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.
In Chicago they've turned their skyscrapers into something of a tourist attraction. It's like what the highlight of the boat tour is. It's literally called the architectural tour. In New York people look at the skyscrapers of course but there's no tour where they're the only thing being looked at.
In Chicago they've turned their skyscrapers into something of a tourist attraction. It's like what the highlight of the boat tour is. It's literally called the architectural tour. In New York people look at the skyscrapers of course but there's no tour where they're the only thing being looked at.
Sure skyscrapers mixed from different eras a focal point in the tour. But the other boats, yachts, water taxis, kayakers and river walk aspects are still part of the viewing. Then as I WOULD CHOOSE .... A boat tour that goes into Lake Michigan too. Then even more to view on water and land.
As for NYC. Clearly, New Yorkers make a point ..... that one reason many dislike tourist. Is they stop a gawk-up at skyscrapers and slower-moving in looking all around. It hampers their getting from point A to point B as the aim alone.
They think move or be shoved. They accept bags of garbage there. Just not gawkers in their way.
Then you have plenty of tour busses too in NYC and Chicago. Tour buses with open tops are for what viewing too? Also ferry's which are tours too like to the Statue of Liberty and others for skyline viewing.
Chicago just seems to have better vantage points and plazas to open some views and the river. I love seeing the flowers in sidewalks squares with trees too the city put in place. But they alone can be a obstacle too. Especially on Michigan Ave. But still would not want them removed. The Lakefront and on Lake itself too.
Central Park has many vantage points but you don't get Mid-Town views and its skyscrapers as Grant/Millennium Park gives downtown Chicago.
In Chicago they've turned their skyscrapers into something of a tourist attraction. It's like what the highlight of the boat tour is. It's literally called the architectural tour. In New York people look at the skyscrapers of course but there's no tour where they're the only thing being looked at.
I really enjoy Chicago..I’ve noticed a similar thing as you mention though.. the city is obsessed with skylines and architecture..I mean it should be- the Architecture is fabulous and that’s what it’s known for...everyone is looking at the bean and I ask what’s the significance behind this?? There is nothing but architectural significance of course...New York icons certainly have more significance historically, culturally etc ..Central Park vs millennium park, the bean vs the Statue of Liberty etc
Buildings have nothing to do with this sort of thing, and really neither does population growth or lack thereof.
San Francisco's reputation and image in the world, which was already distinct, has been elevated even more due to tech.
Chicago's massive skyline and architectual icons don't factor into it's global appeal? Chicago is basically to architecture what San Francisco is to tech. Maybe if you're comparing San Francisco to Seattle buildings are irrelevant, not when you are comparing it with a city whose iconic skyline is undoubtedly it's greatest asset. How would you leave Dubai's skyline out of an equation evaluating it's global status?
I really enjoy Chicago..I’ve noticed a similar thing as you mention though.. the city is obsessed with skylines and architecture..I mean it should be- the Architecture is fabulous and that’s what it’s known for...everyone is looking at the bean and I ask what’s the significance behind this?? There is nothing but architectural significance of course...New York icons certainly have more significance historically, culturally etc ..Central Park vs millennium park, the bean vs the Statue of Liberty etc
The Bean is modern "art"...The Staue of Liberty is a monument, hard to compare. Central Park isn't synonymous with Millenium Park, Lincoln Park would be Chicago's equivalent but the downtown isn't framed around it. New York icons will always be more significant historically and culturally because they will always be more publicized. If The Bean was the backdrop on national nightly news, on covers of magazines/newspapers, stamps and in endless films and TV shows it's profile would be much higher. If Vista was overlooking Central Park instead of the Chicago River it would already be among the top 5 most recognizable global skyscrapers.
The only iconic landmark I can think of where Chicago held it's own was Wrigley Field / Yankee Stadium. Maybe Michigan Ave. is up there with 5th Ave./Madison... Not sure. Maybe Sears Tower / World Trade Center were close in global recognition.
As for architecture, the last 20 years have been mostly regrettable. We certainally do not build the innovative and ambitious structures that we used to. I'd give the obvious edge to NY in design and material quality. Height isn't even a question anymore. I remember when one thing was certain, NY would always have more buildings but Chicago had the design quality and roof height advantage. There's been a complete 180, now it's just glass boxes with or without a few set-backs in every height, width and shade of blue you could imagine. We don't get limestone, terracotta, bronze, copper, etc. It's either glass or pre-cast.
Last edited by IronWright; 08-26-2019 at 04:12 PM..
So are we talking about global 'appeal' or 'alpha global cities'? They are 2 different things, no?
I don't know, you said San Francisco's reputation and "image".... I took the latter to mean it's appeal around the world. Chicago's skyline is defeinitely the most significant element to it's global image. Regardless, I don't know how you can discuss Manhattan vs. London hypothetically and exclude NY's buildings, no different for Chicago. It has to be a significantly weighted metric when comparing any city with a city whose arhcitecture and skyline is it's most defining characteristic which distinguishes it from it's competition by being next level scale and volume.
I don't know, you said San Francisco's reputation and "image".... I took the latter to mean it's appeal around the world. Chicago's skyline is defeinitely the most significant element to it's global image. Regardless, I don't know how you can discuss Manhattan vs. London hypothetically and exclude NY's buildings, no different for Chicago. It has to be a significantly weighted metric when comparing any city with a city whose arhcitecture and skyline is it's most defining characteristic which distinguishes it from it's competition by being next level scale and volume.
When talking about economic largesse, I can certainly discuss how globally impactful a city is without mentioning a single building.
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.
