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.
Philly should be listed, probably above Seattle. Philly, Seattle, SF, and maybe Boston all have densely-structured downtown buildings, but so do Pittsburgh and Minneapolis, due to geographical and climactical restrictions, respectively (rivers and skyways/cold). A good way to measure "best" IMO would be to measure the total square footage of all buildings per square mile or square acre. Another (harder) way would be to count the # of floors within those same boundaries, and the city with the most floors per measure would be the best/densest in this regard.
Here's my attempt at ranking what I just described, without actual measurements:
1. NYC (duh)
2. Chicago (duh again)
3. Philadelphia
4. San Francisco
5. Washington D.C. (people just assume that since there's a height max that it can't be dense, but 10-12 floors on almost every surface for miles makes it one of the densest downtowns overall, but maybe not at the core half sq. mile or so)
After the top 5 I start having trouble differentiating which downtown is most dense at every area metric (core 0.25 sq. mi, core 0.50 sq. mi, core 1.0 sq. mi, etc.). For example, I think Seattle might be the next densest at the core 1.0 sq miles and beyond, and probably even 0.50 square miles and beyond, but maybe not 0.25 square miles. That "honor" may apply to a large number of cities, even beyond the ones I listed, like Houston, Dallas, Miami, Atlanta, Los Angeles, etc. I think it becomes very muddled indeed.
Here's a list of honorable mentions that could certainly crack the top 10, if not arguably the top 5 or 4 in some aspects:
-Seattle
-Boston
-Houston
-Dallas
-Minneapolis
-Pittsburgh
-Denver
-Los Angeles
I would probably put Boston in that mix; to me at this point ahead of Seattle.
Where SF, Boston, and Philly have a density difference is more in the smaller buildings (not quite skyscrapers) that fill with more tangible density when compared to Seattle.
Agree. it's not just the supertalls that make a city dense, but the fillers as well, and few regions fill in space like the Northeast does, including the West Coast.
New York is a great city; i love visiting it. New York's skyline is incredibly denser than Chicago's.
So the density of the skyline isn't an issue; it's a given. virtually a fact. and the airheads who brought up San Francisco's skyline density must be insane to think it exceeds Chicago's. San Francisco's density far exceeds Chicago. A small city of 850,000 crammed into the tip of the peninsula. SF was dense long before it was tall, long before a skyscraper rose south of Market. San Francisco is dense because it fills virtually all space with incredibly close housing, often 2 flats. It's dense because even its most spacious, home oriented districts: Pacific Heights, Sea Cliff, Forest Hill, St. Francis Wood are loaded with large, luxurious homes with little space between them.
So New York is the densest skyline. Chicago's is second. and only a fool would attach the term 'best" as a fact for either. There is no fact here: it's all opinions.
on the other hand, if you wish to see a city that has much of Hong Kong's dramatic hillside and waterfront setting that doesn't destroy the natural setting but works with…..I suggest you try San Francisco, arguably (well, for me) the best match of nature and man on the planet. SF works (or worked if you look more to the past) because the skyline is more scaled.
and the guys here touting SF on the skyline issue: they are no real San Franciscans. Real San Franciscans deplore the very term that they coined "manhattanization". Real San Franciscans enjoyed or knew of a time when San Francisco's skyline following the dips and heights of the hills…..Nob, Russian, Telegraph….to create one of the most organic appearing skylines in the world.
How about the best skyline in the US. again: a matter of opinion. But my opinion sees only one as a possibility: Chicago. Sure its dense, but not dense enough to create the massing, the bulk of midtown Manhattan's skyline which, to me, offers little variation…..it appears like a block.
one of the greatest skylines in the world? that' s the one that was lower manhattan, before the big boxes sent up and rendered it sterile and boring. the old lower manhattan skyline: magical spires rising up from the bulk, producing an up and down skyline that was a thing of beauty.
Back to Chicago: peaks and valleys dominate the skyline, adding to the fascination. the JHC shoots up above the magnificent mile with a few very tall buidlings around it in a cluster. Trump and Aon, the north loop/Chicago Rive main branch section also have extremely tall buidlings around it a second cluster. The third cluster is around Willis (Sears) Tower in the s.w. corner of the Loop. the Loop itself is a large mass of buidlings, bulkily, but still with peaks and ebbs, while the Michigan Avenue/Streeterville skyline is more linear with less spread but with its own special beautify. Chicago's skyline comes in one: no downtown and midtown miles apart. So the city's core shoots up from the Gold Coast's northern end at North Avenue and the whole thing shifts south along the lake, past the Near North Side and the Loop to end around the towers of Museum Park and the spread of McCormick Place. Westward, the skyline has spread to the Kennedy Expressway and beyond.
and these beauty rests on the Lake Michigan shoreline with its beaches, parks, cultural institutions with the towers rising behind. to me, there is no skyline like it. and i hope to god that it never gets so dense, so massive, so large, that it becomes a monster.
then again, I sure how that Chicago's delightful, quirky, walkable, tree lined, humanly scaled neighborhood which have the right amount of density: enough to give them that special urban feel, not enough to make that make them dwarfed by the buildings that surround them, making it necessary to look straight up to see the sky.
New York, Chicago, and San Francisco do a fantastic job of being New York, Chicago, and San Francisco respectively. There is no model, no standard, no icon among the three…..they are just doing their own thing, doing it well, and the competition and the flaming and the trolling mainly happens here on city data where the abbreviation "vs." means let's go to war and mine is longer than yours and squirts farther as well.
Last edited by JMT; 04-06-2014 at 02:06 PM..
Reason: HK is not part of this thread.
I don't know what San Francisco you're talking about, but San Francisco, CA skyline is much more dense than Chicago's and is only second to NYC (and in terms of skyline density it is nearly the same density as NYC. I've lived in both cities so I know all about this because I was very observant of skyline density while living in both cities
sf skyline is far more dense than any city in north america outside nyc
I do not agree. The Loop in Chicago is wall-to-wall buildings, most of which are over 500 feet tall. SF is dense, I agree, and probably 3rd, but I think it's behind Chicago (at least in that aspect).
How about counting the # of floors per # of square miles or square feet? Like 20 buildings at 40 floors on average over 500,000 square feet. I know it would be a ridiculous exercise but that would be one way to determine for sure.
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.
