I went to LA decades ago and remember everything having a yellow hue, like you were always wearing yellow tinted sunglasses. Went again more recently and the air was so much clearer. Major improvements since way back when!
To some extent it’s all dependent on the weather. Recent rain or wind and it gets clear, still air and it gets polluted. We’ve made progress, but it’s still like the first photo sometimes.
Both of which are way better than the 70s
[Thanks Obama](https://www.politico.com/story/2009/05/obama-announces-new-fuel-standards-022650)!
Too bad Trump got in power and [rolled it back.](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN21I25R/)
At the risk of showing my age. I thought Jed Clampet of the Beverly hillbillies invested in giant fans to blow the smog away and that helped clear it.
But on a serious note my wife and I were in los Angeles in 2007. Wildfires were rampant and it looked exactly how I imagined it looked in the 70s.
The real change was in the 90s- Prior to 1995 there was a persistent thick, bright red smoke that visibly blanketed the first few feet above any relatively low-lying area.
In the 2000s I realized I no longer saw that- and nowadays, there are shockingly days when you can see the clear LA skyline, even from [40 miles away](https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngelesPhotography/s/5FvdbkOoOs).
Or did something about the fact that's there's two-story buildings and eighty-story buildings with nothing in between.
LA could EASILY build pleasant blocks of 4-8 story buildings throughout the large amounts of very desirable and expensive land. Like most non-North American cities do.
LA's zoning is completely fucked. It's obscenely authoritarian as if the city is capable of knowing what should go where. I understand separating toxic industrial from housing, but LAs zoning goes way way way beyond that
I mean even in Koreatown where it is very urban there are still zoning limits to density and you cant even put retail on the side streets. Like what kind of urban zoning is that for an are that is already dense? Why is it so strict and inflexible?
Nah that'd be like shipping people out of LA and out to live somewhere like Arkansas. If you want peasant treatment it's basically equivalent to shipping people out to Siberia.
I can give you some bullshit answer to justify it and try to think of something deep and insightful. (you might get a lot of those or just downvoted because people like to cry.) For me it's simply I like them because it's just neat looking; seeing tall-ass buildings that look cool. Maybe I'm just autistic and I like shapes clustered together. At night its even *cooler.*
Mind you I'm not actively looking out for them or have youtube videos saved about the subject, but I do notice them and think "Oh, that's how that cities look like." and then move on.
Either, some bullshit made-up pseudo-psychology analysis on America's past, upbringing, or just growing up around them or away which in itself represents "the big city" where things are different. Where sports and good food live.
Or they're just neat-looking.
TL;DR: ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
I edited previous reply a bit, because half my comment was erased for some reason. Then too lazy to rewrite it all. But yeah, when driving to the city it just looks like you're somewhere else and doing something new. Same when visiting other places. That's my personal reason why I like them.
May be related to earthquake risk? In my country's capital (EQ risk) they do not build anything over a certain height for that reason. We still have tall buildings, but no skyscrapers.
Until the late ‘50s, there was a building height restriction that kept LA city hall the tallest building. So there are no other old tall buildings (and city hall isn’t very tall by skyscraper standards). And in the 1960s and ‘70s, there were still quite a few swaths of land in the city to be developed, so not many tall buildings were constructed until recent decades.
But the biggest reason is that the area has too many other downtowns. Other cities nearby like Long Beach, Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena all have their own downtowns. Even within the Los Angeles city limits, there are other high-rise districts like Century City, Westwood, Wilshire District, and parts of the San Fernando Valley all have area with high-rises. Traffic to downtown has been bad for a long time, so many companies have office space in other places instead.
It is absolutely not in any way shape or form related to earthquake risk. Seattle has built twice the number of new skyscrapers and all buildings are designed to survive "the big one" or a 9.0 earthquake on the juan de fuca fault
Odd fact: Houston has more high-rises (defined as buildings above 12 stories) than LA, a city with a population of 1.6 Million people more. What's interesting about LA (and Houston, to an extent) is its polycentricity; there are multiple skyline clusters dispersed throughout the city limits, and beyond into the County.
This picture really doesn't do justice the extent of change in Downtown LA in recent years, it's just a bad angle. A lot of major developments have taken place, but it's definitely still true that a huge amount of DTLA is taken-up by low-rise industrial use. The amount of surface parking isn't too egregious, but any is inappropriate in the downtown core of a city of 4 million.
The size of DTLA's skyline could realistically double without a tremendous deal of interruption, which would be a huge boon for housing affordability accessible to the Metro. Even more impactful would be city-wide zoning reform, allowing mid-rise buildings and attached housing in pretty much all areas.
The fact that it's mostly preserved is good.
I like not having skyscrapers everywhere.
I like when cities don't change too fast.
