Chicago has less buildings than hew york. But for me it has the most beautiful and balanced skyline anywhere. The variety of styles, only new york can rival, the location of the peaks in the skyline is spread out beautifully.
Chicago will never touch New York in mass and volume. But Chicago’s skyline is more elegant and almost seems planned. The architecture and the way the tallest peaks are spaced between each other makes Chicago’s skyline more beautiful than New York’s. At least to my eyes.
Chicago’s skyline is more aesthetically pleasing than New York’s and looks more put together. However New York’s Skyline is far more impressive with its size. All the people saying NYC has a better skyline are just saying that because of the number of skyscrapers. More does not equal better in this case
Chicago is basically the only other city that also has the evolution of every era of the skyscraper and supertalls that have even narrower sides generally the east/west view to have those spikes as NYC Skinnies can and do. That due east view from Lake Michigan gives that effect and fact Chicago's skyline hugs the lakefront for many many miles of a skyline past the core. This 2-min video shows those spikes so that also is a factor here. From the lake looking due east for the narrow profiles that take on the skinny spikes. ua-cam.com/video/miDkoOuwLqE/v-deo.html
@@Charmedone9805 You think Chicago was not building in the 80s, 90,s 2000s and 2010s? It was plenty also 80s was great for its post-moderism skyscaper era. Those left behind far more a basick glass box. Just its Streeterville neighborhood of downtown was still mostly a blank-slate 60s 70s. By the 90s and 2000s and 10s it was hot hot hot in new buildings that looks more sunbelt today but better quality and green, street-level businesses and athestically pleasing glass towers. Chicago even got 4 50-story plus glass towers 2017 thru covid built all-office buldings. The latest all office 706-story was completed last year. A mix of old and new and so many eras is not outdated to most. A glass box csn be any era or basic sunbelt offic park. Lakeshore East New East Side south of Streertville downtown and river was basically blank early 70s. It was a Hudson Yards kind of NYC before it was and pioneered building by and over air-rights with rail yards. So much new era built with its intetior park. Today it has one spot left along the lake for the last plot for a skyscraper. Just the blend removes what can be boring of sll glass bluish boxes. The Loop as the oldest original downtown prtion has its oldest skyscrapers and Gotham streets with alleys with newer mixed in. Many buildings are timeless and NYC sure has its beauties. Basicly... if Chicago looks outdated NYC clearly is too. Its mass of older still great marvals are aplenty. Its area between Midtown and Lower-Manhattan have all them old block after block of tenement/elevater walls of full blocks of buildings on narrow streets. Even Wall St is very narrow with older beauties when we had artisans and craftsmen in stone and built Romsn Empire-like temples to commerce. Definitly going up Lake Shore Drive most shyscrapers/high-rises ar 60s 70s boom ther before presevationist stopped old majestic mansions destruction for a new building of glass and concrete.
One central is a pipe dream that will never happen. Way too expense for no true gain. Especially since the bears are likely to move out of soldier field
@@hydrolando123 I was going to say the same thing. Supertall construction is always a slow and long process unlike New York and Chicago faces competition from Dubai and Hong Kong in terms of attention getting buildings.
I go to Chicago almost yearly, even taking flight transits and attending events. It's the original American city, a modern, futuristic mega-city project.
Chicago for surely has a better looking skyline than NYC with all those new buildings looking like telephone poles. Chicago's skyline looks like a well put together mountain range from a distance.
@@thebabbler8867 The opposite is the case. The windbag speaker aspect was cited throughout the 20th century. More recently, in contrast, there have been writings to debunk those origin stories.
"Windy City" is a moniker derived from the bombastic Chicago politicians who were full of hot air. It has nothing to do with the weather. Also, the term "Second City" is not deferential to New York, rather it is a reference to rebuilding the City after the Great Fire in 1871. The Second City to rise on the Lakefront.
Used to live NY and visited Chicago for the very first time this past fall. In my opinion, NYC is just a concrete jungle as presented by the narrator. Outside of the Empire and Chrysler buildings, the rest are just super tall high rises. Chicago on the other hand has the most has the most beautiful layout and is highly walkable. I love the River walk and the Loop, while NYC has the High Line.
NYC has far more buildings, but Chicago is stunning with 20+ miles of beaches. (btw, the Sears Tower IS still taller than Freedom Tower in NYC which measures a non occupied spire). While Chicago is called Windy Fity, the nickname has nothing to do with wind/atmosphere, even as tall buildings off lake will/do get winds. The transit hub idea won’t happen, much opposition and no need.
@@thomasboyd3120 FYI- Central Park is NOT the same once as the "Freedom" (One World) Tower....The Central Park Tower's roof is 1,550 FT vs the Sears Tower's 1,450. In fact there are now two towers in in NYC that are taller than the Sear's Tower from the roof height...By the end of this decade there will be at least four towers in NYC that (are) will be taller, at the roof, than the Sear's Tower. 🤔
Yea true. I'm from Chicago but lived in New York. New York is killing Chicago on skyscrapers right now. But the layout of the skylines, I think the layout look more smooth and beautiful with Chicago. Chicago has potential and could do much better with skyscrapers but Chicago is kind of weird on that level. They always start a project but then cancel it.
