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 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 01-10-2009, 12:18 AM
 
35 posts, read 75,967 times
Reputation: 34

Advertisements

If your talking about best, then Chicago is ranked #2
But to beauty, Chicago barely makes it to top 15.
First of all, considerate SF on top of a fault-line, it includes more
city lights than Chicago. Chicago lacks effort. Office lights NEVER count as city lights.
Second, San Francisco have hills, mountains, ocean, and island.
Chicago only have the lake and river.
Third, San Francisco have 3 skyline views. Golden Gate Bridge, Treasure Island, and Twin Peak.
Chicago only holds one. And Chicago always hold the same skyline every year with boring same old pictures.
Fourth, is architecture. San Francisco has a lot more beautiful architecture than Chicago.
You can't imagine how beautiful the buildings separate the streets. And you can't imagine how beautiful the bases are, due to earthquake technology.
Looking up at Transamerica Pyramid, seeing skyscrapers in the distances, etc.
Chicago just stands tall buildings which you can't even see due to the shadows,
and they barely have room for making such a nice base.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-10-2009, 12:59 AM
 
Location: AZ
19,528 posts, read 50,897,729 times
Reputation: 8715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckypet4747 View Post
If your talking about best, then Chicago is ranked #2
But to beauty, Chicago barely makes it to top 15.
First of all, considerate SF on top of a fault-line, it includes more
city lights than Chicago. Chicago lacks effort. Office lights NEVER count as city lights.
Second, San Francisco have hills, mountains, ocean, and island.
Chicago only have the lake and river.
Third, San Francisco have 3 skyline views. Golden Gate Bridge, Treasure Island, and Twin Peak.
Chicago only holds one. And Chicago always hold the same skyline every year with boring same old pictures.
Fourth, is architecture. San Francisco has a lot more beautiful architecture than Chicago.
You can't imagine how beautiful the buildings separate the streets. And you can't imagine how beautiful the bases are, due to earthquake technology.
Looking up at Transamerica Pyramid, seeing skyscrapers in the distances, etc.
Chicago just stands tall buildings which you can't even see due to the shadows,
and they barely have room for making such a nice base.
I see that crack cocaine is as plentiful/strong as ever in the Bay Area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2009, 12:16 PM
 
604 posts, read 1,196,033 times
Reputation: 223
lol Steve-o
luckypet you really need to get out more
chicago has the best architecture of any city in the states and north america
nyc is really nice too but what it lacks is the modern arch.
chi has everything
all san fran has is a gimmic bridge (the only thing that makes it different than any other suspension bridge is the colour) and trans-american pyramid which i admit is cool
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2009, 01:46 PM
 
2,778 posts, read 5,441,946 times
Reputation: 2011
I think people have extremely poor tastes in architecture.

Right now, I'm in Sao Paulo. The skyscrapers here are super dense, as with Rio; lots and lots of high rise tenements, lots of apartment complexes and an enormous financial center.

But is it beautiful? By no means. In no objective judgment could Sao Paulo or Rio be considered attractive cities. There's some natural scenery that's amazing, and the weather is astounding, but it's very clear that the buildings were built for what they were, not what they could look like.

Do I need to repeat that? Buildings built to be their function, and not out of any stylistic consideration. NYC has billions of them. San Francisco. Sao Paulo. Rio. Berlin. Moscow. Tokyo. Dubai. Hong Kong (HK especially, due to the intense property boom that followed the seventies and eighties). Shangai. Beijing.

Most of the cities above have a lot. But not a lot of style. They have quantity and absolutely no quality, with NYC being a very minor exception.

San Francisco is not an attractive city. It has an interesting variation of natural scenery around it. But if you were to walk through the streets and neighborhoods, you see how generic most of it looks. As someone else said, no one remembers what San Francisco looks like. The buildings are surprisingly dumpy. The Pacific Northwest itself is a surprisingly... dumpy place. Yes, nature, OK, nature. Fine. But the buildings? The neighborhoods? The overwhelming majority are not attractive. They look run down and just... very unattractive.

And if you don't believe me, take a gander through Google Streetview sometime.

Am I going to say that Chicago is without rundown neighborhoods? Oh god no. I've lived in several. However, Chicago's collection of skyscrapers and architectural neighborhoods vastly overwhelms San Francisco. SF is a smaller town whose residents would prefer that nothing ever be done to further the ideal of "city".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2009, 01:49 PM
 
604 posts, read 1,196,033 times
Reputation: 223
yeah ive seen pics of sao paulo
almost all the buildings are the same height and theres like thousands of them
all variations of crappy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2009, 01:51 PM
 
Location: Houston Texas
2,899 posts, read 1,289,490 times
Reputation: 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldwine View Post
I think people have extremely poor tastes in architecture.

Right now, I'm in Sao Paulo. The skyscrapers here are super dense, as with Rio; lots and lots of high rise tenements, lots of apartment complexes and an enormous financial center.

But is it beautiful? By no means. In no objective judgment could Sao Paulo or Rio be considered attractive cities. There's some natural scenery that's amazing, and the weather is astounding, but it's very clear that the buildings were built for what they were, not what they could look like.

