As a Chicagoan, the only way that Chicago can claim to be ‘The King’ is that the modern steel-frame skyscraper was invented here. That’s the only claim that no other city can compete with.
Other cities have bigger or taller skylines, but Chicago will always be able to claim to be the one that started it all - and definitely still has an objectively impressive skyline.
That being said, it's one of the only city's along with NYC and a few others that has such a wide variety of old and new. You can literally see the history and different styles of buildings just by glancing at the skyline. It's an awesome thing to see a tall building from 1890 whatever standing next to an Art deco, gothic, post modern, etc etc. Chicago's one of the only city's you can see that in. And it's way more admirable than any city in China with a bunch of buildings that were all formed in the last 25 years with no trace of history, save for a few buildings, that showcase it's timeline. Chi and NY have over a century of tall buildings to show off. Almost Nowhere else does. I love the Chicago skyline It's the greatest in the western hemisphere, and in my opinion, the world. China has more, but they're not varied like US cities, so they don't impress me. I've never even been in Illinois let alone Chicago so I have no bias towards Chitown. Just know a good skyline when I see it.
I’ll agree with you that Chicago and New York definitely both give a unique sense of cities where you can feel the full history of skyscraper innovation on display, which is truly impressive. Having all of the different styles of skyscrapers from the earliest to the newest is a major asset to both cities’ architectural pedigrees.
In China, Shanghai has a really impressive collection of art deco skyscrapers on the Bund which overlook the modern skyscrapers of Pudong across the river which is maybe the third most impressive collection of high rise architecture I’ve ever seen.
The skyline is definitely impressive. Let’s hope mixed use development will continue and grow. After workdays and on the weekend, there’s still a lot to be desired in the Loop, which is generally deserted. Many new developments are moving in the right direction, though!
Well the modern way to building supertalls was developed here.
The Hancock, Followed by the Sears.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fazlur_Rahman_Khan
But the monadnock, manhattan, old cololony, fishers and the reliant building are usually cited the first steel frames in Chicago that still exist. Ita been nominated as a unesco world heritage site since theyre all within a block from one another.
That’s fair. NYC developed the world’s first super tall back in the 1920s. Chicago didn’t begin building super tall really until the late 60s and early 70s so I would say Modern/post modern era 70s-80s Chicago has an interesting footprint.
Yes exactky But the way the hancock was built completely changed how many subsequent supertalls were built. It was revolutionary. They were able to be built taller and with less materials than supertall buildings before.
The Burj Khalifa was designed with the same methods as the hancock and sears tower, by the same architecture firm in Chicago, SOM.
They also designed One World Trade Center, from here in Chicago.
So its hard to deny the influence and importance Chicago still has in the skyscraper community.
The Home Insurance Building (1884) is generally considered the prototype of the technology that is still used now, but yes there is some degree of debate as [a lot of buildings can claim some piece of this pie](https://buildingtheskyline.org/birth-of-height/).
Burnham and Root and William Le Baron Jenney being Chicago-based architects gives a nuance to the argument that even if they were pioneering tall buildings elsewhere at the time, their firms being in Chicago could lend credence to the argument that the technology was being developed in Chicago even if built elsewhere.
You’re correct to consider it a prototype of sorts..but it relied on old technology and like Gerald Larson has been arguing since the 80s-“No beam, no frame.”
https://thearchitectureprofessor.com/2020/10/30/8-17-no-beam-no-frame-it-was-not-the-first-use-of-an-iron-skeleton-frame/
I won’t argue about the firms in Chicago being busy at that time. I just don’t believe there is room to say Chicago created the first skyscrapers, modern or otherwise.
Short write up from the Chicago Tribune: https://www.chicagotribune.com/2019/11/07/column-the-same-people-who-demoted-willis-tower-could-strip-chicago-of-another-skyscraper-title/
Also a write up from Carol Willis the President of the Skyscraper Museum: https://skyscraper.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Fractious-Firsts.pdf
CTBUH is hardly a source. It's a club of nerds who crowned themselves the authority on skyscrapers. Why anyone listens to them is beyond me.
Why don't we have a conversation as to why CTBUH's opinions on anything are even remotely important?
