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.
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.
I thought about Chicago, but because their CBD skyline is off the charts in size, I think an exemption can be granted.
Of course the Gold Coast skyline appears contiguous with the CBD skyline, but is it really one in the same? Not sure about that.
Talking about Chicago makes me want to go back! An "addictive" city if there ever was one.
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.
I didn't think I"d actually have to type out that geological considerations can come in to play in where and if skyscrapers are built, but here we are.
Is the bedrock depth equal in Los Angeles and Philadelphia?
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?
I would not apply the same line of reasoning because, as I said, Los Angeles had official height restrictions that guided its first century of cityhood. Those were in place to preserve scenic views and were reluctantly lifted to build skyscrapers in an area called Bunker Hill, which in retrospect was a mistake.
I believe that if they had ever wanted to compete with Chicago or NYC in skyscraper production, those skyscrapers would be there. They didn't want them because of scenery preservation considerations that typically aren't an issue in northeastern Illinois or or eastern New York.
So given the unique considerations of the area, I don't see Los Angeles as having any deficiency here.
Philadelphia never had official height restrictions, has a much lower bar to clear within its peer group, went all in on skyscrapers in the late 1980's and has apparently pumped the brakes for the foreseeable future.
I didn't think I"d actually have to type out that geological considerations can come in to play in where and if skyscrapers are built, but here we are.
Is the bedrock depth equal in Los Angeles and Philadelphia?
LA has better bedrock foundation than Philly, but foundational soil doesn't dissuade modern skyscraper construction as the cost to engineer around it are marginal relative to the overall building scope(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco
I would not apply the same line of reasoning because, as I said, Los Angeles had official height restrictions that guided its first century of cityhood. Those were in place to preserve scenic views and were reluctantly lifted to build skyscrapers in an area called Bunker Hill, which in retrospect was a mistake.
I believe that if they had ever wanted to compete with Chicago or NYC in skyscraper production, those skyscrapers would be there. They didn't want them because of scenery preservation considerations that typically aren't an issue in northeastern Illinois or or eastern New York.
So given the unique considerations of the area, I don't see Los Angeles as having any deficiency here.
Philadelphia never had official height restrictions, has a much lower bar to clear within its peer group, went all in on skyscrapers in the late 1980's and has apparently pumped the brakes for the foreseeable future.
LA only had height limits from 1903 to 1957 (151'). There was no economic pressure for LA to build tall buildings (relative to early 20th century) because it wasn't even in the top 10 largest MSA's until 1920 when it eclipsed Baltimore. It's height restrictions didn't "shape" the city.
Even if they weren't official restrictions, Philly developers abided for over 7 decades so the end result was the same. It missed out on the post war soaring Art-Deco construction boom that defined Chicago & NYC for decades to come and even with all that... it still has more +150m buildings than Atlanta so if it's skyline is small... so is Atlanta's.
I would not apply the same line of reasoning because, as I said, Los Angeles had official height restrictions that guided its first century of cityhood. Those were in place to preserve scenic views and were reluctantly lifted to build skyscrapers in an area called Bunker Hill, which in retrospect was a mistake.
I believe that if they had ever wanted to compete with Chicago or NYC in skyscraper production, those skyscrapers would be there. They didn't want them because of scenery preservation considerations that typically aren't an issue in northeastern Illinois or or eastern New York.
So given the unique considerations of the area, I don't see Los Angeles as having any deficiency here.
Philadelphia never had official height restrictions, has a much lower bar to clear within its peer group, went all in on skyscrapers in the late 1980's and has apparently pumped the brakes for the foreseeable future.
Uh-huh.
You could have just typed: “because vibes” and saved yourself time and embarrassment.
This you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco
This seems to be a recurring theme with all the northeast big cities outside of New York. There's always a height restriction, or "if you zoom in and see all these mid rises, look how impressive it is" type of alibi going on over there.
You mean as opposed to your “if you zoom in and see all these hypothetical, non-existent skyscrapers that I believe would be there, look how impressive it is” type of alibi?
Bold strategy.
Also: I laughed out loud at this for like ten minutes. Maybe longer:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco
I believe that if they had ever wanted to compete with Chicago or NYC in skyscraper production, those skyscrapers would be there.
Mods: help me out here. How much snark can I direct at this transparent nonsense, without getting booted off the thread. Give me some guidance. A percentage or something. I’m trying to cooperate here. But c’mon.
I believe Beyoncé wants to go out with me: but is intimidated by my lack of wealth and status.
That’s what I believe.
Last edited by LiveFrom215; 12-30-2023 at 11:18 PM..
You could have just typed: “because vibes” and saved yourself time and embarrassment.
This you?
You mean as opposed to your “if you zoom in and see all these hypothetical, non-existent skyscrapers that I believe would be there, look how impressive it is” type of alibi?
Bold strategy.
Also: I laughed out loud at this for like ten minutes. Maybe longer:
Mods: help me out here. How much snark can I direct at this transparent nonsense, without getting booted off the thread. Give me some guidance. A percentage or something. I’m trying to cooperate here. But c’mon.
I believe Beyoncé wants to go out with me: but is intimidated by my lack of wealth and status.
That’s what I believe.
Very important to boldface and underline, just in case it wouldn't be apparent which parts of my post you're replying to by quoting alone!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joakim3
LA has better bedrock foundation than Philly, but foundational soil doesn't dissuade modern skyscraper construction as the cost to engineer around it are marginal relative to the overall building scope(s)
LA only had height limits from 1903 to 1957 (151'). There was no economic pressure for LA to build tall buildings (relative to early 20th century) because it wasn't even in the top 10 largest MSA's until 1920 when it eclipsed Baltimore. It's height restrictions didn't "shape" the city.
Even if they weren't official restrictions, Philly developers abided for over 7 decades so the end result was the same. It missed out on the post war soaring Art-Deco construction boom that defined Chicago & NYC for decades to come and even with all that... it still has more +150m buildings than Atlanta so if it's skyline is small... so is Atlanta's.
Yes, height restrictions would have been mostly irrelevant from 1850-1900 as almost no city would have had a recognizable skyline.
I'd wager there would have been pressure to build taller in downtown Los Angeles from 1910-1950, given the proliferation of financial institutions and entertainment districts there. I don't believe people were getting too excited about MSA populations in the 1920's.
Don't take it from me though, here it is, straight from a 1985 L.A. Times article:
"It was common knowledge during that time that Los Angeles had a building height limit, which was blamed for its low profile and contributed, city planners said, to its widely publicized urban sprawl."
LA has never had the centralization of offices, tourism, high-cost apartments, etc., that would produce a really large skyline.
Its parking requirements have been a big factor as well, making it hard to go really tall without a large site. I hear they're reducing the requirements, but in a low-transit city, market expectations will remain a barrier.
Downtown LA didn't start losing out to other parts of the city until the 1950's, its very hard to imagine developers weren't trying to overcome downtown height limits.
When people say L.A. is "decentralized" to sound knowledgeable, they're really assuming history started in the 1960's.
LA isn't low transit, its building the most transit of any american city
It has terrible commute shares compared to the cities with big downtowns. That's hugely relevant to highrise development. In the top urban cities, being in the core is a priority for many tenants and workers due to transit, so rents can be higher and still draw demand. Related to that, developers don't have to build as much parking, or any in many cases.
LA's decentralization has always existed. Today's city includes a lot of separately-developed areas that are now part of the greater whole. Further, even if it was post-60s, that would have a huge effect on demand for highrises in the core during the big skyscraper waves.
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.
