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.
Chicago's skyline isn't very distinctive. I see it and think it could be any city any where. Seattle, NYC, and London are distinctive.
I don't agree. Chicago has perhaps the 2nd best skyline in the U.S. I appreciate the comments about NYC, London, and even my hometown of Seattle, but after NYC, Chicago is definitely the 2nd city when it comes to skylines.
I don't agree. Chicago has perhaps the 2nd best skyline in the U.S. I appreciate the comments about NYC, London, and even my hometown of Seattle, but after NYC, Chicago is definitely the 2nd city when it comes to skylines.
Chicago is arguably the best skyline in the country due to it's layout. I've not been to NYC yet but it's not situated as beautiful as Chicago's.
I figured that was the case. At least that gives us some context of why Dallas has less historical architecture than say Denver. It's easy to say "everything was torn down," but that's not always the case.
Denver (well the downtown area) does seem classically Midwestern to me (and downtown is very nice). But as a metro area, I find it just dreadful. I've been going there about once a year since 1986. I have family in Washingon Park, Littleton, Bowmar and Thorton. I don't get the appeal at all. The experience is pretty generic and the "wonderful" outdoor aminities are meh at best, artificial at worst. It's all just so ugly (product of geography). Sure the mountains are glorious and the prairie is too but let's not pretend that from every vantage point you can't see fracking sites, asphalt plants, rail yards, highways, Walmarts and sewerage treatment facilities. All of the things necessary to make a city work are on full display due to the lack of trees to shield them and the hilly terrain. I can't pretend not to see it. I can't pretend that a treeless park beside a freeway is great just because it has nice athletic fields. I can't pretend that lacrosse bros are intersting people. The style is just so pedestrian and blah.
IMO it is definately on par with Dallas in every conceivable way and behind Atlanta in sense of place and icon status.
I voted for L.A. because I, like the rest of the world, think that it is already there (and its downtown is bigger and more "classic" than Denver, Atlanta or Dallas). Seattle checks the most boxes for this poll though. It's one of my favorite US cities and is classically urban and iconic already.
I'm not one to say that population density is everything, but you posted a link showing Miami destroying Seattle in population density. It also shows Miami's numerical population density is growing at a much faster rate than Seattles. The entire Miami metro area also destroys the entire Seattle metro area in population density. When looking at only city propers, I will say that Seattle is pretty urban, but Miami city proper is no slouch either. When you add in the numerous other urban areas surrounding Miami, the comparison becomes almost comical. Please show me anything close to the urban areas that are in these videos around the Seattle metro. Keep in mind this is just in Miami-Dade County, and this isn't even the only ones in the county. Places like Coral Gables and the Civic Center have there own large skylines inland. Both Broward and Palm Beach Counties have many, many more also.
From your link
Downtown Miami - Skip to 10:20 for the best 360° view
Do you really think Seattle is more iconic than Miami, or will be anytime soon? For some reason people in this poll are voting like all these places have the same iconic image already. I'm not even going to get into how iconic Miami is to the whole continent of South America, but here are some other things to take a look at.
37 pages on this forum of people saying they would recommend Miami to foreigners faaaar more than Seattle.
This link below shows Miami ranking second in the U.S. and having 4.8 million international tourists in one year, and Seattle having 585,000 in that same period. Ft. Lauderdale alone beat Seattle on the list with 792,000. Heck, the Florida Keys almost beat Seattle with 482,000. Do you understand how much of a difference that is?
I really don't think people understand how far ahead Miami and L.A. are in a lot of these metrics of how "iconic" a place is. It will take more than 50 years for Seattle to catch up to these things I posted, and so many other factors, if it's even possible at all. I do realize that Seattle punches above it's weight on certain factors, but to claim that it will be more urban and iconic than the Miami or L.A. areas anytime soon is just blantently false. Maybe on this forum it is, but the world has a different opinion.
But the stats provide a different story, and you still have not proved anything here.
Go ahead, please try to prove your point. If you do, I will give you the win. But as of now, Seattle is still the biggest urban growth city in the US. Please provide facts that discount this.
The link actually shows Seattle's density increasing more quickly than Miami's (and as of this year it's
already gone up past 8,200 ppsm.) Also, the Puget Sound Region has Bellevue, with arguably the best suburban skyline in the US, and Tacoma, which has pretty good classically urban bones.
That said, I agree Miami is more iconic than Seattle. Both have big city amenities and I think it's a push in terms of urbanity (Miami is denser but Seattle has a more classically urban feel and better transit ridership).
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinytr
I'm not one to say that population density is everything, but you posted a link showing Miami destroying Seattle in population density. It also shows Miami's numerical population density is growing at a much faster rate than Seattles. The Miami metro area also destroys the Seattle metro area in population density. When looking at only city propers, I will say that Seattle is pretty urban, but Miami city proper is no slouch either. When you add in the numerous other urban areas surrounding Miami, the comparison becomes almost comical. Please show me anything close to the urban areas that are in these videos around the Seattle metro. Keep in mind this is just in Miami-Dade County, and this isn't even the only ones in the county. Places like Coral Gables and the Medical Center have there own large skylines inland. Both Broward and Palm Beach Counties have many, many more also.
Do you really think Seattle is more iconic than Miami, or will be anytime soon? For some reason people in this poll are voting like all these places have the same iconic image already. I'm not even going to get into how iconic Miami is to the whole continent of South America, but here are some other things to take a look at.
37 pages on this forum of people saying they would recommend Miami to foreigners faaaar more than Seattle.
This link below shows Miami ranking second in the U.S. and having 4.8 million international tourists in one year and Seattle having 585,000 in that same period. Ft. Lauderdale alone beat Seattle on the list with 792,000. Heck, the Florida Keys almost beat Seattle with 482,000. Do you understand how much of a difference that is?
I really don't think people understand how far ahead Miami and L.A. are in a lot of these metrics of how "iconic" a place is. It will take more than 50 years for Seattle to catch up to these things I posted, and so many other factors, if it's even possible. I do realize that Seattle punches above it's weight on certain factors, but to claim that it is more urban and iconic than the Miami or L.A. areas is just blantently false. Maybe on this forum it is, but the world has a different opinion.
So perhaps we should call a truce on this thread. Yes, Miami has more international traffic, but Seattle is growing faster with urban development. Who wins? Really, both.
The link actually shows Seattle's density increasing more quickly than Miami's (and as of this year it's
already gone up past 8,200 ppsm.) Also, the Puget Sound Region has Bellevue, with arguably the best suburban skyline in the US, and Tacoma, which has pretty good classically urban bones.
That said, I agree Miami is more iconic than Seattle. Both have big city amenities and I think it's a push in terms of urbanity (Miami is denser but Seattle has a more classically urban feel and better transit ridership).
It shows Seattle's density increasing more than Miami's percentage wise, but not in numerical growth. It has Seattle at 7,962/ sq mi with a 9.8% increase. It shows Miami at 11,997/ sq mi with a 7.7% increase. That growth is actually not even close.
.
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.
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.
