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.
Chicago is cleaner and has a more utilized and integrated waterfront, but I do not see how Chicago is more architecturally distinguishable compared to Manhattan, I have extensively explored and studied each city's architecture.
I'm guessing you meant to say "architecturally distinguished" here, and with that assumption, I'd beg to differ with you on a per-square-mile basis.
The birthplace of the skyscraper IMO has a more interesting skyline with a greater percentage of noteworthy and distinctive buildings than does Manhattan, which makes up in quantity what it lacks in quality. I use "lacks" advisedly here, for the Citicorp Tower, the Empire State and Chrysler buildings and such historical gems as Grand Central Terminal and the New York Public Library sure ain't beanbag. But again, I'm speaking in relative, not absolute, terms.
But I've never been as impressed by the giant Chippendale china cabinet Philip Johnson designed for AT&T as I was by, say, the twin corncobs of Marina City, to pluck two showhorse structures out of the pile. Lever House and the Seagram Building are both icons and gems, but I'd put the (former) John Hancock and (former) Sears towers up against both. Little on Wall Street save Federal Hall and the Stock Exchange itself sticks in my memory the way the Monadnock Block, the Rookery, the New York Life building and the Auditorium do.
And shall we compare department stores? Macy's may be iconic, but again, that's sheer size. Louis Sullivan's Schlesinger & Mayer store, which I knew as Carson Pirie Scott and which now has a Target on its bottom floors, has style to go along with its size. And Chicago's Macy's, nee Marshall Field & Company, rivals Wanamakers in its interior grandeur; both have interior courts found in no New York department store. (As the Marshall Field's ads used to say, "There's nothing like it back home.")
De gustibus non disputandum est, but here I'm going to argue anyway.
I'm guessing you meant to say "architecturally distinguished" here, and with that assumption, I'd beg to differ with you on a per-square-mile basis.
The birthplace of the skyscraper IMO has a more interesting skyline with a greater percentage of noteworthy and distinctive buildings than does Manhattan, which makes up in quantity what it lacks in quality. I use "lacks" advisedly here, for the Citicorp Tower, the Empire State and Chrysler buildings and such historical gems as Grand Central Terminal and the New York Public Library sure ain't beanbag. But again, I'm speaking in relative, not absolute, terms.
But I've never been as impressed by the giant Chippendale china cabinet Philip Johnson designed for AT&T as I was by, say, the twin corncobs of Marina City, to pluck two showhorse structures out of the pile. Lever House and the Seagram Building are both icons and gems, but I'd put the (former) John Hancock and (former) Sears towers up against both. Little on Wall Street save Federal Hall and the Stock Exchange itself sticks in my memory the way the Monadnock Block, the Rookery, the New York Life building and the Auditorium do.
And shall we compare department stores? Macy's may be iconic, but again, that's sheer size. Louis Sullivan's Schlesinger & Mayer store, which I knew as Carson Pirie Scott and which now has a Target on its bottom floors, has style to go along with its size. And Chicago's Macy's, nee Marshall Field & Company, rivals Wanamakers in its interior grandeur; both have interior courts found in no New York department store. (As the Marshall Field's ads used to say, "There's nothing like it back home.")
De gustibus non disputandum est, but here I'm going to argue anyway.
Yes to distinguished, my mistake. But, I have to respectfully disagree with on the more noteworthy structures, and I am not speaking in terms of a quantity of quality argument. I do believe Chicago has the best looking skyline due to the spacing of high-rises along a generally slender area bordering the lakefront. New Yorks skyline is jaw dropping in the sheer mass of buildings, but not the most serene in setup.
As far as noteworthy structures and general architecture, if we are comparing the two general downtown areas Manhattan is filled with treasures that span several centuries, ranging from a structure as small as the Cherry Lane Theatre and the other quaint structures that dot the West Village streets all the way to 56 Leonard which offers the finest in modern high-rise design.
I don't think Chicago lack in fine architecture, but you could walk down almost any street in New York and they all tell a different architectural story. Chicago lost a lot of structure in the Great Fire, but was however, the birthplace of the skyscraper, and I have enjoyed the architecture tours of Chicago, but from my constant trips to New York while I studied Construction Management and Architecture at Drexel and having lived in New York for 3 years, I find the variety, notoriety behind Manhattans architecture to be the most telling in the nation. I would argue Chicago for number 2, followed by Philadelphia. It is a shame that Philadelphia lost so many gems in the 20th century or it would rival the top two IMO.
