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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-15-2017, 12:26 PM
 
Location: NYC
2,252 posts, read 2,455,793 times
Reputation: 1554

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigLake View Post
Those pics are outrageously good. Besides reminding people not to play ball in the house, I've always said the view from Pioneer Court looking SW over the river is the embodiment of urban grandeur and possibly a top 5 skyline view in the world. Not hyperbole. Also, the view from Adler is in the top 10. Done and done.
Yeah. I would also add to that the view from a high point on the west side of the confluence of the three river branches facing east and overlooking the entire river corridor and all the bridges (as featured in Weather Man and a few other movies), which is magnificent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-16-2017, 11:52 PM
 
Location: The Gold Coast, Chicago
281 posts, read 133,828 times
Reputation: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by slo1318 View Post
That's a load of bullsh*t! Nice job!!
How is what I said BS?

Offer a retort.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2017, 11:53 PM
 
Location: The Gold Coast, Chicago
281 posts, read 133,828 times
Reputation: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno View Post
Other countries define themselves by their best qualities, we choose and allow ourselves to define what is "American" by our worst qualities. How is New York and Chicago less American then LA or Houston? Also Suburbia was not an American idea, its English. Car centric town planning started in central Europe. Compact, skyscraper dominated cities is an original American idea. Hence that should be what we consider to be very American.
Very good point.

I just meant there are far more sprawling, driving cities than compact, walking cities in America, so sprawling cities are more American in the sense that they're far more common.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2017, 12:04 AM
 
Location: The Gold Coast, Chicago
281 posts, read 133,828 times
Reputation: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorondor View Post
If we're talking 20th century architecture, NYC and Chicago are easily at the top. Here are a few of my favorite buildings in Chicago. Try finding the same for Hong Kong.

Art Deco - Merchandise Mart (1930), Chicago Board of Trade (1930), Civic Opera House (1926), Carbide and Carbon Building (1929)

Neo-Gothic - Chicago Temple Building (1924), Tribune Tower (1925)

Neo-Classicism - 35 East Wacker (1927)

Spanish Colonial Revival - Wrigley Building (1924)

Structural Expressionism - John Hancock Center (1969)

Modernism - Marina City (1964), Aqua Tower (2009), Trump Tower (2009), The Legacy at Millennium Park (2010)

International Style - Lake Point Tower (1968), Willis Tower (1974)

Post-Modernism - Two Prudential Plaza (1990), 900 North Michigan (1989)
Best architecture in North America, bar none.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2017, 12:10 AM
 
9,701 posts, read 6,689,136 times
Reputation: 9781
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
Yea, Chicago is a goddamn dream for architecture buffs. It's packed with firsts of all kinds of things and it puts different eras and innovations in architecture right alongside each other.

I wish Chicago were pushing the envelope more (though the architects based in Chicago are doing so just not necessarily in Chicago) with its current boom.

There are some incredibly large parcels available in and near the core of Chicago (more so than any other major US city) and it'd be amazing to see them filled out with groundbreaking work.
Chicago is a fantastic architecture town, but basically for specific works of modernism, not for overall built form. You go there to see FLW homes and modernist Mies towers.

The overall built form is unremarkable, though, and basic Midwest vernacular, just supersized. It doesn't really have a distinct typology like a New Orleans, San Francisco, Philly or the like.

So, yes, Chicago is a great architecture town, but a very specific typology. Individual buildings, not citywide typology. And basically nothing built in the last 50 years or so is of particular note; Chicago architecture nowadays is quite conservative and inoffensive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2017, 02:30 PM
 
Location: San Jose
1,457 posts, read 444,417 times
Reputation: 1563
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
Chicago is a fantastic architecture town, but basically for specific works of modernism, not for overall built form. You go there to see FLW homes and modernist Mies towers.
I would actually argue the complete opposite. What would qualify as "average" architecture in Chicago would be considered high end in most other American cities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
The overall built form is unremarkable, though, and basic Midwest vernacular, just supersized. It doesn't really have a distinct typology like a New Orleans, San Francisco, Philly or the like.
So, yes, Chicago is a great architecture town, but a very specific typology. Individual buildings, not citywide typology.
Could you explain this in greater detail? What is about SF or Philly that gives it a distinct typology? In terms of urban typography Chicago is probably one of the most interesting cities on earth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
And basically nothing built in the last 50 years or so is of particular note; Chicago architecture nowadays is quite conservative and inoffensive.
I again would venture to say the complete opposite. Millennium Park, the River Walk, Trump Hotel, Aqua, Harold Washington Library, and the James R Thompson Center. One of personal favorites is the development of the New East Side and Lake Shore East Park. Probably one of the nicest urban planning projects we have seen in this country in years and a good model for how to develop urban space.

