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.
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).
Sorry, I’ve been busy and haven’t a chance to reply.
I see this thread has become a little contentious, and I don’t want to derail it into one of those “your city is built wrong!” back-and-forth train wrecks, so I am turning my snark meter way down.
Serious question: the problem I (and others) are having with your reasoning is that it seems to be so arbitrary: Philly’s skyline is (in your estimation) not sufficiently reflective of a city of 1.6 million, and a metro/media market verging on 7.0 million (depending on metric):
OK. Fair enough. That’s subjective, but you’re certainly entitled to your viewpoint.
But would you apply the same reasoning to, say, the Los Angeles skyline?
Personally, I’m a big fan of L.A.’s skyline: I think it’s impressive, underrated, and one of the best in North America. Definitely in my Top Ten.
But would you say that it’s reflective of either L.A.’s vast population and physical scale, or status as a global mega city?
L.A. is a rival to New York, and has displaced Chicago as the nation’s Second City: but would you really say that it’s skyline is on par with Manhattan, or Chicago?
Or do you reserve these aesthetic objections for Philly and other cities that you, personally, don’t particularly care for?
I think that’s where the consternation with some of your perspectives arises.
Last edited by LiveFrom215; 12-30-2023 at 10:53 AM..
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.
And Miami and Toronto can't sprawl much which makes suburban land expensive and has boosted infill neighborhoods.
And they have coastlines that bring in the view factor.
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.
Are skyscraper building conditions equal in coastal California and eastern Pennsylvania? I'll let the experts weigh in on that one. Seems to be a big advantage for PA, but CA somehow has two cities with much larger skylines. This publication ranks Philadelphia lower than Las Vegas:
Sorry, I’ve been busy and haven’t a chance to reply.
I see this thread has become a little contentious, and I don’t want to derail it into one of those “your city is built wrong!” back-and-forth train wrecks, so I am turning my snark meter way down.
Serious question: the problem I (and others) are having with your reasoning is that it seems to be so arbitrary: Philly’s skyline is (in your estimation) not sufficiently reflective of a city of 1.6 million, and a metro/media market verging on 7.0 million (depending on metric):
OK. Fair enough. That’s subjective, but you’re certainly entitled to your viewpoint.
But would you apply the same reasoning to, say, the Los Angeles skyline?
Personally, I’m a big fan of L.A.’s skyline: I think it’s impressive, underrated, and one of the best in North America. Definitely in my Top Ten.
But would you say that it’s reflective of either L.A.’s vast population and physical scale, or status as a global mega city?
L.A. is a rival to New York, and has displaced Chicago as the nation’s Second City: but would you really say that it’s skyline is on par with Manhattan, or Chicago?
Or do you reserve these aesthetic objections for Philly and other cities that you, personally, don’t particularly care for?
I think that’s where the consternation with some of your perspectives arises.
Los Angeles had official restrictions on skyscraper construction for many years, and Philadelphia had unofficial restrictions for an even longer time.
The notion that Los Angeles "doesn't have enough skyscrapers" goes back to the popular notion that there is some official blueprint for how every city is to be laid out.
Los Angeles has a much larger downtown skyline than Philadelphia (36 skyscrapers vs. 19) for a less populated greater downtown. Los Angeles has secondary and tertiary skylines within city limits, as well as inner suburb skylines. This is all quite becoming of an urban area of its size.
Philadelphia, whose urbanized area sprawls over a larger area with less than half the population, has but one skyline for an unusually large urban area.
Once you get into the six million population range, its somewhat expected to have secondary skylines (see Atlanta, NYC, Houston, Miami, San Francisco, Seattle, etc).
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,171,933 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco
Are skyscraper building conditions equal in coastal California and eastern Pennsylvania? I'll let the experts weigh in on that one. Seems to be a big advantage for PA, but CA somehow has two cities with much larger skylines. This publication ranks Philadelphia lower than Las Vegas:
Philadelphia, whose urbanized area sprawls over a larger area with less than half the population, has but one skyline for an unusually large urban area.
Once you get into the six million population range, its somewhat expected to have secondary skylines (see Atlanta, NYC, Houston, Miami, San Francisco, Seattle, etc).
Wilmington, DE and Atlantic City, NJ both have impressive skylines for their size.
Wilmington, DE and Atlantic City, NJ both have impressive skylines for their size.
