HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2007, 1:39 AM
Minato Ku's Avatar
Minato Ku Minato Ku is offline
Tokyo and Paris fan
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Paris, Montrouge
Posts: 3,755
Yes it is also a part of the vast and diverse place wich is the suburbs of Paris
In other way most suburbs look like at the picture that I posted than at Clichy sous Bois.

There is 8 million inhabitants in Paris suburbs, most are in the middle class. Inner Paris has an higher poverty and unemployement rate than the suburbs.
Paris, inner city

The only exeption with an higher poverty rate and unemployement rate than the inner city is the Seine Saint Denis.
Inner suburbs of Paris are more urban and denser than most european, and american inner city.




  • 1.Paris 75 :
    2,153,600 inh
  • 2.Haut de Seine 92 :
    1,516,700 inh
  • 3.Seine Saint Denis 93 :
    1,459,000 inh
  • 4.Val de Marne 94 :
    1,278,900 inh
  • 5.Essonne 91 :
    1,187,800 inh
  • 6.Yvelines 78 :
    1,394,800 inh
  • 7.Val d'Oise 95 :
    1,148,000 inh
  • 8.Seine et Marne 77 :
    1,260,500 inh

Per exemple I live in inner suburbs (Montrouge, Haut de Seine) in one of safest place in Paris metro. The crime rate is even lower than the national average.

EDIT : In 2006 the GDP of Paris would around $730 billion for 11.5 million inhabitants.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2007, 1:40 AM
bricky bricky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 588
^^ Go Paris

Seriously though, I might rag on LA sometimes, but tons of NYers (for instance) would love to live in LA and environs. For people with a bit of money, it offers a beautiful lifestyle. Perpetual Spring, beautiful scenery, visions of hillside houses with swimming pools overlooking a sea of lights, an open, sunny, palm-tree lined environment... a so-laid-back-it's-almost-comatose vibe... more than enough shopping, restaurants, bars, clubs, museums and cultural amenities, amazing diversity... and of course the Hollywood glamor which frankly does provide even NYers with enough cover to safely say that they don't live in the boonies (for NYers, a category which includes Chicago, Seattle, and really anywhere except The NE Corridor, California, and possibly Miami).

Since Paris got mentioned, I might relate that I once had some French friends who absolutely loved the idea of LA. The South of France with career possibilites, according to them.

Last edited by bricky; Dec 28, 2007 at 2:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2007, 2:30 AM
citywatch citywatch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minato Ku View Post
You are wrong.

If you mean ChrisLA, or anyone who'd state that many of Paris's older burbs look about as scroungy as many of LA's older burbs, I have to respectfully agree.

After looking at the various pics in this thread, I didn't see any hood that looked really fugly. Or bad enough that I'd say that a study like this is as applicable to many hoods or streets in Paris as it is to many hoods in LA.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2007, 2:58 AM
Echo Park Echo Park is offline
California goth
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: cardboard box on skid row
Posts: 1,777
Los Angeles is an overwhelming blue collar city whose majority of residents have jobs lifting boxes, filing records or cleaning kitchens. The cityscape clearly reflects the demands of such residents: ugly, uninspired and poorly planned. If the wealth and influence exists as milquetoasts claim it does, LA would attract more movers and shakers and the cityscape as a result would beautify. But that is not what Los Angeles is. edluva is right and all you ahve to do is walk out your front door to find proof. Sorry, but sprinkling a few billionaires here and there on a layer of hollywood glitz does not make a world-class city. HEy I love the city here but I'm not gonna pretend we don't live in an oversized Tulsa by the sea.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2007, 3:02 AM
bricky bricky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by citywatch View Post
[/b]
If you mean ChrisLA, or anyone who'd state that many of Paris's older burbs look about as scroungy as many of LA's older burbs, I have to respectfully agree.

After looking at the various pics in this thread, I didn't see any hood that looked really fugly. Or bad enough that I'd say that a study like this is as applicable to many hoods or streets in Paris as it is to many hoods in LA.
In my (albeit limited) experience with the bad parts of LA, it's the commercial strips that look the worst. Shitty old strip malls one after the other. But the residential streets that make up the bulk of area don't actually look that bad. I'm just going off of South Central and Compton, which I basically visited as a tourist when I lived in the Westside. The houses there, while not great, where far better and more sightly than what I see in Queens or most of Brooklyn. Everyone had their little houses and their little yards, with large impressive palm trees running down the length of some streets. And if the yards were in bad shape, and the houses rundown... well frankly that's the fault of the residents. It doesn't take much money to pick up the junk on your front lawn, or even to paint the house once in a while in a dry climate like LA.

