Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which one do you wish had better/more aesthetically appealing architecture on the whole?
Chicago 21 16.80%
Los Angeles 59 47.20%
Mexico City 12 9.60%
New York 12 9.60%
San Francisco 15 12.00%
Toronto 34 27.20%
Washington, D.C. 20 16.00%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 125. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-23-2016, 01:49 PM
 
6,843 posts, read 10,966,660 times
Reputation: 8436

Advertisements

Opinion Poll: Which of these cities do you wish had more aesthetically appealing architecture?

These are the cities that we will be discussing in this thread. If a city is not listed, then preferably don't go interjecting it into this thread. It doesn't belong here.

- Chicago
- Los Angeles
- Mexico City
- New York
- San Francisco
- Toronto
- Washington D.C.

You are free to judge the cities and their architecture, in addition to their suburbs, exurbs, and satellite cities and their architecture as well.

- Residential architecture (apartment buildings, houses, condo buildings, so on)

- Commercial area architecture (offices, entertainment complexes, retail corridors, plazas, squares, parks, son on)

- Historical architecture

- Modern architecture

Which of the 7 cities do you wish had better architectural sense? Why? I didn't select these cities because I think they are underwhelming. I selected these cities because they're the most powerful places on your continent and I wanted to compare them on something purely subjective, for once.

I made the poll multiple choice, you can pick more than just one place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-23-2016, 01:54 PM
 
Location: Seattle aka tier 3 city :)
1,259 posts, read 1,406,571 times
Reputation: 993
It's obviously Los Angeles, you already said this in a previous thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2016, 01:55 PM
 
6,843 posts, read 10,966,660 times
Reputation: 8436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calisonn View Post
It's obviously Los Angeles, you already said this in a previous thread.
I don't think Los Angeles is alone, I think both Washington DC and Toronto also have to up their architectural game.

I've never been to Mexico City, so I cant say anything definitive because I lack the in-person experience to do so, but from the pictures I've seen of it over on SSC, it too needs to put more thought into architecture as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2016, 02:00 PM
 
1,851 posts, read 2,171,322 times
Reputation: 1283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facts Kill Rhetoric View Post
I don't think Los Angeles is alone, I think both Washington DC and Toronto also have to up their architectural game.

I've never been to Mexico City, so I cant say anything definitive because I lack the in-person experience to do so, but from the pictures I've seen of it over on SSC, it too needs to put more thought into architecture as well.
Any facts you can provide to kill this rhetoric?

Edit: Ahh I see you edited your post as I quoted you. You're on top of your game. Your post initially said something like "As great as Chicago seems, it's not impressive architecturally."

There are many professionals and enthusiast who would disagree, but you've got your ax to grind so have at it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2016, 02:02 PM
 
8,090 posts, read 6,964,197 times
Reputation: 9226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facts Kill Rhetoric View Post
I don't think Los Angeles is alone, I think both Washington DC and Toronto also have to up their architectural game.

I've never been to Mexico City, so I cant say anything definitive because I lack the in-person experience to do so, but from the pictures I've seen of it over on SSC, it too needs to put more thought into architecture as well.
Are you talking about office buildings? I think DC has some of the best residential architecture in the country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2016, 02:02 PM
 
6,843 posts, read 10,966,660 times
Reputation: 8436
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishIllini View Post
Any facts you can provide to kill this rhetoric?

Ahh I see you edited your post as I quoted you. You're on top of your game.
Yeah, I think Chicago's architecture in the Loop sucks, looks quite dated like 1970s and 1980s big box uglies, a lot, but that it has nice neighborhood architecture in Northside. So I took it out my post due to that reason.

Also, why would I have to present facts in a thread titled "Opinion Poll"? Did you read?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2016, 02:05 PM
 
1,851 posts, read 2,171,322 times
Reputation: 1283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facts Kill Rhetoric View Post
Yeah, I think Chicago's architecture in the Loop sucks, looks quite dated like 1970s and 1980s big box uglies, a lot, but that it has nice neighborhood architecture in Northside. So I took it out my post due to that reason.

Also, why would I have to present facts in a thread titled "Opinion Poll"? Did you read?
You think Chicago has boxy architecture but not NYC? The architecture in Chicago is fairly similar to the 20th century architecture in NYC...same goes for some of the more recent stuff.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2016, 02:06 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
14,353 posts, read 17,030,476 times
Reputation: 12411
Out of the cities in question, LA is without a shadow of a doubt the city with the ugliest architecture all around. This is mostly a function of age, as it has basically no intact neighborhoods built out before 1900-1910, which means it missed out on many of the nicest periods in architectural history. I don't think the modern high-design stuff is really that different from anywhere else in the world, but the residential vernacular tends to run the range from kitschy to dreadful.

Mexico City is a very dense, European-style urban city in its core, which I'm sure most Americans do not realize. The outlying neighborhoods are horrendously ugly, but the beautiful core makes sure it wouldn't be last on this list.

I think Toronto is a very "generic" city in terms of its architectural stylings and find Montreal and Quebec City to be much nicer Canadian cities. There's nothing wrong with Toronto though - it's not ugly, it's just not beautiful either and it doesn't have a very strong sense of place in its local vernacular.

Chicago is good, but not great. NYC, SF, and Washington DC are among the top cities in North America when it comes to built form.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2016, 02:06 PM
 
6,843 posts, read 10,966,660 times
Reputation: 8436
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands View Post
Are you talking about office buildings? I think DC has some of the best residential architecture in the country.
The older neighborhoods, yes.

I personally hate the New Urbanist garbage cities are putting up these days. I saw a rendering of a building proposed in Seattle last month and it was literally the same crap going up in Nashville, Charlotte, so on. Way to bland the world up. Washington and the DMV area has so much of this New Urbanist crap, it is sickening.

As for some of the other older architecture, I hate rowhomes, a lot, but Washington's rowhomes aren't too bad due to the color variation. Still though, the city comes across as pretty sterile, architecturally.

Not fair to say this but when you look at other prominent world capitals, Washington's architectural scene might as well be forgettable. Not trying to hate on the place, but I honestly wish more of the urban infill in the DMV was more memorable stuff.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2016, 02:08 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,982 posts, read 32,656,174 times
Reputation: 13635
SF and DC imo. Although the ornate Victorian style isn't my preferred style of architecture, it's still very nice looking. Both cities seems to have the most consistent aesthetically appealing architecture in the city limits imo.

Not a big fan of Chicago's architectural styles for some reason.

LA is pretty underwhelming architecturally, especially its commercial buildings. Just too much drab, ugly crap mixed in with some pretty nice architecture.




edit: I totally read the OP wrong and voted which one's I liked most.

Last edited by sav858; 09-23-2016 at 02:27 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top