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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 12-22-2008, 11:19 AM
 
Location: Houston Texas
2,898 posts, read 2,868,140 times
Reputation: 877

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomDot View Post
Why would anyone want to work or live in a supertall skyscraper that sits barely 10 miles from an active fault?
+1 rep for the common sense post of the year!

 
Old 12-22-2008, 11:29 AM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 24,493,959 times
Reputation: 5656
I would put Atlanta Houston and Seattle all over SF for your 3rd place... probably Dallas, Denver and Miami too, as well as Toronto and Vancouver if you wanna take it that far.

I was really surprised at how small SF was the first time I went there.

NYC and Chicago stand all by themselves as far as U.S. Cities go.

We are talking skylines here, hence skyscrapers, not landscapes...

SF probably has the best "landscape" though.
 
Old 12-22-2008, 11:35 AM
 
Location: Dorchester
2,602 posts, read 4,310,051 times
Reputation: 1082
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetclimber View Post
+1 rep for the common sense post of the year!
I would sooner live on the 100th floor of a supertall skyscraper shaped like a middle finger gesturing toward Mecca.
 
Old 12-22-2008, 05:08 PM
rah
 
Location: Oakland
3,315 posts, read 8,100,039 times
Reputation: 2508
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetclimber View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomDot View Post
Why would anyone want to work or live in a supertall skyscraper that sits barely 10 miles from an active fault?
+1 rep for the common sense post of the year!
Contrary to popular belief, modern highrises are actually some of the safest places to be during an earthquake. Skyscrapers in San Francisco have a very strict construction code to follow to make sure they're able to withstand earthquakes. Do you really think people would be stupid enough to build unstable buildings in such an earthquake prone region like California?

There are even a couple old skyscrapers in SF that survived the 1906 earthquake, and are still here today (not to mention every single highrise in SF withstood the 1989 earthquake with no problems whatsoever).
 
Old 01-01-2009, 09:00 PM
 
464 posts, read 968,398 times
Reputation: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awesomo.2000 View Post
Chicago doesn't have enough tall buildings.
LMAO 4/5 tallest buildings in the nation are in Chicago...not smart at all.
 
Old 01-01-2009, 09:05 PM
 
Location: moving again
4,383 posts, read 15,299,561 times
Reputation: 1589
If we're counting both built and under construction buildings, its 2/5, or if we're only talking about complete buildings, it's 3/5. But yea, that was not a smart comment
 
Old 01-01-2009, 11:58 PM
 
Location: yeah
5,716 posts, read 14,539,114 times
Reputation: 2822
Quote:
Originally Posted by rah View Post
Contrary to popular belief, modern highrises are actually some of the safest places to be during an earthquake. Skyscrapers in San Francisco have a very strict construction code to follow to make sure they're able to withstand earthquakes. Do you really think people would be stupid enough to build unstable buildings in such an earthquake prone region like California?

There are even a couple old skyscrapers in SF that survived the 1906 earthquake, and are still here today (not to mention every single highrise in SF withstood the 1989 earthquake with no problems whatsoever).
Indeed. When the next big one hits the Bay Area, the skyscrapers may be the few buildings left standing in S.F. Height is not directly proportional to vulnerability.
 
Old 01-02-2009, 07:29 PM
 
Location: Irvine,Oc,Ca
1,423 posts, read 4,223,420 times
Reputation: 671
Chicago skyline is more Massive and is more spreaded out from south to north.Sf skyline looks good from many angeles from the bay.SF skyline isn't better than Chicago but probably has the best Landscape. La doesn't even deserve to be in the top 10 skylines in america i'm dissapointed with our skyline.Sf is in my opinion is the 3rd best skyline after Chi..
 
Old 01-02-2009, 08:15 PM
 
1,107 posts, read 2,680,433 times
Reputation: 473
Id go with chicago as 2nd
 
Old 01-02-2009, 10:58 PM
 
Location: California
3,902 posts, read 4,875,546 times
Reputation: 3081
Lightbulb San Francisco !

Home, Sweet Home.
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 03:38 AM.

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