SkyscraperPage Forum - Skyline: uniqueness vs number of buildings?

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)

- City Discussions (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=24)

- - Skyline: uniqueness vs number of buildings? (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=240360)

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 8696754)

Hopefully one day the spire/mast conversation will reopen at the CTBUH. The masts on JHC and Sears should count towards the overall height. They are an integral part of the design IMO, and those towers without the masts would lose character.

I don't think that will ever happen. I believe both buildings have changed up their masts over the years and probably will again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JManc (Post 8696787)

I don't think that will ever happen.

yeah that's doubtful.

but at the same time, if someone feels like including poles in the height figures of buildings, there is no law that one must be a slave to the CTBUH's rules.

if someone wanna says that chicago has a 1,700 footer (sears) and a 1,500 footer (hancock), by pinnacle height, book-ending its skyline, then that's a perfectly cromulent statement.

Cromulent you say? Whooohoooo!

You've embiggened my vocabulary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 8696711)

i think you'd be hard-pressed to find many who would agree with his assessment of chicago's skyscraper architecture.

chicago is widely regarded as having some of the best skyscraper architecture throughout history, going all the way back to the very beginnings of the building type in the 19th century.

along with NYC, chicago is one of the absolute best skyscraper museums on the planet. i doubt you could find a single architectural historian at any university on the planet who would disagree with that.

as just one small example of this, in the 2013 edition of judith durpe's very popular book "Skyscrapers" (i'm sure all of us nerds have an edition of it laying around somewhere), there are 10 entries for individual chicago skyscrapers (the 2nd most of any city globally). NYC is obviously #1 with 18 entries.

If only Chicago could have a better skyline than Jacksonville. Not bigger certainly but better.
.
.
.
.
.
[And if you couldn't tell, I'm just playing this time·]

A River Runs Through It

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 8696389)

I'll say as an avid NYC follower, Midtown is a chaotic mess. From a pure aesthetic standpoint, Lower Manhattan wins and is the most balanced skyline node that aesthetically wins IMO.

Now from a holy shit moment, Midtown does take the cake, but is overwhelming.

Chicago is unique in that it doesn't overwhelm one and like NY, it has a massive portfolio of architecture that spans the decades. In a way, Chicago is a giant urban-construct of a museum. You can see the various boom cycles embedded in its skyline and core. From pre-wars all the way to modern architecture. Not to mention that its very, very balanced.

I mentioned in another thread about luck and timing... very important in skyline development. Sometimes, its just luck in how a skyline looks and aesthetically pleases.

Chicago is more like caffeine mixed with some nice green tea. Its calm, can energize the spirit, and doesn't overwhelm. NYC is like a giant hit of methamphetamine. Just overwhelms the senses and can make one a bit on edge. Both excite the spirit, but depends if you want a nice buzz or a adrenaline rush that will cause you to crash hard at the end of the day.

I kinda felt this with Chicago when I went. A tad bit calm, somewhat sedated, but still provided a nice thrill with its skyline and even street energy.

On a side note, Miami is up and coming. Its made great strides in the last 10 years. It punches above its weight. Likewise with Seattle, which is booming like crazy.

Another Chi advantage--the Chicago River runs right through the heart of the downtown district. Very fun to take a river cruise past all the historic buildings, or stroll the shore. The rivers in NYC border the skyline. Plus the river is green on St. Paddy's day. Fun had by all. Plus Chicago so far hasn't allowed really skinny supertalls yet. Hopefully the skinny fad will go away. Building height to width ratios should be no more than 20/1, and maybe 15/1 in my opinion. Some of the new midtown towers (perhaps not all) look like they are well over 20/1 in H/W. Some of them really do look like smokestacks from a distance. Aesthetically not satisfying in my opinion. Give me the Chrysler or Empire State anyday topped by pleasing spires.

Yeah, NYC has two main skylines. If you like sheer mass, Midtown wins. If you like balanced and a scenic view of the harbor, bridges, etc, Lower Manhattan is the best in the past and the best now.

Not to bring sadness but the Twin Towers were as iconic as it gets, a strong symbol of a previous era.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jd3189 (Post 8697290)

Yeah, NYC has two main skylines. If you like sheer mass, Midtown wins. If you like balanced and a scenic view of the harbor, bridges, etc, Lower Manhattan is the best in the past and the best now.

For the vistas, I think Midtown really makes it. But lower Manhattan is regal in the how it looks along the waterfront.