City Architecture

[RockHarbor]

250 Douglas used to be a Holiday Inn when it was new. It’s a very 60’s almost “space age” looking building, like someone from NASA helped design it. Definitely a unique building and part of Wichita’s urban signature. It was an impressive building back then out on the dusty windy plains. Downtown Wichita is well represented of buildings from the 1950’s and 60’s as the city was booming back then.

The Marriott on the eastside of Wichita is not bad and I think looks a little better than ours in Regency. I believe it’s a few years newer than the Marriott in Regency. I always wished they would of made the Regency Marriott taller maybe 9 or 10 floors. It would of had a better impact from I-680 with more height and would help create our mini edge city skyline. Its 300 rooms, but because of clever proportioning it doesn’t look that big. I mean c’mon 6 floors for a 300 room hotel ??, another highrise opportunity for Omaha lost forever. But Omaha got it right with the new Marriott Capitol district as I think that one looks very sharp, live and learn I guess. And it’s not that the Regency Marriott is bad, I’ve been in it, it’s maybe west Omaha’s best full service hotel. It just would be nice to add some height when the opportunity is available to do so. And a 300 room hotel can definitely be taller than 6 floors. If I remember the old New Tower hotel at 78th and Dodge was also 300 rooms and just 2 or 3 floors, it was torn down I believe in the 90’s.

Wichita is stuck somewhere between Omaha and Lincoln. If I ever get down that way I will try and get off the highway and look around a little. It really is an outpost on the prairie. Hopefully the Tornadoes will leave it alone.

I do agree that 250 Douglas is a fine, nice-looking example of that style of architecture. Yes, it is a bit "Jetson-esque" or maybe a bit "Googie" in a way (you said "space age" -- same basic thing). I'm not normally fond of that "knob on the top" style of architecture (most times, that is), but somehow, that building is really likable to me. Springfield, IL has a unique, tubular "knob at the top" building -- that I'm not really fond of. Its not absolutely awful, though. Yet, I wouldn't want it on the Omaha skyline.

https://l7.alamy.com/zooms/af2ae4e1bcf2 ... c6ejd6.jpg

Ironically, Springfield, MO also has a top-heavy building, that I somehow forgot about -- until now. It is kind of like the Wichita building, but all black. Although I like the black color and smokey dark glass, I like the brighter & cheerier and better balanced & proportional Wichita building better still. However, I like Springfield, MO's building better than Springfield, IL's tubular one that trumpets outward.

https://www.paydaysmadeeasy.com/wp-cont ... 24x347.jpg
https://s3.amazonaws.com/up-bucket-0/mo ... ff8e49.jpg

With that surface parking lot surrounding it, I'm wondering: Maybe it used to be a former hotel, like Wichita's building? (Yes, I had read that 250 Douglas used to be a Holiday Inn, as you had pointed out.) That surface parking lot around Springfield's tallest creates an odd feeling downtown. It makes more sense with a hotel, than an office building, imo. (In fact, Downtown Springfield, MO almost feels more like a "suburban office park" of high rises setting right off an old brick, low-rise downtown, more than a typical mix of new & old structures intermingling downtown.) I wonder if Wichita's or Springfield's building came first? Surely, one of them inspired the other -- as those cities aren't that far apart from each other. Or, maybe they were both built large Holiday Inn's back then?

Update: It's the Hammons Tower, according to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ,_Missouri (And, it doesn't say anything about being a former hotel, btw.)

More pictures of Springfield:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/up-bucket-0/mo ... fd43b6.jpg
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2012-0 ... 1FA529.jpg

I do feel like out of Wichita, Springfield, MO, and Springfield, IL, that Wichita is the most attractive metro area to me. Why? I'm not sure... Close family of mine went to college and used to live in Springfield, MO. It was a cute & nice smaller metro area, in which they had a new starter home in. It was all fairly close to fun & neon & showbizy Branson & places like Table Rock Lake, MO and Beaver Lake, AR. And, talk about nasty tornadic storms: They seem to funnel right through, carried eastward on a common worn weather track, through that Springfield/Joplin area all the time. So, Wichita isn't the only metro to get pummeled by severe tornadic weather. To me, Wichita is the most attractive, maybe because it is more open & sprawling, the largest city in the state, the riverside downtown seems/feels normal, and the city is on a linear line-up with Oklahoma City and Dallas. And, although I personally love the Ozarks for a lazy getaway, and I think they are very pretty, and I love Branson, I don't necessarily want to live around that folky & offbeat & backwoods "hillbilly" type region.

Another metro to check out in that region, and is very easy to overlook, btw, is the Bentonville, AR metro. (Home of Walmart's headquarters.) It is a string of growing cities linked by an interstate. I was taken back a bit driving through. It is really growing. Lots of new housing, strip centers, shopping...

I like our suburban Regency Marriott, and went to a wonderful & unforgettable company Christmas party there one year, but I do wish it were taller. One time, a local couple spent their honeymoon there, and I was able to go into one of the rooms, and spend time out at the pool. It was almost strange to me being at a pool, with, I think, umbrellas around it, with Westroads right there in view. It almost depressed me -- because the whole Regency/Westroads landscape is like looking at a "very old shirt in my closet" to me. I couldn't relate to how an out-of-towner or tourist feels there. I don't like staying at hotels in my own hometown -- unless it is Coco Key, or something like that, maybe.

By the way, Des Moines has a pretty tall Hilton (or Sheraton, or whatever) in their western burb of West Des Moines or Urbandale. It is a fairly tall hotel built around the time of the Regency Marriott. I stayed there once, and it was nice & enjoyable. (I tell you: If Omaha gets something, just watch, Des Moines gets it too -- almost every time. Or, vice-versa maybe. Sometimes, I almost feel like Des Moines waits for Omaha to make a move, then sees Omaha's possible shortfall or mistake, and purposefully makes their "chessboard move" better and more winning -- like making their suburban hotel taller. Am I wrong on that? It seems that way to me... For a change, I want Omaha to wait for Des Moines' move, then Omaha makes the winning move second. lol) Here it is: http://i1.bookcdn.com/data/Photos/Large ... erior.JPEG

I like the Downtown Hyatt Hotel in Wichita a lot. I wish Omaha could have that kind of classy, handsome, stucco hotel close & snug to our river, with the broad face of the hotel perpendicular to the river's flow, but the Missouri is too swift & powerful, I think. Course, the casinos and the Gallup headquarters are are kinda close, though. (????) Also, St Louis has that hotel & casino near the Mississippi, a mightier river. So, maybe Omaha could pull that off? I'm not sure...

http://www.cfmedia.vfmleonardo.com/imag ... or_1_P.jpg

I'll tell you what: We could never put that low cement sidewalk area immediately next to the Missouri River -- like that. I know that much. The Missouri IS too powerful for that exact set-up & design. I have to be correct on that...

I just love that Hyatt Hotel & peaceful river combo. Great urban move in Wichita, imo. (When a move is right, it just adds beauty & delight to the city. There's no painful psychological "thorn" when looking at it -- whatsoever. That's what I feel about Wichita's Hyatt on the river.)

P.S. Earlier, I mentioned I would "write more later." I sure did. That's an understatement. I wrote a book...

[Cermak]

The West Des Moines Sheraton is exactly what I’m talking about, it’s more or less the same size as our Marriott in Regency, both about 300 rooms. But Des Moines made sure it was taller. It’s almost like Omaha’s always trying to save a buck or the people will never notice. So let’s just build it 6 floors, they will never know the difference between 6 or 10 floors. I do think the Marriott brand is better than a Sheraton. So I’m glad that ours is a Marriott. But the thinking behind we must build it 6 floors baffles me. Again, it’s a nice hotel and I would rather stay at a Marriott than a Sheraton anytime.

I had a chance to go to Bentonville AR about five years ago. I was impressed with the area. It really is a bunch of medium sized towns sorta strung together. So if you want a urban feel you might be disappointed. The area is naturally attractive with lots of trees and hills. It’s about a six hour Drive from Omaha. I believe it’s the fastest growing part of Arkansas.

Springfield Missouri’s tallest is a sharp building, I’ve always liked darker black or dark brown glass buildings. That’s one of the things I like about our 1970’s First National building. It’s our only dark building downtown. Chicago I think has more dark buildings than any city I can think of. I don’t know if Minneapolis has any, they love the blue glass. Most dark buildings are of the international style. Minneapolis doesn’t have many international style buildings so that could explain why they don’t really have any dark buildings, except this one I found on google earth.

It also looks to be built on a parking garage. It’s not real tall, so it probably doesn’t show up much in Minneapolis. While if it was in Omaha it would draw more attention. I have noticed this building driving around DT Minneapolis. It’s a rather dull and boring building for them. It looks to be about 18 floors and maybe 250 ft tall. But still an acceptable design and would look really good in many midsize Midwest cities I think, like Wichita or Cedar Rapids Iowa to name a few. Even Minneapolis’s duller buildings would look really good in most other midsized Midwest metro’s it seems. I would take this building in a second for Omaha.

I found out on emporis this is the TCF tower 17 floors 210 Ft built 1981. About the height of our twin towers.

[RockHarbor]

Good observation about Minneapolis. Yes, they hardly have any black glass, but yes, they do have that simple black box, which I like accented by the adjacent stone Foshay Tower obelisk shape. They have a new condo tower on the backside of downtown that has pulled in some black color. And, the new Wells Fargo twins may have black glass. Or it is dark blue? I need to look... Minneapolis' new stadium is also black, along with the black cap at the apex of the IDS Tower. So, black is around, just not a lot of black glass around.

I like black glass a lot, too, and Im also glad Omaha has the 1972 FNB and the Omaha Tower on 72nd -- which was erected around the time of Chicago's black Sears Tower. I like Des Moines' black box Ruan Center, and Chicago's & New York's many black boxes, and LA's twin black rectangular towers -- which are designed by S.O.M., and are a lot like Denver's white Republic Plaza, designed by S.O.M.

Let's not forget LA's Aon Center, too. What a tall & skinny, black, rectangular building that has become a defining signature of LA. It's likeable, yet kinda oddly proportional to me. It is International Style, yet an atypical example. That is so alarming that was ever built in a major earthquake zone. Its the WORST shape they could ever have chosen for a Los Angeles skyscraper, because rectangular blocks topple & swing over easy in tremors, because of physics. In the movie "San Andreas", the black twin blocks swing over in the quake's rocking and topple over, and so does the tall & skinny AON Center.

L.A.'s AON CENTER: http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6043/6239 ... b684_b.jpg
The startling LA earthquake scene in "San Andreas": https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=sa ... &FORM=VIRE

Notice LA has a lot of rounded tubes & rounded corners, and buildings w/ set backs, and trapezoidal-shaped buildings now? Those smarter designs are harder to topple. San Francisco has the TransAmerica Pyramid tower -- again, hard to topple. San Diego's tallest is pyramidal sorta -- hard to topple. Portland's tallest fans out in all 4 directions at the base -- hard to topple. Portland's 2nd tallest is diamond-shaped -- hard to topple. Seattle's tallest is 3 interlocking rings -- hard to topple. ALL designs good for earthquake country... If you put a wood rectangular block, and then all those other skyscraper shapes mentioned on a tabletop, and then shake it, you will see how physics topple the basic rectangular block the easiest. Funny how you can take a basic rectangular block and simply snip one narrow side diagonally off, creating a trapezoidal shape, then the building is harder to topple in an earthquake. That diagonaling corner gives support in a way, not allowing a swaying momentum to grab a hold of the building as easy. Its the mass/height ratio in a pure rectangular block, from base to crown, that swings it down easier in shaking, because swaying momentum is naturally allowed to max-out in that shape.

Columbia Center, Seattle: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... _tower.jpg

Another alarming skyscraper in an earthquake zone is Seattle's Rainier Tower. It is a square-shaped, International Style tower built on a golf tee-like base. Why on earth was that ever approved in a seismic zone on the West Coast?? Really?! Could that not topple over super easy? Or, does that curvy cement base actually somehow help out in earthquakes -- in a way I dont understand? Whatever the case, I would not like working daily in the Aon Center in Los Angeles or in the Rainier Tower in Seattle.

Rainer Tower: https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8281/7838 ... 27da_z.jpg

I guess my point in all this is: Pure International Style buildings (especially taller ones), which are boxy and rectangular, aren't the best choice for seismic zones. Yet, the West Coast cities did get plenty of examples in the 60s & 70s.

Yes, a lot of International Style utilizes black, it seems. A lot of cities have a common & simple "black box", but probably less cities than we think. For example, Denver doesnt have one. I dont think KC has one. Oklahoma City does, but Tulsa doesnt. ECT.

[Cermak]

I forgot about the Omaha Tower perhaps our best example of the common black box. And still our tallest building west of 72nd st at least in floors, TD Ameritrade could be taller in overall height. Right Kansas City and Minneapolis really don’t have the classic international style black box building. While Chicago and New York probably have the most of any city. Louisville has a really nice one in the PNC bank building. Milwaukee doesn’t have any except the boxy Chase bank building is international style but is more of a dark blue or green. Milwaukee’s skyline was pretty weak for its size until they added a few skyscrapers back in the 80’s. Northwestern mutual also just recently finished a skyscraper near the lakefront. And their tallest the white US Bank building is a great looking building.

The new twin Wells Fargo buildings in Minneapolis look to be maybe a dark blue, hard to tell without seeing them in person. I can see why those buildings were critically panned. As they almost look like they should of been built out in Bloomington, Edina or even Omaha. I wouldn’t be surprised if locals refer to them as our “Omaha buildings” Lol just kidding. I personally think they might look better in Omaha than Minneapolis as they are not real tall. They would look great in DT Omaha. Don’t know how they ever passed the strict Minneapolis design and planning committee. They are actually really nice buildings, but a little conservative looking for DT Minneapolis, which always seems to be looking for that next exciting look in architecture.

