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 think that the skyline is especially poignant in Chicago because it's the birthplace of the modern skyscraper. More than any other city, the skyscraper is a big part of Chicago's identity. I suppose if you lived in Giza you'd be tired of the old "pyramids this, pyramids that."
Location: Uniquely Individual Villages of the Megalopolis
646 posts, read 813,203 times
Reputation: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarolinaBredChicagoan
I think that the skyline is especially poignant in Chicago because it's the birthplace of the modern skyscraper. More than any other city, the skyscraper is a big part of Chicago's identity. I suppose if you lived in Giza you'd be tired of the old "pyramids this, pyramids that."
I always thought the Empire State Building was the prototype of the modern skyscraper. We're post modern now, but it's still an icon of NYC and still is famous even though we're past the modern era.
corporate buildings represent the fact that seriouse business is being done in the city. Massive respidential buildings represent a high demand to live in a particular area. Skylines are important i believe, but they do not make a city. La's skyline for example is scatted through out the city rather than condenced in a center. Does that negate the fact that business is being done every day in LA ,no. La is the type of city that does not needs a condenced down town to attract tourists. Some cities really dont need a massive skyline.
Location: Uniquely Individual Villages of the Megalopolis
646 posts, read 813,203 times
Reputation: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by skatealoneskatetogether
corporate buildings represent the fact that seriouse business is being done in the city. Massive respidential buildings represent a high demand to live in a particular area. Skylines are important i believe, but they do not make a city. La's skyline for example is scatted through out the city rather than condenced in a center. Does that negate the fact that business is being done every day in LA ,no. La is the type of city that does not needs a condenced down town to attract tourists. Some cities really dont need a massive skyline.
I hear ya, but I always thought despite what many express here, that LA does indeed have an impressive skyline. The Hollywood district has its own.
I love LA, myself!! But that has nothing to do with it. Actually I think LA with the Sierras in the background at prime photo times is extremely impressive.
Look at Rio de Janeiro, with those green mountains, the statue and the city below. It's also about terrain. I think cities who have little exiting terrain might be more inclinded to accentuate a skyline since otherwise they'd be nothing and against the grain of nature.
San Fran has both imo. Beauty and architecture and urbane buildings.
Some of our biggest most impressive skyline cities are otherwise very dull, flat and boring places otherwise.
Salt Lake has a lot of beauty how it's nestled in a valley.
I always thought the Empire State Building was the prototype of the modern skyscraper. We're post modern now, but it's still an icon of NYC and still is famous even though we're past the modern era.
I say "modern" to differentiate what we now consider a skyscraper from early "proto-skyscrapers". There are sketchy records of buildings as tall as 11-14 stories in the 1600s in Edinburgh, and the oldest iron-framed building was built in Shrewsbury, England in 1797.
The first skyscraper as we know it today was the ten story Home Insurance Building in Chicago, which was completed in 1885. It had a load-bearing skeleton rather than load-bearing walls, which made it the prototype for skyscrapers to follow.
The same thing goes for Baltimore, San Antonio, San Jose... Cities that are bigger than their skylines.
I would rather our city look like this...
http://www.austintowers.net/Austin_Downtown/files/Future_Downtown_Austin_Skyline.jpg (broken link)
This is what Austin will look like in a few years.
NOT. And I believe San Antonio has a height restriction, but the skyline is beautiful as is. The downtown is even better.
And Dallas and Houston are great cities in their own respect, but I wouldnt compare them to Chicago because if there was ONE thing that really diffentiates them from us is lack of a downtown. For instance, you cant stroll downtown Houston and visit hundreds of art galleries, numerous museums, thousands of restaurants, or ride up into a 1,400 ft tall skyscraper, etc, etc. THATS the kind of thing that a great downtown can create for tourism, attracting new residents, etc.
Well downtowns aren't everything, Steve, but last time I checked, both Dallas and Houston had one. I don't care to list, but there are several ways that both cities compare to Chicago, and there are several ways that these cities beat Chicago. I think that all the user was trying to say is the Texas cities' world status is not shrinking, and not staying still, rather growing.
You can indeed stroll both CBDs, and while there are no 1,400 ft supertalls to ride up, there's a half decent, 1,002 footer in Houston with a rather nice observation floor.
The problem is that the streetscape suffers (at least in the U.S.) if there aren't any towers holding thousands of office workers and condos/apartments housing hundreds of people in a concentrated area. A vibrant streetscape is only viable when there is a static downtown population to serve. Tourism can only take you so far. In other words, suburb-centric cities that lack large skylines tend to have less vibrant cores than cities that have a sizeable, permanent downtown population (commerical and residential).
I feel that's not necessarily true. The idea that towers = density (population or otherwise) is a bit misleading. Some of the densest cities in the country don't have any towers at all, and have very vibrant street life indeed.
Well downtowns aren't everything, Steve, but last time I checked, both Dallas and Houston had one. I don't care to list, but there are several ways that both cities compare to Chicago, and there are several ways that these cities beat Chicago. I think that all the user was trying to say is the Texas cities' world status is not shrinking, and not staying still, rather growing.
You can indeed stroll both CBDs, and while there are no 1,400 ft supertalls to ride up, there's a half decent, 1,002 footer in Houston with a rather nice observation floor.
Yeah, their downtowns are nice for what they are, but theyre incomparable to Chicago's in many ways. A few tall buildings dont make a great downtown like some people tend to think. And I also said that a downtown isnt everything, but its definitely what alot of people love in a big-urban experience. Ive been downtown Houston and Dallas (twice in the big D), wasnt overly impressed. Theyre great cities, dont get me wrong, but I did indeed find their downtowns lacking. While I could probably see all there is to see in downtown Houston in one day, thats impossible in places like NYC and Chicago. Ive been downtown Chicago more times than I care to count and I STILL find new places that Ive never seen before, I STILL find new restaurants and art galleries to this day, and Ive been living in the area for almost 30 years. THATS how downtown Dallas and Houston differ from downtown NYC and Chicago.
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.
