View Single Post
  #63  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2010, 12:14 AM
Avanine-Commuter Avanine-Commuter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj3000 View Post
Oh, is that how it works? Gimme a break.

I simply prefer NYC's and Chicago's skylines over any other major city's in the world. As wrabbit said above, "NYC & Chicago have encyclopedic skylines that cover pretty much the entire chronological gamut of the skyscraper form" and as stratosphere said, "The saying "Often immitated, never duplicated" is right for NYC and Chicago. These two have it all: beauty, density, mass, height, elongation, architectural diversity that spans through the history of skyscrapers, and so many architectural gems found no where on earth." These opinions represent what I happen to think defines what are the world's top skylines. Hong Kong has a great skyline, but truly lacks some of these characteristics... also, it does not have the physical breadth that NYC and Chicago both have, due to HK being hemmed in by mountains, which offers a very dramatic and beautiful backdrop, but limits breadth. NYC and Chicago defined the skyscraper and skyline form long ago and I still think they do it the best. Will I be able to say the same in two, three, four decades from now? Maybe not. But for now, I think that the others are still behind and NYC and Chicago are simply just more pleasing to me.

We're talking about opinion here. It's my opinion... no more, no less. Does that make me a biased American chauvinist (as Phil feels so certain of) because I personally happen to find NYC's and Chicago's skylines more impressive overall than Hong Kong's for the above mentioned reasons? Please, save it for someone with less brain power. Am I biased in my thinking that NYC and Chicago still remain the paradigm and others are still catching up? Maybe so, maybe not. Who cares? Either way, it's a matter of personal taste. If you don't like it because it flies in the face of your personal opinion, then too bad. People on here who cannot understand that need to grow a sack and accept it, without invoking something like "You only think that way because you're American". How f-ing presumptuous is that?! Employing that BS is the exact same type of stereotypical generalization that others often accuse of Americans of displaying.
The reason why Phil got on your case is because your first post is unclear. You basically said NOTHING is comparable to NY+Chicago, and you did not state ANY evidence about individual skyscraper quality being the reason behind your love for their skylines; the reasons for NY+Chicago being better than HK's were not stated... Phil mentioned "but if that's the reason he disregarded HK's skyline, he never said that."
Here is what you said:

"It has the greatest concentrated massive skyline, bar none. Chicago does it second best." Emphasis: "greatest concentrated massive" skyline= size. So Mass, density, elongation, height are covered.

Where is the mentioning of "beauty,...,architectural diversity that spans through the history of skyscrapers, and so many architectural gems found no where on earth."? This was stated by Wrabbit AFTER your post, which had nothing on the quality of the skyscrapers but rather claiming the skylines to be #1 based on SIZE.

"Hong Kong's a great view from above, but is basically just a sea of the same residential highrises crammed together and punctuated by a handful of standouts. Never really been all that impressed with Hong Kong's skyline. Shanghai is just an ugly, scattered mess... it's main core has some height, but pales in comparison to others' concentration."

Your opinion. OK.

"To reiterate, NYC #1, Chicago #2. All others continue to copy, yet still can't seem to quite get it right and remain poor substitutes at best."

Your opinion. OK.

If you look at my first post that I quoted you on, I was clearly not offended by your choice of NY+Chicago over HK. I stated my opinion afterward, and I rebutted some of your arguments about the skylines. Nothing to do with being angry at dissenting opinions.

I can understand why he would think you were being America-centric and chauvinist. When I read your first post, I was slightly taken back by how hostile you sounded; the tone of your post was extremely harsh and pretentious... "bar none", "doesn't really matter", "all others are poor substitutes at best". Way to condemn HK, and without a strong argument to boot! Maybe you should rethink the way you share your opinions?
Reply With Quote