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.
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.
Absolutely. The beauty about this view is the quality of buildings, the river setting, and the fact that the view provides a great vantage points to the buildings individually; clustered, but not overly dense like areas in New York, where it feels like you are staring at a wall of buildings. Throw in the fact that it shows a great progression of architecture that ultimately defines the Chicago skyline itself.
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 maturiy. Look at yourself, all right?
You actuall proved my poinst by asking me to stand on the bridge and look down the river i.e. the view requires certain perspective. 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.
dementor, you don't make much sense. You really don't have much to say. Unless you've been to Chicago, you would not make such odd and uninformed comments. You've never been to the LaSalle Canyon. You've never sat in Daley Plaza. You've never sat outside the Dirken Building. You've never sat on the steps of the Art Institute and looked north. Until you have, easy on the degrading comments.
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.
If this was the case you would not see so many parking garages and even empty lots inside of the loop. No. I do not think that the high rises were build for any other reason but megalomania.
When you compare New York you forget the fact that New York is located on three islands and peninsula and is divided by rivers many times wider than Chicago river. There are only few bridges and tunnes between the boros and transportation is abig issue. None of this problems were present in Chicago and even today the density in those two cities is much different.
dementor, you don't make much sense. You really don't have much to say. Unless you've been to Chicago, you would not make such odd and uninformed comments. You've never been to the LaSalle Canyon. You've never sat in Daley Plaza. You've never sat outside the Dirken Building. You've never sat on the steps of the Art Institute and looked north. Until you have, easy on the degrading comments.
La Salle Canyon? Daley Plaza? We are talking about skyscrapers here, right?
I only hope that some folks here know both cities pretty well 'cause I am just about to fall down my chair. Buddy, grow up.
La Salle Canyon? Daley Plaza? We are talking about skyscrapers here, right?
I only hope that some folks here know both cities pretty well 'cause I am just about to fall down my chair. Buddy, grow up.
No silly-- we're not just talking about skyscrapers-- we're talking about "views and places" where one can stand and view an urban landscape "and say wow" (in your case "Shamwow"). In your own words: "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 need to not only pay more attention to what other people are saying, but also to what you are saying. Your stream of self-contradictions are only exceeded by your fanatically nonsensical posts. Please re-read and try to make some sense before you criticize.
If this was the case you would not see so many parking garages and even empty lots inside of the loop. No. I do not think that the high rises were build for any other reason but megalomania.
When you compare New York you forget the fact that New York is located on three islands and peninsula and is divided by rivers many times wider than Chicago river. There are only few bridges and tunnes between the boros and transportation is abig issue. None of this problems were present in Chicago and even today the density in those two cities is much different.
I feel like you've gone through your list of things to bash Chicago on, and now you're just desperately making stuff up. Try taking a walk sometime, or getting away from the computer. Can't be good for your eyes.
Anyway, since just sitting here at work impatiently waiting for margaritas after work....
Where are all these empty lots inside the loop???
I know of two surface lots inside the 64 square block area of the loop bounded by Michigan Ave, the river and down by Congress.
One is reserved for Columbia College at Van Buren and Wells, and the other had an old building taken down by the owner a few years ago at Franklin and Randolph. It's cleared out now and reserved for office construction.
Last edited by Chicago60614; 03-19-2009 at 09:33 AM..
For one there is no way that Sao Paolo has that many highrises. You can argue that they aren't all counted for in New York as well. We can both spin the argument in any direction all day long to suit our own needs if we really want to. Also, I am not outright bashing Chicago, just as many of you are not just defending Chicago.
So many claim to be just defending Chicago, yet you attack NY in the process. I am not attacking Chicago. I've stated many times I think it is a good city. But come on. We have to be honest. It is much smaller than NY. More than twice. NY metro close to 22 million. Chicago 9. NY undoubtedly has almost six times as many more highrises. Weather you want to acknowledge this or not, it does make an impact, especially when judging a skyline withing the contents of a "mega" skyline. If it were just the "nicest" skyline, then I have nothing to say. You can claim that Chicago is nicer all day long, which you have. I wont say anything. Clearly that is your opinion. Just as I would prefer NY, which would be my opinion. I really don't have a problem with you or BigLake or most of you Chicago guys. BigLake is actually funny as shi t. Always cracks me up, however, I do wonder this fixation on the Jonas brothers...Lol
However, I will say that you guys are being a bit hypocritical. You laugh at Dementor for sticking up for NY and bashing Chicago and writing a lot of posts, yet you all do the same thing.. For every post he writes, there are two or three responses from the same Chicago guys. You always say, that you are " just sticking up for Chicago". Got to say, although admirable, who is it really hurting? I mean why do you feel the need to stick up for Chicago? No offense, but I don't think chicago needs sticking up for it. Most people already know that it is a good city. If someone doesn't acknowledge that fact, then who cares? Move on. Let them think whatever they want. It shouldn't have any impact on you one way or the other. That's one part of our crappy country we can be thankful for. We atleast still have freedom to our opinions(well somewhat debatable). Why do you care what anyone thinks about Chicago? The bottom line is we all have cities to which we prefer. I too am at fault for this sometimes, and I am certainly no exception to anything I have said.
