edsg25
October 25th, 2004, 11:20 PM
When an expanding NYC in the early part of the 19th century decided it needed an orderly way of growing, it made a remarkably wise chose. It grided the entire northern 3/4 of Manhattan island with N/S avenues and E/W streets. But to make it work, New York had to flatten the terrain, remove the dips and the hills to make that marvelous platform on which the island has grown.
Chicago had it easier. Just grid the streets. No hills. No dips. Just flat, flat land. Marvelously flat land. Ready to develop at a minute's notice.
For all the love of the beauty that hills and mountains can create, in an urban sense they can be a pain in the neck for transportation and construction. and for the hustle and bustle for which cities are known.
And with all that love of hills and mountains, we sometimes neglect to realize how beautiful flat land can truly be. And how outstanding a platform it is to build upon and to draw people together.
Chicago turns flatness into an art form, in such the same way that San Francisco does with hills.
The Chicago skyline rises dramatically and triumpantly on the flat plane, its presence noted from miles awy. Did you ever drive south on 294 from Great America and see Sears Tower in the distance. I have. That's dominance.
Flatness makes Chicago accessible. It ties it all together. It makes it walkable. It allows for the spectacular formality of Grant Park. Two cities, Chicago and Milwaukee, are 90 miles apart on the shores of Lake Michigan. Both have done an admirable job of making their lakefronts an asset. But there is one big difference that comes to my mind: in Milwaukee, you have to go down hill, below the bluffs, to get to the beach and park. Beautiful, and in a way secluded that Chicago cannot match. But not easily accessible. Not made for walking. In Milwaukee, less a part of the city as a refuge from it. Clark, Lincoln, Archer, and others offer similiar pleasure.
Downtown Chicago is a stage for some of the world's greatest architecture in part because it so flat, so conducive to displaying high rise structures.
Our neighboorhoods are flat, grided, tied together. Walking is easy. Street life vibrant. And the skyline looms in the distance; we are all part of the same whole. Despite their distinctiveness, Chicago neighbors seamlessly flow together. A drive down a street like Milw Ave from the NW side draws you in, the skyline growing larger and larger until around Halsted, when you start becoming a part of it.
I really believe that one of the biggest difference Chicago has from NY and LA is the unity that topography provides. No wide rivers like NYC, dividing the city into boroughs. No mountains spliting LA into city and valley. Just one beautifully unified Chicago.
I love rough terrain. It is spectacular. I know the Midwest has less of it than other places, but I enjoy what I can get (the hills in Galena, downhill views of Lake Michigan, the rugged coast lines of Door County and Macinack, Brown County hills in fall, etc.) But flatness brings beauty, functionality, and urbanity to Chicago. I love it this way.
Chicago had it easier. Just grid the streets. No hills. No dips. Just flat, flat land. Marvelously flat land. Ready to develop at a minute's notice.
For all the love of the beauty that hills and mountains can create, in an urban sense they can be a pain in the neck for transportation and construction. and for the hustle and bustle for which cities are known.
And with all that love of hills and mountains, we sometimes neglect to realize how beautiful flat land can truly be. And how outstanding a platform it is to build upon and to draw people together.
Chicago turns flatness into an art form, in such the same way that San Francisco does with hills.
The Chicago skyline rises dramatically and triumpantly on the flat plane, its presence noted from miles awy. Did you ever drive south on 294 from Great America and see Sears Tower in the distance. I have. That's dominance.
Flatness makes Chicago accessible. It ties it all together. It makes it walkable. It allows for the spectacular formality of Grant Park. Two cities, Chicago and Milwaukee, are 90 miles apart on the shores of Lake Michigan. Both have done an admirable job of making their lakefronts an asset. But there is one big difference that comes to my mind: in Milwaukee, you have to go down hill, below the bluffs, to get to the beach and park. Beautiful, and in a way secluded that Chicago cannot match. But not easily accessible. Not made for walking. In Milwaukee, less a part of the city as a refuge from it. Clark, Lincoln, Archer, and others offer similiar pleasure.
Downtown Chicago is a stage for some of the world's greatest architecture in part because it so flat, so conducive to displaying high rise structures.
Our neighboorhoods are flat, grided, tied together. Walking is easy. Street life vibrant. And the skyline looms in the distance; we are all part of the same whole. Despite their distinctiveness, Chicago neighbors seamlessly flow together. A drive down a street like Milw Ave from the NW side draws you in, the skyline growing larger and larger until around Halsted, when you start becoming a part of it.
I really believe that one of the biggest difference Chicago has from NY and LA is the unity that topography provides. No wide rivers like NYC, dividing the city into boroughs. No mountains spliting LA into city and valley. Just one beautifully unified Chicago.
I love rough terrain. It is spectacular. I know the Midwest has less of it than other places, but I enjoy what I can get (the hills in Galena, downhill views of Lake Michigan, the rugged coast lines of Door County and Macinack, Brown County hills in fall, etc.) But flatness brings beauty, functionality, and urbanity to Chicago. I love it this way.