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.
People on this thread are getting a little ridiculous. Just because Chicago chose to build taller buildings, doesn't mean its a facade. As long as those buildings are in use, it was practical to build them. What about NYC in the 1930's. The Empire State Building sat basically EMPTY. Going by YOUR rules, it would be a facade...there was no use for it.
Chicago's number of buildings means nothing for a skyline. Get over that. It's a smaller city. There is NO REASON to build thousands of buildings just to be on footing with NYC. I don't feel like finding who posted it, but someone said something about empty lots. Obviously every city has vacant lots, but Chicago is going through gentrification. They are tearing down older homes and putting up newer ones.
The Chicago bashing has gotten to the point where its gone from 99% of the comments not making sense, to 100% of them. Get over the fact that Chicago isn't a second class city compared to New York.
Dementor, I think you need to take a break from here for say...forever.
People on this thread are getting a little ridiculous. Just because Chicago chose to build taller buildings, doesn't mean its a facade. As long as those buildings are in use, it was practical to build them. What about NYC in the 1930's. The Empire State Building sat basically EMPTY. Going by YOUR rules, it would be a facade...there was no use for it.
I think you misunderstood. My point was about Chicago's skyline being a theater decoration as there was no need to build skyscrapers in the city. "A facade of skyscrapers facing a lake and behind the facade, every type of dubiousness." as E.M. Forster once said as opposed to New York's skyline being a living city skyline, skyline based on real need and purpose, where scarcity of land produced an beautiful, historical skyline. When ESB was added to the skyline it was already very tall and dense, so dense that New York even had to demolished many highrises to give way for new structures. In opninion New York City skyline is superior to Chicago's because it includes many more astonishing buildings, beautiful bridges and monuments like Statue Of Liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spire
The Chicago bashing has gotten to the point where its gone from 99% of the comments not making sense, to 100% of them. Get over the fact that Chicago isn't a second class city compared to New York.
Why don't you get over the fact that it is? Popular belief is that there are only a few cities on the planet that are in the same league as New York and most certainly Chicago is not one of them. Chicago is a hundred years younger, three times smaller and does not offer any of the cultural, geo-political, economical and social amenities that New York provides.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spire
Dementor, I think you need to take a break from here for say...forever.
Ah, the famous Midwestern hospitality Fortunatelly nobody really cares what you think.
I think you either misunderstood. My point was about Chicago's skyline being a theater decoration as there was no need to build skyscrapers in the city. "A facade of skyscrapers facing a lake and behind the facade, every type of dubiousness." as E.M. Forster once said as opposed to New York's skyline being a living city skyline, skyline based on real need and purpose. Very old, historical skyline. When ESB was added to the skyline it was already very tall and dense. So dense that New York even had to demolished many highrises to give way for new structures. New York City skyline is superior to Chicago's because it includes many more astonishing buildings, beautiful bridges and monuments like Statue Of Liberty.
...By Skyscrapers, I assume you mean the Sears(Willi's) Tower, The Trump, Aon Center, and John Hancock Center. The Sears and Trump aren't even on the lake to start, they are just so tall the stand out more . Why the hell are you making such a big deal out of the "lack" of need for skyscrapers. Chicago's city limits are small. 226 sq miles or something like that. They obviously do have to conserve space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dementor
The famous Midwestern hospitality Fortunatelly nobody really cares what you think.
[Mod cut}
Last edited by mrstewart; 03-20-2009 at 07:28 AM..
Reason: Personal attacks
I think you misunderstood. My point was about Chicago's skyline being a theater decoration as there was no need to build skyscrapers in the city. "A facade of skyscrapers facing a lake and behind the facade, every type of dubiousness." as E.M. Forster once said as opposed to New York's skyline being a living city skyline, skyline based on real need and purpose, where scarcity of land produced an beautiful, historical skyline. When ESB was added to the skyline it was already very tall and dense, so dense that New York even had to demolished many highrises to give way for new structures. In opninion New York City skyline is superior to Chicago's because it includes many more astonishing buildings, beautiful bridges and monuments like Statue Of Liberty.