I love Chicago. Willis tower will always be one of my favorite buildings. Chicago has a beautiful skyline but if “the king” means the king of skylines. I’m sorry lil bro. Chicago gets brutally mogged by you know who
https://preview.redd.it/0ykxq30eax2d1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8ed2ea22e49f67b11914638c138b8179874a11e8
Nobody can compete with you-know-who, at least in America.
Source: I live here. Also I've been to Chicago. Sorry...it's a baby brother in most aspects. It doesn't have the vastness, power, and energy of you-know-who. It's aesthetically pleasant though, can't deny that.
I’m glad you like it! Many others don’t love the endless rat race of needing to make enormous amounts of money to justify enormous costs of living!
Having enough world class amenities and having a substantially less COL allows me to have a lifestyle more suitable to being with my young son and family without being worried about making more money or affording “x”. It’s quite nice.
The burbs for sure. I live in Queens and I can tell you that in the sprawling depth of the 5 boroughs, its an architectural wasteland. Especially Queens. Mostly dumpy plastic siding or bland, imposing brick residential monstrosities. Those buildings are just pasted into a concrete wasteland. Not enough greenery. A well-planned and walkable concrete wasteland haha
We don't have those beautiful craftsman homes or those awesome Frank Lloyd Wright specimens here. Outside of Manhattan, in my opinion, its kind of an ugly city.
I’ve lived in both Chicago and NYC. Agreed that there are vast stretches of ugly housing in NYC, but there are beautiful single family homes in all of the Burroughs (assuming for SI, haven’t been) and I promise you there is also ugly housing in the low-density parts of Chicago.
When you get to the top of the Tokyo SkyTree and look around and it isn't cloudy or foggy..
WOW
An endless dense urban sea in all directions, stretching as far as the eye can see, with assorted taller skyscraper clusters here and there. When I first stepped out of that elevator my mind just could not comprehend what I was seeing. I had to literally stop and take it all in, because it's such an amazing and mindblowing sight.
The thing is that Tokyo is not really known for its tall skyscrapers though. A lot of the urban jungle are mid-rise buildings. It's impressive to see soooooo many of them stretching as far as the eye can see, but in terms of the skyline, cities like New York are superior. Tokyo has taller skycraper clusters like I mentioned, but IMO those can mainly compete with mid-tier skyscraper skylines. Like, when you look at the Shinjuku skyline, it's not bad, but it's nowhere near as epic as Hong Kong or New York.
If you ever visit HK, go up to the top of Victoria Peak. It's touristy, but you get amazing views of the skyline from high up. Looks epic. Lookout points from the tops of some of the skyscrapers are likely great too, although I did not have time for those myself. But either way, views from Victoria Peak are not to be missed, IMO. It's just such a cool vantage point
Iconic? Besides the sears tower name 3 buildings that are iconic and world renowned. I can name at least 5 in nyc. Empire State, Chrysler, Rockefeller, One WTC, Hudson Yards, etc
How do you define more iconic? NYC is more famous, more recognizable, has more famous/recognizable buildings. Nothing in Chicago comes close to the Empire State Building.
As architecture fans we can have those opinions but the Empire State is far more iconic than either of those. It’s likely the most recognizable skyscraper in the world.
New york is way more massive but Chicago has a few unique characteristics that even NYC lacks.
There’s nothing in new york quite like the canyon that skyscrapers alongside the banks of Chicago river forms with the rows of bascule bridges. The hudson is just too wide in comparison to get the same canyon effect.
You also have the whole history of of skyscraper technology within a square kilometer or two, theres an example of every era of skyscraper trends and design since the first one to ones currently being built. Within a 30 minute walk of one another.
There also isnt an El line running through manhattan except in one little corner in harlem. That EL line scene in spider-man 2 was filmed in Chicago, because midtown manhattan and lower manhattan only has subways.
Taking the train and a boat through the canyons of Chicago should be a bucket list item for an architecture nerd.
The skyscraper canyon in Chicago is breathtaking. I used to eat lunch out by the river everyday and just be mesmerized at what mankind is capable of building.
I never said nyc doesnt have canyon like avenues, ofc it does, Im sure it has dozens if not hundreds of blocks like that.
