HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2019, 3:19 PM
Dariusb Dariusb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Killeen, TX
Posts: 416
Skyline: uniqueness vs number of buildings?

Which is more important to you when it comes to a skyline: unique architecture or number of towers? I promise, this is my last thread for today, lol!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2019, 3:23 PM
Chisouthside Chisouthside is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Silicon Valley/Chicago
Posts: 166
a combination of both.
size, big enough for it to feel mighty but with unique and layered architecture from different periods. SF is a good example i think.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2019, 3:27 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 21,505
both.

i'd also add height variability.

lots of towers. lots of different kinds of towers. lots of different heights of towers.


not surprisingly, something like this is close to my ideal:


Skyline from the south by Jonathan Lurie, on Flick
__________________
He has to go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2019, 3:34 PM
Handro Handro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 435
That's tough.

I know it's a tired, boring comparison, but I think the best example of this is Chicago vs. NY.

Chicago (above) is varied, balanced... almost artful. It's large enough to make a big impact, but:

NYC is MASSIVE. It's more a "wall" of towers than a place like Chicago (or any other smaller city with a respectable skyline), so it doesn't quite have that "artful" balance. But that giant web of dense urban development massages a part of my brain that I think only weirdos like people on this forum have, ha.

I might go size on this one, although even having seen it 1m+ times, I still have a moment of awe one I catch the Chicago skyline at night, early morning or dusk.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2019, 3:53 PM
JAYNYC JAYNYC is offline
Live From The 212
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dariusb View Post
Which is more important to you when it comes to a skyline: unique architecture or number of towers? I promise, this is my last thread for today, lol!
Unique architecture. It's why skylines like Atlanta, Philadelphia and NYC (variety of spires, crowns, and glass colors/styles) stand out whereas skylines like Houston, Dallas and Chicago (mostly tall nondescript boxes) don't, IMO.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2019, 3:55 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 19,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Handro View Post
I know it's a tired, boring comparison, but I think the best example of this is Chicago vs. NY.
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2019, 4:03 PM
Handro Handro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 435
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.
I sense from this and other threads that you tend you disagree a lot, which is fine, but you have a very confrontational style which is pretty grating when I'm here to chat with like-minded people about something we find interesting. Maybe calm down a little bit and realize we're not fighting to be right about these very arbitrary and subjective things.

Anyway.

I think it's a good comparison between North American cities. New York certainly doesn't have the same height discrepancy between towers that Chicago has a lot of, which creates less of a layering effect.

A photographic example, although I've noticed it more in person:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2019, 4:08 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,785
When I think of aesthetic skylines its Chicago

Nyc is simply massive and impressive in that right, plus its so culturally ubiquitous that its cool to see it in person. (I would guess LA is similar to people back east but I've been to it so many times I dont get that sort of feeling from it)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2019, 4:11 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 17,635
For me it's about variability in heights and buildings from different periods.

Toronto has a jumble of highrises but its skyline doesn't visually impress me.

Chicago, as mentioned above, has all of these features.

NYC does too, but it's also so huge that it's hard for buildings to stand out that aren't really huge. But its scale is what's so impressive.
__________________
Eat less
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2019, 4:11 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 19,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Handro View Post
I think it's a good comparison between North American cities. New York certainly doesn't have the same height discrepancy between towers that Chicago has a lot of, which creates less of a layering effect.
I think most would agree Chicago has greater "height discrepency" than NY. Chicago doesn't have a huge amount of midrise fabric, thus creating greater contrast between very tall and very low landscapes, which is typical in the U.S. (and even more exaggerated in the Sunbelt).

But what does this have to do with the topic? Neither city is known for repetitive elements in the skyline. There are repetitive complexes, like Presidential Towers in Chicago, but they don't dominate the skyline, as one sees in, say, Hong Kong.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2019, 4:21 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAYNYC View Post
Unique architecture. It's why skylines like Atlanta, Philadelphia and NYC (variety of spires, crowns, and glass colors/styles) stand out whereas skylines like Houston, Dallas and Chicago (mostly tall nondescript boxes) don't, IMO.
Atlanta is unique but Chicago isn't? Is this a joke?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2019, 4:22 PM
Handro Handro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
I think most would agree Chicago has greater "height discrepency" than NY. Chicago doesn't have a huge amount of midrise fabric, thus creating greater contrast between very tall and very low landscapes, which is typical in the U.S. (and even more exaggerated in the Sunbelt).