So because Chicago didn't need skyscrapers, they aren't real? The high rises, office buildings and other landmarks are just facades?
Color me embarrassed for having lived 50 stories in a facade.
Quote:
Why don't you get over the fact that it is? Popular belief is that there are only a few cities on the planet that are in the same league as New York and most certainly Chicago is not one of them. Chicago is a hundred years younger, three times smaller and does not offer any of the cultural, geo-political, economical and social amenities that New York provides.
Popular belief is conjecture at the supermarket over whether or not Diane Lane is carrying Bigfoot's child. We've had a discussion previously about sources of authority and how stupid it makes you (you specifically) look when citing the wrong ones.
The premier architectural firms are all Chicago firms The premier city, as cited by every architect, is Chicago. You can make of this what you want. From someone who actually lived in Manhattan and the Bronx, I can attest to the fact that the majority of NYC's highrise stock is both bleak and brutal.
Because I am an adult who has had to work in both cities, and I'm reasonably sure you're a high school student living in neither, I'd press you to even begin to define these "amenities" you seem so keen on discrediting. I know I certainly can identify many social, cultural, geopolitical and economical amenities Chicago provides that New York can't. What's more, everyone in Chicago can afford them, whereas only a very few in NYC can do the same.
Here's a secret: As an adult, you won't have the luxury of glorifying the city you're forced to live in. You're too pressed for time, too harried and exhausted, to be fooled by the idea that lots of highrises and busy traffic, when divided by the cost of your roach-infested apartment on the UWS, provides an index by which to judge quality. The attractive areas of NYC aren't in Manhattan-- they're the lowrise areas in the other boroughs, the six/seven story-lined streets with gorgeous views.
Quote:
Ah, the famous Midwestern hospitality Fortunatelly nobody really cares what you think.
Your only basis for your case was Wikipedia. It's not that I necessarily care, but I do not think you fully grasp just how far beneath my consideration you really are... Much less the consideration of the general public.
[quote=coldwine;7966097] So because Chicago didn't need skyscrapers, they aren't real? The high rises, office buildings and other landmarks are just facades?
Yes. They are nothing but a theatrical decoration. There was no scarcity of land that forced those buildings to go up as in New York so any comparison to this city is unfair. You all are saying how New York skyline looks like a wall or is not spread out as evenly as the one in Chicago. it may be but just because New York skyline is a result of actuall need to go high as opposed to creating a pompous setting to an otherwise dull Midwestern city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldwine
The premier architectural firms are all Chicago firms The premier city, as cited by every architect, is Chicago. You can make of this what you want. From someone who actually lived in Manhattan and the Bronx, I can attest to the fact that the majority of NYC's highrise stock is both bleak and brutal.
I never met "every architect" so I could not ask. All I know is however that Flatiron is in every architecture textbook in the world and Empire State is considered one of the world's wonders by American Society of Civil Engineers. I myself, consider Chrysler buidling the most beautiful manmade structure on the planet. Sorry, can't help it. Aks 8 miliion foreign tourist visitng New York every year why they chose New York and not Chicago...
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldwine
Because I am an adult who has had to work in both cities, and I'm reasonably sure you're a high school student living in neither, I'd press you to even begin to define these "amenities" you seem so keen on discrediting. I know I certainly can identify many social, cultural, geopolitical and economical amenities Chicago provides that New York can't. What's more, everyone in Chicago can afford them, whereas only a very few in NYC can do the same.
Right. Just because I do not agree with you I have to be underaged. I heard that before I am not going to define New York amenities, if you are not aware of them pick up a w/e edition of the Times and read on and only then come back and define the amenities available in Chicago that are not available in New York. I am curious. As far as affordability is concerned it is as you know relative criterium, I know for sure that first of all NOT everybody in Chicago can afford them and second watching a play is not the same as watching a Broadway / off-Broadway play, even though the first one maybe be free. Quality comes with cost and only New York offers you opportunity to see certain performers live on the stage. Can you put value on that? Go ahead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldwine
Here's a secret: As an adult, you won't have the luxury of glorifying the city you're forced to live in. You're too pressed for time, too harried and exhausted, to be fooled by the idea that lots of highrises and busy traffic, when divided by the cost of your roach-infested apartment on the UWS, provides an index by which to judge quality. The attractive areas of NYC aren't in Manhattan-- they're the lowrise areas in the other boroughs, the six/seven story-lined streets with gorgeous views.
