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.
Minneapolis is my 2nd favorite skyline. Behind Chicago is my favorite. 3rd is Seattle, then Sna Fran. Minneapolis is very nice and deserves to build some more skyscrapers to make it better. The thing about Minneapolis is that it is a modern skyline. if you where to put a modern if not futurish design in it, it would fit in with everything else. but in NYC putting Freedom tower in there looks like putting the Chicago Spire next to the leaning tower of Pizza!!!
1. I think Detroit's skyline as a whole is not that impressive. In fact the Ren Center makes the skyline look lopsided and outdated. Frankly, it was just poor urban design. Were it possible to have built the Ren Center closer to the center of downtown Detroit (and I say this as someone who admittedly doesn't know much about Detroit's history or geography) then it would have made for a far more impressive centerpiece. That said, Detroit does have some a nice variety of older buildings when viewed closer up.
2. Cleveland also doesn't impress me much at a distance, but captures my curiosity much more quickly (particularly in the daytime) with it's sense of architecture (even at a distance.) There are a lot of interesting buildings there and I think they shine through more obviously than many of the other cities. Furthermore, Cleveland is definitely more impressive in the daytime than at night (which I find rare, particularly for midwestern cities.)
3. Been to Kansas City many, many times (have family there.) Some great architecture there, but no matter what angle I see the KC skyline from, it never impresses me. I find it one of the more generic and spread out skylines in the midwest (and in the country in general.) Not to say there isn't some cool stuff in the city when you're down and in it, but when I think skyline, I'm thinking about that picture you see coming into town as the buildings rise up before you. KC doesn't do it for me.
4. I realize I'm getting pretty negative here and apologize, but again, these are just my opinion ^_^ Minneapolis would actually be a pretty fine skyline if not for the Dome (which I just think robs the skyline of it's symmetry and sense of height), though the architecture doesn't grab me the way Cleveland's does. Cleveland (a city I must admit I've seen many, many photos of been never been to) is leading for me as I write this...reminds me somehow architecturally of Pittsburgh or maybe even parts of London, England.
5. I haven't seen much Cincinnati or Indianapolis...what photos I've seen are nice. Cincinnati has some nice bridges as I recall, and there is a decent skyline there.
6. St. Louis - You have to count the Arch. You could no more take it away than you could take away The Chrysler Building or the Empire State. It is an interesting skyline, though it also possesses the "spread out" factor to some degree (though not nearly as badly as KC.) I understand people's complaints about it looking "generic", but the Arch is part of the remedy to that argument. It's another one of those cities that's more intriguing close up than from a distance (some very interesting architecture in the city blending midwest and southern styles), but this is a discussion about skylines, so I couldn't put it at the top. For the record, I can't stand the city of St. Louis...but it's nothing personal =) Did I mention my folks live in KC?
After mulling it over I have to give my vote to Cleveland. I keep wanting to look more at it. That's not to say I'd want to live there, but the more I see of it's skyline, the more little details draw my attention. That just doesn't happen with many of the other cities listed. Just my opinion. Nobody got hurt in the making of this opinion =D
Minneapolis has a hideous skyline because every highrise tries to look "unique". While it is important to have unique highrises, it's also important to have "filler" buildings so those unique highrises can stand out. When every building looks different, it just creates a tacky mess. You can tell that NONE of the architects took the building's surroundings into consideration.
I guess I would have to go with Detroit, but it's skyline is so damn stagnant. It's barely changed in the last 10 years. The only real additions are the casinos (which are short), and the sports stadiums, which can't be seen from the classic "river view". St. Louis' skyilne is short, small, and boring. And it's barely changed in the last 10 years either. Hmmm...this is a hard poll
I like Minneapolis's skyline for the fact the way it is structured, makes it appear bigger than it actually is. Columbus is the same way.. from some angles, it looks like a HUGE downtown, when in reality it's all about angles and was planned out well.
Still, I think Cleveland's skyline is the best. The uniqueness of Key Tower(near 900 feet), Terminal Tower, and Public Square. I'm a little disappointed, there was supposed to be a 1000+ tower built in the late 80s, but was never started. But, the skyline should look better in a few years with development around the lake and river in the next few years.
Here are the canceled towers which would have drastically changed Cleveland's skyline (Canceled 1991 and 1987)
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.