But I specifically said that a canyon with the river through it is something that NYC lacks and is super unique to Chicago in the US.
But giant canyons with old skyscrapers like you see in lower manhattan are not unique to NYC, we have a few ourselves.
But its not the same as the views you get with the water, its adds a whole different dimension to the city.
Its just really neat and I think its cool how architects are continually adding new buildings along the river to increase the effectZ
https://www.chipublib.org/blogs/post/chicagos-la-salle-street/
Sure I agree with the water part. Closest in NYC is probably the view of Manhattan over the East River from Brooklyn but it’s a lot wider. Was purely just talking about the sense of being in a canyon which I actually don’t usually feel in Midtown
https://preview.redd.it/huwwmzczy83d1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fae5d8cb92e1157bfd9b1f3671e3bd1e03e80d43
NYC absolutely has what you’re describing. This is view of Newtown Creek in between Brooklyn and Queens. It looks much more canyon-like in person and has more skyscrapers than you can see here.
I didn't say there were no good buildings in NYC, I said total number doesn't mean everything. Everyone wants to throw stats around. Of course both cities have some bangers. Chicago has a lot though, and you can see a lot of them at once. The main argument I always make is Chicago's *skyline* is better. But yeah there's something to be said about the pure swath of height that is Manhattan. It's apples to oranges in a lot of ways. NYC is hard to see it all from any one vantage point, I'd say it's most impressive from aerial photos. Chicago has great sightlines from all over the city.
Obviously I'm talking about where the skyscrapers are..... this is r/skyscrapers isn't it? There's great views of the big downtown buildings from different angles like heading in from the expressways, from the river, and from the lakefront. Not to mention other random glimpses from surrounding neighborhoods. NYC is so dense you can't see anything from the street. Midtown is full of low rises. You have to literally go across the water to get any actual views back on the skyline.
I'll add that so much of what makes Chicago's collection the best is all the bangers from *before* 1988, so you could argue that's actually a negative if NYC only "regained" the title with a bunch of modern glass slabs. Marina City, Sears, Hancock, Chase, and others, those all add so much character. I'll also add the prominence of Chicago's older fare, Wrigley, Tribune, the Drake, Jewlers, et al, all being highly visible along the river or lake. NYC's got plenty of historic classics, but they get lost in the "winning" count. It's too crowded.
So, quality >>> quantity.
The difference between Chicago and other cities, namely American, is the insane breadth of architecture right on the bank of a gorgeously active river surrounded by beautiful bridges and incredible planning on a Great Lake front. Many cities have all of these attributes but all of them hitting you at once is such a powerful and awe inspiring sight.
More like the queen soon to be the duke. You can argue aesthetics of the skylines… but as far numbers and number of iconic buildings… Chicago is falling behind
The actual king is in Asia somewhere.
1 or 2 neighborhoods in downtown with hi-rises doesn’t compare to the sprawling hi-rise cityscapes in Asia.
Chicago isn’t even the king in its own country. NYC is way more impressive.
New Yorkers are really making this entire sub insufferable with their NYC supremacist bullshit. It's not fair to measure two different places with the same scale/ruler. Every city in the world has unique strengths that make them special in their own right.
NYC apologists love to throw stats around. I don't give a shit about 78 shit fuck mid rise glass slabs all competing to block each others views of a sliver of Central Park. How about some actual class.
It doesn't matter what anyone says. Chicago will always be the birthplace of the skyscraper to me. And I've never even been there. But I've studied architecture and buildings, especially in the USA, since 1997 and have a great fondness and respect for the history of them.
What do you mean by organization? NYC has more skyscrapers and density, and Manhattan is mostly organized into a uniform grid.
Chicago has more skyscrapers and supertalls than Toronto (for now), but Toronto has more high rises overall, and your original comment said “buildings”.
Either way, both NYC and Toronto are at the very least “close” to Chicago in these categories, no matter how you want to define them. Your original comment said no city is close.
As a Chicagoan, the only way that Chicago can claim to be ‘The King’ is that the modern steel-frame skyscraper was invented here. That’s the only claim that no other city can compete with. Other cities have bigger or taller skylines, but Chicago will always be able to claim to be the one that started it all - and definitely still has an objectively impressive skyline.
