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.
If someone can post a pic of theToronto skyline with the CN towers lights on at night time, i think it would help out. It looks really nice when they have that backdrop on Hockey Night In Canada.
Normal Heights, you are absolutely correct. Telegraph Hill and Russian Hill, as well as the greenery that comes with those hills, is what sets San Francisco above other cities' skyline and in my book elevates it to best in the US. Another facet that those hills brings is the contrast between the tall buildings in the financial district and the smaller hillside buildings, which almost have a mediterranean feel as they "roll" down the hills towards the bay.
Because of that, I think SF beats Toronto, whose skyline is just a bunch of buildings sticking up out of flat land. That unique spike rising out of the Toronto skyline adds enough unique visual interest to help it top a very many cities, but it simply can't compete with SF and its two hills, Transamerica Pyramid, Bay, and (in some pics) mountains in the background.
I think Toronto's best picture is the first one you posted (thanks for that), but it looks like winter, and the skyline would be a lot more impressive in the spring or summer when all those bleak bare trees at the foot of the skyline have lush green seen in nature's message's 1st Toronto pick. Your pic with lush green added would, IMO, put the Toronto skyline ahead of places like Philly and Boston. But still not ahead of SF with Telegraph and Russian Hills.
Normal Heights, you are absolutely correct. Telegraph Hill and Russian Hill, as well as the greenery that comes with those hills, is what sets San Francisco above other cities' skyline and in my book elevates it to best in the US. Another facet that those hills brings is the contrast between the tall buildings in the financial district and the smaller hillside buildings, which almost have a mediterranean feel as they "roll" down the hills towards the bay.
Because of that, I think SF beats Toronto, whose skyline is just a bunch of buildings sticking up out of flat land. That unique spike rising out of the Toronto skyline adds enough unique visual interest to help it top a very many cities, but it simply can't compete with SF and its two hills, Transamerica Pyramid, Bay, and (in some pics) mountains in the background.
I think Toronto's best picture is the first one you posted (thanks for that), but it looks like winter, and the skyline would be a lot more impressive in the spring or summer when all those bleak bare trees at the foot of the skyline have lush green seen in nature's message's 1st Toronto pick. Your pic with lush green added would, IMO, put the Toronto skyline ahead of places like Philly and Boston. But still not ahead of SF with Telegraph and Russian Hills.
You have made a valid claim. San Francisco skyline still piques my interest and I find it's natural beauty amazing, but it still doesn't have the same magnitude of density as Toronto.
Pretty tough for me. I pick San Francisco because of the overall landscape and skyline. San Francisco has much better architecture. San Francisco's waterfront is much better than Toronto's. San Francisco has much more unique and varied terrain, while Toronto's terrain is that of the midwestern United States. Toronto's got the height, but San Francisco's got the class.
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.