Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Third world cities are usually more crowded, so skyscrapers are actually necessary and long overdue. The smaller American cities are the ones that just build to show, including Chicago which has a much smaller population density than even SF, has boundary at only one end, and is largely flat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by K.O.N.Y
I agree manhattanization is overrated. Its done in cities that have no idea what there doing and don't realize manhattan becoming manhattan is more than just building up because of density. Thats why we have third world cities with shiny skyscrapers
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,035,535 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by fashionguy
Third world cities are usually more crowded, so skyscrapers are actually necessary and long overdue. The smaller American cities are the ones that just build to show, including Chicago which has a much smaller population density than even SF, has boundary at only one end, and is largely flat.
Population used to be larger, was where Los Angeles is at now 3.6 million (close to LA's 3.8 present population).
The Downtown now is for corporate headquarters and for residence attractions to get more people into the city. Large chunk of population lives in downtown (including me), plus it's sheer size in sea of skyscrapers is no where near New York City (6,700 + buildings). I think it is about right. It just used different approach for city living, which will see an increase in population due to residential developments in/near downtown.
Also, population greatly increases during the day time in Downtown when millions come into it for work daily. Which is more than San Francisco's total population, even if it attracts a million more.
Chicagoland needs to work on rejuvenating it's population figures and growing at a faster pace again, just in last 4 years it started to again for this decade.
Third world cities are usually more crowded, so skyscrapers are actually necessary and long overdue. The smaller American cities are the ones that just build to show, including Chicago which has a much smaller population density than even SF, has boundary at only one end, and is largely flat.
you are so stupid man. just crawl under whatever retard hole you came from, stop posting please w/ your bs theories. go buy some prada and a latte fashionguy. I'll take the infraction or whatever, I don't care, somebody needs to shut this guy up though.
I understand that Chicago deserves those skyscrapers a lot more than most American cities, but someone brought out third world cities with shiny skyscrapers in a tone indicating that they are only following new york with no direction and no purpose. And my point is, compared to those third world cities, even Chicago the second scraper city looks like it doesn't need any skyscraper. Those third world cities are usually a lot more crowded, and they need work and need high quality office space too. They really should build those skyscrapers if they can because they need them absolutely. They simply have not much land to develop on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OmShahi
Population used to be larger, was where Los Angeles is at now 3.6 million (close to LA's 3.8 present population).
The Downtown now is for corporate headquarters and for residence attractions to get more people into the city. Large chunk of population lives in downtown (including me), plus it's sheer size in sea of skyscrapers is no where near New York City (6,700 + buildings). I think it is about right. It just used different approach for city living, which will see an increase in population due to residential developments in/near downtown.
Also, population greatly increases during the day time in Downtown when millions come into it for work daily. Which is more than San Francisco's total population, even if it attracts a million more.
Chicagoland needs to work on rejuvenating it's population figures and growing at a faster pace again, just in last 4 years it started to again for this decade.
Third world cities are usually more crowded, so skyscrapers are actually necessary and long overdue. The smaller American cities are the ones that just build to show, including Chicago which has a much smaller population density than even SF, has boundary at only one end, and is largely flat.
chicago-hater on the low
Quote:
Originally Posted by polo89
Manhattinization is overrated, I personally like the lose-rise look of Los Angeles.
San Francisco is denser than much of Los Angeles, but it's still a California city. Although the city is on a smaller footprint of land than Los Angeles, comparing it to Manhattan is a bit of a stretch.
I understand that Chicago deserves those skyscrapers a lot more than most American cities, but someone brought out third world cities with shiny skyscrapers in a tone indicating that they are only following new york with no direction and no purpose. And my point is, compared to those third world cities, even Chicago the second scraper city looks like it doesn't need any skyscraper. Those third world cities are usually a lot more crowded, and they need work and need high quality office space too. They really should build those skyscrapers if they can because they need them absolutely. They simply have not much land to develop on.