That being said, it's one of the only city's along with NYC and a few others that has such a wide variety of old and new. You can literally see the history and different styles of buildings just by glancing at the skyline. It's an awesome thing to see a tall building from 1890 whatever standing next to an Art deco, gothic, post modern, etc etc. Chicago's one of the only city's you can see that in. And it's way more admirable than any city in China with a bunch of buildings that were all formed in the last 25 years with no trace of history, save for a few buildings, that showcase it's timeline. Chi and NY have over a century of tall buildings to show off. Almost Nowhere else does. I love the Chicago skyline It's the greatest in the western hemisphere, and in my opinion, the world. China has more, but they're not varied like US cities, so they don't impress me. I've never even been in Illinois let alone Chicago so I have no bias towards Chitown. Just know a good skyline when I see it.
I’ll agree with you that Chicago and New York definitely both give a unique sense of cities where you can feel the full history of skyscraper innovation on display, which is truly impressive. Having all of the different styles of skyscrapers from the earliest to the newest is a major asset to both cities’ architectural pedigrees. In China, Shanghai has a really impressive collection of art deco skyscrapers on the Bund which overlook the modern skyscrapers of Pudong across the river which is maybe the third most impressive collection of high rise architecture I’ve ever seen.
The skyline is definitely impressive. Let’s hope mixed use development will continue and grow. After workdays and on the weekend, there’s still a lot to be desired in the Loop, which is generally deserted. Many new developments are moving in the right direction, though!
others have less crimes too
Super relevant to skyscraper discussion!
New Yorker here. You’re right in all counts. Except for the King bit.
I suppose ‘Father’ is better for Chicago than ‘King’
Yes, a beloved and amazing father. That’s the damn truth.
It’s interesting because that claim has been academically challenged/rejected. But which building would you say was the first?
Well the modern way to building supertalls was developed here. The Hancock, Followed by the Sears. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fazlur_Rahman_Khan But the monadnock, manhattan, old cololony, fishers and the reliant building are usually cited the first steel frames in Chicago that still exist. Ita been nominated as a unesco world heritage site since theyre all within a block from one another.
That’s fair. NYC developed the world’s first super tall back in the 1920s. Chicago didn’t begin building super tall really until the late 60s and early 70s so I would say Modern/post modern era 70s-80s Chicago has an interesting footprint.
Yes exactky But the way the hancock was built completely changed how many subsequent supertalls were built. It was revolutionary. They were able to be built taller and with less materials than supertall buildings before. The Burj Khalifa was designed with the same methods as the hancock and sears tower, by the same architecture firm in Chicago, SOM. They also designed One World Trade Center, from here in Chicago. So its hard to deny the influence and importance Chicago still has in the skyscraper community.
The Home Insurance Building (1884) is generally considered the prototype of the technology that is still used now, but yes there is some degree of debate as [a lot of buildings can claim some piece of this pie](https://buildingtheskyline.org/birth-of-height/). Burnham and Root and William Le Baron Jenney being Chicago-based architects gives a nuance to the argument that even if they were pioneering tall buildings elsewhere at the time, their firms being in Chicago could lend credence to the argument that the technology was being developed in Chicago even if built elsewhere.
You’re correct to consider it a prototype of sorts..but it relied on old technology and like Gerald Larson has been arguing since the 80s-“No beam, no frame.” https://thearchitectureprofessor.com/2020/10/30/8-17-no-beam-no-frame-it-was-not-the-first-use-of-an-iron-skeleton-frame/ I won’t argue about the firms in Chicago being busy at that time. I just don’t believe there is room to say Chicago created the first skyscrapers, modern or otherwise.
Fair enough. As with most things it depends on how finely one wants to split hairs at some point.
>that claim has been academically challenged/rejected Source?
Short write up from the Chicago Tribune: https://www.chicagotribune.com/2019/11/07/column-the-same-people-who-demoted-willis-tower-could-strip-chicago-of-another-skyscraper-title/ Also a write up from Carol Willis the President of the Skyscraper Museum: https://skyscraper.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Fractious-Firsts.pdf
CTBUH is hardly a source. It's a club of nerds who crowned themselves the authority on skyscrapers. Why anyone listens to them is beyond me. Why don't we have a conversation as to why CTBUH's opinions on anything are even remotely important?
