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.
Okay, but it still doesn't make it better logically. New York has more landmarks so it's better? Again, to be honest, most architecture folks (those who live and breathe it, not me) consider Chicago to be about the height of architecture. What does it matter if a place has more quantity but less quality?
Anyway, Chicago has 50 federal landmarked places. I'm not going to look up NYC's (I'll make the mistake of taking your word for it) but if you're right Chicago has half the landmarks while, city proper, having a third of the population.
Besides that, many of the landmarked places have nothing to do with the architecture at all. It has to do with people that slept in the room and whatnot.
Look, it's simply a fact that among architecture snobs, Chicago is, at worst, in a tie with New York. To most people, it's a cut above. I know it bothers you to imagine that Chicago is better than New York at anything (or, to see your posts in the Chicago v. Seattle thread, any place at all at anything) but it's just the predominant opinion. Sorry?
You forgot you are talking to Midwesterners. If they could they would argue that Louvre is less of an architectural wonder than Sears Tower and definetely less famous. I am having a lot of fun in this forum and I do not really try to argue with Chicagoans but rather try to show to others how full of s***t they are. I know there is no point in arguing with them, they think civilized life started when Chicago was founded and most civilizational advancements came from hardworking Midwesterners while the rest of the country was simply fooling around. They are really serious about it and I suspect they really believe that. After all, Chicago is all they know.
Midwesterners are full of it, but you lie about being from every major city in the U.S..sounds like someones a HUGE hypocrite.
You're pathetic. Grow up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dementor
Honestly, outside of Sears who ever heard about any other structure in Chicago while Empire State, Chrysler and Flatiron are icons of architecture and world-wide famous. Additionaly St. John's Cathedral, Statue of Liberty, Dacota, McGraw Hill, Plaza Hotel, New York Life, Metlife and many other NY buildings are not only architectural treasures but are officially recognized US landmarks, while neither Sears nor Hancock made that list. Shouldn't that tell us something?
By the way, New York City has 108 official US landmarks while the entire state of Illinois has 85...
C'mon folks, what are we comparing here?
fdirfew7r384r IS THAT A JOKE!?! You've obviously NEVER set foot inside Chicago.
Also, there you go with the Wikipedia again. Why don't you try to use a reliable source to prove your points. Oh yah, I know why, because there is no liable source to prove your straight out lies.
Why don't you try following my example. The City of Chicago has a lot of amazing landmarks and I'm sure you've heard of a lot them. I'd also like to point out that it's a city can make a blade of grass a landmark if it wanted to. The number of them means nothing. Just throwing that out there.
Dementor, you are nowhere near intelligent enough to handle an argument with anyone with an IQ over 20. Try arguing with monkeys, you may stand a chance.
Okay, but it still doesn't make it better logically. New York has more landmarks so it's better?
Well, if a location has more buildings worthy of US landmark designation than obviously this location has significant buildings. It's not like that designation is slapped on just any building... Notably, Empire, Chrysler and Flatiron are on that list while Sears and Hancock are not.
[quote=LucasS6;8049229]
Again, to be honest, most architecture folks (those who live and breathe it, not me) consider Chicago to be about the height of architecture. What does it matter if a place has more quantity but less quality?
And why would I or anybody else would just take your word for it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LucasS6
Anyway, Chicago has 50 federal landmarked places. I'm not going to look up NYC's (I'll make the mistake of taking your word for it) but if you're right Chicago has half the landmarks while, city proper, having a third of the population.
50? I counted 37... Yes, you made a mistake, you should check both lists. Did you find Sears or Hancock on any?
Well, if a location has more buildings worthy of US landmark designation than obviously this location has significant buildings. It's not like that designation is slapped on just any building... Notably, Empire, Chrysler and Flatiron are on that list while Sears and Hancock are not.
They're also older. Do you think Hancock, especially, won't be? Anyone it's beside the point.
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by LucasS6
Again, to be honest, most architecture folks (those who live and breathe it, not me) consider Chicago to be about the height of architecture. What does it matter if a place has more quantity but less quality?
And why would I or anybody else would just take your word for it?
You don't have to. Go to SSC and ask. Look into the "New York School of Architecture" and the "Chicago School of Architecture". Report back what you find.
Quote:
50? I counted 37... Yes, you made a mistake, you should check both lists. Did you find Sears or Hancock on any?
dem was wrong. What else is new? If you just argued you liked New York better than Chicago you'd be alright. But you make dumb arguments. Then you look dumb. Surprised?
Midwesterners are full of it, but you lie about being from every major city in the U.S..sounds like someones a HUGE hypocrite.
