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.
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.
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.
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
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 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
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.