But at the end of the day, it seems like we are all really just taking our aggressions out on each other for whatever reasons, which to say the least, probably have nothing to do with two cities. Lets try to keep our sensibilities through all of this. We all are becoming a bit irrational at times, just to make some silly point. For instance, if your talking mega, NY and Chicago should not even be in the same category. At least my thought process of "mega" is big, bunched, many. I can be wrong though. For every person is a different intrerpretation. Now, if your talking Nicest, then yeah, ok then, I can see no problem with you arguing your case. Let's atleast be realistic if we are going to argue like little children, (myself included).
Here just so you know, read this thread (What is the city with the largest ammount of highrises? - Page 6 - SkyscraperCity) and check out the picture below which, if it was 360 degrees, would be roughly the same in all directions. Sao Paolo has THAT many. And there is no arguing back and forth, people who work for emporis will tell you their data for SA cities and Asian cities are incomplete. Their data however, is mostly complete for cities in NA, like NYC, chicago and TO.
Source: Brandi from SSC
Yes, a city can have close to 40k buildings >12 stories, and that city is Sao Paolo. (and Shanghai and Seoul have thousands of undocumented bldgs >12 stories, but I wont bother to show the pictures - check out the link above.) Most highrise enthusiasts know this, but you can try to deny it all you want. Is it a beautiful skyline? I dont care for it. So the point still stands, I could care less simply about the huge girth of a skyline, when you achieve a certain level of girth there are far too many other components on which to judge (architecture, diversity, height, balance/symmetry, setting, etc); which I think cities like Shanghai and Sao Paolo lack.
You and I wont agree. You seem to think that 12-20 story (or 120'-200') buildings are an integral part of viewing a skyline with hundreds of buildings >400 ft-1500ft, and I simply cant understand this. I dont see these shorter buildings when assessing taller skylines like Chicago and NYC. On the west side of midtown, theres a lot of these shorter buildings and I dont notice them at all in the skyline view because I see the Chrysler, or Citigroup, or PanAm or ESB and all the other taller towers in Midtown.
As far as the rest of the stuff, about arguing back and forth, I agree for the most part. We clearly all have different interpretations, and we will not agree. You look for one thing, I look for another. And people like dementor can hate chicago all they want for no apparent reason other than its in the midwest and/or are threatened by the city and its skyline somehow, and they can make crazy claims that show they clearly have no idea what theyre talking about, and some chicago forumers can try to argue with them. Whatever.
Here just so you know, read this thread (What is the city with the largest ammount of highrises? - Page 6 - SkyscraperCity) and check out the picture below which, if it was 360 degrees, would be roughly the same in all directions. Sao Paolo has THAT many. And there is no arguing back and forth, people who work for emporis will tell you their data for SA cities and Asian cities are incomplete. Their data however, is mostly complete for cities in NA, like NYC, chicago and TO.
Source: Brandi from SSC
Yes, a city can have close to 40k buildings >12 stories, and that city is Sao Paolo. (and Shanghai and Seoul have thousands of undocumented bldgs >12 stories, but I wont bother to show the pictures - check out the link above.) Most highrise enthusiasts know this, but you can try to deny it all you want. Is it a beautiful skyline? I dont care for it. So the point still stands, I could care less simply about the huge girth of a skyline, when you achieve a certain level of girth there are far too many other components on which to judge (architecture, diversity, height, balance/symmetry, setting, etc); which I think cities like Shanghai and Sao Paolo lack.
You and I wont agree. You seem to think that 12-20 story (or 120'-200') buildings are an integral part of viewing a skyline with hundreds of buildings >400 ft-1500ft, and I simply cant understand this. I dont see these shorter buildings when assessing taller skylines like Chicago and NYC. On the west side of midtown, theres a lot of these shorter buildings and I dont notice them at all in the skyline view because I see the Chrysler, or Citigroup, or PanAm or ESB and all the other taller towers in Midtown.
As far as the rest of the stuff, about arguing back and forth, I agree for the most part. We clearly all have different interpretations, and we will not agree. You look for one thing, I look for another. And people like dementor can hate chicago all they want for no apparent reason other than its in the midwest and/or are threatened by the city and its skyline somehow, and they can make crazy claims that show they clearly have no idea what theyre talking about, and some chicago forumers can try to argue with them. Whatever.
I dont buy it one bit buddy. First, get your story straight. On one account. You say they have over 40,000, then on another you say 30.000. Which is it? Secondly, that angle of that pic works good for you, but I know that Sao Paolo is more spread out than what appears. Actually that pic looks alot like NY. ONly NY is more bunched together and Sao Paolo is more spread out. But the angle's make it appear closer together. I'll quote what Anthony Bordain once described Sao Paolo as looking like, "It looks like NY threw up all over LA"
That was his descrition of Sao Paolo.
Anyway where are the facts. You want me to believe that all of these sites are having some major conspiracy to this degree against Sao Paolo. That they are saying that they have 4-6,000 highrises (whichever it is) but it is really 8 times that? Do you really believe any site would fudge the stats so incompetently. And yes, their stats are a bit off for all cities not just Asian or South American Cities. But what it comes down to it, what your really saying is forget all of your evidence and believe what I tell you. Believe your opinion and ignore the stats. You want me to believe that poor Sao Paolo count is really just a mere fraction of what every site counts, yet everyone apparently is conspiring against Sao Paolo. Truly funny. And that "you" know otherwise and I should just ignore everyone else and believe you. I don't think so buddy. Show me the facts.
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.
