# Are the bigger/taller cities the better cities?



## NEWWORLD (Feb 21, 2006)

I'd pick a small to a medium size city in Europe over LA any time.


----------



## JBOB (Aug 26, 2005)

No, Taller is not better. Density is a major factor if people don't believe this they are setting themselves up for future disastor. For instance now a days cities with a alot of vacant land are putting up 1k foot skyscrapers at an extreme rate where 10 skyscrapers would put that city that came from nowhere into the tallest city of the world category, which is all nonsense. I think it takes time for a city to be taller. A city should have layers of buildings and have density. If not when you go to those sprawling tall 1500 ft skyscraper cities you will get a wow of the height but you will not have the clustered wall affect of a dense city it will almost seem superficial. Now everyone is in the rat race and you only need 5 supertalls to have a skyline these days.

This is one of the reasons Philadelphia got out of the tall race 100 + years ago. The city new the rat race was never ending so it went with the orginal building talls of Pyramids of Giza and created city hall which took 30 years to build and is the worlds tallest masonry building without steel, it's supported on concrete not steel beams used in todays buildings. Also Philadelphia did something for the skyscraper cause it created the first international and modern skyscraper in 1932 this building is the building that set the standard for all modern skyscrapers being built today. Before this building, buildings were square narrow beam blocks of a building. 

When buildings are dense they seem to get even taller. Having to many talls will create a cave effect where there is no sunlight in the middle of the city on a sunny day, there's alot factors when considering tall buildings.

IMO Taller does not mean better. Quality of a skyline makes a big difference.


http://xroads.virginia.edu/~1930s/DISPLAY/chrysler/psfs.html


----------



## streetscapeer (Apr 30, 2004)

NEWWORLD said:


> I'd pick a small to a medium size city in Europe over LA any time.



this thread is not asking about specifics....you have to think of it in general, because there are always exception to the rule!!


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

Hmmmmm.... only 34% of people here say that mostly, bigger, taller cities are best. 59% say maybe... or no.
Then everyone goes back to haggling over who has the bigger, taller city.
Who's zoomin' who? :rofl:


----------



## Jules (Jun 27, 2004)

No, but an impressive skyline always earns extra points from me.


----------



## TalB (Jun 8, 2005)

In reality, better cities are defined about what it has to offer in quality, and the quantity of its skyscrapers and height have little to do with this.


----------



## streetscapeer (Apr 30, 2004)

but *all else equal* (quality, architecture, transport, etc) I prefer bigger and taller

and there is no reality to this, it's pretty subjective!


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

TalB said:


> In reality, better cities are defined about what it has to offer in quality, and the quantity of its skyscrapers and height have little to do with this.


Really? That will come as news to the hundreds of forumers who have been
duking it out over the past few years as to who has the biggest and 'bestest'
of everything! Even the people who haggled over who had the city with the
highest retail rent. I find it refreshing that so few now seem to feel "skyscrapers" are important! We have all been reformed!! :angel:


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

maybe yes, maybe not. In tall cities such as HK or NY it shows that both are the better cities in it's region or LA or Tokyo with it's size. 

On the other hand, most European cities are not as large or as tall as most Asian cities but the living conditions there are much better.


----------



## Jules (Jun 27, 2004)

WANCH said:


> maybe yes, maybe not. In tall cities such as HK or NY it shows that both are the better cities in it's region or LA or Tokyo with it's size.
> 
> On the other hand, most European cities are not as large or as tall as most Asian cities but the living conditions there are much better.


"better" is pretty subjective. Someone might think Yonkers, NY wipes the floor with NYC, even though it's much smaller. It all depends on the person.


----------



## TalB (Jun 8, 2005)

Honestly, I find that any city can have tall buildings and still not be a world city. The report from GaWK doesn't base the information on building heights or on skylines, it bases them on their qualities and on residencies. From what I have been reading, Dubai is nowhere near a world city, and that is despite the fact that it will be home to the WTB known as the Burj Dubai. If having the WTB means everything, then why was Kuala Lumpur looked down by many despite having the Petronas Tower, though they weren't really taller than the Sears Tower? Some do not find Tapei to be a world city either even though T101 was recently built. It just shows that having the tallest doesn't mean everything.


----------



## Azn_chi_boi (Mar 11, 2005)

maybe...

as quality of quanitity as in quality of life rather than how many people your city have.

in skyscrapers, I would rather have a city with quality not "ugly" and many buildings...


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

TalB said:


> Honestly, I find that any city can have tall buildings and still not be a world city. The report from GaWK doesn't base the information on building heights or on skylines, it bases them on their qualities and on residencies. From what I have been reading, Dubai is nowhere near a world city, and that is despite the fact that it will be home to the WTB known as the Burj Dubai. If having the WTB means everything, then why was Kuala Lumpur looked down by many despite having the Petronas Tower, though they weren't really taller than the Sears Tower? Some do not find Tapei to be a world city either even though T101 was recently built. It just shows that having the tallest doesn't mean everything.


