3 ms·

>Though metal cage construction had been used to create Chicago’s Home Insurance Building in 1885, Bradford brought the technology to New York, paving the way f

>Though metal cage construction had been used to create Chicago’s Home Insurance Building in 1885, Bradford brought the technology to New York, paving the way for the first generation of skyscrapers: >stated The Sun. “It came as an experiment, gained success in spite of general ridicule, and finally formed a beginning for all high buildings of recent times.” But then the linked article about the Chicago building says, "this 10-story structure employed innovative engineering techniques and architectural features that laid the foundation for skyscrapers of the future". So why are these writers trying to give New York City credit for anything other than copying what Chicago already did?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
throwaway2990 3y ago
It says it used a technique used in Chicago that people doubted. Using it in New York proved the technology viable and thus laid the foundation… > “When high winds blew during construction, crowds of onlookers gathered (at a safe distance) waiting for the radical new structure to fall over,” according to a PBS/American Experience article. > “It was only when the architect himself climbed to the peak of the building and declared it perfectly safe that they were convinced otherwise.”
- shermantanktop 3y ago
  As a left coaster, I’ve been hearing variations on “it doesn’t count until it happened in New York” for my entire life. That may not be what you intended, but that’s what it reminds me of.
  - Swizec 3y ago
    > “it doesn’t count until it happened in New York” More importantly, a new standard isn't standard until it works in different locations implemented by different companies.
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    True, but in architecture I think that battle was lost a long time ago. Chicago might be The Second City in a lot of things, but not in architecture.
datameta 3y ago
Credit is given to NYC... for NYC's first skycraper. I think that's rather straightforward.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

throwaway2990 3y ago

It says it used a technique used in Chicago that people doubted. Using it in New York proved the technology viable and thus laid the foundation… > “When high winds blew during construction, crowds of onlookers gathered (at a safe distance) waiting for the radical new structure to fall over,” according to a PBS/American Experience article. > “It was only when the architect himself climbed to the peak of the building and declared it perfectly safe that they were convinced otherwise.”

shermantanktop 3y ago
As a left coaster, I’ve been hearing variations on “it doesn’t count until it happened in New York” for my entire life. That may not be what you intended, but that’s what it reminds me of.
- Swizec 3y ago
  > “it doesn’t count until it happened in New York” More importantly, a new standard isn't standard until it works in different locations implemented by different companies.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  True, but in architecture I think that battle was lost a long time ago. Chicago might be The Second City in a lot of things, but not in architecture.

datameta 3y ago

Credit is given to NYC... for NYC's first skycraper. I think that's rather straightforward.