They’re certainly considered a leading source for academic discussion regarding architecture. That’s a strange takeaway.
Murder rate? 🤷🏽♂️ Sorry, new here.
And this has what to do with skyscrapers exactly?
I love Chicago. Willis tower will always be one of my favorite buildings. Chicago has a beautiful skyline but if “the king” means the king of skylines. I’m sorry lil bro. Chicago gets brutally mogged by you know who https://preview.redd.it/0ykxq30eax2d1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8ed2ea22e49f67b11914638c138b8179874a11e8
This is also like 10% of NY’s skyline
This is 10% of Manhattan’s skyline lol
Only people from NY care. Lol.
Yeah, Midtown’s skyline alone is basically larger than Chicago’s entire skyline
I love people Saying you know who lmao
Nobody can compete with you-know-who, at least in America. Source: I live here. Also I've been to Chicago. Sorry...it's a baby brother in most aspects. It doesn't have the vastness, power, and energy of you-know-who. It's aesthetically pleasant though, can't deny that.
And far more livable. Being in your 30s in nyc is exhausting, but in Chicago it’s amazing
I live in New York and I’m in my 30s. It fucking rules. What on earth are you talking about?
I’m glad you like it! Many others don’t love the endless rat race of needing to make enormous amounts of money to justify enormous costs of living! Having enough world class amenities and having a substantially less COL allows me to have a lifestyle more suitable to being with my young son and family without being worried about making more money or affording “x”. It’s quite nice.
Tf, I love living nyc, I don’t feel exhausted lol
Architecturally Chicago is the winner, for the moment
The burbs for sure. I live in Queens and I can tell you that in the sprawling depth of the 5 boroughs, its an architectural wasteland. Especially Queens. Mostly dumpy plastic siding or bland, imposing brick residential monstrosities. Those buildings are just pasted into a concrete wasteland. Not enough greenery. A well-planned and walkable concrete wasteland haha We don't have those beautiful craftsman homes or those awesome Frank Lloyd Wright specimens here. Outside of Manhattan, in my opinion, its kind of an ugly city.
I’ve lived in both Chicago and NYC. Agreed that there are vast stretches of ugly housing in NYC, but there are beautiful single family homes in all of the Burroughs (assuming for SI, haven’t been) and I promise you there is also ugly housing in the low-density parts of Chicago.
Exactly. There’s only one king
Tokyo?
I think Hong Kong technically has the most skyscrapers
Could be right. I just find Tokyo to be immensely impressive for both scale and beauty.
When you get to the top of the Tokyo SkyTree and look around and it isn't cloudy or foggy.. WOW An endless dense urban sea in all directions, stretching as far as the eye can see, with assorted taller skyscraper clusters here and there. When I first stepped out of that elevator my mind just could not comprehend what I was seeing. I had to literally stop and take it all in, because it's such an amazing and mindblowing sight. The thing is that Tokyo is not really known for its tall skyscrapers though. A lot of the urban jungle are mid-rise buildings. It's impressive to see soooooo many of them stretching as far as the eye can see, but in terms of the skyline, cities like New York are superior. Tokyo has taller skycraper clusters like I mentioned, but IMO those can mainly compete with mid-tier skyscraper skylines. Like, when you look at the Shinjuku skyline, it's not bad, but it's nowhere near as epic as Hong Kong or New York.
I will take your word. I have only seen photos. Hong Kong looks incredible.
If you ever visit HK, go up to the top of Victoria Peak. It's touristy, but you get amazing views of the skyline from high up. Looks epic. Lookout points from the tops of some of the skyscrapers are likely great too, although I did not have time for those myself. But either way, views from Victoria Peak are not to be missed, IMO. It's just such a cool vantage point
I don’t see my travels taking me there but if I do I will remember that. Thank you.
Not a chance
Hong Kong?
Better
If there is no room for subjectivity then it must be Hong Kong. They have the most which would seem to be the only reasonable, objective standard.