@@youngx5864 Recessions killed many including other cities and mighty NYC especially the crash killing Chicago's megatall and two supertalls one stopped at 20 stories finished a few yrs later at 50-stories. Trump Tower Chicago was half-way up at the Crash years and finished in 2009 by Dueschbank money. The latest was St Regis Tower supertall finished 2020. That was originally financed by a Chinese billionaire investor and China forced selling US assets. Luckily it was already going up and others in the US picked it up and completed it. NYC just gets a lot of international investment also and buying its condos, Chicago was never so lucky. It builds for its own or those moving in and most investment is by local groups. Chicago also has land to develop large projects that were proposed and approved and the Panndeemic did them in on hold. That land though is ripe and will slowly get developed like Lincoln Yards at Goose Island just north of the CBD and The 78 just south of mighty ole Sears (Willis) Tower with both 50+ and 60+ acres clear. Still a lot of West Loop former industrial buildings and many repurposes with new high-rises among them. The United Center Bulls and Blackhawks arena is now scheduled for its parking lots to be more venues and residential tower and mid-rises as a 7 Bil project to break ground this year and it was fast tracked it seemed and approved. So Chicago still has a clear future with even land on the Westside with empty lots for revival as needed. The Midwest rust-belt will rise again and Chicago still got far more than the others.... still pricier than others, just not vs NYC by a longshot. Staying more building as need keeps extreme cost a bit calmer and moving forward slower should weather some crash ahead a bit better ..... Still its debt is a issue and NYC's debt is tremendous also. Just it has more people and wealth or it would be bankrupt like in 1975.
We don't need to overshadow New York, New York just put buildings anywhere they can go. That is why! those tall skyscrapers, are over shadowing Central Park in New York. When you do a helicopter or drone view of New York. The city looks very cluttered with, these new tall skyscrapers. That they don't need I can bet, most of those buildings are not occupied. The helicopter view of New York's skyline, looks like a landfield. Do a helicopter or drone view of Chicago's iconic skyline, it does not look cluttered or congested.
NYC building investments is making our little Chicago investments look like baby work. I grew up in Chicago. We could do much better. Chicago just weird sometimes
Never. Chicago is a much smaller city, and it does not have remotely the level of wealth that NY does. NY banks are building massive new office towers. No other American city is. Also, luxury supertall towers in NY sell for over $10k/sf. No city in the world comes remotely close. I love Chicago, but let's be realistic. Similarly, Atlanta and Dallas will never surpass Chicago.
The last time I was in Chicago was around September an I could find several locations that could use development. One of the main reasons Chicago doesn’t have more tall buildings compared to NYC is because allot of area suburbs took away this opportunity.
Chicago makes a lot of sense in approving and planning and building these new developments. The buildings are beautiful and well thought out and to add affordable housing is a major plus unlike the greedy apartment owners in New York. Chicago seems to think about her people unlike New York. I wish the city and her people a wonderful furture.
Chicago will never beat New York City at a skyscraper rivalry. I lived in NYC for 20 years and I have been in Chicago enough times. When you walk in Manhattan ( center of NYC), skyscrapers are literally everywhere. The only neighborhood in the whole island which hasn't been claimed by skyscrapers YET, is harlem. I'm sure in the next 10-20 years, the last piece of the island will be transformed by a skyscrapers. Chicago has a lot of tall buildings, but nowhere near the amount of NYC.
No one questions the scope of NYC's quantities and legacy of all eras of our history. Still aesthetics, cleanliness, water features and just personal taste and enjoyment can clearly give people preferences. For the late 19th century and much of the 20th century. Chicago and NYC shared/exchanged architectural inventiveness and engineering into buildings of each era and style to architects. Clearly, NYC won the race in growth and quantities and Chicago inland clearly did not have the influx of immigrants coming thru its port over decades. Chicago had no Ellis Island thru the 1920s. To get to Chicago was train or vehicle or some boat thru the Great Lakes. So clearly NYC once it annexed its Boroughs for the 1900 census. A Chicago could not rival the growth of NYC though it did in the late 19th century when NYC was just Manhattan and Chicago was growing faster in its boom post Great Fire of 1871 that would create the skyscraper.
It isn’t about quantity. It’s about quality. No one is arguing that NY’s skyline isn’t massive and jam packed. It clearly has a higher number of buildings. But Chicago’s skyline is much more elegant and pleasing to the eye. The whole aesthetic of the perfectly placed skyscrapers soaring along the glistening lakefront layout is like a work of urban art.
Chicago needs to improve its quality of life, improve crime, and public transport before it can build more buildings. The CTA's ridership is less than 1/10 of NYCTA.
@@Earth1218in my opinion it’s apples snd oranges, you can’t compare Times Square snd the ESB with the Chicago river silhouette of the John Hancock building.
