I much prefer the look of the first movie with its dark brown/orange/tan hues over the mostly blue Gotham this time around. The first time around it was dirty, nasty, a little gothic, the new version is a little too clean for my taste. I also wish they had kept the Wayne building from the first movie instead of slapping the logo on the side of the Sears Tower./QUOTE]
I kind of took that as showing how Gotham improved since Batman came into the picture.
That's the rationalization for what is in truth, simply lazy casting of the city enviroment. Its a common criticism of many of the film's professional reviewers that they simply didn't try to create a mythically fantastic looking Gotham like they did in the previous film. They just shot all their outside photography in 100% recognizable chicago skyline and city streets and told the audience to suspend disbelief and say 'really, this is gotham city, i dont care if you recognize the Sears Tower and chicago river that was featured prominently in chicago-centric movies like Blues Brothers and The Fugitive'
Remember Wayne Tower from the first movie and the beautiful architecture of the madeup building, and in this one they took a well known chicago highrise and slapped on some cheap looking 'WAYNE' letters at the top. Plus many sharp eyed reviewers noticed signs that still said 'Chicago Municipal...something something' scattered throughout the film.
bottom line, Chicago is not a Gotham-looking city, even a 'cleaned up' Gotham.