U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which U.S. city has the best skyline?
Atlanta 31 4.45%
Dallas 34 4.88%
Houston 37 5.31%
Miami 26 3.73%
New York 214 30.70%
Boston 11 1.58%
Philadelphia 31 4.45%
Pittsburgh 23 3.30%
Chicago 206 29.56%
San Francisco 27 3.87%
Los Angeles 24 3.44%
Seattle 33 4.73%
Voters: 697. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-12-2012, 08:41 AM
 
425 posts, read 284,442 times
Reputation: 138

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MI_OH View Post
I agree, but NYC doesn't only have the most skyscrapers. It's much more than that.

It has more skyscrapers than everyone else combined, more skyscraper variety than everyone else combined, more skyscraper history than everyone else combined. That's quite a legacy.

False.

Chicago arguably has more. They also invented the skyscraper.

 
Old 09-12-2012, 08:44 AM
 
425 posts, read 284,442 times
Reputation: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by MI_OH View Post

I mean, if you combined the next 10 largest skylines in the U.S., they still wouldn't add up to NYC. NYC has over 6,000 skyscrapers, which is more than six times that of Chicago, and after Chicago, no city has more than 400 or so skyscrapers.

So combine Chicago + LA + SF + Miami + Seattle + Philly + Boston + Houston + Dallas. You still are nowhere close to NYC in terms of skyline.

False.

Hong Kong, which destroys NYC, doesnt even have that many. Skyscrapers are >= 300m.

NYC has 569 skyscrapers. Chicago has 282.

If youre really clamoring for housing projects in the Bronx as part of the skyline in NYC, and part of its "aesthetic beauty", then youre a moron.
 
Old 09-12-2012, 09:02 AM
 
65 posts, read 65,182 times
Reputation: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by resuelppA View Post
False.

Chicago arguably has more. They also invented the skyscraper.
Chicago doesn't arguably have more. Chicago has a tiny fraction of NYC's skyscrapers, and barely has any prewar skyscrapers.

How can a city with like 5% as many prewar skyscrapers "arguably have more" skyscraper variety? That doesn't make any sense.

And no city "invented the skyscraper". There have been tall buildings forever. A 10-floor Chicago building, the Home Insurance Building, was the first on earth to use steel frame construction, but there was no "invention of skyscraper".
 
Old 09-12-2012, 09:07 AM
 
65 posts, read 65,182 times
Reputation: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by resuelppA View Post
False.

Hong Kong, which destroys NYC, doesnt even have that many. Skyscrapers are >= 300m.

NYC has 569 skyscrapers. Chicago has 282.

If youre really clamoring for housing projects in the Bronx as part of the skyline in NYC, and part of its "aesthetic beauty", then youre a moron.
You're just making up stuff.

Hong Kong has around 7,500 skyscrapers and probably leads the world. NYC has about 6,000 skyscrapers, is in second place. Chicago has only around 1,000 skyscrapers.

Maybe your personal definition of skyscraper is 300m+, but that's an extremely odd definition. That would mean there are barely any skyscrapers throughout the world, and it's irrelevent anyways, because we are talking about skylines. Obviously skylines consist of much more than 300+m buildings. You're claiming that there are no skylines in 99% of the cities of the world, because they lack 1,000 foot towers? LOL

And even your odd definition defeats your claim. If we only think that skylines consists of the very tallest buildings on earth, NYC still has more than twice as many as Chicago, so obviously they aren't comparable.

And what are you talking about re. Bronx housing projects? NYC has more of EVERYTHING than Chicago. More beautiful, more ugly, more everything! It has more than six times as many skyscrapers, and it has far more from every skyscraper period in history, so obviously it has more variety.
 
Old 09-12-2012, 09:13 AM
 
425 posts, read 284,442 times
Reputation: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by MI_OH View Post
Chicago doesn't arguably have more. Chicago has a tiny fraction of NYC's skyscrapers, and barely has any prewar skyscrapers.