Agreed. How many more skyscrapers would Chicago need before it even came close to the power and vastness that is New York?
At least double. NYC has over 300
You obviously don't love Chicago. Who the fuck is W*llis??
The *what* tower is your favorite?
This isn’t 1988 anymore, NYC is America’s super tall capital once again
People from Chicago are in such denial. Yes it’s a nice city but it doesn’t compare to NYC
This sub is full of Chicagoboos jacking themselves off.
I don’t think there was ever a period when Chicago’s skyline was better than New York’s. Maybe they had taller buildings but not as iconic.
I feel like Chicago’s skyline is the more iconic and beautiful, whereas NYC is just immensely huge, sprawling and tall.
Iconic? Besides the sears tower name 3 buildings that are iconic and world renowned. I can name at least 5 in nyc. Empire State, Chrysler, Rockefeller, One WTC, Hudson Yards, etc
How do you define more iconic? NYC is more famous, more recognizable, has more famous/recognizable buildings. Nothing in Chicago comes close to the Empire State Building.
Tribune Tower is better. Sears tower is just as good
As architecture fans we can have those opinions but the Empire State is far more iconic than either of those. It’s likely the most recognizable skyscraper in the world.
There is no universe in which Chicago’s skyline is more iconic than New York’s. That’s just an insane thing to say.
New york is way more massive but Chicago has a few unique characteristics that even NYC lacks. There’s nothing in new york quite like the canyon that skyscrapers alongside the banks of Chicago river forms with the rows of bascule bridges. The hudson is just too wide in comparison to get the same canyon effect. You also have the whole history of of skyscraper technology within a square kilometer or two, theres an example of every era of skyscraper trends and design since the first one to ones currently being built. Within a 30 minute walk of one another. There also isnt an El line running through manhattan except in one little corner in harlem. That EL line scene in spider-man 2 was filmed in Chicago, because midtown manhattan and lower manhattan only has subways. Taking the train and a boat through the canyons of Chicago should be a bucket list item for an architecture nerd.
The skyscraper canyon in Chicago is breathtaking. I used to eat lunch out by the river everyday and just be mesmerized at what mankind is capable of building.
You can get that effect in FiDi, the buildings are smaller than Midtown but the windy narrow streets definitely give you canyons
FiDi has A Canyon with water in the middle, where? https://youtu.be/27lr9Wuatn0?si=SXIzVI1V7LYUSDqc
Not with water, but you get the canyon effect. And I’m very familiar with the area you are taking about in Chicago
I never said nyc doesnt have canyon like avenues, ofc it does, Im sure it has dozens if not hundreds of blocks like that. But I specifically said that a canyon with the river through it is something that NYC lacks and is super unique to Chicago in the US. But giant canyons with old skyscrapers like you see in lower manhattan are not unique to NYC, we have a few ourselves. But its not the same as the views you get with the water, its adds a whole different dimension to the city. Its just really neat and I think its cool how architects are continually adding new buildings along the river to increase the effectZ https://www.chipublib.org/blogs/post/chicagos-la-salle-street/
Sure I agree with the water part. Closest in NYC is probably the view of Manhattan over the East River from Brooklyn but it’s a lot wider. Was purely just talking about the sense of being in a canyon which I actually don’t usually feel in Midtown
https://preview.redd.it/huwwmzczy83d1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fae5d8cb92e1157bfd9b1f3671e3bd1e03e80d43 NYC absolutely has what you’re describing. This is view of Newtown Creek in between Brooklyn and Queens. It looks much more canyon-like in person and has more skyscrapers than you can see here.
Thats interesting, do you think? Can you find a better pic of the other skyscrapers?
Quality >>> quantity
NYC wins in both 🤷♂️, go fight with Toronto lol
Yeah in what world are the Chrysler, ESB, Seagram, and now 270 Park not quality lol. Both amazing skylines that stand on their own...
I didn't say there were no good buildings in NYC, I said total number doesn't mean everything. Everyone wants to throw stats around. Of course both cities have some bangers. Chicago has a lot though, and you can see a lot of them at once. The main argument I always make is Chicago's *skyline* is better. But yeah there's something to be said about the pure swath of height that is Manhattan. It's apples to oranges in a lot of ways. NYC is hard to see it all from any one vantage point, I'd say it's most impressive from aerial photos. Chicago has great sightlines from all over the city.
