Quote:
Originally Posted by kolchak
Although mountains would absolutely have an impact, it is also the lack of mountains that lead to the dramatically long, low sun angles and reflections at dusk -
I live in LA and even though there are mountains all around the impact visually is really no more dramatic than the clouds and sky can be in Chicago. In So-Cal its usually a boring, cloudless sky.
|
I am more interested in the opportunities that topography would provide for viewing the skyline, not the backdrop that it would provide in photos.
Even in London, which just has small hills, the best views are from places like Primrose Hill.
Plus, I think Chicago’s general level of urbanity is actually harmed by its endless street grid. It’s extremely underbuilt as a result, with roads that are much too wide lined by single-story commercial buildings. Some topography that broke up the grid, with hilltops mostly residential, and commercial streets forced between the hills to create denser pockets of activity, would make for a more interesting urban morphology (with more defined districts and neighborhoods).
Obviously, Chicago’s perfectly flat topography played a big role in its success as a transportation and logistics hub in the age of the railroad, but how cool would it be to picnic on a 500 foot hill out in the Northwest Side with a view of the skyline?