Do I need to repeat that? Buildings built to be their function, and not out of any stylistic consideration. NYC has billions of them. San Francisco. Sao Paulo. Rio. Berlin. Moscow. Tokyo. Dubai. Hong Kong (HK especially, due to the intense property boom that followed the seventies and eighties). Shangai. Beijing.

Most of the cities above have a lot. But not a lot of style. They have quantity and absolutely no quality, with NYC being a very minor exception.

San Francisco is not an attractive city. It has an interesting variation of natural scenery around it. But if you were to walk through the streets and neighborhoods, you see how generic most of it looks. As someone else said, no one remembers what San Francisco looks like. The buildings are surprisingly dumpy. The Pacific Northwest itself is a surprisingly... dumpy place. Yes, nature, OK, nature. Fine. But the buildings? The neighborhoods? The overwhelming majority are not attractive. They look run down and just... very unattractive.
And if you don't believe me, take a gander through Google Streetview sometime.

Am I going to say that Chicago is without rundown neighborhoods? Oh god no. I've lived in several. However, Chicago's collection of skyscrapers and architectural neighborhoods vastly overwhelms San Francisco. SF is a smaller town whose residents would prefer that nothing ever be done to further the ideal of "city".
I actually agree with you
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2009, 01:53 PM
 
2,778 posts, read 5,441,946 times
Reputation: 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetclimber View Post
I actually agree with you
And there you have it. A Houstonian and a Chicagoan have agreed upon something here, on City Data. Let this argument be closed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2009, 09:47 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia
172 posts, read 562,046 times
Reputation: 72
Chicago wins by far!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2009, 03:24 AM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,745 posts, read 3,387,740 times
Reputation: 660
THe difference I think between Chicago and San Francisco's skylines are clear. Chicago's is so large and dense with such tall skyscrapers that when combined with being along the coast of Lake Michigan it's absolutely breathtaking. San Francisco when compared with Chicago makes up for its smaller skyline with its geography...its tall, gigantic shore cliffs and gigantic, incredibly steep hills along with its location near the confluence of the San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean, combined with the skyline of Oakland and the and small islands in the Bay easily top Chicago, which is geographically nothing more than flat-as-a-pancake urbanized prairie and forest along the coast of Lake Michigan. In terms of geographical beauty, there is absolutely no question which city wins the prize.

Last edited by ajf131; 01-22-2009 at 03:32 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-22-2009, 05:18 AM
 
2,540 posts, read 2,566,330 times
Reputation: 3247
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldwine View Post
I think people have extremely poor tastes in architecture.

Right now, I'm in Sao Paulo. The skyscrapers here are super dense, as with Rio; lots and lots of high rise tenements, lots of apartment complexes and an enormous financial center.

But is it beautiful? By no means. In no objective judgment could Sao Paulo or Rio be considered attractive cities. There's some natural scenery that's amazing, and the weather is astounding, but it's very clear that the buildings were built for what they were, not what they could look like.

Do I need to repeat that? Buildings built to be their function, and not out of any stylistic consideration. NYC has billions of them. San Francisco. Sao Paulo. Rio. Berlin. Moscow. Tokyo. Dubai. Hong Kong (HK especially, due to the intense property boom that followed the seventies and eighties). Shangai. Beijing.

Most of the cities above have a lot. But not a lot of style. They have quantity and absolutely no quality, with NYC being a very minor exception.

San Francisco is not an attractive city. It has an interesting variation of natural scenery around it. But if you were to walk through the streets and neighborhoods, you see how generic most of it looks. As someone else said, no one remembers what San Francisco looks like. The buildings are surprisingly dumpy. The Pacific Northwest itself is a surprisingly... dumpy place. Yes, nature, OK, nature. Fine. But the buildings? The neighborhoods? The overwhelming majority are not attractive. They look run down and just... very unattractive.

And if you don't believe me, take a gander through Google Streetview sometime.

Am I going to say that Chicago is without rundown neighborhoods? Oh god no. I've lived in several. However, Chicago's collection of skyscrapers and architectural neighborhoods vastly overwhelms San Francisco. SF is a smaller town whose residents would prefer that nothing ever be done to further the ideal of "city".
I agree with your post.

The whole scenery, the mountains, the Golden Gate, the bridge of the same name, the islands, the fog, all that makes SF's skyline very special, and pushes it up a few positions. But from a merely architectural point of view its high rises are rather unambitious and underwhelming, almost Vancouver-like.

San Francisco is a frustrating city in that it promises more than it delivers. No city in the world makes for a panoramic picture like San Francisco, and it can indeed reward you with some pleasant surprises, but generally speaking street level looks kind of dumpy, the older architecture underwhelmingly Pacific Northwest in style. For such a rich city with lots of perveived glamour, Montecarlo it ain't (although Montecarlo has its fair shafre of crappy architechture). When I fall out with San Francisco I say it's Portland on steroids - a larger, dirtier Portland set against a more scenic scenery. To be fair, the 1906 earthquake took away a lot of its grand Victorian architecture.

That said, I love San Francisco. It's hard to fall out of love with it.
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 $84,000 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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:12 PM.

2005-2014, 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 - Top