Kansas City and Minneapolis just seemed to have missed the whole black box period, And I don’t think they care. Omaha nearly missed the whole fantastic 1985-95 architecture period except for 1200 Landmark. Cities do have a little softer more delicate look if they are without the black boxes. I always thought all the blue glass in the Minneapolis skyline helps give it a warmer look with the sun often reflecting off the buildings. Kansas City does have the old commerce tower which comes close, but not a true black box.

[RockHarbor]

Yes, that Commerce Tower in KC is close, but not a true, true example. (A lot of designs are spun-off original, purest forms of architecture -- and that is an example of that type of thing, imo.)

I'm glad our conversation steered into the "black box" discussion, as I think I was almost fooled in my mind that they were more commonly around than they really are. Your comment about them mostly being in New York and Chicago kinda of jolted me to a reality that I didn't stop and fully think about until now. White and black box skyscrapers seem so "run of the mill", but you're right, many cities "missed the boat" on actually getting one.

First off, I want to say that Omaha's 1972 FNB is not a true "black box" to me, necessarily. (The white strips and black glass designs are "up that alley", but they aren't the purest form, imo.) Des Moines' Ruan Center is a true "black box" to me.

A list the cities (off the top of my head) that have a pure "black box" in their USA downtown:

New York City, Chicago, Louisville (as you mentioned), Des Moines, Los Angeles, Seattle, Rochester, NY, El Paso, TX, Oklahoma City, Minneapolis (The small one, as you pointed out), Cleveland

Is that ALL? There has to be some I'm missing. Funny how burly, steel Detroit doesn't even have one.

CITIES that have major, tall "black boxes" in less pure forms (like the ones divided up with the white vertical stripes):

Omaha, Llincoln, Dallas, Amarillo, Fort Wayne, Indianapolis (the original Indiana National Bank facade), Miami, Tampa, Orlando, Columbia, SC, Portland, Charleston, WV

Again, I ask: That's ALL there is? Can you think of any cities I'm missing?

• The Seagram Building in NYC is one of the most prime, most noteworthy examples of International Style architecture, as I'm sure you know: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2013/04 ... le=upscale

• Chicago's bright red "Flamingo" sculpture (by Alexander Calder, who has sculptures all over) contrasts well against a set of black, boxy International Style towers surrounding it. I always thought that was a smart urban move, and smart urban contrast: https://previews.123rf.com/images/f11ph ... n-1973.jpg

• Des Moines' Ruan Center gives a sharp & serious & pleasing element/accent to their skyline, I think: https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/1e5cdc ... 0&fit=crop

Because of the Woodmen Tower & Ruan Center, I've always went back & forth on which color -- white or black -- I prefer in International Style design. I can't pick one -- I like both equally. I've always liked how Omaha has the white boxy tower, Des Moines has the black -- and each city has a shorter box of the opposite color. They are like true "sister cities" that both compete, and give each other a "run for their money" -- keeping each other "on their toes." I think I'll always be a little obsessed with the "Omaha/Des Moines thing." I also think Des Moines intrigues me because it has more that spirit that Chicago & Minneapolis have: A city obviously that prides itself on art, architecture & design. You can see its level of importance there, and notice their constant & careful thoughtfulness put into their core, with how tight & urban & crisp & organized their downtown looks. Omaha has some of that same element, imo, but I think some of its interest & attention has been divided on other things, imo -- and that's OK.

• A picture really showing Des Moines' tightening, compact urban core w/ the proposed new residential tower: https://media.gannett-cdn.com/355461250 ... quality=10

• Umm, Omaha better have a version of this, if Des Moines does: https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4034/3576 ... 4343_b.jpg (Have you seen these Lego versions of city skylines? I've seen some in Barnes & Noble.)

• A great, unique, refreshingly different picture of Des Moines: https://images.trvl-media.com/hotels/10 ... 02b5_z.jpg (That would be great as a big canvas print on a wall in a Des Moines loft downtown. An Omaha photographer could probably get a similar photo of Omaha, using the edge of the FNC off to the side, with the Woodmen Tower in view.)

Speaking of Omaha: I've been thinking about our Central Park Plaza Towers more today, and thinking how their design makes me feel, and they almost give the impression of like a flapping, opening book -- in a way. Ironically, they stand right behind the downtown library. I ALWAYS felt their design gave out some impression that matched something, but I never really "connected the dots" until today. (I wonder if the Daly firm got the idea from the nearby library? Architects are known to get ideas from basic everyday things, and then create subliminal impressions -- just like that. However, I doubt the library influenced that design. Who knows...)

The impression of the city one gets from the park is powerful in a way -- and I just can't believe we are completely tinkering with it. Do we fully realize what we have? From other angles of Downtown Omaha, the skyline doesn't give out the impression that the collection of buildings will all come together to form that kind of striking & surprising, pleasing "postcard perfect" picture of the city -- until you position yourself in the middle of it all, by standing in the park. Other Midwestern/Plains cities that have a bigger skyline than Omaha, like Tulsa, do not possess that unique element. https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/omaha- ... nnel-metro

THE MINNEAPOLIS WELLS FARGO TWINS: They seem almost right on the line between "urban" & "suburban" (to me) -- yet maybe more on the "urban" side. For sure, I can see why there has been some complaints from local architects that they are too "suburban", but I don't feel they are entirely 100% "suburban." I'm kinda surprised by them a tiny bit, yet still, I still like them well enough. In my view, they look "Minneapolis" to me, because they are carrying the tradition forward of current day Minneapolis design that has come before it. I'm talking that now very signature look of a tiered, stair-stepping apex seen in many of Minneapolis' buildings -- designs that have followed since the Wells Fargo Tower. See these links:

Wells Fargo Tower: https://www.emporis.com/images/show/462 ... -south.jpg
Carlyle Condo Tower: https://www.minnpost.com/sites/default/ ... ing640.jpg
Duan Rauscher Plaza: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... olis_1.jpg
The Wells Fargo twins: https://finance-commerce.com/files/2016 ... argo6x.jpg

They have many solid & strong lines characteristic of urban buildings. They don't entirely give the impression of nice-looking, eye-catching, yet lacking-in-real-meaning "freeway architecture" design to me -- like many suburban buildings often do, as you pass by them. I think they are going to probably look better as more high-rises fill in around them more. Were they a mistake? I don't think a true "mistake" -- but I think they could have chosen something more thoughtful & perfect. Ironically, they've introduced architectural twins standing before a big green park in their city, while Omaha's signature twins-plus-park configuration is being done away with. I don't get it.

• They are sharp, imo: https://media.bizj.us/view/img/10091996 ... -0-288.jpg

• An aerial: https://media.bizj.us/view/img/9604322/ ... 7-13-0.jpg The roofline design impressions are kinda of a "castle parapet" look, which sort of make me think of the medieval age that the seafaring Vikings existed in (hence the connection to the team's name that plays in the new adjacent stadium). I'm sure that wasn't purposeful, as Vikings aren't knights -- figures truly associated with medieval castles. Still, the medieval impressions plus the nearby "Vikings" name is kinda cool to me. (It all makes me almost think of the Prince Valiant comic strip: https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/ ... aliant.jpg Or the "Hagar the Horrible" comic character: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A4ga ... 061225.png )

The main thing I don't care for with Minny's new twins is: I don't like twin, mirror-image towers each standing on their own city block -- strongly divided, like that. That is not something I've seen before, and it doesn't feel 100% right to me. Twin tower complexes almost ALWAYS -- if not always -- are defined by city streets criss-crossing around the complex -- not straight through it like that, carrying traffic between the twin buildings. I almost think I would like it all better, and be more totally excited & impressed by their urban move, if there was a major middle section connecting the buildings together as one big, hefty solid mass, with a rectangular-shaped "tunnel" for the street & traffic to uniquely go through. I need to think about that more... That connected design, I've just suggested, probably wouldn't have been criticized as "suburban" at all, I'm guessing.

BTW, side note: Check out the new (probably condo) glassy towers changing & updating the Charlotte, NC. I love those rich green/black tones of glass: http://chrisaustin.net/wp-content/uploa ... 24x540.jpg

The breathtaking Grand Mama of white International Style boxes: Chicago's AON CENTER. https://www.chicagometroarearealestate. ... -60601.jpg (Ready to talk about white boxes now?! )

[Cermak]

Sorry about taking so long to respond. I’ve been looking at all the snow and skyscraper talk kinda took a back seat for a while. As Omaha struggles to clean up even three days after the storm. Many of the side streets are still a mess especially in the eastern part of the city.

Right, Omaha’s 1971 FNB building is not a true black box, but is still close and gives the effect of a dark building. I saw it yesterday from just south of downtown on Martha street bridge crossing the railroad tracks. And it sits nicely tucked between the Woodmen and the newer FNC. Giving Omaha the look of a tight highrise core from that angle.

I think Omaha’s Woodmen and the Ruan Center in Des Moines is a wash and comes down to personal preference. I do find it interesting that the Woodmen has fewer floors but is the taller of the two buildings. I’m guessing the large five story base the Woodmen is built on has taller ceiling heights. The Ruan Center is not built on a base like that. The Woodmen is also a few years older than the Ruan. So we had Nebraska and Iowa’s first true skyscraper. Chicago’s AON center might be the king of the white buildings. It’s my least favorite of Chicago’s huge skyscrapers. It’s sorta a boring building to me but sits in a great location overlooking the large park to the south which is Chicago’s front yard.

I’m not as familiar with white buildings as much as the dark ones. We have the Woodmen and Des Moines has their 25 story financial center. Lincoln’s tallest office building is also white the US bank building. Minneapolis again because of its lack of international style buildings really doesn’t have many white buildings, but does have some that would qualify specifically the old Mary Tyler Moore building, I believe it’s called Midwest plaza.

I just prefer the dark buildings over the white. The best thing I like about the Woodmen is how skinny it looks from the east and west. Skinny tall buildings look great. LA’s AON center is skinny looking from all directions. Omaha’s new HDR building is also a nice white building. I’m really happy with the way that building turned out and I think its possibly the best looking building in Omaha.


Former Midwest Plaza (1969) in Minneapolis now called RSM plaza. Very much lost in the canyons of taller buildings in DT Minneapolis. This building used to show up well from the south when it was was new, it used to have a green neon tree sign on the top which was very distinctive. But I believe that is now gone. Similar in height to Omaha’s 1971 FNB building.

[RockHarbor]

Dont ever apologize; I know you're a busy guy, and so am I. I also cant respond to our "extensive conversation" everyday either. In fact, when I write a big, hefty entry, its simply because I like talking about this stuff, plus I know it may take you days to absorb it all, then eventually write back. Great discussion.

Funny, I was going to maybe point out that Minneapolis Midwest Plaza to you, with the boxy building discussion, and Minneapolis being in the mix (although I didn't know what it was called until now...). It stands in front of the IDS Tower when you are on the south side of downtown, and I almost have felt that Philip Johnson used those same delicate vertical lines on those buildings for the IDS Tower -- so maybe he got the idea from them. (Architects often analyze the site, and absorb views of the city, while thinking up a new skyscraper design they have been commissioned for.) Those delicate lines were a great choice for the IDS Tower, imo. In fact, my MPLS-ST PAUL architectural guide's critic said the IDS TOWER was as "graceful as a ballerina." Although I get what he means, I still think that is a semi-weird analogy.

I can understand why you love black boxes more than white boxes, but I just can't choose. I equally love 'em both. They are both such basic colors -- great for a boxy & basic skyscraper.

Chicago's AON Center is the KING (as you said) of white International Style boxes -- for sure. I love the view from the Sears/Willis Tower when you look towards the lake, and the square, dove-white, towering, boxy skyscraper stands against the blue lake, with other architectural creations rising around it. Chicago just has that "Showcase of Architecture" feeling to me (more than NYC), with all the skyscrapers gathered 'round at the lake's shore. http://d1peybhdzdlrt4.cloudfront.net/as ... 5/aon1.jpg (That building in the lower left hand corner always reminds me of Chicago's version of Omaha's FNC. That was built after Omaha's FNC skyscraper, I'm sure, and I almost get a "compliment to Omaha' every time I see it. I always feel Chicago makes sure to snag a like-example -- not a direct, obvious copy, of course -- of any good design out there. But, maybe that is just my imagination about it, though.)

I do like HDR's new sharp & innovative Omaha building. I think of it more as "flashy" then "white." But, it doesn't have white accents and maybe a white-ish sheen to it, so I see what you mean. http://omahamagazine.com/wp-content/upl ... 60x640.jpg Here's a reminder of what could have been: https://www.3newsnow.com/news/local-new ... adquarters (However, I'm happy they built in Aksarben Village.)

