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 think we all add them all together and get our impressions that way. Peaks for skyscrapers always add debt and aesthetics that will overall make a skyline more impressive.
Do any threads ask for which has a better skyline by skyscrapers alone? But we surely know one with supertalls will give a skyline a extra bang and boost impressiveness in scope.
Chicago's supertalls give it that oomph and even NYC's now newest skinny ones. I still just prefer Old NYC pre-60s skyline where the peaks were its glorious art-deco peaks.... Also though Freedom Tower is a impressive building for sure. Still seeing old movies etc, with the former Twin towers of the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan.... just had ALL eyes instantly go there with that oomp and a automatic NYC no doubt and if anywhere in the world.
I agree with that sentiment but there are a good deal of people on this forum that for sure use numeric skyscraper count as the single metric on how grand/large they rate a skyline.
That being said, I’ve been to Philly, Boston & Seattle. Philly & Boston feel sizably larger and are significantly denser despite Seattle throwing up a new +400’ condo buildings practically every month.
I agree with that sentiment but there are a good deal of people on this forum that for sure use numeric skyscraper count as the single metric on how grand/large they rate a skyline.
That being said, I’ve been to Philly, Boston & Seattle. Philly & Boston feel sizably larger and are significantly denser despite Seattle throwing up a new +400’ condo buildings practically every month.
Yes, no doubt that Seattle is the most impressive of this list for its momentum of densification, and certainly it's much closer to Boston and Philly on density than it was even 10 years ago. But some of it comes down to simple structural difference.
As much older cities, Boston and Philadelphia were simply laid out for density given that their downtown cores are about as tight as they come in the American context. Heck, Center City only has a grand total of 4 two-way streets. In a major downtown!
That being said, I’ve been to Philly, Boston & Seattle. Philly & Boston feel sizably larger and are significantly denser despite Seattle throwing up a new +400’ condo buildings practically every month.
Okay... and I've lived in all three of those cities also and Seattle to me feels significantly larger than Boston but not Philly, maybe it's the topography, but Seattle feels like a big metropolis in a way that Boston never did for me.
Here's another shot of Seattle I took today.
Cascades mountain range in the background, Queen Anne neighborhood on the left.
Okay... and I've lived in all three of those cities also and Seattle to me feels significantly larger than Boston but not Philly, maybe it's the topography, but Seattle feels like a big metropolis in a way that Boston never did for me.
Ha! That’s hard to imagine!
When did you live here? I recently spoke with a Scottish man who lived here in the 80s-90s. It was pretty wild; he didn’t know that Fields Corner is a Vietnamese neighborhood, and he moved away before the Big Dig was finished. A lot can change over time!
And here are some skyline photos so that my post is topical:
Okay... and I've lived in all three of those cities also and Seattle to me feels significantly larger than Boston but not Philly, maybe it's the topography, but Seattle feels like a big metropolis in a way that Boston never did for me.
Here's another shot of Seattle I took today.
Cascades mountain range in the background, Queen Anne neighborhood on the left.
Don’t get me wrong Seattle has a monstrous downtown for sure, but its a longggg way from being as built up as Boston’s core (Cambridge is a functional part of it whether we like it or not)
For size context... the POV of the first image is 2 miles from Downtown Boston and theres is Bellevue sized cluster of high-rises behind it at the BIMDC (Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center)
Don’t get me wrong Seattle has a monstrous downtown for sure, but its a longggg way from being as built up as Boston’s core (Cambridge is a functional part of it whether we like it or not)
For size context... the POV of the first image is 2 miles from Downtown Boston and theres is Bellevue sized cluster of high-rises behind it at the BIMDC (Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center)
The Panorama shows off the entire urban core from the opposite end of the first picture
Boston is massive
Mate, Seattle is a lot more than just the downtown too. Its surrounding neighborhoods are dense as well. Try driving on Aurora Bridge and looking left and right. None of that is in downtown. The city is built up on all the hills.
I stand by my statement that Seattle feels like a metropolis, Boston for various reasons does not. Notice you have to resort to aerial views for your photos of Boston.
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.
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.