@@ahmedzakikhan7639 Come on... all know most crime is in sections of the city gang infested. Incidents can occur in a large city as thur every era it was so. Chicago who metro is less than a million people less than all NYC city proper. No one disputes NYC size and largest density in the US. Just NYC's subway/elevated rail is far from new and to boast grand and prettiest or cleanest and ALWAYS Full of characters you rather not see. It surely has the coverage. Just Chicago is far more with locals able to own cars and they did. Even if they take transport to work. They many times have garages in the back alleys and even in high-rises to skyscrapers as podium buildings. Just that car is for weekends more and to big box stores for heavy loads and travel for pleasure to getaways in the more rural areas. I mean those who know NYC rail will never say its is without its many issues and people they rather not see. So come on.... Chicago L is a older system LIKE NYC yet modernized features as computerized and with apps to and TV screens for train and bus arrivals and automated announcing on the trains. It is old yet maintained and sure occasional people one rather not see, but OMG NYC is no perfect transit hub.... it does have coverage by density more than other cities. Just Chicago has full bus coverage and the L is far from sub-par despite a older system and just so many got back to cars during the pandemic and they still like them. Chicago has far more a ability to have locals own cars and even the core regions many high-rise to skyscraper living are with parking in the building vs NYC that skinnies cannot and just too pricey to use for parking.
well non of it mean anything until they actually get built no city on earth had more impressive proposed sky scrappers that didn't go through than Chicago
Chicago has the most space to grow. It has a lot of vacant land. New York is already overbuilt and can't realistically grow much and being jammed together and seemingly unplanned as well, it doesn't look well. Chicago's skyline is beautiful so far and is planned better. Hong Kong is also formidable as a skyline and is more a better match to Chicago. Unfortunately Chicago doesn't build a lot of taller buildings much and it needs towers around the 900 to 1000 foot range and is in need of a new supertall replacement for the now obsolete Willis Tower.
@ yeah I don’t know what you’re talking about. We have all different types of buildings from different eras. A majority of Chicago skyscrapers are all boxy, boring buildings. Maybe outside of the Hancock building that’s really the only thing that stands out. You’re probably just salty because you don’t have the tallest building in the US anymore.
Toronto still will not have the supertalls and can never have the whole history of skyscrapers in its core and skyline for Toronto to rival. A lot more blue glass buildings it can and total skyscrapers from its minimums yes. Than add aesthetics, layout having a river thru it and quantity just as populations within its borders still does not create a city that rivers another. Legacy and contribution to the cultural aspects of society over centuries also play a role. Add Chicago has those large reclaimed from industrial 50+acre plots in the core so land is available. Toronto can get more corridors outward on main lines, but it would have to have more R-1 zoned single-home blocks for higher to skyscrapers allowed. So the must go taller by more land restrictions also plays a roll with the influx of immigrants Toronto gets by Canada's by-merit pro-educated immigrants that a huge % does Toronto as the US has many more larger cities to take most it gets especially our booming sunbelt.
@@ahmedzakikhan7639no matter rather you like it, Toronto is getting ready to surpass (if not already) Chicago in the number of skyscrapers, becoming the city with the 2nd most in the Western Hemisphere.
@@ahmedzakikhan7639 Out of all my comment you took that? It references a lot more buildings as high-rises to skyscrapers built last 25 yrs that utilize the same glass colorations. Clearly most views show these buildings. Lower much older low buildings. My point was Toronto's boom came after Quebec Separatist Movement got super-active in the 1970s as Montreal was Canada's Premier city and hosted a summer Olympics in '72. After that a huge paranoia came as Quebec went a bit rogue and threatened succesion from Canada and began a mass exodus of Canada's Banks to HQ of its top corporations and national institutions and Toronto became the It-city to become Anglo-Canada's new premier city. Even the Bank of Montreal moved its HQ to Toronto. Canada chose to re-make Toronto into a much larger city-proper with its "Amalgamations". If you are less familiar? Look up the history of how fast Toronto get created from a much smaller main city and other surrounding Boroughs. The amalgamation was widely opposed in Toronto and the other municipalities. Its was forced despite a municipal referendum in 1997 in which over three-quarters of voters rejected amalgamation and the mayors of York and Toronto then. The massive exodus of Canada's might from Montreal was the making of a new Toronto that instantly became the largest city after Mexico City, NYC, LA and Chicago in North America city propers. Still Chicagoland metro has a couple million + people. As long as Canadian immigration does not drastically slow.... it reasons it will continue to grow. In Canada your main cities hug the southern border and there is not sunbelt to relocate to as Chicago in the northern US gets real winters like T.O and its growth and the north are much slower by our booming sunbelt cities today. Chicago's growth was by far pre-WW2 and peaked in the 1950s as suburban growth skyrocketed vs the city proper. Before 1900 Chicago was the fastest-growing city in the world. In 1900 NYC annexed its Borough's and Chicago could never catch it with NYC a main entry port for US immigrants. Toronto's growth in skyscrapers is clearly much later though Chicago added still so much through to today with again... every era of the skyscraper from the earliest and supertalls from 1969 onward. Last one completed 2000. The Crash of 07 08 it lost a couple under-construction one 20-stories up and one Mega-tall its foundation casians in to the bedrock, but Trump Tower Chicago supertall was half-way up and completed in 2009. It is great as a immigrant? You feel your new city is the best. Just aspects of legacy have to evolve thru many many decades and booms that come same eras ... generally built for need and cost-effective styling sometimes have very similar looks and materials used. Much of that for Toronto (changing aspects as time now goes) was that same bluish glass residential towers for its influx of mostly immigrants now well over 60 I believe of TO. Great it preserves its single-family housing thru the city and oldest sections of row-homes. So it HAS TO GO UPWARD. Chicago does not and has land around the core to build new that was former industrial areas now gone. My post was not to demean Toronto. Just acknowledge a Chicago just has much more a legacy and history that shows in its skyline and walking among all them eras of buildings mixed together as skyscrapers. Earliest were just 10 12-stories in the 1880s. These pioneered the era of the skyscraper shared with NYC and NYC grew to what Chicago inland US could not, but its skyline and legacy is still still listed in world skylines list including on UA-cam ahead of Toronto as Asian cities surpass both in especially China.
