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.
Great pics, Dallaz. That 6th pic makes State-Thomas look sooooo planned, though.
I did see that too; seems so odd for such a suburban type form development to be right on top of the downtown - those apts look so uniform and a big box Walmart to boot
I have always liked a lot of the skyscraper architecture in the Dallas downtown
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.
I did see that too; seems so odd for such a suburban type form development to be right on top of the downtown - those apts look so uniform and a big box Walmart to boot
I have always liked a lot of the skyscraper architecture in the Dallas downtown
State-Thomas is actually a new urbanist neighborhood with a collection townhomes and Victorian houses in a pretty walkable area. It's new and sterile, but there isn't much suburban about it. But yeah, that Wal-Mart is very unfortunate.
State-Thomas is actually a new urbanist neighborhood with a collection townhomes and Victorian houses in a pretty walkable area. It's new and sterile, but there isn't much suburban about it. But yeah, that Wal-Mart is very unfortunate.
At least it is only a Walmart Neighborhood Market (Grocery Store). A supercenter would be worse!
The walmart (neighborhood market) looks worse in the aerial than when youre on the ground. You really dont even see it unless ur on the freeway frontage road and its not very big.
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.
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.
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.