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.
Debates like this are impossible to quantify and resolve. It comes down to a matter of what you "like". That can mean many different things. Someone might like Chicago's architecture more, but then someone else might argue that NYC's sheer size makes it better. It's impossible to resolve a debate like this, all it does is provoke flaming on both sides.
But when all's said and done, I still like NYC's effect better.
The point is yeah, the buildings you pointed out are nice. I could post pictures of the Tribune Building, Marina City, the IBM Building, Carbon and Carbide, etc and they're just as noteworthy.
You were wrong about the architecture of the two cities, just admit it and move on.
EWWW. I have no idea on EARTH how that yawn inducing picture "owns NYC". Then again, you live in Chicago and will obviously never have taste levels as high as mine so I don't really care.
It is an ugly photograph, IMO. Looks quite small, lacks character and looks looks like it could be anywhere in the Midwest.
EWWW. I have no idea on EARTH how that yawn inducing picture, "owns NYC". Then again, you live in Chicago and will obviously never have taste levels as high as mine so I don't really care.
It is an ugly photograph, IMO. Looks quite small, lacks character and looks looks like it could be anywhere in the Midwest.
You definitely have zero idea of what Chicago is or else you would know its a very white collar city.. Why do you have to try to bring down Milwaukee now. Dementor, you really need to calm down with your hatred of the Midwest.
Chicago is for underachievers who can't make it in New York City. Chicago is like a C student compared to New York City, San Francisco, LA, (perhaps even Dallas). It's a knock off. Why settle for a knock-off when you can have the real thing?
And you're sorely mistaken if you think Dementor is the only one who thinks negatively of the midwest (aka fly-over zone).
The point is yeah, the buildings you pointed out are nice. I could post pictures of the Tribune Building, Marina City, the IBM Building, Carbon and Carbide, etc and they're just as noteworthy.
You were wrong about the architecture of the two cities, just admit it and move on.
Now I think you have a short attention span. Im not going to tell you that you are not getting my point. Also out of the four you name and two of them were any good.
LOL no, all four of them are known as being incredible architectural structures. Anyway, you wish that I had a short attention span so that I would forget your initial argument. It was wrong. In the world of architecture, Chicago is more important that New York. Most architects agree that Chicago has more- and certainly more per capita- architecturally significant buildings.
You were proven wrong there, and to avoid having to face that you latched upon Spire's ignorant comment about New York not having many 'nice buildings. No one is arguing that he is wrong- he obviously is. But you were wrong yourself in the first place, in a much bigger way.
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.
