Battle of the mega-city skyline...New York City vs Chicago (state, largest)
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.
Since when is wanting to conserve space a bad thing...? I'm sorry that Chicago isn't sprawled like all sunbelt cities. If it was, it would definitely have a much higher population. The skyline of Chicago look's great from anywhere. NYC's skyline is much more impressive from far away than up close up.
Edit// I stopped reading your post halfway through because of how bad it was, but who cares IF you could fit the Chicago Skyline into Central Park. Does that make NYC a better place? Just get over the Central Park thing...it means nothing. I could say Central Park is just a facade to help people get away from the city (which is exactly what it is), but that doesn't mean anything to me or you...
Besides I REALLY doubt you could fit The Loop into Central Park.
Why put down sun-belt cities to make yourself feel better?
I only stated that there is no economical / rational reason for buldings like Sears or Hancock in Chicago. This was thought as a facade. I guess to cover the rest of the city....
Anyways, the fact that you can put Chicago's skyline into Central Park, is useful to understand the scale. You can talk about Chicago building all they long, some of them are surely tall or the tallest, yet the entire skyline is pretty unimpressive in New York standards.
Some of you guys keep repeating the same thing over and over again until myth becomes reality. The next time for instance you are INSIDE Manhattan go to Grand Central Station - walk a block or two north and look up Park Avenue. Then come back here again and say the New York skyline is more sheer volume than quality.
But it is sheer volume...
Isn't that the most beautiful skyline you've ever seen.
Some of you guys keep repeating the same thing over and over again until myth becomes reality. The next time for instance you are INSIDE Manhattan go to Grand Central Station - walk a block or two north and look up Park Avenue. Then come back here again and say the New York skyline is more sheer volume than quality.
Or its worth repeating because its the truth . Anyways as its been said its going to be an opinion thread, so thats fine, and its funny that if you prefer one skyline over the other, it assumes you hate the other. I'm a fan of architecture, and if you ask me, Madison Square park area is one of the defining areas. You have the flat iron building to the south, look north and you see ESB peeking out. You have the Metlife tower, and on top of that, they are building a funky looking building on 23rd which is great AND both pierce the an area of the skyline that is lacking. There, I played nice
I like how you assume I've never been inside Manhattan, but I live there. Park avenue is ok from the vantage point you mention (I think its better walking down park avenue to get the wide double streets and Met), but again, the thread is evaluating the skyline so that is a small piece. Heck I could ask the same thing from you about taking say an Architectural cruise in Chicago, or standing on Mich ave bridge by Wrigley building looking east and west.
Some of you guys keep repeating the same thing over and over again until myth becomes reality. The next time for instance you are INSIDE Manhattan go to Grand Central Station - walk a block or two north and look up Park Avenue. Then come back here again and say the New York skyline is more sheer volume than quality.
That's another great point. There is no point INSIDE Chicago that I could stand at, look up and be forced to say WOW. There are quite a few spots like that in New York.
Talking about quality, Flatiron is in EVERY architecture textbook in the world. Sears, Hancock maybe be tall but it is hard to see them as design wonders... My problem with Chicago's skyline is that it is so fresh, besides the Trib building there are not that many tall, impressive buildings over 50 years old.
Isn't that the most beautiful skyline you've ever seen.
Yes, because this is not a useless grand facade of tall buildings meant to impress but a skyline of a living city where going up was a necessity and not just a pretense. Look again, you see Chrysler and ESB, Metlife (Panam), you see buildings of different size and purpose. It's a skyline of a living city, not a theatrical decoration. Chicago's skyline (and that sin is repeated by many other cities) is pretencious, it has nothing to do with purpose, need and city life. In New York the skyline is natural. It's a result of city's growth.
Yes, because this is not a useless grand facade of tall buildings meant to impress but a skyline of a living city where going up was a necessity and not just a pretense. Look again, you see Chrysler and ESB, Metlife (Panam), you see buidling of different size and purpose. It's a skyline of a living city, not a theatrical decoration. Chicago's skyline (and that sin is repeated by many other cities) is pretencious, it has nothing to do with purpose, need and city life. In New York the skyline is natural. It's a result of city's growth.
So I guess Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx and Staten Island aren't part of New York? Technically, NYC could have filled in the outer boroughs before building up Manhattan. What you're failing to take into account is that Chicago's tall buildings have gone up where the real estate value is the highest...along the lakefront and river, and in the center of its hub-and-spoke transportation system. Of course, it's on a much smaller scale than NYC but the same principal behind it applies. Manhattan is the center of NYC, and the loop is the center of Chicago.
