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.
Lexington due to taller buildings and being more modern. I hope with Lexington's growth that it will acquire more towers in the future.
St. Louis, MO or Milwaukee, WI?
Closer match-up for sure--I like this one.
Milwaukee, WI wins this match-up easily, for me though. Milwaukee has actually built a few skyscrapers over 300 feet the last several years, and the density is really good, overall.
Milwaukee also has another 537-footer under construction currently, slated to open in 2023.
St Louis also has some good density in the 8-15 story or so range, but the height and total count of skyscrapers over 300 feet downtown is very low (like 14 or so...).
For a city of its legacy and metro area size. St Louis needs another 6-8 over 300 feet to really beef up its skyline to be where it should. LOVE the arch, but the city cannot rely on that to carry the skyline.
Milwaukee, WI wins this match-up easily, for me though. Milwaukee has actually built a few skyscrapers over 300 feet the last several years, and the density is really good, overall.
Milwaukee also has another 537-footer under construction currently, slated to open in 2023.
St Louis also has some good density in the 8-15 story or so range, but the height and total count of skyscrapers over 300 feet downtown is very low (like 14 or so...).
For a city of its legacy and metro area size. St Louis needs another 6-8 over 300 feet to really beef up its skyline to be where it should. LOVE the arch, but the city cannot rely on that to carry the skyline.
Milwaukee comes out on top here, for sure.
Milwaukee, WI or Cleveland, OH?
I'd go with Milwaukee, since that city has more standout buildings(old and new). Cleveland has like 1 or 2 distinctive buildings, but they don't stand out to me as much as the buildings do in Milwaukee. In addition to that new soon to be completed 2023 skyscraper, Northwestern Insurance built a new highrise in downtown Milwaukee a few years ago that looks nice.
I'd go with Milwaukee, since that city has more standout buildings(old and new). Cleveland has like 1 or 2 distinctive buildings, but they don't stand out to me as much as the buildings do in Milwaukee. In addition to that new soon to be completed 2023 skyscraper, Northwestern Insurance built a new highrise in downtown Milwaukee a few years ago that looks nice.
Pittsburgh, or Buffalo?
Pittsburgh is more impressive and dense. The buildings complement each other and are placed well. It is a taller Cincinnati which also has a pretty skyline.
Pittsburgh is more impressive and dense. The buildings complement each other and are placed well. It is a taller Cincinnati which also has a pretty skyline.
Milwaukee, WI or San Diego, CA?
I prefer San Diego. Looks bigger and taller. Charleston SC or Savannah GA?
Savannah has a more recognizable skyline. Both could use more height.
San Diego, CA or Nashville, TN?
San Diego definitely--for now. San Diego's skyline is overall more dense, and has 10 more completed skyscrapers over 300 feet, right now, in late 2021, than Nashville.
However, by 2025 or so, Nashville will have caught up and probably passed San Diego with total skyscraper count. So Nashville may get the edge then, but for now, San Diego wins this matchup.
San Diego definitely--for now. San Diego's skyline is overall more dense, and has 10 more completed skyscrapers over 300 feet, right now, in late 2021, than Nashville.
However, by 2025 or so, Nashville will have caught up and probably passed San Diego with total skyscraper count. So Nashville may get the edge then, but for now, San Diego wins this matchup.
Nashville or Portland, OR?
Nashville due to better looking buildings. It is more modern and attractive.
Nashville due to better looking buildings. It is more modern and attractive.
Oakland, CA or Columbus, OH?
Columbus. Oakland, while decent either on its own or with the foothills as a backdrop, rarely stands out to me. Columbus, on the other hand, has a very nice variety of different shapes and architecture styles and seems consistently visually dense from just about every angle.
Columbus. Oakland, while decent either on its own or with the foothills as a backdrop, rarely stands out to me. Columbus, on the other hand, has a very nice variety of different shapes and architecture styles and seems consistently visually dense from just about every angle.
Wichita Falls, TX or Abilene, TX?
I'll give the edge to Abilene, although both are small and lackluster overall.
Tucson, AZ or Chattanooga, TN?
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.