NO. Because downtown Chicago isn't as big as the borough of Manhattan. Chicago's tall buildings are squeezed in and the rich people don't have as much money as New York to build a ton of skyscrapers. But, the buildings... pretty.
Chicago has more space though. Manhattan can only build up due to the small size of the island. Cities like Chicago and Toronto keep stretching up and across due to their long lakeshores.
@Wrytho skyscraper construction are a function of LAND Prices too. Ask yourself why is a city like Chicago so cheap ? (I know people will say it's a good thing but think why it's not ). Chicago's CTA is not even 1/10 of NYCTA. Chicago needs to control crime and improve public transport, it is loosing population and struggling economically. Once Chicago improves quality of life, land prices will go up and builders will build more buildings.
If you look at history. After its Great Fire of 1871. It got limitations that would prevent it becoming a city of tenement-like buildings that had expose's then of mass poor living in a room with no windows in buildings. Chicago began with alleyways in its first street layout it kept so even the Loop downtown has them to hid its trash bins and have deliveries and some lower delivery levels. Wider streets in its core also and a river canyon of skyscrapers that impresses still. It refined and remade itself for tourist with attractions like, Navy Pier and a redo in 2015. Millennium Park like gets the most visitors in the Midwest attractions and its Riverwalk all total successes and tourist love them Even Chicago's lakefront is very aesthetically pleasing with blue lake waters harbors and beaches, bike paths and parkland. A museum campus. It was the case of gaining supertalls, residential towers including in its core and its older buildings many of which Chicago pioneered and NYC adopted and adapted with no height limits. Chicago set height limits late 1800s and could not get a 50-story till the 1950s. First supertall finally in the very late 1960s. Point is.... it did not try to be NYC by restrictions and ordinances that even were to restrict it from getting tenement style/elevator buildings NYC is also known for. Chicago made sure interior rooms had to have a exterior window and created also the Court-yard Apt building.
Chicago has less buildings than hew york. But for me it has the most beautiful and balanced skyline anywhere. The variety of styles, only new york can rival, the location of the peaks in the skyline is spread out beautifully.
NYZ is too crowded, chaotic, and inconvenient.
@@clarkisaac6372ive been to both, NYC is amazing, so is chicago. Imo not chaotic
Chicago will never touch New York in mass and volume. But Chicago’s skyline is more elegant and almost seems planned. The architecture and the way the tallest peaks are spaced between each other makes Chicago’s skyline more beautiful than New York’s. At least to my eyes.
Chicago’s skyline is more aesthetically pleasing than New York’s and looks more put together. However New York’s Skyline is far more impressive with its size. All the people saying NYC has a better skyline are just saying that because of the number of skyscrapers. More does not equal better in this case
Chicago is basically the only other city that also has the evolution of every era of the skyscraper and supertalls that have even narrower sides generally the east/west view to have those spikes as NYC Skinnies can and do. That due east view from Lake Michigan gives that effect and fact Chicago's skyline hugs the lakefront for many many miles of a skyline past the core.
This 2-min video shows those spikes so that also is a factor here. From the lake looking due east for the narrow profiles that take on the skinny spikes.
ua-cam.com/video/miDkoOuwLqE/v-deo.html
chicagos skyline is boring and most of their tall buildings were built in the 60s and 70s and buildings or that era were bland and boxes
@@Charmedone9805 You think Chicago was not building in the 80s, 90,s 2000s and 2010s? It was plenty also 80s was great for its post-moderism skyscaper era. Those left behind far more a basick glass box. Just its Streeterville neighborhood of downtown was still mostly a blank-slate 60s 70s. By the 90s and 2000s and 10s it was hot hot hot in new buildings that looks more sunbelt today but better quality and green, street-level businesses and athestically pleasing glass towers. Chicago even got 4 50-story plus glass towers 2017 thru covid built all-office buldings. The latest all office 706-story was completed last year. A mix of old and new and so many eras is not outdated to most. A glass box csn be any era or basic sunbelt offic park.
Lakeshore East New East Side south of Streertville downtown and river was basically blank early 70s. It was a Hudson Yards kind of NYC before it was and pioneered building by and over air-rights with rail yards. So much new era built with its intetior park. Today it has one spot left along the lake for the last plot for a skyscraper.
Just the blend removes what can be boring of sll glass bluish boxes. The Loop as the oldest original downtown prtion has its oldest skyscrapers and Gotham streets with alleys with newer mixed in.