Maybe or maybe not.
It all depends on the current status of city. If it is *already a world class* city, then yes, its *taller skyscrapers can give that extra acknowledgement*. On the other hand, if it is a city on the move like one of the *beta and alpha cities*, then it really *isn't a big deal*!


----------



## VanSeaPor (Mar 12, 2005)

Not necessarily, and I don't think that'll change.


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

Not necessarily taller cities, look at London, Paris, Tokyo, etc. Alot of skyscrapers just adds to the greatness of the city, makes it more definitive.


----------



## Mosaic (Feb 18, 2005)

I would say I don't really know.


----------



## Troopchina (Oct 7, 2005)

No. 

I actually do not like too big cities. If I should draw a line, I'd put it at 5 million.

Height won't impress me either. I prefer one or two dense skyscraper hubs on the outskirts of a downtown (la defense f.e.) over large areas of tall skyscrapers where a building must be supertall to stand out.


----------



## Illadelph (Dec 3, 2005)

No.

That world city ranking criteria is complete garbage.


----------



## Mosaic (Feb 18, 2005)

lol!!! I prefer a very big city with tons of high-rise buildings, millions of people and massive infrastructures like Tokyo, HK, NYC and Shanghai.


----------



## Mosaic (Feb 18, 2005)

Illadelph said:


> No.
> 
> That world city ranking criteria is complete garbage.



the truth is that there are so many people don't like skyscrapers and urbanity yet there are millions of people do like them so it is completely normal to see such a different idea and opinnion about this issue.


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

No,not necessarily.


----------



## neilio (Jan 12, 2005)

i think bigger/taller can really improve international recognition of a city thus attract more investment and so on which can leed to a better city. but in itself does not mean all that much. Im from a very small town of 2400 people, i can argue thats it is one of the most beautifull towns in southern ontario, thats natural beauty and "urban" beauty combined, meaning its one great little town. And yet it has a low population and no skyscrapers at all..and yet id rather live here then in some big cities with big skyscrapers.


----------



## James Saito (Nov 6, 2002)

Bigger the better.

People who are against this only got the small one.


----------



## XCRunner (Nov 19, 2005)

Skyscrapers almost always denote a great city, but that doesn't mean cities without them aren't great.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

James Saito said:


> Bigger the better.
> 
> People who are against this only got the small one.


 :hilarious


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

Definitly not! Especially not so simple - a city can have a lot of skyscrapers AND cool architecture, but is boring, sterile, or dangerous. 

Just look at most NA cities - apart from NY, Chicago, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, LA and San Fran most towns are dead and boring or economically weak although they may have an impressive skyline or a big pop.


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

In answer to the question, there's always exceptions is probably the best answer you can find, and you won't find a neccesary correlation between a 'city's height' and it's 'greatness'.

London and Paris don't have the skyscrapers of Kuala Lumpur or Taipei but are definetly better cities (IMO).

On the other hand Hong Kong, New York and Chicago all today's 'tallest cities' - and all three are great cities.

So in conclusion, there is no correct answer.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

But in terms of bigger, it matters. Aren't the biggest cities in every country the better cities? Not just better but the most important as well. Take Moscow, London, New York, Tokyo or Paris for example.


----------



## Metropolitan (Sep 21, 2004)

WANCH said:


> But in terms of bigger, it matters. Aren't the biggest cities in every country the better cities? Not just better but the most important as well. Take Moscow, London, New York, Tokyo or Paris for example.


Well, it's natural that the bigger is a city, the more influent it will be in a country. However, considering it as "better" or not is a different matter. It depends on your personal tastes.

I personally like some large cities such as New York as much as more reasonable cities such as Barcelona, and even cities like Marseille which are even smaller. It really all depends.


----------



## Danish_guy (May 18, 2005)

my city have no skyscarpers and no big pop but it still love it


----------



## Whiteman (Apr 20, 2006)

Sure bigger cars, taller skyscrapers 3000 feet, bigger planes and bigger homes.


----------



## EtherealMist (Jul 26, 2005)

Kuesel said:


> Just look at most NA cities - apart from NY, Chicago, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, LA and San Fran most towns are dead and boring or economically weak although they may have an impressive skyline or a big pop.


 :weird:


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

I wonder if there has been a study about large cities and quality of life. However, smaller cities tend to top the quality of life surveys such as the one by Mercer. Vancouver, Melbourne, Zurich, and Geneva are all medium-sized cities and below.


----------



## Heavenly Creature (Apr 2, 2006)

jeez, this is possibly one of the stupidest thread I've ever herd of, the size of a city doesn't impact on how good/bad it is. A city can be beautiful and have a population of 2 million or 3 million (Melbourne or Vancouver, for example), infact cities with a popualtion of like 20 Million and above are terrible, they are like open sewers full of scum, you propably can't even find your way around the place cause there are so many crowds of people and I thinkt that's an awful thing to deal with!!! People who think that bigger cities are better need their heads checked!!


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

Err..I think bigger cities are better. Do I need to have my head checked or can you accept that it's the way I like it?

I enjoy the crowds...


