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.
A previous thread looked at U.S. West Coast skylines, and Seattle came out way ahead. I think it's only fair to have Seattle and Vancouver, BC square off - to answer the North American West Coast skyline question for once and for all. Portland is the up-and-comer, so it is also included. The key criteria: Density, Aesthetic Appeal, and Overall Urbanity.
All are beautiful, but definitely Vancouver. The only thing holding it back is lack of diversity when it comes to building style. But the size and setting puts it on top. Seattle is a clear #2. Portland is last but I love the skyline.
Vancouver’s skyline is awe-inspiring. The sheer number of high-rises crammed on the downtown peninsula is staggering. It doesn’t have as many skyscrapers (400+ ft) as Seattle or any super-talls but the number of high-rises between 100 and 400 feet is crazy and it creates this extremely dense, textured, and imposing skyline. Add the mountains as the immediate backdrop and water in the foreground and background immediate background and it’s just an awesome sight.
Seattle is a much more traditional American skyline - more skyscrapers but far less overall high-rise density, although it’s growing fast and adding some impressive density itself. And it has a great backdrop as well. I love Seattle’s skyline - I think it’s easily top 5 in the US. But the breadth and depth of Vancouver’s skyline
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,749 posts, read 23,813,296 times
Reputation: 14660
Vancouver is undeniably a very beautiful city, but I don't really like its skyline. It's a forest of repetitive glass and steel boxes with the same aqua marine hues of glass on a lot of them. I noticed this is happening in the Denny Triangle area of Seattle too, but given the aesthetic and building style of Seattle's financial district towers and the kitschy Space Needle, I find Seattle's skyline to be a lot more attractive than Vancouver.
I like the way the tall sleek black glass of the Columbia Tower stands out in the forefront of downtown when approaching the city on I-5 north. It was the WaMu tower when I lived there, I think its Chase now (2nd & University), but that's my favorite building in Seattle skyline, it has nice crown with interesting dimensions. The Space Needle gives the skyline an iconic effect for the city that came of age during the space age.
Portland's skyline is small but decent. The bridges and and West Hills backdrop complete the picture to make it a nice looking city. On the ground, I really like Portland's downtown footprint the best out of the three and it's held on to more of it older architecture on small city blocks. If I were to live in an urban highrise or midrise in one of the three, I'd pick the Pearl District in Portland.
Last edited by Champ le monstre du lac; 02-22-2020 at 06:33 AM..
Vancouver skyline is mostly generic condos around the same era of similar height and design, nothing too exciting. Taken as a whole it looks dense and impressive. This is similar to the skylines of many Chinese cities, but nothing special.
I like Seattle's better. It's more unique and varied, and you can tell they gave consideration to how each building affects the skyline and view at different vantage points in the city. Seattle has greater potential for future growth in its skyline given more land and height variation. The metro also has an rapidly expanding secondary skyline in Bellevue.
Seattle's skyline is iconic. Vancouver's not so much.
Portland's skyline is getting there and has a ton of potential. This article from Portland Monthly shows the long-term trajectory. I don't know if/when it will catch up to Seattle and Vancouver in terms of height or density, but it certainly has the ability to catch the others in terms of creativity, innovation, and sustainability. And there is a LOT more room to build.
I'm surprised that Seattle's skyline hasn't done even more given its economic clout. According to data, it has only 1/3 of the highrises that Vancouver currently has (roughly 250 vs. 750). That's a big difference. And it gives Vancouver a much more internationalized look (ie Asia or the Americas) whereas Seattle has that classic American look. I like both skylines, but they are surprisingly very different given the similar personalities and geographies of the two cities.
Portland's skyline is getting there and has a ton of potential. This article from Portland Monthly shows the long-term trajectory. I don't know if/when it will catch up to Seattle and Vancouver in terms of height or density, but it certainly has the ability to catch the others in terms of creativity, innovation, and sustainability. And there is a LOT more room to build.
I'm surprised that Seattle's skyline hasn't done even more given its economic clout. According to data, it has only 1/3 of the highrises that Vancouver currently has (roughly 250 vs. 750). That's a big difference. And it gives Vancouver a much more internationalized look (ie Asia or the Americas) whereas Seattle has that classic American look. I like both skylines, but they are surprisingly very different given the similar personalities and geographies of the two cities.
That number is outdated for Seattle - according to Emporis, Seattle has 314 and Vancouver has 714, which seems more accurate to me. Still a huge gap, but it’s worth noting that for its size Vancouver has a ridiculous number of high rises.
I love the aesthetic of Vancouver's hundreds of residential towers. They're pretty much all skinny (residentials are limited to maybe 8,000 or 9,000 sf per floor?), which adds to the feeling that there are zillions of them, and makes them look taller. The backdrop is the best of the three.
Seattle's tallest buildings (over 450') are mostly offices, with large floor plates. In addition to having fewer towers, our towers' widths give them impression that there are fewer of them. Strangely our residential towers are much skinnier, mostly about 11,500 sf per floor iirc, due to code limits (they went up a little recently), but offices and hotels are allowed to be far bigger. Residentials are mostly in shorter zones, which allowed 440' until recently and 484' now, plus areas that allow more like 280' or 330', so they're background buildings from a distance. Our strict height limits, lack of incentives for varied heights and different tops, etc., mean we get a lot of buildings that are squarish in plan and have flat tops.
I voted for Seattle but Vancouver has a case as well.
Burnaby and Bellevue are also pretty good. As a city, Portland is fantastic of course.
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.
