Stop comparing your city to New York, Chicago and San Francisco - Page 4

lio45 · #61 Posted **Apr 6, 2018, 7:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

either way, it's a really close call. basically coin-flip territory.

In terms of mass, it's not a close call, but I find the Jacksonville skyline more appealing visually. It's more varied and less bland.

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.

I think a skyline should be judged at least as much on looks and aesthetic quality than on sheer volume of buildings. The entire horizon could be filled with skyhigh commie blocks, that still wouldn't rank as the best skyline in the world, IMO. But that Pittsburgh pic, wow.

JManc · #62 Posted **Apr 6, 2018, 7:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by destroycreate

Wow, I really hope Houston sees more development than that!

That pic was like 40 or 50 years ago. That area has largely been all filled in:

The same area but looking other way:

The power switching station on lower left hand of current photo is in center of old photo for reference.

McBane · #63 Posted **Apr 6, 2018, 8:01 PM**

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.

mhays · #64 Posted **Apr 6, 2018, 8:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JManc

Yet you continue to gloss over the historical and technological reasons over and over as to why Phoenix does not look like Chicago. Do you think had Phoenix been built up in the 1800's rather than the second half of the 1900's, we'd be having this conversation? Drive a few miles outside of Chicago and a few of its nicer inner ring 'burbs and it looks like suburban Phoenix but without the cactus and mountains. Same shitty suburbs and sprawl.

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.

JManc · #65 Posted **Apr 6, 2018, 8:51 PM**

Quote:

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.

They are. The new construction (for the foreseeable future) here will always have to accommodate parking; part codes, part necessity but they are more urban than the crap they replaced. Developers are starting to value ground level retail on office towers and even retro fitting old(er) buildings with shops and restaurants. For something more urban cities take for granted, this is huge for a city like this.

You can't blame Chicago for Schaumburg's city planners/ council for allowing their city to be a soul sucking hell hole.

ThePhun1 · #66 Posted **Apr 6, 2018, 8:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

it's not bad.

just tiny.

That's understandable, but I also get bored with every city looking like NYC or Chicago in some way.

ThePhun1 · #67 Posted **Apr 6, 2018, 9:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by F1 Tommy

I think SF has the best west coast skyline. Seattle is also pretty nice with LA 3rd.

I also think PIT has a very nice downtown.

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

Steely Dan · #68 Posted **Apr 6, 2018, 9:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

That's understandable, but I also get bored with every city looking like NYC or Chicago in some way.

i like skylines.

big, tall, dense, massive skylines with shit-loads of towers of varying heights and styles all jumbled together.

jacksonville simply doesn't scratch that particular itch very much.

it doesn't mean that i can't or won't appreciate it for what it is (that blue steel truss elevator lift bridge that's prominently featured in many jacksonville skyline shots is wicked cool!), but ultimately i don't consider it to be a big time skyline.

it's neat, just not terribly noteworthy in a discussion about prominent north american skylines, the way that toronto's mighty skyline is.

JManc · #69 Posted **Apr 6, 2018, 9:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

That's understandable, but I also get bored with every city looking like NYC or Chicago in some way.

The only qualifier those two cities have that are similar to one another are adequate pizza, a bunch of really tall buildings and people in a hurry.

ThePhun1 · #70 Posted **Apr 6, 2018, 9:12 PM**

My point is cities don't have to look like one or the other or be geographically laid out like them to be viable. I never compared them to each other directly.

skyscraperpage17 · #71 Posted **Apr 6, 2018, 9:15 PM**

I don't get the purpose of this thread.

Who's comparing their cities to NYC / Chicago / San Francisco?

mhays · #72 Posted **Apr 6, 2018, 9:18 PM**

I mean greater Chicago. The State of Illinois needs to control sprawl and it doesn't.

Houston's parking problems are partly the requirements (social engineering) and partly the market not fighting back.

ThePhun1 · #73 Posted **Apr 6, 2018, 9:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lio45

In terms of mass, it's not a close call, but I find the Jacksonville skyline more appealing visually. It's more varied and less bland.

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.

I think a skyline should be judged at least as much on looks and aesthetic quality than on sheer volume of buildings. The entire horizon could be filled with skyhigh commie blocks, that still wouldn't rank as the best skyline in the world, IMO. But that Pittsburgh pic, wow.

This is what I'm trying to get across. Bigger isn't always better.

Steely Dan · #74 Posted **Apr 6, 2018, 9:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays

The State of Illinois needs to control sprawl and it doesn't.

there are LOTS of things that the State of Illinois needs to do and doesn't.

it's probably the most useless governmental body on the face of our planet.

Steely Dan · #75 Posted **Apr 6, 2018, 9:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Bigger isn't always better.

perhaps not.

but in the specific case of jacksonville's skyline vs. toronto's skyline, bigger is light years better, IMO.

like "not even remotely close to the ballpark of even being a contest" better.

JManc · #76 Posted **Apr 6, 2018, 9:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays

I mean greater Chicago. The State of Illinois needs to control sprawl and it doesn't.

Houston's parking problems are partly the requirements (social engineering) and partly the market not fighting back.

There should be some regional (on a MSA level) instead that handles that sort of thing since they all have a vested interest. I think some PNW metros have them if I'n not mistaken. States would fuck up a two car funeral and the less they're involved the better.

Yes, Houston needs to amend it's stupid policy on parking requirements. Incentives and so on..

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

I don't get the purpose of this thread.

Who's comparing their cities to NYC / Chicago / San Francisco?

Not by name but it's implied that these cities are the benchmark for what is 'urban' and they also get destroyed more in Michael bay movies too..

ThePhun1 · #77 Posted **Apr 6, 2018, 9:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

I don't get the purpose of this thread.

Who's comparing their cities to NYC / Chicago / San Francisco?

Plenty of people if you've read this board for a while.

skyscraperpage17 · #78 Posted **Apr 6, 2018, 9:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Plenty of people if you've read this board for a while.

I haven't seen this in any of the posts / forums I read.

If anything, I've mostly seen the opposite happen (posters holding other cities to unrealistic standards that only NYC / Chicago / San Francisco meet).

homebucket · #79 Posted **Apr 6, 2018, 9:37 PM**

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'

BrandonJXN · #80 Posted **Apr 6, 2018, 9:39 PM**

Quote:

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.

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.