My sense is that the new Chicagoland skyline that we'll (hopefully) see ten years from now is being led by the super talls like Trump and Chicago Spire rather than a mass of tall filler skyscrapers.
The result: the new skyline is heading towards emphasising height rather than pure bulk.
If (big if) you accept that premise, how do you feel about the concept? Downtown Chicago will probably never be the massive, skyscraper-by-skyscraper the way that Midtown Manhattan is. It won't be a city of endless canyons. Viewed from the distant, it will never overwhelm based on its huge mass of undifferentiated structures.
What it will have is numerous peaks and valleys, tall buildings that can really be seen and far more jagged skyline than what you see in Manhattan. Perhpas downtown Chicago might be seen more like the ultimate descendant of the Lower Manhattan of the 1930's and 1940's with its spires clearly defined before the boxy post war buildings flattened the whole place.
If you agree with any of the above, do you like the trend suggested (height over mass) and in preference, how would you compare that with the Midtown Manhattan model of overpowering mass with less differentiation?> |
0 comments:
Post a Comment