Skyline w/limited activity or no skyline and more vibrant?

[Dariusb]

Hoping this hasn't been discussed already but which would you prefer, a city with a nice skyline but limited to almost no interaction at ground level or a city with no skyline to few towers but very busy and always something to do(fairs, festivals, clubs, retail, etc.)?

[Obadno]

A city of dense low rises and good street activity is SO MUCH BETTER than a vertical office park.

Skylines are nice for pictures from far away but other than that they offer no benefit if the street level is garbage.

You see this in many cities in the US (its improving but especially 20 years ago)

The Downtown may have been tall but they were 9-5 office parks that died at night while small neighborhood streets several miles away would have the nightlife and culture and actually be the areas people wanted to spend time.

[hauntedheadnc]

What you're asking is, basically, would you prefer Charlotte or Charleston?

[10023]

Paris >>>>> Houston

[jd3189]

Overall, dense low rises are more fun to venture into and experience than a tall skyline that has no sustainable activity after hours. However, I’m into the best of both worlds like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles ( especially in the near future), San Francisco, etc. Even London and Paris now have sizable skylines that offer a modern contrast to the dense low rise cityscape they are known for.


My own home metro of South Florida could do better in terms of working on both. There are high rises from Brickell to Riviera Beach, but most of them are condos. Miami shares a more suburban layout with its Sunbelt peers but has a few neighborhoods that I consider to have a good potential for future low rise density and activity like Little Havana, Overtown, Coral Gables, Historic Downtown, Coconut Grove, and Midtown/Edgewater.

[craigs]

Vibrancy at street level is everything.

[iheartthed]

Just a general observation, but places where the high-rise/skyscraper neighborhoods are the most interesting area of the city tend to be dull cities. In cities with vibrant neighborhoods, the high-rise/skyscraper district is usually the dullest area of the city.

[BnaBreaker]

I really don't know why anyone would chose the first option. Skylines are nice for bragging rights and making nice postcard shots, but if you're actually living and working in the city on a daily basis it's the street life that is going to impact your life, not a nice view a few miles away.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by BnaBreaker

I really don't know why anyone would chose the first option. Skylines are nice for bragging rights and making nice postcard shots, but if you're actually living and working in the city on a daily basis it's the street life that is going to impact your life, not a nice view a few miles away.

There are people who point to vertical slums like Recife as a model of urbanity, just because it has a bunch of crappy skyscrapers.

[LA21st]

Yea, my favorite parts of Chicago and LA are the lowrise areas, actually.
Probably NYC too (for nyc standards anyway).

Wacker Drive and LaSalle streets are cool to look at it, but not to hang around in. Same goes for parts of Midtown.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Wacker Drive....cool to look at it, but not to hang around in.

things have changed a bit since you lived in chicago.

the new main branch river walk (parallel to wacker drive) has really livened up that part of downtown with vibrancy and activity.

it actually is now a place to hang around in, enjoy riverside cafes and bars, go for a stroll, people watch, fish, relax, spectate the parade of tour boats/kayaks on the river, etc.











source: http://www.sasaki.com/project/134/chicago-riverwalk/

[Dariusb]

Originally Posted by jd3189

Overall, dense low rises are more fun to venture into and experience than a tall skyline that has no sustainable activity after hours. However, I’m into the best of both worlds like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles ( especially in the near future), San Francisco, etc. Even London and Paris now have sizable skylines that offer a modern contrast to the dense low rise cityscape they are known for.


My own home metro of South Florida could do better in terms of working on both. There are high rises from Brickell to Riviera Beach, but most of them are condos. Miami shares a more suburban layout with its Sunbelt peers but has a few neighborhoods that I consider to have a good potential for future low rise density and activity like Little Havana, Overtown, Coral Gables, Historic Downtown, Coconut Grove, and Midtown/Edgewater.

How about Hialeah? I read some time ago that it was pretty dense at least for anywhere in the south. Is it pretty flat or are there too?

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

things have changed a bit since you lived in chicago.

the new main branch river walk (parallel to wacker drive) has really livened up that part of downtown with vibrancy and activity.

it actually is now a place to hang around in, enjoy riverside cafes and bars, go for a stroll, people watch, fish, relax, spectate the parade of tour boats/kayaks on the river, etc.











source: http://www.sasaki.com/project/134/chicago-riverwalk/

Oh yea, I love the Riverwalk. I've seen a few times. I guess I was thinking more of Wacker Drive between Lake and Congress. It's Chicago's best street canyon imo.

[SLO]

Its those cities that get both, that are the stars, but option B is the winner

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by Dariusb

How about Hialeah? I read some time ago that it was pretty dense at least for anywhere in the south. Is it pretty flat or are there too?

True, Hialeah is pretty dense. It would probably gain developments that are much cheaper than what could be built near the coast. But developers right now in Dade County seem to be more focused on the coast.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

things have changed a bit since you lived in chicago.

the new main branch river walk (parallel to wacker drive) has really livened up that part of downtown with vibrancy and activity.

it actually is now a place to hang around in, enjoy riverside cafes and bars, go for a stroll, people watch, fish, relax, spectate the parade of tour boats/kayaks on the river, etc.











source: http://www.sasaki.com/project/134/chicago-riverwalk/

Is that facing the Merchandise Mart? If so, very cool spot. And clean bathrooms!

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by JManc

Is that facing the Merchandise Mart? If so, very cool spot. And clean bathrooms!

those pics are from various points along the main branch river walk that stretches 1.4 miles from the river mouth back to the confluence at lake street, opposite wolf point.

one of the shots might be from the section opposite the merchandise mart.

[SLO]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

those pics are from various points along the main branch river walk that stretches 1.4 miles from the river mouth back to the confluence at lake street, opposite wolf point.

one of the shots might be from the section opposite the merchandise mart.

Is that river walk area affected by tides?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by SLO

Is that river walk area affected by tides?

no.

the great lakes technically have tides, but they are minuscule, measured in mere centimeters (1 - 5 cm) in most places, and thus are not of any real consequence, unlike oceanic tides.

and even if the great lakes were subject to larger ocean-like tides, the mouth of the chicago river is controlled by a lock that would prevent any incursion of tidal water into the river.

because the flow of the chicago river was reversed a century ago, the river level is almost always lower than the lake level, so a lock is needed to control the flow of water from the lake into the river.

that said, the riverwalk is subject to very occasional flooding when we get extremely large rainfalls that can cause the river level to rise several feet.

[dc_denizen]

Man, people really like being next to water