Many buildings are timeless and NYC sure has its beauties. Basicly... if Chicago looks outdated NYC clearly is too. Its mass of older still great marvals are aplenty. Its area between Midtown and Lower-Manhattan have all them old block after block of tenement/elevater walls of full blocks of buildings on narrow streets. Even Wall St is very narrow with older beauties when we had artisans and craftsmen in stone and built Romsn Empire-like temples to commerce.
Definitly going up Lake Shore Drive most shyscrapers/high-rises ar 60s 70s boom ther before presevationist stopped old majestic mansions destruction for a new building of glass and concrete.
@@Charmedone9805 The new buildings in NYC look like telephone poles and the other new ones look awkwardly placed.
@@blast4me754 no they dont and alot of chicagos new ones are just featureless glass boxes
Chicago has the greatest skyline in the world. Now let’s get a new mayor
400 lake shore drive is the only one under construction. Tribune East was expected to start construction in Feb 2024, but has yet to break ground.
The discovery institute in the 78 has already pulled out and moved further down south. The 78 continues to struggle finding financing for the project
One central is a pipe dream that will never happen. Way too expense for no true gain. Especially since the bears are likely to move out of soldier field
Although I would love for the cities projects to come into fruition, Chicago has a bad history with failed skyscraper projects.
@@hydrolando123 I was going to say the same thing. Supertall construction is always a slow and long process unlike New York and Chicago faces competition from Dubai and Hong Kong in terms of attention getting buildings.
I go to Chicago almost yearly, even taking flight transits and attending events. It's the original American city, a modern, futuristic mega-city project.
I hate how the tribune isn't gonna be a few feet taller than the sears.
Chicago for surely has a better looking skyline than NYC with all those new buildings looking like telephone poles. Chicago's skyline looks like a well put together mountain range from a distance.
Greetings from NYC, Chicago is absolutely incredible
The "Windy City" moniker has nothing to do with actual wind.
The wind comes from the lake lol
It's called Windy City due to the immense wind draft from Lake Michigan; it never had anything to do with politics: that was a joke coined recently.
@@thebabbler8867 The opposite is the case. The windbag speaker aspect was cited throughout the 20th century. More recently, in contrast, there have been writings to debunk those origin stories.
@@thebabbler8867it goes back to the mid 1800s in literature if you consider that recent.
"Windy City" is a moniker derived from the bombastic Chicago politicians who were full of hot air. It has nothing to do with the weather. Also, the term "Second City" is not deferential to New York, rather it is a reference to rebuilding the City after the Great Fire in 1871. The Second City to rise on the Lakefront.
Used to live NY and visited Chicago for the very first time this past fall. In my opinion, NYC is just a concrete jungle as presented by the narrator. Outside of the Empire and Chrysler buildings, the rest are just super tall high rises. Chicago on the other hand has the most has the most beautiful layout and is highly walkable. I love the River walk and the Loop, while NYC has the High Line.
Lmfaoooooo you got to be sniffing markers with a title question like that 😂😂😂
Chicago Skyline flat out looks better
NYC has far more buildings, but Chicago is stunning with 20+ miles of beaches. (btw, the Sears Tower IS still taller than Freedom Tower in NYC which measures a non occupied spire). While Chicago is called Windy Fity, the nickname has nothing to do with wind/atmosphere, even as tall buildings off lake will/do get winds. The transit hub idea won’t happen, much opposition and no need.
And the Central Park Tower in NYC is a 100ft taller than the Sears Tower so there’s that…..😏🤨
Thank you for saying that, if you measure both buildings. From the base to the flat roof, of the building with no
Without the antennas the Willis Tower aka Sears Tower is taller than the One World Trade Center aka Freedom Tower
@@thomasboyd3120 FYI- Central Park is NOT the same once as the "Freedom" (One World) Tower....The Central Park Tower's roof is 1,550 FT vs the Sears Tower's 1,450. In fact there are now two towers in in NYC that are taller than the Sear's Tower from the roof height...By the end of this decade there will be at least four towers in NYC that (are) will be taller, at the roof, than the Sear's Tower. 🤔
@gumbie007 nope you cheated with a spire .sears tower the building is taller
Whoever did this video clearly haven’t been to New York….we’ve got a ton of super tall buildings being built as we speak.
Yea true. I'm from Chicago but lived in New York. New York is killing Chicago on skyscrapers right now. But the layout of the skylines, I think the layout look more smooth and beautiful with Chicago. Chicago has potential and could do much better with skyscrapers but Chicago is kind of weird on that level. They always start a project but then cancel it.
@@youngx5864 Recessions killed many including other cities and mighty NYC especially the crash killing Chicago's megatall and two supertalls one stopped at 20 stories finished a few yrs later at 50-stories. Trump Tower Chicago was half-way up at the Crash years and finished in 2009 by Dueschbank money. The latest was St Regis Tower supertall finished 2020. That was originally financed by a Chinese billionaire investor and China forced selling US assets. Luckily it was already going up and others in the US picked it up and completed it.
NYC just gets a lot of international investment also and buying its condos, Chicago was never so lucky. It builds for its own or those moving in and most investment is by local groups. Chicago also has land to develop large projects that were proposed and approved and the Panndeemic did them in on hold. That land though is ripe and will slowly get developed like Lincoln Yards at Goose Island just north of the CBD and The 78 just south of mighty ole Sears (Willis) Tower with both 50+ and 60+ acres clear.
