U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
View Poll Results: Best Skyline!
Houston 144 36.27%
Philadelphia 253 63.73%
Voters: 397. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Unread 09-02-2012, 07:04 PM
 
Location: Nob Hill, San Francisco, CA
2,224 posts, read 1,285,598 times
Reputation: 937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Summersm343 View Post
Correct, but when cities like Philadelphia, New York and Boston where built, they were designed after European Urbanity which makes them favorable to public transportation and pedestrian traffic. Houston and other Southern cities were developed to favor the car and now have very poor walkability and pedestrian traffic as well as seas of parking lots and parking lots/drive ways in front of every building. It will take decades (possibly hundreds of years) for Houston to correct it's mistakes.
Well the city already has part of its infrastructure in place. The biggest issue with Houston is getting rid of those parking lots downtown and luring life back there because that downtown is a sea of parking lots. The downtown seems to be a place people flee to other areas even in the core city. The city's outskirt neighborhoods are even more impressive than its downtown is. The areas around Rice as well as those on the westside are walkable. One thing I've noticed with Dallas, Miami, and Houston is that their sidewalks are much narrower than Boston's or San Francisco's. So those should be corrected to be wider.

They're similar to LA in the regard that their infrastructure was built to accommodate the way of life right now but LA is 30-40 years ahead of them on infill, Phily and Boston were founded on being pedestrian cities in a time period much before the automobile. Cars will always be apart of our lives now, each year they reach record sales. Back in China they had to tear down the entire city of Shanghai to make it more car friendly and rebuild infrastructure from scratch. The way these cities are built are different, when they infill, then you'll get a better idea of what type of cities they are. This is also what I've noticed with Miami too that the city has its car infrastructure in place already but needs some corrections for walkability and vibrancy.

Realistically in my lifetime I see all 3 of these cities outperforming DC on urbanity in their own format IMO.

 
Unread 09-02-2012, 08:32 PM
 
5,240 posts, read 3,136,700 times
Reputation: 2057
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX View Post
Well the city already has part of its infrastructure in place. The biggest issue with Houston is getting rid of those parking lots downtown and luring life back there because that downtown is a sea of parking lots. The downtown seems to be a place people flee to other areas even in the core city. The city's outskirt neighborhoods are even more impressive than its downtown is. The areas around Rice as well as those on the westside are walkable. One thing I've noticed with Dallas, Miami, and Houston is that their sidewalks are much narrower than Boston's or San Francisco's. So those should be corrected to be wider.

They're similar to LA in the regard that their infrastructure was built to accommodate the way of life right now but LA is 30-40 years ahead of them on infill, Phily and Boston were founded on being pedestrian cities in a time period much before the automobile. Cars will always be apart of our lives now, each year they reach record sales. Back in China they had to tear down the entire city of Shanghai to make it more car friendly and rebuild infrastructure from scratch. The way these cities are built are different, when they infill, then you'll get a better idea of what type of cities they are. This is also what I've noticed with Miami too that the city has its car infrastructure in place already but needs some corrections for walkability and vibrancy.

Realistically in my lifetime I see all 3 of these cities outperforming DC on urbanity in their own format IMO.
that is not true, mpost of Houstons sidewalks are wider than some Boston streets, beacon hill, and the North end you can only fit single file down the street, only in Back Bay westward is there wide sidewalks.
 
Unread 09-02-2012, 09:47 PM
JJG
 
Location: Fort Worth
9,119 posts, read 8,564,677 times
Reputation: 3782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nairobi View Post
Oh, goodness gracious.
You just took the words right out of my head...
 
Unread 09-03-2012, 12:57 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles
4,280 posts, read 7,412,075 times
Reputation: 3764
I prefer Houston's post modern mass. Philadelphia's skyline is nice but honestly I never cared much for the two Liberty towers. They look like stunted new versions of the Empire State. The Houston skyline is more interesting and colorful. It's definately newer but the shapes, colors, textures, sizes and varied height make it my choice.
 
Unread 09-03-2012, 07:49 AM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
12,655 posts, read 12,799,458 times
Reputation: 4550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Summersm343 View Post
Correct, but when cities like Philadelphia, New York and Boston where built, they were designed after European Urbanity which makes them favorable to public transportation and pedestrian traffic. Houston and other Southern cities were developed to favor the car and now have very poor walkability and pedestrian traffic as well as seas of parking lots and parking lots/drive ways in front of every building. It will take decades (possibly hundreds of years) for Houston to correct it's mistakes.
Eh. More like decades. Was this thread about vibrancy or skylines?
 
