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)
 
Old 07-29-2008, 03:39 PM
 
4,951 posts, read 8,513,947 times
Reputation: 2062

Advertisements

NYC's skyline is unmatched. You could even break New York's skyline into two distinct areas. Midtown and Lower Manhattan. Both will be bigger than what any other city has to offer.

 
Old 07-29-2008, 03:55 PM
 
Location: North Central Indiana
980 posts, read 2,905,164 times
Reputation: 285
I have to say Chicago, is looking towards the future now, and once the Spire is built im expecting many new developments will pop up. I mean it's only natural the birthplace of the modern skyscraper would also be the future of the skyscraper.
 
Old 07-29-2008, 04:08 PM
 
Location: Houston
6,863 posts, read 12,771,323 times
Reputation: 5792
i think Houston will. once downtown and uptown begin to fill in with more buildings i think it will look alot like manhattan. there are already a ton of building going up in that inbetween area right now but there is alot more to be added before it will be substantial.
 
Old 07-29-2008, 04:39 PM
 
7,270 posts, read 13,492,730 times
Reputation: 3598
Quote:
Originally Posted by niac12345 View Post
Listen. Old buildings are very nice. don't get me wrong I like them just as much as the next guy, buuuuut, they're called old for a reason. They're becoming bland. they're lossing they're luster. every city needs to move forward. you can't keep old buildings forever in the spotlight. There are bigger and better things to this world. I love Chicago becaue we are embracing it.
They're called old because they were built a long time ago. Not because they're 'bland'. I like the blend of old and new. However, older buildings are FAR from bland. They are intricate and fascinating.

Of course, that's my opinion. You differ.

There's no reason to get rid of the old. Keep the old. Then build the new.
 
Old 07-29-2008, 04:57 PM
 
Location: Manhattan, New York
371 posts, read 1,008,242 times
Reputation: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarolinaBredChicagoan View Post
They're called old because they were built a long time ago. Not because they're 'bland'. I like the blend of old and new. However, older buildings are FAR from bland. They are intricate and fascinating.

Of course, that's my opinion. You differ.

There's no reason to get rid of the old. Keep the old. Then build the new.
you are right because there are alot of old buildings in ny but they look amazing. If youve ever been to the NYC instead of getting rid of old buildings we refurbish or convert the building or even ad something.
 
Old 07-29-2008, 05:01 PM
 
Location: Manhattan, New York
371 posts, read 1,008,242 times
Reputation: 63
check out the major buildings being made and proposed for NYC. also we are getting alot more tall buildings that are not listed here because they are not major and they are probably residential all an office building. PS look at the under construction, approved and proposed part of the link.

List of tallest buildings in New York City - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look at the proposed hudson plaza for the hudson Yards
http://curbed.com/uploads/2007_11_brook2.jpg (broken link)
http://curbed.com/uploads/2007_11_brook3.jpg (broken link)http://curbed.com/uploads/2007_11_brook4.jpg (broken link)
http://curbed.com/uploads/2007_11_brook5.jpg (broken link)http://curbed.com/uploads/2007_11_brook6.jpg (broken link)
http://curbed.com/uploads/2007_11_brook7.jpg (broken link)http://curbed.com/uploads/2007_11_brook8.jpg (broken link)
 
Old 07-29-2008, 05:01 PM
 
7,270 posts, read 13,492,730 times
Reputation: 3598
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCBoy1212 View Post
you are right because there are alot of old buildings in ny but they look amazing. If youve ever been to the NYC instead of getting rid of old buildings we refurbish or convert the building or even ad something.
Sure. And I have been to NYC many times. I'll be there again in a little over a week. Chicago rehabs, redoes, or otherwise preserves older buildings, too. I like that. A blend.
 
Old 07-29-2008, 05:31 PM
 
Location: Houston
6,863 posts, read 12,771,323 times
Reputation: 5792
i don't like the new glitzy buildings that will be added to the new york city skyline. i've always loved the more industrial look of it.

the chicago skyline has always looked awful to me and that drill bit being added to the skyline is like putting a turd on top of vomit.

i prefer the cities that spread their skylines around. not one huge mess of buildings. it helps to give different areas of the city character.
 
Old 07-29-2008, 05:42 PM
 
7,270 posts, read 13,492,730 times
Reputation: 3598
Quote:
Originally Posted by westhou View Post
i don't like the new glitzy buildings that will be added to the new york city skyline. i've always loved the more industrial look of it.

the chicago skyline has always looked awful to me and that drill bit being added to the skyline is like putting a turd on top of vomit.

i prefer the cities that spread their skylines around. not one huge mess of buildings. it helps to give different areas of the city character.
Hmmm. Ok. Well, I let it slide when you implied that Houston could even hang with Chicago or NYC, but then you had to directly insult Chicago...

Compared to Chicago (and NYC, by the by...) Houston barely has a skyline. There are 28 buildings in Houston over 500' tall. In Chicago? 92, with 14 more under construction and two more approved for construction.

As for quality, Houston has little more to offer than generic glass and steel (coincidentally, the same thing you criticize in the proposed NYC development above...).

Now, I see no reason to dump on Houston any further. It's got a decent skyline for a sunbelt city. However, I wonder if you've even ever been to Chicago.
 
Old 07-29-2008, 05:46 PM
 
Location: North Central Indiana
980 posts, read 2,905,164 times
Reputation: 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarolinaBredChicagoan View Post
Hmmm. Ok. Well, I let it slide when you implied that Houston could even hang with Chicago or NYC, but then you had to directly insult Chicago...

Compared to Chicago (and NYC, by the by...) Houston barely has a skyline. There are 28 buildings in Houston over 500' tall. In Chicago? 92, with 14 more under construction and two more approved for construction.

As for quality, Houston has little more to offer than generic glass and steel (coincidentally, the same thing you criticize in the proposed NYC development above...).

Now, I see no reason to dump on Houston any further. It's got a decent skyline for a sunbelt city. However, I wonder if you've even ever been to Chicago.
I second that
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 01:46 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