LA could eventually look much better if zoning regulations were reformed. Allowing or perhaps encouraging parking underground or behind the buildings. Allowing larger buildings on the wide boulevards. Getting some control over signage. Most of LA's built environment problems stem from horrible zoning regulations. One day, perhaps in the next 10-15 years, the powers-that-be (political, media, and other) will wake up and make the changes. Especially as political power shifts ever more to the Latinos, who have to put up with all the disfunctionality in the bad parts of the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2007, 3:09 AM
bricky bricky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Echo Park View Post
Los Angeles is an overwhelming blue collar city whose majority of residents have jobs lifting boxes, filing records or cleaning kitchens. The cityscape clearly reflects the demands of such residents: ugly, uninspired and poorly planned. If the wealth and influence exists as milquetoasts claim it does, LA would attract more movers and shakers and the cityscape as a result would beautify. But that is not what Los Angeles is. edluva is right and all you ahve to do is walk out your front door to find proof. Sorry, but sprinkling a few billionaires here and there on a layer of hollywood glitz does not make a world-class city. HEy I love the city here but I'm not gonna pretend we don't live in an oversized Tulsa by the sea.
Things aren't binary. 1 or 0. Metro LA is not as wealthy as NY or the Bay Area. You have to remember that NY and the Bay Area don't have 5 million or so poorly educated immigrants from rural Mexico and Central America, very often illegal. But nevertheless, there are lots of rich people in metro LA. There must be to support all the luxury shopping, expensive restaurants, and multimillion dollar hillside and coastal homes.

One of the problems with LA, perhaps, is the isolation of the wealthy from from the poor. The Westside was great when I lived there. But when I lived there, I almost never went to the bad parts of town. I suppose I zipped over them on the freeway. Took the wrong exit a few times into what I think were the barrios of East LA, and also did some sightseeing due to "Straight Out of Compton". Well, out of sight, out of mind. If you never come into contact with the bad areas, esconsed in Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Newport Beach, etc, they might as well not exist.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2007, 3:43 AM
citywatch citywatch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Echo Park View Post
HEy I love the city here but I'm not gonna pretend we don't live in an oversized Tulsa by the sea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bricky View Post
Most of LA's built environment problems stem from horrible zoning regulations. One day, perhaps in the next 10-15 years, the powers-that-be (political, media, and other) will wake up and make the changes.

And why did things go so wrong, & so far down, in the first place?

Look at Pg 4, the pic & comment, & pg 19, the pic, in particular. I bet no one would have thought such a study was necessary a long time ago. I bet most ppl yrs ago, & even today, would have said, or will say, "no BFD! No BFD!" Or they would have yelled, or will yell, "you're ridiculous!!!"

And so nothing got improved cuz too many ppl either were snoozing, rationalizing away the problem, over intellectualizing the issue, or too busy with life behind their white picket fence to care one way or the other.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2007, 5:28 AM
yeah215 yeah215 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 227
Suburbs look like Suburbs

Quote:
Originally Posted by citywatch View Post
[/b]I think it's the biggest downer or flaw about LA, to more ppl than not.


This quote unfortunately sums it up:

[/i]
Many ppl in LA complain about being stuck in traffic & not having good transit as an alternative way of getting around. Or some of them gripe about condo bldgs having parking podiums, or being too short, or being next to sidewalks that don't open up to enough stores. Or hoods being too burban & bland. But all of that is made way, way worse by too much of it being filled with, or surrounded or served by scenes not much better than this:


Omar Omar at flickr.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minato Ku View Post
You are wrong.

Paris suburbs

Picture by frederic masson
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=558849
Actually......

I feel like most LA inner suburbs are covered in apartment buildings that look like this....

And here are some pics of the valley. Probably LA's most famous "suburb". The quotes are because most of the Valley is actually in the city of Los Angeles.




Reply With Quote
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2007, 6:33 AM
Vangelist Vangelist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 678
Some of the posts on this thread are not just mind-numbingly stupid, but subtextually racist in their ignorance. As bricky mentioned a while back, Silicon Valley has more wealthy "influential" people by %, and yet it's still suburban; LA's sprawled out geography, zoning regulations and the fact it came-of-age in the automotive era (as all Sunbelt cities did) combined shape its built environment.... not the fact that it houses an unbearable (to some) amount of day-laborer Mexicans.