As for being conservative and inoffensive, that could describe 99% of all buildings built on earth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2017, 05:05 PM
 
Location: Placitas, New Mexico
1,111 posts, read 1,914,760 times
Reputation: 967
Quote:
Originally Posted by homenj View Post
If you visited New York City, do you think it is worth it to see Chicago?
Why would that make a difference? See both.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2017, 08:47 PM
 
Location: In the heights
20,182 posts, read 21,793,720 times
Reputation: 10258
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
Chicago is a fantastic architecture town, but basically for specific works of modernism, not for overall built form. You go there to see FLW homes and modernist Mies towers.

The overall built form is unremarkable, though, and basic Midwest vernacular, just supersized. It doesn't really have a distinct typology like a New Orleans, San Francisco, Philly or the like.

So, yes, Chicago is a great architecture town, but a very specific typology. Individual buildings, not citywide typology. And basically nothing built in the last 50 years or so is of particular note; Chicago architecture nowadays is quite conservative and inoffensive.
I disagree with some of this. There is a lot of architecture in the city that is neither FLW homes or modernist Mies towers though Chicago is particularly good for both. There are examples of fantastic modern, as in 20th century, architecture in Chicago ranging from all styles of the period and many that had “firsts” of different varieties. You can argue it ends up being a hodgepodge of those styles, but it’s remarkable so many styles are represented in the downtown area.

I agree that Chicago has a lot of vernacular architecture in its neighborhoods that are shared with much of the upper midwest and great lakes area cities. The interesting part of that is that the large numbers of them where you can see a lot of inner variation. The part that’s sad to me is how much of it has been destroyed or heavily modified, but there’s still quite a bit to see and those forms aren’t abundant everywhere once you look outside the reguon, so a visitor not from the larger region might still find some interest.

I also think that almost all US cities hedge on unmenorable and indistinct architecture when it comes to modern works outside of a few, especially skyscraper, works. That boxy look with a giant mismatch of facades to make the massing have some (crap) variety on street level is now all over the US.

To answer the OP though, the answer is yes, it is worth visiting for a pretty broad swath of people who have also seen NYC.

Last edited by OyCrumbler; 11-18-2017 at 09:02 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2017, 07:37 AM
 
Location: Earth
2,549 posts, read 3,118,237 times
Reputation: 1202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chava61 View Post
Agreed! Chicago is different from NYC!
Absolutely, Chicago has it's own unique style from waterfront, dialect, trains, architecture to pizza. Just as there is a difference between visiting Chicago's Navy Pier and New York's Pier 17.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2017, 10:01 AM
 
Location: chicago
456 posts, read 260,624 times
Reputation: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
Chicago is a fantastic architecture town, but basically for specific works of modernism, not for overall built form. You go there to see FLW homes and modernist Mies towers.

The overall built form is unremarkable, though, and basic Midwest vernacular, just supersized. It doesn't really have a distinct typology like a New Orleans, San Francisco, Philly or the like.

So, yes, Chicago is a great architecture town, but a very specific typology. Individual buildings, not citywide typology. And basically nothing built in the last 50 years or so is of particular note; Chicago architecture nowadays is quite conservative and inoffensive.
I'd also half-disagree with this. There's a certain beauty in the old flats and greystones prevalent throughout much of the city as well as those buildings with Victorian influence here and there.

The new stuff is generally terrible though, and also can't disagree that there's quite a bit of generic, unremarkable architecture as well. However, these can be applied to virtually any city outside of select hoods.

Take SF for instance. Many of the "newer" buildings are extremely bland and aesthetically unappealing. Or take the rowhouses you tend to see in the more peripheral hoods in the city - nothing special about them at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

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