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.
I was looking at an old thread comparing Brooklyn with Chicago. A lot of Chicago boosters were going on about tall buildings and how Brooklyn's lack thereof diminishes it in any comparison with Chicago. This got me thinking - I notice that many people seem to focus on extremely superficial aspects of a city, especially the skyline. To me, and it seems so obvious it's weird to even have to point this out, what makes a city great is 1) culture (meaning food, ethnicity, art, etc.) and 2) density. 2) is so important because without it, you do not get the vibrancy and accessibility that comes from being able to walk or train around a city. 2) is what makes 1) meaningful. But the actual height of buildings or how a skyline looks in pictures is at best only very marginally related to 1).
I'm not saying architecture is completely irrelevant, but it's really a subset of 1), and even though architecture in a city is important to evaluating how nice of a city it is, the sheer height of buildings seems like a weird basis for valuing a city. Furthermore, even when visiting a city, beyond the initial "oh that looks cool" phase, I *never* dwell on how tall buildings are or what a city's skyline looks like from a distance. The things that matter when you're in a city are the cultural aspects, and how accessible things are. I almost wish there were a rule that if you point to a city's skyline as an argument in favor of living in one city or another, you automatically lose the argument.
Does my confusion/frustration make sense to anyone else?
I posted this in an earlier thread but think this goes well.
Isn't having a huge or more impressive skyline more about vanity and greed rather then making a city great? I mean look at Dubai, all of that was built overnight with slave labor from Pakistan. Dubai has Vanity written all over there face, they are like waving you to come over and look at what they have done in the past 15 years but in reality Dubai is just a hot desert and all these buildings are like mirages.
Fayetteville, arkansas could easily have the most impressive buildings in the world, walmart could have built 10 125 story buildings but would this impressive skyline really make them that great of a city? Most of the largest buildings in the world are built and owned by greedy blood sucking banks but some of the newer companies have modest sprawling campuses. Imagine if Silicon Valley was all concentrated in San Jose, that would be one impressive skyline but i think most of the companies built based on practicality, ease and available cheap land.
I was looking at an old thread comparing Brooklyn with Chicago. A lot of Chicago boosters were going on about tall buildings and how Brooklyn's lack thereof diminishes it in any comparison with Chicago. This got me thinking - I notice that many people seem to focus on extremely superficial aspects of a city, especially the skyline. To me, and it seems so obvious it's weird to even have to point this out, what makes a city great is 1) culture (meaning food, ethnicity, art, etc.) and 2) density. 2) is so important because without it, you do not get the vibrancy and accessibility that comes from being able to walk or train around a city. 2) is what makes 1) meaningful. But the actual height of buildings or how a skyline looks in pictures is at best only very marginally related to 1).
I'm not saying architecture is completely irrelevant, but it's really a subset of 1), and even though architecture in a city is important to evaluating how nice of a city it is, the sheer height of buildings seems like a weird basis for valuing a city. Furthermore, even when visiting a city, beyond the initial "oh that looks cool" phase, I *never* dwell on how tall buildings are or what a city's skyline looks like from a distance. The things that matter when you're in a city are the cultural aspects, and how accessible things are. I almost wish there were a rule that if you point to a city's skyline as an argument in favor of living in one city or another, you automatically lose the argument.
Does my confusion/frustration make sense to anyone else?
Absolutely. I agree with you 100%. Tall buildings are fun to look at from afar, but aren't as interesting when you're on the street if there aren't shops and restaurants at ground level. What makes a city or neighborhood liveable and walkable is what's at street level.
Yes. Most major city downtowns are architectural monstrosities - a mix of architectural postmodernism gone awry and some kind of Freudian size fixation. Seeing a skyline that actually has some kind of memorable distinction and cohesiveness is a rare, rare event.
I posted this in an earlier thread but think this goes well.
Isn't having a huge or more impressive skyline more about vanity and greed rather then making a city great? I mean look at Dubai, all of that was built overnight with slave labor from Pakistan. Dubai has Vanity written all over there face, they are like waving you to come over and look at what they have done in the past 15 years but in reality Dubai is just a hot desert and all these buildings are like mirages.
Fayetteville, arkansas could easily have the most impressive buildings in the world, walmart could have built 10 125 story buildings but would this impressive skyline really make them that great of a city? Most of the largest buildings in the world are built and owned by greedy blood sucking banks but some of the newer companies have modest sprawling campuses. Imagine if Silicon Valley was all concentrated in San Jose, that would be one impressive skyline but i think most of the companies built based on practicality, ease and available cheap land.
Dubai is a special case.
What you are describing is not what happened in NYC and Chicago... these cities did not have anywhere else to build but up. Also these cities have several artistic masterpieces in architecture, it just happens to be tall. Most places don't go into such detail about the buildings.
An impressive skyline has "wow" factor. One reason I've never cared to visit DC, besides the fact I find political types extremely annoying. No skyline at all.
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.
