On Jan. 18, Dick Turpin contended that Los Angeles has replaced San Francisco as the financial center of the West Coast. A cursory glance at the respective cities' skyline contradicts his point.
With the possible exception of California Plaza and Crocker (nee Wells Fargo) Center, L. A.'s skyline is strictly minor league compared to San Francisco's. Witness the 50-story California Center with North America's first Mandarin Hotel occupying the top 12 floors, with offices below, or 333 Bush, a 43-story condo office tower. L. A. has nothing even close to S.F.'s Embarcadero Center, one of the nation's most successful office-retail mega-structures.
Mid-rise development is also more advanced, with S.F. recognizing, long before L. A., the need to confront bulk and height. L. A. was a late-bloomer in the development of its high-rise core. This is not surprising since L. A. is still in the process of attempting to define itself as something San Francisco has always been--the only real "city" in California.
San Francisco and Los Angeles are arguably two of the world's most important cities. Please don't belittle San Francisco's position with those mindless and provincial assertions. L. A. still has some catching up to do.