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.
I totally agree. Using your metric (# of buildings over 500 ft) then Chicago has, easily, the #2 skyline in North America (or the Americas for that matter). No other city is even in the conversation.
In fact, using this metric, no other city besides NYC and one or two in Asia are superior to Chicago.
BUT, I am saying that this is not the only metric. Why 500 feet? Why not 300 feet? How about 700 feet?
If you use other metrics, suddenly other cities are more competitive. If you use Emporis stats, then other cities have more highrises.
And, one must look into other details.
Why are Chicago buildings so tall? Well, they are packed in only one part of the metropolitan area, and their height is exaggerated by 20%-25% because they all have large parking garages at the base. The actual building often doesn't start until the 20th floor or so.
Why should Chicago be "rewarded" by encouraging driving, and by not putting parking underground?
In Mexico City, for example, there are highrises scattered in various districts, and, while there are many parking garages at the bases of buildings, I would not say it is like Chicago, where every building has artificically inflated height because of the parking garage.
Also, architecture should play a role in the discussion. Mexico City has amazing modern architecture that looks like its from another planet.
Scenery is also arguably a factor. Is there a difference between a 30-floor building on a flat plain, and one perched dramatically on a cliff, with a skybridge to another building? I would say there is a difference.
It is important to realize that the number of high-rises does not equate to an amazing skyline. There are numerous cities that would surprass Chicago in the 10+ floor or up category. When you look at skylines, you count the # of relevant high-rises that would consitute a skyline in todays world and those such buildings need height. Otherwise, those apartment buildings in such-n-such neighborhood would be part of the statisitc but barely relevant to the skyline. Imagine using the 10+ floor metric in NYC...you find hordes of buildings all over NYC that have nothing to do with Manhattan's skyline...and then you are using those buildings to prove your point that NYC has an amazing skyline when those buildings aren't relevant to the skyline? Come on now. We are talking about SKYLINES here.
Yes, I am aware Mexico City's great architecture, but when you are talking about skylines...you just have to give it to Chicago. It has a skyline with diversity...old classics mixed with the new steel and glass high-rises. Many of Chicago's tall buildings are examples of classic skyscrapers that the world modelled after. Remember, Chicago is the birthplace of the skyscraper and has one of the best examples of urban architecture anywhere in the world. Not just today's buildings, but buildings of every decade are well represented.
As far as scenic beauty goes, seeing how Chicago's skyline is lined beautifully along the shores of Lake Michigan is breathtaking. Chicago arguably has the best waterfront in the US and the scenic view from the lake is nothing short of fascinating. So there's Chicago for aesthetics and scenic beauty.
I still don't see Mexico City's skyline in the league of Chicago's. Chicago's skyline is what a real amazing skyline is...it is a skyline that sets an example.
I still don't see Mexico City's skyline in the league of Chicago's. Chicago's skyline is what a real amazing skyline is...it is a skyline that sets an example.
Fair point. I think you've made a strong argument.
I will say this, though. If you ever fly into Mexico City, you will be treated to one of the most jaw-dropping cityscapes you will ever see. And it really is a vast, spread-out skyline that cannot be captured in a single pic (like in Chicago).
Dude 1984, I have to say that may be one of the worst lists yet.
Absolutely horrible. You can read it from top to bottom, or from bottom to top, and it makes about equal sense.
No Toronto? Chicago #1? NYC behind SF? There are more highrises even in NYC suburbs than in SF!
Oh, and Pittsburgh, #4? WTF? There are barely any highrises in Pittsburgh. It has fewer than a number of individual Mexico City suburbs, for cryin out loud!
Dude 1984, I have to say that may be one of the worst lists yet.
Absolutely horrible. You can read it from top to bottom, or from bottom to top, and it makes about equal sense.
No Toronto? Chicago #1? NYC behind SF? There are more highrises even in NYC suburbs than in SF!
Oh, and Pittsburgh, #4? WTF? There are barely any highrises in Pittsburgh. It has fewer than a number of individual Mexico City suburbs, for cryin out loud!
Dude 1984, I have to say that may be one of the worst lists yet.
Absolutely horrible. You can read it from top to bottom, or from bottom to top, and it makes about equal sense.
No Toronto? Chicago #1? NYC behind SF? There are more highrises even in NYC suburbs than in SF!
Oh, and Pittsburgh, #4? WTF? There are barely any highrises in Pittsburgh. It has fewer than a number of individual Mexico City suburbs, for cryin out loud!
Well, here's the thing. American cities have nice skylines because they tend to be tall and concentrated. I even think my city of Philadelphia has a better skyline than Mexico City simply because Philly has a more impressive cluster of high-rises than anywhere found in Mexico City. There's 5 700+ footers within a 4 block range and lots of 400 footers. You drive on the highway, the skyline view is great and eye-catching. I do not have a soft heart for those cities that technically do not have skylines...but more of scattering high-rises (short 10-15 floors) all over the urban landscape. Scattering high-rises all over the urban landscape isn't a great skyline...no matter how many numbers of high-rises there are. Indeed, I do not think Sao Paulo has a great skyline either because it is a sprawling mess of apartments for the most part...that is not impressive really. Cities like New York, Chicago, Toronto, Shanghai, Tokyo, Hong Kong etc all have large numbers of high-rises, but they are at least somewhat concentrated and have soaring skyscrapers. Latin American cities are not like this.
