Great Canadian Skyline Thread II

[softee]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

For some reason I was underwhelmed by Manhattan, NY. I guess because I had heard so many times that it was the "big apple" and greatest city in the world. When I was actually there, I wondered what is all the fuss about? On the other hand, I was blown away by downtown Chicago with its tall building and large early 1900's tall buildings. Likewise with San Francisco with its bustling downtown and long bridges (what an amazing city).

Strange that you were underwhelmed by Manhattan considering it's far bigger, busier and more densely built up than downtown Chicago and has even more historic buildings and pre-war skyscrapers. Downtown SF is downright tiny compared to Manhattan.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by softee

Strange that you were underwhelmed by Manhattan considering it's far bigger, busier and more densely built up than downtown Chicago and has even more historic buildings and pre-war skyscrapers. Downtown SF is downright tiny compared to Manhattan.

The financial district is quite dense but most of the skyscrapers in the rest of Manhattan are quite spread out, as in the picture below. Many of the surrounding suburbs are just run down and unimpressive. The Manhattan suspension bridges are nowhere close in grandeur to the Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco-Oakland Bridge. San Francisco is surrounded by mountains and rolling hills along the ocean with great scenery - Manhattan is mainly tall building surrounded by rundown suburbs.

Have you been to Chicago?

(source: http://www1.nyc.gov/site/lmcr/index.page)

[softee]

^ Did you walk around Midtown Manhattan? Chicago simply cannot compete with this.
[/url]
Manhattan by Dan Macy, on Flickr


Midtown Manhattan aerial by Dan Macy, on Flickr

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by softee

^ Did you walk around Midtown Manhattan? Chicago simply cannot compete with this.

I have to admit that Manhattan looks impressive in those pictures. I walked around Times Square, went up in the Empire State Building and was down in the financial district close to the NY stock exchange building. I was in Manhattan within several months of 9/11, so it was over 15 years ago. I have been though Laguardia airport since then, but haven't been to Manhattan since.

I have been through Chicago several times, and it is just my personal preference over Manhattan; for one reason, I like the densely packed early 1900's highrises in downtown Chicago. However, of all the cities in the US that I have visited, I like San Francisco the best with its old streetcars, hilly streets, suspension bridges and surrounding scenery.

In any case, this is just personal preference, I am sure there is a reason why some people like Manhattan best.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

The financial district is quite dense but most of the skyscrapers in the rest of Manhattan are quite spread out, as in the picture below. Many of the surrounding suburbs are just run down and unimpressive. The Manhattan suspension bridges are nowhere close in grandeur to the Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco-Oakland Bridge. San Francisco is surrounded by mountains and rolling hills along the ocean with great scenery - Manhattan is mainly tall building surrounded by rundown suburbs.

Have you been to Chicago?

There are way more rundown areas in Chicago than in NYC. (As a percentage of the city and metro anyway.)

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Acajack

There are way more rundown areas in Chicago than in NYC. (As a percentage of the city and metro anyway.)

NYC is a big, impressive city (as far as skyscrapers go), but still I prefer Chicago and San Francisco more. Yes Chicago has some huge, rundown areas, but still I like the downtown core.

[caltrane74]

Spiderman, Spiderman.

Does whatever a spider can.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Acajack

There are way more rundown areas in Chicago than in NYC. (As a percentage of the city and metro anyway.)

Just out of curiosity, what are the percentages? This seems very subjective.

[niwell]

I suppose it could be subjective depending on your definition of "suburb" or "rundown". But having been to both multiple times I'd say Chicago clearly has more rundown areas than NYC. Unless you are associating areas like as rundown: https://goo.gl/maps/mP6v8Bp9vA92 (random streetview in Greenpoint)

But Chicago also has a lot of this: https://goo.gl/maps/Lhk1xUenDj92 (not a bad neighbourhood either)

[rotten42]

In regards to the Charlotte/Calgary comparison I was referring more to the feel you have while walking around downtown. It feels very similar but yes, not as big.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by niwell

I suppose it could be subjective depending on your definition of "suburb" or "rundown". But having been to both multiple times I'd say Chicago clearly has more rundown areas than NYC. Unless you are associating areas like as rundown: https://goo.gl/maps/mP6v8Bp9vA92 (random streetview in Greenpoint)

But Chicago also has a lot of this: https://goo.gl/maps/Lhk1xUenDj92 (not a bad neighbourhood either)

Yeah. There is not sure-fire way to prove it statistically but it's very obvious to anyone familiar with these two cities.

NYC used to have numerous, vast rundown areas not dissimilar to what you still see in Chicago, but they've been cleaned up and revitalized in a massive way in the past couple of decades. This is not to say that NYC doesn't have any urban blight and ghettoes. It does.

