Does Chicago have any areas with Manhattan type density?

[QuantumX]

I would have more to say about this, but it would take us even farther off topic and would not be an argument for the Chicago forum. Those interested will simply have to dig deeper themselves. Thanks for the insight Yankeesfan1000 and I hope you all liked the Chicago photo I posted. I'm not sure who took it. I've had it in my files for years now.

[QuantumX]

This much I will say though while staying on topic. Regardless of who built what, when, where, and for what reason, skyscrapers have to be planted in bedrock in order to ensure you have a stable structure without the ground settling unevenly. If you don't plant them in bedrock, and you don't have a problem, you are damn lucky.

Now, if the way the bedrock courses under New York were not a factor in skyscraper development and it were practical and economically feasible to dig deeper down to the bedrock between downtown Manhattan and midtown Manhattan and build skyscrapers, Manhattan's skyline would more closely resemble Chicago's skyline with the two business districts, downtown and midtown, meeting in-between each other by now. Instead, we still have these two very densely packed clusters of skyscrapers in New York that I really don't think Chicago should be aspiring to. Yes, density is good if it's good density, meaning people are able to live, work, shop, and play in the same cluster of buildings because most of their needs are met there. That is good density.

[yankeesfan1000]

Feel free to read the essay. It's not that long and is pretty interesting.

Right but what you're overlooking is that Manhattan did have the skyline you're suggesting it should have had and had it for a long time, until the city stepped in and started to implement zoning regulations which basically said you can only build what we now think of as tall buildings in Lower Manhattan and Midtown as a result of the construction of Penn Station and Grand Central and the city realizing the importance of concentrating business districts around mass transit infrastructure.

So again, buildings like the Met Life Tower which when completed was the tallest building in the world, Flatiron, Met Life Building, and anything over 10 stories really, that we don't think of being tall today, were immensely tall buildings when built.

So the mistake you're making is your not adjusting your definition of a high rise or skyscraper for the appropriate period. So in 1900 anything over 300 feet was very tall, but even by 1940 or 1920 that was much impressive.

[Mr Downtown]

Here's the study (PDF) debunking the myth

that Manhattan developed two business centers—downtown and midtown—because bedrock is close to the surface in these locations, with a bedrock “valley” deep below the surface in between. We measure the effects of building costs associated with bedrock depths, relative to other important economic variables in the location of early Manhattan skyscrapers. We find that bedrock depths had very little influence on the creation of separate business districts; rather its poly-centric development was due to residential and manufacturing patterns, and public transportation hubs.

It's particularly irrelevant when talking about Chicago, as bedrock is generally 80 to 100 feet below the surface here.

[QuantumX]

Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000

Feel free to read the essay. It's not that long and is pretty interesting.

Yes, I've already read that and more. Yes, it is pretty interesting.

Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000

Right but what you're overlooking is that Manhattan did have the skyline you're suggesting it should have had and had it for a long time, until the city stepped in and started to implement zoning regulations which basically said you can only build what we now think of as tall buildings in Lower Manhattan and Midtown as a result of the construction of Penn Station and Grand Central and the city realizing the importance of concentrating business districts around mass transit infrastructure.

I'm not overlooking anything. I understand that this is why business districts sprang up where they did. But as far as this being the reason Manhattan density is what it is today and not Chicago-type density, I don't buy it.

Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000

So the mistake you're making is your not adjusting your definition of a high rise or skyscraper for the appropriate period. So in 1900 anything over 300 feet was very tall, but even by 1940 or 1920 that was much impressive.

I'm not making the mistake you think I'm making. I just don't think it's relevant.

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Here's the study (PDF) debunking the myth

that Manhattan developed two business centers—downtown and midtown—because bedrock is close to the surface in these locations, with a bedrock “valley” deep below the surface in between. We measure the effects of building costs associated with bedrock depths, relative to other important economic variables in the location of early Manhattan skyscrapers. We find that bedrock depths had very little influence on the creation of separate business districts; rather its poly-centric development was due to residential and manufacturing patterns, and public transportation hubs.

It's particularly irrelevant when talking about Chicago, as bedrock is generally 80 to 100 feet below the surface here.

Yes, I read this too! And no, it is not irrelevant when talking about Chicago on a thread titled "Does Chicago have any areas with Manhattan type density?" I say "Yes, around the Willis Tower and around the John Hancock Center" and the skyline joins in the middle. All I'm saying is that I think this would have happened eventually in Manhattan if the depth of the bedrock truly were not that big of an economic factor, not that it had anything to do with the creation of two separate business districts. This is why I prefer the Chicago skyline over the New York skyline because two points joined together to create one contiguous skyline, though less dense than the Manhattan skyline. I like the type of density Chicago has and prefer it to New York's.