3,165/km² (8,198/sq mi)

Helsinki:

3,049.7 inh./km²

Now please don't tell me that you favor the pictures more than the hard facts. You don't want to admit that LA is denser, just admit it. In fact, no city wants to admit that LA is denser than they are. Once again, it might be said that Helsinki is denser in terms of a built-up environment but in terms of population, LA is the denser city. The facts don't lie. Just thought you needed a reality check. Get it right.


----------



## LANative (Aug 28, 2005)

The typical anti-L.A. troll: indenial, stupid and just pulling shit out of their ass to try to prove their point.


----------



## ArchiTennis (Jul 3, 2006)

^^ so true...anyway, many people fail to realize how young of a city L.A. is. I found this pic of the L.A. river / Arroyo Seco in 1914 - that's less than 100 years ago!!










that's the Southwest Museum in the background..there's like hardly any infrastructure built in


----------



## NZer (Sep 12, 2002)

I never knew LA had such beautiful streetscapes to offer,under all those modern scrapers.

And it has impressive mountains,miles of beaches and a warm dry climate on top of being a massive,and important city.Los Angeles is awesome.
I'll have to see LA one day.


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

Westsidelife said:


> A city's attractiveness not just lies in its physical beauty but rather the insight into the city and the understanding and appreciation of its culture.


You´re right. I could go to Paris and then to LA and like LA more, BUT, I would still concider Paris to be a superior city. I could meet much nicer people in LA and my visit could be more eventful and that´s the most important part. However, that still doesn´t mean LA is better as a city.



Westsidelife said:


> You didn't mention its great weather, beaches, recreational activities, unique neighborhoods. LA has its nice spots and its not so nice spots as the same goes for other major cities. But it's just not as extreme.


I didn´t? Why don´t you start reading other people´s post more carefully before you claim they´re unable to read. Oh the irony...




Westsidelife said:


> But I also think the glamorous Hollywood lifestyle contributes to the beautiful image.


I couldn´t disagree more.


I can´t see what I´m doing wrong here? I´m entitled to my opinion and I have discussed them with Westsidelife. I´m certainly not bashing LA. What are all these trolls doing here trying to ruin it? Please stay out of this discussion if you have nothing to contribute with. People who can only insult others are so seethroughable, it´s totally ridiculous! I´ve met people before who can´t really behave and only say "What a dunbass you are" "You´re retarded". That only shows that you´re ignorant and have some serious issues.


----------