Unread 09-03-2012, 09:08 AM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
12,655 posts, read 12,799,458 times
Reputation: 4550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nairobi View Post
Technically, this thread is about CITY skylines and not downtown skylines, so if someone decided to include the skyline of a seperate district of the city, that would be their prerogative.
I understand what you're saying. But when people say show your city skylines, it basically means your downtown skyline. You don't see LA showing Century City. It's just Downtown LA. You don't see Rosemont or Evanston with Chicago. It's just downtown Chicago. You don't see people show Aventura, Miami Beach, or any other skyline along the ocean. It's just downtown Miami. So he has a point as well. I will say that when you throw a pano of Houston and all of their skylines, it is pretty impressive. I still wish Houston had one cluster or buildings than several skylines. One cluster is far more impressive to me and tells me the city is more organized.
 
Unread 09-03-2012, 09:25 AM
Status: "Nairobi is always right" (set 19 days ago)
 
Location: The Magnolia City
8,797 posts, read 4,787,055 times
Reputation: 4775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade View Post
I understand what you're saying. But when people say show your city skylines, it basically means your downtown skyline. You don't see LA showing Century City. It's just Downtown LA. You don't see Rosemont or Evanston with Chicago. It's just downtown Chicago. You don't see people show Aventura, Miami Beach, or any other skyline along the ocean. It's just downtown Miami. So he has a point as well. I will say that when you throw a pano of Houston and all of their skylines, it is pretty impressive. I still wish Houston had one cluster or buildings than several skylines. One cluster is far more impressive to me and tells me the city is more organized.
No, sir. A "city's skyline" is just that...the CITY'S skyline. If this thread were just about downtowns then the OP would have said that specifically. Period.

Yes, I have, on numerous occasions, seen Century City brought into the discussion of LA's skyline. Rosemont, Evanston, Aventura, and Miami Beach are all their own municipalities, so that's a moot point. Likewise, how often do you hear people use Sugar Land or The Woodlands as part of our city's skyline?
 
Unread 09-03-2012, 09:32 AM
 
Location: Center City
3,380 posts, read 2,470,511 times
Reputation: 4117
Both cities have attractive and interesting skylines with their pluses and minuses. Personally, a skyline is a rather meh factor when I consider what makes a city great. London is one of my favorite cites and some of the tallest buildings in the core West End/Kensington neighborhoods are church steeples. I evaluate my cities by what's happening at street level underneath those tall towers. Given that, I have a clear preference between these two cities.
 
Unread 09-03-2012, 09:39 AM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
12,655 posts, read 12,799,458 times
Reputation: 4550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nairobi View Post
No, sir. A "city's skyline" is just that...the CITY'S skyline. If this thread were just about downtowns then the OP would have said that specifically. Period.

Yes, I have, on numerous occasions, seen Century City brought into the discussion of LA's skyline. Rosemont, Evanston, Aventura, and Miami Beach are all their own municipalities, so that's a moot point. Likewise, how often do you hear people use Sugar Land or The Woodlands as part of our city's skyline?
What I'm getting is that when people ask to show your city's skyline. That is basically code for show the downtown skyline. Most cities do not have other clusters of skyscrapers in other parts of the city so that's why you will never see a thread saying show your downtown skylines. I've rarely if ever seen people bring Century City with downtown skyline for LA. When we have these threads, we usually only post the downtown skylines only for a reason. The Galleria area would be a suburban edge city similar to Clayton, MO if it was in another state.
 
Unread 09-03-2012, 09:41 AM
JJG
 
Location: Fort Worth
9,119 posts, read 8,564,677 times
Reputation: 3782
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm02 View Post
Both cities have attractive and interesting skylines with their pluses and minuses. Personally, a skyline is a rather meh factor when I consider what makes a city great. London is one of my favorite cites and some of the tallest buildings in the core West End/Kensington neighborhoods are church steeples. I evaluate my cities by what's happening at street level underneath those tall towers. Given that, I have a clear preference between these two cities.
Right but (no offense) that's NOT what we're talking about. That's not even the topic of the thread.
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 $74,000 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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:12 AM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

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 - Top