HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2019, 8:34 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 21,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Toronto and Chicago's skyline seem eerily similar from a distance.
i don't know about that. the CN tower is such a dead give away for toronto at just about any distance. it's SO much taller than anything else in toronto that it makes for one hell of a distinctive and defining exclamation point.

and chicago has the sears/hancock double antenna bookends that give its skyline a fairly distinctive silhouette at distance as well.

maybe i'm just a nerd who pays too much attention to these kinds of details, but i could never mistake one of these for the other from the opposite sides of their respective lakes.



ACV_1464 by photolitherland, on Flickr


https://www.flickr.com/photos/erocketship7/44618201742
__________________
He has to go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2019, 8:44 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
i don't know about that. the CN tower is such a dead give away for toronto at just about any distance. it's SO much taller than anything else in toronto that it makes for one hell of a distinctive and defining exclamation point.

and chicago has the sears/hancock double antenna bookends that give its skyline a fairly distinctive silhouette at distance as well.

maybe i'm just a nerd who pays too much attention to these kinds of details, but i could never mistake one of these for the other from the opposite sides of their respective lakes.
If you took out the dead giveaway towers, they look extremely similar in terms of scale and layout from afar.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2019, 8:50 PM
IrishIllini IrishIllini is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 973
I can see how the average American would mistake Toronto for Chicago from afar. Toronto and Vancouver are nice cities, but up close they both look too Sim City-ish. A lot of it looks the same - especially in Vancouver. A smaller skyline can be inspiring if the buildings hold their own. Pittsburgh and SF are nice to look at.

The beloved is a good mix of size and uniqueness IMO. The views from the west are underrated.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2019, 8:50 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 21,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
If you took out the dead giveaway towers
well, sure, take out the icons of anyplace and you could be anywhere.

the "dead giveaway towers" are precisely why i don't think they look eerily similar at a distance.

but like is said, i'm a dyed-in-the-wool skyscraper nerd, so it's probably impossible for me to not see those distinctions.
__________________
He has to go.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Sep 18, 2019 at 9:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2019, 9:52 PM
jd3189's Avatar
jd3189 jd3189 is offline
An Optimistic Realist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Loma Linda, CA / West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 3,956
I like NYC's skyline for the sense of scale as well. But I will say it was better and more balanced in the 1930s and the later 20th century with the Twin Towers.


At those times, the ESB simply dominated Midtown along with the Chrysler to a certain extent. The WTC totally dominated lower Manhattan, which at one point was dominated by a collection of signature towers that represented the economic might of those who make Wall Street what it is today.

The skyline was just epic. Iconic beyond words. A mass of skyscrapers in each district dominated by one or two colossal giants in a island setting that could be seen from miles away, land and water.

Those editions of the NYC skyline are the best ones in my book. Represented the power of the city and America.
__________________
There is only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self.
-Aldous Huxley

Continue improving until the end.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2019, 9:57 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
well, sure, take out the icons of anyplace and you could be anywhere.
I don't really agree. If you took out the CN Tower, Sears, and John Hancock, I'd know I was looking at either Chicago or Toronto, but I wouldn't quickly know which one. I'd wouldn't confuse Chicago for just about any other city in North America.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2019, 10:00 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 21,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
I don't really agree.
i wasn't speaking literally.

the icons of a given skyline tend to define it and hence why i disagreed with your initial assertion that the chicago and toronto skylines are "eerily similar at a distance".

their respective skyline-defining icons make that impossible for me to see. that's all.

in the interest of not dragging it out further, it's probably time to agree to disagree.
__________________
He has to go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2019, 4:37 AM
SFBruin SFBruin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 283
Chicago really needs to get rid of that red building and/or change its color. Just my 2c.

In terms of the question at hand, I like skylines with a healthy distance between skyscrapers. So like LA before the additional of the Wilshire Grand, or something like that.
__________________
I don't read. I apologize in advance.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2019, 5:06 AM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 25,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBruin View Post
Chicago really needs to get rid of that red building and/or change its color. Just my 2c.

In terms of the question at hand, I like skylines with a healthy distance between skyscrapers. So like LA before the additional of the Wilshire Grand, or something like that.
Nooo. I love that red building. Stands out and is iconic...for a 70's box. As for skylines, I'm here in Chicago right now and am reminded why this skyline is my favorite...proportion, massing and aesthetics. New York is iconic at night and is massive but more chaotic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2019, 10:55 AM
CaliNative CaliNative is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
That's like the worst comparison. Neither NYC nor Chicago are known for repetitive highrise clusters. If anything, they're quite unusual in not having a significant share of the Hong Kong or Moscow style residential mass-production highrise clusters.

The best North American example of such a style would probably be Toronto. Toronto presents a pretty meaningful contrast to American-style skylines.
Miami is also like that too. Just any overwhelming amount of "mass production high rise clusters". No supertalls, just huge number of mostly residential 400-800 footers.

I kind of like Cincinnati. Nice example of a smaller skyline with a decent mix of old and new. Carew Tower is a nice 1920s example.

L.A. missed out on taller early 2oth century skyscrapers because of the old 150 foot height limit it imposed (dumbly). L.A. even in the 1920s could have had several 400 foot+ art decos/neo gothics etc. if not for that law. So the L.A. skyline is dominated by lots of post 1950s modernist/postmodern towers, mostly flat topped and lots and lots of pre 1950 150 footers with a couple that were allowed to go a bit higher with clock towers/spires (e.g. Eastern Columbia). Not that they are bad--they are good (e.g. Eastern Columbia) & are being refurbished--but the height is pretty uniform 150 feet. City Hall was the only tall building in the 1920s significantly exempted from the law (454' tall). Would love to see L.A. put up some art deco inspired towers today to make up for the earlier height ban.