How can a city with like 5% as many prewar skyscrapers "arguably have more" skyscraper variety? That doesn't make any sense.

And no city "invented the skyscraper". There have been tall buildings forever. A 10-floor Chicago building, the Home Insurance Building, was the first on earth to use steel frame construction, but there was no "invention of skyscraper".

Chicago barely has any pre-war skyscrapers? Are you ****ing blind?

Here you go again, not knowing what a skyscraper is. Not sure what a "tiny fraction" is, but the score is 282 to 569, for a city with 2.7 million vs. a city 4x's the size.

Although New York City certainly has more skyscrapers than Chicago, looking back upon the end of the 19th century - turn of the century period, most building innovation was taking place in Chicago, due in part to Sullivan, Le Baron Jenney, Fuller and other early skyscraper pioneers. New York has pretty much always had more skyscrapers, but they derived inspiration and technique from Chicago's early great architects. These architects utilized the elevator to its potential, made steel girders a practical application, and made the overall building process for easy.
 
Old 09-12-2012, 09:16 AM
 
425 posts, read 284,442 times
Reputation: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by MI_OH View Post
You're just making up stuff.

Hong Kong has around 7,500 skyscrapers and probably leads the world. NYC has about 6,000 skyscrapers, is in second place. Chicago has only around 1,000 skyscrapers.

Maybe your personal definition of skyscraper is 300m+, but that's an extremely odd definition. That would mean there are barely any skyscrapers throughout the world, and it's irrelevent anyways, because we are talking about skylines. Obviously skylines consist of much more than 300+m buildings. You're claiming that there are no skylines in 99% of the cities of the world, because they lack 1,000 foot towers? LOL

And even your odd definition defeats your claim. If we only think that skylines consists of the very tallest buildings on earth, NYC still has more than twice as many as Chicago, so obviously they aren't comparable.

And what are you talking about re. Bronx housing projects? NYC has more of EVERYTHING than Chicago. More beautiful, more ugly, more everything! It has more than six times as many skyscrapers, and it has far more from every skyscraper period in history, so obviously it has more variety.

I meant >=150m (492ft.)

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/news.php?ref=1244

If NYC has thousands of skyscrapers, why is the actual tally at 569 on Emporis?
 
Old 09-12-2012, 09:22 AM
 
425 posts, read 284,442 times
Reputation: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by MI_OH View Post
Chicago doesn't arguably have more. Chicago has a tiny fraction of NYC's skyscrapers, and barely has any prewar skyscrapers.

How can a city with like 5% as many prewar skyscrapers "arguably have more" skyscraper variety? That doesn't make any sense.

And no city "invented the skyscraper". There have been tall buildings forever. A 10-floor Chicago building, the Home Insurance Building, was the first on earth to use steel frame construction, but there was no "invention of skyscraper".

I was referring to history.

You sound like youre reading from an NYC tourism book.
 
Old 09-12-2012, 09:28 AM
 
65 posts, read 65,182 times
Reputation: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by resuelppA View Post
What do you mean "No"? How the **** you gonna sit there and say no when my post clearly illustrates that Chicago blocks are bigger?

Its a ****ing fact. Chicago blocks are bigger, which allows them to build by the bulk. You can see it in the skyline how much less fragmented it is compared to NYC.
What are you blabbing on about? I never even referred to blocks.

Yes, you're right that Chicago blocks are bigger, because they have massive alleys running through the blocks, and you don't have the narrow streets and tight quarters you see in the Northeast.

But what does this have to do with the size of buildings? Nothing! The bulkiest built form in North America is in Lower Manhattan, which has tiny blocks. The biggest blocks in the U.S. are in places like Phoenix, and they have sprawling built form.

