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.
San Antonio is a ridiculous vote...yeah, it's not the tallest/most dense for a city of its size but who cares? The style and presentation is 100% perfect for a city that likes to play-up its history and cultural heritage. For a city with Hispanic roots all over the place...would you really want San Antonio to look any other way? In my oppinion, it is THE perfect cultural/visual representation of Hispanic culture in the USA. It's skyline reflects the overall personality of the city perfectly...Dallas style sky scrapers would kill the ambience.
Little Rock, Arkansas is pretty bad. Its decent for the city's size on height but they have absolutely no character and no density. Little Rock is also still demolishing historical buildings to add surface parking downtown when most cities are revitalizing these historical buildings, so they are going in the complete wrong direction. The city is also opposed to building new mid-rise buildings in areas that is currently surface parking (the city was up in arms about the proposed building of a W hotel because it would mean losing a parking lot). Little Rock is run by wealthy suburbanites who live in gated communities on the far west side who don't understand what it means to have a dense, urban core with character and how that can make the city more attractive to the upcoming generation.
Greensboro, NC is a pretty sucky place anyway, so it should come as no suprise that its skyline sucks too!
Greensboro used to be the second largest city in North Carolina. Greensboro's skyline reminds me of Little Rock's but with a little less height. Raleigh's skyline is also pretty bad considering its size and growth. I am surprised they didn't see a skyscraper boom in the 2000s like Charlotte did. Charlotte is the only city in North Carolina with a half-decent skyline.
Raleigh:
Greensboro: PHOTO COPYRIGHTED FOX TROTTERS CAVERN - I DO NOT CLAIM THIS PHOTO
The worse, bar none, for a large city is Fresno, CA. The place has over a half million people in the city limits and a metro area pushing a million and still has the same tired skyline it did in the 1960s when it had 170,000 people. Tallest building is only 22 stories and was built in 1964. Pathetic.
San Antonio is a ridiculous vote...yeah, it's not the tallest/most dense for a city of its size but who cares? The style and presentation is 100% perfect for a city that likes to play-up its history and cultural heritage. For a city with Hispanic roots all over the place...would you really want San Antonio to look any other way? In my oppinion, it is THE perfect cultural/visual representation of Hispanic culture in the USA. It's skyline reflects the overall personality of the city perfectly...Dallas style sky scrapers would kill the ambience.
Yeah, that's just the thing. All downtown areas in Texas are built a certain way.
Houston and Dallas were built more for big business and taller skyscrapers. That's why their skylines look tall and dense.
Where as San Antonio and Fort Worth's downtown areas were built more for tourism and residential areas. Also more preservation. That's why their skylines have smaller, fewer buildings and tallest buildings are more spread out.
Austin is a hybrid of that and El Paso..... is just horrible for a city its size. If it weren't for the mountains it would just be slightly better than Waco.
Yeah, that's just the thing. All downtown areas in Texas are built a certain way.
Houston and Dallas were built more for big business and taller skyscrapers. That's why their skylines look tall and dense.
Where as San Antonio and Fort Worth's downtown areas were built more for tourism and residential areas. Also more preservation. That's why their skylines have smaller, fewer buildings and tallest buildings are more spread out.
Austin is a hybrid of that and El Paso..... is just horrible for a city its size. If it weren't for the mountains it would just be slightly better than Waco.
Austin's is bad because for years there was height restrictions that said no building could be built taller than the state capitol building. The skyline has become much better since the height restrictions were removed.
Austin's is bad because for years there was height restrictions that said no building could be built taller than the state capitol building. The skyline has become much better since the height restrictions were removed.
Don't know if this was implied, but I didn't say Austin's was bad. I actually like it. Sure it was "undersized" for a long time, but the past ten years have been very generous to that city's skyline.
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.