Here' a good picture of Omaha, with the black 1972 FNB peeking out. I do agree it is a "black box" overall -- of course. It's interesting how Omaha has very distinct colors of a white, black, red, green, and a blue building. Although I've had some fuss over it, I do agree the Landmark Center is likable with pretty blue glass & some sharp & pointy pizzazz to the roofline. Yet, I just think in Omaha, you're fooled to think it is great architecture -- because the bar is lower there (as of yet). When you examine the "catalog" of modern architecture out there, you start to sense it is nothing that special at all. In fact, it seems a little "elementary design" to me in some ways. That's what I'm getting at -- I guess. (It's almost like: What would I say to a tourist visiting from New York City? "Look!! Look at our glass box with quad-triangles at the top! Isn't it creative & pretty?" And, the New Yorker would think: "Creative?? Compared to what? Not the architecture in my town.")
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view ... ajaxhist=0

What do you think of Des Moine's Wellmark BCBS building? https://www.hok.com/uploads/2013/03/14/wellmark08.jpg Beautiful design, imo, with that sweep of glass & tightly-spaced lines defining that rounded nook carved out in the boxy building, which also has angling long walls that fit the angling street. It was designed by HOK. Des Moines seems into "Starchitecture", like Minneapolis. I also like their Kum & Go building, lined with those white birches. Great sharp, modern design. Minneapolis uses stylish skinny, ornamental trees, like those birches, I notice around their modern Cesar Pelli-designed library. I wish Omaha would do more stuff like that. https://cdn.archpaper.com/wp-content/up ... 12_156.jpg I also like their extensive, low-rise Nationwide Insurance complex. It has such great, conservative, sharp lines with a retro touch. https://www.waldinger.com/filesimages/P ... onwide.PNG The adjacent Allied Insurance building compliments it perfectly, while having its own glassy, squarish, conservative, basic, clean look. Sharp, sharp, sharp! I enjoy the shorter, stylish buildings in Des Moines just as much as the taller buildings. https://urbandsm.com/images//projects/d ... ase3_2.jpg

Those types of designs for those insurance companies work well in cities in the middle of the country, because they have clean, sharp, basic lines that look conservative & level-headed to me -- which match the aire of Midwest cities. I don't see a lot of those type modest designs ever in San Francisco, ect, because those zany California cities can sport more quirky, eccentric designs.

What do you think of the large Sprint Campus in Overland Park, KS? https://media.bizj.us/view/img/10390604 ... -0-257.jpg I really like it. It almost reminds me of an Old World European-style theme & village of class & prestige, with a modern American suburban twist to it. I think it was designed just with those elements in mind. It's a little eerie to me -- maybe. But, I still overall like it well enough. https://media.bizj.us/view/img/10973659 ... -0-213.png

[Cermak]

Midwest plaza in Minneapolis is where Mary Richards worked on the Mary Tyler Moore show back in the 70’s. That show really helped get alot of exposure and publicity for the Twin cities, which was considered somewhat of an off the radar metro back then. Prince also would bring a tremendous amount of buzz and attention to the Twin cities area in the 90’s. Without Warren Buffett Omaha would be a lot less well known outside the Midwest. The new lowrise buildings in Des Moines are nice, but we shouldn’t be surprised because they always put a lot of thought into their architecture. But none of the new Des Moines buildings am I crazy about. They help fill up the western portion of the downtown. The Wellmark building is probably my favorite but even that I would of liked to of seen a little taller maybe 8 or 10 floors. But they probably didn’t need anymore space than the five floors.

The Sprint campus in Overland Park fits in well, Overland Park has always seemed a little preppy. And to me the campus has a northeast or Washington DC area feel about it. Just the sheer size of it is impressive. I understand they have started leasing space out to other companies due to Sprint layoffs in recent years. If I ever have the time I would like to visit it and just get out of the car and walk around a little and see it up close. I wonder how easy it would be to do that, it could be locked down like a fortress. Johnson county always feels up to date, clean and safe. I seldom go to other parts of Kansas City when I visit except the plaza/downtown and maybe the Legends area. It seems like the rest of the metro isn’t anything that I couldn’t see in Omaha. That may not be the case just my perception.

I think Omaha right now has hit a crossroads, I realized today how much stuff they have on the table. Lanoha, ConAgra redevelopment , Mutual of Omaha new possible headquarters building and several others. If even half of these can happen that will be amazing time for Omaha.

[RockHarbor]

Midwest plaza in Minneapolis is where Mary Richards worked on the Mary Tyler Moore show back in the 70’s. That show really helped get alot of exposure and publicity for the Twin cities, which was considered somewhat of an off the radar metro back then. Prince also would bring a tremendous amount of buzz and attention to the Twin cities area in the 90’s. Without Warren Buffett Omaha would be a lot less well known outside the Midwest. The new lowrise buildings in Des Moines are nice, but we shouldn’t be surprised because they always put a lot of thought into their architecture. But none of the new Des Moines buildings am I crazy about. They help fill up the western portion of the downtown. The Wellmark building is probably my favorite but even that I would of liked to of seen a little taller maybe 8 or 10 floors. But they probably didn’t need anymore space than the five floors.

The Sprint campus in Overland Park fits in well, Overland Park has always seemed a little preppy. And to me the campus has a northeast or Washington DC area feel about it. Just the sheer size of it is impressive. I understand they have started leasing space out to other companies due to Sprint layoffs in recent years. If I ever have the time I would like to visit it and just get out of the car and walk around a little and see it up close. I wonder how easy it would be to do that, it could be locked down like a fortress. Johnson county always feels up to date, clean and safe. I seldom go to other parts of Kansas City when I visit except the plaza/downtown and maybe the Legends area. It seems like the rest of the metro isn’t anything that I couldn’t see in Omaha. That may not be the case just my perception.

I think Omaha right now has hit a crossroads, I realized today how much stuff they have on the table. Lanoha, ConAgra redevelopment , Mutual of Omaha new possible headquarters building and several others. If even half of these can happen that will be amazing time for Omaha.

I didnt realize Mary Tyler Moore worked in those specific buildings. Im not sure Ive even seen one episode of that show -- but I know it helped put Minneapolis on the map, along with Prince & Janet Jackson. Minneapolis actually has a really cool music house (that I forget the name of) that is black, covered with white stars, for all the bands that have played there. It is really cool, and gives a great, unique urban splash. Also, there is an old building w/ bars & music notes painted on one side ( a "Music Wall"), and I think it creates a neat, unique, exciting urban picture w/ the IDS Tower nearby. I need to post that here, or find it online.

Yes, that Sprint campus is "preppy" in a way, maybe because it kind of resembles some old brick Euro college campus, like Oxford. My former step "daddy-o" actually worked there, when my family lived in KC for almost 10 years... I never tried to walk around it, but I was around it plenty of times, and looked over at it often. There's a big movie theater & shopping nearby it -- that's why.

In a way, I'm proud of Des Moines for getting away from the "We need to try & impress with tall buildings" mindset & motive (although that proposed residential tower brings height again) -- attitudes like Portland, Boise, San Jose and Salt Lake City have. Because those new medium-height buildings line & frame a long grassy art park, I think they pull it off well. There's something almost "Euro" about it, when I see a line of long, medium-height urban buildings, that are all roughly the same roof height off the street, all lining a long grassy park, with some taller towers beyond it. It looks almost "London" to me in a vague way. Plus, I think they have some Old World style street lamps lining that park. I do feel like Des Moines may, in fact, look to Europe for urban inspiration & design, because some of their medium-height buildings remind me of trendy, top, high-tech European design. I could post some pics later to show you what I mean... Maybe they just dont look up to American Minneapolis, like we commonly think, but also Europe.

That major glass, shimmering, sweeping curve carved within Des Moines' Wellmark building is unique & bold & unexpected & sharp, imo. I had not seen anything like that since Des Moines' building, until I just noticed a new, similar design in Boston.

[RockHarbor]

Here are some pics of Des Moines that sort of show what I mean about high-tech Euro-type design.

This first pic of the high-tech, ultra-white, L-shaped office complex instantly reminds me of modern Euro design. Also notice the checkerboard paver/cement design, which reminds of European courtyards.





Notice the modern streetlights that have an Old World flair. Sharp. Those kinds of fanciful street lights (& even w/ hanging flower baskets) always look great. Victoria, Canada shows how beautiful street lights & baskets can really add to a city.







Here's a pic of a Washington DC streetscape that gives that same urban feel/look Des Moines has developed along that park. (DC feels influenced a bit by European urban streetscapes somewhat. Don't you think?) Des Moines is able to get by with type of design because of the broad flatness in that park area. I think this is exactly what urba look/feel Des Moines may be going for. I have to say, I think DC has a gorgeous cityscape, very heavy & monumental in nature. I marvel at it when there. Looking down every street is a treat. And, none of it is about being tall.



I think Des Moines mostly looks American & Midwestern, of course, but I do feel they look to Europe for some design & urban inspiration. Why not? Kansas City did w/ The Plaza back in the 1920's, and it feels very Euro sophisticated, urban-wise, in that Plaza area. There's another building in Des Moines that looks "modern Euro" to me also, that I didnt include, to build my point.

On the subject: Kansas City is a great, unique blend of historic & modern American & Old World European architecture. Love the view of the striking city skyline from the upward-sloping hill in the Crown Center area. Impressed w/ Kansas City.



I have many average-shot views of Omaha from the air. Love seeing sprawly & organized West Omaha from the air in summer. It just looks so tidy, ordered, and progressive. I almost imagine businessmen flying in, looking out the window, thinking: "My goodness, its a growing city..." lol. (I'm sure they are more reading the WSJ and thinking about how they have to call their wife after they land...) This is the West Maple Road corridor. (Funny, when you go to Boston or Philly or NYC, there is hardly any significant area of new suburban housing anywhere. That's weird to me from growing up in Omaha. I think, I ask: How do homebuilder companies make it here? Only Upper East Coast cities are mainly that way.) I love cities/suburbs from the air.

[Cermak]

Omaha does look good from the air, it has pretty good sprawl to the west and south into Sarpy county. That part of downtown Des Moines is really flat, DT Des Moines in general is not as hilly as Omaha. Downtown Omaha and Kansas city are pretty hilly. I think that first picture of Des Moines is the Meridith building home of Better Homes and Gardens magazine. I am surprised that company didn’t move to NYC years ago as it makes more sense to be in the Nations media capital. But they have remained loyal to Des Moines. Even as the media industry struggles to compete against the internet. The Internet has all but killed off newspapers and magazines . As people would rather look at their phones.

Des Moines does have good street lighting at those newer lowrise buildings. That can make a difference. Just little things like that matter. Your Kansas City picture shows the great variety of architecture that KC has. Very few cities that size can pull off that type of architecture mix while having a metro population of less than 2.5 million. One thing I notice when I’m in DT KC is that it’s noticeably denser than Omaha. Everything is pushed together more and they have narrow streets. To me the densest part of Omaha could be in the Saddle Creek and Dodge area. The Blackstone area also feels dense, that’s one of the things I like about it. Downtown Omaha has never felt real dense to me. Although they seem to be improving that with projects like the Capitol district, which really helps DT.

If you go on YouTube you can find the opening credits for the Mary Tyler Moore show and it briefly shows the Midwest plaza building and the interior of the IDS building. Priceless free advertising for Minneapolis. As it’s portrayed as a fairly sophisticated upper Midwest metro. I always thought it was interesting that they picked Minneapolis for that show. It was a bit of a risk as Chicago would of probably been the more obvious choice. Especially back then Minneapolis did not have real good name recognition outside the Midwest. But I think they wanted a more off the beaten path atmosphere for the story line. The TV show was a hit and Minneapolis enjoys its rewards even today with reruns and the internet.

[RockHarbor]

I didnt realize Des Moines was the home of Better Homes & Gardens! How interesting.

Yes, I think Des Moines' flatness through most of their downtown enables them to pull-off those monumental, heavy, urban buildings that are multiple blocks long. Same with places like DC. You cannot pull that off necessarily well, or quite the same, on sloping, hilly land in a city's downtown. With Iowa not being a dusty & dry state at all, and rich, green farmland from corner to corner, Des Moines also justifies pulling-off a bit more fanciful & formal look than cities futher in the dustier & drier west do -- by maybe just a tad, imo. Its still very Midwestern, though.



Remember when I struggled with Oklahoma City being a "Midwestern city" (although one of their suburbs is "Midwest City, OK")? Well, this old postcard booklet I have on Okla City defines it as a "Southwestern City" -- like Dallas-Fort Worth. I just knew it was a bit different. Something about Okla City intrigues me. I say that about a lot of cities, though...



Yes, that "Mary Tyler Moore" show was great for the city of Minneapolis, like "WKRP" was good for Cincinatti. TV is powerful; I dont think Dallas would seem like it does w/ out that long-running evening soap. My favorite sitcom, "Family Ties", was set in Columbus, OH. I think I like Columbus, OH even more because of that show, that smart alec Alex Keaton ( and his family) always cracked me up, and they were so lovable, imo. Funny, I recently realized the skinny, tall dad made quite a career in the "Tremors" franchise. Never knew that until I watched them all...

Yes, Omaha is just a riot of new housing & subdivisions when you fly into the city, much like a "small Denver" -- especially flying in from the west. It is really branching out... I think it makes Omaha look so good to visitors. I think Ive even heard people comment they didnt realize Omaha was so big, looking out of the windows on the plane, flying in... (These pics were back in 2011, or whatever year the Missouri was flooding. It has sprawled more since these pics -- of course.) Most of the bigger Midwestern cities look lot this way from the air, except woodsy Minneapolis & Milwaukee, which has more disorganized pockets of new housing. Maple Grove, MN (NW of Mpls) kind of looks pretty sprawling, though, and so does an area forming SE of St Paul... Still, it is not a greatly accumulated "sea of new housing" like West Omaha is.

[url=https://postimg.cc/fVGdjzF6]

I tried to insert some more pics, and now there's this weird "URL address" kink/glitch that wont go away, no matter what I do... Oh well.

