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.
Freedtom Tower is taller than ugly sears too. Just get it in your head . A SPIRE IS PART OF A BUILDING. Don't we count the empire state buildings spire?!
LOL jealous that NY will have the tallest building. Hahahahahahy
Hey, if you're alright claiming the title by a spire instead of actual structural construction, that's alright by me. Kuala Lumpur did the same thing in the 1990s. So congratulations. You've caught up with Kuala Lumpur, circa 1998.
Look, if you're going to try to debate about which city has the best architecture, you need to use words other than "beautiful", "pretty", "cool", and "looks good/better." There is much more to architecture than aesthetics. Also, tall buildings are more of a structural creation than they are an architectural creation. When dealing with skyscrapers, the structure must be considered above all else, therefore if you wish to discuss who has the better skyscrapers, then the thread should read "Which city has the best engineered systems?"
There is an unlimited number of ways to achieve successful architecture, but there are just as many ways to create terrible architecture. According to Vitruvius, commodity, firmness, and delight are three architectural design elements used to create a well designed space or structure. We all know Vitruvius was an extraordinary individual, but even his knowledge is not the end all be all. It is the culmination of thoughts and ideas generated from centuries of thinkers concerning our built environment, and this growing knowledge changes every day. There is no way to pin it down, therefore there is no way to definitively choose which city has better architecture.
Look, if you're going to try to debate about which city has the best architecture, you need to use words other than "beautiful", "pretty", "cool", and "looks good/better." There is much more to architecture than aesthetics. Also, tall buildings are more of a structural creation than they are an architectural creation. When dealing with skyscrapers, the structure must be considered above all else, therefore if you wish to discuss who has the better skyscrapers, then the thread should read "Which city has the best engineered systems?"
There is an unlimited number of ways to achieve successful architecture, but there are just as many ways to create terrible architecture. According to Vitruvius, commodity, firmness, and delight are three architectural design elements used to create a well designed space or structure. We all know Vitruvius was an extraordinary individual, but even his knowledge is not the end all be all. It is the culmination of thoughts and ideas generated from centuries of thinkers concerning our built environment, and this growing knowledge changes every day. There is no way to pin it down, therefore there is no way to definitively choose which city has better architecture.
Are you kidding? That was the most intelligent thing posted all night. Anyway, send me a link to the Beekman building's website. All I could find was an old art deco building from 1928. Are you sure you have the right name?
Oh, I just found it. Congratulations, New York. You've taken another idea from Chicago. Oh well, at least you're cherry-picking from the Greatest City for Architecture in the World.
To see what I mean, take a look at the other proposals for Ground Zero. They look familiar, don't they? That's because they were already built in Chicago over twenty years ago.
I'm not the only one who feels this way: (http://www.urbantoronto.ca/archive/index.php/t-2349.html - broken link)
wyliepoon
09-08-2006, 11:35 PM
"When I first saw the rendering, for a second I almost thought I was looking at Chicago's skyline. The Freedom Tower is like the John Hancock Center, and the Foster tower looks like the Smurfit-Stone Building (aka the Diamond Building). This might mean that if Chicago goes ahead with its megatall projects, Chicago might end up with a more imposing skyline than New York.
Look, if you're going to try to debate about which city has the best architecture, you need to use words other than "beautiful", "pretty", "cool", and "looks good/better." There is much more to architecture than aesthetics. Also, tall buildings are more of a structural creation than they are an architectural creation. When dealing with skyscrapers, the structure must be considered above all else, therefore if you wish to discuss who has the better skyscrapers, then the thread should read "Which city has the best engineered systems?"
There is an unlimited number of ways to achieve successful architecture, but there are just as many ways to create terrible architecture. According to Vitruvius, commodity, firmness, and delight are three architectural design elements used to create a well designed space or structure. We all know Vitruvius was an extraordinary individual, but even his knowledge is not the end all be all. It is the culmination of thoughts and ideas generated from centuries of thinkers concerning our built environment, and this growing knowledge changes every day. There is no way to pin it down, therefore there is no way to definitively choose which city has better architecture.
and I almost fell on the ground laughing when you tried to compare Chicagos ugly neighborhoods to New York.
Silly fool there are no and will need be any equivalents to Upper East Side, UWS (no Lincoln Park doesn't compare LOL ) Especially downtown neighborhoods like Tribeca, the Village, NoHo, SoHo..etc No no no.
Jacksonian, are you an architect? You sounded like one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacksonian
Look, if you're going to try to debate about which city has the best architecture, you need to use words other than "beautiful", "pretty", "cool", and "looks good/better." There is much more to architecture than aesthetics. Also, tall buildings are more of a structural creation than they are an architectural creation. When dealing with skyscrapers, the structure must be considered above all else, therefore if you wish to discuss who has the better skyscrapers, then the thread should read "Which city has the best engineered systems?"
There is an unlimited number of ways to achieve successful architecture, but there are just as many ways to create terrible architecture. According to Vitruvius, commodity, firmness, and delight are three architectural design elements used to create a well designed space or structure. We all know Vitruvius was an extraordinary individual, but even his knowledge is not the end all be all. It is the culmination of thoughts and ideas generated from centuries of thinkers concerning our built environment, and this growing knowledge changes every day. There is no way to pin it down, therefore there is no way to definitively choose which city has better architecture.
Are you kidding? That was the most intelligent thing posted all night. Anyway, send me a link to the Beekman building's website. All I could find was an old art deco building from 1928. Are you sure you have the right name?
Go on page 1 of my other tread... Recent construction and look at that tall gothic wavy looking aluminum/metal Frank Gehry masterpiece tower going up.
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.
