daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Architecture

Architecture news and discussions on all buildings types and urban spaces
» Classic Architecture | European Classic Architecture and Landscapes | Public Space | Shopping Architecture | Design & Lifestyle | Urban Renewal and Redevelopment



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


View Poll Results: Which city has a better skyline?
New York City 165 61.80%
Chicago 102 38.20%
Voters: 267. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools
Old April 28th, 2009, 06:17 PM   #181
ElCrioyo
Ed.v.cas.baeZ
 
ElCrioyo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Bronx, NYC- Santo Domingo, Dominican Rep
Posts: 2,629
Likes (Received): 1668

i think new york is better...but it may be influenced by the fact that i live here
ElCrioyo no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old April 28th, 2009, 06:18 PM   #182
Northsider
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,522
Likes (Received): 121

Quote:
Moreover, unlike a new city like Chicago which didn't even exist during Colonial times, New York's 400 years of architectural history also make it vastly superior.
But we're talking about skylines, not how old the city is.
Northsider no está en línea  
Old April 28th, 2009, 06:28 PM   #183
FabriFlorence
Registered User
 
FabriFlorence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Firenze
Posts: 1,761
Likes (Received): 393

It's a giants battle but I voted for Chicago. In my opinion its skyline is insuperable.
FabriFlorence no está en línea  
Old April 28th, 2009, 06:37 PM   #184
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by dnobsemajdnob View Post
The two thousand 17 story buildings built in the 1920's are one of the things that make NY vastly superior to Chicago from an architectural perspective.
Ignorance is bliss.

Quote:
Moreover, unlike a new city like Chicago which didn't even exist during Colonial times, New York's 400 years of architectural history also make it vastly superior.
Name me one building in the NYC skyline that dates prior to 1850.
tpe no está en línea  
Old April 28th, 2009, 06:51 PM   #185
rise_against
Olde Guard
 
rise_against's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Toronto - Seoul
Posts: 1,806
Likes (Received): 8

I always go back and forth on this one:

In person NYC is much more impressive, almost overwhelming.
In pictures i think Chicago has the much nicer skyline.
I thought NYC was the more interesting city overall.
The built form of both cities is impressive, i love the older stuff in NYC but i adore the international "boxes" in Chicago. People dont realize how hard and special it is to make exceptional "boxes". Besides its not as if Chicago was all boxes, there is a great mix of buildings there as well.

Overall: Both are great in different ways. I dont know how someone can bash one or the other without letting hatred or bias creep in. In the past (back in the ol' city vs city days...are we allowed to do this again?) i think i voted for NYC, so today i think im feeling Chicago...really impossible to make up my mind though.
__________________
"Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media." - Noam Chomsky
rise_against no está en línea  
Old April 28th, 2009, 06:54 PM   #186
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCrioyo View Post
i think new york is better...but it may be influenced by the fact that i live here
That is fair enough.

I think the NYC skyline is best appreciated in sections. Taking all of these sections together can be both overwhelming and confusing. The overall effect is nonetheless powerful and impressive.
tpe no está en línea  
Old April 28th, 2009, 08:37 PM   #187
dnobsemajdnob
Expert
 
dnobsemajdnob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 546
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpe View Post
Ignorance is bliss.



Name me one building in the NYC skyline that dates prior to 1850.
Skyscrapers did not exist before 1850. I was responding to the post which referred to NY's scores of 20 story buildings constructed during the 1920s. That being said, from skyline shots of lower Manhattan, one can see several colonial era buildings including this one.

dnobsemajdnob no está en línea  
Old April 28th, 2009, 09:23 PM   #188
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by dnobsemajdnob View Post
Skyscrapers did not exist before 1850. I was responding to the post which referred to NY's scores of 20 story buildings constructed during the 1920s. That being said, from skyline shots of lower Manhattan, one can see several colonial era buildings including this one.
You don't see such buildings in the skyline. For example, you can't even see St. Pats, which is buried by all the later buildings.