Good post CPomp I can’t rep you again they won’t let me LOL. IMHO no place has the amount of architectural gems as NYC but I don’t like to argue with people on an Internet forum it’s just opinion and preference, I don’t have time and this place is a time killer between meetings. Other cities have great architecture too though, Detroit, Boston, Philly, Chicago etc I love it all...just not like NY does and that’s largely because of its enormous scale versus any other city and other factors. I chime in when I see homers and debaters just for fun.
Good post CPomp I can’t rep you again they won’t let me LOL. IMHO no place has the amount of architectural gems as NYC but I don’t like to argue with people on an Internet forum it’s just opinion and preference, I don’t have time and this place is a time killer between meetings. Other cities have great architecture too though, Detroit, Boston, Philly, Chicago etc I love it all...just not like NY does and that’s largely because of its enormous scale versus any other city and other factors. I chime in when I see homers and debaters just for fun.
I think it was. A good post too. But that Philly would have rivaled point? I'm in agreement Chicago will be #2 after mighty NYC. NYC just has the quantities to rival ... no mater how much another city last some. All list some really.
Every poster will have their reasons for opinions. It is C-D where they get played out.
The OP's 1st post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the topper
The five Best Downtowns in the country:
1. Philadelphia
2. Portland
3. Indianapolis
4. Seattle
5. Chicago
Clearly a LOT of room for debate and opinions . But YOU'ALL Should note the OP did not even place Mighty NYC in his Top 5 downtowns by city. At least we all can agree Philly and Chicago on his list are valid in the top 5.
It also seems clear.... that every city thread needs to just automatically place NYC as #1 and only debate the rest. Or someone will get offended if another city gets too much top tier attention and clearly I see why many threads first off eliminate NYC by saying its #1 or you might offend its stature in comparing.
The OP here just did not even see NYC worthy to be Top 5.....
NYC just has a density and scale that is unlike any US city. I could see some prefer other cities because they are cleaner or more manageable. But its hard to argue other cities have "better amenities". It's like comparing Tokyo, Mexico City, London, Paris, Seoul to any other city in their respective nations.
Yea, NYC is on a totally different level than all the other US cities it’s like it’s own category. Should only compare NYC to other major international cities.
I think it was. A good post too. But that Philly would have rivaled point? I'm in agreement Chicago will be #2 after mighty NYC. NYC just has the quantities to rival ... no mater how much another city last some. All list some really.
Every poster will have their reasons for opinions. It is C-D where they get played out.
The OP's 1st post.
Clearly a LOT of room for debate and opinions . But YOU'ALL Should note the OP did not even place Mighty NYC in his Top 5 downtowns by city. At least we all can agree Philly and Chicago on his list are valid in the top 5.
It also seems clear.... that every city thread needs to just automatically place NYC as #1 and only debate the rest. Or someone will get offended if another city gets too much top tier attention and clearly I see why many threads first off eliminate NYC by saying its #1 or you might offend its stature in comparing.
The OP here just did not even see NYC worthy to be Top 5.....
It sounds to me like you are the one so sensitive to nyc’s stature...you can prefer other cities and that’s fine but nyc alone compares to the global elite..London, tokyo, Hong Kong etc
It sounds to me like you are the one so sensitive to nyc’s stature...you can prefer other cities and that’s fine but nyc alone compares to the global elite..London, tokyo, Hong Kong etc
Well then as before ... I mention Chicago or someone else ..... and any reference to NYC? I'm sure you will again chime in as before. Then we both can be sensitive together. It probably happened earlier in this thread too.
I need to just start every post on Chicago or any other city (rare exception will be LA as the coastal class) start it with AFTER NYC, But for might NYC, Not rivaling NYC, Just not near NYC's level, and maybe I will be OK. to post. Without a how dare I.
I'm guessing you meant to say "architecturally distinguished" here, and with that assumption, I'd beg to differ with you on a per-square-mile basis.
The birthplace of the skyscraper IMO has a more interesting skyline with a greater percentage of noteworthy and distinctive buildings than does Manhattan, which makes up in quantity what it lacks in quality. I use "lacks" advisedly here, for the Citicorp Tower, the Empire State and Chrysler buildings and such historical gems as Grand Central Terminal and the New York Public Library sure ain't beanbag. But again, I'm speaking in relative, not absolute, terms.