[Cermak]

WKRP was big for Cincinnati much like the Mary Tyler Moore show for Minneapolis. And Indianapolis had One day at a Time sitcom which was a hit back in the 70’s and 80’s. But the MTM show was seen as more ground breaking and important show than either of those . Omaha has never had a popular sitcom TV show, they did have a situation comedy that took place in Omaha back in the 80’s or 90’s it was only on the air briefly before being cancelled I can’t recall the Name. Mutual of Omaha’s iconic Wild Kingdom show was popular and brought a huge amount exposure to Omaha back in the 60’s. Mutual of Omaha to this day has better name recognition than a lot of insurance companies because of the success of that show. Alexander Paine has had many of his movies take place in Omaha, including About Schmidt which was somewhat of a hit. I always thought About Schmidt was not terribly flattering for Omaha. Omaha looked a little dull and gray in the movie. But it was still good exposure. And Dallas show was huge and probably did change the way people think of the City. I always thought it was interesting that they never really showed bad weather on the show, no big thunderstorms or Tornadoes or ice storms, it was always sunny and pleasant not to hot or cold. Just great weather all the time like it was in Southern California. I guess in TV they can do it that way. Fantastic advertising for Dallas. It’s what people think of when they think of Dallas even now, glassy skyscrapers, oil wells and nice sunny weather. And in reality it not always that way. Come to think of it Dallas did have a few shows when it looked hot and windy.

[RockHarbor]

WKRP was big for Cincinnati much like the Mary Tyler Moore show for Minneapolis. And Indianapolis had One day at a Time sitcom which was a hit back in the 70’s and 80’s. But the MTM show was seen as more ground breaking and important show than either of those . Omaha has never had a popular sitcom TV show, they did have a situation comedy that took place in Omaha back in the 80’s or 90’s it was only on the air briefly before being cancelled I can’t recall the Name. Mutual of Omaha’s iconic Wild Kingdom show was popular and brought a huge amount exposure to Omaha back in the 60’s. Mutual of Omaha to this day has better name recognition than a lot of insurance companies because of the success of that show. Alexander Paine has had many of his movies take place in Omaha, including About Schmidt which was somewhat of a hit. I always thought About Schmidt was not terribly flattering for Omaha. Omaha looked a little dull and gray in the movie. But it was still good exposure. And Dallas show was huge and probably did change the way people think of the City. I always thought it was interesting that they never really showed bad weather on the show, no big thunderstorms or Tornadoes or ice storms, it was always sunny and pleasant not to hot or cold. Just great weather all the time like it was in Southern California. I guess in TV they can do it that way. Fantastic advertising for Dallas. It’s what people think of when they think of Dallas even now, glassy skyscrapers, oil wells and nice sunny weather. And in reality it not always that way. Come to think of it Dallas did have a few shows when it looked hot and windy.

I never knew Indianapolis had a sitcom! One Day at a Time? Im so glad to know that now. That makes me look at the city differently. I never really thought about how the "Dallas" soap never showed thunderstorms & bad weather in that entire show's run, just the "storms" brewing in people's lives. Great observation. Yes, I cant recall one clap of thunder or flash of lightning out of that Ewing estate's windows once -- you're right. (Most of it was taped in LA,.actually, on interior sets. They would all go to Dallas once a year, or maybe twice, to get all their Dallas local exterior shots.) I wasnt allowed to watch that adult show most of my childhood, though, although I loved the opening credits & gallopy, upbeat theme. Even as a kid, I knew it was a big, progressive, glassy city that was booming.

I think that show sets one up to be more impressed with Dallas in your "mind's eye", than you actually are when you're there. TV can make things "larger than life." Dont get me wrong; It is really big & sprawling. But, when I first finally really saw it in 1994, I was sort of disappointed, although I liked it overall. Our family stayed downtown, accompanying "daddy" on a business trip. Certain family members didnt care for it, ultimately. Back then, Downtown Dallas was a bunch of skyscrapers with no streetlife after 5pm. The trees are shorter, and its flatter. It is mostly freeways, major sprawl w/ buildings, and not a lot of historic magnificence, charm & character. Downtown can look powerful & striking at some angles. Other angles it can look like a bunch of odd shapes jumbled together. Some angles, the skyscrapers can look tall, yet kinda weakish. I think it almost looks like an "instant propped-up fake city" because there's a lot of steel & glass, and not a lot of solid, stone historic anything. Outside of downtown's neon, glass & flash, the cityscape unravels into a shanty town-like, loosey-goosey cityscape in some directions. I could show you pictures... (I still like the gigantic Metroplex still, though. Fort Worth is also likable, and seems to have more "normal" urban qualities than Dallas to me -- although Dallas is way more striking.)

I always find it funny that big, booming cities, like Dallas & Houston & Phoenix, almost look strange used in cinema, and are kinda strange settings for regular funny family sitcoms. I almost think, and ask: "Sure, they're desirable & booming & have a lot of hype. But, how attractive are they, really?"

Yes, Mutual of Omaha's "Wild Kingdom" did a lot for Omaha. Yes, "About Schmidt" made Omaha look so dreary & offbeat, yet it captured a familiarity a native instantly recognized -- almost like, you wanted to believe the hometown you grew up in looked better than that, and wasnt really that grey & "wallflower" seeming & looking, but you also know that the camera doesn't lie. It was a great movie, and I think it captured the "original Omaha" more than the current day, more "with it" Omaha. It used to be you could drive from Denver back to Omaha, and Omaha just felt not quite "with it" compared to Denver (to me). A move from Omaha to Denver used to feel like a "step up" in life (and that's the mindset Omaha native Payne & people my age grew up with), but, it doesnt feel quite that way to me anymore -- at all. (Also: Along with being more "with it", like a "small Denver/KC/Mpls", Omaha seems sunnier to me than it used to. Im always curious about the stats on that.)

I'll post some new city shots later, if you want to switch geers. There's some new exciting buildings in Pittsburgh. There's Boston architecture. I want to touch on Cleveland, and other cities... Will write more later.

[RockHarbor]

This is the disappointing look right outside of Downtown Dallas I me mentioned, especially on the Northeast/East/Southeast directions outside of downtown. See how it lacks the charming old cityscape that even Midwest cities have? Omaha & Des Moines have the picturesque looks of more a "train set town model" more so than cities like Dallas, Oklahoma City, and Houston. Compare that to the tight rows of old brick/stone brownstones & rowhomes you see in NYC, Chicago, Philadelphia. That area of Dallas looks "urban awful" to me. How does such a glamorous & booming city have that disappointing & unsightly & crappy urban look so close to shimmering, neon-accented skyscrapers & hotels? I dont get it. (The Uptown District, on the opposite side of downtown is very nice, though.) I like a lot of things about Dallas & Houston, but that frazzled, loose cityscape, dotted with shanty structures, and leaning stick telephone poles, at the base of the skylines on some angles, is something I dont like.


Old, crummy, weedy parking lots in the river flood plain area in the front of the Dallas skyline. Ironically, it is almost hard to get a good picture of the dazzling Dallas skyline because of all the immediate cruddiness surrounding it on several sides... I dont get it. Why can't they just get rid of this crappy stuff, and just have a fully green natural area, where the Trinity River comes through? They mostly do. But still, they do allow unsightly industrial around key points of the skyline -- as one can see here. It was frustrating.


This is my favorite angle of Dallas, the angle which is mainly featured on posters & postcards. I had to remove light poles to make this pic nicer, and thankfully, snapped it without traffic interfering. Its difficult getting a nice picture of the skyline from this side. It is a mighty, glassy skyline (that I do love) rising from the North Texas prairie. Yet, hardly a trickle of a river, and a city with some disappointing urban qualities, built very car orientated -- kind of like a "Los Angeles" on the prairie. It's unusual to see the strict order of a city unravel immediately, and face a broad grass & tree expansive area like this, with a small river running through. I'm not putting down Dallas; I'm just pointing out the "urban effect" I get when I'm there. It's not your typical big river & bridges, plus skyline, plus dense inner city set-up. Smaller-than-Dallas major cities, that are less popular and not as booming, like Kansas City or Cincinatti, feel more delightfully "urban" to me. I think Dallas is working on it, though.


Pics of KC, Milwaukee, and Omaha. As I mentioned, even average-size Midwest cities have more basic, urban-looking cityscapes that are easy to overlook, not being as dense & urban as the Chicagos and New Yorks. However, compare them to cities like Houston, Dallas, Okla City, and I appreciate then more.




The other day, for the first time, I typed in "Visit Dallas, Visit Albuquerque, Visit Phoenix, Visit Kansas City, Visit Omaha, Visit Des Moines, Visit this city, Visit that city, ect" in Bing or Google, and visited many, many city's tourist websites. It was fun. Every website has a "Media" button that you can click to view city pictures & video. I was delighted to find on KC's site that they were voted by National Geographic as one of the top world places to visit in 2019.

[RockHarbor]

OK, so I get you dont want to talk about Dallas -- it seems. What about Pittsburgh?

Come.on... We can't let our fun & satisfying "City Architecture" thread fade away & die here. You're the best time Ive ever had. (Kidding. Being cheesy... That's a line I like off "The Karate Kid", a line between Daniel & Miagi. I think he said "best friend", though -- which wouldnt fit this situation anyways.)



Pittsburgh has two really neat new buildings.

[Cermak]

I’ve never been to Pittsburgh. Looks like a nice compact DT. The building with the little pyramids on top is probably my favorite: One PPG Place. Like alot of big cities it had a nice building boom back in the 80’s. Pittsburgh almost seems lost in the shuffle with so many cities in that part of the country. It really is hard to classify as a Midwest or eastern city, I’m thinking probably more eastern. Philly gets more exposure with it being bigger and a true big east coast city. I’ve been to Philly twice and thought it was pretty impressive. One Liberty Place is one of my favorite skyscrapers anywhere . I haven’t heard about those new buildings being built in Pittsburgh. Main thing you hear about Pittsburgh is the Steelers football team.

Don’t really have much to say about Dallas. I just think it’s a newer city and lacks some of the things you mentioned. Dallas is the most important city in the south central part of the country. I was surprised how the DT basically looks the same as it did twenty years ago. Although the NW part of downtown is getting built up more. The city is no LA or Chicago and most of the metro has a suburban feel, but it does have an appeal about it as well. It offers mild winters and resonable cost of living along with big city amenities. I’ve been there several times and it’s not a bad place.

[RockHarbor]

Pittsburgh does have a beautiful, compact downtown. It's definitely the inarguable "epic center" of the metro. Anytime a city is built on a small section of land pinched between water, it just encourages men to build a city compact and build tall -- I think. Look at Manhattan, to Seattle, to Pittsburgh, to Madison, to San Francisco. (At least major US cities, I mean.)

I've never thought of Pittsburgh as a "Midwestern city." I've always thought of as a true Eastern city, and I'm sure it is considered that by most. Cleveland is more the "Midwestern city teetering on the edge of being an Eastern city", imo. (Insert: However, looking at Google Maps today, I'm reminded how close Pittsburgh is to the Midwest line, where the East officially ends. So, I dont blame you for the conflict. In fact, Im reminded how you can drive from Columbus to Pittsburgh, and you can sense the Midwest end, and the East begin. There's a geographical change right there. And, I know the mindset & culture of Pittsburgh is more "Eastern" in nature.)

I have distant family from Pittsburgh & Columbus (major Steelers fans -- the result being I had a Steelers winter coat as a kid in Omaha even), so I had the first chance to visit the city back in 1990-91ish, when I was very young. Driving from the Midwest, that's the trip when I first saw St Louis & Indianapolis and learned about their new tallest buildings, and when I first learned what Columbus, OH looked like. And, the trip where I saw Pittsburgh. (I already knew what to expect with Pittsburgh from pictures.) Back then, there was no internet to look up city skylines quick -- as you remember. I depended on encyclopedias.

Visiting Pittsburgh again this time, about four years ago, some 25 years later, I was driving back from NYC/East Coast on I-80. I kept thinking "It's only an hour, or so, out of the way to see it again...so GO!" So, I veered off I-80 and drove south to Pittsburgh, and spent only about an hour or two in the city. I just wanted to see it again, and take some pictures. Its such a unique city & setting, the city built on steep hills of the Allegheny Plateau, the striking downtown standing tall at a split in the river in a valley, yellow steel bridges (Steelers colors) carrying traffic across the rivers. It's almost fake looking to me, and strange to the senses looking straight into tall skyscrapers at that high up, standing on that high hill nearby. Im so glad I did stop. I got the pictures I wanted, specifically ones with Pittsburgh's famous red "Incline" tram. Worth it to me, I only spent about 3-4 hours going out of the way. The skyline is mostly the same quarter of a century later, but it has two sharp, exciting new buildings. (There's a blackish/grey one w/ a slanting roof peeking out behind the PPG Place. And, there's that boxy green glass one to the left of it.)




Here are pictures of the striking, gothic PPG Place for you. I dont how that works architecturally, but it JUST does. I think gothic, old, eccentric Pittsburgh is the only US city that could truly pull that off. And, I think its a great statement for a plate & glass company. It almost says: "Skies the limit on what our company's glass can create! Dream it and we'll build it!" to me, or something. One thing I love about that complex is that it is a batch (or family) of lower buildings all gathered about the main tower, and there's a checkerboard court in the middle of it all -- all so European. I almost imagine giant chess pieces there. As you may know, its a Philip Johnson creation inspired by London's Houses of Parliament.




The city's tallest, a hefty & lofty triangular steel skyscraper, is also very impressive. It used to have a restaurant at the top called "Top of the Triangle" even. (IDX Tower? US Steel? I cant remember the name.) Its taller than all of Minneapolis' and Denver's skyscrapers, 800-something feet, and remains one of the tallest buildings in the USA.