Still a lot of West Loop former industrial buildings and many repurposes with new high-rises among them. The United Center Bulls and Blackhawks arena is now scheduled for its parking lots to be more venues and residential tower and mid-rises as a 7 Bil project to break ground this year and it was fast tracked it seemed and approved. So Chicago still has a clear future with even land on the Westside with empty lots for revival as needed.
The Midwest rust-belt will rise again and Chicago still got far more than the others.... still pricier than others, just not vs NYC by a longshot. Staying more building as need keeps extreme cost a bit calmer and moving forward slower should weather some crash ahead a bit better ..... Still its debt is a issue and NYC's debt is tremendous also. Just it has more people and wealth or it would be bankrupt like in 1975.
Chicago's layout and mix, is leagues above
We don't need to overshadow New York, New York just put buildings anywhere they can go. That is why! those tall skyscrapers, are over shadowing Central Park in New York. When you do a helicopter or drone view of New York. The city looks very cluttered with, these new tall skyscrapers. That they don't need I can bet, most of those buildings are not occupied. The helicopter view of New York's skyline, looks like a landfield. Do a helicopter or drone view of Chicago's iconic skyline, it does not look cluttered or congested.
The Chicago Spire would’ve been far better, than anything on this list.
No. NYC has big developments coming soon. But it is good to see investment still flowing into Chicago!
NYC building investments is making our little Chicago investments look like baby work. I grew up in Chicago. We could do much better. Chicago just weird sometimes
Never. Chicago is a much smaller city, and it does not have remotely the level of wealth that NY does. NY banks are building massive new office towers. No other American city is. Also, luxury supertall towers in NY sell for over $10k/sf. No city in the world comes remotely close. I love Chicago, but let's be realistic. Similarly, Atlanta and Dallas will never surpass Chicago.
The last time I was in Chicago was around September an I could find several locations that could use development. One of the main reasons Chicago doesn’t have more tall buildings compared to NYC is because allot of area suburbs took away this opportunity.
Chicago makes a lot of sense in approving and planning and building these new developments. The buildings are beautiful and well thought out and to add affordable housing is a major plus unlike the greedy apartment owners in New York. Chicago seems to think about her people unlike New York. I wish the city and her people a wonderful furture.
Chicago will never beat New York City at a skyscraper rivalry. I lived in NYC for 20 years and I have been in Chicago enough times. When you walk in Manhattan ( center of NYC), skyscrapers are literally everywhere. The only neighborhood in the whole island which hasn't been claimed by skyscrapers YET, is harlem. I'm sure in the next 10-20 years, the last piece of the island will be transformed by a skyscrapers. Chicago has a lot of tall buildings, but nowhere near the amount of NYC.
Quantity does not equal quality, and Chicago’s skyline is way more pleasing to the eye
Bro NYC visually has nothing on Chicago Skyline in i’m from L.A
Chicago's skyline = quality
NYC's skyline = quantity
New york has always bitten off us,it’s okay tho I like new york
6 buildings are supposed to overshadow NYC? Not even 60 would bring Chicago up to speed.
No one questions the scope of NYC's quantities and legacy of all eras of our history. Still aesthetics, cleanliness, water features and just personal taste and enjoyment can clearly give people preferences. For the late 19th century and much of the 20th century. Chicago and NYC shared/exchanged architectural inventiveness and engineering into buildings of each era and style to architects.
Clearly, NYC won the race in growth and quantities and Chicago inland clearly did not have the influx of immigrants coming thru its port over decades. Chicago had no Ellis Island thru the 1920s. To get to Chicago was train or vehicle or some boat thru the Great Lakes. So clearly NYC once it annexed its Boroughs for the 1900 census. A Chicago could not rival the growth of NYC though it did in the late 19th century when NYC was just Manhattan and Chicago was growing faster in its boom post Great Fire of 1871 that would create the skyscraper.
It isn’t about quantity. It’s about quality. No one is arguing that NY’s skyline isn’t massive and jam packed. It clearly has a higher number of buildings. But Chicago’s skyline is much more elegant and pleasing to the eye.
The whole aesthetic of the perfectly placed skyscrapers soaring along the glistening lakefront layout is like a work of urban art.
Chicago needs to improve its quality of life, improve crime, and public transport before it can build more buildings.
The CTA's ridership is less than 1/10 of NYCTA.
@@Earth1218in my opinion it’s apples snd oranges, you can’t compare Times Square snd the ESB with the Chicago river silhouette of the John Hancock building.
@@ahmedzakikhan7639 Come on... all know most crime is in sections of the city gang infested. Incidents can occur in a large city as thur every era it was so. Chicago who metro is less than a million people less than all NYC city proper. No one disputes NYC size and largest density in the US.
Just NYC's subway/elevated rail is far from new and to boast grand and prettiest or cleanest and ALWAYS Full of characters you rather not see. It surely has the coverage. Just Chicago is far more with locals able to own cars and they did.