There isn't really any factor of causation in "adding influential people" + "adding millionaires" = beautiful city! Looking at the list citywatch linked to: hm, is Portland a "world class" city, filled with members of the hoi polloi that "influence the global economy" ? Do you know how retarded it even sounds to discuss whether or not a city is "world class" - as if we're 14 year olds having a pissing match? (Oh wait, what are "urbanity forums for!) And WHY are we comparing LA to Paris? This is all so ridiculous - I feel like I've lost 365094078 million brain cells just reading this thread

Oh and Westside: you shouldn't have edited your post - I saw it. What are you afraid of? Being labeled a non-world class suburbanite?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2007, 7:07 AM
edluva edluva is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,134
Vangelist, now you're confusing two different topics and responding to an assertion which never existed. The economic influence argument is a response to ignorant statemnts regarding, and limited to, LA's economy.

That discussion lies completely seperate from my statement regarding citywatch's complaints of central-LA's aesthetics, in which I make the case that what he's really complaining about is lack of investment in the city-core, a symptom of wealth being distributed everywhere *but* the city-center, and not due to fucking telephone poles, or whatever other tired theory he keeps on bringing up. And that the dilapidated state of much of LA is due to poverty, a state that any realist would admit changes in generations, not overnight, and that this reality is often at odds with what is many folks' well-meaning but idealistic desire to see gentrification sweep the city center in some as-yet unseen manner such that the millions of uneducated poor are sipping lattes alongside pastely white-yuppies in gay merriment by the time South Park gets all metro again. My off-the-cuff statement, in other words, was a commentary on the hyprocritical viewpoints held by naive kids like, probably you. But apparently you prefer responding to imaginary arguments which noone on this forum has ever made. I guess it's good to practice talking past people once in awhile.

ps - read up on portland, and other topics, before getting all self-righteously ignorant and juvenile. Reading racist subtext into everything possible is an exercise in existential naivety.

Last edited by edluva; Dec 28, 2007 at 7:26 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #111  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2007, 8:10 AM
citywatch citywatch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by edluva View Post
That discussion lies completely seperate from my statement regarding citywatch's complaints of central-LA's aesthetics, in which I make the case that what he's really complaining about is lack of investment in the city-core, a symptom of wealth being distributed everywhere *but* the city-center, and not due to fucking telephone poles, or whatever other tired theory he keeps on bringing up.

A problem with lack of investment?! I guess the proper, snotty response should be: No fooling, Sherlock!

And that theory of yours is a bit less tired than the claim that lousy transit----presumably before & after the era of LA's huge network of Red cars-----is a primary reason LA lost so much $$$, & the ppl & businesses that go with it, a long time ago.

My theory----tired or whatever, & yet a fundamental reality (& truth)----is that if more of LA had been properly & nicely developed from the very beginning, the type of ppl who are more picky & discerning about where they live----& who often have more money than the types who couldn't tell the difference between Paris, France & Gardena, Calif-----would've been less likely to flee to the burbs or other cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #112  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2007, 3:58 PM
Echo Park Echo Park is offline
California goth
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: cardboard box on skid row
Posts: 1,777
citywatch go away. shoo. scram
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #113  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2007, 6:21 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 3,253
This is off-topic, but reading the post above that mentioned the Red Cars, some people have the tendency to romanticize the past without finding out about the reality. My friend's grandmother who is now 84, was born and raised in Los Angeles (which is not common for someone of her generation, most people that age are transplants to LA). She remembers riding the Red Cars, which broke down often, and she remembers getting groped by perverts when the cars got really crowded. She grew up in what would now be called South Los Angeles. My friend and I remarked to her that Pico Blvd through central LA probably used to be really nice, and she burst our bubble when she said "Oh no, that section of Pico was always crappy." We all seem to forget that LA had an influx of conservative and not so sophisticated Okies and people from the South who lived in the working-class sections of LA in the era between the World Wars. But even when my friend's grandmother was young, downtown was THE place to go for heavy duty department store shopping and going to the movies (I feel fortunate to have visited the original Robinsons' department store downtown with its wooden escalators, right before it closed in 1992). She said her family never really went to Hollywood for movies, they always went Downtown. My friend's grandmother also said that the May Company on Wilshire Blvd. (now part of LACMA) was actually considered to be an upper-class store, or at least the upper-class people shopped there, which surprised me, because I remember going there as a child and it was just a run-of-the-mill May Company by then (1970s-80s).

