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 really don't understand how Detroit would be the clear winner there. Chicago has always been known more for architecture, and the area has always been at least twice as large as Detroit.
You really don't understand my opinion?
Isn't it just blasphemy that Detroit has any votes at all!? ...
I agree that considering the quantity of older and iconic skyscrapers/buildings......that Detroit has a slight edge; especially considering how much larger Chicago is relative to Detroit.
I can't believe we're having a thread about Chicago architecture and no one has mentioned Oak Park or Frank Lloyd Wright (well with the exception of the Robie House in grapico's comment). Oak Park, Illinois - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I can't believe we're having a thread about Chicago architecture and no one has mentioned Oak Park or Frank Lloyd Wright (well with the exception of the Robie House in grapico's comment). Oak Park, Illinois - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
that is why i left the link instead of the picture on that one, it is just too influential in the world of architecture. there are over 100 FLW in chicago metro...sullivan, flw, mies van der rohe. Detroit is good no doubt, but it is not on Chicago level IMHO, and the opinions of others who have a basic clue and foundational history of architecture. If you wanted to focus perhaps, strictly on art deco for example, then Detroit might have the upper hand... Overall however, I'm just not buying it. There are just too many schools of architecture represented, too many buildings which are core to the field, or started the entire field there, and it only continues.
Of course most people on this board will not have a clue of this, and have probably not been to either city. Since this board is so infatuated with lists...Here are some lists...
that is why i left the link instead of the picture on that one, it is just too influential in the world of architecture. there are over 100 FLW in chicago metro...sullivan, flw, mies van der rohe. Detroit is good no doubt, but it is not on Chicago level IMHO, and the opinions of others who have a basic clue and foundational history of architecture. If you wanted to focus perhaps, strictly on art deco for example, then Detroit might have the upper hand... Overall however, I'm just not buying it. There are just too many schools of architecture represented, too many buildings which are core to the field, or started the entire field there, and it only continues.
Of course most people on this board will not have a clue of this, and have probably not been to either city. Since this board is so infatuated with lists...Here are some lists...
Why is Chicago on all of them and #1 on several on worldwide lists?
simple google search best cities for architecture
I agree %100. I have not been to Detroit, but I have been to Chicago and I have a hard time seeing Detroit being able to compare. As much New Yorkers might deny it, Chicago's importance in architectural is on the same level, if not surpasses New York. Basically, in my view, if your putting Detroit's architecture on the same level as Chicago, your putting it on the same level as New York, Los Angeles, or even Paris and London. Does anyone realize how ridiculous that is?
I think your right that people on here have very little understanding of architectural history. I noticed most people best the a cities architecture based three things: skyscrapers, art deco, and Victorian homes. Skyscrapers are an important part of American architecture, but they don't give the entire picture of the city especially considering that skyscrapers only make up a small portion of most cities including Chicago and Detroit. Art Deco and Victorian homes are beautiful, but they had very little influence on modern architecture. If any of you have actually taken an architectural history class, you would know that your going to spend a lot more time on the FLW houses in Oak Park or the Mies van der Rohe and Lois Sullivan skyscrapers in in downtown Chicago, then say the Art Deco buildings in Midtown Manhattan or the Victorian mansions in San Francisco. Art Deco and Victorian architecture were beautiful styles, but the trend only lasted about 20 or 30 years and didn't have nearly the as much of an impact on the architecture world as the architects previously mentioned. As for Detroit, they do have a few Eero Saarinen buildings (which is something to be proud of) as well as the firm who designed the World Trade Center, but its importance in architectural history really doesn't compare to 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.
...