They certainly don't contribute anything to the present skyline.

And Boston and Williamsburg have superior architecture from the colonial period. Does it make Boston a better architectural city than NYC?

Compared to Venice and the Italian cities, NYC is a baby architecturally and artistically. Does it mean that NYC is not significant architecturally?

Answer: no. NYC is significant, even if it represents really significant architecture from just the past 100 years or so.

The same with Chicago. Just because NYC is older doesn't mean that it is more significant architecturally (besides, none of the post-1850 buildings in NYC are architecturally that significant, on a global scale).

The fact that there is a Chicago School of Architecture speaks for itself -- there is no equivalent New York School of Architecture, as accepted universally in architecture history.

Last edited by tpe; April 28th, 2009 at 09:29 PM.
tpe no está en línea  
Old April 28th, 2009, 09:35 PM   #189
dnobsemajdnob
Expert
 
dnobsemajdnob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 546
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpe View Post
You don't see such buildings in the skyline. For example, you can't even see St. Pats, which is buried by all the later buildings.

They certainly don't contribute anything to the present skyline.

And Boston and Williamsburg have superior architecture from the colonial period. Does it make Boston a better architectural city than NYC?

....
The same with Chicago. Just because NYC is older doesn't mean that it is more significant architecturally (besides, none of the post-1850 buildings in NYC are architecturally that significant, on a global scale).

The fact that there is a Chicago School of Architecture speaks for itself -- there is no equivalent New York School of Architecture, as accepted universally in architecture history.
The building that I posted is visible in skyline shots, as are others.

NY has more colonial buildings than Boston or Williamsburg and older ones too. Boston's oldest is Paul Revere's house from the 1660's. NY has several that pre-date that. Most of the colonial buildings in Williamsburg aren't even genuine. They're reproductions.

Who cares is there's a Chicago School of Architecture? That's a ridiculous argument.
dnobsemajdnob no está en línea  
Old April 28th, 2009, 09:49 PM   #190
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by dnobsemajdnob View Post
The building that I posted is visible in skyline shots, as are others.
But it doesn't contribute to the skyline -- there is no question about it.

St. Pats is much taller and much more imposing, and yet it is never mentioned when it comes to the NYC skyline.

To say that such buildings contribute to the NYC skyline is a stetch.

Quote:
NY has more colonial buildings than Boston or Williamsburg and older ones too. Boston's oldest is Paul Revere's house from the 1660's. NY has several that pre-date that. Most of the colonial buildings in Williamsburg aren't even genuine. They're reproductions.
You see? You fell into the familiar trap. WE are talking about QUALITY here, and not QUANTITY.

A lot of crap is a lot of crap. A diamond is a diamond.

Name me ONE colonial building in NYC that can hold a candle to the Williamsburg building attributed to Christopher Wren himself.



Quote:
Who cares is there's a Chicago School of Architecture? That's a ridiculous argument.
Who cares? Why, people who are actually not IGNORANT of architecture, of course!

Last edited by tpe; April 28th, 2009 at 09:58 PM.
tpe no está en línea  
Old April 28th, 2009, 10:10 PM   #191
dnobsemajdnob
Expert
 
dnobsemajdnob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 546
Likes (Received): 54

I find it quite amusing that when it comes to buildings from the 1600s, you refer to a "trap" of quality v. quantity. I hate to disillusion you, but neither New York nor New England had buildings on the scale of European ones in the 1600s. Moreover, to even dispute the quality of a building from the 1600's (even if it were located in Europe) is infantile. That being said, in response to your statement about Boston having older and a greater quantity of such buildings, you're wrong.

With respect to your inquiry of great Colonial buildings in NY that rival Williamsburg's, here's one of many.



Secondly, as noted, most of the buildings in Williamsburg are reproductions -- not originals, including that one which was reconstructed on the original site in the 1920's.

