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.
Both are very nice skylines, and this one is close! That said(studied a bunch of drone videos of both skylines, where I came up with what I favored), I think Winnipeg's skyline is slightly more favorable to me, including the new buildings going up in Winnipeg plus the Canadian Museum for Human Rights building. That said, my VERY favorite building between these 2 cities, is the Buffalo City Hall building.
Lincoln, NE, or Lubbock, TX?
Lubbock seems to be a little more filled in. St. Louis or Kansas City?
Salt Lake City due to the scenery and more impressive architecture.
Norfolk, VA or Knoxville, TN?
Knoxville's hilly setting and range of buildings -- and the sunsphere -- are definitely much more interesting than Norfolk's. Knoxville needs a good 4-6 additional buildings between 10-20 stories to increase density. Density is decent, but not great.
Norfolk has more skyscrapers in the 200-300 foot range, and a couple under construction.
Knoxville's hilly setting and range of buildings -- and the sunsphere -- are definitely much more interesting than Norfolk's. Knoxville needs a good 4-6 additional buildings between 10-20 stories to increase density. Density is decent, but not great.
Norfolk has more skyscrapers in the 200-300 foot range, and a couple under construction.
Norfolk wins this match-up overall.
Richmond, VA or St Louis, MO?
Richmond. For the record I do like Saint Louis' skyline, but StL needs a LOT more density and more notable taller buildings for me to like it more. That said, I do like the classic buildings in St. Louis' skyline. Honestly though, Richmond is a little better IMO. And also, I do like how you can see some rocks and waterfalls/rapids(or what appears to likely be that), along the
Richmond. For the record I do like Saint Louis' skyline, but StL needs a LOT more density and more notable taller buildings for me to like it more. That said, I do like the classic buildings in St. Louis' skyline. Honestly though, Richmond is a little better IMO. And also, I do like how you can see some rocks and waterfalls/rapids(or what appears to likely be that), along the
Indianapolis, or Omaha?
To comment on the St Louis point, St Louis should be competing against Pittsburgh/Portland/Minneapolis, but it pales in comparison.
The arch is stunning though, and makes the skyline unique. But without the arch, St Louis has a skyline similar to Des Moines or Birmingham. I'd argue Memphis and Louisville have better skylines.
Indianapolis beats Omaha pretty easily for me. Indy has about 13, 14 skyscrapers over 300 feet, while Omaha has under 5 total. Omaha needs a lot more density.
Indianapolis or Oklahoma City?
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.
