HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2007, 11:26 AM
milquetoast's Avatar
milquetoast milquetoast is offline
L O S A N G E L E S
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Henderson NV
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlrobe View Post
LA looks ugly, but its massive ports, airport, international business sector, defense, technology, and media industries are more powerful than our 1 story buildings convey.
L. A.'s not that ugly, have you seen London? With your eyes?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2007, 11:53 PM
jlrobe jlrobe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by milquetoast View Post
L. A.'s not that ugly, have you seen London? With your eyes?
I love LA, but it is just a very ugly city. SF, circa 1990 was quite ugly. SoMa and the new mission bay areas were simply dilapidated old wharehouse buildings. They were hideous. Most of its neighorhoods, as many of them still are, were AGING and old. Upper market was full of trash everywhere. Many areas just 1-2 blocks outside of the Financial districts or union square were ghetto and just old and falling apart. Many areas of SF are still old and falling apart. Manhattan in 1990 was equally ugly and falling apart., and largely still is rather gritty. Many buildings in all of these major cities are simply in disrepair. The difference is London, SF, and Manhattan have this urban authenticity to them that mask the ugliness. They have a curious beauty. Its wierd.

If LA were simply falling apart, that would be one thing, but all the old junk yards, autorepair shops, tract homes, dead zones, empty streetscapes, antiseptic buildings, etc. just give it an ugliness that no other city has.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2007, 11:56 PM
jlrobe jlrobe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by edluva View Post
whatever. i'd like just one of you guys to make a compelling argument as to how exactly LA's economy influences the global economy in a way proportionate or reflective of its GDP, or in a way proportionate and reflective of your claims. That was the initial assertion that brought about this argumetn wasn't it?:
I am sorry that you missed my point(s). I might consider a more thorough answer if you first give me a one page argument on
a)why you think london is more important to the global economy than any other city in the world
b) How any city in the world aside from london, ny, hong kong, and tokyo effects the world economy
c) and what metric you use to connect GDP to global influence.

After that, I will model my answer based on your response. Aside from that, I could give you one hundred lists and you will give me one hundred excuses of why every list but yours is wrong.

Who knows. Maybe you know more than all the economists of the world.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2007, 1:49 AM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 6,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlrobe View Post
I love LA, but it is just a very ugly city... If LA were simply falling apart, that would be one thing, but all the old junk yards, autorepair shops, tract homes, dead zones, empty streetscapes, antiseptic buildings, etc. just give it an ugliness that no other city has.
I guess you've never been to Phoenix... now THAT is a real shit hole. LA is way nicer than Phoenix.

I've heard bad things about Dallas and Houston, too.

LA is far from being the armpit of America.
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2007, 2:36 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlrobe View Post
I love LA, but it is just a very ugly city. SF, circa 1990 was quite ugly. SoMa and the new mission bay areas were simply dilapidated old wharehouse buildings. They were hideous. Most of its neighorhoods, as many of them still are, were AGING and old. Upper market was full of trash everywhere. Many areas just 1-2 blocks outside of the Financial districts or union square were ghetto and just old and falling apart. Many areas of SF are still old and falling apart. Manhattan in 1990 was equally ugly and falling apart., and largely still is rather gritty. Many buildings in all of these major cities are simply in disrepair. The difference is London, SF, and Manhattan have this urban authenticity to them that mask the ugliness. They have a curious beauty. Its wierd.

If LA were simply falling apart, that would be one thing, but all the old junk yards, autorepair shops, tract homes, dead zones, empty streetscapes, antiseptic buildings, etc. just give it an ugliness that no other city has.
LA's beauty lies in its amazing scenery and geography of mountains, beaches, deserts, forests, islands, valleys, etc., all of which are concentrated in a single metro area. I thought that was pretty obvious.
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2007, 7:51 AM
edluva edluva is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,134
^LA is beautiful if you venture to the fringes. but it's urban form ain't so pretty. then again not many cities are exactly pretty. maybe european ones, SF, NY, Seattle....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2007, 8:02 AM
edluva edluva is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlrobe View Post
Who knows. Maybe you know more than all the economists of the world.
maybe you do too, and that's why you are capable of seeing the assertion that LA's economy influences the world's economy in all those economics papers you've obviously read. Because it's obvious that's what all those economists were asserting.

