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.
Looks awesome. There’s a pretty sizeable gap between Atlanta and the cities ahead of it on that list in terms of skyline size but it’s growing and filling in a lot of the gaps that were in the skyline previously.
Really surprised to see a ranking of Minneapolis in a top 10.
Ahead of Pittsburgh, Dallas, Los Angeles or even Denver which imo also is ranked too high.
Denver and Minneapolis I would rank closer to Charlotte based purely on buildings.
But I guess personal opinions on beauty plays a role in ranking skylines.
My preference is density and a nice transition into densely low rise buildings. I am not a stickler for mountains or water as I see those as distractions. But well placed bridges does a lot for me.
I like the Density of NY, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco.
The height and density of Houston and LA.
Throw in classic bridge settings like Pittsburgh and Cincinnati.
What’s a 6 million metro skyline supposed to look like?
Because I can assure you whatever logic you’re using is largely baseless. Metro size =/= skyline size. That holds true whether it be the US or globally.
Philly’s skyline is best viewed from south (neither pick shows the whole 3 1/2 mile skyline width) nor should we act like it doesn’t have the tallest building outside of NYC & Chicago.
San Francisco has 3 +100m buildings U/C (Oceanwide Center 1 & 2 and 30 Van Ness)
Philly has 4 +100m buildings U/C (One Dock Street, Jefferson Care Pavillion, 3025 JFK Boulevard & 1620 Sansom Street)
Ugh yeah? They’re all old historic cities with strict zoning/height laws that encourage dense infill development in vast swaths of neighborhood so they don’t have to build insanely tall to densify.
You can list the number of neighborhoods in Charlotte, Nashville or Austin where you can build a +10 story building on your hands, hence why the “have” to build tall(er)
I guess we'll just keep it to ourselves that one of those San Francisco towers will clear 900 feet (all three will be true skyscrapers) and the tallest Philly one won't even reach 400 feet. It all sounds so much better when we just pretend all "+100M" buildings are equal.
I don't know what a 6 million metro skyline is supposed to look like, but I know cities in other regions with many more skyscrapers are told that they need more (see earlier in this thread) and there's rarely any pushback.
Really surprised to see a ranking of Minneapolis in a top 10.
Ahead of Pittsburgh, Dallas, Los Angeles or even Denver which imo also is ranked too high.
Denver and Minneapolis I would rank closer to Charlotte based purely on buildings.
But I guess personal opinions on beauty plays a role in ranking skylines.
My preference is density and a nice transition into densely low rise buildings. I am not a stickler for mountains or water as I see those as distractions. But well placed bridges does a lot for me.
I like the Density of NY, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco.
The height and density of Houston and LA.
Throw in classic bridge settings like Pittsburgh and Cincinnati.
Surprised Detroit and Cincinnati were not listed.
I agree with your sentiments. I think Detroit has too many gaps and Cincinnati has density but lacks height. I am also fond of big bridges aa well. It is weird to see Minneapolis ranked so high considering the other metros you mentioned.
The vantage point of the Philly skyline from the south when you're flying into PHL was impressive to me. I think a lot of pictures don't do it justice because they focus on the cluster of 700-1100' buildings, but the amount of 200-600 footers is pretty expansive.
This picture is missing a big building on the other side of the river and a few others, but it's a general idea of the best vantage point IMO.
The vantage point of the Philly skyline from the south when you're flying into PHL was impressive to me. I think a lot of pictures don't do it justice because they focus on the cluster of 700-1100' buildings, but the amount of 200-600 footers is pretty expansive.
This picture is missing a big building on the other side of the river and a few others, but it's a general idea of the best vantage point IMO.
Yeah, Philadelphia is also a lot more dense in a rectangular shape than some other places whose skylines just follow one or two roads.
Here's a good photo of what you are talking about with capturing the rest of the skyline across the river: Flying into PHL
If you click the first comment you can see someone replied that the skyline is too small for the population (and it got 12 likes).
LOL. Yep, totally a conclusive argument.
There are plenty of aspects where Philadelphia could improve as a city. But its skyline is absolutely not one of them. Most people can objectively see and acknowledge Philadelphia's high-rise heft, as acknowledged by this thread.
There are plenty of aspects where Philadelphia could improve as a city. But its skyline is absolutely not one of them. Most people can objectively see and acknowledge Philadelphia's high-rise heft, as acknowledged by this thread.
Also hilarious that Losfrisco ignored the dozens of comments that compliment the Philadelphia skyline and found 1 comment (hidden in a thread) that says the skyline is too small...
Argument of the year right there, lol.
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.
