View Single Post
Old Posted Sep 18, 2019, 4:22 PM
Handro Handro is offline
Registered User
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,008
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
I think most would agree Chicago has greater "height discrepency" than NY. Chicago doesn't have a huge amount of midrise fabric, thus creating greater contrast between very tall and very low landscapes, which is typical in the U.S. (and even more exaggerated in the Sunbelt).

But what does this have to do with the topic? Neither city is known for repetitive elements in the skyline. There are repetitive complexes, like Presidential Towers in Chicago, but they don't dominate the skyline, as one sees in, say, Hong Kong.
Chicago's contrasts and signature towers are what make it unique. NYC is massive, but it doesn't have varied heights punctuated by a few signature towers. New York is the best US example of "massive", Chicago's is the best US example of "not quite massive but certainly unique".

Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
When I think of aesthetic skylines its Chicago

Nyc is simply massive and impressive in that right, plus its so culturally ubiquitous that its cool to see it in person. (I would guess LA is similar to people back east but I've been to it so many times I dont get that sort of feeling from it)

Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
For me it's about variability in heights and buildings from different periods.

Chicago, as mentioned above, has all of these features.

NYC does too, but it's also so huge that it's hard for buildings to stand out that aren't really huge. But its scale is what's so impressive.
Reply With Quote