The Pacific Electric Red Car was a privately owned and operated system, something we can't fathom today, being that our public transportation now really is public. The PE went out of business simply because it was no longer making a profit, and people actually started thinking early on that streetcars were a very antiquated, 19th Century way to get around. LA was already a city on wheels by the 1920s, with many people already owning cars, probably more so than any other American city at the time. So it would be incorrect (and a myth) to say that it was the car companies who bought out the PE system and forever got rid of "the best public transportation system in the world." More people just started buying cars because they thought it was a better (and modern) way to get around. You can also say that LA's far-flung sprawling metro area was created by the PE Red Car system and NOT by automobiles, so, there's an irony there; it's true that since Angelenos took to the car very early on that developments were made more accommodating to the car, but it was actually real estate booms and the luring of the PE rails to those developments in the late 1800s, that contributed to LA's sprawl.
__________________
Patriotism is an inflated assertion of imaginary superiority.

Last edited by sopas ej; Dec 28, 2007 at 7:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #114  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2007, 6:28 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 3,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minato Ku View Post
Yes it is also a part of the vast and diverse place wich is the suburbs of Paris
In other way most suburbs look like at the picture that I posted than at Clichy sous Bois.
I'm just saying, you shouldn't misrepresent. Not all suburbs of Paris (or Europe, for that matter) are all sunshine, lollipops and rainbows. I remember when I first went to Paris and saw some of the suburbs. I remember seeing graffiti along the freeways and being somehow let down, but at the same time comforted by the fact that it's just not American cities that have graffiti along some of their freeways. European cities have their fair share too.
__________________
Patriotism is an inflated assertion of imaginary superiority.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #115  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2007, 7:39 PM
Minato Ku's Avatar
Minato Ku Minato Ku is offline
Tokyo and Paris fan
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Paris, Montrouge
Posts: 3,755
Never said the oposite, when I said "you are wrong" it was about the skyscrapers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #116  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2007, 7:52 PM
bricky bricky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by edluva View Post
The economic influence argument is a response to ignorant statemnts regarding, and limited to, LA's economy.
I was thinking about something you wrote earlier: that the only way members of the port industry could exercise power would be by going on strike. Obviously power is linked to discretion. The port of LA is a vital and integral part how America's economy operates. But workers in the port industry lack discretion. In the sense that they just do their jobs, unload containers, load trucks... whatever it is people do in port facilities.

But how much real discretion do others have? Think about finance... now there seems to be an industry with discretion and power. Very large amounts of money that get allocated all the time. Billion dollar allocations that often make or break companies, or entire industries. Groups of allocations, which taken together, even break countries (financial crises in Mexico, SE Asia, Argentina, etc). But then again, the port industry "allocates" trillions of dollars worth of goods, without which the global economy would grind to a total halt. What's the perceived difference? Discretion. Short of a strike, what discretion do the ports have? Increased efficiency at ports reduces prices and increases trade. But that's so boring. Not like a banker buying out a company and its thousands of employees with one phone call, a la Wall Street the movie. Much more attractive on a visceral level.

But when you think about it, how much discretion do even bankers have? Financial allocations are based on bankers' calculations of returns. It's the calculations that have "power", not the whims of the bankers. They don't allocate money to one company because they "like" the CEO or the town where the company is based. If they did, they wouldn't last too long in the industry. They allocate capital based on calculations (and they are most often complicated mathematical calculations) about rate of return, risk, variance, etc. Just like I guess port workers calculate how best to move materials.

Lots of things are necessary for the operation of a modern economy. Try running an economy or company without trucking, modern supply chain management (the great unsung productivity enhancer of the past 20 years), computer networks, or even plumbing. I wouldn't say that any of them as industries or services are less important than finance. All are necessary for the operation of the modern economy. Why do so many people give special weight to financiers? Because financiers are thought to have more discretion (aka power)? I guess, if you think "Wall Street" the movie is how the banking industry really works. But more than that, I think it's because financiers very famously make lots of money. They live large, going to expensive restaurants, flying first class, wearing $2,000 suits, etc. Hollywood makes movies about them. Port executives, supply chain managers and even tech workers are nowhere near as glamorous.

Anyway, I don't think the putdowns about LA's economy here have much to do with power or importance, per se. They have to do with prestige and money. Outside of Hollywood (a very special and flakey industry), there aren't very many professional career opportunities in LA, at least compared with NY, London, or even Boston, Washington and SF. There are plenty of rich people in metro LA (I looked at some numbers, and metro LA would be 2nd nationally in the number of millionaires), but they are often self-made, with small companies, in real estate, or Hollywood. Not many in prestige fields like finance, FT 500 management, technology, etc.

If you went to the Ivy League or equivalent schools, LA is not a very good place to start or continue a conventional upper-middle-class career path. That's what bothers some people, I think. The local wealthy are viewed by some as unintellectual, vulgar or low-class. Not like those suave, worldly, intelligent bankers in NY, who do "important" things.

