Spire (Chicago) vs. Freedom Tower (NYC) vs. American Commerce Center (Philly) (compare, places)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
IMO, once your skyline has so many building, does it really matter if one city has a couple hundred more? Cities that have 500 buildings over 300ft tall is just friggin amazing. If a city has 1000, I don't know too many people who will walk counting the buildings to see which one has more.
Not extremely aesthetic, but the sheer size is what makes people in awe of New York's skyline. Chicago may not have size, density, and even architecture (at least in quantity) that Manhattan has, but in the end, it is a more graceful looking skyline.
Please speak for yourself.
To ME, not only is New York's skyline much more massive (a major plus), it's also much more aesthetically pleasing, grand and impressive than Chicago's underwhelming skyline.
Chicago has 1,106 current skyscapers while NYC has 5,819. Chicago has 92 planned skyscrapers while NYC has 135. Chicago has 32 under construction while NYC has 153. How does Chicago have a better skyline?
A better skyline is in the eye of the beholder. Chicago, in my opinion, is the most graceful looking skyline in the world.
Manhattan's skyline, that I love, looks absolutely chaotic, yet its gigantic size and density just takes people's breath.
Hong Kong's skyline, while very large and tall, is too single-dimensional as it has a very futuristic and playful look. At least, NYC and Chicago have more diverse skylines architecturally.
Chicago's skyline is just perfect. It is not small by any means, but it is not overwhelming large either. It has a friendly, majestic look and at the same time, it is looks very imposing. It is not too futuristic or playful looking like HK Shanghai or Dubai, but it is not as old, corporate, or as traditonal as Manhattan. Chicago is somewhere in between. Chicago is, to me, the perfect looking skyline. Large, dense, aestetically beautiful, majestic (yet imposing), and has the best pinnacles (Sears, Aon, Hancock, and Trump) standing out in different corners of the skyline, not old looking, but not new looking, not flashy, yet not bland.
To ME, not only is New York's skyline much more massive (a major plus), it's also much more aesthetically pleasing, grand and impressive than Chicago's underwhelming skyline.
REALLY, only thing majestic in those pictures is the Empire State Building which stands out grand and imposing over a chaotic jungle of skyscrapers. Great pics btw.
^is the greatest urban picture for me. Not overwhelming, yet not underwhelming. Not flashy, yet not bland. Not too futuristic, yet not too traditional. Chicago's skyline embodies a graceful and calm look, while still retaining an imposing presence with size, density, and gigantic skyscrapers.
it is not small by any means, but it is not overwhelming large either.
In other words - small and unimpressive. I'll take overwhelming and dramatic.
Quote:
It has a friendly, majestic look and at the same time, it is looks very imposing.
Chicago's skyline, imposing? LOL.
The only arguments I've read are:
1. It's "easier" to see buildings in Chicago. Well, buildings are easy to see in Dallas too.
2. New York Skyline is too big. Skylines can never be too big.
3. It's taller? No, it's not taller. And the obscure obsession with height is an issue for less sophisticated cities like Chicago, Houston, etc. that think taller buildings will make them more global.
The only fact here is that New York has a much larger skyline. Sure, Manhattan has size, density, architecture and everything else, but when you throw it all into the mix, it is one gigantic, chaotic looking skyline. Not extremely aesthetic, but the sheer size is what makes people in awe of New York's skyline. Chicago may not have size, density, and even architecture (at least in quantity) that Manhattan has, but in the end, it is a more graceful looking skyline.
I agree with this. NYC wins in most areas but in terms of which has a cleaner more graceful looking skyline I vote for Chicago. Manhattan just due to it's sheer size just looks jumbled and random. I am not hating on NYC, it beats Chicago in most ways but its really not perfect. Chicago has one of the most elegant skylines in the world. That might change in the future but for right now Chicago's overall sleekness is unmatched.
Last edited by Darkhyperchaos; 12-17-2009 at 08:10 PM..
I only see 2 1/2 nice looking building in chicago, and chicago is boring sorry but is true. the person that put the new york city sky line should put better pics representing nyc it will knock those chi pics off. New York City got 3 skylines middtown finacial district and Brooklyn down town, plus neighboring jersey city adds more bulk not to mention the emerging long island city in queenz. and not only the skyline makes new york great, new york city is nyc cus of its bridges tunnels subways statue of liberty and yes the grimmy tough neighborhoods and people I love it that way this tough place makes us unique.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
