Stop comparing your city to New York, Chicago and San Francisco

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by homebucket

There's plenty not to like about those cities too. Weather, crime, grit, homelessness, crowds, cost of living, etc. I'd say there's just as many threads highlighting these issues.

International gamers in SF for convention 'shell shocked' by 'dangerous city'

That's true. No city is perfect.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by McBane

Pittsburgh's skyline (along with its many cultural assets - many of which are legacies from Carnegie) is a vestige of its past, when it was one of the country's richest and largest cities. Because the city shrunk so much (by half?) but the buildings remained intact, it gives the appearance that the city has this wonderful skyline for its size. It's as if NYC's population was reduced to "only" 1 million people but most of Manhattan's buildings remained and everyone went around saying, what a huge skyline for a city of only a million people.

All that said, Pittsburgh still has a great skyline, regardless of its population. It could certainly use more newer buildings (feels like the skyline hasn't changed in 30 years) but the setting against the three rivers and the bridges and hills is iconic.

It's not like most of the buildings that comprise Pittsburgh's skyline are from a century ago or something though. Almost all of the most prominent buildings are from the 1970s to 2015.

Its skyline isn't really a "vestige of its past" more than any other city's skyline is.

Pittsburgh has a major corporate presence and limited flat land. Its downtown is a relatively small triangle of land in a valley with high and steep hillsides, with rivers along 2 sides and a steep incline on 1 side. So, you're gonna get height and density there because there's simply not that much room.

[softee]

Originally Posted by lio45

The Pittsburgh pic you posted beats them both - what a nice variety of skyscrapers from all eras, all on display in a way that also feels organic! And it's got nice heft, for its size.

Toronto's skyline also has skyscrapers from all eras, it's just harder to see them all because there are so many more of them than there are in Pittsburgh, and they tend to block one another, especially from that classic, lakefront skyline shot.

[dc_denizen]

The city that most repetitively compares itself to Chicago and new york is obviously Toronto.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by BrandonJXN

DTLA is actually further east. The center of LA is more around the Mid Wilshire/Fairfax area. And considering how expensive and protected coastal California is, you'll never see skyscrapers along the coast as you would in Chicago or Miami. Which is perfectly fine by me.

What about Long Beach? If only Long Beach had been the major city. It's the midpoint between LA and Orange County.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by softee

Toronto's skyline also has skyscrapers from all eras, it's just harder to see them all because there are so many more of them than there are in Pittsburgh, and they tend to block one another, especially from that classic, lakefront skyline shot.

If you admit it's "hard to see them" then you're basically agreeing with what I'm saying: Toronto's skyline visually is a mass of post-war bland towers that all look alike.

I'm sure there are older skyscrapers in Toronto, they're just well hidden (and therefore are not really contributors to the skyline). Contrast that to the picture SteelyDan posted of the Pittsburgh skyline, where you can immediately spot several.

[Jonesy55]

Pittsburgh always looks great on pics imo, it's the rivers and bridges containing the downtown area I think, that kind of thing always looks good compared with a featureless expanse with nothing to break it up (or worse, big multi-lane highways to break it up).

[bossabreezes]

Honestly, I agree with the idea of this thread.

However, I think the reason why we get so many comparisons to the cities mentioned (NY, Chicago, SF) is because they are all very widely known. It's hard to compare cities when using a benchmark as say, Oklahoma City. Not to bash OKC, I don't know it…but that's the point. Most people don't, it could be an amazing place…..I don't know and probably will never even visit.

Cities are allowed to have their own vibes and cultures. BUT, I will say that lots of people living in other cities copy alpha cities like NY, SF and Chicago. They're known as being the most trend setting, cutting edge cities in the United States and some of the most cutting edge in the world.

Comparison is normal, go to any mens room and see how many people are checking each other out at the urinal. It's human nature.

[lio45]

BTW, I set myself a very low target and sincerely tried to spot a mere ONE pre-war skyscraper in the skyline pic below, and failed.

Maybe a Toronto expert can make out a fraction of a corner of one, but that's definitely not what I'd call an example of a skyline with a noticeable dose of buildings from the pre-war era.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Toronto by lucas bed, on Flickr

[bossabreezes]

^^Off topic, but I'm still confused by Toronto. Not sure what to think, not sure if I love it or hate it. Seems like a bit of a nightmare urbanistically but is also urbanizing quickly and very dense. Let's see what kind of controversy this post makes

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

Pittsburgh always looks great on pics imo, it's the rivers and bridges containing the downtown area I think, that kind of thing always looks good compared with a featureless expanse with nothing to break it up (or worse, big multi-lane highways to break it up).

