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.
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.
Philly has one supertall and two additional +900’ buildings and still has more 800’ & 700’ footers than SF so I don’t get where you’re going. Philly’s trophy towers objectively out muscle SF’s on scale/size whereas SF takes the numerical advantage in buildings in the 6-400’ range.
Yeah, Philadelphia is also a lot more dense in a rectangular shape than some other places whose skylines just follow one or two roads.
Yes , Philadelphia does well in Height, length and depth.
Other 6M metros, like Miami and Atlanta has good height and length but they don't have as good depth.
Dallas has height and some depth, but not so much length and the density is splotchy.
The long distance panorama shots make for a great picture, but doesn't tell you much about how substantial the skyline is.
Philadelphia give a nice cluster of height and density that Chicago, NY, SF and Houston gives.
I know I am going to get a lot of disagreement on Miami because of the share volume of towers, but what I am talking about is Philadelphia's overall structural density.
Philadelphia's weight comes in more clearly when you view the skyline and it's surrounding neighborhoods:
I know a lot of these photos will be missing some new signature towers, the pics from Wikipedia are especially old, but I was more focusing on how the structural density surrounding these districts enhances the skylines.
Some of these surrounding districts are downright sparce, while the real majors, like Philadelphia, LA, SF, even Houston and Seattle have tons of structure surrounding their skylines. For some like Austin their is so much open that it's crazy that building codes are pushing buildings upward.
What specifically about Austin's building codes? Usually land use codes (height, FAR, etc.) have more influence than building codes.
I see them as the same. Building codes as in there is limited areas that these towering buildings can be built.
But I see your differenciation and land use is probably the better term as towers and low rise can serve the same purpose.
So to rephrase, it is crazy that with so much open land, that land codes are pushing buildings upward.
Hmm, it sounds awkward now. I think I will stick with building codes. I think if you think about it in context of the sentence you will know I am not talking . architecture or safety.
Yes , Philadelphia does well in Height, length and depth.
Other 6M metros, like Miami and Atlanta has good height and length but they don't have as good depth.
Dallas has height and some depth, but not so much length and the density is splotchy.
The long distance panorama shots make for a great picture, but doesn't tell you much about how substantial the skyline is.
Philadelphia give a nice cluster of height and density that Chicago, NY, SF and Houston gives.
I know I am going to get a lot of disagreement on Miami because of the share volume of towers, but what I am talking about is Philadelphia's overall structural density.
Philadelphia's weight comes in more clearly when you view the skyline and it's surrounding neighborhoods:
I know a lot of these photos will be missing some new signature towers, the pics from Wikipedia are especially old, but I was more focusing on how the structural density surrounding these districts enhances the skylines.
Some of these surrounding districts are downright sparce, while the real majors, like Philadelphia, LA, SF, even Houston and Seattle have tons of structure surrounding their skylines. For some like Austin their is so much open that it's crazy that building codes are pushing buildings upward.
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.
Philly’s skyline also has great “composition” it’s kind of what you’d draw as a cartoon skyline
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpomp
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joakim3
Philly has one supertall and two additional +900’ buildings and still has more 800’ & 700’ footers than SF so I don’t get where you’re going. Philly’s trophy towers objectively out muscle SF’s on scale/size whereas SF takes the numerical advantage in buildings in the 6-400’ range.
Very inspiring to see so many come out of the woodwork to form a unified front in defense of Philadelphia's skyline!
This thread is "some people", not "most people." Here's what a Philadelphia based news site had to say-
“Things are really good by Philadelphia standards, but if you take a moment and look outside of region itself, we do have a long way to go,” said Lauren Gilchrist, vice president and director of research at JLL Philadelphia. “
150 meters is not an arbitrary standard, its an international one for being an actual skyscraper.
By that standard, Houston has more than twice as many, Los Angeles will join Houston there in the very near future, Miami, a peer 6 million metro, will have FOUR times as many by the time this thread gets bumped off the first page, and metro areas that are smaller than Philadelphia such as Boston, San Francisco, and Seattle all have more (and all have more ambitious construction plans).
“Things are really good by Philadelphia standards, but if you take a moment and look outside of region itself, we do have a long way to go,” said Lauren Gilchrist, vice president and director of research at JLL Philadelphia. “
It's not woodworks, it just comes off as bias and or deliberate obtuseness to objective facts.
That article is also almost 6 years old in which time Philly built the tallest building in the US outside of NYC & Chicago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco
150 meters is not an arbitrary standard, its an international one for being an actual skyscraper.
By that standard, Houston has more than twice as many, Los Angeles will join Houston there in the very near future, Miami, a peer 6 million metro, will have FOUR times as many by the time this thread gets bumped off the first page, and metro areas that are smaller than Philadelphia such as Boston, San Francisco, and Seattle all have more (and all have more ambitious construction plans).
It actually is an arbitrary standard.
There is no official governing body that defines what a skyscraper is (or isn't). “Skyscraper“ is colloquial and doesn't mean anything technically. It holds zero relevance in actual zoning and or construction, whereas a high-rise is an actual building code that has rules and regulations.
The 1BM and CTBUH use the 150m metric were as Emporis used a 100m cut off. Neither of which were more "official" than the other as all they are is data mining enthusiast sites.
Which brings me to my next point. A 484' tall building is just as much a "skyscraper" as 550' tall building in the eyes of 99.9999% of the planet.
So again... Toronto is not a peer city of Philly, Montreal is. Toronto has as many skyscrapers as Chicago because it's literally Chicago size on a city and regional level.
Correct. I mean you don't need to be a real estate expert to understand why Miami and Toronto have more high rises than Philadelphia lol. Toronto is the financial and immigration capital of Canada, the defacto NYC of the north. Miami is a tropical city along very nice beaches and warm water in a fast growing state with no income tax.
I will flip the conversation and say the complete opposite, that I find it odd how few tall buildings there are in California. Think about it, Philadelphia - at it's peak in the late 19th and early 20th century, when the Pennsylvania railroad was the largest corporation in the world, Philadelphia had the tallest building in the world from 1894-1908.
Fast-forward a century, and now California is the leading state with a population triple that of Pennsylvania, with world famous entertainment and tech industries, endless coastline, perfect weather, and yet, still not a building taller than one in Philadelphia? There's a strong case that Philly's skyline actually looks more modern than SFs from a lot of vantage points too.
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.