Even if they take transport to work. They many times have garages in the back alleys and even in high-rises to skyscrapers as podium buildings. Just that car is for weekends more and to big box stores for heavy loads and travel for pleasure to getaways in the more rural areas.
I mean those who know NYC rail will never say its is without its many issues and people they rather not see. So come on.... Chicago L is a older system LIKE NYC yet modernized features as computerized and with apps to and TV screens for train and bus arrivals and automated announcing on the trains.
It is old yet maintained and sure occasional people one rather not see, but OMG NYC is no perfect transit hub.... it does have coverage by density more than other cities. Just Chicago has full bus coverage and the L is far from sub-par despite a older system and just so many got back to cars during the pandemic and they still like them.
Chicago has far more a ability to have locals own cars and even the core regions many high-rise to skyscraper living are with parking in the building vs NYC that skinnies cannot and just too pricey to use for parking.
well non of it mean anything until they actually get built no city on earth had more impressive proposed sky scrappers that didn't go through than Chicago
Didn't it take like 40 years to finish the damn Trump tower, or did it just feel like it??
Who cares. Toronto will never have the legacy of either Chicago or NYC, despite it having more buildings.
Cool projects coming up!
The skyscrapers of Chicago are more beautiful than NY
I don't know why they changed the name of the Sears tower to the Willis tower. Chicago the birth place of the skyscraper & House music. 👍
yea we don't honor that Willis crap lmao
Whoever put this video together certainly has a great sense of humor….🤨🤔🙄🤦♂️
Okay! Thank you for pointing that out bruh.
Chicago has the most space to grow. It has a lot of vacant land. New York is already overbuilt and can't realistically grow much and being jammed together and seemingly unplanned as well, it doesn't look well. Chicago's skyline is beautiful so far and is planned better. Hong Kong is also formidable as a skyline and is more a better match to Chicago. Unfortunately Chicago doesn't build a lot of taller buildings much and it needs towers around the 900 to 1000 foot range and is in need of a new supertall replacement for the now obsolete Willis Tower.
Thank you for saying that bruh
NEW YORK HAVE ALWAYS BEEN CALLED A CONCRETE JUNGLE, THIS IS NOT NEW
Chicago's skyline has always been superior to New York. NYC's skyline is a mess.
I'll take things that never happened for $100 Alex
sure jan
Agreed! New Yorks buildings do not look well and are poorly designed. They seem hastily built without good planning.
@ yeah I don’t know what you’re talking about. We have all different types of buildings from different eras. A majority of Chicago skyscrapers are all boxy, boring buildings. Maybe outside of the Hancock building that’s really the only thing that stands out. You’re probably just salty because you don’t have the tallest building in the US anymore.
@@Charmedone9805nope
New skinny building in NYC look like stalagmites
Some described the mid-century rectangle buildings as matchboxes. The new ones are matchsticks.
Very good....Hey is this UA-cam Channel British or American?
American
😊...Im asking whether those videos are made in US or UK
I think that this pronunciation is American
@VidathVithanageit's AI generic American male voice 3.
Not likely.
No, Toronto is about to overshadow Chicago's skyline.
Toronto still will not have the supertalls and can never have the whole history of skyscrapers in its core and skyline for Toronto to rival. A lot more blue glass buildings it can and total skyscrapers from its minimums yes. Than add aesthetics, layout having a river thru it and quantity just as populations within its borders still does not create a city that rivers another. Legacy and contribution to the cultural aspects of society over centuries also play a role.
Add Chicago has those large reclaimed from industrial 50+acre plots in the core so land is available. Toronto can get more corridors outward on main lines, but it would have to have more R-1 zoned single-home blocks for higher to skyscrapers allowed. So the must go taller by more land restrictions also plays a roll with the influx of immigrants Toronto gets by Canada's by-merit pro-educated immigrants that a huge % does Toronto as the US has many more larger cities to take most it gets especially our booming sunbelt.
Toronto to overshadow with ugly generic 30 storey blue box condo buildings # yeh right.
@@ahmedzakikhan7639no matter rather you like it, Toronto is getting ready to surpass (if not already) Chicago in the number of skyscrapers, becoming the city with the 2nd most in the Western Hemisphere.
@@ahmedzakikhan7639 Out of all my comment you took that? It references a lot more buildings as high-rises to skyscrapers built last 25 yrs that utilize the same glass colorations. Clearly most views show these buildings. Lower much older low buildings. My point was Toronto's boom came after Quebec Separatist Movement got super-active in the 1970s as Montreal was Canada's Premier city and hosted a summer Olympics in '72. After that a huge paranoia came as Quebec went a bit rogue and threatened succesion from Canada and began a mass exodus of Canada's Banks to HQ of its top corporations and national institutions and Toronto became the It-city to become Anglo-Canada's new premier city.
Even the Bank of Montreal moved its HQ to Toronto. Canada chose to re-make Toronto into a much larger city-proper with its "Amalgamations". If you are less familiar? Look up the history of how fast Toronto get created from a much smaller main city and other surrounding Boroughs. The amalgamation was widely opposed in Toronto and the other municipalities. Its was forced despite a municipal referendum in 1997 in which over three-quarters of voters rejected amalgamation and the mayors of York and Toronto then.