Look, you're the one making the point that LA is globally powerful economically, and that it influences the world. The burden thus lies with you to furnish a well presented argument - and if you can't supply one, then give me a reference to read, in which an economist makes that exact assertion. otherwise, you're full of boosterish nonsense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2007, 9:09 AM
milquetoast's Avatar
milquetoast milquetoast is offline
L O S A N G E L E S
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Henderson NV
Posts: 159
Just try WTCALA-LB wtcanet.org
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2007, 11:23 AM
LosAngelesBeauty's Avatar
LosAngelesBeauty LosAngelesBeauty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by edluva View Post
jlrobe- based on the decisions that ultimately go down in corporate boardrooms.

The bulk of arguments here against edluva is straying away from the source of decision making power held by very few people in this world. The focus of his assertion is on these kinds of people, in the corporate boardrooms, making decisions that affect corporate structure from the top-down.

If I were you guys, which I'm not, I would focus on what kind of financial influence LA has pertaining to that kind of decision making power.
__________________
DTLA Rising
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2007, 10:05 PM
jlrobe jlrobe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by edluva View Post
maybe you do too, and that's why you are capable of seeing the assertion that LA's economy influences the world's economy in all those economics papers you've obviously read. Because it's obvious that's what all those economists were asserting.

Look, you're the one making the point that LA is globally powerful economically, and that it influences the world. The burden thus lies with you to furnish a well presented argument - and if you can't supply one, then give me a reference to read, in which an economist makes that exact assertion. otherwise, you're full of boosterish nonsense.

sigh...

Well, as I predicted, you will likely be the anti-booster and defeat every piece of information since it doesnt support your thesis (that LA is an insignificant craphole), but here goes wasting my time.

Start here
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/BUSINESS...lobal.economy/ (this is FINANCE centric as you so ridiculously prefer) It probably doesnt weigh in exports of media, regional accounting, or global shipping, but it is a start. I "might" look around more, but I think it is a waste of my time to go dig out old articles just to have you come to the SAME conclusion.

As I stated (I might have erased it) LA is behind chicago on a few lists, especially finance-centric lists. I also stated that London is even superior to NYC when it comes to finance. Of course, Frankfurt is a hidden winner because it is the financial center of central Europe. etc. etc. etc. This list is nothing new to me. I have read 15 just like it. It happens to be the only one I can find now. Some, list LA higher, some lower, but as I alreaady stated, it is on EVERY top 20 list you can find, making it a consistent choice.


And, as for me being a booster, I am sure you think ANYONE who actually likes LA is a booster, because in YOUR mind, LA is worthless. thus if ANYONE disagrees with YOU, they must obviously be a booster.

I am not trying to be a booster. I am not trying to defend the honor of LA but arguing about this. I really could care less, and I dont now why I have spent so much time on this argument.

I am not trying to say LA is all powerful or LA is the greatest. I am merely calling you out on your BS that LA is worthless (economically or otherwise).

Last edited by jlrobe; Dec 23, 2007 at 10:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2007, 10:34 PM
jlrobe jlrobe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by edluva View Post
maybe you do too, and that's why you are capable of seeing the assertion that LA's economy influences the world's economy in all those economics papers you've obviously read. Because it's obvious that's what all those economists were asserting.

