[dhuwman]

OK, looks like there has been never-ending discussion about "my city is bigger than that!" or "my city has more number of skyscrapers thus is better".

But really, do you folks think that cities with more population, more number of tall buildings, or bigger area are better cities?

 

[wjfox]

But really, do you folks think that cities with more population, more number of tall buildings, or bigger area are better cities?

Skyscrapers have VERY little actual effect on a city's overall status - they are just one single factor out of many, many things which contribute to a city's greatness.

As for population and area, it depends what city you're talking about, but there is no direct correlation between a city's greatness and its population.

 

[Daniel_Portugal]

the quality of the city DO NOT depends on its size

there are big shitty cities, small shitty cities, big great cities, small great cities!

i voted for "i dont know"

 

[Daniel_Portugal]

Skyscrapers have VERY little actual effect on a city's overall appeal - they are just one single factor out of many, many things which contribute to a city's greatness.

but mostly people in this forum dont think like that.. we have threads of a SINGLE tall building full of posts.. and threads with GREAT whole cities with few posts...

 

[jlshyang]

well, my answer: I don't think so.

I'm from a small city and now live in a much larger city but i love my hometown much more than the city i live in right now.

 

[DrJoe]

For modern cities certainly.

 

[ToRoNto g-town]

yes the bigger the better. but if you grew up in a small town ,small towns will always have a place in your heart

 

[jeicow]

I think in a lot of ways the bigger the better. It usually leads to more diversity in the "interests" of the people, but at the same time, there are amazing little places. It all depends- but the bigger the more publicity.

 

[softee]

Of course bigger isn't always better, there's are countless examples of smaller cities that kick the ass of bigger cities in terms of urbanity, culture, livibility etc.

 

[ChicagoSkyline]

Maybe or maybe not.
It all depends on the current status of city. If is already a world class city, then yes, its taller skyscrapers can give that extra acknowledgement. On the other hand, if it is a city on the move like one of the beta and alpha cities, then it really isn't a big deal!

 

[Taller Better]

I like big bustling cities, with lots of building going on. That suits me just
fine to watch a lot of highrise activity. Also I enjoy a city with excellent
culture, restaurants and nightlife. Factor in easy access to country escapes,
and you have my kind of town!

 

[fourlin]

how do you make a poll?

 

[Mr Bricks]

I think that most of us in this forum would say big cities are better because we love urbanity and mrga cities, but i think if you ask people u know u get a totaly different answer.
I think both of my parents would much rather live here in Helsinki than in London or New York.

 

[rocky]

if you are rich enough to live in the center of the city, then a 10 million + city rocks

but if you are trapped in the outter suburbs, it sucks and livin in the suburbs of a 4million or 2 million people city would be better

 

[kostya]

No. Better cities are the ones which offer quality of life. You can live without highrises

 

[eklips]

Since the sense of a city's greatness is totaly subjective, there is no real answer, some megacities are the best places in the world for some, and hell on earth for others.

 

[oskarj]

The best cities are those with clean air, good infrastructure, culture, nightlife and humane rents so you actually can afford living there aswell.

 

[Accura4Matalan]

No, definitely not.

 

[dubaiflo]

in a way i am sure skyscrapers make a city more famous, recognizable and attractive, but in general, no , they don't make a city better.

 

[streetscapeer]

I think they do (in general) I consider skyscrapers the epitome of all modern architecture....and big cities to be the epitome of modern humanity.

of course this is a generalization, but it holds true most of the time.

of course it's all subjective, but I would get a more immense feeling standing on a boat in Hong Kong's harbor, gazing at the one of the most intense settlements the Earth has ever seen....it's the grandeur of humanity, a humanity that no generation before had ever seen, or could ever imagine....than I would if I were looking down on Monaco form a villa in the hills. Monaco is utterly beautiful, and very striking, but that's all it is: rich and beautiful.

A bigger city adds a complexity that cannot be attained in smaller (and shorter) cities. There are so many neighborhoods, so many more layers, so many moving parts..it's sometimes hard to comprehend and make sense of the erratic nature of the city...... and still out of all the chaos comes a distinct order...that usually only urban lovers come to understand. I like the challenge bigger (taller) cities present to me...they are such a rebuttal to the nature our species evolved in. Of course I'll take a short, big city over a small, tall city (all else equal), but I think I'd take the taller city if they're both big or, conversely, the bigger city if they're both tall. And of course I love all different types of cities and towns and villages, and I love all of nature and the natural world. Cities are a wonderful byproduct of human nature! It's all about intensity of settlement!