The massive exodus of Canada's might from Montreal was the making of a new Toronto that instantly became the largest city after Mexico City, NYC, LA and Chicago in North America city propers. Still Chicagoland metro has a couple million + people. As long as Canadian immigration does not drastically slow.... it reasons it will continue to grow.
In Canada your main cities hug the southern border and there is not sunbelt to relocate to as Chicago in the northern US gets real winters like T.O and its growth and the north are much slower by our booming sunbelt cities today.
Chicago's growth was by far pre-WW2 and peaked in the 1950s as suburban growth skyrocketed vs the city proper. Before 1900 Chicago was the fastest-growing city in the world. In 1900 NYC annexed its Borough's and Chicago could never catch it with NYC a main entry port for US immigrants.
Toronto's growth in skyscrapers is clearly much later though Chicago added still so much through to today with again... every era of the skyscraper from the earliest and supertalls from 1969 onward. Last one completed 2000. The Crash of 07 08 it lost a couple under-construction one 20-stories up and one Mega-tall its foundation casians in to the bedrock, but Trump Tower Chicago supertall was half-way up and completed in 2009.
It is great as a immigrant? You feel your new city is the best. Just aspects of legacy have to evolve thru many many decades and booms that come same eras ... generally built for need and cost-effective styling sometimes have very similar looks and materials used. Much of that for Toronto (changing aspects as time now goes) was that same bluish glass residential towers for its influx of mostly immigrants now well over 60 I believe of TO. Great it preserves its single-family housing thru the city and oldest sections of row-homes. So it HAS TO GO UPWARD.
Chicago does not and has land around the core to build new that was former industrial areas now gone. My post was not to demean Toronto. Just acknowledge a Chicago just has much more a legacy and history that shows in its skyline and walking among all them eras of buildings mixed together as skyscrapers. Earliest were just 10 12-stories in the 1880s. These pioneered the era of the skyscraper shared with NYC and NYC grew to what Chicago inland US could not, but its skyline and legacy is still still listed in world skylines list including on UA-cam ahead of Toronto as Asian cities surpass both in especially China.
@@davidbeach5563 Toronto condo market is in shambles. The country is in economic mess. Wait till it actually happens.
Stop with this AI crap.
NO. Because downtown Chicago isn't as big as the borough of Manhattan. Chicago's tall buildings are squeezed in and the rich people don't have as much money as New York to build a ton of skyscrapers. But, the buildings... pretty.
Chicago lost out on the skyscraper war about 100 years ago....
Chicago has more space though. Manhattan can only build up due to the small size of the island. Cities like Chicago and Toronto keep stretching up and across due to their long lakeshores.
The Sears Tower was the world's tallest for 30 years and recently lost unfairly anyway so you can't be talking
chicago only has a third of nycs skyline (but it is proportional to population ig) although it does kinda compete in terms of height
@Wrytho true and at least it's not over 1k foot buildings in random spots tbh
@Wrytho skyscraper construction are a function of LAND Prices too. Ask yourself why is a city like Chicago so cheap ? (I know people will say it's a good thing but think why it's not ).
Chicago's CTA is not even 1/10 of NYCTA.
Chicago needs to control crime and improve public transport, it is loosing population and struggling economically. Once Chicago improves quality of life, land prices will go up and builders will build more buildings.
That thumbnail is clickbait! But it worked, I stopped and watched!
I do not
While Chicago's skyline is impressive, at the end of tha day, it's a New York wannabe by comparison.
If you look at history. After its Great Fire of 1871. It got limitations that would prevent it becoming a city of tenement-like buildings that had expose's then of mass poor living in a room with no windows in buildings. Chicago began with alleyways in its first street layout it kept so even the Loop downtown has them to hid its trash bins and have deliveries and some lower delivery levels. Wider streets in its core also and a river canyon of skyscrapers that impresses still.
It refined and remade itself for tourist with attractions like, Navy Pier and a redo in 2015. Millennium Park like gets the most visitors in the Midwest attractions and its Riverwalk all total successes and tourist love them Even Chicago's lakefront is very aesthetically pleasing with blue lake waters harbors and beaches, bike paths and parkland. A museum campus.
It was the case of gaining supertalls, residential towers including in its core and its older buildings many of which Chicago pioneered and NYC adopted and adapted with no height limits. Chicago set height limits late 1800s and could not get a 50-story till the 1950s. First supertall finally in the very late 1960s.
Point is.... it did not try to be NYC by restrictions and ordinances that even were to restrict it from getting tenement style/elevator buildings NYC is also known for. Chicago made sure interior rooms had to have a exterior window and created also the Court-yard Apt building.
could have sworn skyscrapers started in Chicago but yeah ok I guess we copying yall. smh
yeah not gonna happen there far behind if anything.
No.
Ahahahahaha no.
The One Central project is FUGLY !!! Fix the design of ALL of those buildings. JFC!
CHINA AND DUBAI ARE LAUGHING OF THIS😂🇵🇸🇨🇳
Dubai, my ass
Let China and Dubai laugh. Most of their more Iconic buildings were designed by Chicago architects.
@@kavilavano4433 China and Dubai are late to the party. And their economies won’t boom forever like they have the last 20 years.
Stop it there no where no as big as chicago🎉be fr