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)
 
 
Old 09-15-2008, 12:52 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
1,372 posts, read 2,587,410 times
Reputation: 573

Advertisements

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.

 
Old 09-15-2008, 06:26 AM
 
Location: Jersey City
6,484 posts, read 16,100,220 times
Reputation: 5610
Ignorance is your own problem.
 
Old 09-15-2008, 07:01 AM
 
5,713 posts, read 9,059,610 times
Reputation: 2455
I've found Richmond, Charlotte and Atlanta to be very recognizable.
 
Old 09-15-2008, 08:20 AM
 
11,154 posts, read 22,299,987 times
Reputation: 10881
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.
 
Old 09-15-2008, 09:13 AM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
3,742 posts, read 6,878,632 times
Reputation: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago60614 View Post
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.
 
Old 09-15-2008, 04:07 PM
 
11,847 posts, read 32,811,962 times
Reputation: 8591
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):

 
Old 09-15-2008, 05:39 PM
 
Location: Underneath the Pecan Tree
15,989 posts, read 30,601,372 times
Reputation: 7259
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.
 
Old 09-15-2008, 09:34 PM
 
Location: Jersey City
6,484 posts, read 16,100,220 times
Reputation: 5610
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.
 
Old 09-15-2008, 10:01 PM
 
11,847 posts, read 32,811,962 times
Reputation: 8591
Quote:
Originally Posted by lammius View Post
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.
 
Old 09-16-2008, 11:04 AM
 
Location: Hell's Kitchen, NYC
2,271 posts, read 4,520,442 times
Reputation: 1594
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).
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.


Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

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