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 had a rivalry with nyc on skylines in the early/mid 1900s got it...skylines dont define stature.... London and Paris compete on stature...
You totally missed the point. In the late 1800's it was Chicago's urban planning, public works, growth rate and innovation that NY looked to and feared would overtake them. Enough so that Brooklyn was annexed just to compete with Chicago's exponential expansion. We aren't just talking about skylines but urban form which is largely responsible for NY being in it's own universe in the U.S. I told you Chicago pressed the panic button very early on and essentially stifled it's own progress while NY took the blueprint that Chicago put forth and implemented it without much impedement or competition. The innovations that Chicago introduced to the world became looked upon as being detrimental to the quality of life for it's residents and city officials as well as public opinion swayed drastically which forced development to proceed in the opposite direction for over 70 years. High-rise and mid-rise residential were strictly forbidden in the city which largely paved the way for NY's extreme advantage over Chicago in sheer scale and volume.
Chicago's stature would be seen entirely different today had it actually been in a rivalry with NY and invested in an expansive subway system, 1,000'+ pre-war buildings and hyper-dense mid and high-rise residential neighborhoods that radiated outward from it's unrestricted core of dense skyscrapers that also allowed for residents.
For most of Chicago's history, being the only other city that could have kept up with or even outpaced NY it decided to become the anti-NY model of planning by responding to development trends it created and restricted them, thus handing the ball to NY and removing istelf from the game. Self imposed restrictions kept Chicago's scale modest. 7-8 story tenement style buildings were outlawed. Architects/engineers worked to achieve a completely different model city which led to 4-flats and courtyard buildings that offered set-backs and green space in neighborhoods. Single family homes and detatched housing along with low-rise multi-family developments was antithetical to NY building block after block of multi-family dwellings of ever increasing heights.
As for the core, desnity and heights were extremely downsized to 150' for decades then a bump to 300' which wasn't lifted until the 1960's. NY embraced vertical growth in the late 1890's and began regularly surpassing height records that Chicago achieved earlier on. Chicago removed itself from any rivalry with NY by fearing density rather than promoting it. By imposing height limits rather than shattering them. History could have been very different.
Two American cities were at the forefront of modern urban planning and had the demand, financial means and technology to build dense, soaring mega-cities, one of those cities handicapped itself as the other allowed unimpeded expansion. Guess which city is leaps and bounds behind the other? If you are saying Manhattan's skyscrapers, the annexation of Brooklyn and the hyper-density of NY isn't the catalyst for it being the U.S.'s premiere city please tell me what is?
You totally missed the point. In the late 1800's it was Chicago's urban planning, public works, growth rate and innovation that NY looked to and feared would overtake them. Enough so that Brooklyn was annexed just to compete with Chicago's exponential expansion. We aren't just talking about skylines but urban form which is largely responsible for NY being in it's own universe in the U.S. I told you Chicago pressed the panic button very early on and essentially stifled it's own progress while NY took the blueprint that Chicago put forth and implemented it without much impedement or competition. The innovations that Chicago introduced to the world became looked upon as being detrimental to the quality of life for it's residents and city officials as well as public opinion swayed drastically which forced development to proceed in the opposite direction for over 70 years. High-rise and mid-rise residential were strictly forbidden in the city which largely paved the way for NY's extreme advantage over Chicago in sheer scale and volume.
Chicago's stature would be seen entirely different today had it actually been in a rivalry with NY and invested in an expansive subway system, 1,000'+ pre-war buildings and hyper-dense mid and high-rise residential neighborhoods that radiated outward from it's unrestricted core of dense skyscrapers that also allowed for residents.
For most of Chicago's history, being the only other city that could have kept up with or even outpaced NY it decided to become the anti-NY model of planning by responding to development trends it created and restricted them, thus handing the ball to NY and removing istelf from the game. Self imposed restrictions kept Chicago's scale modest. 7-8 story tenement style buildings were outlawed. Architects/engineers worked to achieve a completely different model city which led to 4-flats and courtyard buildings that offered set-backs and green space in neighborhoods. Single family homes and detatched housing along with low-rise multi-family developments was antithetical to NY building block after block of multi-family dwellings of ever increasing heights.
As for the core, desnity and heights were extremely downsized to 150' for decades then a bump to 300' which wasn't lifted until the 1960's. NY embraced vertical growth in the late 1890's and began regularly surpassing height records that Chicago achieved earlier on. Chicago removed itself from any rivalry with NY by fearing density rather than promoting it. By imposing height limits rather than shattering them. History could have been very different.
Two American cities were at the forefront of modern urban planning and had the demand, financial means and technology to build dense, soaring mega-cities, one of those cities handicapped itself as the other allowed unimpeded expansion. Guess which city is leaps and bounds behind the other? If you are saying Manhattan's skyscrapers, the annexation of Brooklyn and the hyper-density of NY isn't the catalyst for it being the U.S.'s premiere city please tell me what is?