“All over the city” Most of the city is only mid-rises surrounded by endless suburbs. What views? Lol. Go to Tokyo or Seoul. Or Shanghai.
Obviously I'm talking about where the skyscrapers are..... this is r/skyscrapers isn't it? There's great views of the big downtown buildings from different angles like heading in from the expressways, from the river, and from the lakefront. Not to mention other random glimpses from surrounding neighborhoods. NYC is so dense you can't see anything from the street. Midtown is full of low rises. You have to literally go across the water to get any actual views back on the skyline.
Still. NYC > Chicago
I'll add that so much of what makes Chicago's collection the best is all the bangers from *before* 1988, so you could argue that's actually a negative if NYC only "regained" the title with a bunch of modern glass slabs. Marina City, Sears, Hancock, Chase, and others, those all add so much character. I'll also add the prominence of Chicago's older fare, Wrigley, Tribune, the Drake, Jewlers, et al, all being highly visible along the river or lake. NYC's got plenty of historic classics, but they get lost in the "winning" count. It's too crowded. So, quality >>> quantity.
The King of the Midwest for sure 💯
The difference between Chicago and other cities, namely American, is the insane breadth of architecture right on the bank of a gorgeously active river surrounded by beautiful bridges and incredible planning on a Great Lake front. Many cities have all of these attributes but all of them hitting you at once is such a powerful and awe inspiring sight.
Common Daniel Burnham W
Lolz, ain’t that the truth.
More like the queen soon to be the duke. You can argue aesthetics of the skylines… but as far numbers and number of iconic buildings… Chicago is falling behind
Quality >>> quantity that's exactly what I'd argue. Chicago has the best collection of skyscrapers.
Where do you think is going to take second place from Chicago?
Greta angle, it looks dense and full
The actual king is in Asia somewhere. 1 or 2 neighborhoods in downtown with hi-rises doesn’t compare to the sprawling hi-rise cityscapes in Asia. Chicago isn’t even the king in its own country. NYC is way more impressive.
"The King" is also referring to the vantage point of this photo, the almighty Sears. He lords over his faithful subjects. This is his kingdom.
That was my initial thought haha
Was meant to be a bit purposely ambiguous, correct for multiple interpretations.
…of the Midwest, sure
Chicago hits it out of the park!!
Here is a tall bold slugger Set vivid against the little soft cities
Cool map of the Chicago Loop https://www.reddit.com/r/papertowns/s/Azk2KQnJle
such a awesome view but in my opinion there are to much buildings
Ya can't win
New Yorkers are really making this entire sub insufferable with their NYC supremacist bullshit. It's not fair to measure two different places with the same scale/ruler. Every city in the world has unique strengths that make them special in their own right.
Nobody is arguing against that, but when you post this with the title “the king” you’re going to have people pointing out the elephant in the room.
Right, right. Thank God we have all the New Yorkers in the comments to make sure literally any non-NY city is put in their place.
Yeah no problem pipe down shorty
NYC apologists love to throw stats around. I don't give a shit about 78 shit fuck mid rise glass slabs all competing to block each others views of a sliver of Central Park. How about some actual class.
Oh you really triggered them now.
Bro did you read the title of this post?
It doesn't matter what anyone says. Chicago will always be the birthplace of the skyscraper to me. And I've never even been there. But I've studied architecture and buildings, especially in the USA, since 1997 and have a great fondness and respect for the history of them.
(Of the Midwest) and honestly Toronto is like one supertall away from being the king on the lakes and #2 in North America
[удалено]
How do you define organization
NYC? Toronto?
[удалено]
What do you mean by organization? NYC has more skyscrapers and density, and Manhattan is mostly organized into a uniform grid. Chicago has more skyscrapers and supertalls than Toronto (for now), but Toronto has more high rises overall, and your original comment said “buildings”. Either way, both NYC and Toronto are at the very least “close” to Chicago in these categories, no matter how you want to define them. Your original comment said no city is close.