Chicago: Third Best Skyline in the World? (architectural, buildings)

[coldwine]

Look, I'll make this brief.

I lived in NYC. Specifically Manhattan and the Bronx. Now the Bronx has some awesome architecture, in that manner in which extremely dense urban neighborhoods can have awesome architecture-- tight, close together, but very original. Also, brownstones, to which I say

But Manhattan... I do not understand the allure. I really don't. It looks exactly like what it is: a very small piece of land where buildings were thrown up to meet what was/is, for all intents and purposes, unlimited demand. It's fascinating to watch the unending skyscraper canyons as they twist and curve (the grid is a square, many neighborhoods are not). But the actual buildings are gray or brown, dirty, plain and... oppressive in that manner in which tenements can be oppressive. There's just so much unremitting, unforgivable ugliness there. Manhattan is very much a beauty starved island, and if you spend time there for months on end you can literally feel how sick the earth is.

Hong Kong is simply butt **** ugly. I have nothing more to say. It's China, there are no building standards, and I guess it looks impressive when considering scope. Other than that, their cities are not built like ours. You have just miles upon miles of tenement buildings, all of which look identical. And all of which are identically plain. After three months, "plain" becomes "ugly" and you come to crave something different. It's not even attractive the way London can be, which is also a city that's never known any form of architectural birth control. London has twisty, curvy streets and you can feel the lived-in, used-up density of that city. The architecture goes from stunning to oppressive, like all cities, but the curvy grid makes the most of it. Hong Kong, Beijing and Taiwan all look very oddly spaced. Like a mouth with teeth knocked out.

Chicago does not have the continuous urban density of the other megacities. Because of the focus on the skyscraper, much density that would have been spread out over square miles of 7 or 8 story buildings instead became concentrated in one huge, hulking skyscraper. But the interesting thing is that neighborhoods that are high-density low-rise are always full; skyscrapers retain density but their prohibitive cost prices out many people who could otherwise afford to live in a 3 flat. Or a walkup. So Chicago has these quasi-suburban neighborhoods of detached housing that sort of resembles an urban neighborhood but functions more like a suburb. And then BAM! Block after block of skyscraper.

Urban neighborhoods, the super dense, jam-packed together collection of apartment buildings, walkups and midrises, are what make a city a city. That's where the life of a city breaths, thinks and moves. Skyscrapers tend to punctuate holes in those neighborhoods by unevenly distributing density that would otherwise collect, spread out and accumulate in like-kind elsewhere. It's also where the best architecture really is, because people want to see variation. In my personal opinion, from what I've seen and where I've lived, Chicago has the best skyscraper architecture. It fails miserably in the actual urban neighborhood section, with some notable exceptions.

I lied. This was not brief.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by coldwine

I lied. This was not brief.

Let's make that happily not brief. Briefness would have robbed us of your excellent commentary and detail.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by Avengerfire

That was a stupid comment.

true. but a mere pittance of the stupidity of the eight years that were the basis of the comment.

[Avengerfire]

The stupidity of the current CIC is going to make the last one look like a genius.

[MassVt]

Originally Posted by coldwine

Look, I'll make this brief.

I lived in NYC. Specifically Manhattan and the Bronx. Now the Bronx has some awesome architecture, in that manner in which extremely dense urban neighborhoods can have awesome architecture-- tight, close together, but very original. Also, brownstones, to which I say

But Manhattan... I do not understand the allure. I really don't. It looks exactly like what it is: a very small piece of land where buildings were thrown up to meet what was/is, for all intents and purposes, unlimited demand. It's fascinating to watch the unending skyscraper canyons as they twist and curve (the grid is a square, many neighborhoods are not). But the actual buildings are gray or brown, dirty, plain and... oppressive in that manner in which tenements can be oppressive. There's just so much unremitting, unforgivable ugliness there. Manhattan is very much a beauty starved island, and if you spend time there for months on end you can literally feel how sick the earth is.

Hong Kong is simply butt **** ugly. I have nothing more to say. It's China, there are no building standards, and I guess it looks impressive when considering scope. Other than that, their cities are not built like ours. You have just miles upon miles of tenement buildings, all of which look identical. And all of which are identically plain. After three months, "plain" becomes "ugly" and you come to crave something different. It's not even attractive the way London can be, which is also a city that's never known any form of architectural birth control. London has twisty, curvy streets and you can feel the lived-in, used-up density of that city. The architecture goes from stunning to oppressive, like all cities, but the curvy grid makes the most of it. Hong Kong, Beijing and Taiwan all look very oddly spaced. Like a mouth with teeth knocked out.

Chicago does not have the continuous urban density of the other megacities. Because of the focus on the skyscraper, much density that would have been spread out over square miles of 7 or 8 story buildings instead became concentrated in one huge, hulking skyscraper. But the interesting thing is that neighborhoods that are high-density low-rise are always full; skyscrapers retain density but their prohibitive cost prices out many people who could otherwise afford to live in a 3 flat. Or a walkup. So Chicago has these quasi-suburban neighborhoods of detached housing that sort of resembles an urban neighborhood but functions more like a suburb. And then BAM! Block after block of skyscraper.

