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.
Man alive, that picture of Phoenix SWB posted makes PHX look disgusting! Truth is, though, it often is. That level of pollution is becoming very common. On those occasional clean air days, though, PHX indeed looks beautiful. As for its "skyline," though, I wouldn't rate that as anything. Although, as I just posted in the sprawl thread, I'm not a big fan of skylines to begin with.
I agree, Phoenix is much prettier than the photo. The photo looks like the climate is very, very, hot... which it is, but the picture seems to capture the heat instead of the beauty. Make sense?
Do you know how long it would be before Dallas is able to become the third largest skyline? In structures, Dallas is decades behind Houston, and a ways behind Los Angeles as well. Also, Houston is developing just as quick as Dallas is, so Dallas surpassing LA might be feasible, but beating Houston in this area is very unlikely. And Houston is just as prone to disaster as many coastal cities are. That doesn't mean a city needs to stop prospering because no such disaster is guaranteed (you're not God, you know). Keep in mind, also, that a lot of the Houston area is far enough inland to be safe from major damage.
Just like Houston passing Chicago in highrises is unlikely.
Sorry, couldnt resist
Do you know how long it would be before Dallas is able to become the third largest skyline? In structures, Dallas is decades behind Houston, and a ways behind Los Angeles as well.
Something in me gut tells me you know more than I do about what's in the works for various cities. And I was only going by my impressions and some other factors, far from a complete list of factors. So I'll defer to your most-likely superior knowledge about what's happening in cities across the nation. And that's why I love this forum, it's the first place I ever found a group of people with as nerdy a fascination with geography, demographics and cities as I have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpope409
Houston is just as prone to disaster as many coastal cities are. That doesn't mean a city needs to stop prospering because no such disaster is guaranteed (you're not God, you know).
Now you've incurred my Almighty Wrath! How do YOU know I'm not... oh, wait, you said "God" --- my bad, I thought it said "Good"...
But seriously, I beg to differ. Houston has a disaster on a regular basis and with sea levels rising and impervious cover increasing, it's only a matter of time before a disaster that dwarfs Allison will strike that hurricane- and flood-prone region. I agree that the inland and slightly higher areas will be relatively safe, but a huge portion of Houston lies close to sea level and south of downtown. If it grows, it needs to grow northwest. And... oh yeah, that's what's happening!
The port of Houston is, as I recall, one of the top 3 in the USA for commerce, and in the Top Ten list for the entire world. THAT is what will truly guarantee that Houston remains a very important city. But I'm very concerned about the increasing odds of disastrous flooding as more land is paved over and hurricanes lurk on the horizon. Surely you know about Galveston...? It seems like a certainty that SOMEDAY Houston will be hammered severely. But since hurricanes are pretty random and indiscriminate, there could be two in a row this summer or none for the next century in that immediate area. Quien sabe?
Location: Somewhere along the path to where I'd like to be.
2,180 posts, read 5,422,155 times
Reputation: 829
This question would be MUCH easier if we were giving our opinions about the most overrated skyline - which I would have to say is St. Louis. It just doesn't do anything for me.
Nevertheless, if we're going with underrated, I'd say Sacramento or Tampa. They are both fantastic looking skylines.
BTW, that's a HORRIBLE picture of the Cincinnati skyline. There are MUCH better angles that can be found.
I think St. Louis skyline is under-rated. The Arch is something that is very unique, and that no other American city has. It's a engineering marvel. It's IMO the world's largest optical illusion. It rises 630 ft. tall, but it's also 630 ft. wide despite looking taller than wider. The fact they put an elevator in there amazes me. Unfortunately for ST. Louis, there is a city ordinance that says you cant build higher than the Arch. But it does have several highrises downtown and also in the Central WEst End.
