Worst Texas Skyline (Houston, Dallas, San Antonio: rankings, buildings, place)

[beowulf7]

Originally Posted by KerryB

Driving into Corpus Christi at night from I-37 is definitely the worst because from a distance, it looks like you're driving into some cool city from the future. "Oh, its beauuutiful."

Then you realize its just oil refineries. :-/

That kind of reminds me of a small town in OK that looks rather spectacular at night, given that it's in the middle of nowhere. It turns out to be a huge power plant.

[Jaipur]

El Paso, Lubbock, and Laredo in my opinion tie for last. Austin, Dallas, and Houston are great. I really do not think FW skyline is that bad, it is very dense even though the buildings are not all that tall. Waco is pretty bad. Corpus Christi is quite impressive actually. Hmm what have I forgotten..

[CMDallas]

The size of the city... I mean if 30,000 people is a city then boy do we have various winners...
but maybe 100,000 and up?
San Angelo?
This is the best quick picture I could come up with...

[Dangerfield]

Large cities - 500,000K or more
DALLAS: best overall skyline and individual towers
HOUSTON: most dynamic with the best cluster
FT WORTH: most improved
AUSTIN: most likely to succeed
SAN ANTONIO: good enough, SA isn't about highrises
EL PASO: way under developed for a city it's size

Small cities - 400,000K or less
MIDLAND: best, could be the most impressive skyline for a city it's size in the nation
CORPUS CHRISTI: fair
AMARILLO: holds it own
WACO: small skyline but nice old structures
ABILENE: not bad
WICHITA FALLS, LUBBOCK, TYLER, ODESSA: each so bad, I couldn't choose just one

[awecelot]

Originally Posted by changeofpace

The refineries are not part of the Corpus Christi skyline, they are northeast of downtown.

Northwest. Northeast, and they'd be in the bay.

[JJG]

Originally Posted by BBQgritz

Large cities - 500,000K or more
DALLAS: best overall skyline and individual towers
HOUSTON: most dynamic with the best cluster
FT WORTH: most improved
AUSTIN: most likely to succeed
SAN ANTONIO: good enough, SA isn't about highrises
EL PASO: way under developed for a city it's size

Dallas: agree that it has great individual towers but it's a toss up with Dallas and Houston when it comes to the best in the state
Houston: it is the most dynamic.... just imagine if all the highrises and skyscrapers were all in one place.....
Fort Worth: most improved? I'd like to say no, but sadly by just adding three buildings that don't even crack 450 ft., it has improved..... slightly.
Austin: I'm jealous.
San Antonio: could be bigger, but I guess it's not that big a deal to them. It's nice.
El Paso: "way under developed for a city it's size" (UNDERSTATEMENT!)

[Westerner92]

I know Lubbock doesn't have a good skyline, but can you really put cities like Abilene and Waco in front of Lubbock? I think it just behind Amarillo's skyline.

Lubbock



Waco

Abilene

Even if you are comparing the skyline to the population of the city, Lubbock would still beat these cities. Lubbock has twice the height, twice the size, and twice the population. It's also worth noting that Lubbock's buildings were built when Lubbock had a population of 100,000; nothing else has been built since because the downtown was almost destroyed by an F-5 tornado.

[txstate]

Originally Posted by Westerner92

I know Lubbock doesn't have a good skyline, but can you really put cities like Abilene and Waco in front of Lubbock? I think it just behind Amarillo's skyline.

Lubbock



Waco

Abilene

Even if you are comparing the skyline to the population of the city, Lubbock would still beat these cities. Lubbock has twice the height, twice the size, and twice the population. It's also worth noting that Lubbock's buildings were built when Lubbock had a population of 100,000; nothing else has been built since because the downtown was almost destroyed by an F-5 tornado.

Your only getting one view of Waco's Skyline. Its not bad its just a lot of space in between buildings but if your driving on 35 at MLK and Forest St, it actually has some impressive views.

[Dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Westerner92

I know Lubbock doesn't have a good skyline, but can you really put cities like Abilene and Waco in front of Lubbock? I think it just behind Amarillo's skyline.

Lubbock



Waco

Abilene

Even if you are comparing the skyline to the population of the city, Lubbock would still beat these cities. Lubbock has twice the height, twice the size, and twice the population. It's also worth noting that Lubbock's buildings were built when Lubbock had a population of 100,000; nothing else has been built since because the downtown was almost destroyed by an F-5 tornado.

Your last statement isn't quite accurate. Comparing Lubbock's skyline height and population to the other cities.

Lubbock: pop- 212,169
buildings over 100 ft- 3
tallest- Metro Tower 274 ft

Metro Tower


Abilene: pop- 115,930
buildings over 100 ft- 5
tallest- Enterprise Tower 285 ft

Enterprise Tower (not on above Abilene photo, south edge of downtown)


Waco: pop- 120,495
buildings over 100 ft- 5
tallest- Amicable Life 282 ft

Amicable Life


Slightly better Waco skyline view

[centexguy]

Beaumont has a good skyline for a city of 115,000. It has 8 buildings over 100 ft tall with the Entergy Building the tallest at 252 feet.