Anyways, I have more pics of Dallas. I want to eventually discuss Philly more, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinatti, too. I even want to discuss Anchorage architecture, design, and style. But, this is enough for now. Im trying to watch my lengthy entries. I dont want to overwhelm. There's always so many points to cover.

[Cermak]

One PPG has a shorter building as part of the entire complex this is the building that reminds me a little of our 1200 Landmark center.

It’s the only building I can think of that resembles 1200 Landmark center. Even if just a little.

The new green building is fantastic. The taller pointed top building in the forefront is more eye candy to some, but that green shorter building gives DT some much needed color and walls of glass. At 361 ft the new boxy green highrise shows a sharp building doesn’t always need to be real tall. Something for Omaha to keep in mind. The new tilted top building is also very nice looking as well. The Gulf Oil building is an impressive older skyscraper, I had forgotten about Gulf Oil as thay are now defunct, as a kid the Gulf Oil sign at gas stations was a familiar site.


Overall Pittsburgh has a solid skyline, with a vast collection of pre-WW2 buildings and modern skyscrapers from the 70’s,80’s And today. I think it’s skyline can easily hang with Minneapolis and Detroits. It’s hard to think of many states that have two or more cities with such strong skylines like Pennsylvania has. California, Texas and Florida come to mind. If Pittsburgh was in the Midwest it might have the second best skyline after Chicago.




PPG’s Midwest cousin ?

[RockHarbor]

Lol... I think in another thread (years back) I also compared our 1200 Landmark Center with that baby PPG building, not only because they are similar glassy boxes with glassy spikes, but the Landmark Center to me always seems to be calling out for an "echoeing structure(s)" to compliment it. To my current "design senses", it's kinda strange to me standing there solo in Omaha, that simple blue glass box with that prolific roofline, with that long, low data center that kinda matches it, kinda doesn't match it -- and that's it. Nothing more, nothing less. It's hard to describe what I mean. (Logically, since the architect designed a data center + tower for Omaha, that Landmark tower was never designed to exist & stand solo, it probably was naturally designed with a mindset to have an "echo" fulfilled by the adjacent data center. So, that just backs up my point about it not looking fit to stand solo.) Anyways, the baby PPG building is not only more beautiful, intricate architecture, it's design is best echoed by other matching structures. Its design would be strange solo. It works well with a family of like-buildings. So, in that thread, I used that exact baby PPG building to explain sort of how I feel about the 1200 Landmark Center standing there solo. (Yet still, the Landmark Center is better as a solo structure than the baby PPG building -- if I had to pick one to be solo.)

That new high-tech, high-style rectangular green glass building in Pittsburgh is so darn sharp, I agree. It's like a skinny rectangular green slab of glass standing there and jutting forward aggressively. In some ways, I wish Omaha's UP Building was more molded along those lines (although a green cubish building is also neat, I think). There's something about green glass that I feel is best with basic squarish, rectangular structures -- just like gold glass is. That other new grey/black skyscraper in Pittsburgh gets my "thumbs up." It's way cool, and fits Pittsburgh's themes & architectural patterns well, imo.

Pittsburgh does have a very loveable, photogenic, satisfying skyline in a neat & unforgettable setting. Surely, it has great architecture and a great urban feel. It's always a conflict with me, because its like this awesome, striking skyline on a splitting river that's literally "postcard perfect", an exciting urban scene I'm totally drawn to, but one gracing a very old, Eastern, quirky PA city that isn't really my personality overall. It's definitely a fun place to see & visit. I'm not drawn to Pennsylvania in general, although I think its a beautiful green state. I have 3 cousins there that I think like it. (I always remember an angry line in a movie when I was a kid, where a man yelled in a cinematic argument, frustrated with a Pittsburgh local that wasnt happy: "Oh, NOBODY is happy living in Pittsburgh!!") It's actually a great city to live in, with nice four season scenery, fierce sports & civic pride, and is one of the most unique cities in the nation. The streets are very steep & windy. A lot of great old houses & apartments. It is just not my personality -- like Philadelphia isnt either. But, I still recognize them as great US cities.

Some last pics of Dallas to post, before we are done talking about the BIG D. Although its kinda odd, there's something still neat how Dallas' shimmering skyscrapers tower before a green field of grass and gnarly Texas oaks, almost like you can glimpse the original TX prairie landscape AND the new city that arrived later in time -- all at once. I always felt that Hyatt Hotel reminded me of something, and thinking about it more, I concluded it kinda reminds me of the shape of the northern half of Texas (seen on a state map). So, you almost psychologocally think "Texas!" when you view the skyline -- thats what I feel, anyways. I honestly think that could have been done by architects purposefully, yet not sure.






Well, hope to talk about Cleveland soon. That city has some great buildings. Great downtown. Its like a "small Chicago" on a lake, in a way. Back in that OH/PA section of the country, I favor OH cities over PA cities -- even if their skylines are not as grand. I'm more "Midwestern" than "Inland East."

[Cermak]

I stayed at that Hyatt in DT Dallas once. Pretty amazing hotel. It’s a little removed from the DT core but I was able to walk downtown it took about 15-20 min. There were enough people around that I never felt unsafe except for a short section of it. Which had some homeless people laying around on the grass. I just walked really fast then.

[RockHarbor]

I stayed at that Hyatt in DT Dallas once. Pretty amazing hotel. It’s a little removed from the DT core but I was able to walk downtown it took about 15-20 min. There were enough people around that I never felt unsafe except for a short section of it. Which had some homeless people laying around on the grass. I just walked really fast then.

Really!? What's it like inside? It is just such a luxurious hotel, and I like how the wide mirror glass facade starts angling a different direction at two pivetol points, as the top is stair-stepping down in two opposite directions from the tallest section. There's something extravagant about it all -- true Dallas style. There's not a lot of cities that could pull that off, imo. For example, that size & shape of hotel on the Omaha riverfront would be way too wide and big for Omaha, imo.

Surprised by all the flooding back there in Omaha & Nebraska... Hope things get better there soon.

Here's a gritty, industrial pic of Chicago -- your original hometown. If a city & skyscraper lover, there's hardly anything more exciting than driving into Chicago, to me, seeing that huge bulky set of buildings, topped off by kingly giant skyscrapers, including the twin antennea Sears Tower. So striking. That skyscraper immediately to the right of the Sears/Willis Tower is about the height of Seattle's & Dallas's tallest skyscraper. Its also around 100 feet taller, or so, than MPLS's skyscrapers -- yet looks weak compared to the Sears. Reference points to scale, like that, helped me appreciate how big & tall that skyline really is.

[Cermak]

It’s probably the biggest hotel I’ve stayed at. Forgot how many rooms it’s well over a 1000 might be 2000. It was built in the 70’s or 80’s and the architecture style is a little dated but still looks good. Has a large atrium inside. Very modern flashy hotel. My room wasn’t on a real high floor maybe 12th and faced the nearby freeway not DT. The freeway was constantly busy even late at night. I was stuck there on a Saturday night and had a early flight out the next morning at Love field on Southwest. So I Decided to walk all the way Downtown. Downtown was nice but I wasn’t crazy about it. They have a ton of buildings from the 70’s and 80’s. With an occasional midrise pre-WW2 building or mid century 1950’s buildings. With some pretty impressive canyons of skyscrapers. I walked to a CVS pharmacy and then got dinner. Sometimes I wish Omaha had a downtown Walgreens or CVS. We do have the Walgreens near Midtown Crossing which is about a mile from the DT core. Going to Chicago in a few weeks, will try and get some pics if weathers good.

[RockHarbor]

Right. Downtown Dallas (on street level, on foot) has a disappointing quality to me, which I'm kinda surprised by. I think its a mixture of a lot of unimpressive, dullish older beige buildings, bland streetscapes and nothing-special architecture outside of the gleaming new skyscrapers. Besides Thanksgiving Park, or maybe the Hyatt Hotel & Reunion Tower area, there's not a real designated, popular focal point for people to gather and pause and really take in the city -- like Omaha has w/ the mall. Walking around downtown in summer, it's also the unattractive feeling of a big cement, brick/mortar, steel/glass city built in a "landlocked" location of sweltering heat, hazy humidity, stuffy air, greenery. There's no real refreshing water or river nearby. It's much like cities like Atlanta & Charlotte feel like. Although pretty skyscrapers, it feels kinda hot & stuffy, and like something is missing.

Somebody pointed out once: Downtown Dallas doesn't feel quite like the "epic center" of the city -- and I agree with that. However, standing back from it all, the skyline is striking & large, beating most cities in size & aesthetics. They are making it more attractive & better; they've really inserted a lot of shopping & restaurants. I think there is light rail, too. There's way more street life after 5 pm now. It's starting to feel like the "epic center" more, especially with the Uptown District really building up. I was impressed with the changes when I was there around 5 years ago. It just goes to show: Just because a city is popular, featured on a major TV show, huge & booming, doesn't guarantee that it has the "urban element" that even much smaller, less booming cities possess. (For example, Kansas City, Omaha & Des Moines have a definite "urban delight" quality downtown.) Like happiness with a person, a city just cant go out & buy that. However, they can continue to take steps to hopefully gain it.

I have some pictures from different points in Downtown Dallas to show what I mean. They also show how Downtown Dallas is getting busier and more street life at night.

That's great you got a chance to stay in that hotel. Here's a good picture of it: https://thedallaswhisperer.files.wordpr ... 272835.jpg In Dallas, it has been a landmark since the late 70's, and you get used to it standing there -- and it seems like no big deal. But, again: Picture that on Omaha's riverfront. It would be massive, and much to hulking for Omaha's riverfront -- not to also mention, it doesn't fit "Omaha Style" at all. It makes you appreciate what Dallas has, and what works there.

Growing up, I was so in almost awe of the Hyatt Regency Hotel chain. Maybe it was because I love the ring of the fancy, prestigious sounding name, and I knew that Omaha wasnt a big enough city to get one then. (I remember in 7th grade I was intrigued with their location on Maui. It had a coiled snail-like symbol w/ the words "Hyatt Regency Maui" on the facade. I literally asked if we could stop in, so I could get a hotel T-shirt -- which never happened, btw. Strange boy. How many kids are intrigued with Hyatt Regency? Kids typically wanted a "Hang Loose Hawaii" T-shirt, or container of Hawaii black sand, or surfy keychain, or island-themed deck of cards back then for a vacation souvenir. I wanted a silly Hyatt Regency Maui T-shirt for my souvenir. I think I wanted to people believe I stayed there, or something. See how long all this kinda stuff has been important to me?)

......................................................................

From digging around, I see that snail graphic/symbol still is around in Maui: http://kaanapalifresh.com/wp-content/up ... M_logo.jpg

Hyatt Hotel's new logo & font: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... sQGTr4JtE1

Their old logos had this circular, clover-like symbol: https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/HlcAAOSw ... s-l300.jpg
https://i.etsystatic.com/7307138/r/il/1 ... 9_m5fc.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ec/c5/5c ... 7c00c7.jpg

Along with the 70's Dallas Hotel, I always thought Hyatt Regency San Francisco was of excellent & exciting design in that era: https://assets.hyatt.com/content/dam/hy ... 0.1080.jpg

The new Portland Hyatt Regency, showing how design has changed through the years: https://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/defau ... k=4nU8hiS1

The Hyatt Regency Dubai: https://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-conten ... bai-21.jpg
https://t-ec.bstatic.com/images/hotel/m ... 158412.jpg (It's kinda stark & odd, yet it is neat in the desert. I like the minimalist-type look, and design with those desert date palms.)

.......................................................................

When Omaha got the Hyatt call center on 'Q' Street, I was almost annoyed, thinking something like: "Oh, I see. We're all good enough to book your business elsewhere, but not good enough to get a business location here." Now, Im so happy Omaha has Hyatt Place now. At least we have a touch of the Hyatt brand in Omaha now. I always thought Omaha & Des Moines weren't big enough for a mighty Hyatt Regency Hotel, unlike Chicago, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, St Louis, and Kansas City were. Then, Wichita, Kansas gets one of all places -- a real nice one, on the river. Are you playing games with the smaller Midwest cities, Hyatt Hotels? RockHarbor don't like games...

As far as the biggest hotel I've ever stayed in: Probably the Luxor in Las Vegas -- which I just recently heard called a "hole" of some sort, in a movie. I dont think that is true, though.

Yes, I would love also for Downtown Omaha to get a Walgreens or CVS Pharmacy, too. It just is an "urban convenience" everybody likes. Its nice to have a store of that nature within walking distance when you're downtown -- even for just a simple band-aid to put over an insect sting one got in the park. What is the deal? Why doesnt Omaha ever get one? Des Moines has a Walgreens downtown, I'm sure of it (I should know, a friend I went to Des Moines with for the day, and they took a picture of me making a kissy "fish face" to a Taylor Swift lifesize cardboard cut-out in there -- not a fan of her at all, though, it was just a funny moment). So, if Des Moines has one downtown, Omaha needs one downtown. Why not? That seems to be DM's aggressive attitude toward Omaha.

Well, have fun in Chicago. Love to see your pics. Chicago always gives an absolute "urban fix" only NYC and Chicago can give.

[Cermak]

That Portland Hyatt looks sharp, Portland doesn’t have a lot of skyscrapers but the DT looks good because nearly all the buildings are well designed and attractive. Sometimes I’d rather have a high quality well designed 12 story building for Omaha than a cheap looking poorly Designed 25 story building. Des Moines does have a Walgreens DT so does Lincoln. Omaha’s Walgreens kinda serves both midtown and downtown. But it would be nice to have one more in the DT area. The Park fair mall in DT Omaha had a Walgreens back in the 80’s and 90’s but it closed at least 20 yrs ago, it was located on the lower level NW corner. The Walgreens in midtown is Open 24 hrs a day so that’s good, the one in DT Des Moines closes at 7pm which to me is to early. You just never know when you will need a band aid or cough drops when on the road.

