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.
I really like Toronto. I've been there about a dozen times on business and pleasure. Great city, great people. But the architecture is really bland. No really iconic buildings save the CN Tower.
LA just leaves me with a blah feeling, save for the really cool Art Deco closer to the Pacific.
Never been to Mexico City, so I don't have an opinion.
Just so we're clear, I didn't make this thread to hate on Los Angeles or anywhere else or to single any city out. If you look at the poll, which I made into an open multiple choice poll specifically for the reason of transparency, I voted for 5 places. Meaning I think 5 places could use more aesthetically appealing architecture (well in Chicago's case not really the aesthetically appealing stuff but more inspirational and distinctive stuff). This is not to say that they are devoid and completely lack architecture, I think all 7 of these places have some amazing stuff, and that is a genuine opinion too. Not just saying this. I just think some of these places could use more of it. It would be great, it would make showcasing these cities all the easier, in my opinion.
I don't hate any of these cities.
If it means anything, I love Toronto as a city, but I voted for Toronto (and 4 others) because I feel it could use more distinctive and inspirational stuff. Just my opinion though.
....beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess haha.
It truly is, Mexico City has it's scars as well, but it's noted as a beautiful city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NativeOrange
If the buildings were retrofitted with ground floor retail and rehabbed/cleaned up, those streets would look 100x better.
Wait, how so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facts Kill Rhetoric
If it means anything, I love Toronto as a city, but I voted for Toronto (and 4 others) because I feel it could use more distinctive and inspirational stuff. Just my opinion though.
Not a big fan of Chicago's architectural styles for some reason.
There's a lot of different architectural styles in the city, though the average tourist may only see a handful downtown (though there's more hidden from most tourists that they'll probably never discover on average).
IMO most of these cities are too big to say "they need to up their architectural game" because they feature a lot of stuff. I could point you to all sorts of uninspired crap in all of the cities in the poll, but I could at the same time point you to great buildings. Maybe it should be more like "which one to the average tourist.."
Last edited by marothisu; 09-23-2016 at 04:59 PM..
I think Toronto is a very "generic" city in terms of its architectural stylings and find Montreal and Quebec City to be much nicer Canadian cities. There's nothing wrong with Toronto though - it's not ugly, it's just not beautiful either and it doesn't have a very strong sense of place in its local vernacular.
Toronto's bay-and-gable style of residential vernacular is unique to the city and instantly recognizable as Toronto.
The gable is what makes it unique, but the rest of those aren't really unique though they look nice usually regardless. However, I will say that you could show a person somewhat familiar with the architecture in Chicago, not just downtown, and they'd probably think you were showing them some buildings from areas like Lincoln Park, Lakeview, etc.
There's a lot of different architectural styles in the city, though the average tourist may only see a handful downtown (though there's more hidden from most tourists that they'll probably never discover on average).
IMO most of these cities are too big to say "they need to up their architectural game" because they feature a lot of stuff. I could point you to all sorts of uninspired crap in all of the cities in the poll, but I could at the same time point you to great buildings. Maybe it should be more like "which one to the average tourist.."
Yeah I find them kind of bland honestly, just not a fan of all the brick and stone facades. The commercial corridors were pretty "meh" to me. Maybe I expected too much because of how much people hype up Chicago's architecture but it just isn't that appealing to me.
Yeah I find them kind of bland honestly, just not a fan of all the brick and stone facades. The commercial corridors were pretty "meh" to me. Maybe I expected too much because of how much people hype up Chicago's architecture but it just isn't that appealing to me.
Where have you actually been in Chicago, in person? There's a lot of different styles all around the city. Downtown's high rises aren't that varied compared to the rest of everything IMO. I kind of think of it like NYC - low rises are way better than the high rises (though I like Chicago's high rises more than NYC's high rises on average - but NYC's low rises are awesome)
Where have you actually been in Chicago, in person? There's a lot of different styles all around the city. Downtown's high rises aren't that varied compared to the rest of everything IMO.
I stayed in Lincoln Park, I don't remember or really feel like listing all the neighborhoods I visited. Whatever styles Chicago has seem to have mostly brick and stone facades which I don't care for. It's not ugly but I just wasn't really that impressed overall.
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.