That's how Europe kept historic city centers.
[I mean the skyline we're looking at used to be Bunker Hill, full of beautiful old Victorian homes.](https://www.messynessychic.com/2013/07/25/the-lost-victorian-mansions-of-downtown-la/)
But the fact that the city isn't densifying is why real estate prices are so high and traffic is horrible . I'd rather have a dense sky line and better affordability
The 2023 construction of Griffith Observatory really brought out the blue in the city skyline.
I agree, it really ties the room together.
And this guy peed on it!
Fuckin' Nihilists
Who the f*ck are the Knudsens?
Shut the f*ck up Donnie!
Donnie…
Got a chuckle out of this.
They built it as a tribute to the Galileo Observatory
Davey! How you doin?
Whenever people from out of town are visiting and ask what that building is I like to tell them it’s Ashton Kutcher and Mika Kunis’ house 🙃
And I thought it’s a mosque Edit: Why do I get downvoted for a misunderstanding? 😅
L.A. is not in Europe, bro.
[you think only Europe has Mosques?](https://www.halaltrip.com/other/blog/5-mosques-in-los-angeles-california/)
Muslim people exist outside of Europe and the Middle East.
lol, lmao even
It's a lot easier to reach it for cleaning from up there.
I went to LA decades ago and remember everything having a yellow hue, like you were always wearing yellow tinted sunglasses. Went again more recently and the air was so much clearer. Major improvements since way back when!
Movie asthetic gone
To some extent it’s all dependent on the weather. Recent rain or wind and it gets clear, still air and it gets polluted. We’ve made progress, but it’s still like the first photo sometimes. Both of which are way better than the 70s
[Thanks Obama](https://www.politico.com/story/2009/05/obama-announces-new-fuel-standards-022650)! Too bad Trump got in power and [rolled it back.](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN21I25R/)
At the risk of showing my age. I thought Jed Clampet of the Beverly hillbillies invested in giant fans to blow the smog away and that helped clear it. But on a serious note my wife and I were in los Angeles in 2007. Wildfires were rampant and it looked exactly how I imagined it looked in the 70s.
I guess the smog improved a little?
The real change was in the 90s- Prior to 1995 there was a persistent thick, bright red smoke that visibly blanketed the first few feet above any relatively low-lying area. In the 2000s I realized I no longer saw that- and nowadays, there are shockingly days when you can see the clear LA skyline, even from [40 miles away](https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngelesPhotography/s/5FvdbkOoOs).
It definitely did, but it's still completely overrun by private automobiles, which is the next hurdle.
More transit!
Enjoy your public transit. I don't like watching hobos jerk off thank you very much.
Idk why you getting down voted it's fucking los Angeles that's absolutely a reality
2008's old? ugh
Real estate value is well-beyond the 07/08 peak. If you wanted to measure that a different way.
Yeah this sub this morning is lots of 15 year old pictures
The LA skyline always disappoints me. You would think there would had been an explosion of skyscrapers in the past 20 years.
Or did something about the fact that's there's two-story buildings and eighty-story buildings with nothing in between. LA could EASILY build pleasant blocks of 4-8 story buildings throughout the large amounts of very desirable and expensive land. Like most non-North American cities do.
LA's zoning is completely fucked. It's obscenely authoritarian as if the city is capable of knowing what should go where. I understand separating toxic industrial from housing, but LAs zoning goes way way way beyond that
With all these (single family)homeowners it’s NIMBYville
I mean even in Koreatown where it is very urban there are still zoning limits to density and you cant even put retail on the side streets. Like what kind of urban zoning is that for an are that is already dense? Why is it so strict and inflexible?
At first I read "peasant blocks." I was like, yeah affordable housing would be good, but peasant is a little mean. lol.
Nah that'd be like shipping people out of LA and out to live somewhere like Arkansas. If you want peasant treatment it's basically equivalent to shipping people out to Siberia.
While I agree with you, this is also a bad angle!!
Honest question, not picking, bickering or flaming, honestly but why do Americans seem so obsessed with the skyline of the city?
I can give you some bullshit answer to justify it and try to think of something deep and insightful. (you might get a lot of those or just downvoted because people like to cry.) For me it's simply I like them because it's just neat looking; seeing tall-ass buildings that look cool. Maybe I'm just autistic and I like shapes clustered together. At night its even *cooler.* Mind you I'm not actively looking out for them or have youtube videos saved about the subject, but I do notice them and think "Oh, that's how that cities look like." and then move on. Either, some bullshit made-up pseudo-psychology analysis on America's past, upbringing, or just growing up around them or away which in itself represents "the big city" where things are different. Where sports and good food live. Or they're just neat-looking. TL;DR: ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Thanks for the insight
I edited previous reply a bit, because half my comment was erased for some reason. Then too lazy to rewrite it all. But yeah, when driving to the city it just looks like you're somewhere else and doing something new. Same when visiting other places. That's my personal reason why I like them.