But it's nowhere near the scale of Chicago where you have huge swathes of the south and west sides of the city that are dramatically blighted. In addition to having that blight extend into many neighbouring suburban municipalities.

[esquire]

^ NYC has changed so dramatically since the 90s. It's crazy to see photos of NYC in the 70s which are so often dripping with social malaise. It's also weird how the world's pre-eminent city could have fallen so hard in the first place. I can imagine that older folks used to a certain order to things that existed right up until the 50s or 60s must have felt like they were living on another planet by the late 70s.

Chicago's situation feels more intractable... there was always so much money flowing in NYC that a solution didn't seem impossible. Chicago also doesn't really have that desirable A1 global king-city status to cash in on.

[FFX-ME]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Love that shot of Edmonton

Too bad it's Montreal then, lol.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by niwell

I suppose it could be subjective depending on your definition of "suburb" or "rundown". But having been to both multiple times I'd say Chicago clearly has more rundown areas than NYC. Unless you are associating areas like as rundown: https://goo.gl/maps/mP6v8Bp9vA92 (random streetview in Greenpoint)

But Chicago also has a lot of this: https://goo.gl/maps/Lhk1xUenDj92 (not a bad neighbourhood either)

I wouldn't consider either of those neighborhoods to be rundown.

I think if I went back to Manhattan and spent several weeks there then I would probably appreciate it much more. I went there on a business trip in early 2002 but only had a couple days to see the city. I have to say though, flying into LaGuardia Airport recently and seeing where the new Citi Field is located, was a let-down - this didn't look like a place where I would want to go to see a baseball game. There seems to be too many of these areas in NYC (let-downs). Even the suspension bridges are a let-down compared to San Francisco.

Things change; in the 1970's Harlem was considered to be a terrifying area that whites should avoid, but I drove through Harlem in early 2002 and there were mothers walking their children to school and the neighborhoods seemed respectable. In Chicago the Southend is a terrifying area, but they have torn down large public housing highrises and replaced them with lower density. Eventually it will probably be completely gentrified and be a much safer place to live and visit.

I can't really explain why I was so impressed by Chicago and less by Manhattan. I guess that Manhattan is so hyped that you expect to be blown away and it didn't do it for me. Maybe it is the people; people in Chicago seemed friendlier. Also, I have been to Chicago several times and I know the city better. In any case, San Francisco is the US city that I like the most for many reasons.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by someone123

Downtown LA has many large and elaborate heritage buildings from the early 20th century. A lot more than any Canadian city. But it has fewer postwar residential buildings than most Canadian cities.

For fun, here are views of downtown LA and Calgary at roughly the same scale (the tallest LA building is about 20% taller than the tallest one in Calgary).





When I've visited Calgary I've found that the largest office towers are pretty much exactly like the big office towers in large cities, but that things fall off quickly a few blocks away. It is like a large traditional North American CBD grafted onto a small, new city. Both Calgary and LA have a lot of holes and surface lots.

Thanks for the comparison. My experience was primarily based on the CBD itself with the tallest buildings. It felt like a bit of a ghost town compared to Calgary. Judging by the Google earth 3D view you posted the area in the foreground of the LA image would be more like the Beltline in Calgary. Obviously they have more and older building stock in that area. I didn't really visit it. The furthest adjacent to the Core I went was Japan / China Town.

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ NYC has changed so dramatically since the 90s. It's crazy to see photos of NYC in the 70s which are so often dripping with social malaise. It's also weird how the world's pre-eminent city could have fallen so hard in the first place. I can imagine that older folks used to a certain order to things that existed right up until the 50s or 60s must have felt like they were living on another planet by the late 70s.

Large swaths of the Bronx, Harlem, Queens, Brooklyn, and Staten Island looked like war zones. Were it not for the distinctly American character of the detritus, one might mistake the tableaux for 1980s Beirut or the Aleppos and Mosuls of today.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Gresto

Large swaths of the Bronx, Harlem, Queens, Brooklyn, and Staten Island looked like war zones. Were it not for the distinctly American character of the detritus, one might mistake the tableaux for 1980s Beirut or the Aleppos and Mosuls of today.

One thing about NYC is it's a huge city, so all else being equal everything's going to be on a bigger scale and the tail end of the distribution on both sides is going to be longer. The skid row area of a smaller city is almost borough-scale in New York.

[Urban recluse]

Looks like Winnipeg, LOL.

[GeneralLea]

Was out at Tommy Thompson Park, where the Downtown view is excellent. I didn't stay long because the lake-effect winds were very substantial, but here's the best skyline photo I took:
[IMG]TO Skyline by Joshua Kennington Photographics, on Flickr[/IMG]

[koops65]

For a 200 metre tower, 88 Scott looks tiny, because of the big bank towers in behind I suppose...