But I've never been as impressed by the giant Chippendale china cabinet Philip Johnson designed for AT&T as I was by, say, the twin corncobs of Marina City, to pluck two showhorse structures out of the pile. Lever House and the Seagram Building are both icons and gems, but I'd put the (former) John Hancock and (former) Sears towers up against both. Little on Wall Street save Federal Hall and the Stock Exchange itself sticks in my memory the way the Monadnock Block, the Rookery, the New York Life building and the Auditorium do.
And shall we compare department stores? Macy's may be iconic, but again, that's sheer size. Louis Sullivan's Schlesinger & Mayer store, which I knew as Carson Pirie Scott and which now has a Target on its bottom floors, has style to go along with its size. And Chicago's Macy's, nee Marshall Field & Company, rivals Wanamakers in its interior grandeur; both have interior courts found in no New York department store. (As the Marshall Field's ads used to say, "There's nothing like it back home.")
De gustibus non disputandum est, but here I'm going to argue anyway.
This!
No American city can match NYC's sheer mass of tall buildings because no city is even close to NYC's sheer size, population-wise, and density... But Chicago's skyscrapers, individually and as a group, surpass New York's for their creativity and distinction by a wide margin. btw Marina City has always been a fave of mine and, at 50-plus years of age, still hold its own as the most interesting/unusual skyscraper(s) in the world.
This was the remark of a Chicagoan...”We're pretty convinced we have the best downtown in the nation” this isn’t a preference...plenty of people prefer other downtowns...be objective..I’m not from nyc..Chicago’s downtown doesn’t offer more..
The remark wasn't that Chicagoans think they have the best downtown in the country, it was that if you are comparing something specific like lower Manhattan CBD to downtown Chicago then there could be a conversation and debate and it wouldn't just be a "there's not even a shred of competition" kind of response which you would get from most cities in the country.
No one is saying anything in regards that Manhattan vs downtown Chicago is up for grabs. Manhattan is its own unique beast no matter how you spread it.
Yes to distinguished, my mistake. But, I have to respectfully disagree with on the more noteworthy structures, and I am not speaking in terms of a quantity of quality argument. I do believe Chicago has the best looking skyline due to the spacing of high-rises along a generally slender area bordering the lakefront. New Yorks skyline is jaw dropping in the sheer mass of buildings, but not the most serene in setup.
As far as noteworthy structures and general architecture, if we are comparing the two general downtown areas Manhattan is filled with treasures that span several centuries, ranging from a structure as small as the Cherry Lane Theatre and the other quaint structures that dot the West Village streets all the way to 56 Leonard which offers the finest in modern high-rise design.
I don't think Chicago lack in fine architecture, but you could walk down almost any street in New York and they all tell a different architectural story. Chicago lost a lot of structure in the Great Fire, but was however, the birthplace of the skyscraper, and I have enjoyed the architecture tours of Chicago, but from my constant trips to New York while I studied Construction Management and Architecture at Drexel and having lived in New York for 3 years, I find the variety, notoriety behind Manhattans architecture to be the most telling in the nation. I would argue Chicago for number 2, followed by Philadelphia. It is a shame that Philadelphia lost so many gems in the 20th century or it would rival the top two IMO.
I enjoyed reading the back and forth on this. Just for the record, Chicago really did not lose any "noteworty" structures during the great fire; the epic rebuilding after the fire brought some of the greatest architects in the world to the forefront such as Louis Sullivan and supporters of the lakefront such as Montgomery Ward. The way Chicago is laid out highlights its architectural gems. I too think the sheer mass of NYC is impressive, but New York itself is not really a beautiful city as a whole, and I think it is more of a beast of a city with some architectural gems hidden inside of it. This sheer mass and enormous size makes it a powerhouse among cities, but as far as being a clean, good looking city, I also think it trails Chicago in that aspect.
I remember hearing a quote of the late Mike Royko, a columnist of the Chicago Tribune when he commented on LA surpassing Chicago in size. He said "which would you rather have, a big buffalo chip or a diamond?", referring in his own way that size is not everything, and that quality is sometimes better than quantity,
Last edited by Justabystander; 01-11-2019 at 05:50 PM..
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.
At least we all can agree Philly and Chicago on his list are valid in the top 5.
Without a how dare I.