Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford
That's like the worst comparison. Neither NYC nor Chicago are known for repetitive highrise clusters. If anything, they're quite unusual in not having a significant share of the Hong Kong or Moscow style residential mass-production highrise clusters.
The best North American example of such a style would probably be Toronto. Toronto presents a pretty meaningful contrast to American-style skylines.
|
Miami is also like that too. Just any overwhelming amount of "mass production high rise clusters". No supertalls, just huge number of mostly residential 400-800 footers.
I kind of like Cincinnati. Nice example of a smaller skyline with a decent mix of old and new. Carew Tower is a nice 1920s example.
L.A. missed out on taller early 2oth century skyscrapers because of the old 150 foot height limit it imposed (dumbly). L.A. even in the 1920s could have had several 400 foot+ art decos/neo gothics etc. if not for that law. So the L.A. skyline is dominated by lots of post 1950s modernist/postmodern towers, mostly flat topped and lots and lots of pre 1950 150 footers with a couple that were allowed to go a bit higher with clock towers/spires (e.g. Eastern Columbia). Not that they are bad--they are good (e.g. Eastern Columbia) & are being refurbished--but the height is pretty uniform 150 feet. City Hall was the only tall building in the 1920s significantly exempted from the law (454' tall). Would love to see L.A. put up some art deco inspired towers today to make up for the earlier height ban.