That's another great point. There is no post INSIDE Chicago that could stand at, look up and would be forced to say WOW. There are quite a few spots like this in New York.
Talking aboutu quality, Flatiron is in EVERY architecture textbook in the world. Sears, Hancock maybe be tall but it is hard to see them as architectural wonders... My problem with Chicago's skyline is that it is so fresh, besides the Trib building there are not that many tall, impressive buildings over 50 years old.
wtf? You have outdone yourself and provided further proof you have never been to Chicago.
When you're old enough, come to Chicago, go to Pioneer Court, turn to the southwest and look down the river canyon. The view (Wrigley, Trump, IBM, London Guarantee, Jewelers Building, RR Donnelly, Marina Towers) is the absolute definition of urban grandeur. Arguably one of the most immersive and stunning urban skyline views you can get in the US. This canyon offers encyclopedic catalog of architectural styles and quality, old and new.
I would say you can't make a more uninformed, ignorant post. But then again, I'm sure you will have a response to this one.
wtf? You have outdone yourself and provided further proof you have never been to Chicago.
When you're old enough, come to Chicago, go to Pioneer Court, turn to the southwest and look down the river canyon. The view (Wrigley, Trump, IBM, London Guarantee, Jewelers Building, RR Donnelly, Marina Towers) is the absolute definition of grandeur. Arguably the most immersive and stunning urban skyline view you can get in the US. This canyon offers encyclopedic catalog of architectural styles and quality, old and new.
I would say you can't make a more uninformed, ignorant post. But then again, I'm sure you will have a response to this one.
This guy is piece of work. He thinks that the fact that someone used to seeing Manhattan's skyline every day is unimpressed with Chicago's gives him a right to accuse someone of lying and of being underage.
Unbelievable, unless you agree with me you must be stupid and too young.
Chicago school of discussion?
Yes, buddy. Your skyline is unimpressive. I would say very Midwestern. Sorry.
This guy is piece of work. He thinks that the fact that someone used to seeing Manhattan's skyline every day is unimpressed with Chicago's gives him a right to accuse someone of lying and of being underage.
Unbelievable, unless you agree with me you must be stupid and too young.
Chicago school of discussion?
Yes, buddy. Your skyline is unimpressive. Sorry.
to wit.
actually dementor, I don't really think your underage. It's just that your posts appear to be written by someone without much mental accuity or maturity, combined with a reprehensible habit of putting down other's views if they don't directly coincide with or support your own. You said, "There is no post INSIDE Chicago that could stand at, look up and would be forced to say WOW."
I'm simply flatly disagreeing with your comment and offering an example that calls you out. If you don't like it, then don't post ridiculous and inflammatory statements.
actually dementor, I don't really think your underage. It's just that your posts appear to be written by someone without much mental accuity or maturity, combined with a reprehensible habit of putting down other's views if they don't directly coincide with or support your own. You said, "There is no post INSIDE Chicago that could stand at, look up and would be forced to say WOW."
I'm simply flatly disagreeing with your comment and offering an example that calls you out. If you don't like it, then don't post ridiculous statements.
You typed "reprehensible habit of putting down other's views if they don't directly coincide with or support your own" yet you are doing exatly this, accusing me of lack of maturity because I do not agree with you. Look at yourself, all right?
You actually proved my point by asking me to stand on the bridge and look down the river i.e. the view requires certain perspective etc. What I and LINative are talking about is the fact that in New York you have plenty of places where where all you need to do is simply look up you are bound to say WOW. Now matter how many times you have seen this exact spot. You have skyscrapers all around you not just along the river side. Do you see the difference?
Chicago's skyline is pictureque but not at all impressive. Seen from a close up, i.e. standing on the street, even less. I do not think there is a single block in Chicago that is "surrrounded" by scycrapers. Like I said, it is just a facade.
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.
. Anyways as its been said its going to be an opinion thread, so thats fine, and its funny that if you prefer one skyline over the other, it assumes you hate the other. I'm a fan of architecture, and if you ask me, Madison Square park area is one of the defining areas. You have the flat iron building to the south, look north and you see ESB peeking out. You have the Metlife tower, and on top of that, they are building a funky looking building on 23rd which is great AND both pierce the an area of the skyline that is lacking. There, I played nice 