U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which U.S. city has the best skyline?
Atlanta 31 4.45%
Dallas 34 4.88%
Houston 37 5.31%
Miami 26 3.73%
New York 214 30.70%
Boston 11 1.58%
Philadelphia 31 4.45%
Pittsburgh 23 3.30%
Chicago 206 29.56%
San Francisco 27 3.87%
Los Angeles 24 3.44%
Seattle 33 4.73%
Voters: 697. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-12-2012, 11:38 AM
 
425 posts, read 285,925 times
Reputation: 138

Advertisements

For 1WTC, you get an ugly 200 foot concrete base, and another 400 foot spire, which makes up nearly half of the height of the new "tallest building" in the country.

 
Old 09-12-2012, 11:42 AM
 
425 posts, read 285,925 times
Reputation: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by MI_OH View Post
I'm talking quantifiable metrics, not personal opinion. There is no point to debating personal opinion.

Quantifiable metrics have no ****ing basis on a naked eye view of a skyline.

Nobody is jotting numbers in their head whilst gazing at a ****ing skyline, trying to determine superiority.


That "nobody comes close" skyline of yours appears to be neck and neck, 30.8% to 28.5% according to this poll, so ill leave you to cry over it and thats that.
 
Old 09-12-2012, 11:50 AM
 
Location: Nob Hill, San Francisco, CA
2,346 posts, read 3,384,063 times
Reputation: 1080
Quote:
Originally Posted by resuelppA View Post
Skylines are linear so im not sure what the internal width of 1-2.5 miles has to do with anything.
Because the width shows the mass of the skyline and there are angles that you can capture all of it.
Quote:
To me, the best part of the NYC skyline is from Jersey, from the tip of downtown all the way to uptown, which is about 10 miles. The view from Queens isnt half as impressive.
This is one where I'm not sure if I can agree.

There are certain vantage points where you can see the entire skyline of Manhattan. My two favorite have been from under the George Washington Bridge from a tour boat on the Hudson and the other from on the George Washington Bridge heading from Fort Lee to the Upper Westside. The view from about midway across the bridge into Manhattan is the dual river, island of Manhattan, and the entirety of the Manhattan skyline in the front both Lower Manhattan and Midtown as well as the backdrop of the mini-line (mini skyline) of Roosevelt Island with the tram cables and all, to the right the Brooklyn skyline and to the left Queens LIC skyline. It's the best at grade view of 95% of NYC's skyline and its mass is just incomprehensible IMO.

The other view from under the George Washington Bridge is equally as impressive but for a slightly different reason. What it shows is all of Manhattan's skyline along the riverfront from both Midtown and Lower Manhattan, so it includes all of the supertall buildings and then it shows the "dual skyline" effect where the river splits Manhattan from Jersey City which is to the right and looks intense and all of that while the bridge connects a very green hilly terrain on the Fort Lee side and a slightly less elevated terrain on the Manhattan side with the skyline fitting in a frame above the wide river waters and under the glorious George Washington Bridge.

Now that one is a picture perfect Kodak moment IMO! It's very intense.
Quote:
If we're talking specific areas, the layout of Chicago is superior. Even the layout of downtown Manhattan is superior to Midtown, IMO.
Lower Manhattan has a better skyline view from the water. It's more water friendly because all of its talls sprawl along the river whereas Midtown's impressive buildings are in the center.

Those two views from the George Washington Bridge, the only three other skylines I've seen that can even remotely compete with it are Hong Kong through Kowloon over Victoria Harbor and to a much more distant extent from NYC and Hong Kong there is Chongqing and Shanghai.

Chicago from a distance on Lake Michigan is an impressive urban view for a long skyline along a glorious waterfront but for the whole package and the entirety of the skyline the most impressive urban view I've ever gotten out of skyline is through Victoria Harbor of Hong Kong and the Hudson River between Upper Westside and Fort Lee of NYC.
 
Old 09-12-2012, 11:54 AM
 
425 posts, read 285,925 times
Reputation: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX View Post
Because the width shows the mass of the skyline and there are angles that you can capture all of it.

This is one where I'm not sure if I can agree.

There are certain vantage points where you can see the entire skyline of Manhattan. My two favorite have been from under the George Washington Bridge from a tour boat on the Hudson and the other from on the George Washington Bridge heading from Fort Lee to the Upper Westside. The view from about midway across the bridge into Manhattan is the dual river, island of Manhattan, and the entirety of the Manhattan skyline in the front both Lower Manhattan and Midtown as well as the backdrop of the mini-line (mini skyline) of Roosevelt Island with the tram cables and all, to the right the Brooklyn skyline and to the left Queens LIC skyline. It's the best at grade view of 95% of NYC's skyline and its mass is just incomprehensible IMO.