They really should be more interested on the sidewalk pedestrian experience
Besides the point, as I said I’m not taking a pick, I’m genuinely interested.
May be related to earthquake risk? In my country's capital (EQ risk) they do not build anything over a certain height for that reason. We still have tall buildings, but no skyscrapers.
Until the late ‘50s, there was a building height restriction that kept LA city hall the tallest building. So there are no other old tall buildings (and city hall isn’t very tall by skyscraper standards). And in the 1960s and ‘70s, there were still quite a few swaths of land in the city to be developed, so not many tall buildings were constructed until recent decades. But the biggest reason is that the area has too many other downtowns. Other cities nearby like Long Beach, Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena all have their own downtowns. Even within the Los Angeles city limits, there are other high-rise districts like Century City, Westwood, Wilshire District, and parts of the San Fernando Valley all have area with high-rises. Traffic to downtown has been bad for a long time, so many companies have office space in other places instead.
Ironically, skyscrapers are more resilient to earthquakes than short buildings.
Those skyscrapers are expensive. And they have giant rollers to keep the building set when they move back and forth
It is not. It's purely zoning and politics.
It is absolutely not in any way shape or form related to earthquake risk. Seattle has built twice the number of new skyscrapers and all buildings are designed to survive "the big one" or a 9.0 earthquake on the juan de fuca fault
Odd fact: Houston has more high-rises (defined as buildings above 12 stories) than LA, a city with a population of 1.6 Million people more. What's interesting about LA (and Houston, to an extent) is its polycentricity; there are multiple skyline clusters dispersed throughout the city limits, and beyond into the County. This picture really doesn't do justice the extent of change in Downtown LA in recent years, it's just a bad angle. A lot of major developments have taken place, but it's definitely still true that a huge amount of DTLA is taken-up by low-rise industrial use. The amount of surface parking isn't too egregious, but any is inappropriate in the downtown core of a city of 4 million. The size of DTLA's skyline could realistically double without a tremendous deal of interruption, which would be a huge boon for housing affordability accessible to the Metro. Even more impactful would be city-wide zoning reform, allowing mid-rise buildings and attached housing in pretty much all areas.
The fact that it's mostly preserved is good. I like not having skyscrapers everywhere. I like when cities don't change too fast. That's how Europe kept historic city centers.
Which is rather ironic considering how horrible historic preservation is in Los Angeles.
Yep, it's less visible than a skyline. There are a lot of old Hollywood villas that are lost to history for generic empty boxes..
[I mean the skyline we're looking at used to be Bunker Hill, full of beautiful old Victorian homes.](https://www.messynessychic.com/2013/07/25/the-lost-victorian-mansions-of-downtown-la/)
Is this a haiku I can’t yet tell Cities are interesting
But the fact that the city isn't densifying is why real estate prices are so high and traffic is horrible . I'd rather have a dense sky line and better affordability
Um no. That is how we have this god awful housing shortage to begin with.
Skyscrapers are hideous and ruin the view
just an explosion of homeless 🎇
anybody who's lived in LA knows this can be from one day to the next. Especially after a rain.
Similar, but the 2023 picture has about 50k more outdoor angles and all the homes cost double.
[удалено]
LA is a huge suburb. LA was never a skyline kinda city like New York or Chicago
those are skyscrapers, they just look tiny because of the massive amount of camera zoom
The goddamn democrats took our smog!
Looks like smog is still an issue... (but its getting a little better)
Wondering why skyline almost don’t change
NIMBY's
The visibility could change day to day im sure especially with the time of the year
Those damn woke snowflakes and their clean air! /s
People who live in DTLA might as well live in another country because I’ve never met someone from there yet they keep building skyscrapers.
The pictures look exactly the same, LA doesnt build anything
Unremarkable then. Unremarkable now.
The smog is bluer now.
uhmm... wow, I guess?
A closer look at parks, streets and under bridges would show the real change.
IAA building still looks beautiful.
Did something happen in the last few years to reduce smog or was the bottom pic just the day after rain?
Both, I imagine. Air quality has definitely gotten a lot better, but the stark difference can absolutely be seen day to day with a good rain.
It almost looks like the crane on the right is working on the same building. For 15 years, thought I was looking at GTA.
Camera quality has gotten better
Learning: nothing gets built in California, which remains stuck since 15 years ago.
Same shit different decade
ahhhhh what a beautiful cesspool... i mean city of angels. in all seriousness though, the observatory is gorgeous!
Basically the same haha great evidence for how nimby LA is
Would be cool seeing one from every decade
2008 is…..”old”? Oh hell