I would like to go outside the list and state that the skyline of Minneapolis is far more impressive than one might think. It kind of is a downscaled version of Chicago in my view. I was very surprised when I saw it for the first time a few years ago. St Paul is more impressive than what one might think too.
http://pics3.city-data.com/cpicc/cfiles2460.jpg (broken link)
Minneapolis, MN : Minneapolis at night.
http://pics3.city-data.com/cpicc/cfiles16280.jpg (broken link)
St. Paul, MN : St. Paul Skyline
Location: Somewhere along the path to where I'd like to be.
2,180 posts, read 5,422,155 times
Reputation: 829
Quote:
Originally Posted by metroplex2003
I think St. Louis skyline is under-rated. The Arch is something that is very unique, and that no other American city has. It's a engineering marvel. It's IMO the world's largest optical illusion. It rises 630 ft. tall, but it's also 630 ft. wide despite looking taller than wider. The fact they put an elevator in there amazes me. Unfortunately for ST. Louis, there is a city ordinance that says you cant build higher than the Arch. But it does have several highrises downtown and also in the Central WEst End.
I'm not saying the arch isn't unique, but take it away and the skyline is pretty boring. Plus, the skyline just seems a bit "off" to me. Looking at it straight on, there is a tall building hidden behind the northern part of the arch, and it just throws the skyline off balance.
I'm not saying the arch isn't unique, but take it away and the skyline is pretty boring. Plus, the skyline just seems a bit "off" to me. Looking at it straight on, there is a tall building hidden behind the northern part of the arch, and it just throws the skyline off balance.
actually the new Federal Courthouse High rise actually fills that gap on the southside a little bit. You're referring to the Metropolitan Sq. Tower, which is still my favorite highrise in St. Louis.
Yes without the ARch, the skyline becomes ordinary just like the rest of America...but the Arch has put St. Louis' skyline on the map. It's an engineering marvel, and I cant think of a greater place to have it than the place where the Louisiana Purchase was signed. Just think, we doubled the size of our country for a bargain b/c Napoleon needed money for his wars out in europe.
St. Louis was our historical gateway to the West. Though it's lost its luster and standing among major american cities, I do feel St. Louis has an important place in American history as a major city in the early history of our country. It's just too bad that bad city management has led to its downfall from the 4th largest city proper at the turn of the 20th century to barely the 19th largest MSA in the country.
Last edited by metroplex2003; 06-30-2007 at 05:49 PM..
But seriously, I beg to differ. Houston has a disaster on a regular basis and with sea levels rising and impervious cover increasing, it's only a matter of time before a disaster that dwarfs Allison will strike that hurricane- and flood-prone region. I agree that the inland and slightly higher areas will be relatively safe, but a huge portion of Houston lies close to sea level and south of downtown. If it grows, it needs to grow northwest. And... oh yeah, that's what's happening!
The port of Houston is, as I recall, one of the top 3 in the USA for commerce, and in the Top Ten list for the entire world. THAT is what will truly guarantee that Houston remains a very important city. But I'm very concerned about the increasing odds of disastrous flooding as more land is paved over and hurricanes lurk on the horizon. Surely you know about Galveston...? It seems like a certainty that SOMEDAY Houston will be hammered severely. But since hurricanes are pretty random and indiscriminate, there could be two in a row this summer or none for the next century in that immediate area. Quien sabe?
Well here's something to think about: just the other day there was a segment on the news about how flood waters are not as threatening to Houston as one might assume, and I quote "geographically, Houston is not New Orleans." We have our good ol' bayous, and the way they're set up allows flood waters to receed rather hastily.
Now, as far as hurricanes go, Houston is prone, but I assure you that the city would bounce back onto it's feet and keep going. So even though a once-in-a-lifetime hurricane on Houston is sort of unlikely (though possible... I'm one who believes in God doing whatever He wants to do), even if it happens, it doesn't mean that Houston should not continue to add to its skyline.
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.
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.
Now you've incurred my Almighty Wrath! How do YOU know I'm not... oh, wait, you said "God" --- my bad, I thought it said "Good"... 