----------



## whitefordj (Feb 18, 2006)

Hells yah. Is this a trick question?:sly:


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Metropolitan said:


> Well, it's natural that the bigger is a city, the more influent it will be in a country. However, considering it as "better" or not is a different matter. It depends on your personal tastes.
> 
> I personally like some large cities such as New York as much as more reasonable cities such as Barcelona, and even cities like Marseille which are even smaller. It really all depends.


Thus making the biggest cities, the better ones for each country. And even worldwide, the biggest cities are usually the top world cities.

As for taller, I disagree that taller cities are better ones.


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

EtherealMist said:


> :weird:


Sorry, I forgot Boston - the greatest city on the continent apart from NYC (in my point of view, and I mean it honest!)


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Kuesel said:


> Sorry, I forgot Boston - the greatest city on the continent apart from NYC (in my point of view, and I mean it honest!)


We all have our opinion though I prefer San Francisco over Boston


----------



## carlisle (Nov 10, 2005)

I would say that there is a general trend where the better cities tend to be bigger and have more skyscrapers... but population isn't necessarily what makes them better, sometimes it does when the population are dynamic and active, but sometimes there are just masses of suburbs of peple just living out their lives. Skyline, where the better cities have bigger skylines is definitely a consequence, not a cause of greatness and what's more having tall skyscrapers is not the only way to have a great skyline.

I agree with what someone said a while ago about the suburbs... I would rather live in the suburbs of a smaller city like Liverpool (pop 400k-1.2m-ish for those interested ) than a big city like London (pop uncertain) beacause you are closer to the action, and in a small city the centre tends to remain the focus of activity, whereas in a big city the focus spreads out a little to suburban centres.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

carlisle said:


> I agree with what someone said a while ago about the suburbs... I would rather live in the suburbs of a smaller city like Liverpool (pop 400k-1.2m-ish for those interested ) than a big city like London (pop uncertain) beacause you are closer to the action, and in a small city the centre tends to remain the focus of activity, whereas in a big city the focus spreads out a little to suburban centres.


Yeah but even if small cities have one centre of activity, it gets boring unlike in big cities where you have varieties


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 29, 2004)

Monaco isn't big but so nice, so maybe maybe not


----------



## weirdo (Feb 15, 2003)

maybe.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> Monaco isn't big but so nice, so maybe maybe not


Monte Carlo is nice but it's not a global city.


----------



## carlisle (Nov 10, 2005)

WANCH said:


> Yeah but even if small cities have one centre of activity, it gets boring unlike in big cities where you have varieties


depends how big we're talking though, in my experience you have to go really big, like the world cities before you start to get multiple centres with all the variety and suchlike.


----------



## Haribu (May 11, 2006)

Yes


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

edit


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

edit


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

ive seen millions of pics on this site, and im still waiting to see one better than this...











no city can contend with this pic, not even HK. 

There is no new WTC in this, no goldman sachs, no nytimes, no boa, no orion, i can go on. this picture is almost 2 years old, and its still the best around. 

midtown in this pic is THE best.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Spooky873 said:


> no city can contend with this pic, not even HK.


How about this


----------



## cjfjapan (Oct 10, 2004)

I recently visited Hong Kong for the first, time, and what is missing from the picture below is Kowloon--another huge area that will one day match HK Island. What makes HK so dramatic is not just the skyscrapers, but the mountains on which the city is built. I think New York feels much bigger, but HK is a city waiting to be explored. A photograph cannot capture the magic of HK the way it can NYC, IMHO.


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

HK pic is good but not as urban as NYC one. 

Midtown alone in that pic is well enough to do the trick.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

cjfjapan said:


> I recently visited Hong Kong for the first, time, and what is missing from the picture below is Kowloon--another huge area that will one day match HK Island. What makes HK so dramatic is not just the skyscrapers, but the mountains on which the city is built. I think New York feels much bigger, but HK is a city waiting to be explored. A photograph cannot capture the magic of HK the way it can NYC, IMHO.


Yes NY feel bigger cause it is


----------



## LOMO (Apr 19, 2006)

Dubai is very tall. But I'm sure the nightlife really sucks there


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

LOMO said:


> Dubai is very tall. But I'm sure the nightlife really sucks there


:banned:

Have you been to Dubai?

Anyway, Dubai isn't much of a tall city though it has some supertalls. Probably in the future, it will.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Chongqing is a big city, yet it is not a top city in China even though its population is larger than Shanghai.


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

Bigger & taller don't have to go together. 

Bigger is not necesearily better. Some cities may simply to big. This week, Sao Paulo comes to mind.

Taller may not always be better. But cities that have built up, rather than out, like Vancouver, Hong Kong, Signapore & Dubai rank among most dramatic.


----------



## TalB (Jun 8, 2005)

Despite the building boom, I wouldn't say that will automatically put a city into being better.


----------



## EtherealMist (Jul 26, 2005)

Spooky873 said:


> ive seen millions of pics on this site, and im still waiting to see one better than this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


true that, thats my favorite pic ever. I have never seen one photo capture so much urbanity.


----------



## _zner_ (May 24, 2005)

bigger/taller cities does not mean its better than the small one.


----------