What's wrong with Chicago at #1? It is perfectly reasonable for anyone to think Chicago has the best skyline, even better than New York. Chicago is my personal favorite skyline in the world and I like it more than Manhattan. I just think Chicago has a more elegant and beautiful skyline than Manhattan, even if it is 3x smaller...but who cares? It is still dense, super-tall, and super large.
My list would be like this:
1. New York
2. Chicago
3. Toronto
4. San Francisco
5. Philadelphia
6. Mexico City
7. Los Angeles
8. Houston
9. Dallas
10. Seattle
And NO, Miami is NOT top 10! I hate Miami's skyline...it has lots to do before it gets serious respect.
Last edited by Libohove90; 09-06-2009 at 10:10 AM..
Well, here's the thing. American cities have nice skylines because they tend to be tall and concentrated.
Ok, but the list does not reflect this. He has SF at #3, and they only have two buildings above 700 feet. So does Jersey City, a NYC suburb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libohove90
I even think my city of Philadelphia has a better skyline than Mexico City simply because Philly has a more impressive cluster of high-rises than anywhere found in Mexico City.
I think that's highly debatable. Philly has a fraction of Mexico City's skyscrapers, and nothing really as dramatic as the Santa Fe district in Mexico City.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libohove90
There's 5 700+ footers within a 4 block range and lots of 400 footers. You drive on the highway, the skyline view is great and eye-catching. I do not have a soft heart for those cities that technically do not have skylines...but more of scattering high-rises (short 10-15 floors) all over the urban landscape.
Mexico City has more 400+ highrises than Philly, so your point is mistaken.
We're not talking 10-15 floor skyscrapers. We're talking tons of 300+ foot skyscrapers, and far more than Philly. I would not be surprised in Mexico City had more 300+ foot skyscrapers than Chicago.
Philly has more at 700+ ft. but that's only five buildings, and a net difference of four with Mexico City.
And Mexico City DOES have a skyline; it's just too big to be captured in one pic (unlike the smaller skyline in Chicago, or the even smaller skyline in Philly).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libohove90
Scattering high-rises all over the urban landscape isn't a great skyline...no matter how many numbers of high-rises there are.
They aren't scattered in Mexico City; they're clustered. Same with Philly. Except Philly has one cluster and Mexico City has about 10.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libohove90
Indeed, I do not think Sao Paulo has a great skyline either because it is a sprawling mess of apartments for the most part...that is not impressive really.
Sao Paulo has FAR more highrises than Philly. Even tall highrises (say 300+ feet). It's silly to even compare.
It would almost be like if Center City Philly covered the entire city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libohove90
What's wrong with Chicago at #1? It is perfectly reasonable for anyone to think Chicago has the best skyline, even better than New York.
No, it's ridiculous. NYC has six times the number of skyscrapers! It would be like saying Camden has a better skyline than Philly.
The only metric where Chicago scores extremely well is on very tall towers (500+ ft.), yet on this metric it is absolutely destroyed by NYC. Chicago has fewer than 100 towers above 500 feet, while NYC has over 200!
In other words, the difference in 500+ foot towers between NYC and Chicago is bigger than the difference in 500+ foot towers between Chicago and the North Pole!
And that isn't even including Jersey City and other adjacent suburbs where there are even more 500+ foot towers.
Furthermore, the majority of Chicago's 500+ foot buildings are between 500-599 feet, and almost all have giant parking garages at the base that artifically inflate the height of the buildings. This does not occur in NYC or most other cities.
So, if one takes away Chicago's unfair advantage of putting their towers on top of giant parking podiums (which do not count in municipal zoning or height calculations, but for some reason are counted by Emporis), then Chicago has only about 45 buildings above 500 feet, compared to over 200 in NYC.
So, yeah, claiming Chicago has a bigger or better skyline than NYC makes about as much sense as claiming some podunkville has a bigger or better skyline than Chicago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libohove90
Chicago is my personal favorite skyline in the world and I like it more than Manhattan.
Well, that's your preference, but it makes as much sense as saying Green Bay is your personal favorite skyline in the world and you like it more than Chicago.
BTW, Manhattan is one small part of NYC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libohove90
I just think Chicago has a more elegant and beautiful skyline than Manhattan, even if it is 3x smaller...but who cares?
Six times smaller.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libohove90
It is still dense, super-tall, and super large.
But tiny compared to NYC, and many other cities (Sao Paulo, and many Asian cities).
And really, Chiacago known for being tall, and not dense or large.
Downtown Chicago is not that large, and is not really super-dense, at least by global standards. Lots of parking lots and, of course, parking garages everywhere.
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.
