Dallas Skyline vs San Francisco Skyline (expensive, best, state, better)

[DANNYY]

I've been to San Francisco many times and I've lived in Dallas (well Irving) before and Dallas's skyline is really small compared to San Francisco, I don't see where people are getting this impression that it's in anyway larger. But to be fair, I also think San Francisco's one continuous skyline is larger than Los Angeles, Houston, Philadelphia, & Boston.

[Dallaz]

Originally Posted by rah

As nice as this looks:






I fail to see how you can come to the conclusion that it's bigger than this:


All sizes | bernal heights south panorama | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pbo31/4747737353/sizes/l/in/photostream/ - broken link)


All sizes | before the masses | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pbo31/3607533077/sizes/l/in/photostream/ - broken link)


All sizes | before the heat | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pbo31/2495602008/sizes/o/in/photostream/ - broken link)


All sizes | s.f. night pano section 2 of 3 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pbo31/5232137203/sizes/l/in/photostream/ - broken link)


sf skyline from alameda (http://www.flickr.com/photos/84423669@N00/3170037012/ - broken link) by F.X.Enderby (http://www.flickr.com/people/84423669@N00/ - broken link), on Flickr

You call that compact? Stats as well as pictures prove that it's larger and denser than the Dallas skyline...so i guess Dallas has an ultra-compact skyline?

But i can see how one might consider Dallas to have a better skyline, if you happen to really like the buildings in Dallas, and/or have a special thing about the form of it's skyline or whatever...it's opinion. But in terms of actual numbers, SF wins here.

That's only Downtown.

Uptown skyline and Downtown/Uptown skyline

[R1070]

I just find the Dallas skyline more interesting. SF is more dense by far theres no questioning that. There havent been many photos posted showing the full extent of the central Dallas skyline with Uptown and Downtown together. In reality they blend into one skyline.

* Edit - looks like someone posted some right above my message. hehe
I love that 4th photo of just Uptown, it really shows what a punch it gives the skyline. This area is left out in a lot of photos of Dallas because its tough to get it and downtown into one shot.

[Dallaz]

Originally Posted by R1070

I just find the Dallas skyline more interesting. SF is more dense by far theres no questioning that. There havent been many photos posted showing the full extent of the central Dallas skyline with Uptown and Downtown together. In reality they blend into one skyline.

* Edit - looks like someone posted some right above my message. hehe

I posted some.........

[overunder12]

Originally Posted by R1070

SF is an interesting lookin city, Dallas has the better skyline though. In SF you have the compact downtown sklyine, in Dallas theres quite a bit of highrises outside of what is considered downtown. The two cities are just developed differently.

What are you talking about? San Francisco has way more high-rises outside of downtown than Dallas. Youve clearly never been to San Francisco, but have you been looking at the pictures? Dallas has two relatively small clusters, while SF is a wall of buildings!

[overunder12]

Originally Posted by Dallascaper

Yeah, I found the argument that SF is taller than Dallas because it has more short buildings to be rather odd.

200m & over:
Dallas: 7
SF: 3

Tallest:
Dallas: 281m
SF: 260m

SF has a beautiful skyline, especially if one considers the surrounding beauty. But Dallas is taller and its architecture more interesting.

I love how Dallas boosters keep setting up the scenery as a strawman. Forget the scenery. SFs skyline is much more impressive in person, its not even close.

You call buildings betweens 500 and 600 feet "short"? Besides a handful of slightly taller buildings in downtown Dallas, SF is the bigger skyline by a big margin. It really is like a dense wall of tall buildings- like a shorter and smaller lower Manhattan. Dallas' skyline, in all honesty, felt to me like a glorified Denver.

Again, its this:



VS This:

[pwright1]

To me bigger doesn't cut it comparing these two. Just because you make a big wall of buildings that doesn't make it attractive....at least in my eyes. A kind of bland wall too! Dallas is the clear winner in my eyes.

[JJG]

This isn't a diss to San Fran, but you're no Chicago or Manhattan.

Sure the "wall of buildings" may be impressive, but you have to have more buildings that stick out and even the two places I just mentioned have that.






Not saying that San Francisco is NOT impressive. But it just doesn't have enough distinctive buildings, and you can have density AND diversity, which is what Dallas has been working on the past couple decades.

[AlGreen]

Thank you. Please put them in their place. New York is a no brainer, but Chicago's skyline makes San Fran's look like a third world metro somewhere.

http://blog.thisnext.com/storage/chicago%20skyline.jpg (broken link)

[JJG]

Look, I'll put it this way, as in the number of buildings that "pop out" to me:

- Manhattan has about 41 (just in the pics that I posted)
- Chicago has 24
- Dallas has 15
- San Francisco has 6

.... that's the best way I can put it.