HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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: Belton, TX
Posts: 555
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: 194
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: 22,148
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
__________________
The world that we used to know, People tell me it don't turn no more
The places we used to go, Familiar faces that ain't smilin' like before
The time of our time has come and gone, I fear we been waiting too long
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2019, 3:34 PM
Handro Handro is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 758
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, 3:55 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 20,396
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
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2019, 4:03 PM
Handro Handro is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 758
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
     
     
  #7  
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: 20,396
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
     
     
  #8  
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: 22,148
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......
__________________
The world that we used to know, People tell me it don't turn no more
The places we used to go, Familiar faces that ain't smilin' like before
The time of our time has come and gone, I fear we been waiting too long
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2019, 4:08 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,408
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
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2019, 10:55 AM
CaliNative CaliNative is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,347
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
     
     
  #11  
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: 2,269
Old and new - Broad Street, Philadelphia:


http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...65#post8691265
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2019, 3:33 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 20,396
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
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2019, 8:59 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 22,148
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.
for sure, miami has the mass, it just needs to get a lot more "spikey" before it truly enters the skyline big leagues of north america (NYC, chicago , and toronto).

and it has like a dozen supertall proposals on the drawing boards, but so...... much...... waiting......

when?

WHEN?
__________________
The world that we used to know, People tell me it don't turn no more
The places we used to go, Familiar faces that ain't smilin' like before
The time of our time has come and gone, I fear we been waiting too long
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
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: 900
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
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2019, 4:21 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 3,388
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
     
     
  #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: 900
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 24, 2019, 2:29 PM
ThePhun1 ThePhun1 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Houston/Galveston
Posts: 1,838
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.
Houston, Dallas and Chicago don't stand out? Really?

I'll leave Houston out to avoid sounding like a homer but Dallas is amazing imo, especially at night. And Chicago simply has too many iconic towers not to stand out.

Last edited by ThePhun1; Sep 24, 2019 at 6:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2019, 4:11 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 27,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhun1 View Post
Houston, Dallas and Chicago don't stand out? Really?

I'll leave Houston out to avoid sounding like a homer but Dallas is amazing imo, especially at night. And Chicago simply has too mant iconic towers not to stand out.
I disagree with his assessment about Chicago; Sears, JHC and now Trump all have prominent spires/ antennae. Houston however, severely is lacking in this area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2019, 4:32 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 22,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
I disagree with his assessment about Chicago
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.
__________________
The world that we used to know, People tell me it don't turn no more
The places we used to go, Familiar faces that ain't smilin' like before
The time of our time has come and gone, I fear we been waiting too long

Last edited by Steely Dan; Sep 24, 2019 at 5:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2019, 4:59 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 27,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post

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.
Exactly.

The new Chicago Architecture Center is absolutely amazing. I could spend hours staring at that model.
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 4:15 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.