But what about super dense city's like london and paris that don't contain that many skyscrapers? Asia and the middle-east build skyscrapers for the "hey look at me, im important too" effect. Which is not what manhattanization was about. Most skyscrapers overseas lack soul and/or character because of this.
Theres no reason why something like the burj khalifia should have been made in a recession. Not even in nycs boom boom times would something like that be built
Both San Fran-nimby and L.A. are riddled with powerful, selfish, anti-developmment, anti-density, historical-preservation-crazy neighborhood groups, which helps explain the high cost of housing. Along with Nimby-apolis/MN, they have it down to a science: block all new development, and we'll keep our existing house prices unattainable to the undesirables.
Go look at Emporis.com and check the date of the last high rise built in Santa Monica! 30 years from now, do the same, nothing's going to change!
San Diego may have better chance of emerging as the NY of the West, as I've seen their skyline Manhattanize so well over the last 10 years.
Are you joking? San Francisco has 44 buildings over 400 feet, San Diego has 13. Its not even close. SF has a much more (lower) Manhattan-like skyline that San Diego, and its hard to see that changing.
Although I havent been there, from what I gather Seattle has a decent chance of eventually overtaking SF as the most Manhattan-like skyline (although more like Midtown) on the West Coast, but its nowhere near that yet.
It currently only has 24 buildings over 400 feet, but many more are being constructed and proposed, and there are some undeveloped sections near downtown that may start getting more skycrapers as well. For now, SF has by-far the most Manhattan like skyline.
As for the original question, Id say San Francisco is a combination of both NYC and LA, yet also completely distinct. A very strong West Coast Cali vibe, with an NYC-like (on a much smaller scale) infrastructure. And tons of its own crazy vibe. SF really does have more soul than almost any other city.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,035,535 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by K.O.N.Y
But what about super dense city's like london and paris that don't contain that many skyscrapers? Asia and the middle-east build skyscrapers for the "hey look at me, im important too" effect. Which is not what manhattanization was about. Most skyscrapers overseas lack soul and/or character because of this.
Theres no reason why something like the burj khalifia should have been made in a recession. Not even in nycs boom boom times would something like that be built
Quite frankly KONY, I do not think Dubai is a smart city whatsoever. They are building supertalls left & right just to show the world that they can. They have high vacancy rate and their economy has suffered far worse than 95% of the cities in the world. They had to be bailed out of near bankruptcy.
They don't have a large population, so they don't need buildings to be 2500 feet +. We all know why they built what they did.
Cities like Mumbai & Shanghai, you can make a case for them having a few supertall residential due to their city populations.
You want to know what their density is, they will make Houston look like New York City. Their density is 97 people per square mile, the city is over 1,500 square miles (yes miles not kilometers) that's larger than the whole state of Rhode Island.
I am not a density rider, but the overall city density is pathetic. There probably are some extremely dense areas, like any city probably in their skyline district, but that does not speak for the whole 1,500 square mile of land picture that they try drawing up.
Their population is, 1,771,000 as of 2009. (That's less than the actual city of Houston, and they have 1,000 square miles more than Houston too) You think they have any real reason to build supertalls? They can't even use the heavy weight population for their excuse. They built it just to show the world "we can" but what they did not realize was that they overbuilt, thus their high vacancy rate, and they now have more on-hold projects than any city in the world... because their economy tanked when they were building up their city.
I myself am quite familiar with Dubai, their politics, their regulations, everything about their culture... and how they in-act, I have family ties in Dubai, well I did, when my uncle was transferred from NYC to Dubai for his project, he quit his job and came back to NYC after 4 years because he couldn't handle their "mirage" glamorous city.
It may seem like I am bashing it, but people build that place up like it's all that, and it's not. Scale it down and bring it back to Earth, that city does NOT deserve to be put in the same rank as London, NYC, Paris, not even with Los Angeles, Chicago, Frankfurt yet, IMHO.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