Wichita is lucky to have a Hyatt, even if it’s a small one. I noticed they recently painted the Marriott in Regency it’s kinda a grayish color now. I wonder if Marriott would consider building a new hotel in West farms and the one in Regency could become a Holiday Inn Crown plaza or something. They could keep the new one at 300 rooms still except make it taller maybe 10 or 12 floors. That would look awesome on the west Omaha horizon. Especially if it can be built on top of a hill. Sometimes I think Omaha needs to roll the dice more.

DT Dallas is improving. It’s such a huge spread out city that to me the DT is just one component. You have Ft Worth which is impressive in its own and Arlington, Irving, The Galleria area, Plano and others. I Guess that’s why they call it the metroplex. I still respect Dallas even if some of the stuff they do sometimes raises an eyebrow.

[RockHarbor]

Oh, the West Omaha Marriott is grey now?! I would love to see a pic. I do like your idea of them building a new taller suburban hotel out in West Farm, nearer to newer office buildings & shopping -- where visitors might be more impressed. I do love Marriott Hotels. Ive always loved their fancy, curvy 'M' logo, and I've always appreciated them being in Omaha from the early 80's.

Downtown Dallas: If I go onto Google Maps, and look at the Street Views of Downtown Dallas and Downtown Houston, and then look at Street Views of Downtown Minneapolis or Kansas City, you can see the difference. Downtown Minneapolis always feels great to me -- I don't know anybody who doesnt like Downtown MPLS who's been there (unless you're a person who hates big cities in general). Same with Kansas City. Our perspective of Downtown Dallas & Houston come from the comparison we make to Midwest cities, logically.

____________________________________________________________________

A) The differences: Downtown Dallas & Houston don't have much of the cheery, brick & stone, nice-looking, historic, early 1900's architecture at the base of the big skyscrapers, like the Midwest cities all have. If you look in old pictures, there appears to be more of them around then, than now. Besides a limited number of street corners featuring a high-quality, fanciful historic building, most of Downtown Dallas or Houston doesn't have that high-quality historic aspect. (If it did, Downtown Dallas & Houston would noticeably look nicer -- especially Dallas.)

Old pictures of Dallas showing the stock of historic structures there. I'm guessing some of those are not around anymore. Notice there is a lot of beige:

1) http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/wp-con ... dallas.jpg
2) https://flashbackdallas.files.wordpress ... portal.jpg
3) https://flashbackdallas.files.wordpress ... to-det.jpg

Downtown Houston, around 1960: https://s.hdnux.com/photos/42/41/73/905 ... wImage.jpg
Downtown Houston now: https://i0.wp.com/www.marketurbanism.co ... 1864%2C962

Downtown Dallas streetscapes (On many streets, Downtown Dallas is just not as pretty & vivid as a city like Minneapolis is, as a whole. However, Dallas doesn't have to be Minneapolis -- of course. It has its own style & color pallet, ultimately.):

1) http://steve-lovelace.com/wordpress/wp- ... ection.jpg
2) http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/wp-con ... -after.jpg
3) https://i.ytimg.com/vi/i8uW798lBCE/maxresdefault.jpg

Minneapolis views to compare:
1) https://assets.hyatt.com/content/dam/hy ... 0.1080.jpg
2) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... s-2007.jpg

Kansas City view to compare:
1) http://images.metroscenes.com/images/20 ... com_15.jpg

Back to Dallas, this seems to be the main street downtown with the most historic high rises left: https://www.dfwurbanrealty.com/uploads/ ... 81_881.png (Notice a lot of historic beige buildings. Not a lot of color...)

This may be a new Downtown Dallas park to help things out. I like it. I think they are really trying to add some tree variation downtown, trees that are more formal-looking than just scraggly shorter oaks and crepe myrtles. It makes downtown look better:

1) http://medias.photodeck.com/9c410f50-f6 ... xlarge.jpg
2) https://dallas.reel-scout.com/up_images/5/1605145.jpg

____________________________________________________________________

B) Dallas and Houston don't have the same rivers or lakefront (i.e. Chicago, Milwaukee) that Midwest cities have. However, the wide Trinity River green space in Dallas, normally just mostly grass & trees and a trickle of a river, can really flood with water, as we can see after a tropical storm that hit the Metroplex: https://media.gettyimages.com/videos/vi ... ?s=640x640

____________________________________________________________________

C) Dallas and Houston don't have the same greenery as the Midwest states either. That makes a difference. Being in semi-tropical regions, they have shorter, grey-green trees lining downtown streets, ones that are different than species in the Midwest. There's also grassy curbs & other grassy areas around downtown, which don't help it seem more "urban." The grass is also not as pretty, especially in cruddy, barren areas under trees. I think if you're from the Upper Midwest, the greenery colors look duller & more muted.

Example of trees & grass in Downtown Dallas: http://www.unvisiteddallas.com/wp-conte ... 5/TS18.jpg
Example of trees & grass in Downtown Dallas: https://www.bluffton.edu/homepages/facs ... plaza4.jpg

This picture shows some birches. I'm wondering if they are finally trying to introduce some tree variation, beyond the oaks & crepe myrtle trees? https://i.ytimg.com/vi/i8uW798lBCE/maxresdefault.jpg

I wish Dallas had big old gnarly oaks (like San Antonio has) in a big spacious green park w/ the skyscrapers surrounding it. Then, I would like it better. (Downtown San Antonio, imo, is the most beautiful downtown in Texas; a great combination of old & new architecture, lots of historic charm, and big twisty oaks.)

San Antonio 1: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/L41WUmU5tJc/maxresdefault.jpg
San Antonio 2: https://www.tpr.org/sites/kstx/files/st ... onioTX.jpg

_________________________________________________________________

D) Along with general poorer architecture at street level, Downtown Dallas isn't all on a consistent grid like Minneapolis & Chicago & Kansas City. Therefore, a batch of the skyscrapers stand at different angles, some with triangular shapes to match the angling streets. So, some may not like that aspect visually, while in the "canyon" of skyscrapers, as one doesn't get sense they all stand square with each other in ordered unison -- like in Minneapolis & Chicago & Kansas City.

Yet, that angling of streets, resulting in triangular angles on several buildings, and also creating buildings standing at offset, odd angles, all help to make the unique "Fountain Place" skyscraper by IM Pei work well on that particular side of downtown, imo.

..................................................................................

FOUNTAIN PLACE, by I.M. Pei

Beautiful & striking Fountain Place: http://media.bizj.us/view/img/1495361/f ... 0-0-45.jpg

The original plan called for a 2nd clone tower, yet positioned at a different angle. So glad that didn't work out. I don't like it.
https://dallasnews.imgix.net/1495813694 ... nplace.jpg

The 2nd Phase II complimentary tower finally being built. Love it. https://dallasnews.imgix.net/1496259994 ... -email.jpg

____________________________________________________________________

Conclusion: Standing back from the skylines, the Dallas & Houston skylines are considerably bigger than Minneapolis and Kansas City. However, I think if you're from the Upper Midwest, there can be those disappointing aspects of Downtown Houston or Dallas -- aspects that locals & natives maybe don't detect themselves. I like the two big, impressive TX downtowns well enough, but your eyes have to adjust to those differences, if you're from the Midwest, imo. (There's also not necessarily a real defined walkable "promenade" area in either city, like the Nicollet Mall in Mpls, Denver's 16th Street, Kansas City's P&L District, ect. However, I think each city's downtown has a "hot" section of shops & restaurants, ect.)

Walgreens/CVS Pharmacy: Yes, I forgot Parkfair Mall used to have one. They really need to bring one back downtown. There's that one store on the edge of the Old Market that helps take the place of one (I forget the name. I think its a gas station plus store.) I noticed Downtown Dallas has an urban 7-11. That would be neat to have, too.

[Cermak]

I always forget about the Cubby’s on the southside of the Old Market. It’s a nice little grocery store and I believe it’s open all night. So that is another option for DT hotel guest. And is a resonable walk from several hotels.

Both Houston and Dallas downtowns look good from a distance. It’s when you actually get into the DT that they become a little disappointing. I know DT Dallas has a lot of buildings from the 1950’s which is probably my least favorite era of tall buildings. Maybe this has something to do with the bland look Dallas has on the streets. But Omaha ,KC, Des Moines and Minneapolis have some 50’s buildings as well so it’s hard to say if that’s it. We don’t have as many. Dallas seems to have more . Even that historic 1940’s tall building in Dallas with the clock is a less than memorable building to me.
You never hear about any architecture critics praising it, at least I don’t. The last time I was in DT Dallas I didn’t go out of my way to look at it, like I did for the Luhrs tower when in DT Phoenix.

I agree I think San Antonio is Texas most interesting looking city. Looking at its DT it makes you want to go there and find out more about it. And Austin is more of a “pop-up” city like Charlotte or even Nashville. It’s nice but lacks something, it’s almost like a Disney city at an amusement park. And Houston and Dallas look so much alike, at least from a distance. I’m less familiar with Houston. And El Paso is written off as the poor sister of the state. Dallas may have the weakest DT when you look at the ten largest metro’s in the U.S.. but I’m not saying it’s DT is bad , it is impressive. But when compared to its peers it falls near the bottom, at least in terms of likability and as a tourist destination. Even sprawling LA I think has some better buildings. The US bank building (former Library Tower) is an amazing looking building and my favorite skyscraper in California. And could be the most recognized skyscraper on the entire west coast.

[RockHarbor]

Yes, that's the name: Cubby's. I wouldnt want to see them lose any business w/ a Walgreens/CVS downtown. I like Cubby's. However, CVS/Walgreens introduces more to a downtown than what Cubby's offers-- things like cards, pharmacy, photo, ect.

We think so alike -- its crazy. Yes, I was thinking the same exact things. I think both Houston & Dallas look great from an approach on a freeway, or in a poster of the entire skyline, but both are suddenly a little bland & disappointing when you're actually down in them. It just goes to show: Skyscrapers arent the only thing that are important. Streetscapes and street level aesthetics are, too. I think that is why I'm more into the "little details" of a city than I used to be, not just focused on skyscrapers.

Yes, Dallas has some odd-ish, semi-tacky, retro skyscrapers from the 1950's -- ones I'm not sure I'll ever warm up to, ones that have design quality that I feel is questionable. Yet, I think Tokyo copied the clock tower one -- and I don't like that one that well either. Don't get me wrong; I think they are a unique attribute of Dallas, and that rigid, retro clock tower skyscraper has a time & place in design, that I can appreciate. But, let's just say this: I'm glad Dallas's newest skyscrapers & ball-topped tower don't make them the focus of the skyline anymore. And, I'm glad they are semi-hidden from view nowadays.

Dallas 1950's (1): https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5109/575 ... df62_b.jpg
Dallas 1950's (2): https://flashbackdallas.files.wordpress ... s-tech.jpg

I like your term "pop-up city." Again, we think so alike. Yet, I often say "propped-up" for an instantly built, artificial-looking, big city. Yes, I think Austin is like Charlotte in that way. Maybe a bit like Nashville, too, although I feel Nashville is anchored by a little more weighty music history, like Memphis is. Its almost like a "big Branson" in Tennessee. And,.that history makes it more believable as a city to me, having a true "sense of place."

El Paso is so different, and yes, often written off. Although I'm not that crazy about that town, I do feel like it has a rich, deeply southwestern aire that intrigues me. It makes sense that people all over the country like the idea of their grocery store salsa brand made there (I'm talking Pace Picante). If you have a picture up in a Mexican/SWern restaurant of El Paso, verses a picture up of USA Phoenix, Tuscon, or Albuquerque or Santa Fe, I feel like it creates a certain atmosphere the other US cities can't quite create -- like you have featured the raw, rough, hard & authentic "real deal" city of the American SW. It's hard to explain what I mean. That's the best I can explain it to you. (It goes to show that although "dust bowl" El Paso definitely isn't a city for everybody, it still is its own special place.)

El Paso (1): http://www.100resilientcities.org/wp-co ... Medium.jpg
El Paso (2): https://ihg.scene7.com/is/image/ihg/hot ... &fit=fit,1
El Paso (3): https://cdn.theculturetrip.com/wp-conte ... 6_1920.jpg
El Paso (4): http://borderzine.com/wp-content/upload ... ohnson.jpg (Strangely, the city has this well-known alligator fountain.)

Yes, San Antonio is a charming mix of historic, turn-of-the-century American architecture and Mission & Spanish-style architecture. And, a lot of the newer office buildings seem to celebrate ancient design from Mexico, with their stair-stepping pyramidal tops reminding of Mayan architecture -- much like Cancun hotels. The charming downtown is so satisfyingly full of various textures, the lovable Riverwalk & Alamo just topping it all off. Near the Alamo, with Sea World nearby, and all the touristy shops and palms, it feels a little like Disney World, FL or "vacationland Florida" to me. The Alamo stands there, almost seeming part of a fake Hollywood set for a John Wayne movie -- or something. But, it's not fake -- it's real, it's true fascinating history, and there's a long line to get in & learn some of it. The fun Riverwalk also feels a bit Disneyworld-ish to me, too, like one of their rides. (Its definitely not the safest city, especially the further you venture from the Riverwalk & Alamo areas. It can get pretty shady... Be careful if/when you visit.)

