John Hancock Tower (Boston) vs John Hancock Tower (Chicago) (compare, place, bigger)

[Natural510]

Originally Posted by steel03

Boston's seems nicer, but Chicago's is just so.... Chicago... like it screams Chicago to me. Everything I love about it - the polished urban grit, the dark hues, the straight lines. It's so orderly and so elegant and there's just so much personality there. There's no other city that building could be in. Even more than the Sears Tower, the Hancock building is Chicago for me.

I agree with everything you said here. Both buildings fit the city's personality, but the Chicago Hancock building is iconic, and I can't imagine the city without it.
Great idea for a thread, btw.

[tocoto]

The JHT in Boston was built as the headquarters of the company with the same name. They are both iconic and among the better looking skyscrapers even many years after construction.

[RaymondChandlerLives]

Chicago's definitely. An absolute beast.

[tmac9wr]

I used to work in the Hancock in Boston...it's a great building but I prefer the Chicago one. As someone mentioned before, it's quintessentially Chicago. Large, dark, overbearing yet beautiful. I remember going with my family to celebrate my 21st bday at the bar on the 95/96th floor. It was great.

[marothisu]

The southern view from the Chicago tower at the 96th floor lounge

[Bslette]

There's something about the John Hancock Tower in Chicago that just makes it so awesome. I don't know exactly what. Maybe it is just how it is so strikingly dark and it just rises out of that part of downtown with the two spires literally "scraping" the sky. I usually think of it as "empirical", like it gives you that feeling that you are at the center of an empire (called Chicago). It's a wierd way of looking at it, but I'm an architecture and civil engineering freak, so what can I say.

[Lucky Clover]

Originally Posted by Bslette

There's something about the John Hancock Tower in Chicago that just makes it so awesome. I don't know exactly what. Maybe it is just how it is so strikingly dark and it just rises out of that part of downtown with the two spires literally "scraping" the sky. I usually think of it as "empirical", like it gives you that feeling that you are at the center of an empire (called Chicago). It's a wierd way of looking at it, but I'm an architecture and civil engineering freak, so what can I say.

Funny story of when I first came to Chicago for a couple of days. I kept thinking the Hancock building was Sears. I was staying at a hotel in Lincoln Park at the time and all I could see was Hancock from my vantage point there. As I got closer to it when I walked towards downtown, I was convinced it had to be Sears because of how massive it really looked (it was also night time). I still laugh about that.

Originally Posted by ThreeSides

The Marina City towers are my favorite in Chicago. The John Hancock building is my 2nd favorite. I will echo what others have already said. It is "Chicago" and it does look "fierce". It is complimented well with the other big and dark building on South Wacker.

Without much thought, the only sleek, polished, edifice that I really like is the Gateway Arch.

Marina City eh. I reside there.

[Maintainschaos]

Chicago's...I always found the one in Boston a bit bland. Having lived in Boston for many years, I never thought the JHT fit in with the rest of the skyline. Give me the Custom House or 111 Huntington any day of the week over the Hancock tower in Boston.

[urbanologist]

Shot this from the roof. 100 stories of sheer dominance


JHC in the back drop

[prelude91]

The John Hancock Center (Chicago) is 100 stories of pure awesomeness, it is massive and screams Chicago. It is my favorite Skyscraper in the Country, the Hancock Building in Boston is nice but doesn't have the presence of JHC in Chicago.