Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford
I guess it's all subjective, but I can't think of any architecturally distinctive towers in Vancouver, while Toronto has a ton. You have lots of Mies, Calatrava and the like. The financial district is pretty thick with renowned towers.
And NYC has far more highrise icons than Chicago, from basically every era, so don't get that either. I think very few would agree they have comparable notable prewars, or comparable towers of more recent distinction. I mean, ESB, Chrysler, 30 Rock, Woolworth, Flatiron, etc. For Chicago, I guess Wrigley and Tribune would be most famous? I'd say those would be more on the level of Metlife, GE or 40 Wall.
And obviously numbers matter, a lot. It has to be a big weight in the overall metric. Otherwise you can really make the Jacksonville>Toronto arguments.
|
I mean Toronto & Vancouver aren't what I'd call cities with an overwhelming supply of architectural "gems" even if Toronto has more distinct buildings. I like Calgary's skyline (aesthetically) way more than either's despite it being substantially smaller.
NYC falls into the same trope. It's too busy. Every building tries to out-do the next by being more outlandish and in your face so they become increasingly forgettable. Chicago is all about quality over quantity, and due to it being less dense individual buildings have room to breathe.
A
lot of people do in fact prefer Chicago's skyline (aesthetically) over NYC's.
Again this thread is about whats the "prettiest" skylines, not the largest. Now do I agree Milwaukee deserves a slot over Philly, Pittsburgh, SF, etc..? Hard no, but it's not just on size alone.