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.
It is all relative. In US you can say Chicago has some depth because it does have the most depth except for NYC, although there is a very big gap there. That gap is large enough to put the skylines of NYC and Chicago into two categories. NYC has a filled sky-rectangle while Chicago does have only a line. That's why some people say Miami is shaping out more like Chicago instead of NYC, because Miami is also forming a line.
Your picture has an angle that the waterfront blocks the vast flat area behind it. However, you can still see it, and you can see it from many other pictures. I've been to Chicago and I've seen numerous pictures of it on skyscrapercity.com. Its skyline is undeniably beautiful but doesn't have much depth, although it does have good density along the line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe
Not quite the case. And its not an insult, just someone misinformed. Chicago's skyline has quite a bit of depth. Moreso than any other skyline in America. Along the river the skyline stretches westward for a pretty good distance. Most skylines in the country are more spherical than Chicago's but Chicago's skyline still has more depth than probably all of the other American cities.
Also many people who haven't been to Chicago don't realize that the highrises (many taller than other cities tallest buildings) stretch all the way from Hyde Park to Evanston (the 1st northern suburb).
Chicago's density drops as you hit parts of the Southside however. Since the Southside as a whole has such low density, it brings down the overall density of the entire city. The northside stays consistantly dense from downtown until you hit Evanston.
Last edited by fashionguy; 07-09-2009 at 01:39 PM..
Midtown Manhattan's skyline is 3 miles wide, stretching from the East River to the Hudson, that is much wider than Chicago's; Halsted which is west of downtown is a little over a mile west of the lake.
Second, the density of Chicago may be consistent along the northlake front, but to say the entire northside density is consistent is quite misleading.
I just want to clarify this, no offense. To be fair, Manhattan is 2 miles wide at its widest point before central park, at 59th street. Obviously 1.5 miles would be Chicago's skyline at its absolute widest (including Lakeshore east, streeterville etc) and is only that wide for maybe a few blocks if that, while Manhattan maintains a 2 mile wide skyline a significant number of miles probably, but I just felt your numbers were also misleading.
But yeah, I agree with your point and he really should have qualified his statement anyway by saying 'other than NYC', because Chicagos skyline is nowhere near as wide as NYCs. Even along the north shore the widest the skyline gets is 5 miles north of downtown, in Lakeview, and even then it is only a few blocks wide. Thats the reason NYC has maybe 4 or 5 times as many 12+ story bldgs overall. Its girth.
And Miami is a different conversation altogether. I see very little width, but it certainly is growing. In width and height, and it was quite impressive to see Miami during the height of the boom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fashionguy
Most of Chicago is very flat with trees noticeable compared to NYC or even SF and LA. LA's tall building section is considerably smaller than Chicago but it look defintely more heavily developed elsewhere from an air view. I think this is a good comparison, but some people in Chicago are so proud that they think this is an insult.
I dont understand what you mean here. So LA is more developed than Chicago outside of the 'tall building section'? Where are you referring? Also I hope you realize this tall building section in Chicago is continuous for over 15 miles, while in LA it is more clumps and nodes, so they are highly different.
I just want to clarify this, no offense. To be fair, Manhattan is 2 miles wide at its widest point before central park, at 59th street. Obviously 1.5 miles would be Chicago's skyline at its absolute widest (including Lakeshore east, streeterville etc) and is only that wide for maybe a few blocks if that, while Manhattan maintains a 2 mile wide skyline a significant number of miles probably, but I just felt your numbers were also misleading.
But yeah, I agree with your point and he really should have qualified his statement anyway by saying 'other than NYC', because Chicagos skyline is nowhere near as wide as NYCs. Even along the north shore the widest the skyline gets is 5 miles north of downtown, in Lakeview, and even then it is only a few blocks wide. Thats the reason NYC has maybe 4 or 5 times as many 12+ story bldgs overall. Its girth..
your correct, 2.3 miles at its widest point, my mistake
Midtown Manhattan's skyline is 3 miles wide, stretching from the East River to the Hudson, that is much wider than Chicago's; Halsted which is west of downtown is a little over a mile west of the lake. Second, the density of Chicago may be consistent along the northlake front, but to say the entire northside density is consistent is quite misleading.[/
It is all relative. In US you can say Chicago has some depth because it does have the most depth except for NYC, although there is a very big gap there. That gap is large enough to put the skylines of NYC and Chicago into two categories. NYC has a filled sky-rectangle while Chicago does have only a line. That's why some people say Miami is shaping out more like Chicago instead of NYC, because Miami is also forming a line.
Your picture has an angle that the waterfront blocks the vast flat area behind it. However, you can still see it, and you can see it from many other pictures. I've been to Chicago and I've seen numerous pictures of it on skyscrapercity.com. Its skyline is undeniably beautiful but doesn't have much depth, although it does have good density along the line.
Chicago is not exactly flat away from its core. It has 3-4 story flats that go north up to Evanston and pretty far west as well. There are some gaps in consistency but for the most part its consistantly dense. The Southside for the most part, is the only section of the city that feels somewhat suburban and is less dense than the rest of the city.
Here's some shots of Chicago from a dew different angles. Nothing to hide
(Photos courtesy of Hashishas on Flickr and Chicagophotoshop.com)
Miami's skyline mainly consists of half empty (or empty) faceless, soulless condos. At least Chicago's skyline has a great deal of diversity and a good blend of commercial and residential high rises, along with a world famous iconic supertall (the Sears Building).
What does Miami have? Condos, reckless drivers and Cuban refs.
Are you kidding me? Miami's skyline is full of monotonous looking towers, without any depth. It's made even worse when you consider half of them are empty and there are no lights on at night.
Chicago, fo sho!
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.
