Quote:
Originally Posted by mpope409
That would be so boring and common. Not very original. If anything, as the years progress, the skylines could slowly but surely come together.
Not any different from New York's or Chicago's, except for the fact that they have more buildings, neither of these three cities really have a variety of colors in their skyline except for white and black...
And there are usually many more lights than in that picture of Houston that I posted. |
Alright, comparing Houston to NYC's skyline in my opinion is not fair. IT's already hard enough to even make a sliver of an argument to compare Houston to Chicago's skyline. That's already unfair in its own right.
NYC and Chicago have the two largest skylines in the country. No other city comes close period. CHicago has 1055 highrises. NYC has 5568. Houston: 333 LA: 473 highrises (though not all concentrated in downtown)...but then again, neither is Houston's as it splits it up with uptown. Dallas: 238 (which excludes Las Colinas, the Tollway District, and the Richardson Telecom cooridor. But let's be a bit more realistic here: To compare Houston to NYC...there is no comparison. NYC compares to the likes of Seol, Hong Kong, Shanghai, not Houston. As for Dallas, it's misleading b/c the Tollway District is technically not in Dallas and neither is Las Colinas. If you add those in there, then the gap b/t Houston and Dallas shrinks. Now those will say well that's what makes Houston more dense...and that is a valid argument...but it's not that much more as people would think: Houston: 2951/sq. mi Dallas: 2946, Chicago: 3914/sq mile LA: 7068/sq mile
But in terms of density of buildings, yes, Houston's 3 major districts are all located in the inner loop. So it does create an appearance of more density of buildings, but the problem with this is traffic is bottlenecked going into and out of the central Houston core of Med Center, Uptown, and Downtown.
But I still express reservations a/b comparing NYC's skyline to Houston. Houston's maybe newer, but NYC's is by far the largest and most dense skyline in the continent and one of the most in the world.
Houston is still a Texas city. It's spread out. It's downtown and uptown and med center are by no means connected like in NYC and Chicago's Northwestern Univ med center area. And I would not want Houston to be Chicago or NYC. Part of the great attributes of a Texas city is that we have plenty of space to build. Our roads are bigger. Our freeways are bigger. Our cities feel spacious. Houston and Dallas fit that bill. That's why the densities are so much smaller than Chicago or NYC.
As for Dallas being a mid sized city...I think it's a bit of a stretch to diminish Dallas to mid-sized status. Cities like St. Louis, Cleveland, Cincinatti, KC, Indianopolis are the so-called "mid sized city" status.
Dallas is a gamma world city just like Houston with the same number of points...it may not have as many skyscrapers currently, but we've already established multiple times that Dallas is building more, and that it offers so many of the same amenities as Houston does. As for high rises, well, I think people forget that Dallas' business districts are more spread out and there are lots that are not going into the statistics. For example: Las Colinas, which seamless with Dallas city limits has 69 high rises. Ft. Worth has 150 high rises. Addison, which is adjacent to Dallas has 26 high rises. And as Houston people have pointed out, Houston is much larger in sq. mileage than Dallas and has fewer surrounding cities in its MSA.
So Houston people will say, well, see, told you that Houston has the appearance of more density of buildings...I agree with that...but Dallas is working on it, and if you were to compare Houston MSA to Dallas MSA in number of high rises, I wouldnt be surprised if DFW had more than Houston or around the same amount as Houston MSA. It's just more spread out as I have repeatedly said. But does it make a city better or worse...not convinced one way or another...but I dont think DFW should be minimized to a KC or Indianapolis, which are "mid-sized" cities. Dallas afterall has the 6th largest skyline in the US.
So now comes to the important question: is it important to have a real dense urban core. I would still favor yes. Dallas is working on it. I think Dallas and Houston continue to one up each other in certain categories...and they will continue to do so. Dallas does something, then Houston follows, and vice versa. We were first with rail, Houston is following suit. Houston is ahead in freeways, Dallas is following suit with new HOV lanes. Houston has an Int'l terminal, Dallas just one upped Houston with Texas' newest and biggest int'l terminal. Dallas is getting a Mandarin Oriental Hotel, Houston is now wooing them. It's back and forth. At the end of the day, still think Dallas is better.
It's a better sports town overall. And I think once the rail has completed its 100+ miles of tracks, it's going to be nice to hop on a light or heavy rail virtually minutes from where you are to go to special events in either Ft. Worth or Dallas' urban cores.
But to get back to my original thought: YOu cant compare NYC skyline to Houston's...there is no comparison. 5568 buildings to Houston's 333 high rises. NYC's skyline is dramatic. It's recognizable world wide. An average lay person in Europe woudl be able to say, yep that's NY, that's America.
The only other city skyline in the US that may get a 2nd yes would be Chicago.
Welcome to City-Data.com forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with 700,000 other registered members. User profiles and some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your free account you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 15,000 posts/day about local topics and you will see fewer ads. 
Linear Mode