Urban neighborhoods, the super dense, jam-packed together collection of apartment buildings, walkups and midrises, are what make a city a city. That's where the life of a city breaths, thinks and moves. Skyscrapers tend to punctuate holes in those neighborhoods by unevenly distributing density that would otherwise collect, spread out and accumulate in like-kind elsewhere. It's also where the best architecture really is, because people want to see variation. In my personal opinion, from what I've seen and where I've lived, Chicago has the best skyscraper architecture. It fails miserably in the actual urban neighborhood section, with some notable exceptions.

I lied. This was not brief.

...New York's skyline, while impressive, just seems ubiquitous, as though there's no end to it, until you reach the ends of Manhatten itself. In Chicago, the best thing, in my view, is the tremendous sight of aqua-blue Lake Michigan, which at least from a distance, appears to be quite clean and attractive.

A contrast to this might be the industrial-green sewage which permeated the Milwaukee River ( at least it did 10 years ago). Some restaurants were advertising "riverside dining", which probably didn't do much for the patrons' appetites...

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by Avengerfire

The stupidity of the current CIC is going to make the last one look like a genius.

you're right, of course....hannity, limbaugh, beck, coulter, o'reilly, cheney, bonner, sarah, steel, and some 20% of the population are in full agreement with you.

avenger, this is not a political thread and I'm guilty of interjecting politics into it. sorry. gallow humor, i'm sure, in light of the fact that Bush & Company and our financial and corporate systems have pretty much put an end to any posibility that this country has a real future. It's a skyscraper thread and the chance of Dallas's lame skyline or even Chicago's brilliant one growing and becoming a current topic of conversation is a dead issue. Our current CIC won't be able to put that stupidity you speak of to any real damage because there is little left to damage any more. The deeds been done. And even Obama's rosy we'll-turn-the-corner on this economic mess is little more than an unachievable pipe dream.

sorry, Avenger, I'm not into the politics of the personality. Obama is like every other politican...flawed. And far more corporate than most liberals thought when they pinned hopes on him that were in their heads, not his his.

But it is absurd to think that Obama would be worse than Bush as it would be to think that any of our presidents....Democrats like Carter or Clinton (not much of a Dem, actually) or Regean or Geo HW Walker Bush could compare with the pure GWB maddness.

Again, I apologize for interjecting politics here. Others don't have to tell me: it was wrong. And I won't do it again. I am clearly off base here and I know it.

Avenger, I don't know how any reasonable person who saw this great country go down the tubes under Cheney/Bush and who see the real president from those years going around the country justifying his torture, inhumanity, and insanity can come to another conclusion.

It's not about partisan politics. Both the Democrats and Republicans suck. Big time. I'll be damned if I'm going to defend the Dem's or Obama. And it is not about political philosophy. It is about irresponsible, diabolical behavior, a lack of morality, strong personality disorder, greed and hubris of a cabal that is considered to be criminal in nature across much of the United States and even more so, around the world: the GWB administration.

Again, folks, sorry for this post. I was content with my initial lame joke, but since Avenger raised the issue with me, I felt a need to address it. My addressing is through now.And I hope that most of you were able to ignore it. It didn't belong as part of a skyscraper discussion.

[Steve-o]

Originally Posted by Avengerfire

That was a stupid comment.

Yeah it was.

I still think Chicago's skyline is the best in the US, though. NYC easily wins in size and density, but Chicago's is just more gorgeous and balanced. Easily trounces NYC in that manner. And it just feels so open, too. The lake is the cherry on top in Chicago's case.

[tollfree]

Chicago's skyline is really nice but could look more modern. Anyways, I think given the usual nostalgia found on these forums, most of you are proud it looks a bit archaic.

Minneapolis for example has a much smaller skyline, but it looks entirely modern.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by RonnieJonez

Chicago's skyline is really nice but could look more modern. Anyways, I think given the usual nostalgia found on these forums, most of you are proud it looks a bit archaic.

Minneapolis for example has a much smaller skyline, but it looks entirely modern.

So what? Looking "modern" as you describe it doesn't mean anything when you talk about a city like Minneapolis. Take a look at a textbook for a class on modern architecture, and see how many Minneapolis buildings are in there. I'll give you a hint. It's a number less than one. And how many Chicago buildings are in a typical modern architecture text book? Dozens. Literally dozens. The same goes for New York. Minneapolis is not even a blip on the architectural radar.

You are so clearly a troll, and so clearly clueless.

[tollfree]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

So what? Looking "modern" as you describe it doesn't mean anything when you talk about a city like Minneapolis. Take a look at a textbook for a class on modern architecture, and see how many Minneapolis buildings are in there. I'll give you a hint. It's a number less than one. And how many Chicago buildings are in a typical modern architecture text book? Dozens. Literally dozens. The same goes for New York. Minneapolis is not even a blip on the architectural radar.

You are so clearly a troll, and so clearly clueless.

So because an author says so...it's automatically right?

Chicago's skyline during the day...isn't that pretty. Too many buildings look old. At night, it's beautiful.

Minneapolis looks like a more "futuristic" city, like you'd see in Japan or something just going off their modernity. I could careless what some author thinks about that and whether they made the endangered buildings list.

Seattle's skyline also has this effect. It is almost 2010 by the way, having a bunch of buildings that represent 1850 would only be impressive on this forum.