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.
Looking at the ranking of cities on that list, it's eye opening to see Vancouver ranked ELEVENTH on the list but its population is like 1/3rd the size of the majority of other cities on the list!
Looking at the ranking of cities on that list, it's eye opening to see Vancouver ranked ELEVENTH on the list but its population is like 1/3rd the size of the majority of other cities on the list!
Canadian cities are just much more core-centric than American ones.
Hmm, not sure I agree. Folks are treating Charlotte as though it doesn't even belong in this thread, but for it population and how new it is, it punches well above its weight:
And compared to Baltimore, I don't think it's that "lol" laughable of a comparison. Admittedly, I haven't been to Baltimore more than twice in the past 10 years so if someone has a better vantage point do post it.
While Charlotte without a doubt has the taller set of buildings.... Baltimore's downtown plays in a different ballpark when it comes to building density. 99% of the cities pictures only show what's immediately around the Inner Harbor, not the +1 mile of nonstop mid-rises that stretch north of it's downtown.
First link is about as explanatory as it gets. Shows pretty much the entire Inner Harbor as of August 2019.
Second link shows the western half of downtown viewed from the north. There are still multiple +200' buildings behind (Mt. Vernon) and to the right (UMD medical campus) of this photo's vantage point.
It’s odd that Seattle isn’t on this list because the data literally says it should be. According to this same website Seattle has 333 buildings which puts it right around number 45 on this list.
It’s odd that Seattle isn’t on this list because the data literally says it should be. According to this same website Seattle has 333 buildings which puts it right around number 45 on this list.
I’ve found Emporis to be a pretty bad reference at least as far as Boston is concerned. For example, it doesn’t list the Bulfinch Crossing tower that’s currently under construction or the Winthrop Center. And if it’s missing those, it may be missing others.
I’ve found Emporis to be a pretty bad reference at least as far as Boston is concerned. For example, it doesn’t list the Bulfinch Crossing tower that’s currently under construction or the Winthrop Center. And if it’s missing those, it may be missing others.
I want to upgrade your source. Emporis can be perplexing at times.
This list has Seattle above Boston but below Philadelphia. This one makes a lot more sense than the other Skyscrapercenter link posted (the one MrJoshua posted with the “top 50 cities in the world”)which included super low-rise buildings that don’t really indicate a dense skyline or urban build.
For example, that link had Houston well above San Francisco and Miami, which is obviously ridiculous on virtually every skyline metric. 3-4 story strip malls should not count towards a dense or good skyline.
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.
Agreed, San Fran, Philadelphia and Boston are very close peers in terms of density and skylines, (though Philadelphia and San Fran have been pushing the height limit as of late).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylord_Focker
Boston or Seattle.
Any why wouldn't Philadelphia be included?
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.