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.
Seems like New York is the big fat kid on the playground that has low self esteem so it tries to pick on everyone else. Too bad people are actually standing up for their cities now. This isn't 1930 anymore...New York is nowhere near the level it once was. Can you get over that?
Cities change all the time. That doesnt mean NYC isnt great. Do i need to bring out the chart again?
The Buildings are old, that doesnt mean they arent magnificent. Look at London or Paris theyre buildings are way older. Decaying. How can the buildings just rust away Its like you dont know the LAWS. Its not just size get, have you ever been to NYC. I mean knowing that you pride Chicago and all but
you didnt even say it was close to chicago in architecture. you describe NYC like its Sao Paulo or some other city with a huge skyline and horrible buildings. Now any person who is really into architecture knows NYC beats Chicago. I go to many websites, example SSC where many people around the world also say that NYC is beautiful in architecture. I mean even dementor showed proof. NYC looks better in both categories.
You forgot you are talking to Midwesterners. If they could they would argue that Louvre is less of an architectural wonder than Sears Tower and definetely less famous. I am having a lot of fun in this forum and I do not really try to argue with Chicagoans but rather try to show to others how full of s***t they are. I know there is no point in arguing with them, they think civilized life started when Chicago was founded and most civilizational advancements came from hardworking Midwesterners while the rest of the country was simply fooling around. They are really serious about it and I suspect they really believe that. After all, Chicago is all they know.
Honestly, outside of Sears who ever heard about any other structure in Chicago while Empire State, Chrysler and Flatiron are icons of architecture and world-wide famous. Additionaly St. John's Cathedral, Statue of Liberty, Dacota, McGraw Hill, Plaza Hotel, New York Life, Metlife and many other NY buildings are not only architectural treasures but are officially recognized US landmarks, while neither Sears nor Hancock made that list. Shouldn't that tell us something?
By the way, New York City has 108 official US landmarks while the entire state of Illinois has 85...
C'mon folks, what are we comparing here?
Now any person who is really into architecture knows NYC beats Chicago.
Ummm...no one who was into architecture would ever say that. Weird that you mentioned that like it was something that NYC would surely win. If anything, it would be about even- most architecture fans/students/professors would say Chicago is about the epitome of 20th century architecture. There's a reason why there's a "Chicago School of Architecture" (and it's basically known as the pinnacle of it's time) and there is no "New York School of Architecture" at all.
For the city of its size, Chicago has a better skyline. The Architectural quality, and mix actually stand out. The only thing it lacks are bridges and the statue of liberty
New York skyline is impressive due to its utter mass and size. There are some gems that peak out, and are noticeable, but as a whole, there are so many bland buildings that dilute the skyline.
Ummm...no one who was into architecture would ever say that. Weird that you mentioned that like it was something that NYC would surely win. If anything, it would be about even- most architecture fans/students/professors would say Chicago is about the epitome of 20th century architecture. There's a reason why there's a "Chicago School of Architecture" (and it's basically known as the pinnacle of it's time) and there is no "New York School of Architecture" at all.
Yes. But the most famous examples are located in New York.
Again, New York City has 108 designated US landmarks, many of them building while entire Illinois has 85.
Back to the thread! I don't get how people think NYC Skyline looks better when its a lot old and decaying buildings. It's just its sheer size. Hong Kong has a huge skyline of more modern buildings and the skyline looks great both because of its size and its buildings. NYC looks better from a far, Chicago looks better up close.
Let's get something straight; 90% of the buildings in Chicago's skyline are old, decayed or bland. You Chicagoans are ridiculous.
And please, let's stop with these Chicago vs. New York City comparisons, because New York wins them all (skyline, city, architecture). It's getting so redundant.
That doesn't make any sense, either logically or grammatically. This didn't even make me laugh, either.
My bad. New York has more examples of great architecture than Chicago hence has better architecture than Chicago.
NYC alone has 108 US designated landmarks while the entire Illinois has 85.
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.
Cities change all the time. That doesnt mean NYC isnt great. Do i need to bring out the chart again?
