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.
Normally I'd agree in this case but, there is nothing subjective in say Miami's skyline dwarfs those cities in every aspect baring those cities super-talls (all of which are at the lower end of that thresh hold)
Even with those cities having one or two super-talls (and even that era of Miami is coming to an end), it doesn't make up for the sheer gap between raw building counts in this case... not when Miami has 18 buildings over +600' and another 71 buildings over +400'
This thread simply about the largest, not the most iconic or picturesque (which I do agree with your points)
San Francisco has 56 over 400 feet and Seattle has 42 (with 12 more currently under construction.)
San Francisco has 56 over 400 feet and Seattle has 42 (with 12 more currently under construction.)
Miami currently has 89 buildings over 400’
There’s a super-tall observation tower U/C, a +800’ tower U/C, two +600’ condos U/C and another +400’ condo as we speak. That’s not counting the +10 buildings of similar scale approved for construction
Again... Miami is in a completely different league.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,172,934 times
Reputation: 2925
According to the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, Miami has the third largest total of buildings over 100m, with 113. Houston is next at 100, while San Francisco is fifth at 93. There is then a significant drop to Los Angeles with 73, then Atlanta at 70.
However, "Miami" loses in several other important categories. When you factor in all buildings, Miami is now fifth largest in the United States, behind Houston and Philadelphia. When you increase the height category to 200m+, Miami falls to eighth largest. And when you increase height to 300m+, Miami has none.
I have "Miami" in quotes, as I realize the skyline stretches northward for many miles from Miami Beach upwards through other municipalities not technically considered Miami. But several other cities also have notable skylines in peripheral cities that also contribute to a larger feel (NYC, San Francisco, Seattle, Minneapolis, etc).
On this site, we use several different metrics (city limits, urban area, MSA, CSA, media market, GMP, gross, per capita, etc.) to gauge the population size and influence of cities. For example, Dallas is either the fourth most, seventh most, or ninth most populous area in the country, depending on how you measure. NYC and its metro is usually the only area that is generally number one in all the big measurements, and even NYC doesn't win them all (per capita GDP and educational attainment, for starters). Miami is the clear front runner to be considered the third largest skyline, but it is not unanimously third in all of the objective ways of measurement.
If Dallas has a legitimate argument as being the fourth largest, richest and most influential metro in the country, I don't see why this ranking is so clear cut. Houston and Philadelphia have more buildings overall, while several cities currently trounce Miami over a certain height.
Miami's skyline is impressive, but like many cities it also lacks topographical help. There's no "tier" effect to add height and depth. My own city's skyline looks better than its stats because of this effect.
But doesn't that make Miami's skyline that much more impressive since it is all on flat ground with no topographical help?
A couple of Boston..the skyline is expanding further with new projects coming up in Kendall square, seaport, north station etc..Boston needs to continue with filling in and looking for opportunities for elusive super tall
According to the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, Miami has the third largest total of buildings over 100m, with 113. Houston is next at 100, while San Francisco is fifth at 93. There is then a significant drop to Los Angeles with 73, then Atlanta at 70.
However, "Miami" loses in several other important categories. When you factor in all buildings, Miami is now fifth largest in the United States, behind Houston and Philadelphia. When you increase the height category to 200m+, Miami falls to eighth largest. And when you increase height to 300m+, Miami has none.
I have "Miami" in quotes, as I realize the skyline stretches northward for many miles from Miami Beach upwards through other municipalities not technically considered Miami. But several other cities also have notable skylines in peripheral cities that also contribute to a larger feel (NYC, San Francisco, Seattle, Minneapolis, etc).
On this site, we use several different metrics (city limits, urban area, MSA, CSA, media market, GMP, gross, per capita, etc.) to gauge the population size and influence of cities. For example, Dallas is either the fourth most, seventh most, or ninth most populous area in the country, depending on how you measure. NYC and its metro is usually the only area that is generally number one in all the big measurements, and even NYC doesn't win them all (per capita GDP and educational attainment, for starters). Miami is the clear front runner to be considered the third largest skyline, but it is not unanimously third in all of the objective ways of measurement.
If Dallas has a legitimate argument as being the fourth largest, richest and most influential metro in the country, I don't see why this ranking is so clear cut. Houston and Philadelphia have more buildings overall, while several cities currently trounce Miami over a certain height.
Miami's land area is only 36 square miles while Houston's is 600 square miles though. Philadelphia is 134 square miles and Atlanta is 133 square miles. Take a look at the video below. It shows the skyline going up the coast north from North Beach to only the southern Broward County line through a bunch of different cities. If you added all the building heights shown in this video alone it would probably be more height than both Atlanta and Houston have combined and the video doesnt even show any of South Beach or Miami city proper Fort Lauderdale etc. The areas you are talking about have nowhere near the height that the Miami metro has outside of their main city propers.
Miami's skyline is impressive, but like many cities it also lacks topographical help. There's no "tier" effect to add height and depth. My own city's skyline looks better than its stats because of this effect.
That’s why I like SF’s skyline slightly more. Both are VERY impressive but the elevation changes does give SF a different look.
Lots of back and forth here... But again, the question here is "3rd largest," right? Find Miami's skyline attractive or not (I personally think it's ugly,) it's just not a close one. The Miami skyline is HUGE, and in a rather small area.
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.
