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 couldnt be from chicago or have lived here....i have lived in chi all my life and people don't compare chicago to ny here. That's so false people here are too wrapped up in CHICAGO LOL
That's not true. My father in law was born in Chicago and still lives in the area and he constantly compares NY to Chicago, usually portraying New York in a negative light because it's wall to wall people.
What does skyline have to do with the quality of a city?
It might not determine the "quality of the city", but it sure "defines a city".
It shows power and dominence. Most cities with "weak" skylines, are pretty weak cities in general. Skylines pretty much go hand-and-hand with the city's perception.
It might not determine the "quality of the city", but it sure "defines a city".
It shows power and dominence. Most cities with "weak" skylines, are pretty weak cities in general. Skylines pretty much go hand-and-hand with the city's perception.
Phoenix is a great example of this.......
I completely disagree with all of your points....IMO skylines do not DEFINE a city. As for your "weak skyline" argument, do you think Washington, DC; London, Paris are considered "weak cities".
I completely disagree with all of your points....IMO skylines do not DEFINE a city. As for your "weak skyline" argument, do you think Washington, DC; London, Paris are considered "weak cities".
First of all, "DC" is the ONLY 'American' city you named.
DC is in a class of it's own because of all the "monuments" it has, and because of this, the city has STRICT building codes that doesn't allow for "skyscapers" to be built!
Comparing America to Europe can't be done, we're different, and so are our priorities. Not to mention that their cities were built up way before American ones were. It's safe to say that Paris and London, has more historic buildings (as far as old), compared to any American city. Tearing them down for a skyscaper would'nt go over to easy with their residents. Along with their streets being a lot tighter and more narrow than almost any other American city's. You'd have to restructure vast portions of their city's to build skyscapers because of this fact!
America invented the "skyscaper", and we fell in love with it! Unlike a lot of Europes cities.
It might not determine the "quality of the city", but it sure "defines a city".
It shows power and dominence. Most cities with "weak" skylines, are pretty weak cities in general. Skylines pretty much go hand-and-hand with the city's perception.
Phoenix is a great example of this.......
People often think Boston has a weak skyline...does that mean we're a weak city in general?
That's not true. My father in law was born in Chicago and still lives in the area and he constantly compares NY to Chicago, usually portraying New York in a negative light because it's wall to wall people.
Well there's all types of people out there doing whatever they want. I mean obviously people will compare what they personally want to compare.
After living in Chicago for over 8 years now coming from elsewhere, and having been to all 50 states including NYC more times than I can count - I've never once noticed Chicagoans comparing themselves to NYC more than they would anywhere else.
If anything I've overwhelmingly noticed that people in this city DON'T compare themselves to anyone but themselves for whatever reason.
I think it's just the nature of the people here, the pride in the city, and the fact there really is no direct comparison for Chicago in the Midwest. People worry about themselves and this city, not really what people on the coasts are doing or what they're saying about the interior.
People often think Boston has a weak skyline...does that mean we're a weak city in general?
Ya, it does! But I'd say that Boston has it's far share of "historic" buildings that will never be torn down for a "skyscaper".
Boston probably has one the "weakest" skyline in the country as far as 'major' metro cities go.
They don't have much of a skyline in my opinon, but doesn't Boston have the "smallest" city limits in America as far as 'major' metro cities? That or SF does? But SF has a way better skyline, along with being more important of a city and having more power and promidence. Kinda proves my point again?..
Ya, it does! But I'd say that Boston has it's far share of "historic" buildings that will never be torn down for a "skyscaper".
Boston probably has one the "weakest" skyline in the country as far as 'major' metro cities go.
They don't have much of a skyline in my opinon, but doesn't Boston have the "smallest" city limits in America as far as 'major' metro cities? That or SF does? But SF has a way better skyline, along with being more important of a city and having more power and promidence. Kinda proves my point again?..
So according to your theory, Miami is more important than Boston, and Los Angeles because it has a better/bigger skyline?
Sorry they just share developing similarities to me... Chicago and Houston, and what Houston is becoming as a business center, cosmopolitan, arts district, etc... Houston also had a 21% population growth...from 2000-2008...
I do not see why this will stop, esp as more companies move to TX.
Again yes Chicago mops the floor with Houston but I think they are setting up to be rivals, they are both well rounded in what they provide... the other cities aren't so well rounded and are leading niche cities
I'm not a fan of Houston at all but I know what is going on...
I also think Houston is metro now 4th in u.s. in F500 companies, Chicago being 3rd...
GDP now Chicago is 4 and Houston is 7.
within the next decade or so I expect Houston to continue on its population trend upward, as well as things to shift.
I suspect the SF/SJ metro to hop over Chicago as #4, Chicago to move to #5... along with Houston going over Boston from #7, to #6...
note current gdp is San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA $508.418 Billion 4. Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI CSA $526.895 Billion 6. Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH CSA $413.930 Billion 7. Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX CSA $403.202 Billion
its funny when people talk about Chics "importance" in the U.S yet its GDP is almost the same as the SF Bay Areas! which has like 2-3 million less people! what a joke! hahaha
Honestly in this city you'll almost never hear about any other city lol...its all about chicago in chicago hence Chicago LAND 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.
First of all, "DC" is the ONLY 'American' city you named.
But I'd say that Boston has it's far share of "historic" buildings that will never be torn down for a "skyscaper".
