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.
No they are not. You can play with angle of pictures but there are not many areas in Chicago when you have the New York style canyon effect.
Yeah, there are multiple. I walk by them all the time and appreciate them for the views they give. Of course there aren't a LOT of areas compared to New York. New York is New York.
Who's arguing that?
Why is this thread so bitter? I'm just sharing my examples and opinions.
I'm definitely not saying Chicago is better, but there ARE many pretty low-rise areas of Chicago if you go walk the neighborhoods. They're obviously different from NYC because they two cities are VERY different. Chicago is more set back. They did that on purpose though, regardless of whatever visual effect that gives.
Nobody says there are NO low-rise areas in Chicago only that they are not as urban or scenic as the neighborhoods in New York.
You have to keep in mind that New York is 200 years older than Chicago and managed to develope into a large city well before Chicago was born and skyscrpaers were introduced. New York is also more then twice denser than Chicago which results in a different type of residential stock.
Yeah, there are multiple. I walk by them all the time and appreciate them for the views they give. Of course there aren't a LOT of areas compared to New York. New York is New York.
Who's arguing that?
Why is this thread so bitter? I'm just sharing my examples and opinions.
This isn't a war.
I'm out...too much negativity.
Negativity? I walked around Chicago many times and it is very hard to find actuall canyon experience in this city. I am simply stating my opinion.
Sorry, I go to the NY Bar about once or twice a week, and I usually walk around quite a bit. It simply doesn't have give me the kind of feeling I'd get in parts of the Financial District. I'm not sure how you're going to tell me that this was incorrect as I've literally (and I mean literally) walked and/or down every street in Manhattan.
I am sorry but I can't say the same about yours. None of the points you made make any sense whatsoever. Subways are enclosed so they are not so exposed to elements such a snow which can shut down the L's. Unlike the L's subways enjoy windtunnel effects, there are no sidewinds, so they can run faster (jump on NY's L in Bedford and notice the speed the train achieves under the river). Subways are not exposed to debris such as tree branches like the L's. Most importanlty however subway do not take up valuable real estate and do not block the sun with their structures. They also do not pollut the streets with as much noise as the L's. It's easy: New York, Chicago and LA all decided against elevated trains for a good reason.
I agreed with you on the point of exposure to elements--I'm not sure why agreement is a problem for you. The only odd thing is that a line that is heavily used and elevated for much of its route in NYC (the 7 train) is actually more reliable and breaks down less often than most of the other routes in the subsystem. It's an odd thing, and I suspect that it has to do with rain and wind blowing the debris off the tracks while the subways collect debris--so one negative factor (exposure to the elements) is mitigated by the reduction of another (debris) in comparison to other NYC trains. Your point with the snow is a good one as Chicago's heavy snows are something that NYC doesn't have, so any mitigating factor rain and wind might have in clearing debris is offset. You really think a mostly closed tube is actually good for wind resistance? It's certainly good for testing the effects on drag, and it does isolate you from sidewinds (which I agree CAN be bad since safety concerns might mean different operating procedures in strong wind as well as additional friction against the track) but I'm not sure why a closed tube with somewhat limited airflow is a particularly good thing for drag.
The L train in NYC (not elevated for those who aren't familiar), and the river crossing in particular, is probably a bad example due to a combination of things. The long (and STRAIGHT) stretch between 1st Av and Bedford allows the L to accelerate and decelerate within operating procedures and achieve that speed. The cars for the L are all R143s and R160s built in this decade. The L is a dedicated line (sharing tracks with no other services) that's also one of the few, though I might be wrong on this as my memory's fuzzy, piloting the use of a single line manager which has been shown to be a lot more efficient (it may be that having a single taskmaster means that trains are less likely to get bunched up, so they can continue to operate at optimum speed without worry that they may have to make any quick decelerations).