I have no idea why you're going on about relative size of blocks, which has nothing to do with a city's skyline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by resuelppA View Post
Also, all those buildings youre horny over in NYC are low-rise buildings, which technically dont count as skyscrapers.
You can call it whatever you want, but the fact is that we are talking skylines, and NYC has more highrises than the next 10 cities combined, which is why it's foolish to say that a city with 10% or 15% as many highrises has a comparable skyline. Obviously a skyline consists of highrise buildings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by resuelppA View Post
Chicago, 1/4th the city size of NYC, yet half as many buildings.
Chicago is more like 1/2 the size, and has less than 1/6th as many buildings. Obviously you go by metro size, and # of highrises.
Quote:
Originally Posted by resuelppA View Post
Skyscrapers dont compare? Chicago is taller on average based on their top 10 skyscrapers.
No, NYC is taller based on the top 10 skyscrapers. One WTC is tallest now. 432 Park will be 1400 ft. Are you ignorant of 9/11 or something? But obviously that's a stupid way to measure top skyline or biggest skyline.

You measure by the total skyline, not the tallest building(s). You would say that Rapid City, South Dakota has the best skyline in the U.S., if they built a 2,000 foot toothpick? LOL! Obviously you go by the total skyline, so a city with thousands of highrises would be more impressive than a city with a couple very tall buildings, and then not much else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by resuelppA View Post
Chicago sure as hell rivals NYC in terms of architecture, and arguably surpasses it. Im from NY, I know all about what the NY skyline has.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it's a silly one. Chicago is a much younger city, with much less architectural variety. It has very few prewar highrises, and almost nothing at all in terms of buildings predating the Chicago Fire.

NYC has huge neighborhoods where most buildings much older than the Chicago Fire. It has plenty of buildings from the 1600's and 1700's, or basically 200 years before anything in Chicago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by resuelppA View Post
Chicago's actual skyline stretches much further than NYC's.
This is absurd. Chicago's downtown skyline is quite dense and doesn't cover much space. There's a strip north into Edgewater, but it's a strip of one building-deep in most cases along Lake Shore Drive. And, according to you, this isn't even a "skyline", becuase they have to be at least 900-1,000 ft. tall, or they are apparently invisible, and don't contribute to a city's skyline!

NYC has highrises everywhere in Manhattan, everywhere in the West Bronx, reaching up even into Yonkers, and west into NJ, and east into Brooklyn and the Bronx.
Quote:
Originally Posted by resuelppA View Post
Number of skyscrapers doesnt mean ****, otherwise world class cities like Paris and London are left out.
I agree. Paris and London are awesome, despite lack of skyscrapers.

But this thread is about "which American city has best skyline", and, last I checked, you need lots of highrises to have a skyline, and Paris and London aren't in the U.S.
 
Old 09-12-2012, 09:32 AM
 
425 posts, read 284,442 times
Reputation: 138
For a city that supposedly has a "tiny fraction" of skyscrapers vs NYC, you wouldnt know by looking at the poll results.

A 2% lead for a city that has "thousands more skyscrapers."
 
Old 09-12-2012, 09:36 AM
 
425 posts, read 284,442 times
Reputation: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by MI_OH View Post
What are you blabbing on about? I never even referred to blocks.

Yes, you're right that Chicago blocks are bigger, because they have massive alleys running through the blocks, and you don't have the narrow streets and tight quarters you see in the Northeast.

But what does this have to do with the size of buildings? Nothing! The bulkiest built form in North America is in Lower Manhattan, which has tiny blocks. The biggest blocks in the U.S. are in places like Phoenix, and they have sprawling built form.

I have no idea why you're going on about relative size of blocks, which has nothing to do with a city's skyline.
Sure it ****ing does. Im from NY, and the first thing I noticed about Chicago's skyline was that it seemed bulkier, which was verified by those examples I posted from an article. The city blocks were built that way.

It most certainly has an aesthetic effect when objectively looking at both cities skylines. Theres more variance in smaller heights in NYC because of the fragmented blocks, as evidenced in the following example:

NYC





Chicago




That most certainly has an effect if someone is looking at a skyline and how it appears to the naked eye.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:37 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top