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 of these cities has the best skyline?
Seattle 126 49.61%
Portland 1 0.39%
San Francisco 77 30.31%
Los Angeles 41 16.14%
San Diego 9 3.54%
Voters: 254. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 02-09-2010, 12:46 AM
 
3,971 posts, read 11,478,858 times
Reputation: 1576

Advertisements

True, that's why I said SF wins with density. However, Seattle has more taller buildings, 600 ft. plus. I think Seattle does well in this city vs. city, mainly due to the fact that SF is a much older city, and is the center of a much larger metropolitan area.

 
Old 02-09-2010, 12:49 AM
 
Location: Florida
4,186 posts, read 10,052,721 times
Reputation: 1575
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcroJimmy2 View Post
San Francisco has 44 towers above 400 feet.

Seattle has 24 towers above 400 feet.

Thats a huge difference!
Seattle has 4 above 700 ft, SF has 2
 
Old 02-09-2010, 01:07 AM
 
594 posts, read 1,497,864 times
Reputation: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by pw72 View Post
True, that's why I said SF wins with density. However, Seattle has more taller buildings, 600 ft. plus. I think Seattle does well in this city vs. city, mainly due to the fact that SF is a much older city, and is the center of a much larger metropolitan area.
San Francisco has 7 buildings over 600 feet, Seattle has 6 buildings over 600 feet

List of tallest buildings in San Francisco - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of tallest buildings in Seattle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Old 02-09-2010, 01:19 AM
 
3,971 posts, read 11,478,858 times
Reputation: 1576
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcroJimmy2 View Post
Well, my mistake, I meant to say 700 feet. But, really, aren't we sort of getting to nit-picking at this point? Both cities are impressive, no question.
 
Old 02-09-2010, 10:06 AM
 
Location: Boston
7,394 posts, read 15,377,731 times
Reputation: 8696
Once again, as someone from Boston with experience in "Plateau" Skylines, it's the scale that's important not the height. Seattle has better Scale than S.F.
 
Old 02-09-2010, 12:19 PM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
300 posts, read 781,083 times
Reputation: 147
I just find that SF lacks color variance in its skyline, and compared to Seattle, it also lacks architectural variance. I personally just find SF's skyline to be fairly bland compared to Seattle's. Some of then newer buildings look a lot better but they don't save the skyline IMO.

SF's tallest.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ca_full_CA.jpg


Seattle's tallest.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...mith_tower.jpg

SF's second tallest.

http://www.aviewoncities.com/img/sf/kveus4134s.jpg


Seattle's second tallest.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...2004-08-30.jpg (broken link)

SF's third tallest

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nia_Street.JPG


Seattle's third tallest.

http://hugeasscity.com/images/Two_Union_Square.jpg

You can see pretty clearly which has the more modern, sleek architecture.

Last edited by JMT; 05-29-2013 at 09:38 PM..
 
Old 02-09-2010, 12:20 PM
 
Location: Sarasota, Florida
15,400 posts, read 19,097,961 times
Reputation: 11053
Imho....Seattle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Se...ne1cropped.JPG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seattle_Ferry.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Do..._Seattle_2.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SeattleI5Skyline.jpg http://seattlephotographs.smugmug.co...370_uJPuh-A-LB http://seattlephotographs.smugmug.co...75990370_uJPuh

Last edited by PITTSTON2SARASOTA; 02-09-2010 at 01:04 PM..
 
Old 02-09-2010, 12:22 PM
 
672 posts, read 1,503,683 times
Reputation: 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by pw72 View Post
Did you have some pics posted here of the SF supertalls? I swear I saw them, but then they were gone.

I was wondering about these developments. How has the economy affected their ultimate completion?

I read that in '08, the heights were still being argued about, and reductions were anticipated.

Will these 1000 ft. + buildings ever be built?
The transbay terminal and its adjacent tower is definitely happening. The temporary terminal has already broken ground and is almost complete. The whole thing is set for completion in 2017. The haggling over height resulted in the tower being capped at 1,000 ft, but a 200 ft crown is allowed. A bunch of 900 footers or so are also planned for the nearby area. The economy did kill a Renzo Piano vision of multiple 1,200 footers neaby the transbay so that's a bummer.
San Francisco Transbay development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

End result should look like this:
http://ts.vimeo.com.s3.amazonaws.com...639719_640.jpg
http://ts.vimeo.com.s3.amazonaws.com...639719_640.jpg

Last edited by JMT; 05-29-2013 at 09:38 PM..
 
Old 02-09-2010, 12:34 PM
 
672 posts, read 1,503,683 times
Reputation: 496
I just don't think Seattle has the prerequisite density to top SF. To top that off, there's a difference when you see these cities in person. During my trip to Vancouver last year, I passed through Seattle and it did not impress me in the slightest. I was hoping it did, but on average there was no angle that really impressed me. I suppose if I was on a boat or in front of the Space Needle it may have been different.

I guess I just like density, a wall of buildings for skylines. Not just a few talls that are pretty spread out, that if lined up perfectly in front of a short Space Needle, make a pretty picture.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...le_alki_01.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2050/...06a7916e_o.jpg
Flickr Photo Download: the good season (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pbo31/2494780807/sizes/o/ - broken link)

Last edited by JMT; 05-29-2013 at 09:39 PM..
 
Old 02-09-2010, 12:59 PM
 
221 posts, read 695,483 times
Reputation: 168
Theres no doubt that in person SFs skyline is far more impressive. It is nearly twice as big, the density is far greater, and the architecture of the buildings is better in SF (although it doesnt look as cool from a distance). Just look at the closeups of the buildings posed earlier.

Seattle's skyline is not nearly as impressive as some pictures would have you think...
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top