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.
The more I think about it the more I'm convinced that this is a frivolous topic. Even if one city has more or less "iconic" landmarks so what? I mean, you could easily say that Keystone, South Dakota is as iconic as Los Angeles because that's where Mt. Rushmore is located and one could argue that Mr. Rushmore is easily as iconic as the Hollywood Sign. But one probably couldn't argue that Keystone is quite comparable to LA in nearly every other regard. Just seems arbitrary to me.
The more I think about it the more I'm convinced that this is a frivolous topic. Even if one city has more or less "iconic" landmarks so what? I mean, you could easily say that Keystone, South Dakota is as iconic as Los Angeles because that's where Mt. Rushmore is located and one could argue that Mr. Rushmore is easily as iconic as the Hollywood Sign. But one probably couldn't argue that Keystone is quite comparable to LA in nearly every other regard. Just seems arbitrary to me.
I'd say not only the actual landmarks but the history/culture of a place makes it iconic. I voted San Francisco but it is very close IMO.
I'd say not only the actual landmarks but the history/culture of a place makes it iconic. I voted San Francisco but it is very close IMO.
Well yeah but seems a lot of people are taking a "lowest common denominator" approach and really are only focused on the very basic or most prominent icons. Which is funny because many of the major American icons aren't even in cities. It's not like it's some categorical measure of a city's greatness.
Regardless, anyone who knows or cares to know basic US history will know both cities are steeped in cultural and historical significance. But I guess we are to assume that most foreigners (and, apparently, US citizens) don't really care about any of that.
The more I think about it the more I'm convinced that this is a frivolous topic. Even if one city has more or less "iconic" landmarks so what? I mean, you could easily say that Keystone, South Dakota is as iconic as Los Angeles because that's where Mt. Rushmore is located and one could argue that Mr. Rushmore is easily as iconic as the Hollywood Sign. But one probably couldn't argue that Keystone is quite comparable to LA in nearly every other regard. Just seems arbitrary to me.
This is a good point - it's the sum of the parts and not just one or a few things put together which makes a city great.
I mean, it's just hard to beat out the Golden Gate Bridge, SF Hills, SF historic cable cars, and neighborhoods like The Castro and Haight-Ashbury as far as iconic places are concerned.
I mean, in Chicago, other then the Willis Tower, what is iconic internationally? Chicago has no well known neighborhoods other then Southside Chicago for obvious reasons.
Other than the Willis Tower? Well there's also the John Hancock Center, Navy Pier, Lakeshore Drive, The Bean, The Chicago Loop, Millennium Park, and the El-train.
I think Chicago has a great host of famous and well known landmarks. Maybe not as well known as say the Golden Gate Bridge or Trolley's, but I think those are the main images for San Francisco, its skyline is not overly distinctive, where visually Chicago has a few distinctive skyscrappers, namely the Willis Tower.
The TransAmerica Pyramid is just as distinctive as the Willis Tower.
Distinctive maybe, but not even close to as well known or iconic. Plus, that is the only building that really tends to stick out in the San Francisco skyline.
The TransAmerica Pyramid is just as distinctive as the Willis Tower.
Probably more iconic, if I wasn't a city enthusiast I would easily confuse Columbia center in Seattle with the Willis Tower, the transamerica cannot be confused.
Probably more iconic, if I wasn't a city enthusiast I would easily confuse Columbia center in Seattle with the Willis Tower, the transamerica cannot be confused.
You've got to have some really bad eyesight to confuse Columbia Center with Willis Tower. One has a huge freaking spire and the other doesn't. Not to mention the huge height difference in the two.
Transamerica is definitely more unique, I'll give you that. Definitely don't think it's as well known as Willis Tower though.
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.
