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.
New York and Chicago are the two tallest cities in America. New York is the overall tallest city in the world and Chicago is the 5th tallest in the world. Chicago's tallest 25 buildings are actually taller than New Yorks top 25. But New York literally has thousands more tall buildings than Chicago.
I recently visited Chicago in October and I was not as impressed with their signature skycrapers in person as I thought I'd be. I have visited New York in the past too, and was more pleased by the designs and the aura of the classic New York scrapers, more so than the rest of their skyline. So here is the poll, and if its been done I apologize in advance. Which signature building do you like the best? I broke it down to the most commonly mentioned ones: Chrysler, ESB, Hancock and Sears.
How can you not be impressed by Chicago's skyline. It is truly magnificent, especially from the LSD! I actually like the Hancock Building. It is one of my favorite skyscrapers in the world. But I also love the Empire State Building.
I love Chicago's skyline from the Adler plantarium perspective and somewhat less from Millenium Park or the Lakeshore Drive views. So if it was a skyline aesthetics poll I'd vote Chicago. Signiture buildings and density are both another story. New Yorks old signiture towers were more stunning and surreal when I first saw them. There is a overwhelming sense of nostaligia you feel just looking at them if you are an architecture buff. When my kids were little and use to pretend to be superheros, they did not pretend to be swinging or flying from the Sears Tower or the Hancock. Their imagination usually transported them by default to New york City, as mine did when I was a kid, to the Chrysler or the Empire State building with their majestic single spires towering over the concrete jungles of Manhattan below. I'm sure that televison plays a part, but there is a reason that those towers are so photographed and so classic. The director of the new Batman movies didnt even feature the most popular Chicago buildings in those movies that much, they actually featured Hong Kong's height alot more in the last movie. Maybe they wanted Gotham to be more anonymous by using some of the lesser known Chicago classics. When any movie features New York, they will often use several shots of the Chrysler or Empire State in the background, because they simply add so much to the sense of being in a huge metropolis. They are so cool and classic they are engrained in every American's consciousness. There are some incredible old school buildings in Chicago and I take the architectural tour once a year in the summertime. I love Chicago's height from certain perspectives. The only thing I fault Chicago with is the abundance of silverish-gray and darker tones in the skyline. There is a lack of richer color or brightness at street level also. It makes for a drearier feel, almost a sad empty feeling some days. If it clouds up in Chicago or rains/snows, which can happen much of the year, the city can look downright ugly reflected in all that dark silver and glass. When it rained on us in New York, there were so many more rich colors at street level...browns and creams and reds..that it didnt seem taint the city's vibe much. New york wins hands down at night as well. Many more lights and colors.
Last edited by The Mayor of Mil-Town; 12-23-2009 at 11:56 AM..
I chose the Willis/Sears in the number one spot because if you take out the ESB or Chrysler from New York's skyline it would not make such a huge impact as if you were to take out the Sears out of Chicago.
I disagree with that logic in placing Willis #1 but I see where you are coming from somewhat. However you have to consider that Chrysler and ESB are extremely important icons to the NYC skyline and to the United States' image and history in general. Odds are that if New York hadn't become the architectural giant that it became in the world view by building such timeless and powerful symbols of classic spires, Chicago's architecture might have been considerably altered and who knows if it would have been better or worse. My guess is much worse.
If Sears was missing like you say, the reason that it would make a bigger impact isn't because Sears is a better style or more classic, its because if you take the Sears and/or Hancock away, Chicago's skyline now looks considerable more empty/plain. The only thing that could save the Chicago skyline if those two were gone would be AON and Smurfit and the nice view along the Chicago River.
I cant' decide. The art deco architecture of the Chrysler and ESB are perfect. Masterpieces.
They probably couldn't even be built today even if they tried. That's what I go by.
Cant' say the same for the other two.
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.