Look, you're the one making the point that LA is globally powerful economically, and that it influences the world. The burden thus lies with you to furnish a well presented argument - and if you can't supply one, then give me a reference to read, in which an economist makes that exact assertion. otherwise, you're full of boosterish nonsense.
these lists are not very good, but it is all i can find now.

http://www.citymayors.com/statistics...ties-2005.html
http://www.citymayors.com/economics/richest_cities.html
http://www.brookings.edu/reports/200...es_taylor.aspx (follow the link, download the document. It is long and detailed on some aspects, not great at others. As a researcher myself, I don't like really respect the report since the quality is low in many respects) anyhow here is a qoute

While New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles are the U.S. leaders in global connectivity, San Francisco, Miami, Atlanta, and Washington are also important nodes in the world city network.

at the same time you are right about connectivity. The US in general, is not very internationally connected. It controls the world economy based on consumption of imports and a few exports, but not DIRECTLY, as you suggest. As a result, LA effects the global economy directly and INDIRECTLY. I gave two references on how it effects the world economy directly. I have read more over the years, but that is all I could find in my short search. So, suffice it to say, LA effects the global economy directly, but it has a MASSIVE influence indirectly as well.

LA is a significant center for the state economy, which is very important to the health of the entire nation and thus the world. Of course, that is changing quickly. LA's ports a extremely vital to the world economy becuase it keeps Americans buying up the world's goods. LA is the last remaining major manufacturing center in the US which effects the US economy, but also exports. Defense technologies, and mass media are also heavily produced in LA and widely exported. So in those indirect cases, LA is a large factor to the global economy.

I couldnt find a GREAT article I read from the CA department of finance that broke down many of LA's industries, but I don't feel like wasting time looking for it.

Now that I have shown you a TINY fraction of all of the evidence i have seen over the years, I challenge you to find ONE document that lists the top 15 world centers WITHOUT LA on it. Better yet, don't, cause it DOESNT MATTER and is a waste of time. What matters is that we all vote, go to planning meetings, and make LA a more livable place. We all need to stop being boosters or haters, and start improving our city.

Last edited by jlrobe; Dec 23, 2007 at 10:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2007, 7:18 AM
edluva edluva is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,134
anyways, this is about connectivity, not economic influence. I talked about goods movement being rather passive w/ regards to the global economy. there's really no "control" over the world economy in that. and your postings above are just rankings of agglomerated GDPs. Brookings' study was basically a rehash of the 2005 GAWC ranking which undoubtedly ranked LA on its large legal and advertisement (cultural) services. I'm talking about finance...economics, so you've just referenced material I've already sort of cast into doubt with regards to your economics argument. and like I said earlier, the burden of proof is on you - you're the one claiming LA's got global economic might, not me. but yeah, whatever. I'm over it.

Last edited by edluva; Dec 24, 2007 at 7:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2007, 8:29 AM
bricky bricky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by edluva View Post
anyways, this is about connectivity, not economic influence. I talked about goods movement being rather passive w/ regards to the global economy. there's really no "control" over the world economy in that. and your postings above are just rankings of agglomerated GDPs. Brookings' study was basically a rehash of the 2005 GAWC ranking which undoubtedly ranked LA on its large legal and advertisement (cultural) services. I'm talking about finance...economics, so you've just referenced material I've already sort of cast into doubt with regards to your economics argument. and like I said earlier, the burden of proof is on you - you're the one claiming LA's got global economic might, not me. but yeah, whatever. I'm over it.
Gaa.... who cares about financial "power", unless you are one of the 1000 people in NY or London that actually matter for shit in the world of finance. One of the people who are not just cogs in a machine. Anyway, there is "power" and influence in areas other than finance. For instance, the Bay Area is immensely powerful in it's technological contributions to the world. I would argue that Silicon Valley has influenced lifestyles and given the world more of value than the entire global financial industry, over the past 30 years.

LA is certainly not a first-tier financial center. But it is a first-tier cultural center. Perhaps the world's most influential cultural center, as a matter of fact. Is that not important?

Do increasingly baroque financial instruments that only serve to skew wealth more towards the wealthy really "contribute" to anything, except speculation and income inequality?

