HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2019, 5:29 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 25,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post


Hopefully one day the spire/mast conversation will reopen at the CTBUH. The masts on JHC and Sears should count towards the overall height. They are an integral part of the design IMO, and those towers without the masts would lose character.
I don't think that will ever happen. I believe both buildings have changed up their masts over the years and probably will again.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2019, 6:01 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 21,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
I don't think that will ever happen.
yeah that's doubtful.

but at the same time, if someone feels like including poles in the height figures of buildings, there is no law that one must be a slave to the CTBUH's rules.

if someone wanna says that chicago has a 1,700 footer (sears) and a 1,500 footer (hancock), by pinnacle height, book-ending its skyline, then that's a perfectly cromulent statement.
__________________
He has to go.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Sep 25, 2019 at 2:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2019, 6:17 PM
ThePhun1 ThePhun1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Houston/Galveston
Posts: 1,773
Cromulent you say? Whooohoooo!

You've embiggened my vocabulary.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2019, 6:19 PM
ThePhun1 ThePhun1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Houston/Galveston
Posts: 1,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
i think you'd be hard-pressed to find many who would agree with his assessment of chicago's skyscraper architecture.

chicago is widely regarded as having some of the best skyscraper architecture throughout history, going all the way back to the very beginnings of the building type in the 19th century.

along with NYC, chicago is one of the absolute best skyscraper museums on the planet. i doubt you could find a single architectural historian at any university on the planet who would disagree with that.

as just one small example of this, in the 2013 edition of judith durpe's very popular book "Skyscrapers" (i'm sure all of us nerds have an edition of it laying around somewhere), there are 10 entries for individual chicago skyscrapers (the 2nd most of any city globally). NYC is obviously #1 with 18 entries.
If only Chicago could have a better skyline than Jacksonville. Not bigger certainly but better.
.
.
.
.
.
[And if you couldn't tell, I'm just playing this time·]
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2019, 8:27 PM
CaliNative CaliNative is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,263
A River Runs Through It

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
I'll say as an avid NYC follower, Midtown is a chaotic mess. From a pure aesthetic standpoint, Lower Manhattan wins and is the most balanced skyline node that aesthetically wins IMO.

Now from a holy shit moment, Midtown does take the cake, but is overwhelming.

Chicago is unique in that it doesn't overwhelm one and like NY, it has a massive portfolio of architecture that spans the decades. In a way, Chicago is a giant urban-construct of a museum. You can see the various boom cycles embedded in its skyline and core. From pre-wars all the way to modern architecture. Not to mention that its very, very balanced.

I mentioned in another thread about luck and timing... very important in skyline development. Sometimes, its just luck in how a skyline looks and aesthetically pleases.

Chicago is more like caffeine mixed with some nice green tea. Its calm, can energize the spirit, and doesn't overwhelm. NYC is like a giant hit of methamphetamine. Just overwhelms the senses and can make one a bit on edge. Both excite the spirit, but depends if you want a nice buzz or a adrenaline rush that will cause you to crash hard at the end of the day.

I kinda felt this with Chicago when I went. A tad bit calm, somewhat sedated, but still provided a nice thrill with its skyline and even street energy.

On a side note, Miami is up and coming. Its made great strides in the last 10 years. It punches above its weight. Likewise with Seattle, which is booming like crazy.
Another Chi advantage--the Chicago River runs right through the heart of the downtown district. Very fun to take a river cruise past all the historic buildings, or stroll the shore. The rivers in NYC border the skyline. Plus the river is green on St. Paddy's day. Fun had by all. Plus Chicago so far hasn't allowed really skinny supertalls yet. Hopefully the skinny fad will go away. Building height to width ratios should be no more than 20/1, and maybe 15/1 in my opinion. Some of the new midtown towers (perhaps not all) look like they are well over 20/1 in H/W. Some of them really do look like smokestacks from a distance. Aesthetically not satisfying in my opinion. Give me the Chrysler or Empire State anyday topped by pleasing spires.

Last edited by CaliNative; Sep 24, 2019 at 8:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2019, 1:16 AM
jd3189's Avatar
jd3189 jd3189 is offline
An Optimistic Realist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Loma Linda, CA / West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 3,993
Yeah, NYC has two main skylines. If you like sheer mass, Midtown wins. If you like balanced and a scenic view of the harbor, bridges, etc, Lower Manhattan is the best in the past and the best now.
__________________
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
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2019, 1:35 AM
ThePhun1 ThePhun1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Houston/Galveston
Posts: 1,773
Not to bring sadness but the Twin Towers were as iconic as it gets, a strong symbol of a previous era.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2019, 2:34 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 2,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd3189 View Post
Yeah, NYC has two main skylines. If you like sheer mass, Midtown wins. If you like balanced and a scenic view of the harbor, bridges, etc, Lower Manhattan is the best in the past and the best now.
For the vistas, I think Midtown really makes it. But lower Manhattan is regal in the how it looks along the waterfront.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
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 6:45 PM.

     

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