Last edited by dnobsemajdnob; April 28th, 2009 at 10:18 PM.
dnobsemajdnob no está en línea  
Old April 28th, 2009, 10:11 PM   #192
Northsider
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,522
Likes (Received): 121

dnobsemajdnob, you are basically arguing that NYC is older and has more buildings, therefore is 'better' than Chicago. If that's your argument, fine...but let's not start "who cares about Chicago school of architecture", etc.

If the thread was NYC vs Chicago: historic buildings...maybe you'd have an argument
Northsider no está en línea  
Old April 28th, 2009, 10:15 PM   #193
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by dnobsemajdnob View Post
I find it quite amusing that when it comes to buildings from the 1600s, you refer to a "trap" of quality v. quantity. I hate to disillusion you, but neither New York nor New England had buildings on the scale of European ones in the 1600s. That being said, in response to your statement about Boston having older buildings, you're wrong.

With respect to your inquiry of great Colonial buildings in NY that rival Williamsburg's, here's one of many.

Secondly, as noted, most of the buildings in Williamsburg are reproductions -- not originals, including that one which was reconstructed on the original site in the 1920's.
The Wren Building is not a reproduction. It is restored exactly as it was in the 18th century.

And surely you know of Christopher Wren, correct? Whether it was actually designed by him personally or by his Office in London, that building ranks as perhaps the most perfect colonial building in the US.

There is nothing in NYC that can equal it from the same period. Period.

The next thing you will tell me is that there are colonial buidlings in NYC that would equal this:

image hosted on flickr

Last edited by tpe; April 28th, 2009 at 11:17 PM.
tpe no está en línea  
Old April 28th, 2009, 10:31 PM   #194
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by dnobsemajdnob View Post
And by the bye, St Paul's chapel, lovely as it is, is certainly NOT architecturally significant. Architecturally, it is a pale derivative copy of THE ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT one in London:

image hosted on flickr
tpe no está en línea  
Old April 29th, 2009, 12:11 AM   #195
599GTB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 96
Likes (Received): 44

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northsider View Post
I think most people just look at NYC and see the sheer mass of concrete and think "wow! that's awesome!". As NYgirl said previously, Chicago is skyline perfection.

Not really.

And who cares what NYGirl said? She is one opinion out of the 200+ voters who overwhelmingly think NYC's skyline is perfection. I don't think Chicago's skyline is perfection.

Last edited by 599GTB; April 29th, 2009 at 12:29 AM.
599GTB no está en línea  
Old April 29th, 2009, 12:48 AM   #196
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by 599GTB View Post
Not really.

And who cares what NYGirl said? She is one opinion out of the 200+ voters who overwhelmingly think NYC's skyline is perfection. I don't think Chicago's skyline is perfection.

NYGirl has roots in NYC and Chicago, and is familiar with both cities.

She is certainly more qualified than many people here.

And as for the poll, I would believe an architect of Frank Gehry's stature first before any of these 200+ opinions.

After all, there will always be more cockroaches in the world than people. So will this make garbage any more tastier to us, simply because there are more roaches who prefer it?

Please don't take the analogy too seriously! But I hope you get what I mean...
tpe no está en línea  
Old April 29th, 2009, 01:40 AM   #197
Northsider
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,522
Likes (Received): 121

Quote:
Not really.
Thanks. That comment really helps move this thread along.
Quote:
And who cares what NYGirl said?
Apparently I do. I have a lot of respect for her. Who the heck are you?
Quote:
She is one opinion out of the 200+ voters who overwhelmingly think NYC's skyline is perfection
Please read the whole thread and then comment. I'm not going to post what I think her opinion is...I just reposted what she posted and I totally agree with it.
Quote:
I don't think Chicago's skyline is perfection.
That's nice. Thanks for your comment. Any reasons?
Northsider no está en línea  
Old April 29th, 2009, 02:07 AM   #198
Ni3lS
Moderator
 
Ni3lS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Stuttgart
Posts: 16,465
Likes (Received): 3423

