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.
Very true. I think this is even the case in places like Manhattan, etc.
I believe the main reason for this is that high rises in the center of cities are either office space or luxury housing. Normally these either have no ground-level restaurants/bars, or upscale restaurants/bars which don't usually add much to the nightlife of the area.
The best areas are usually low-rise, with some blend of high-rises in the neighborhood.
While true, I think it is kind of interesting you can be in the high rise area, in the middle of everything, but also in a relatively quiet area. I still think that is appealing, then go to the nightlife areas 10 blocks away or something. Once you are high up, it is a bit of escape from the city in a sense... on the ground level in other neighborhoods, it's almost always noisy.
While true, I think it is kind of interesting you can be in the high rise area, in the middle of everything, but also in a relatively quiet area. I still think that is appealing, then go to the nightlife areas 10 blocks away or something. Once you are high up, it is a bit of escape from the city in a sense... on the ground level in other neighborhoods, it's almost always noisy.
Yea that's true for a lot of areas I think.
Here in SP, high-rise living may be more prevalent than any city in the world other than maybe Hong Kong. It's ridiculous how much of a variety you can get in terms of high-rise neighborhoods. There's plenty of very bustling, crowded neighborhoods...but plenty of quiet ones too. I live on a quiet little side street, tucked away from the main avenue, but there are 6 high-rises on my street alone.
If you're a city-nut (I know all of you are) and a skyscraper-nut (I'm sure most of you are), then it's a pleasure to walk around São Paulo, especially in certain neighborhoods. Sometimes when you get to the crest of a hill you can see for a long way through one of the most impressive urban jungles on the planet. Very cool stuff.
Here in SP, high-rise living may be more prevalent than any city in the world other than maybe Hong Kong. It's ridiculous how much of a variety you can get in terms of high-rise neighborhoods. There's plenty of very bustling, crowded neighborhoods...but plenty of quiet ones too. I live on a quiet little side street, tucked away from the main avenue, but there are 6 high-rises on my street alone.
If you're a city-nut (I know all of you are) and a skyscraper-nut (I'm sure most of you are), then it's a pleasure to walk around São Paulo, especially in certain neighborhoods. Sometimes when you get to the crest of a hill you can see for a long way through one of the most impressive urban jungles on the planet. Very cool stuff.
I would throw Singapore in there also, I was watching it on the travel channel and it looked extremely impressive from an urban standpoint, never seen a city so modern.
Here in SP, high-rise living may be more prevalent than any city in the world other than maybe Hong Kong. It's ridiculous how much of a variety you can get in terms of high-rise neighborhoods. There's plenty of very bustling, crowded neighborhoods...but plenty of quiet ones too. I live on a quiet little side street, tucked away from the main avenue, but there are 6 high-rises on my street alone.
If you're a city-nut (I know all of you are) and a skyscraper-nut (I'm sure most of you are), then it's a pleasure to walk around São Paulo, especially in certain neighborhoods. Sometimes when you get to the crest of a hill you can see for a long way through one of the most impressive urban jungles on the planet. Very cool stuff.
Sao Paulo looks like Brazil's version of Tokyo. The development just seems to go on forever it's insane.
I would throw Singapore in there also, I was watching it on the travel channel and it looked extremely impressive from an urban standpoint, never seen a city so modern.
Modern but not huge. I was in Singapore a year ago and it's not on the same scale as Hong Kong. Oh, I was in Hong Kong on the same trip...so, I have a perspective on the issue.
Modern but not huge. I was in Singapore a year ago and it's not on the same scale as Hong Kong. Oh, I was in Hong Kong on the same trip...so, I have a perspective on the issue.
Yeah I know, I just meant that a LOT of the population there seems to live in high rises.
This is just a tad bit insulting to Philadelphia and Boston.
Philadelphia is obviously nowhere near being on Chicago's level right now.. because it declined and Chicago has been an "it" city nonstop for decades. However, in the next decade or two, this will actually be a real competition.
By the way.. the Parkway 22 makes me so angry. Those stupid NIMBYs live in the Old City area so you know they're not actually from here yet they want to halt development.
This is just a tad bit insulting to Philadelphia and Boston.
Philadelphia is obviously nowhere near being on Chicago's level right now.. because it declined and Chicago has been an "it" city nonstop for decades. However, in the next decade or two, this will actually be a real competition.
By the way.. the Parkway 22 makes me so angry. Those stupid NIMBYs live in the Old City area so you know they're not actually from here yet they want to halt development.
b/c the real estate market is so predictable over 20 years right?
So wait, what are you predicting?
Philly is going to have a major boom building like 500 new high rises while Chicago will just stop in its steps?
And btw Chicago has been on the decline also in terms of population, but it still managed to throw up tons of high rises over that period.
Why would the thread be insulting? Not everybody knows what is in the cities on here. I thought it was a good question. Many of us knew the answer but I'm sure some people didn't.
This is just a tad bit insulting to Philadelphia and Boston.
Philadelphia is obviously nowhere near being on Chicago's level right now.. because it declined and Chicago has been an "it" city nonstop for decades. However, in the next decade or two, this will actually be a real competition.
By the way.. the Parkway 22 makes me so angry. Those stupid NIMBYs live in the Old City area so you know they're not actually from here yet they want to halt development.
Well. Chicago has highrises going up themselves so they may create some distance.
Since Philly is a much older city I never understood why it hasn't built as many highrises as Chicago in the last century. Was there a city ordinance or people being against it back in the day? Would the location of the airport being close have anything to do with it?
I'm happy to see the city finally building a lot of residential highrises. I use to live in one and am a big fan of highrise living. The experience I had was great.
You don't seem to understand that places only get built when there is a demand for them.
Chicago and Manhattan have been the two biggest "it" cities for many decades now. It's not even remotely surprising that they have the most of everything.
They also have some awful looking buildings mixed in with the better ones to be honest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
Too late for Philly? I disagree. Philly's skyline may be a little homogeneous due to the fact that most of the high rise construction (the tallest, anyway) has taken place over the last 30 years. In architectural time, that's a blip on the radar. As styles change, Philadelphia's tallest buildings will diversify and you'll have more of a mix (though I don't know if any city can replicate what NYC and Chicago have... it's no longer feasible to build with the same materials as the Wrigley Building, Tribune Building, Woolworth Building, Chrysler, etc.).
Boston, on the other hand, had a high-rise "boom" at just the wrong time (60s-70s). We're now left with horrific looking boxes that dominate the skyline. To make matters worse, between the FAA height regulations because of Logan Airport and NIMBY fear that any new tower will inevitably be as awful as the 70s boxes that currently dominate the skyline, it's VERY hard to get anything new built. Boston's tallest Building (the John Hancock Tower) has been the same since the 70s. It's also not even downtown.
Between the two, Philadelphia's in better shape. Boston runs the real risk of having a big plateau for a skyline with ugly 70s boxes dominating. Philadelphia's skyline already looks better and it will continue to evolve. In Boston, we're just hopeful that something changes and we can undo the damage.
Finally, I HATE the practice of trying to build new buildings to resemble old buildings. The problem is that (as I mentioned above) demands have changed and material costs have changed. It's not possible (feasible, anyway), to build a new building the same way a building was built in the 1700s, 1800s, or even early 1900s. When developers DO try to do this, the result is cheap looking and more akin to an Epcot Center style replica than it is to the real thing. Now, architects CAN accentuate and highlight the historic architecture with smart planning and styling. IM Pei did this with the John Hancock Tower in Boston. While its mirrored glass is common now, it was revolutionary at the time. It reflects and highlights the historic brownstone architecture around it. But trying to replicate an old style today is not something that can be done. Accentuate, don't replicate.
We had high-rises before many cities did. A highrise doesn't have to be a huge building. Our skyscrapers were 200 ft or so for the most part because when our city was on that level, that was considered grand and large.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico
b/c the real estate market is so predictable over 20 years right?
So wait, what are you predicting?
Philly is going to have a major boom building like 500 new high rises while Chicago will just stop in its steps?
Why would the thread be insulting? Not everybody knows what is in the cities on here. I thought it was a good question. Many of us knew the answer but I'm sure some people didn't.
Lol look at you getting all offended at my statement.
Because the reasons the entire metro declined have been reversing for over a decade, that's why.
It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the amount but with the concentration and the layout. Chicago is also over 100 square miles larger than Philadelphia so if you want to go that route then we get to include all of the major places in our immediate metro that have been building high-rises for years now and continue to build more.
It's insulting because it's saying that Chicago is so superior that Philadelphia and Boston have to combine, as if we even want to be 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.
