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.
"i bet if you put it on a photo on a post card most people know what there looking at."
That's what I look for when rating a skyline. IMO, the best skylines are the ones people recognize.
I agree with that. A good skyline should be recognizable because that means it has some unique properties that distinguish the city from the hundreds others out there. I think a distinct skyline also speaks to the character of a city.
For example, Portland OR does not have a particularly remarkable cluster of buildings in its core, but when you include the common photos that show the skyline framed with Mt. Hood in the background, it is breathtaking and instantly recognizable. Portland's skyline, with Mt. Hood in the background, immediately gives you a feel for the character of the city.
In other cases, it is not a mountain that makes the skyline unique, it might be a unique building like the Transamerica building in San Francisco, the Space Needle in Seattle, the Washington Monument in DC, or (as normie noted) the unique art deco buildings in Asheville NC (an otherwise normal small southern city but for these unique features). The list goes on. Unique features that make for a unique skyline are what make a skyline great.
If you want to get technical. Still, do either of those three cities have a real skyline of their own? With a count larger than four buildings in their core? No.
At least for D.C., I'd have to agree with you. No building can stand higher than the Capitol Dome (the Washington Monument is taller, but it's a monument, not a building, per se) ... so the entire city looks stunted.
I think its the skyline that makes the city feel like a city....the bigger the better. If I wanted to be in a big urban core, I would make sure that it at least looks like one, its all part of what makes a big city special, ya know?
Does a city's skyline really matter. I mean if a city has all the amenities, rich culture, and a great quality of life who cares how tall the buildings are right? What do all poster on this forum think? I personally don't really care i mean they are just buildings after all. To me there more like a bonus but they do not define a city.
I totally agree! and I am from Chicago! Don't get me wrong, I love the place, but the whole "Us and New York are the only "real" cities" mentally gets old. Skyline this, skyline that. Its part of the Chicago culture though. I just ignore it.
L.A. is bigger and more popular around the world. deal with it.
San Francisco, Boston, and Washington D.C. are all on par with Chicago, despite the fact they are smaller.
Detroit could've been Chicago, if they had the right leaders at the right time in the right place. Obviously they f'd everything up. And whether you want to acknowledge it or not, Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston are quickly becoming as world class as Chicago.
I totally agree! and I am from Chicago! Don't get me wrong, I love the place, but the whole "Us and New York are the only "real" cities" mentally gets old. Skyline this, skyline that. Its part of the Chicago culture though. I just ignore it.
L.A. is bigger and more popular around the world. deal with it.
San Francisco, Boston, and Washington D.C. are all on par with Chicago, despite the fact they are smaller.
Detroit could've been Chicago, if they had the right leaders at the right time in the right place. Obviously they f'd everything up. And whether you want to acknowledge it or not, Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston are quickly becoming as world class as Chicago.
Location: Uniquely Individual Villages of the Megalopolis
646 posts, read 813,645 times
Reputation: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryneone
Does a city's skyline really matter. I mean if a city has all the amenities, rich culture, and a great quality of life who cares how tall the buildings are right? What do all poster on this forum think? I personally don't really care i mean they are just buildings after all. To me there more like a bonus but they do not define a city.
It depends on what the city/area has to offer, what its economic base is, what it needs and wants to provide to visitors etc. Most cities have to have hotels as travel is a primary industry, the airlines depend on it, oil companies, gas stations for surface travel depend on movement, the national chains locate where they will receive benefits from it, etc, etc. Companies with a headqtrs in one city will have branches elsewhere. Cities need jobs and revenue that will affect their areas.
THere's got to be something for people to do while there, hence cities will compete for the best hotels, best and cleanest offices, and amenities.
These days cities are investing in green, limited sprawl, fuel and energy efficiency, alternative energy sources such as solar and wind to compete with quality of life and reduced waste and congestion. Hopefully US life expectancies will increase more after all these green revolutions.
Eye appealing architecture, rather than severity and a cast iron or industrial look , with brightness and light is what makes todays cities and those newly being built with skylines that will reflect the change in values (and uses and needs) and what society wants more from urban life.
Its a building, you can go up in it an its hallow on the inside
I know. I've been to the top. But it's still classified as a monument, as far as I know. Just like you can walk around and through the Jefferson Memorial. Yet it's still technically a monument.
Hey, I didn't make the rules ... I'm just telling ya what I've been told.
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.