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.
When I saw this comparison beforehand, had that weird feeling I'd prefer Bellevue. To be honest I actually like Fort Worth's skyline more, since it has a feeling thankfully that it's less dominated by glass buildings (which after a while, seeing too many screams cookie cutter) than Bellevue. Even if Fort Worth has no mountains, in the distance. And that park and bridge that are near downtown Ft. Worth, help. Plus the fact I notice a few older buildings too, which Bellevue doesn't have as much of.
Gonna have to say Pittsburgh because it's hilly like Portland but the city itself is much more developed, not to mention the yellow bridge.
Anchorage, AK or Boise, ID?
Boise. The taller buildings in Anchorage don't look as distinctive enough, as I'd prefer. Plus Boise has a park and creek near its downtown, along with older small 2 and 3 story buildings in Boise (vs. Anchorage, where such buildings in its downtown I didn't prefer). Overall, I prefer the look of Boise.
Boise. The taller buildings in Anchorage don't look as distinctive enough, as I'd prefer. Plus Boise has a park and creek near its downtown, along with older small 2 and 3 story buildings in Boise (vs. Anchorage, where such buildings in its downtown I didn't prefer). Overall, I prefer the look of Boise.
Saskatoon, SK, vs. Winnipeg, MB?
Winnipeg. Bigger skyline and more buildings coming. Albuquerque or El Paso?
Winnipeg. Bigger skyline and more buildings coming. Albuquerque or El Paso?
These are both pretty close in my opinion. Southwestern cities with a desert backdrop and not particularly tall skyscrapers. Probably gonna give the edge to El Paso here for having slightly more varied architecture.
These are both pretty close in my opinion. Southwestern cities with a desert backdrop and not particularly tall skyscrapers. Probably gonna give the edge to El Paso here for having slightly more varied architecture.
Peoria, IL or Rochester, MN?
I think I'd slightly go with Peoria, which is a little more interesting to me IMO. Also, I don't like how Rochester has a plant, which appears to be an ex-coal plant in the pics I found. Otherwise, Rochester's skyline looked nicer than I thought. I do wish Peoria could have one or 2 more modern and tall buildings in its skyline, but I worry the situation with Illinois' business climate and taxes will make that difficult to see occur long term.
Two cities with a small river island, with buildings: Cedar Rapids, IA, or Aurora, IL?
I think I'd slightly go with Peoria, which is a little more interesting to me IMO. Also, I don't like how Rochester has a plant, which appears to be an ex-coal plant in the pics I found. Otherwise, Rochester's skyline looked nicer than I thought. I do wish Peoria could have one or 2 more modern and tall buildings in its skyline, but I worry the situation with Illinois' business climate and taxes will make that difficult to see occur long term.
Two cities with a small river island, with buildings: Cedar Rapids, IA, or Aurora, IL?
Cedar Rapids looks larger and more uniform. Provo, UT or Springfield IL?
I would choose Springfield, IL. It seems denser and has better architecture.
Nashville, TN or Cleveland, OH?
This is a tough one for me. Cleveland has 2 really tall skyscrapers that are very cool architecturally, and I really like them. However, Cleveland needs density badly, and if they had another 10-20 skyscrapers in the range of like 300-500 feet, Cleveland would have a spectacular, top 20 skyline.
Nashville is absolutely crushing the skyline development game and the city is just booming overall. With 30-35 skyscrapers in proposed/approved/construction stage, the skyline is constantly growing. However, Nashville needs 2 or 3 skyscrapers in the 650 to 900 foot range, to really elevate it to "world class" level, as far as skylines go.
The edge here goes to Cleveland, at least for now.
This is a tough one for me. Cleveland has 2 really tall skyscrapers that are very cool architecturally, and I really like them. However, Cleveland needs density badly, and if they had another 10-20 skyscrapers in the range of like 300-500 feet, Cleveland would have a spectacular, top 20 skyline.
Nashville is absolutely crushing the skyline development game and the city is just booming overall. With 30-35 skyscrapers in proposed/approved/construction stage, the skyline is constantly growing. However, Nashville needs 2 or 3 skyscrapers in the 650 to 900 foot range, to really elevate it to "world class" level, as far as skylines go.
The edge here goes to Cleveland, at least for now.
Louisville, KY or Tulsa, OK?
Louisville, easily.
Nashville or Charlotte?
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.