I think tree branches on the elevated lines is an incredibly rare phenomenon since elevated lines are almost exclusively built in the median of roads and not along tree-lined sidewalks--furthermore, it would simply be good city planning to not have trees taller than the elevated line growing immediately along the track. The problems of blocking sunlight have already been covered. Here's another iteration for you since you can't seem to consider all the factors in total: some people at some points may prefer shade and shielding from the rain (how effective this is depends on how the lines are built) and elevated lines will never be on every single street in an area so you've now created the option for some pedestrians to either walk on a street that's somewhat shaded or ones that are not.
We've already talked about real estate before and I agreed subways have a smaller footprint at the street level than elevated trains--this is certainly one of the great advantages that subways have, and I think it's a great principle to really consider all the real advantages and disadvantages a system has. I'm not sure why bringing back up an advantage that both of us have already mentioned changes anything since it's not a consideration that anyone is dropping. The same was said about noise pollution, though with the additions that you seem to be overblowing this one as not everyone is as bothered by it as you, there are a lot of things that can be done to dampen the noise (they unfortunately require actually doing them and I'm not sure Chicago will), and, though I don't agree with the logic behind this, commuters in subways are exposed to as much if not more (echo chambers, anyone?) noise than those in els. And again, I agreed that NYC, LA (oh yes, this titan of mass transit planning, how could we forget?), and Chicago (back to 1936 are we?) decided against elevated trains at some points for good reason--I'm sure they weighed the specific pros and cons for themselves. However, the problem you and I are having is the assertion that elevated trains in general are no good or inferior to subways. This is questionable given that cities such as London (one of the examples you've dropped, possibly because you actually dont know much about London's mass transit and have never been there), Tokyo (ditto that said for London), Amsterdam, Singapore, Taipei, Berlin, and others find elevated lines to be good and viable solutions. So it then goes back to informed people making informed and rational decisions--which is oftentimes a good thing.
I actually have to disagree with this...Manhattan is def more densley packed than the loop; first reason is that lot sizes are smaller in NYC, so there are more buildings per block than in Chicago. Also, there are no alleys in NYC, so you don't have that elbow room between buildings that you get in Chicago.
As far as setbacks, my biggest beef with new highrises in Chicago, is the setbacks. Im not sure which areas of Streeterville you are refering to, but literally every new highrise has a parking podium, with the tower on top of it, creating a setback. By New east side I assume that is Lakeshore East? Aqua has a HUGE podium.
Interesting! I guess I was referring to the type of setbacks seen in Manhattan, that give buildings the "wedding cake" look.
I am going to respectfully disagree with you here, too. Chicago's skyscrapers are more tightly packed than in New York. However, I should define my terms. By tightly packed, I am referring to the actual skyscrapers, not mid-rise buildings. New York has a lot of mid-rises in between its skyscrapers, whereas the Loop is nearly all scrapers, one after the other. Also, they FEEL more tightly packed because of the way they just rise straight up and continue all the way into the sky.
Even buildings that do set themselves back do it subtly (see: Chase building). There are a few art deco scrapers that imitate their brethren in NYC with some more classical setbacks (see: Pittsfield Building), but these are more rare.
I will give it to you about the gangways, though. I have never noticed the alleys having an effect on the overall impression that the buildings give, though.
Your defensive comments make me even more sure you have never been to New York. As fas as arguing for the sake of argument.... Do you know what projection in psychology is?
Yes, I do know what that is. Your behavior is a classic example of projection. That's a great point, and something about which I can actually agree with you.
Anyway, yes, I have been to New York. However, I don't claim to know more than you because of my experience with New York. I know these things because I've studied them. I'm talking about more than a Google search here and there, to cherry pick information that fits my agenda.
You still haven't addressed my question. Why are you trying to paint Manhattan as more like Chicago? It's unique in its own right. The arrangement of its buildings is part of its appeal. Why are you trying to take that away from the city you ordinarily drool over? It doesn't make much sense to me, but then again, I'm not a 13-year-old kid in White Plains, NY.
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.