The other view from under the George Washington Bridge is equally as impressive but for a slightly different reason. What it shows is all of Manhattan's skyline along the riverfront from both Midtown and Lower Manhattan, so it includes all of the supertall buildings and then it shows the "dual skyline" effect where the river splits Manhattan from Jersey City which is to the right and looks intense and all of that while the bridge connects a very green hilly terrain on the Fort Lee side and a slightly less elevated terrain on the Manhattan side with the skyline fitting in a frame above the wide river waters and under the glorious George Washington Bridge.

I disagree. I actually think Chicago has no weak vantage points whereas NYC does (ie: the view from Queens). The view from the Bronx/more uptown as well.

Midtown is too much of a plateau and downtown is much better, especially from all angles.
 
Old 09-12-2012, 12:01 PM
 
65 posts, read 65,416 times
Reputation: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by resuelppA View Post
For 1WTC, you get an ugly 200 foot concrete base, and another 400 foot spire, which makes up nearly half of the height of the new "tallest building" in the country.
Again, your opinion. Apparently the 70's-era, half-empty Willis Tower, with its nasty parking lot, is more to your liking.

What does this have to do with skylines? These buildings are like .005 of their respective city skylines.
 
Old 09-12-2012, 12:02 PM
 
425 posts, read 285,925 times
Reputation: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by MI_OH View Post
Again, your opinion. Apparently the 70's-era, half-empty Willis Tower, with its nasty parking lot, is more to your liking.

What does this have to do with skylines? These buildings are like .005 of their respective city skylines.

No, I just think NYC could do better than that.


It used to have balls, now the balls are in China and Dubai (and Chicago).
 
Old 09-12-2012, 12:05 PM
 
65 posts, read 65,416 times
Reputation: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by resuelppA View Post
Quantifiable metrics have no ****ing basis on a naked eye view of a skyline.
Then I guess we'll agree to disagree, because I think that metrics do play a huge role in comparing skyline.

If someone tells me that Nantucket has a better skyline than Hong Kong, then, yeah, I'll obviously respond by saying "but one city has a million skyscrapers, and the other has none...how could Nantucket have a better skyline"?

And if they come back and say, "just because I think it's better", ok, then, there's no point in debating.

But if you want to debate on actual, measurable things (like # of skyscrapers, # of world-famous skyscrapers, # of skyscrapers by famous architects, # of skyscrapers by era, etc.), there's no comparison between NYC and any other U.S. city (and probably any city anywhere). That's my point.
 
Old 09-12-2012, 12:07 PM
 
425 posts, read 285,925 times
Reputation: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by MI_OH View Post
Then I guess we'll agree to disagree, because I think that metrics do play a huge role in comparing skyline.

If someone tells me that Nantucket has a better skyline than Hong Kong, then, yeah, I'll obviously respond by saying "but one city has a million skyscrapers, and the other has none...how could Nantucket have a better skyline"?

And if they come back and say, "just because I think it's better", ok, then, there's no point in debating.

But if you want to debate on actual, measurable things (like # of skyscrapers, # of world-famous skyscrapers, # of skyscrapers by famous architects, # of skyscrapers by era, etc.), there's no comparison between NYC and any other U.S. city (and probably any city anywhere). That's my point.

Sounds to me like you just need to read the five year old OP.

Couldnt be any simpler.

Make your own thread on quantifiable metrics effects on skylines and you can do all the dick-wielding your heart desires in there.
 
Old 09-12-2012, 12:08 PM
 
65 posts, read 65,416 times
Reputation: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by resuelppA View Post
No, I just think NYC could do better than that.


It used to have balls, now the balls are in China and Dubai (and Chicago).
Um, but by "balls" you mean "not building towers", right?

There are no major towers built or planned in Chicago.

HK has very few major towers planned.

China has a ton planned (far more than anywhere on earth, by country), but Shanghai has relatively few supertowers planned. 90% are planned in smaller regional centers.

Dubai has a massive slowdown, and almost none planned.
 
Old 09-12-2012, 12:09 PM
 
425 posts, read 285,925 times
Reputation: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by MI_OH View Post
Um, but by "balls" you mean "not building towers", right?

There are no major towers built or planned in Chicago.

HK has very few major towers planned.

China has a ton planned (far more than anywhere on earth, by country), but Shanghai has relatively few supertowers planned. 90% are planned in smaller regional centers.

Dubai has a massive slowdown, and almost none planned.

Again, the Chicago Spire was scrapped, because of money.

Youd never see that proposal these days in NYC, which was my point.


All of these supertall proposals youre seeing are years old projects, so dont act as if NYC is still churning out plans for them.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:13 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top