I think that Chicago being a "second city" actually gave more freedom to explore alternatives to building ideas. When considering the population increase of both cities, the opportunity for building expansion was there, but New York set the foundation for Chicago to build upon.
It's because of population growth that both cities had to build up and in surplus. This also led to even more population growth, and since New York was first, Chicago could learn from them. They could gather ideas and reinterpret them in their own way.
The ideas I see when looking at Chicago are playing with different forms and contours of the city scape. To me it seems New York thinks about the relationship of all buildings whereas Chicago styles vary from building to building. The idea of a diverse palat suggests that more innovation in terms of building approaches were being practiced in Chicago vs New York.
No comments:
Post a Comment