I am not sure what you are saying about " being from every major city"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spire
Why don't you try following my example. The City of Chicago has a lot of amazing landmarks and I'm sure you've heard of a lot them. I'd also like to point out that it's a city can make a blade of grass a landmark if it wanted to. The number of them means nothing. Just throwing that out there.
Pay more attention. We are talking about official US landmarks, the city has notthing to do with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spire
Dementor, you are nowhere near intelligent enough to handle an argument with anyone with an IQ over 20. Try arguing with monkeys, you may stand a chance.
That's a personal attack and I hope you realize that as it reflects on your credibility and intelligence.... Now, wipe yourself off.
They're also older. Do you think Hancock, especially, won't be? Anyone it's beside the point.
I do not think so. It's not that unique or significant. If it is was it would be on the list already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LucasS6
You don't have to. Go to SSC and ask. Look into the "New York School of Architecture" and the "Chicago School of Architecture". Report back what you find.
Why me? You made a silly claim you go and prove it. Make sure you talk to the majority of architects there
No there are 37 federal landmarks in Chicago. Pay attention: Chicago, not Chicago Metro. I did not use the New York metro number so shy did you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LucasS6
But you make dumb arguments. Then you look dumb. Surprised?
I think you wrote this last comment about yourself.
Anyways, Empire, Chrysler, Flatiron, Metlife and many other tall buildings in New York are not only architectural treasures but are considered national landmarks. How many tall buidlings in Chicago got the same designation? Now which skyline is more significant then? Do you get the point?
I do not think so. It's not that unique or significant. If it is was it would be on the list already.
Almost as dumb as your post about hot dogs. Slightly dumber than your inability to successfully make proper quotes on a messageboard, though.
[quote][quote=LucasS6;8049368] You don't have to. Go to SSC and ask. Look into the "New York School of Architecture" and the "Chicago School of Architecture". Report back what you find.
Quote:
Why me? You made a silly claim you go and prove it. Make sure you talk to the majority of architects there
Who says I haven't? Again, Chicago is a huge architectural city- New York? Not so much. You don't have to believe it- just like you didn't believe anything about international events or cultural locations- but your very provincial and not very worldly opinions don't create fact.
Quote:
No there are 37 federal landmarks in Chicago. Pay attention: Chicago, not Chicago Metro.
Oh no! That's still not enough to cover the population disparity. So what's your point? NYC has three times as many people but not three times as many landmarks? And because of that, people are supposed to agree New York is more architecturally refined? Again, this is another example of you wanting any city to rank above Chicago. I'm sorry, it doesn't. LOL
Quote:
I think you wrote this last comment about yourself.
DANG! Good one!
Quote:
Anyways, Empire, Chrysler, Flatiron, Metlife and many other tall buildings in New York are considered national landmarks. How many tall buidlings in Chicago got the same designation? Do you get the point
Not at all. Because it doesn't hold water. I appreciate how you keep trying to shift the goalposts and create strawman arguments, but it's not working to further your agenda because you keep doing it in the wrong places. Chicago has more landmarks per capita than NYC, but even that is pointless, because, as I said, a great many of both of those are places where people slept for the night or some such garbage. Ask yourself why there is a Chicago School of Architecture and no New York one. Ask afficionados which city is the more important, architectually. You'll get your answer. You don't have to try to knock Chicago in every possible critierium, you know. Or do you?
You don't have to. Go to SSC and ask. Look into the "New York School of Architecture" and the "Chicago School of Architecture". Report back what you find.
Who says I haven't? Again, Chicago is a huge architectural city- New York? Not so much. You don't have to believe it- just like you didn't believe anything about international events or cultural locations- but your very provincial and not very worldly opinions don't create fact.
Who says you have? You never posted any quotes or any other supporting eveidence to your silly claims. International events in Chicago? Name a few, please. I haven't laughed in about 5 minutes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LucasS6
Not at all. Because it doesn't hold water.
It does, again, Empire, Flatiron, Chrysler, Metlife, McGraw Hill and many other New York tall buildings are considered national landmarks while neither Sears nor Hancock got that designation. As a matter of fact I do not see any of the Chicago tall buidling there... You are talking abotu Chicago skyline and great architecture there yet there are almost no tall buiding on Chicago national landmark list. What gives? No significant tall buildings in Chicago? Whay dont't you take it up with the federal government
Why don't you admit that New York skyline is much more historical, much more significant hence better than Chicago's. I mean we can have our own opinions but national landmark designation should be worth something, right?
LOL dem You don't even know about Chicago architecture lol
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.
