Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
View Poll Results: Which skyline looks better?
Dallas 218 33.44%
San Francisco 434 66.56%
Voters: 652. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 03-07-2011, 01:17 AM
 
Location: America
5,092 posts, read 8,800,933 times
Reputation: 1970

Advertisements




 
Old 03-07-2011, 02:04 AM
 
Location: san francisco
2,057 posts, read 3,852,100 times
Reputation: 819
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlGreen View Post
In that photo grapico posted, the natural scenery is fascinating and the cityscape is beyond awe-inspiring, but the actual skyline itself is not that impressive, IMO (and those who disagree can spare me the smart aleck back-talk, because I could care less ).

That's the problem with this thread, I'm hearing more "scenery" and "urbanity" arguments than discussions about the actual SKYLINES i.e. the buildings that line the sky.
I can see what you're saying. But in fairness, I think that is how people rank skylines. It's annoying trying to figure it out. That's why I think all the skyline discussions are a bit ridiculous. People have different opinions on what makes a good skyline. For many density is key in making a good skyline. NY and Chicago serve as prime examples of that. Because if you look at say, NYC skyline there may be many buildings that if they were in smaller skylines, or less dense skylines, would be uninteresting.

Personally, I'd rather have density. One or two tall nice buildings would be nice but what really strikes most people even more is how density creates a type of cohesiveness to the skyline. It looks more vibrant somehow. And also, since we're talking about San Francisco, the bridges compliment the skyline as well. Look at any skyline that has a nice bridge or two nearby (NY, Pittsburgh) and notice how they compliment the skyline.

Anyways, yes, I see what you mean by the actual skylines alone as I too have argued the same thing about Houston's skyline vs Los Angeles'. But you can't overlook what makes San Francisco's so special. The bridges, the density, the scenery, and despite what many have already said about SF's "uninteresting" buildings the Transamerica Building alone is interesting enough to bring SF's skyline to one of the most beautiful in the U.S.

IMO, a better comparison would be Seattle vs San Francisco and Dallas vs Atlanta or Houston. Each of these coupled skylines have similar qualities that are more comparable or contrasted.

But you know, after saying all of that, if Dallas were to keep building as it has been and fill up those empty lots and get those bridges finished Dallas can start ranking with the best of them. IMO, taller buildings aren't necessary just more density would be enough. And if you haven't been to SF then you're missing out on how awesome the skyline looks when your driving on the Oakland Bay Bridge. Dallas doesn't come near that in any way from the many times I've seen it.
 
Old 03-07-2011, 07:13 AM
 
Location: Underneath the Pecan Tree
15,982 posts, read 35,028,608 times
Reputation: 7427
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
So you guys honestly think Dallas is better than this? Are you guys squinting or something?

zoom in and look around a bit and at the detail...
I'm mad SF would be build in such a beautiful area and no; I still pick Dallas. I'm only impressed by the density and scenery.
 
Old 03-07-2011, 07:18 AM
 
Location: So California
8,704 posts, read 11,041,227 times
Reputation: 4794
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlGreen View Post
In that photo grapico posted, the natural scenery is fascinating and the cityscape is beyond awe-inspiring, but the actual skyline itself is not that impressive, IMO (and those who disagree can spare me the smart aleck back-talk, because I could care less ).

That's the problem with this thread, I'm hearing more "scenery" and "urbanity" arguments than discussions about the actual SKYLINES i.e. the buildings that line the sky.

You can take all of it out, except for skyline. SF is more impressive. Most skylines are judged by the view driving up to them, thats my criteria.
 
Old 03-07-2011, 08:02 AM
 
Location: Seattle Area
617 posts, read 1,417,083 times
Reputation: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
So you guys honestly think Dallas is better than this? Are you guys squinting or something?

zoom in and look around a bit and at the detail...
First of all everyone knows that the surrounding neighborhoods around SF are denser, so what is your point? I thought we were strictly talking about the skyline and not the surrounding neighborhood
 
Old 03-07-2011, 08:41 AM
 
Location: America
5,092 posts, read 8,800,933 times
Reputation: 1970
Quote:
Originally Posted by slo1318 View Post
You can take all of it out, except for skyline. SF is more impressive.
To you. Not to me. We're all entitled to our opinions.
 
Old 03-07-2011, 10:54 AM
 
Location: So California
8,704 posts, read 11,041,227 times
Reputation: 4794
I understand. And its okay to be wrong.....
 
Old 03-07-2011, 10:59 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles
5,861 posts, read 15,173,601 times
Reputation: 6757
The Dallas skyline is my pick. More color, more shapes, more height, far more attractive talls. And honestly in San Francisco besides Transamerica and BoA I can't name any of the others and after those two nothing really stands out. Kind of reminds me of Boston. The 2 tallest there stand out but everything else just blends together.
 
Old 03-07-2011, 01:06 PM
 
381 posts, read 858,176 times
Reputation: 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwright1 View Post
The Dallas skyline is my pick. More color, more shapes, more height, far more attractive talls. And honestly in San Francisco besides Transamerica and BoA I can't name any of the others and after those two nothing really stands out. Kind of reminds me of Boston. The 2 tallest there stand out but everything else just blends together.
The more height is not accurate, San Francisco has 44 buildings over 400 feet to Dallas' 27. And in terms of buildings over 200 feet, it's even more one-sided
 
Old 03-07-2011, 01:10 PM
 
381 posts, read 858,176 times
Reputation: 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlGreen View Post
In that photo grapico posted, the natural scenery is fascinating and the cityscape is beyond awe-inspiring, but the actual skyline itself is not that impressive, IMO (and those who disagree can spare me the smart aleck back-talk, because I could care less ).

That's the problem with this thread, I'm hearing more "scenery" and "urbanity" arguments than discussions about the actual SKYLINES i.e. the buildings that line the sky.
Forget the scenery, I think SF wins easily by skyline alone.

I prefer San Francisco's skyline for the sheer scale of it - there are just so many more tall buildings in SF's skyline than Dallas'. It feels way more massive. Not to mention, it has much greater density.

This are kind of random angles that are missing most of SF skyline's trademarks, but notice the dense wall of buildings.



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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top