Voted for Chicago. Chicago's skyline is way better IMO. Looks more balanced to me. Some of the towers are pointing out of the skyline, I like that. In NYC you have a lot of towers at the same height. It's like one block concrete. I don't want to put NYC next to Sao Paulo for example. But if they keep building at the same height, it will get there. Sao Paulo is seriously a skyline I hate. It's all the same height, no towers pointing out, you don't even know what's the middle and what's the end of the skyline. In Chicago it's easy to see how they built up that skyline. You can see the end, the middle etc. Like I said. It's perfectly balanced.
__________________
MY SHOWCASE
FLICKR / MY TRAVELS:
[2016] > Norway, Valencia, Arvidsjaur, Innsbruck, Moselvalley, Geneva, Lisbon, Basel, Vosges, Munich, Trieste, Barcelona, Nürburgring, Frankfurt, Spa, Berlin, Wuppertal, Dortmund, Como, Monaco, Saint-Tropez, Tegernsee, Hamburg, Lübeck, Madrid, Stuttgart, Faro, Hochgurgl
[2017] > Düsseldorf, Mallorca, Geneva, Annecy, Montafon, Vorarlberg, Barcelona, Zürich, Crete, Lisbon, Cascais, Málaga, Ronda, Dolomiti, Sistiana, Kitzbühel
Ni3lS no está en línea  
Old April 29th, 2009, 02:07 AM   #199
599GTB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 96
Likes (Received): 44

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpe View Post
NYGirl has roots in NYC and Chicago, and is familiar with both cities.

She is certainly more qualified than many people here.
How funny, because that poster has roots in both cities her opinion regarding skylines is seen as more valid? Quite a stupid argument, don't you think? Who told you I (or the other 200) voters have no roots in Chicago and/or New York City? Oh that's right, you just assumed it because Chicago is being walloped.

I suppose I have more architectural authority than the both of you since I was born in Rome.

Quote:
And as for the poll, I would believe an architect of Frank Gehry's stature first before any of these 200+ opinions.
Another quite ignorant statement. What did he say anyway? While you're at it, compile the opinions of the other top 100 architects instead of picking and choosing. I don't want to start a city vs. city, but whenever I'm discussing cities/architecture/whatever and it doesn't go Chicago's way, I'm always presented with some random quote or opinion from some sort of "expert" to show me that I (and the public) are both wrong. It never fails as evidenced by this thread.

Quote:
After all, there will always be more cockroaches in the world than people. So will this make garbage any more tastier to us, simply because there are more roaches who prefer it?

Please don't take the analogy too seriously! But I hope you get what I mean...
There are no "facts" regarding which city has better skylines or a better buildings....because it's all opinion.

I think New York is superior to Chicago in both aspects but my opinion doesn't make it a fact. People prefer New York's skyline over Chicago but that doesn't make it a fact that New York's is better either.

Last edited by 599GTB; April 29th, 2009 at 02:19 AM.
599GTB no está en línea  
Old April 29th, 2009, 04:54 AM   #200
dnobsemajdnob
Expert
 
dnobsemajdnob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 546
Likes (Received): 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpe View Post
The Wren Building is not a reproduction. It is restored exactly as it was in the 18th century.

And surely you know of Christopher Wren, correct?....
I'm English, so yes, I know Sir (Thank you) Christopher Wren.

The building you note, unlike the Capital building on the other side of Gloucester Street (and for the most part, all of Williamsburg) is not a 100% reproduction. It's a 99% reproduction. As per Williamsburg's website:


"The Wren Building bears the name of the distinguished English architect, Sir Christopher Wren, who may possibly have influenced its original design. Construction began in 1695. The building sustained serious damage in fires in 1705, 1859, and 1862, but the massive exterior walls of the Wren Building are largely original. The Wren Building now has the outward appearance that it showed from early in the 18th century. It is located on the College of William and Mary campus."
dnobsemajdnob no está en línea  


Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu