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.
Boston and Philly get credit for narrow streets (curved in Boston's case) that bring buildings closer together, plus awesome midrise/lowrise density between the larger buildings. They also have pretty good highrise clusters, though Boston bats a little lightly in that regard.
Charlotte's uptown area is not that dense, although the buildings there are quite tall. Jersey City is probably the most dense, with Philly in second. Boston's is quite dense though too, and I'd argue you can throw Baltimore on the list for pure density (not for height). New Orleans feels decently dense but the actual area of the CBD is not that big.
Downtowns that don't feel dense from this list:
Charlotte
Atlanta (yes and no, but it's patchy, which detracts)
Phoenix
Houston
Dallas
Detroit
Austin
Seattle's downtown is really nice (top 10 in the country easily) but doesn't feel that that dense IMO.
Boston is already very dense and extensive and its built environment is growing rapidly. It's much closer to SF than Baltimore.
Boston's skyline growth is hindered by it's height zoning laws... SF doesn't have this issues, hence the reason it has 2x as many 150m+ buildings, and is buildings high-rises at a substantially faster rate
Baltimore is a black sheep... it's high-rise built environment is just as large as either city but because the city is bleeding population and it's horrific loopholes developers use, skyscraper construction is once in a blue moon and downtown is littered with parking lots/stalled projects.
Boston and Philly are far ahead of the other cities on this list
Honestly I don’t know why SF is separated from those two.
SF has a significantly more dense and larger skyline than either Boston or Philly. SF has 56 towers over 400 feet high itself, and appears more dense than either Philly or Boston. Philly has 33 or so towers over 400 and Boston has about 32 or so--significantly behind and not as dense.
SF appears much more dense and has many more tall buildings than either Boston or Philly. That's why San Fran is not on this list, and both Boston and Philly are.
I like Boston and Philly's skylines, but Philly's is better and more dense of the 2 right now, imo.
Interesting...Seattle in this decade has built or recently started site prep for more 400'+ towers in greater Downtown than the sum total of what Boston or Philly has...34. Those cities are building some, but nothing like Seattle.
PS, many are closer than the 60' separation requirement I talked about earlier. Some areas don't have that requirement, and some areas didn't when they were built.
SF has a significantly more dense and larger skyline than either Boston or Philly. SF has 56 towers over 400 feet high itself, and appears more dense than either Philly or Boston. Philly has 33 or so towers over 400 and Boston has about 32 or so--significantly behind and not as dense.
SF appears much more dense and has many more tall buildings than either Boston or Philly. That's why San Fran is not on this list, and both Boston and Philly are.
I like Boston and Philly's skylines, but Philly's is better and more dense of the 2 right now, imo.
I’d like to point out in most US cities not named NYC or Chicago the “filler” is more in the 250-350 range than the 400-500 range. What that captures is the peaks of the skyline.
So when you see a “dense” skyline it’s largely those smaller buildings that fill in the gaps to make it seem full.
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.