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.
Gonna go with San Fran and Oakland here. The TransAmerica pyramid is stunning and San Fran's skyline is one of the best in the US.
Brooklyn and Long Island City are newer competitors though in the taller skyline space--with a boom in skyscraper growth in the past 5 years+. Brooklyn has it's new supertall 1,066 foot skyscraper that has topped out, and there are several more in the 700-900 foot range going up in downtown Brooklyn. Long Island City has several more skyscrapers to add in the 600-800 foot range too. So both are ones to watch closely in the next decade.
But, San Fran edges it for me, due to its iconic skyline.
San Francisco or Seattle?
San Francisco due to greater architectural diversity and density.
San Francisco. Looks bigger and the surroundings are breathtaking. Los Angeles or Miami?
I Personally like Miami's better, it looks really cool in Movies too, I Like the density and the length of Miami's skyline even if it's just mostly condos, and also lacks stand out architecture
I Like That's Los Angeles skyline is expanding and looking more appropriate for a Second Largest city even though it still lacks density and depth. I still see US bank Tower as LA,s Tallest and feels like Wilshire Tower cheats for that title by jutting a Spire in the Sky when it's It's Top Floor and Roof Height is Clearly Lower than US bank Tower
I Personally like Miami's better, it looks really cool in Movies too, I Like the density and the length of Miami's skyline even if it's just mostly condos, and also lacks stand out architecture
I Like That's Los Angeles skyline is expanding and looking more appropriate for a Second Largest city even though it still lacks density and depth. I still see US bank Tower as LA,s Tallest and feels like Wilshire Tower cheats for that title by jutting a Spire in the Sky when it's It's Top Floor and Roof Height is Clearly Lower than US bank Tower
St Louis or Kansas City
Definitely Kansas City. Kansas City has some decent density but needs height. I'd like to see another 4-5 towers over 400 feet and then 6-8 more in the 300-400 foot range. Then it would be amazing.
St Louis has the breathtaking and stunning arch, but that is all that is impressive. The few skyscrapers and low density makes the skyline super underwhelming, especially for a city with its legacy and history.
Definitely Kansas City. Kansas City has some decent density but needs height. I'd like to see another 4-5 towers over 400 feet and then 6-8 more in the 300-400 foot range. Then it would be amazing.
St Louis has the breathtaking and stunning arch, but that is all that is impressive. The few skyscrapers and low density makes the skyline super underwhelming, especially for a city with its legacy and history.
Memphis or Buffalo?
I prefer Buffalo. Looks more dense and less gaps. Akron OH or Dayton OH?
I'm going to go with Grand Rapids, just barely. I think it has a more attractive skyline overall. Similar density and height though with both cities.
Jacksonville, FL or Little Rock, AR?
Jacksonville. Taller buildings and will add more.. Pocatello ID or Billings MT?
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.