Thank you for the history lesson...so is Chicago stature closer to New York, London, Paris today or San Fran, dc, Boston
Thank you for the history lesson...so is Chicago stature closer to New York, London, Paris today or San Fran, dc, Boston
That is another thread and probably the world forum. The post you replied to and others gave a great perspective on how Chicago evolved not emulating NYC at all. It did not base even its skyline on patterning after NYC or its urban build. Clearly if anyone thought Chicago tried all alone to be a NYC and best it even? They were wrong. I was surprised to learn Chicago actually had height limits and nothing to do with aircraft restrictions some cities have, but on reasons self-inflicted while the skyscrapers evolution was young. Chicago gained no supertall till its first was completed in 1969 and within 5 years bam 123. Clearly a old name for the city being "City of Big Shoulders" took on a visual meaning for its core to fill in. Clearly the Manhattanizing effect then began to pick up steam and shows today. Chicago is not a Island or few of them and needed a even further pushing upward. that needed a going upward. Dhicago still developed the skyscraper and has a world renown skyline with NYC despite NYC's greater levels. Clearly Asian cities are piling up on even megatalls now. I discovered that the Architectural firm that did at least 3 of Chicago's supertalls including the Trump Tower Chicago and two of the first 3 there. Also did the tallest current Megatall in Dubai and a new one that will surpass that one getting built.
Flicker has some awesome cityscape photos and Chicago still stacks up well in some I saved that I found. I'm surprised I figured out how to post them here. Clearly its shows why Chicago gives many a perspective closer to NYC then Boston. Just does and a huge reason the votes show it. Not about quantity and numbers, but sight and perspectives and by impressions that always come to play.
Clicking on the blue portion seems to work though I saw the pictures come up not the URL.
That is another thread and probably the world forum. The post you replied to and others gave a great perspective on how Chicago evolved not emulating NYC at all. It did not base even its skyline on patterning after NYC or its urban build. Clearly if anyone thought Chicago tried all alone to be a NYC and best it even? They were wrong. I was surprised to learn Chicago actually had height limits and nothing to do with aircraft restrictions some cities have, but on reasons self-inflicted while the skyscrapers evolution was young. Chicago gained no supertall till its first was completed in 1969 and within 5 years bam 123. Clearly a old name for the city being "City of Big Shoulders" took on a visual meaning for its core to fill in. Clearly the Manhattanizing effect then began to pick up steam and shows today. Chicago is not a Island or few of them and needed a even further pushing upward. that needed a going upward. Dhicago still developed the skyscraper and has a world renown skyline with NYC despite NYC's greater levels. Clearly Asian cities are piling up on even megatalls now. I discovered that the Architectural firm that did at least 3 of Chicago's supertalls including the Trump Tower Chicago and two of the first 3 there. Also did the tallest current Megatall in Dubai and a new one that will surpass that one getting built.
Flicker has some awesome cityscape photos and Chicago still stacks up well in some I saved that I found. I'm surprised I figured out how to post them here. Clearly its shows why Chicago gives many a perspective closer to NYC then Boston. Just does and a huge reason the votes show it. Not about quantity and numbers, but sight and perspectives and by impressions that always come to play.
Clicking on the blue portion seems to work though I saw the pictures come up not the URL.
I’ve been to Chicago several times...I hardly need a picture tour...So Chicago is closer to nyc in stature because of tall buildings??? It must have blown past London at some point too
My hot take is that Chicago is not even top 5 in the United States in terms of stature.
Yep. I think if you stopped a man on the street in Europe and asked them to list 5 US cities, you wouldn’t get Chicago very often. There isn’t much there that is internationally important.
My hot take is those photos still seem more in line with Boston’s urban core than NYC
Sounds like a new thread you can make on that topic? Maybe a thread asking if Chicago's core and lakefront extension of urbanity has Boston match it? You can set the region stretch of Bostons. But in reality Boston might desire to add numerous burbs too? Just Cores could be done and leave out a Lakefront stretch from it for Chi. First a core or greater core needs to be addressed, or that will go all over the place. I know Chicago defines its own CBD. I did not look up if Boston does for the city? But some boundary should be set I'd think. I would hope a Loop limit was not the one chosen for Chicago? But I'm sure some could make due. Just hard to discount the area as its core alone and not including the stretch that is north of the Chicago river.
Seems Chicago is a hot city to use in threads currently on C-D and so is Philadelphia. So such a thread is clearly in-vogue. I also read Boston city-limit is 1/5 the size of Chicago city-limits in a thread and link. Yet Chicago's core or greater core is still only a fraction of its total. Still it is a intense portion and most visiting the city visit and stay in it and the city is defined much by it. I merely used photo's as a key reason votes were swayed to NYC for Chi being seen as closer to it and swayed poll votes that way. I did not think that would be questioned? But apparently it is.
Guess I will see if a thread pops up and decide if I might add to it? Could be I need to get out more to visit Boston's core and see it matches Chicago's in most factors including my eyes. < My eyes still give me a impression that sways things that stats alone alone do not. Pictures are not about stats really, but highlight the visual aspects one leaves a city with.
If we go to asking a man on a street in Europe? Maybe that needs to be in the World forum. I always heard that if one is visiting NYC from somewhere in the world. One just had more skyscrapers too see if they also chose Chicago over a city like on the West Coast instead?
Chicago is a "hot city" (in your words), because those on the coasts like to put it down. That's the lowest common denominator. People might try to deny it, but I can think of no other reason. If you look, people from Chicago aren't starting these threads...
Chicago is a "hot city" (in your words), because those on the coasts like to put it down. That's the lowest common denominator. People might try to deny it, but I can think of no other reason. People from Chicago aren't starting these threads...
I looked a some creating them threads by their profile statistics of threads they post in and does not seem they are from Chicago? Nor are the ones that created those with Philadelphia used a good amount either.
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.