San Antonio skyline: http://www.burntorangereport.com/wp-con ... 11/SA.jpeg

Although my main goal was seeing San Antonio & the TX Hill Country, I flew into Dallas-FW around 5 years ago, spent several hours seeing key things in Dallas first, then drove to hyped-up Austin & Lake Travis to see it and spent the night. (That Lake Travis area is pretty. With all the oaks, hills, palms, and Spanish residential architecture, it almost feels like California.) Then, drove to San Antonio, and stayed on the Riverwalk for several nights. While in San Antonio, I took a brochure map and visited all of the missions scattered throughout the city along the river -- they are all satisfyingly beautiful & old & weathered & accented by prickly pear cactus, the Alamo is just the most famous one. I recommend going up also into the city's free standing tower. (What outstanding, breathtaking views of the unique city.) Then, "put on my boots", and drove to the beautiful, yet dusty TX Hill Country immediately west of San Antonio and stayed the night. Then, drove from San Antonio back to Fort Worth on a state highway (not interstate), taking pictures of cactus & horses & oaks. Then, spent the night in Las Colinas/Irvine, and did the whole "Dallas thing" the next day. I went to In & Out Burger in Plano, to 3 major malls, drove out to Southfork Ranch. I'm such a nerd: In Plano, my goal also was to drive completely through Dallas's mass, sweeping swaths of cookie-cutter suburbia, to get a feel of the size & scope of it all. I wanted to compare it to West Omaha. I went downtown to get pictures of the skyline shimmering yellow & oranges at sunset. I was so bored by the time my plane took off late in the evening, and ready to go back to Neb, I practically got to the Dallas-FW airport early... I also think mostly flat Dallas now seemed a little dull to me, a city of all major corporate & retail, compared to colorful & rich & historic San Antonio, a somewhat spicy city nestled at the edge of the TX Hill Country. Anyways, it was a great trip, that ran maybe a day too long. Texas is a good place for a hot, sunny summer vacation, imo, along with Florida.

View of San Antonio from the tower: https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7fn-SkLJkFo/ ... ica%2B.jpg

I was thinking the same thing about Los Angeles with our Dallas discussion. They are almost similar downtowns in the way they have towering trophy skyscrapers, yet don't necessarily feel like the true, full "epic center" of the sprawling city, disappointing in some ways urban-wise, and they are both working on it -- and the result is major improvement. Yes, I was also thinking the same thing: Los Angeles looks better than Dallas to me, when down in the canyon of skyscrapers. Its more palmy, the skyscrapers more striking & unique, and streetscapes not as bland-looking in general as Dallas'. The city's historic section has quite a catalog of old buildings, a district starting just S/SW of the skyscrapers. (The skyscrapers were all built on the Bunker Hill section of town -- an old, hilltop residential area that was eventually all cleared to make way for the new Los Angeles skyline. Apparently, they didnt want to build the skyscrapers in the original, historic downtown section, nor right around the immediate City Hall vicinity. It was a residential area in between the two that was cleared. No wonder LA's "downtown" feels a little airy & weak for such a big city. It was never the original "downtown" to begin with. Los Angeles is a unique major city that unfolded w/ a unique development record -- for sure.) The city also has the unique, colorful, festive Olvera Street section, over by the beautiful, white City Hall -- which is the first street in L.A., I think.

Historic Bunker Hill: https://waterandpower.org/6%20Historic% ... l_1937.jpg (Because the skyscrapers were all built in this area, after all the residential was cleared, many of the skyscrapers don't meet the ground tight, flush, & square with the curb. A lot of LA's skyscrapers have landscaping around them, and large plazas. That's another element why Downtown Los Angeles doesn't feel perfectly "urban" like NYC and Chicago.)

Overall, Los Angeles has one of my favorite cityscapes, as I like sun-washed, palmy metropolises. In fact, I go back in forth whether I like the look of Miami or LA more. It's a tough call, but I think I like Miami more now, and I liked LA more in the past. Miami is the true tropics, and the white skyscrapers on the water are accented by coconut palms. Yet, its pancake flat and sweltering hot down there, and although the coastline is attractive, the inland swampy Everglades aren't. LA is more a semi-tropical desert w/ desert palms, and a coast distant from the skyline, yet w/ mountains and with better weather. (I also like the look of Honolulu, San Diego & Tampa.) However, none of those cities offer what colors & textures you see in NYC, Chicago, Boston, Seattle, San Francisco, Minneapolis, Denver, KC ect. I appreciate all cities, and there own specific look & feel.

Yes, Los Angeles' Library Tower is probably the most recognized skyscraper on the West Coast, featured & focused on even in pop culture alien movies. Ive always loved the Library Tower since I first saw it. Perfect LA-style skyscraper to top-off the King Metropolis of Southern California, the West Coast. (It looks of white stucco, a major cityscape material in Southern CAL. It has an eye-catching, tapering apex, topped with a kingly crown feature. And, the tubular design w/ setbacks is more earthquake proof than tall, slender, rectangular buildings. It looks great with palm trees.) It is arguable it is the most famous & recognized skyscraper on that coast, however, as San Francisco's TransAmerica Pyramid gives it a true contest. (The Library Tower is also a study in architecture me. It is a crowd-pleaser, it is a definer of the city, & has presence -- like the ESB in New York, or Sears/Willis or John Hancock Center in Chicago. Seattle's & Dallas's & Houston's tallest, though nice buildings of similar height, don't quite have that same quality.)

The apex of the Library Tower, LA: https://cdn.skyrisecities.com/sites/def ... -70228.jpg (You can see the true historic district behind the building.)

By the way, what do you think of LA's new, needled tallest? The slender & glassy design makes me nervous in a seismic zone. But I like it -- a lot. It also looks great accented with palms, imo, just like a curvy surfy wave does.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/353/31766 ... babf_b.jpg

Great discussion...

[Cermak]

I saw LA’s new tallest back in December when I was there. I still like US Bank better. The new tallest must be just slightly taller than US Bank because they really look about same height. I’ve never been to El Paso or San Antonio. I really haven’t been to many places in Texas just Dallas, Houston, Galveston and Corpus Christi. I need to go down there sometime. San Antonio you hear good things about. The last time I was in New Mexico I don’t think I was real far from El Paso. El Paso doesn’t have the best reputation, I do like how they have some rugged desert type mountains right in town.

I thought of the TransAmerica Pyramid in San Francisco as also very prominent but it seems the US bank building in LA is more iconic now. I don’t think TransAmerica is even in that building anymore and it seems to of lost a little of its luster in recent years. But it’s still a great building as well and is probably the second most famous building on the west coast, some would say it’s still number one. LA is just a more famous city and there skyline is probably photographed a little more than San Francisco’s.

[Louie]

Totally agree on the height, I think it's actually downhill from it and that's why most perspectives don't make it look that tall.

[RockHarbor]

It's only taller because of the needle feature, which is counted as an "architectural feature." The US Bank/Library Tower still has a higher skyscraper roof. Placing an architectural needle at the top of a skyscraper often is the only element that officially makes it taller than another, a skyscraper it is wanting to beat. I believe the same situation happens between the Sears/Willis Tower, and New York's tallest. I think LA's new tallest was motivated to beat San Fran's new tallest, ensuring LA still had the tallest building on the West Coast.

I agree; the TransAmerica Pyramid has lost some of its luster (I was thinking the same thing), especially now that it is not San Fran's tallest. Yet, it is unmistakable, and if they did a survey across the country, and showed people on the street pictures of both the TransAmerica & Library Tower, Im not sure LA's building would officially win.

[Cermak]

According to Condé Nast Traveler San Francisco is photographed more than LA. I didn’t know that, probably because of the Golden Gate Bridge. In the 1996 blockbuster movie Independence Day LA’s US Bank Tower was prominently featured in a spectacular scene, and sealed it’s status as Hollywoods newest skyscraper star, perhaps second only to King Kong’s 1933 movie Empire State Building climb.

Possible reason why SF is photographed more than LA


US Bank Towers break out role

[RockHarbor]

Yes, that's the exact scene I was talking about when I said "alien movies." It's also a building featured & focused-on in many LA movies, including earthquake ones.

It makes sense to me San Francisco wins that photography contest. Being a compact, dense city of unique architecture (including many boxy homes & Victorians) built on a hilly peninsula, the downtown standing tall right on the bay, and the bridges crossing the bay, and unique urban features like cable cars and wiggly, flowery Lombardy Street, San Francisco is considered the "Crown Jewel" city of the West Coast. If there's any "Boston of the West Coast" it is San Francisco. Sure, the city has problems, but it is unarguably a beautiful city in a beautiful setting. (You hardly hear "Los Angeles is a beautiful city" out of anybody. You often hear "San Francisco is a beautiful city" out of plenty.)

Some people feel Seattle beats San Francisco, because the particular look of Seattle and the Washington landscape (evergreen forests, Puget Sound, snowy mountains) appeals to them more. Seattle is delightfully pinched by water, also. But, it doesn't have the bridges. And, the overall Seattle cityscape, although really pretty & attractive, doesn't have the overall whimsical quality that San Francisco's does. Very photogenic and interesting in pictures, to people throughout the world, a great number of picture books have been published on the city throughout the years -- I'm guessing the most out of any US city, except maybe New York. San Francisco also has a more crowd-pleasing climate than Seattle does.

Los Angeles & San Diego and the overall look & feel of beachy, surfy Southern California has always appealed to me more than the scenery & climate of San Francisco and Northern California. (Even when I see a movie, I'm more excited about LA being in the backdrop than San Francisco. Playing an XBOX game, I liked the "Midnight Club" game with the LA cityscape way more than the "Driver San Francisco" game, too.) However, I understand why Northern California is considered more prestigious and attractive to many. The climate is more temperate, the area more refreshing overall, the main city of SF very perfectly urban & sophisticated, the Wine Country is there, and the view from some vistas can be so beautiful-looking, that it can almost seem like a fair landscape out of a storybook.

Southern California has a really likable signature look, imo, but it is more hot, and it is ultimately where the dry western desert finally meets the Pacific Ocean -- resulting in a Mediterranean-like scene & climate. Los Angeles has always been downgraded from ultimate urban sophistication that San Francisco possesses, like Phoenix is in a way, because of that dust & desert & sun aspect. In fact, it used to be joked as "Iowa with Palm Trees." Los Angeles has worked on becoming a lot more sophisticated & cultured, and it is much more taken seriously than it used to be. Back when the USA was developing and the Manifest Destiny was taking place, San Francisco was the main West Coast city, and Los Angeles was more a place "off the beaten path" in far Southern California. It wasn't until later, with the promise of sunshine & warm winter temps, that the Los Angeles basin mushroomed into the king metropolis of the West Coast.

This documentary on Los Angeles is great. If you have any interest in Los Angeles, and how it came to be, and what defines it, than I feel this is worth a person's time. There was even a critic's remark on the back of the DVD that says it is the best documentary ever made about Los Angeles. I knew a lot about Los Angeles already, but this documentary helped me understand the Bunker Hill element of downtown better, and it just gave me a greater feel of the city. https://www.amazon.com/Los-Angeles-Play ... 242&sr=8-2

I also have this book, you might like: https://www.amazon.com/Landmarks-Los-An ... 0810935724 (I like it, but it doesn't touch on the modern skyscrapers. Just older architecture of the city -- including residential.)

Disagreeing with Louie, I think the new Wilshire Grand Center skycraper in LA looks pretty tall to me. It is almost as tall (roof wise) as the Library Tower/US Bank. It lights up neat at night, too. Between the curve of blue glass during the day, and the exciting neon lighting at night, I just think it looks great day or night, accented with palms. It's almost a new, major LA skyscraper I wasn't quite ready for, and I'm still adjusting to it, I almost forget it is even there sometimes, and I almost feel defensive about it beating the loved "LA King" skyscraper, but I feel the motive was to simply ensure LA kept the record for the tallest building on the West Coast -- which I'm glad about, because I think LA deserves it. Plus, LA was due for new statement, I think. And, I feel they did a good job coming up w/ something that worked in LA, yet matched the current styles of architecture in this era. Again, I think the blue curve (which almost reminds me of a "Ripcurl" wave) and the neon lighting helps make it statement that works for Los Angeles.

http://urbanize.la/sites/default/files/ ... 281%29.jpg

The TransAmerica Pyramid: Although I feel a perfect statement for a quirky, eccentric, and very earthquake-prone California metropolis, and now a loved iconic architectural symbol of SF to many, I still understand why it caused such a local uproar when it was proposed. I think anybody can understand that. It is a striking, definitely one-of-a-kind, sharply-pointed Googie-style skyscraper, and I happen to love it accented by palm fronds in the foreground (which is not an easy shot to find in SF), and I do love the grove of redwoods at the diagonaling-beaming base (which I have a picture of, btw). However, there is a side to it being there, that I understand the original uproar. I think it adds A LOT to San Francisco, yet has maybe "cheapened it" in some ways at the same time. Crossing the Bay Bridge, approaching the beefy skyline standing tall on the water, it has the look of a big, cultured, sophisticated, intricate metropolis, like a "Boston" in a way, yet I'm not sure how much the TransAmerica Pyramid adds to that. In fact, I feel it maybe takes away from it. I think the building is good for representing San Francisco's other side that's not so prestigious and sophisticated: The extreme quirky, eccentric, zany "flower child" side of the city. That's just my take... However, I think its good that the skyline represents the reality of the city's culture as a whole, just like I like the new Asian-influenced skyscrapers in SF. (I don't think it is fair or accurate for that city to look like a sophisticated "Boston", imo. It needs a zany building or two in the mix, imo. It is not as level-headed as Boston, imo, and is not "steeped in tradition" like Boston. It is more "free of tradition.")