There was a time when financial innovation actually helped economic productivity through improving the allocation of capital. But given current events, I don't think many would argue that this has been the case over the past decade. People on this forum really need to move past finance as the end-all and be-all of power and importance

Last edited by bricky; Dec 24, 2007 at 8:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2007, 8:53 AM
bricky bricky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by edluva View Post
and it's idiotic to ascribe LA's lack of an urbanness to downtown's lack of "uber-lux", when it's plain to see that the fundamental problem is LA's built env't and pathetic mass trans network. and London/NY are financial centers because they are home to the largest bourses in the world - not because some yuppie such as yourself decided to declare their preferred ghetto ripe for another coffee bean and tea leaf. you should also already know by now that ceo's don't have the power to move company HQ's wherever they please, especially in LA where it's generally cost-prohibitive relative to suburbs. that you overlook such common sense illustrates your image-obsessed shallowness- the kind of shallowness San Franciscans and New Yorkers label LA with (and which I now grudglingly agree LA sometimes deserves). instead, you'll continue obsessing over the notion that presenting a pseudo-downtown so that a few like-minded suburbanites can overpay to live in a 5 sq mile bubble and pretend that they live in a real city equates to "having gotten there".
umm... he's right. I'd even go a step further and say that whatever corporate disadvantages LA has have very little to do with even mass transit. Frankly, it was just bad luck. In the wave of buyouts and consolidations running from the 1980s through the 1990s, LA-based corporations just plain lost. Bought out left and right, until LA had very little significant corporate presence.

Look at Silicon Valley. As suburban, overpriced, and boring as any place in the world. But full of dynamism, new ideas, and corporate titans.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2007, 9:15 AM
edluva edluva is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,134
I never said LA wasn't culturally influential. In fact I made a back-handed reference to LA's cultural prowess a few postings back. I was merely refuting the claims of direct economic influence made by a few forumers, and their methodology (using agglomerated GDP as a pillar of one's argument)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2007, 9:26 AM
edluva edluva is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by milquetoast View Post
L. A.'s also the city that got New York to stop smoking, maybe that will spread to China?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2007, 1:51 PM
Vangelist Vangelist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 678
why are people who live in downtown los angeles "suburbanites" ? let's see all of edluva's biases come through
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Dec 25, 2007, 7:51 AM
edluva edluva is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,134
nice, vangelist. its that your best? maybe you'll respond directly towards me next time instead of disparaging me in third-person, when you actually have an idea. got another tangential cinematic reference for us or did you peak already?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Dec 25, 2007, 9:30 AM
Vangelist Vangelist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 678
why don't you simply just answer the question, without a lame attempt at "attacking" me (via a reference i made to los angeles' cultural role due to cinematic production about a month ago) ? i'm quoting your own words after all...

and stop acting as if you enjoy being the most reviled person on this forum...unless you do!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Dec 25, 2007, 9:39 AM
Vangelist Vangelist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 678
if you can't at the very least answer questions and engage in basic conversation - instead of mendaciously attempting to demonstrate your "intellectual superiority" by bashing various cities/posters/popular (if albeit booster-y) stances on this boostery-by-definition-site - then i don't know why you're even posting here. you're not contributing anything to the conversation except hurling choppy invective at individual posters (even your avatar's signature swipes at a regular) and regurgitating half-formed and unoriginal urban criticisms that none here are unaware of

but i'm not trying to get into a conversation about YOU; that's not that interesting, and everyone already knows of your notoriety and stopped humoring you ages ago, apparently. i suspect as i only restarted posting recently, i'm behind in all that and other posters have had it out with you here long before, stopping a while back due to fatigue (as that one poster in the Houston thread commented yesterday how he stopped posting at SSP years ago due to you, and yet here you remain). i suspect they all ignore you/your so-called "negative attitude" by default now. so no...i don't mean to get off-track here...you don't need to "defend yourself" and continue discussing whether or not you're validly or not criticizing los angeles/Houstonian suburban housing/USC...
...everyone is entitled to an opinion (however misinformed), and i'm curious why/ how you seemed to support one recently:

...i'm sincerely interested in hearing why you think residents of downtown los angeles (whether long-term or neophytes) are "suburbanites."

Last edited by Vangelist; Dec 25, 2007 at 9:50 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:06 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.