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.
Much of this has more to do with geogrpahy and also the residential cohesion. I honestly think downtown Ft Worth (as a huge stretch) is closer to manhattanism than vancouver and Miami, Houston, Dallas and Atlanta are all way closer to Vancouver in composition. This goes far beyond just the CBD but the city - Vancouver is far more modern and areas like Midtown or TMC in Houston have far more incommon with vancouver than NYC - i honestly spit my drink when I saw the list. To me it has nothing to do with hieght and more to do with development pattern.
maybe I am crazy but I am very confused by your examples many seem transposed, and NYC, Boston, Philly etc are far more like european cities in composition, how the city functions regardless of how tall or not tall the city is. Is DC more Manhattan or Vancouver - I say Manhattan from a functional standpoint and there are 0 skyscrapers.
I am just very confused by this...
Hmmm.....
Ok let me clear that up for ya.
This whole thread and those two terms have everything to do with buildings and skyscrapers... not so much development patterns or geography. The terms "Manhattanization" and "Vancouverism" are terms that discribe skylines, really. Like Manhattanization basically means you build alot of tall to VERY tall buildings (and usually more office than mixed-use), while Vancouverism basically means you build alot of smaller, more "human scale" mid rises. Dallas and Atlanta are much more closer to Manhattanization (I didn't list Dallas, btw, but since you brought it up....) since there are more taller office towers than mixed use buildings. You could make the argument that Dallas Uptown is more like Vancouverism, but the entire skyline as a whole is made more to look like Manhattan. Just a bunch of really tall skyscrapers.
The cities I listed were just a few examples of that (I kinda disagree with Vegas, since most of their buildings are mid-rises, but that's what it's considered to be). I said most Euro cities are an example of Vancouverism because they don't build so many very tall skyscrapers. They're usually smaller buildings that are more spread out.
Of course, I used Fort Worth as sort of a joke example since the city, as big as it is, doesn't have very many tall buildings..... just 6 REAL skyscrapers by last count. However, it seems that the future of the city is building more twoards mid rises.
Also, San Fran. L.A., and Seattle are examples of Manhattanization as well.
yep, and downtonw is what your compadres on here always rag on for not being dense enough. They say it is not as compact as Seattle and SF. That is why I was surprised you used it as one of the compact ones.
but hey, there is always a dictonomy on here when it comes to Houston.
The Galeria and Energy Corridor aren't dense. Downtown and the TMC are.
I'm guessing they mean all together, Houston isn't dense....
The Galeria and Energy Corridor aren't dense. Downtown and the TMC are.
I'm guessing they mean all together, Houston isn't dense....
no, they mean downtown. ask kidphilly, he is always going on about how the towers in downtown Houston don't look tall and they are far apart, and all that nonsense. ask him. a lot of people on here say this nonsense
"Manhattanization" - Mass construction of taller skyscrapers and high rises densely built in the same area.
examples: New York (duh), Chicago, Miami, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Houston
"Vancouverism" - Mass construction of medium rise and few high rise (usually skinny) mixed-use buildings built in the same area.
examples: Vancouver, Portland, Fort Worth (sort of),... pretty much any European city you can think of
Which is best?
From a distance, the Vancouver skyline is beautiful, especially with the mountains in the background. But up close, the quality of many of the buildings is sort of ordinary. I am not a fan of having so many of the skyscrapers covered with patio decks and sliding glass patio doors. It seems to be a draw back that when you have "mix use" buildings, you get less of the great commercial skyscrapers.
This whole thread and those two terms have everything to do with buildings and skyscrapers... not so much development patterns or geography. The terms "Manhattanization" and "Vancouverism" are terms that discribe skylines, really. Like Manhattanization basically means you build alot of tall to VERY tall buildings (and usually more office than mixed-use), while Vancouverism basically means you build alot of smaller, more "human scale" mid rises. Dallas and Atlanta are much more closer to Manhattanization (I didn't list Dallas, btw, but since you brought it up....) since there are more taller office towers than mixed use buildings. You could make the argument that Dallas Uptown is more like Vancouverism, but the entire skyline as a whole is made more to look like Manhattan. Just a bunch of really tall skyscrapers.
The cities I listed were just a few examples of that (I kinda disagree with Vegas, since most of their buildings are mid-rises, but that's what it's considered to be). I said most Euro cities are an example of Vancouverism because they don't build so many very tall skyscrapers. They're usually smaller buildings that are more spread out.
Of course, I used Fort Worth as sort of a joke example since the city, as big as it is, doesn't have very many tall buildings..... just 6 REAL skyscrapers by last count. However, it seems that the future of the city is building more twoards mid rises.
Also, San Fran. L.A., and Seattle are examples of Manhattanization as well.
First, the entire point is off. Second your categorizations are also off.
SF is mostly midrise. sf has only 3 buildings over 200m, NYC has 52.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove
They say it is not as compact as Seattle and SF.
uhh it isn't..are you implying it is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
on skyscrapers in the Manhattan sense there are actually few cities are areas where it is really needed. more status than anything for most cities
Yes that is why you get urban sprawl and random buildings.
Manhattanization was used correctly in SF b/c they were tearing down already dense areas just to build higher and on a virtual island like manhattan... Several cities you speak of have no need to build higher, they are just doing it for show. NYC, SF, Chicago did it b/c they ran out of space in their already dense and massive downtowns.
I think for both SF and SD, "Vancouverism" would work best. For SF because views are VERY important and Vancouverism aims to protect views. And for SD because the lower height is more compatible with the nearby airport as well as protection of views.
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.