Baby, I am an adult and live in New York but have to come to Chicago every month. I have to tell you that I do not see myself more pressed for time in New York than I am while in Chicago. As a matter of fact, just because New York is much more efficient than Chicago it is actually easier to find time to enjoy life in New York. For one thing I do not have to deal with traffic congestion in New York. I stay in Lincoln Park while in Chicago, too far from any train station and observe the largest potholes (Fullerton) I have ever seen in my life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldwine
Your only basis for your case was Wikipedia. It's not that I necessarily care, but I do not think you fully grasp just how far beneath my consideration you really are... Much less the consideration of the general public.
Baby you contradict yourself. I am beneath your consideration yet you took the time to respond to my post. Grow up.
So because Chicago didn't need skyscrapers, they aren't real? The high rises, office buildings and other landmarks are just facades?
Yes. They are nothing but a theatrical decoration. There was no scarcity of land that forced those buildings to go up as in New York so any comparison to this city is unfair. You all are saying how New York skyline looks like a wall or is not spread out as evenly as the one in Chicago. it may be but just because New York skyline is a result of actuall need to go high as opposed to creating a pompous setting to an otherwise dull Midwestern city.
I never met "every architect" so I could not ask. All I know is however that Flatiron is in every architecture textbook in the world and Empire State is considered one of the world's wonders by American Society of Civil Engineers. I myself, consider Chrysler buidling the most beautiful manmade structure on the planet. Sorry, can't help it. Aks 8 miliion foreign tourist visitng New York every year why they chose New York and not Chicago...
Right. Just because I do not agree with you I have to be underaged. I heard that before I am not going to define New York amenities, if you are not aware of them pick up a w/e edition of the Times and read on and only then come back and define the amenities available in Chicago that are not available in New York. I am curious. As far as affordability is concerned it is as you know relative criterium, I know for sure that first of all NOT everybody in Chicago can afford them and second watching a play is not the same as watching a Broadway / off-Broadway play, even though the first one maybe be free. Quality comes with cost and only New York offers you opportunity to see certain performers live on the stage. Can you put value on that? Go ahead.
Baby, I am an adult and live in New York but have to come to Chicago every month. I have to tell you that I do not see myself more pressed for time in New York than I am while in Chicago. As a matter of fact, just because New York is much more efficient than Chicago it is actually easier to find time to enjoy life in New York. For one thing I do not have to deal with traffic congestion in New York. I stay in Lincoln Park while in Chicago, too far from any train station and observe the largest potholes (Fullerton) I have ever seen in my life.
Baby you contradict yourself. I am beneath your consideration yet you took the time to respond to my post. Grow up.
By the same token, shouldn't you have stopped posting in this thread about 58 pages ago? You've made your point: NYC IS TEH ROXORZ! CHICOGO IS TEH N00B!!!1!!
Quality of life? You mean the rampant crime in Chicago, it's higher the New York's murder rate and any other reported crime rate are examples of the superior quality of life in Chicago?
I could go for hours about your embarassing transportation system, substandard roads and schools and rampant corruption that made Chicago famous... But why? You read Red Eye so you know better, right?
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.
Fortunatelly nobody really cares what you think.
. Why the hell are you making such a big deal out of the "lack" of need for skyscrapers. Chicago's city limits are small. 226 sq miles or something like that. They obviously do have to conserve space. 
The premier city, as cited by every architect, is Chicago. You can make of this what you want. From someone who actually lived in Manhattan and the Bronx, I can attest to the fact that the majority of NYC's highrise stock is both bleak and brutal. 