New York City has better architecture than Chicago. (Boston, cons, beautiful)
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.
You, the one who can't even afford to visit New York (or spell), the one who has never step foot in New York somehow has the authority to show us the "real New York"?
I live in Greenwich and have been to New York City hundreds of times, and I think you're an idiot (more than likely a Chicago troll) who has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. I have never seen any street in New York look like that and I'm assuming those photographs are back in NY's "old days"
And since you've designated yourself as our tour guide, please post photos of the other 300 square miles of NYC. We've only seen four pictures. Also, did you enjoy my "tour" of Chicago or shall I go more?
were did I spell anything wrong?
and I have visited New York and I remeber trash bags outside of Business and around times square.
New York City is certainly America's archtiectural capital of today, but Chicago's place in architectural history is a storied one. Chicago is where the skyscraper was invented, and the "Chicago School" of architects basically invented modernism in the late 19th Century. While New York architects were adorning the new steel-framed skyscrapers with classical ornament borrowed from tried-and-true European styles, architects like Louis Sullivan, Daniel Burnham, and William LeBaron Jenney were moving in a radical new direction. Ornament and solid walls gave way to clean lines and strutural expressionism. Chicago architects found that a true expression of a steel frame could allow for vast expanses of glass and light.
Now, the architects of the Bauhaus in Europe got a lot of inspiration from Chicago when they captiviated the European Avant Garde with modernism as we know it today--and they were chased out of Germany by the Nazis and scattered througout the West. Walter Gropius ended up on the East Coast (at Harvard), and Ludwig Mies Van Der Rohe came to Chicago to teach at IIT. We all know who had a more sucessful enduring career (Mies), though Gropius had just as great a legacy through his influence. Mies's Chicago years helped usher in the era of the metal and glass skyscraper, and he collaborated with New York's Phillip Johnson to create the Seagram Building. Skidmore Owings and Merrill started in Chicago in 1936, but opened their New York office the same year. Both offices made major contributions and had their "starchitects" like Bruce Graham and Gordon Bunschaft.
Chicago and New York both had great stature in the mid-20th Century as architectural capitals, but New York was able to keep that momentum rolling into the 21st Century with new blood. Being the cultural center of the United States, New York has surpassed all other American cities in the architecture world. Chicago lost it's creative mentor when Mies died in 1974, and SOM's Chicago office seemed to lose steam after the cocaine and hookers era of the 1980s. But Chicago still has a strong footing in the field, and will always have a collection of better late 19th-early 20th Century "skyscapers" than New York. Architectural Record, the most widely read professional journal for architects, dedicated an issue to Chicago's architectural rennaissance a few years ago. Obviously the economic crash has put a damper on this, but Chicago will once again shine after the real estate sector recovers. New York will remain the architectural capital of the United States, but Chicago will always hold a special place in the hearts of architects.
...and I can sincerely agree with this statement. Chicago and Chicago School will always have their place in history of architecture.
and I have visited New York and I remeber trash bags outside of Business and around times square.
and downtown manhattan is the cleanest.
Hah. Now you've resorted to lying. You have never been to New York City by your own admission;
Me:
Quote:
You have never been to New York.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamakazi
So what[?] people on this forum always rate cities on pictures seen on the net. Plus a picture is worth a thousand words. There the closes thing that shows how a city really looks.
You can't spell and you apparently think you've traveled and have vast knowledge on this subject since you've looked at four photographs (from the 80s, none the less), which leads me to the conclusion that you lack education and common sense.
I hardly agree with you when it comes to quality of life. Chicago has better quality of life than New York according to serveral studies/surveys. However, I think NY has more energy,entertainment options, international reputation etc..
Anyway, architecture is what we should discuss. Looks like the intention of the OP was to start a flamewar and it's already shown.
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.
every huge city IS DISGUSTING not to mention the crime NOW LITTLE ROCK IS PRETTY FINE
