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.
Chicago has more unique towers and a more impressive density of skyscrapers.
More unique towers, more towers period, and taller towers, yes, but skyscraper density wise i doubt Chicago beats SF. If anything they're probably about the same in regards to their structural densities downtown.
More unique towers, more towers period, and taller towers, yes, but skyscraper density wise i doubt Chicago beats SF. If anything they're probably about the same in regards to their structural densities downtown.
Well Chicago has wider streets and alleys. So SF is probably a little denser, and feels more crowded. While Chicago is taller and bigger bases plus more widespread. It certainly has nothing near as tall as the Sears Tower or near as wide as Merchandise Mart.
Nothing in the US compares to NYC or Chicago. They are the only two in the top 5 in the world. There have been many publications that Chicago may actually be better than NYC. Either way San Fran is in the top 20 in the world.
Nothing in the US compares to NYC or Chicago. They are the only two in the top 5 in the world. There have been many publications that Chicago may actually be better than NYC. Either way San Fran is in the top 20 in the world.
How can a publication tell someone's eyes which skyline is better than what? Opinions aren't necessarily facts.
To most, New York has a better skyline an better architecture. The architecture style is far more diverse and dramatic.
Well Chicago has wider streets and alleys. So SF is probably a little denser, and feels more crowded. While Chicago is taller and bigger bases plus more widespread. It certainly has nothing near as tall as the Sears Tower or near as wide as Merchandise Mart.
Having spent a good amount of time in SF and living in Chicago, it is no contest. SF, while dense compared to other cities, is not comparable to Chicago as far as tall building density (which I think this thread is about). SF is small and dense, Chicago's density covers a wider area and the height is staggering. Really, it's not really even a viable comparison. Like a previous poster said, it's NYC (which is actually on its own level), then Chicago, then big drop to everyone else. That said, the quality drop is not so far because SF is an urban delight. But please everyone.
San Francisco is way better thank all these citys. It has a rich skyline, not boring. Different shapes and sizes of buildings. Way better agriculture. Its beatuiful here, from Napa Valley to Oakland. Its beautiful, nothing can compare to SF!
Honestly,Chicago,the perfect blend of old and new IMO and the height can make SF see underwhelming at times,but since I'm a homer and I can list more pros than cons for both I'm gonna say tie
The one spire to the right,not sure of the name has to be one of my favorites.
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.