Last edited by CaliNative; Sep 19, 2019 at 11:12 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2019, 12:49 PM
Jawnadelphia's Avatar
Jawnadelphia Jawnadelphia is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Phila., PA
Posts: 2,115
Old and new - Broad Street, Philadelphia:


http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...65#post8691265
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2019, 1:02 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 17,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBruin View Post
Chicago really needs to get rid of that red building and/or change its color. Just my 2c.
Huh? That thing kicks ass! If they ever try to paint it a different color I will hold a protest in front of he building
__________________
Eat less
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2019, 1:29 PM
Jawnadelphia's Avatar
Jawnadelphia Jawnadelphia is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Phila., PA
Posts: 2,115
^Love that red tower. Philly is going to get its own red skyscraper very soon.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2019, 1:33 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 21,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBruin View Post
Chicago really needs to get rid of that red building and/or change its color.
one trillion percent disagree.

after nearly a half century, Big Red is now a chicago skyline classic. a damn fine work of international style, big and bold, muscular, chicago 2nd school.

and i love how all of that vibrant red metal juxtaposes with the older historic stone buildings on michigan avenue.

layers, textures, colors.... the entire history of the skyscraper all in one tapestry. this is why skylines like chicago's and new york's are so damn special.



never change, Big Red.


source: http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/buil...th-wabash/2188
__________________
He has to go.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Sep 19, 2019 at 1:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2019, 1:43 PM
suburbanite's Avatar
suburbanite suburbanite is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,680
I can't be the only one who isn't a fan of the recent crop of toothpick supertalls in Midtown Manhattan. I love NYC's skyline because of the aesthetic of this impenetrable wall of skyscraper density. They look so fragile and out of place among the giants of previous generations. Not to mention the somewhat dystopian feeling I got when I was recently in Central Park. Like Billionaires Row overseeing the masses from 400m up.
__________________
Discontented suburbanite since 1994
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2019, 2:25 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by suburbanite View Post
I can't be the only one who isn't a fan of the recent crop of toothpick supertalls in Midtown Manhattan. I love NYC's skyline because of the aesthetic of this impenetrable wall of skyscraper density. They look so fragile and out of place among the giants of previous generations. Not to mention the somewhat dystopian feeling I got when I was recently in Central Park. Like Billionaires Row overseeing the masses from 400m up.
I'm not a fan either. I think they're ugly and look very out of place. But market reality will put a stop to that nonsense after the current crop under construction finishes being built.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2019, 3:22 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 19,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by suburbanite View Post
I can't be the only one who isn't a fan of the recent crop of toothpick supertalls in Midtown Manhattan. I love NYC's skyline because of the aesthetic of this impenetrable wall of skyscraper density. They look so fragile and out of place among the giants of previous generations. Not to mention the somewhat dystopian feeling I got when I was recently in Central Park. Like Billionaires Row overseeing the masses from 400m up.
Not sure how someone can simultaneously be a urbanist and yet opposed to small, irregular building footprints, which are pretty much the secret sauce of urban street level vitality. Small lot sizes preserve historic landscapes and add interest and variety to streetscapes.

That said, if you prefer fat, blocky towers, those are more the norm, everywhere, even in Manhattan. Grand Central and Hudson Yards will have the biggest skyline changes in the coming years, and those towers have enormous footprints. There are 3 million square ft. office towers planned and u/c in these areas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2019, 3:25 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 19,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
I'm not a fan either. I think they're ugly and look very out of place. But market reality will put a stop to that nonsense after the current crop under construction finishes being built.
If there's a recession, there will be a temporary pause, but "market reality" says that Billionaires Row is the most expensive stretch of urban real estate on the planet, and that isn't likely to change, so this is likely the very beginning of the superskinny trend, at least along that corridor.

There are roughly a dozen assemblages in the corridor held by major developers. Durst, Solow, Barnett, Vornado, Macklowe, Related (basically the first rank of Manhattan developers) all have assemblages. They aren't spending upwards of a billion on painstakingly complex, decade-long land assemblages for the hell of it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2019, 3:33 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 19,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliNative View Post
Miami is also like that too. Just any overwhelming amount of "mass production high rise clusters". No supertalls, just huge number of mostly residential 400-800 footers.
Oh yeah, totally forgot about Miami. Agree that Miami is the closest U.S. analogue to the Asian, Latin American or Middle Eastern style, residential-heavy with lots of repetitive, resorty-feeling complexes, and not too many one-offs or buildings from different eras. Maybe San Diego too, though to a lesser extent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliNative View Post
I kind of like Cincinnati. Nice example of a smaller skyline with a decent mix of old and new. Carew Tower is a nice 1920s example.
Agree. Cincy has a nice skyline, with the bridges, elevation and building variety. It hasn't built much in recent decades, but it give the skyline a unique feel. Cincy has a cool city center, if a tad depressed. I enjoy walking through its core, with a refreshing dearth of hipsters, urban sophisticates and the like.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2019, 3:55 PM
RedCorsair87 RedCorsair87 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 330
I agree on just about every account here regarding NYC and Chicago. NYC is the most impressive skyline I've ever seen while Chicago's is the most beautiful and balanced. We could use another supertall or two in the Loop.

And for the love of god, don't EVER paint over BIG RED. One of my favorites in Chicago. The pop of color is so welcome in our skyline. If money was not an issue, I would buy the Renaissance Hotel on the river, tear it down and build a tall, red skyscraper between the white Kemper Insurance Building and dark grey Leo Burnett Building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:20 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.