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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