Yes, thank you for pointing this out. I wasn't sure if this was part of the metro or the greater "Delaware Valley", as AC is over 60 miles away.
Even with this information, I think there is a difference between this and the other cities in which multiple skylines are visible from one vantage point.
Los Angeles had official restrictions on skyscraper construction for many years, and Philadelphia had unofficial restrictions for an even longer time.
The notion that Los Angeles "doesn't have enough skyscrapers" goes back to the popular notion that there is some official blueprint for how every city is to be laid out.
Los Angeles has a much larger downtown skyline than Philadelphia (36 skyscrapers vs. 19) for a less populated greater downtown. Los Angeles has secondary and tertiary skylines within city limits, as well as inner suburb skylines. This is all quite becoming of an urban area of its size.
Philadelphia, whose urbanized area sprawls over a larger area with less than half the population, has but one skyline for an unusually large urban area.
Once you get into the six million population range, its somewhat expected to have secondary skylines (see Atlanta, NYC, Houston, Miami, San Francisco, Seattle, etc).
Yeah, but see this is kind of my point:
None of this is what I asked you.
You specifically cited the Philly skyline as lacking (apparently according to your own arbitrary “official blueprint for how every city is to be laid out.”) in comparison to relative peer cities such as Miami, Houston, Seattle etc.
Which, for the sake of argument, I agreed to disagree.
And then I asked you whether or not you apply that same line of reasoning to Los Angeles’ skyline in comparison to the skyline’s of its own relative peers: like NYC and Chicago?
Not to compare L.A. and Philly.
So I ask again: Do you think L.A.’s skyline is on par with NYC or Chicago? Or reflective of it’s population and physical scale?
Y’know. The areas you say Philly is lacking in, compared to our peers?
Yes or no?
Last edited by LiveFrom215; 12-30-2023 at 08:01 PM..
Are skyscraper building conditions equal in coastal California and eastern Pennsylvania? I'll let the experts weigh in on that one. Seems to be a big advantage for PA, but CA somehow has two cities with much larger skylines. This publication ranks Philadelphia lower than Las Vegas:
No, they aren't equal nor is it correlated to a state a city is located in. Skyscraper production is exclusively tied to the economic nuances of the central region of a major metro
That publication also has widely incorrect information. Almost every listed city is undercounted.
Are skyscraper building conditions equal in coastal California and eastern Pennsylvania? I'll let the experts weigh in on that one. Seems to be a big advantage for PA, but CA somehow has two cities with much larger skylines. This publication ranks Philadelphia lower than Las Vegas:
Los Angeles had official restrictions on skyscraper construction for many years, and Philadelphia had unofficial restrictions for an even longer time.
The notion that Los Angeles "doesn't have enough skyscrapers" goes back to the popular notion that there is some official blueprint for how every city is to be laid out.
Los Angeles has a much larger downtown skyline than Philadelphia (36 skyscrapers vs. 19) for a less populated greater downtown. Los Angeles has secondary and tertiary skylines within city limits, as well as inner suburb skylines. This is all quite becoming of an urban area of its size.
Philadelphia, whose urbanized area sprawls over a larger area with less than half the population, has but one skyline for an unusually large urban area.
Once you get into the six million population range, its somewhat expected to have secondary skylines (see Atlanta, NYC, Houston, Miami, San Francisco, Seattle, etc).
There quite literally is an official blueprint in how each city will be laid out. The Zoning board/planning commission is typically really important
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,171,933 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco
Yes, thank you for pointing this out. I wasn't sure if this was part of the metro or the greater "Delaware Valley", as AC is over 60 miles away.
Even with this information, I think there is a difference between this and the other cities in which multiple skylines are visible from one vantage point.
Wilmington is part of the immediate metro (MSA) and is only 25 miles away. AC is further out (CSA), but is still within Philly’s grasp—as is Reading, PA, another CSA satellite with a decent skyline.
Not all cities (not metros, cities) have multiple skylines within city limits. Chicago is in my opinion a prime example of a solitary skyline, as its skyscrapers are all concentrated in the Loop and waterfront. At no point when I was there did I get the multiple skyline vibe. Does that diminish Chicago? The obvious answer is no. And furthermore, University City is distinct enough from Center City that you could argue it is a separate skyline, especially with the 700 footer FMC building. If the Transit Terminal tower is ever built, that would definitely give U City secondary skyline credence.
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.