But what does this have to do with the topic? Neither city is known for repetitive elements in the skyline. There are repetitive complexes, like Presidential Towers in Chicago, but they don't dominate the skyline, as one sees in, say, Hong Kong.
Chicago's contrasts and signature towers are what make it unique. NYC is massive, but it doesn't have varied heights punctuated by a few signature towers. New York is the best US example of "massive", Chicago's is the best US example of "not quite massive but certainly unique".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
When I think of aesthetic skylines its Chicago

Nyc is simply massive and impressive in that right, plus its so culturally ubiquitous that its cool to see it in person. (I would guess LA is similar to people back east but I've been to it so many times I dont get that sort of feeling from it)

Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
For me it's about variability in heights and buildings from different periods.

Chicago, as mentioned above, has all of these features.

NYC does too, but it's also so huge that it's hard for buildings to stand out that aren't really huge. But its scale is what's so impressive.
Agreed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2019, 4:27 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
For me it's about variability in heights and buildings from different periods.

Toronto has a jumble of highrises but its skyline doesn't visually impress me.

Chicago, as mentioned above, has all of these features.

NYC does too, but it's also so huge that it's hard for buildings to stand out that aren't really huge. But its scale is what's so impressive.
Toronto and Chicago's skyline seem eerily similar from a distance. But, on closer inspection, Toronto's looks like a bigger version of a West Coast city in that much of the high rise stock is late 20th century/early 21st century.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2019, 4:29 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
(and even more exaggerated in the Sunbelt).
No kidding, sunbelt cities are virtually a sea of single story buildings with random small clusters of buildings over 10 stories (or stand alone random towers).

Although newer developments in sunbelt areas seem to be moving into the 5-10 story apartment block and mixed use office tower mode instead of the pre 2000 garden apartment and vertical office park variety hour
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2019, 5:29 PM
Maldive Maldive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Toronto and Chicago's skyline seem eerily similar from a distance. But, on closer inspection, Toronto's looks like a bigger version of a West Coast city in that much of the high rise stock is late 20th century/early 21st century.
The never-ending boom in Toronto obscures it's early arch/skyline creds.

It was (and is still stuck there) #3 in North America in the 60/70s tall game (BMO was an early supertall when maintenance workers on the roof raised their hands).

The financial core built Mies' masterpiece -TD Centre, Pei's Commerce Court, the real gold glazing of RBC and later the red granite beauty Scotia Plaza.

Nothing west coast about the original core. Just harder to see that great stuff now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2019, 5:45 PM
JAYNYC JAYNYC is offline
Live From The 212
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 704
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Atlanta is unique but Chicago isn't? Is this a joke?
Yes (skyline architecture-wise), and no.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2019, 5:47 PM
JAYNYC JAYNYC is offline
Live From The 212
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 704
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Toronto and Chicago's skyline seem eerily similar from a distance.
They are. And neither should ever be compared to NYC.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2019, 6:16 PM
dave8721 dave8721 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Miami
Posts: 3,106
Or another comparison would be Miami: hundreds and hundreds of non-descript similar looking towers that don't really stand out and all around the same height vs a skyline like Atlanta with fewer towers but more variety. With Miami you are taken aback by the sheer scale of all the towers while with Atlanta you notice the details of the towers themselves. To each his own.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2019, 6:21 PM
pdxtex's Avatar
pdxtex pdxtex is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,531
Skylines, like people have their best side. For me it's all about symmetry and order. I dont like skylines that are only massive and uniform in height. Toronto looking north from the islands will always be more pleasing to me than Manhattan or Vancouver.
__________________
Portland!! Where young people go to retire.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2019, 8:33 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 21,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Handro View Post
New York certainly doesn't have the same height discrepancy between towers that Chicago has a lot of, which creates less of a layering effect.
well, with NYC's current supertall rampage, it will certainly be adding A LOT of new height variability to its skyline.


source: https://newyorkyimby.com/2018/10/che...irca-2022.html

the old midtown plateau is currently being annihilated, which is nice......
__________________
He has to go.
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 4:56 AM.

     

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