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.
Sorry but this just isn't how it works. Housing isn't as significant. When you're talking architecture its about using new materials or rethinking space. Very few house ever achieve this the most notable being Frank Lloyd Wright (Chicago). Whether houses look slightly different or not they don't present any real significance to the architectural world.
Museums, skyscrapers, schools, transit hubs, airports, research facilities, hospitals, galleries, pavilions, public spaces, office complexes - these are the thing that really define an urban landscape and architecture.
While New York City has the most it has actually had very little in the way of innovation and firsts. The firsts actually come from Chicago and Los Angeles.
TWA Terminal by Eero Saarinen is a style known as Googie for example. This style actually started 30 years earlier in Los Angeles.
Seagram Building as mentioned already is a direct descendant of the Lake Shore Drive Apartments done 13 years earlier in Chicago. Both by Mies van der Rohe.
These are just two examples, I could go on.
And sorry but these other cities like San Francisco, Oakland, Philly, Pittsburgh, Boston. They just don't compare.
I thought architecture just meant different visual styles... I guess not.
Sorry but this just isn't how it works. Housing isn't as significant. When you're talking architecture its about using new materials or rethinking space. Very few house ever achieve this the most notable being Frank Lloyd Wright (Chicago). Whether houses look slightly different or not they don't present any real significance to the architectural world.
Museums, skyscrapers, schools, transit hubs, airports, research facilities, hospitals, galleries, pavilions, public spaces, office complexes - these are the thing that really define an urban landscape and architecture.
And sorry but these other cities like San Francisco, Oakland, Philly, Pittsburgh, Boston. They just don't compare.
Cities like San Francisco and Boston have some of the finest architecture in the country.
I could care less about a few elite buildings that a handful of architects rave about. The Frank Lloyd Wright architecture of the Guggenheim does not represent the majority of New York to New Yorkers anymore than the Disney Concert Hall looks like typical Los Angeles to residents of LA. Its the everyday residential architecture that millions of us dumb non-architects have to live in that matters to most people.
In other words, what makes San Francisco architecture so great is not just a handful of downtown buildings and museums like the Transamerica Building but the sum total of EVERY building in the city from the Golden Gate Bridge to the Presido and the Victorian rowhouses.
I can think of an awful lot of houses in San Francisco that should be subtracting from the cumulative total of architectural grandeur, not adding to it. I can also think of plenty of hideous examples in LA and NYC, for that matter. But that doesn't mean that LA doesn't have a large number of amazing "regular" everyday examples of wonderful architecture, too, as of course it does. I'm not a big fan of the Gehry-style modern architecture, so for me it's LA's more everyday stuff that makes it such an appealing city. The fabulous 1920s apartment buildings, for example, or the Spanish-style bungalow courts, or the craftsman-style homes, or the fun buildings like the Capitol Records Building or the storybook cottages. So yes, I agree that the residential and non-famous buildings are really what defines a city to most of us non-architects. (although of course the famous places also have their place)
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 15,939,206 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by -.-
NYC seems to always kick everyones a** in every poll.
Welcome to my world of CD realizations. The very few times I have seen NYC lose a poll, I have taken a screenshot and will use it in future references. It's a rare sight to see.
Welcome to my world of CD realizations. The very few times I have seen NYC lose a poll, I have taken a screenshot and will use it in future references. It's a rare sight to see.
NYC is 2nd to Miami RIGHT NOW, in the "cities with the hottest women" thread.
Welcome to my world of CD realizations. The very few times I have seen NYC lose a poll, I have taken a screenshot and will use it in future references. It's a rare sight to see.
lol...
Culturally and globally, NY is the most important city in the US. Bar none. Does it have the best quality of life? Not by a long shot. Being below middle class in NYC is... interesting to say the least. NY might the safest big city but all the "bad" areas from the 90's are still bad. It's also dirty as ****... sanitation has been and is one of working class NY's biggest issues.
Obviously there are cities with worse quality of life than NY but its definitely not the best.
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.