I'm doing research for a compare and contrast paper, and trying to decide if they are similar or different. I'm considering them the same for the reason that they have a have a lot of similar types of styles and have higher concentration of high rises than other US cities. I'm considering them different because of the age of the buildings, alley ways because of the Chicago fire, Chicago style, the use of brown stone in New York and grey stone in Chicago due to the location. Sorry if this isn't a place for these types of questions. Any input is appreciated.
anonitect
Dec 2, 15 1:13 pm
Domestic architecture or commercial? New construction or historic? I'd try to focus in on a particular aspect, if the assignment allows.
Locally available materials, craft traditions, significant events (fire) or development patterns might me more significant to style if you're looking at historic buildings, less if you're looking at new construction.
Do historic styles/ development patterns play any role in new construction? Maybe if you're looking at 20th/21st c., you could focus on what one/ a few firms have done in both places.
My point being, limit your scope.
citizen
Dec 2, 15 1:32 pm
Read Form Follows Finance by Carol Willis. Though historical, it's exactly on topic for you.
gruen
Dec 5, 15 8:41 am
Modern arch history 101. Advent of "skyscrapers" steel, elevator, etc. city planning of 2 different cities.
Josh Mings
Dec 5, 15 10:51 am
I don't think alleyways were due to the fire, but I could be wrong. I think they were a matter of looking at NYC and seeing that not having alleyways kind of doesn't work (I prefer them, except in winter when trying to get my car out of the garage and tearing up my power steering but I digress).
I'd look at the powers that created the cities. NYC with immigration, Chicago with the fire and democratic machine, as well as monetary forces unleashed when the elevator enable the monetization of the air via the Jeffersonian Grid.
Peter Normand
Dec 5, 15 11:20 pm
Chicago has interesting emphasis on natural light huge windows and light courts in buildings, I think New York commercial buildings of the same period 1910-30 were still all about the real or expressed mass where a lot of Chicago buildings seem to be much lighter and transparent. The international style took a different turn in both cities and at any given time one was ahead of the other briefly in the latest design movement. Prairie style and arts and crafts started earlier in Chicago than New York and remained influential longer. Many architectural movements found willing patrons to take a risk in Chicago I think New York's elite being old money were slow to embrace change.
We here in Chicago also have much less constraints on growth we are not on an island adjacent to other islands and we had a strong civic initiative ti make a picturesque waterfront and system of parks ans boulevards that reach deep into the fabric of the city. it is possible for buildings to have natural light and ventilation on all 4 sides and a light court such as the Rookery building New York may be seeing real-estate prices making light courts too expensive.
urban.theory
Dec 6, 15 6:31 pm
I would also look at the zoning rules for the two different cities and how they might affect building design, especially of high rises. I know New York City has some pretty specific rules for building setbacks in order to have a "right to light" This directly affects how skyscrapers will ultimately look in terms of setbacks, plazas, etc. Chicago has different rules, which also affect how buildings will look in terms of massing and street presence. The floor to area ratio (FAR) rules, which is part of zoning, affects design in these two cities, and the various rules to achieve bonuses to build higher has a direct impact on design.
I'm doing research for a compare and contrast paper, and trying to decide if they are similar or different. I'm considering them the same for the reason that they have a have a lot of similar types of styles and have higher concentration of high rises than other US cities. I'm considering them different because of the age of the buildings, alley ways because of the Chicago fire, Chicago style, the use of brown stone in New York and grey stone in Chicago due to the location. Sorry if this isn't a place for these types of questions. Any input is appreciated.
Domestic architecture or commercial? New construction or historic? I'd try to focus in on a particular aspect, if the assignment allows.
Locally available materials, craft traditions, significant events (fire) or development patterns might me more significant to style if you're looking at historic buildings, less if you're looking at new construction.
Do historic styles/ development patterns play any role in new construction? Maybe if you're looking at 20th/21st c., you could focus on what one/ a few firms have done in both places.
My point being, limit your scope.
Read Form Follows Finance by Carol Willis. Though historical, it's exactly on topic for you.
Modern arch history 101. Advent of "skyscrapers" steel, elevator, etc. city planning of 2 different cities.
I don't think alleyways were due to the fire, but I could be wrong. I think they were a matter of looking at NYC and seeing that not having alleyways kind of doesn't work (I prefer them, except in winter when trying to get my car out of the garage and tearing up my power steering but I digress).
I'd look at the powers that created the cities. NYC with immigration, Chicago with the fire and democratic machine, as well as monetary forces unleashed when the elevator enable the monetization of the air via the Jeffersonian Grid.
Chicago has interesting emphasis on natural light huge windows and light courts in buildings, I think New York commercial buildings of the same period 1910-30 were still all about the real or expressed mass where a lot of Chicago buildings seem to be much lighter and transparent. The international style took a different turn in both cities and at any given time one was ahead of the other briefly in the latest design movement. Prairie style and arts and crafts started earlier in Chicago than New York and remained influential longer. Many architectural movements found willing patrons to take a risk in Chicago I think New York's elite being old money were slow to embrace change.
We here in Chicago also have much less constraints on growth we are not on an island adjacent to other islands and we had a strong civic initiative ti make a picturesque waterfront and system of parks ans boulevards that reach deep into the fabric of the city. it is possible for buildings to have natural light and ventilation on all 4 sides and a light court such as the Rookery building New York may be seeing real-estate prices making light courts too expensive.
I would also look at the zoning rules for the two different cities and how they might affect building design, especially of high rises. I know New York City has some pretty specific rules for building setbacks in order to have a "right to light" This directly affects how skyscrapers will ultimately look in terms of setbacks, plazas, etc. Chicago has different rules, which also affect how buildings will look in terms of massing and street presence. The floor to area ratio (FAR) rules, which is part of zoning, affects design in these two cities, and the various rules to achieve bonuses to build higher has a direct impact on design.