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.
Seems like people always bring 100 different categories into these polls when the question is always _SKYLINE_ battle. If that's the only issue being discussed, then who cares about what is going on at the street level?
I wholeheartedly think that Boston has an incredible street level life with centuries of history, but how does that impact what I think of their skyline? For as dense as the city is, they have not built that far up, so Houston wins in this category.
Though I get what you're saying, I'm not sure that you can totally ignore the interaction between buildings and street. What I like about the financial district (where most of the height is found in Boston) is the way the winding narrow streets pull the skyline into a tight knot. There is a visual impact for a distant viewer in that it minimizes the gaps between buildings. There is a downside to this, too, though, which is that it becomes harder for any one building to stand out. It is partly for this reason that some of Boston's most iconic towers are found in other parts of the city. A few taller buildings in the financial district would really take care of the tension between density and singularity.
Moving on, the concept of height and iconic imagery is what really makes Houston's skyline look so good. Both cities would benefit from a bit of what the other is doing: a few taller buildings in Boston, some less iconic and shorter buildings in Houston to fill in the gaps. I think both would then be top five contenders.
Boston is highly underrated, perhaps because there is no "one" tower that everyone looks at and goes "hey, that's Boston." The water just helps. Good range of architectural diversity.
Houston is known for the tall, modern towers, but that's not all there is.
The Neils Esperson building, briefly the tallest in Houston when it was built in 1927. Italian Renaissance style - this is hard to find in a building this tall in the South. Soon after it was built...
The Gulf Building (now called JP Morgan Chase Building) opened in 1929 and was the tallest in Houston for over three decades. Legitimate Art Deco skyscrapers are also not very common in the South, but this one's another gem that a lot of outsiders aren't aware of from only having seen the kind of Houston skyline shots as above.
This is what most people think of when they think of Houston. These are from inside the current tallest in Houston, the JP Morgan Chase Tower which is not to be confused with the former Gulf Building. Not a whole lot architecturally notable about it other than being tall and holding a rather obscure record of being the tallest five-sided building in the world.
Here's a look at it with the Esperson in front for height comparison.
Some other looks:
You won't see the older buildings in most skyline views, particularly from the north or west.
The densest views really come from the south and east, but from there you can't see the Bank of America Plaza, the "spiky" building that, if there was a "this is Houston" skyscraper, that's the one.
Kind of like Boston, where you have to be on the ground to see what all is really there, you have to do that in Houston too.
Compare these with the modern towers and you have a nice mix, even if the older stuff isn't all 500+ feet tall.
All images in this post are mine (taken 2008-2010) and are under a Creative Commons license. Repost, re-edit - as long as you credit. I don't have any Boston photos, but anyone who wants to bring me there and turn me loose on the streets with a camera is welcome to do so.
I'm not even going to "vote" here. Just wanted to provide a few perspectives some people may not be aware of.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 15,928,719 times
Reputation: 4047
The one thing I like about Boston's skyline is how it sits on the coast/Boston Harbor. Otherwise, in height, Houston, look, Houston, ability to expand, Houston.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 15,928,719 times
Reputation: 4047
Stated again, here in Texas no one gives a flying **** about density. When you're a state rich with land, you could care less.
And normally larger density causes cities to be vertically taller, as the case in NYC, Philadelphia, Chicago, right? Boston appears to be the exception to that marvelous rule.
Once again, no offense to any Boston folks. Just simply stating things in my honest opinion.
Boston should be a lot taller than what it really is. Its height sucks.
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.
