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'm going to assume you're thinking about Miami? Is so, my personal opinion: It's very big, but also very bland. But yes, it definitely SHOULD be in this conversation, unless we're excluding Florida for whatever reason.
I'm going to assume you're thinking about Miami? Is so, my personal opinion: It's very big, but also very bland. But yes, it definitely SHOULD be in this conversation, unless we're excluding Florida for whatever reason.
Well I don't think it's going to be Fair to the other cities,
I'm going to assume you're thinking about Miami? Is so, my personal opinion: It's very big, but also very bland. But yes, it definitely SHOULD be in this conversation, unless we're excluding Florida for whatever reason.
You must want a blowout? Which is exactly what would have happened if Miami was added.
Status:
"Pickleball-Free American"
(set 5 days ago)
Location: St Simons Island, GA
23,466 posts, read 44,108,506 times
Reputation: 16866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcenal352
I'm going to assume you're thinking about Miami? Is so, my personal opinion: It's very big, but also very bland. But yes, it definitely SHOULD be in this conversation, unless we're excluding Florida for whatever reason.
Arquitectonica built some pretty exciting stuff in Miami during the 80's.
Atlanta and Dallas have beautiful skylines during the day and especially at night. Austin has a very modern skyline which is cool and Houston is literally a beast.
DFW for the imaginative lighting of its buildings downtown, the Art Deco look of the State Fairgrounds, and development in Uptown and White Rock Lake to the northeast. Dallas is hurt but it also have Fort Worth nearby with its skyline that the others don't and to a lesser extent new development in Plano were a number of Fortune 500 companies have offices. Two new hi-rises are opening up there this year.
Houston's downtown was dead with development for most of the 1ate 1980s until the turn of the century but adding the Astros Park, Toyota Arena, the MLS stadium and additional towers on Main street and more towers to Houston Center on the east side added balance that didn't exist. Similar to some extent to D/FW, the Galleria/Uptown area is a second hub of competing elevated architecture, heading west on the I-10 energy corridor but that area is more bland. The Texas Medical Center south of Downtown seems to always try to be creative with signature building designs with medical themes.
Austin's waterfront, the rose stone color state capital building and the Uof Texas Tower (especially, when bathed in Burnt Orange) was always a great look. When visiting, I always like to drive on the upper deck of I -35 to take in the view. Now with several new towers over 500 ft high and really have given ATX a feel that makes me think of much larger metro area. Also, the redevelopment of the Mueller airport site while not known for very tall buildings has been a great success as a mixed use development close by downtown.
Atlanta's cityscape in terms of height has really been concentrated in Buckhead/northside of Midtown with some really nice additions. I don't recall anything in the last ten years up by Perimeter Mall but the King and Queen towers were always a great idea.
While Skyscrapers definitely look better in the other thee, I've never once found Dallas's lighting scheme to be cool. I maybe just a pessimist when it comes to Skyscrapers but my first thought is how much it must cost to keep changing the lights. I've never seen them on a holiday though and they look a lot better as a uniform holiday themed color. When I saw them all the buildings where a different color.
For me nighttime Houston looks better, daytime Dallas has much more interesting building design and no weird lights on the buildings. Austin while smaller is one of the best looking skylines just because each building just looks so nice. I can' rate Atlanta as I haven't seen enough.
Lighting for the Bank of America tower is green probably 90% of the time with color changes on special occasions. Its been around since the mid-80s. Not that costly. One factual tidbit. Lighting a building using the gas like that, argon, could not happened in cold climates.
Architecturally, Austin is the only city here that stands out, simply because a larger percentage of its towers are of 21st century build.
Which also means its skyline lacks architectural diversity compared to the others.
Quote:
Unless you're hanging the hat on TWD promos and a spire or two, Atlanta's buildings aren't anymore distinctive than what is present in Dallas or Houston.
I disagree although I know it's a matter of perspective. Atlanta has quite a few towers with decorative crowns/spires/fins that stand out, not just two. Any objective observer would agree with that:
Of course I'm not arguing that Houston and Dallas don't have towers like that because they do. But for Houston in particular, many of its towers are bulky so that's how its skyline comes across to me; also many of the facades are monotonous. It has more mass/heft than Atlanta's skyline whereas Atlanta's individual towers are more sleek and their proportions make their tops and shapes stand out more in the skyline, and their facades tend to have more variation. It makes sense when you realize that most of Houston's tallest towers were built in the 70s/early 80s while most of Atlanta's were built in the late 80s onward.
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.