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.
This post will be worded slightly like the last comment. At street level, Evanston looks more attractive, as Ft. Lauderdale has more modern looking buildings that don't appeal to me as much. Skyline wise from the air, I'd say Fort Lauderdale has more highrises that stand out, so I'll pick that one. Plus it has a harbor and waterways, that add to the look of Ft. Lauderdale's skyline pics. Interesting to see this comparison, since I once picked Evanston vs. Clayton(Missouri, near St. Louis) for a past comparison. And I'm saying this as someone who's extremely familiar with Evanston(and've gone there countless times), but can't deny Fort Lauderdale's skyline stands out more.
Buffalo, NY, or Albany, NY?
I like Buffalo's a lot better. More originality and a "classic" look.
I like Buffalo's a lot better. More originality and a "classic" look.
Las Vegas (downtown--not the strip) or El Paso?
I think I'll go with El Paso. To me its downtown area looks more striking in aerial pics, along with the mountains in the background, vs. the downtown area of Las Vegas. Although the mountains in the background of Vegas pics don't look bad, either. If they could fill in more of the vacant lots near its downtown, and it had more striking buildings, maybe I'd pick downtown Vegas? This is a comparison, where I wonder if one day downtown Vegas might pull ahead of El Paso? I do like the look of the new Circa casino and resort(which replaced Las Vegas Club) in downtown Vegas, btw.
Picking this one was very difficult, and I suspect it'd be less hard for me to pick Vegas if some of those vacant lots could be filled in. And if one or 2 more striking buildings besides Circa, could be built.
I think I'll go with El Paso. To me its downtown area looks more striking in aerial pics, along with the mountains in the background, vs. the downtown area of Las Vegas. Although the mountains in the background of Vegas pics don't look bad, either. If they could fill in more of the vacant lots near its downtown, and it had more striking buildings, maybe I'd pick downtown Vegas? This is a comparison, where I wonder if one day downtown Vegas might pull ahead of El Paso? I do like the look of the new Circa casino and resort(which replaced Las Vegas Club) in downtown Vegas, btw.
Picking this one was very difficult, and I suspect it'd be less hard for me to pick Vegas if some of those vacant lots could be filled in. And if one or 2 more striking buildings besides Circa, could be built.
Reno, or Boise?
I went with Reno. Looks bigger. Hartford CT or Cleveland?
Definitely Cleveland. Cleveland needs density, and if it had 10-15 or so skyscrapers in the 300-400 foot range, it would have an A+ skyline.
Hartford has an amazing skyline for its size, and has some good density. Cleveland's is much better in this comparison though.
Cincinnati or Nashville?
Definitely Cincinnati, everything just seems to be placed perfectly, it's very recognizable. I'm from Dayton and even I would admit that it's one of the best in the country.
Definitely Cincinnati, everything just seems to be placed perfectly, it's very recognizable. I'm from Dayton and even I would admit that it's one of the best in the country.
Minneapolis, MN vs. Denver, CO
I prefer Minneapolis. More variety in architecture. Bellevue WA or Long Beach CA?
Bellevue is better because it resembles a major city. I like the architectural diversity as well.
Milwaukee, WI or Baltimore, MD?
Milwaukee to me, is more attractive. I like Baltimore's skyline, but wish a lot of Baltimore's taller buildings weren't so square/blockly or rectangular and flatly shaped. That's an annoying negative about Baltimore's taller buildings, I don't notice as much with Milwaukee's skyline. And to me, there are a lot of older Milwaukee buildings I like such as its city hall that was modeled off of Hamburg, Germany, the buildings(many residential) on its northeast side north of downtown(looking northeast towards Shorewood, WI), to name examples.
Milwaukee to me, is more attractive. I like Baltimore's skyline, but wish a lot of Baltimore's taller buildings weren't so square/blockly or rectangular and flatly shaped. That's an annoying negative about Baltimore's taller buildings, I don't notice as much with Milwaukee's skyline. And to me, there are a lot of older Milwaukee buildings I like such as its city hall that was modeled off of Hamburg, Germany, the buildings(many residential) on its northeast side north of downtown(looking northeast towards Shorewood, WI), to name examples.
Hartford, CT, or Providence, RI?
Gotta go with Hartford here. Hartford has good density and could use some skyscrapers in the roughly 550-750 foot range. Then it would have one of the better skylines for its size in the country. Providence is great, and looks good but needs several infill towers. Otherwise, I like it a lot.
Gotta go with Hartford here. Hartford has good density and could use some skyscrapers in the roughly 550-750 foot range. Then it would have one of the better skylines for its size in the country. Providence is great, and looks good but needs several infill towers. Otherwise, I like it a lot.
Fort Worth, TX or Portland, OR?
Portland. More dense. Sacramento or Oakland?
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.