Last edited by bricky; Dec 28, 2007 at 8:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #117  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2007, 8:12 PM
citywatch citywatch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Echo Park View Post
citywatch go away. shoo. scram
The level of your debating skills is impressive, echo park. You----& NOT me----did say that LA is "Tulsa by the sea". So, therefore, I guess I can't expect much from ppl who live in "Tulsa"?



Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
My friend and I remarked to her that Pico Blvd through central LA probably used to be really nice, and she burst our bubble when she said "Oh no, that section of Pico was always crappy."

We all seem to forget that LA had an influx of conservative and not so sophisticated Okies and people from the South who lived in the working-class sections of LA in the era between the World Wars.
In a few words, that sums it up. Since many of our older hoods originally served ppl like the ones you describe, or were built by ppl like that, we're in the shape we're in today. I'll add that Bunker Hill, originally where LA's $$ crowd lived, started to go downhill over 80 yrs ago. Less surprising cuz there were some cheap bldgs & houses built right next to or around various mansions. IOW, it went into the dumper BEFORE our fwys got congested, BEFORE a lack of good transit became a big issue & problem.


Quote:
You can also say that LA's far-flung sprawling metro area was created by the PE Red Car system and NOT by automobiles, so, there's an irony there; it's true that since Angelenos took to the car very early on that developments were made more accommodating to the car, but it was actually real estate booms and the luring of the PE rails to those developments in the late 1800s, that contributed to LA's sprawl.
I recall someone saying that the BART system in SF, cuz it provided another option for commuters, made it even easier for ppl in the Bay Area to run to the burbs. The reason I mention that is not to diss transit, since LA in particular needs a much better rail system. I mention that to those ppl who think that turning around a hood like DTLA is totally dependent on improving transit.

Or the question is what is more important? Or what comes first? Creating a fantastic rail network in LA or making more of its hoods nice enough for ppl with $$?

Both goals are important----all halfway decent cities have advantages in those 2 areas----but a hood like DT won't move to the next level based on transit. No, the hood will move to the next level based on getting rid of alot more of its various fugly qualities, including gaps & deadzones.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #118  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2007, 8:27 PM
Echo Park Echo Park is offline
California goth
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: cardboard box on skid row
Posts: 1,777
Wink

^*gets the broom*
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #119  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2007, 2:40 AM
WesTheAngelino's Avatar
WesTheAngelino WesTheAngelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Washington and Main, Downtown Los Angeles
Posts: 2,239
Ok..........sigh...........I said I would never contribute to another LA thread due to endless, pointless, rediculous "debates" like this one, but I feel I have to point out the obvious thing that people are completely forgetting here: children.

For a myriad of reasons (because they're gay, focused to much on urban form and not people, not even thinking about getting married, or simply just too young to think about it) members of this forum simply forget that perhaps the single most driving force that brings people from the cities where they went to college and got their first high paying job and one bedroom apartment to the burbs is because they want their children to have a nice childhood. Cheif among parental concerns are schools and safety (and those two are often the same thing). The current state of LAUSD schools and the lack of affordable, quality private schools (I really haven't researched this, but something tells me that Boston, NYC, Chicago, etc, have a more extensive system of parochial schools and private academies) would a main reason parents would be loath to raise a child here. With homogenous populations (both in terms of race and income) the burbs offer a natural since of security, and the schools are usually (but not always better). It's certainly not impossible to turn this around. But I really think it has less to do with transit, aesthetics, economics, or any other arguments people are using here and far more to do with making a city more practical for parents and their children. After all, don't we want to make a city that people want to STAY in their whole lives rather than just making LA more DINK friendly than it already is?
__________________
Drop Bush, Not Bombs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #120  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2007, 10:40 AM
milquetoast's Avatar
milquetoast milquetoast is offline
L O S A N G E L E S
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Henderson NV
Posts: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by bricky View Post
They live large, going to expensive restaurants, flying first class, wearing $2,000 suits, etc. Hollywood makes movies about them. Port executives, supply chain managers and even tech workers are nowhere near as glamorous.
So you're saying edluva was...influenced by-gasp-Hollywood? It all makes sense now. He saw "Wall Street" a few too many times and has a jones (some might even say a 'Dow' jones) for Michael Douglas! Like many before it and since, just another gift from L. A. to NY. This answers some questions, but not all. By the way, that's naivete'- coincidentally a French word, so I'm going to have to take everything edluva states from now on with an immense grain of salt.

Last edited by milquetoast; Dec 30, 2007 at 9:37 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:09 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.