It not only looks good but as other have pointed out, it helped physically constrain development so it made the downtown more dense.

[F1 Tommy]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

I'd like LA if it was on the coast where it should be instead of seemingly randomly in the center of town.

Good point, and on a tar pit no less.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by The North One

The premise of this thread just sounds like sunbelt insecurity over those cities usually lacking urban amenities. Rather just accept that you'll never have traditional urbanity or move up north. I don't think the homogeneous argument really works here since walkable cities are quite diverse.

This is essentially a city/urban/architecture enthusiast forum, you can't expect people to stop the comparisons.

The sunbelt by and large is made up of people running away from Northern cities and they don't want to be like them.

What is sunbelt insecurity? If anything I think you have northeastern "insecurity" as the sunbelt growth rates skyrocket and the North/east losses prominence to the West/South in terms of economic drive and population.

What you get is a bunch of excuses from people in the North "they are hicks, their cities suck, no matter what they'll never be like us" etc.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by mhays

That must be someone else. I've never tried to hold the two to the same standard. But I've suggested that NEW BUILDINGS in Sunbelt cities could be more urban and that rules are generally in the way.

As for Chicago, yes they're horrible at allowing sprawl.

When was the last time you've been to a sunbelt city? they've been densifying like crazy for the better part of a decade, even the suburban homes on the edge are growing at a much slower pace with better designs, more homes per acre and things like built in community parks and squares.

The suburban sprawl of 1945-2006 is more of an era of development and taste than anything else, those tastes appear to have changed.

[mhays]

Maybe a large percentage were running from cold.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by BrandonJXN

DTLA is actually further east. The center of LA is more around the Mid Wilshire/Fairfax area. And considering how expensive and protected coastal California is, you'll never see skyscrapers along the coast as you would in Chicago or Miami. Which is perfectly fine by me.

Well LA is on the river inland from the coast like almost all other cities. Very few cities are truly on the coast.

Even NYC is in a protected harbor/sound, Same with Seattle San Diego and even San Francisco to a degree.

Very few cities are really directly on a coast.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Obadno

When was the last time you've been to a sunbelt city? they've been densifying like crazy for the better part of a decade, even the suburban homes on the edge are growing at a much slower pace with better designs, more homes per acre and things like built in community parks and squares.

The suburban sprawl of 1945-2006 is more of an era of development and taste than anything else, those tastes appear to have changed.

Even the good ones seem to have absurd amounts of parking with their typical developments.

Five days in San Diego last month, to answer your question.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by mhays

Even the good ones seem to have absurd amounts of parking with their typical developments.

Five days in San Diego last month, to answer your question.

As someone else has pointed out in this thread the western united states has almost entirely developed with cars, they aren't going away and you cant just force them out of existence.

The only reason the urban cores in the east aren't full of as much parking (I say the cores because everything outside of the central cities are just as car oriented) is because of infrastructure and designs laid out centuries ago.

Cities today will not be built like they were in 1800. They just wont, its not going to happen. Cities today also aren't getting built like they were in 1950.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Obadno

The sunbelt by and large is made up of people running away from Northern cities and they don't want to be like them.

What is sunbelt insecurity? If anything I think you have northeastern "insecurity" as the sunbelt growth rates skyrocket and the North/east losses prominence to the West/South in terms of economic drive and population.

What you get is a bunch of excuses from people in the North "they are hicks, their cities suck, no matter what they'll never be like us" etc.

LOL case in point.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

Pittsburgh always looks great on pics imo, it's the rivers and bridges containing the downtown area I think, that kind of thing always looks good compared with a featureless expanse with nothing to break it up (or worse, big multi-lane highways to break it up).

Pittsburgh is a very scenic city... you could live here for a lifetime and still discover new views of the city/skyline... that's not an exaggeration. The terrain undulates endlessly around here, so there's always the chance to discover a new vista if you explore all the hills and hollows of this "Paris of Appalachia".

Originally Posted by bossabreezes

It's hard to compare cities when using a benchmark as say, Oklahoma City. Not to bash OKC, I don't know it…but that's the point. Most people don't, it could be an amazing place…..I don't know and probably will never even visit.

No one would ever want to compare themselves to Oklahoma City because it sucks big time.