[Cermak]

The New LA building looks great at night, I do like that building. I never saw it at night when I was there, just during the day. LA did need a new skyscraper . Especially with New York City getting so many in recent years. True Downtown San Francisco is the Star of the west coast . As LA is more known for Hollywood, beaches, sunshine and freeways. It’s Downtown is nice but doesn’t have the mix of architecture that SF has, density or the dramatic location. I’ve never walked around either of the DT’s. My best view of them up close is from google earth which isn’t saying much, but at least it’s 3D. I’ve been to both cities and I think I prefer LA, mainly because of the weather. But the traffic is such a pain, it makes you appreciate Omaha a little more not having to spend so much time in your car.

Wilshire Grand Center LA’s newest

[RockHarbor]

Nice picture of it.

Oh, so you've seen it?! If you Google Image Search "Wilshire Grand Skyscraper", you'll see a picture or two where it looks very blue, and has green palm trees accenting it -- which Ive mentioned. It looks great, and presents a new look for LA, yet doesnt necessarily "steal the show" on the skyline. It is taller than the US Bank officially with the needle, but still respects it in a way, by remaining shorter by roof comparison. (The only reason LA was able to sport a new skyscraper with a curving top & needle is because the strict helipad rule was lifted, which originally always molded LA skyscrapers with a flat roof. I just remembered that...)

Wilshire Grand with palms: https://2yj7zs386nk09uj564c39c87-wpengi ... ay_619.jpg

Wilshire Grand Plaza: http://images.skyscrapercenter.com/buil ... panies.jpg

Growing up, I had a poster of LA (along with many other cities), and would check out "Los Angeles: A City Of Many Dreams" (Crescent Books) at the library, along with many other books on other cities. It had big, jumbo pics of LA I would love to look at. I have that book now -- and still enjoy the same pictures. (Those old Crescent Books are the best, as far as jumbo-size, now-dated 80's pics go. I have one with really great large aerials of Anchorage in the 80's.)

The made-for-TV movie "The Great Los Angeles Earthquake" aired around 1990 in segments, and that movie was fascinating to me. The beginning credits have ariel chopper shots circling 'round Downtown Los Angeles skyscrapers, Century City, Hollywood, Santa Monica, and other beach cities. It was done with a menacing, suspenseful musical soundtrack and a camera style that I now recognize as 70's style. I now realize the movie seems to almost pay homage to the cinematic style & music of the 1974 "Earthquake" movie, starring Charles Heston. (That 1990 movie is when I first learned LA had the brand new towering US Bank building and Sanwa Bank, along with the shimmery Fox Tower. I was in awe of the new LA architecture.) Although "Volcano" and "2012" and "San Andreas" and several C movies have come along since then, I still feel the 1990 movie is the overall best one, capturing the particular aire of Los Angeles, and the constant, time-ticking risk that hovers over that city, and also captures the horrid aftermath of that fabled future, mythical disaster. ( The movie "San Andreas" had great special effects, but was criticized for leaving out the "human element" after the titanic earthquakes & tsunami.)

..................................................................................

The Great Los Angeles Earthquake 1990 sniplet: (I still feel those special effects hold up well. The rippling skins of the rocking & swaying twin Century Buildings, spraying broken glass with each burst of a window, is so realistic. It was rated 6.1 on IMDB, which is the same ratings you see with A-level summer blockbusters, like San Andreas. That's very high score for a made-for-TV disaster movie.)

Here's the whole film! (The beginning sequences capture the aire of big & busy, sun-soaked Los Angeles, and how fragile & vulnerable it all is, in the face of nature. It is very similar to the opening of the 1974 "Earthquake" movie. This movie stars the likable mom off "Growing Pains" and the likable dad off "The Wonder Years." I still chuckle at the face expressions & verbal interactions between the mom and two daughters w/ the conflict at the dinner table. And, the irritated husband. And, the "weasel" developer. Plenty of human drama. The acting is actually very good -- I almost forget they are acting.)

.................................................................................

Anyways, you may enjoy those books/films.

Yes, I hear the gridlock there is astonishing now. The traffic was bad 30 years ago there, and its even worse now. That's one thing that is worrisome about LA. It seems like a "big smoggy bowl" of gridlock, early in the morning until late at night, that is tough to get out of -- especially, I logically imagine, trying to exit the Los Angeles basin after a major earthquake. It's like some trap. Still, the dynamics of sunshine, beaches, palms, and smog, along with the edginess from natural disaster risk there are all part of the particular aire of Southern California. LA disaster movies must sell well, because they continue to make them.

[Cermak]

I stayed in Calabasas when I was out this past December. I liked that area because it seemed a little less congested, and the overall pace was maybe a little slower. It was nice to get out of the valley each evening and up in the the hills. Weather was great except the last 2 days it rained, but they needed it so that was OK. LA also seemed pretty clean to me, it could of been the areas I was in. Santa Monica is very nice, it’s easy to see why people would want to live there. It was my first trip to LA . Definitely a place worth visiting. Driving around you really need to pay attention, that was the only downside I thought. The whole area just seems to have something for everyone. But like any major city I’m sure it has its fair share of problems. Congestion and smog among them. It must of really of been a paradise 50 years or so ago.

[TitosBuritoBarn]

I stayed in Calabasas when I was out this past December. I liked that area because it seemed a little less congested, and the overall pace was maybe a little slower. It was nice to get out of the valley each evening and up in the the hills. Weather was great except the last 2 days it rained, but they needed it so that was OK. LA also seemed pretty clean to me, it could of been the areas I was in. Santa Monica is very nice, it’s easy to see why people would want to live there. It was my first trip to LA . Definitely a place worth visiting. Driving around you really need to pay attention, that was the only downside I thought. The whole area just seems to have something for everyone. But like any major city I’m sure it has its fair share of problems. Congestion and smog among them. It must of really of been a paradise 50 years or so ago.

I've always been interested in LA history and it definitely has an interesting one. I don't know that LA was ever closest to paradise level than it is right now. Smog and congestion was perhaps less of a problem 50, 60, or 70 years ago, but crime, cost of living, and, to a degree, racism were. Pollution is less than it used to be, but many of the initiatives to curb it have been undone by population growth (sort of like a Jevon's paradox). Around the 1910s, LA was heavily marketed as a paradise to those from the east and midwest to fuel growth. Whether it actually was is in the eye of the beholder, but by many accounts it's never been quite the paradise that initial marketing efforts and, subsequently, Hollywood paints it to be. The city has always had a couple major problems to deal with and what those problems are have changed over time. Today I think its biggest issues are congestion and cost of living which I believe are more tolerable by the masses than the problems of the past. Granted both have been problems in the city for awhile, but I think they're currently the highest they've been.

What's interesting to me is that you didn't mention crime as an issue. I don't know how old you are but LA was notorious for crime throughout the 20th century. Crime peaked in 1992 or so with the LA riots and crack epidemic. LA was the poster child for crime in the way that Chicago has been made out to be today. Anymore crime is not a major issue on a per capita basis. Even Compton has softened up quite a bit. A lot of that can be attributed to the cost of living pricing a lot of the criminals out.

Urban living is definitely hot right now in LA in ways it never has been before. LA was typically the anti-New York due to its sprawl and reliance on the car (two fun facts on this: 1) LA used to have one of the most extensive street car systems in the country before the 1960s and was widely used for getting around. Said street car system's demise is rumored to be the result of GM putting the streetcar company out of business in favor of its own buses. 2) the movie Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a zany Disney children's movie from 1988. It has a substantial subplot based on LA's streetcar removal and replacement with freeways). But right now, downtown is perhaps the hottest real estate market in the city with other urban neighborhoods like downtown Long Beach and old Hollywood/Sunset Strip seeing a lot of urban growth as well. Even the entertainment industry is taking an interest in downtown which they never have before; Warner Bro's music division is moving into an old downtown warehouse.

I could talk forever about LA.

[RockHarbor]

I enjoy the continued discussion on Los Angeles -- and to see TBB jump in! There's so much to touch on, and respond to, so I'll have to write more later... When I do, I'll probably write a "book" again -- as usual. I really try not to.

I'll leave you two with some of the big pictures of Los Angeles in the Crescent Book I mentioned. I was so excited to check this book out at the library in Omaha growing up. I think it was my favorite book, in fact. (I'm not as fascinated of LA as I used to be, nor think its such a "big deal" -- although I still like the particular look of it all. I'm not really of any city anymore. Mellowing is one of the nice things about getting older.)

There's just something about that Los Angeles cityscape back in the 70's & 80's when it was mainly just rectangular skyscraper blocks standing tall, with the sun-washed white cityscape sprawling wide, and hills & mountains palm trees accenting it all. At sunset, the vibrant orange/red sky (from smog) creates a striking picture w/ the black silhouetted shapes of palms, blocky buildings, and great sprawl of twinkling city lights to the horizon. That's the kind of scenes that makes Los Angeles unique from any other city. (If you look at Downtown Chicago & NYC, Downtown Los Angeles can look so limited & small. But, to me, Los Angeles isnt just about the city skyline -- its about the whole scene, or panorama.)

As much as I love the newest LA architecture, and the city getting more urban & dense finally, there's something about back when it was just low-rise sprawl & tall rectangular blocks downtown -- as that is the Los Angeles I knew as a kid. In fact, Ive done some graphic art of LA true to that era. (I like the blocky look of NYC & Chicago back then, too. There's a purity to all the boxy skyscrapers.)







Will examine more details about LA later...

[TitosBuritoBarn]

Fun fact about LA's boxy skyline. City fire codes had required all skyscrapers of a certain height to have helipads on top so that in the event of a fire, people trapped inside could be airlifted out. LA was the only city to ever require this. After about 40 years of having the requirement, it was lifted in 2014 with the mayor hoping to encourage better designed buildings. Other safety mechanisms for escaping a fire in a skyscraper can be built into tall buildings so a helipad isn't all that necessary. Even so, it looks like most of the newest skyscrapers still include a helipad.

[RockHarbor]

Fun fact about LA's boxy skyline. City fire codes had required all skyscrapers of a certain height to have helipads on top so that in the event of a fire, people trapped inside could be airlifted out. LA was the only city to ever require this. After about 40 years of having the requirement, it was lifted in 2014 with the mayor hoping to encourage better designed buildings. Other safety mechanisms for escaping a fire in a skyscraper can be built into tall buildings so a helipad isn't all that necessary. Even so, it looks like most of the newest skyscrapers still include a helipad.

Yes! I actually mentioned that earlier in this thread, btw, so I was aware of that change. It's kind of exciting, to think what new LA architecture is possible now, with that helipad rule gone. However, part of me is kind of leary, because I like LA's collection of flat-roofed skyscrapers, and I wasnt sure what I felt when the Grand Wilshire skyscraper was proposed for LA. Im not really crazy about the idea of western cities having buildings that sport needles, ect. To me, needles are generally more appropriate for cities from Kansas City on East. They are fanciful accents generally, matching the aires of more traditional & older cities, ect. I think of the NYC & Philly skyscrapers, needled skyscrapers in Atlanta, Cleveland, ect. Old cities are filled with many gothic church steeples, too. Dramatic needled structures kind of "reach for the heavens."

However, I find I dont mind the curved apex & needle on this new LA skyscraper, as well as the little needle on a new Denver residential high rise. Needles can also simply be a retro-type accent that could work in any town, especially little needles. (I think even Boise"s newest building has a little needle.)

Anyways, notice newer, western, nontraditional cities, even without that LA helipad rule, end up with flat-roofed skyscrapers most of the time? In general, I think flat-roofed basic skyscrapers look better with rugged profiles of background mountains. And, they match the aire of nontraditional, newer western cities better. Phoenix & Albuquerque's & Salt Lake's & Seattle's & Dallas's pyramid-topped buildings, Denver's Cash Register, Seattle's green-roofed capped skyscraper, San Diego's tallest quad-gabled skyscraper, and the TransAmerica Pyramid in San Fran, are some exceptions. Houston & San Antonio have some skyscraper apexes based on ancient Mayan architecture, and Houston has that bold tri-dutch-gabled skyscraper. Dallas has the triangular-topped Fountain Place. Still, all those examples are not intricate, ornates tops which match older, traditional cities best -- they are very basic shapes that work just fine out west & southwest.

(Note: The tri-gabled bank skyscraper in Houston uses basic shapes overall as a whole to make a grand statement, but does have intricate, fanciful, traditional accents when you view it up close. That's unusual for Houston, yet is more a nonserious, postmodern twist on traditional & historical design -- so it doesnt really count, imo, almost like Las Vegas's Greek architecture, Egyptian architecture, and NYC skyscrapers don't really count as architecture to be taken fully seriously, like a cathedral in London should be. And: Houston, although considered a "city of the Southwest" in some books, is still close enough to the piney, wooded eastern border of TX, that it is teetering on the edge of older, traditional-based states, like LA & MS, that have plenty of old, historical, fanciful architecture -- not states "western" in nature at all. So, Houston is not as "free of old tradition" and "western" as Phoenix is, logically -- therefore, it can pull-off different architecture than Phoenix.)

What makes that western design factor even more clearer is the fact that, take notice: The same exact aspect occurs when you get down into Florida cities, because they are not older, traditional cities. Heck, most of them have stucco & Spanish-tiled roof suburbia, just like Phoenix & Southern CA. They are not old, heavy-with-tradition cities at all. The skyscrapers are all flat-roofed, or have stair-stepping tiered apexes, and there are some basic pyramidal caps around. I can see South Beach, FL pulling a retro needle off, or two. In fact, there may be a building with one.