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.
So far I'm the only one who's posted pictures of actual urban canyons. Do the rest of you not understand what that means? I know Philly and Boston have streets in their CBDs that look like canyons, but those pictures didn't really do them justice. Manhattan for sure has more than any city, though I still think Chicago's are better, and I would imagine SF has a few in the Financial District.
You are right. Pretty much every street in Central Philly is a canyon but I don't happen to have any other pictures on my hard drive that I took myself. Also they are hard to find on the net because they have no subject. Most of what I posted was to track construction projects.
Here are a few that I took of Columbia Thurs. night while at MEPs
Im sorry they seem sloppy but it was taken with my cell phone and it was my first time in the city.
I know it's only a few but I hope you like them. Also if there is anyone else out there who has been to Columbia more than me but is it just me or does Columbia at least downtown Columbia die at like 10 30 11 O'clock
These pictures are awful. Besides being too blurry, they don't show anything that even closely resembles an urban canyon.
I really like those pics of San Francisco and Philadelphia. Of course NY and Chicago are famous for their urban canyons so it's nice to see some different cities for a change.
Knoxville doesn't really have much of an urban canyon. This is about as close as it gets here:
Agreed. How many times do Chicagoans need be reminded that less quantity does not equal high quality? Their reasoning of "better" always consists the part "Although NYC has more, Chicago's is better" and nothing else as if "NYC has more" automatically makes "Chicago's is better". I am so tired of that. And to claim the pictures posted here of other cities not urban canyons, how narrow minded is that? By any common definition of an urban canyon, most pictures posted here qualify.
Chicago does give you a better canyon effect than NYC. Chicago has wider streets and all of the buildings line up along the sidewalk. Chicago's skyscrapers are also more uniform in height, whereas skyscrapers in Manhattan vary greatly in height. Let's take the Empire State Building for example, it looks totally out of place because it's in a part of Manhattan where it's surrounded by buildings that are mainly in the 10-20 story range.
Agreed. How many times do Chicagoans need be reminded that less quantity does not equal high quality? Their reasoning of "better" always consists the part "Although NYC has more, Chicago's is better" and nothing else as if "NYC has more" automatically makes "Chicago's is better". I am so tired of that. And to claim the pictures posted here of other cities not urban canyons, how narrow minded is that? By any common definition of an urban canyon, most pictures posted here qualify.
Would tend to agree with this. It's not up to Chicagoans alone to decide what makes an urban canyon. Also, there is no comparison between Manhattan and Chicago. If Manhattan is the equivalent of the Grand Canyon, Chicago would be the Snake River Canyon. They are different, exciting and both are the epitome of urban grandeur, but New York is much more vast.
Is there any objective criteria we can use to define an urban canyon? I agree that a line of 10 story skyscrapers for three blocks does not equal a canyon, but then, what does? My subjective view of an urban canyon is that the buildings must be tall enough to block light (canyon effect), must be long to create distant sight lines (8+ blocks) and can be over streets or rivers. [LaSalle St. in the Loop and Park Ave. in Midtown are near-perfect urban canyons.]
I tend to think (from what I've seen from spending time in both cities) that New York (Manhattan, really) has a much larger and much more expansive array of "Urban Canyons" than any other city in the U.S. Looking East/West in Midtown can really put it in perspective but I find that looking North/South just gives an incredible perspective of just how "canyonized" Manhattan really is.
Anyway, I love San Francisco's too. The hills really give a unique perspective.
Boston's are curved in the Financial District. Unfortunately, I don't have the good picture of Post Office Square on this computer which was a great shot of a Financial District Canyon, but I do have another better shot of a Back Bay Canyon (a little more of the "traditional" canyon effect).
These pictures are awful. Besides being too blurry, they don't show anything that even closely resembles an urban canyon.
Yes I know but thanks for the enthusiasm btw and it was just a few pics I figured I would take cause it was my first time in the city. and btw Columbia as well as any other city in SC dont have an Urban Canyon so. . . .
Those are awesome pics!!!!! You have shown why San Francisco is such a beloved city to many of us here in the East (besides its stunning natural beauty). I can't think of any other city in the West that comes close to SF's urban landscape.
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.
now thats nice
