Why are the skylines of Southern Cities so unrecognizable? (state, compared, America)

[iPwn]

I can't picture what any Southern city's skyline looks like. It seems to not get the attention the Eastern, Midwestern and West Coast cities get.

[lammius]

Ignorance is your own problem.

[WILWRadio]

I've found Richmond, Charlotte and Atlanta to be very recognizable.

[Chicago60614]

Possibly because they're somewhat new compared to other more established areas. The western areas normally have mountain backdrops which can help. San Fran and Seattle have very specific landmarks.

Eastern and some Midwestern cities are older and have a distinct look and size about them (Chicago and New York), they have items such as the Arch, Empire State, Lake Michigan/Sears Tower.

The southern ones lack huge mountains, very distinct landmark buildings and tend to be more modern with glass/steel buildings which could be mistaken for being in most cities these days. I know that cities have their "signature" towers, I'm not saying they don't have ANY landmarks, just normally not something as well known as the Empire State, the Arch, etc.

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by Chicago60614

Possibly because they're somewhat new compared to other more established areas. The western areas normally have mountain backdrops which can help. San Fran and Seattle have very specific landmarks.

Eastern and some Midwestern cities are older and have a distinct look and size about them (Chicago and New York), they have items such as the Arch, Empire State, Lake Michigan/Sears Tower.

The southern ones lack huge mountains, very distinct landmark buildings and tend to be more modern with glass/steel buildings which could be mistaken for being in most cities these days. I know that cities have their "signature" towers, I'm not saying they don't have ANY landmarks, just normally not something as well known as the Empire State, the Arch, etc.

I think you hit the nail right on the head my friend, you took the words right out of my mouth. Southern cities were basically deadzones until around the time of desegregation and the drying up of the industries in the Midwestern and some of the Northeastern cities....I would say that the "Southern renaissance" has been in effect probably for about 40 to 50 years...cities like Atlanta, Dallas, Nashville, Houston, etc. have only been booming and very well established in the last 100 years. They have been around much longer than 100 years, but were not really major players until around then. Atlanta in particular is unrecognizable likely because it was burned to the ground during the Civil War so it looked completely different when it was rebuilt, not to mention that it took a very long time for it to recover. THat's one reason. The other is that the economy of the South jumpstarted only a few decades ago and downtowns developed and populations experienced explosive growth...as a result, most Southern cities are pretty unrecognizable compared to how they would have been in say...the 1950s...their skylines are not ones that have been traditionally portrayed like the skylines of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, St. Louis, Cleveland, Indianapolis, etc.

[JMT]

I think there's a lot of truth in what y'all have been saying, most Southern cities have fairly new skylines with fairly nondescript architecture.

A few, however, seem to stand out because of a few notable buildings.

Atlanta's skyline for years was easily identifiable because of the cylindrical Westin Peachtree Plaza Hotel (an ugly building in my opinion):



Charlotte has a pretty bland skyline (in my opinion) but has the gigantic Bank of America Tower looming over the entire city:



Nashville's skyline as seen from LP Field. Another skyline that's not particularly memorable (although Nashville is a great city), but it is sort of famous for the one building lovingly referred to as the Batman Building (no prize if you can find it in the pic below):

[blkgiraffe]

Houston would be a recognizable skyline if it got more publicity. People can't recognize something if there not expose to it constantly like they are to LA and NYC.

[lammius]

Great pics, JMT.

I think the problem with Houston's skyline is that looking at it, I just see big glass boxes. To me there isn't a whole lot of drama to it.

And Charlotte's BOA isn't all that unique itself, IMO. To me it's not much different from the BOA in Atlanta or the Key Tower in Cleveland. It's that tall brownish building with a brightly lit crown that many many cities seem to have.

[JMT]

Originally Posted by lammius

Great pics, JMT.

I think the problem with Houston's skyline is that looking at it, I just see big glass boxes. To me there isn't a whole lot of drama to it.

And Charlotte's BOA isn't all that unique itself, IMO. To me it's not much different from the BOA in Atlanta or the Key Tower in Cleveland. It's that tall brownish building with a brightly lit crown that many many cities seem to have.

Yeah I've thought the same thing, the BOA thing in Charlotte is very similar to the BOA thing in Atlanta although BOA was diplomatic enough to build the Charlotte HQ slightly smaller than the Atlanta one as a nod to Atlanta's position as capital of the South. The only reason Charlotte's BOA tower is so distinguishable is because it's just so much freaking taller than anything else in the entire city. If it weren't for the BOA tower, Charlotte's skyline would be easily forgotten (just like the rest of that blah/boring city).

And I agree with your assessment of Houston's skyline. It's got an impressive collection of modern high-rises but I don't think the skyline as a whole is nearly as memorable as, say, San Francisco's, Seattle's, or even Pittsburgh's.

[theSUBlime]

Well, IMHO part of that is your own ignorance, another part is underexposure and partly post-modern similarities southern cities share (the latter two points are connected).