Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think Pittsburgh and Seattle skylines are great for their size, and Philadelphia and LA are mediocre at best for their size. I'd have to say, even though the skyline is too small for its size, I still like LA's iconic skyline since it's prettier and bigger than most in the U.S., at least in density. As far as Philadelphia is concerned, it doesn't have much of a skyline. That's how I feel.
LMAO
As one of Philly's most outspoken critics, even I concede that the skyline there is pretty great...particularly when viewed from afar or an overpass of some sort, the skyline to me is awesome.
HOWEVER.......
It has always been my position that it is indeed best appreciated on foot because via automobile, it comes and goes in a flash! Two sips of your espresso, and it is gone with the wind Scarlett...that is just the truth.
Some of that I believe has to do with density and lack of enough super-talls. There are a few right around the core, but not enough IMO. To me, so much of that great architecture gets lost in the mix unless you are considerably far off.
Approaching the city from Camden, the view to the right is but yeah, I think Philly has a really cool skyline personally.
Last edited by NorthDeKalb; 09-05-2011 at 04:44 PM..
New York City has the jaw drop factor and they truly defined what a great classic skyscraper looks like, long ago (Chrysler). The skyline is literally 7 times more vast than Chicago and also very diverse, if older. NY has two distinct skylines! Chicago is amazing in its own way, taller at least for the moment, and has a more interesting housing stock. But........... San Fran is prettier than both IMO. Natural setting and climate go a long way to enjoying a skyline as part of its natural surroundings. To each their own
Pittsburgh, the architecture, rivers, hills, bridges, and trollys make the most pretty scene. Standing on Mnt Washington is breathtaking. IMO, if you don't have PBurgh in your top 5 then you obviously never been to Mnt Washington or just have some ignorant hatred for beauty.
I think everybody would agree that NY has a much larger skyline. But for some people the fact that Chicago outside the waterfront is flat adds to the visibility and beauty of the skyline. I don't agree though. For me the size matters more. I think NY's skyline is better than Chicago by far. Besides, the modern buildings of Chicago don't age so well as the classic skyscrapers in NY. Chicago's skyline is beautiful seen from far away, but when you get close, buildings like Sears and John Hancock look dark and unpleasent. I agree that buildings like wrigley and tribune tower are very nice, but they are so much fewer than in NY. IMHO, if those classic skyscrapers need a wash, it is not that significant because they are still interesting to look at. For the modern dark buildings it will have a sad feeling attached to them if they need a wash.
^^^ THIS! Chicago has an awesome silhouette. But even the view from the Hancock gets a little boring with too many of those grid condos. The signature buildings in NY are cooler looking than the monolithic and boxy Chicago tallboys. The trump and AON are boring tall as well. New York has so many prewar skyscrapers, and the skyline is endlessly interesting
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.