[chris08876]

The best cities usually grow through history. Its a byproduct of the urban struggle and adaptation to changing times. Master planned cities will always lack that uniqueness. Manhattan is a borough in a city that has been through the times, although very short in nature relative to let's say Paris or London.

Its very hard to replicate in general. So when people say the next Chicago or the next NYC or the next Paris... yeah you can master plan and brute-force your way there, but it will never truly reach those levels of aesthetics and urban construct form.

In a way, it can be unfair, because the element of "time" and "luck" is in favor for certain cities. London has a rich history, and a bit of luck. NYC has had tremendous luck, and the element of luck in its success. For all we know, if history has unfolded a certain way, we could of been speaking German and NYC would of been a radioactive mess if the German atomic program had succeeded. Or if certain immigration movements did not occur, places like Chicago or NY or even San Francisco might not have been the places they are today. Philly could been different had it not been a temporary U.S. capital at one point. D.C. might not have existed.

If the balance of power was different, London might of not been the city it is today. If certain events manifested, Shanghai or even Tokyo might not have been the cities they are today.

So cities in a way, and the way they look, do have an element of luck, and history that have played a roll in their development. Something that master planned cities will never have. And with this, let's not forget about culture. A city is an empty shell without culture and diversity. Not in people, but with the ideas. All played a role and one of many factors in what makes a city unique.