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 01-12-2012, 04:29 PM
 
Location: Dallas,Texas
6,695 posts, read 9,947,759 times
Reputation: 3449

Advertisements

Fun Fact: Did you know more dirt was moved in building the Trinity River Floodway than in building the Panama Canal?

Now Let's get back to skylines......

 
Old 01-12-2012, 04:42 PM
 
47 posts, read 49,445 times
Reputation: 40
sure, let's get back to skylines... but not san francisco's boring ugly skyline, I don't want to look at that or discuss that at all. the only thing to say is that the city lax room to grow and because of design considerations related to earthquakes plus the fact that so much of the skyline was built in the eighties and ninety's in the ugliest boxy style possible. skyline is completely un memorable except for the pyramid which is not that impressive a building.
 
Old 01-12-2012, 05:36 PM
 
Location: San Francisco
82 posts, read 140,395 times
Reputation: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliFool View Post
sure, let's get back to skylines... but not san francisco's boring ugly skyline, I don't want to look at that or discuss that at all. the only thing to say is that the city lax room to grow and because of design considerations related to earthquakes plus the fact that so much of the skyline was built in the eighties and ninety's in the ugliest boxy style possible. skyline is completely un memorable except for the pyramid which is not that impressive a building.

lax = lacks

Capitalization and punctuation go a long way you know.

Looks like your handle suits you perfectly.


On a more serious note, most of the buildings were built in the 70's & 80's and are boxey and boring. That has already been discussed and argued over so you're a little late to the party. Yet, even with those ugly buildings, which not all of them are BTW, the skyline is still considered one of the best in the U.S. (Admittedly due to other factors besides the shapes of the buildings themselves.)
 
Old 01-12-2012, 06:34 PM
 
47 posts, read 49,445 times
Reputation: 40
there is no way the san francisco skyline is considered 1 of the best in the united states. what it getz is sort of consolation prize for nicest prom outfit. this problem is not restricted to san francisco, los angeles is also ugly because of california laws the buildings have to have flat roofs
 
Old 01-17-2012, 02:46 AM
 
Location: san francisco
2,057 posts, read 3,869,544 times
Reputation: 819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dallaz View Post
Dallas was walkable

November 3, 1951
seriously, what happened to dallas? what happened to all the texas cities?!? they once had it going for themselves and now its all ruined. now all the texas cities are trying to get back to what that photo shows. i've even seen pictures of austin of how it once was back in the days. it was bustling and seemingly vibrant. i hope every texas city returns to this. imagine if the oil had never ruined this urbanity of these cities what would these cities be like now? houston would literally be on par of LA, Philadelphia and Chicago in terms of urbanity. dallas would be right behind and austin and san antonio would be comparable to the likes of seattle and san francisco.
 
Old 01-17-2012, 11:52 AM
JJG
 
Location: Fort Worth
13,612 posts, read 22,904,705 times
Reputation: 7643
Quote:
Originally Posted by migol84 View Post
seriously, what happened to dallas? what happened to all the texas cities?!? they once had it going for themselves and now its all ruined. now all the texas cities are trying to get back to what that photo shows. i've even seen pictures of austin of how it once was back in the days. it was bustling and seemingly vibrant. i hope every texas city returns to this. imagine if the oil had never ruined this urbanity of these cities what would these cities be like now? houston would literally be on par of LA, Philadelphia and Chicago in terms of urbanity. dallas would be right behind and austin and san antonio would be comparable to the likes of seattle and san francisco.
... there are more cities in Texas than just those three.

Besides, it's not just Texas cities trying to get people to move back into the city.

I know Atlanta has their plans. Oklahoma City is trying....
 
Old 01-17-2012, 01:33 PM
 
Location: san francisco
2,057 posts, read 3,869,544 times
Reputation: 819
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJG View Post
... there are more cities in Texas than just those three.

Besides, it's not just Texas cities trying to get people to move back into the city.

I know Atlanta has their plans. Oklahoma City is trying....
i know, i know, and i know.
 
Old 01-17-2012, 02:13 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,495 posts, read 32,953,051 times
Reputation: 7752
Quote:
Originally Posted by migol84 View Post
seriously, what happened to dallas? what happened to all the texas cities?!? they once had it going for themselves and now its all ruined.
three things

1. The Car
2. General Motors
3. Crooked Politicians bought by lobbyists
 
Old 01-17-2012, 02:17 PM
 
Location: san francisco
2,057 posts, read 3,869,544 times
Reputation: 819
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
three things

1. The Car
2. General Motors
3. Crooked Politicians bought by lobbyists
yup, it sucks. i wonder though, why did this only happen with southern cities? i've not bothered to look into it.
 
Old 01-17-2012, 02:48 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,495 posts, read 32,953,051 times
Reputation: 7752
Quote:
Originally Posted by migol84 View Post
yup, it sucks. i wonder though, why did this only happen with southern cities? i've not bothered to look into it.
cars became popular in the 1940's the southern cities had not boomed yet. The North eastern ones were already developed. LA was halfway in halfway out.
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. The time now is 10:45 AM.

© 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