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'm not a city person, but I understand that some people are really into skylines and consider them beautiful. No problem with that, but I'm genuinely curious why having more tall buildings would make a city "more competitive." What does that mean?
For sure!
Competitive in the context of the respective metro area populations matching other similar metro area populations and skylines.
For example, Phoenix metro is approaching 5 million, but their skyline is more similar to a metro of 2 million or so. And LA has a metro of 14 million, with a skyline more like a metro area of 6 million or so.
Putting aside that the new era of WFH should (hopefully) put a pause on skyline expansions, I'll offer a contrarian viewpoint to many here that skylines don't make a city and in many ways detract from it. In my current city (ish) of NYC, I avoid the skyscraper areas like the plague when not in my office and MUCH prefer the low & mid-rise areas: west village, east village, tribeca, williamsburg, park slope, etc. Although the tall, shiny buildings do manage to keep the tourists packed neatly into their hi-rise hotels and out of my way, so I am at least thankful for that. You can keep midtown, hudson yards, "billionaires row", and the financial district (and, increasingly, downtown Brooklyn).
In Europe, most of the cities have what we would describe as disappointing skylines. Yet, they are some the most livable, dense, and visited cities in the world. Huge towers basically force an environment that is inherently not built to a human scale - blocks are much wider, sun is blocked out, etc. Most of my favorite cities to walk around in this country have "lackluster" skylines, though a small handful manage to walk the line pretty well. Outside of what they look like at night from the car window on approach, they're just not bringing much to the table for me.
Competitive in the context of the respective metro area populations matching other similar metro area populations and skylines.
For example, Phoenix metro is approaching 5 million, but their skyline is more similar to a metro of 2 million or so. And LA has a metro of 14 million, with a skyline more like a metro area of 6 million or so.
OK, but with all due respect...so what? I live in the LA metro area, and if people here have feelings of inferiority because of their skyline, I wasn't aware of it. If buildings aren't really needed, why build them just for show?
Just for fun, I was thinking about US cities that have skylines that could "be improved upon," to at least match the city size, reputation, legacy and importance in the US.
Here are some cities I think could add some towers over 300 feet, and how many, to make their skyline much more aesthetically beautiful and competitive today:
Los Angeles:
*add 3 towers over 1,000 feet
*add 15 towers between 700-1,000 feet
*add 25 towers between 300-500 feet
San Francisco:
*add 5 towers between 600-800 feet
Portland:
*add 3 towers between 500-700 feet
Phoenix:
*add 5 towers between 500-800 feet
*build 20 towers between 300-500 feet
Dallas:
*add 3 towers between 900-1200 feet
Oklahoma City:
*add 5 towers between 500-800 feet
St Louis:
*add 3 towers between 500-700 feet
*add 10-12 towers between 300-500 feet
Memphis:
*add 2 towers between 500-700 feet
*add 5 towers between 300-500 feet
Birmingham:
*add 10 towers between 300-500 feet
Nashville:
*add 3 towers between 700-1000 feet
Milwaukee:
*add 1-2 towers between 500-800 feet
*add 8-10 towers between 300-500 feet
Detroit:
*add 2 towers between 700-1000 feet
Cleveland:
*add 2-3 towers between 600-900 feet
Indianapolis:
*add 1-2 towers between 600-800 feet
*add 10 towers between 300-600 feet
Kansas City:
*add 2 towers between 600-800 feet
Pittsburgh:
*add 3 towers between 700-900 feet
Boston:
*add 5 towers between 700-1000 feet
Jacksonville:
*add 10 towers between 300-400 feet
Raleigh:
*add 1-2 towers between 500-700 feet
*add 10 towers between 300-500 feet
Charlotte:
*add 2 towers between 800-1200 feet
Atlanta:
*add 5 towers between 800-1200 feet
Tampa:
*add 10-12 towers between 300-500 feet
Any other cities anyone would like to add? Or edit on the list I've made...
I would like to add San Antonio to the list. Right now there's currently 2 towers U/C in the CBD.
OK, but with all due respect...so what? I live in the LA metro area, and if people here have feelings of inferiority because of their skyline, I wasn't aware of it. If buildings aren't really needed, why build them just for show?
Well, taller and bigger skyscrapers have sort of always been a human symbol of "success," a symbol of healthy city growth, and sort of a symbol that a city "has arrived."
Personally, I love skylines, building densities, and watching a city just develop and grow. As with many hobbies, it's not for everyone and everyone won't care.
But for those that do, it's exciting, fascinating and awesome to watch skyscrapers go up. Then compare cities and how each are developing and growing, or not.
Maybe a nerdy thing, but hey, we all have our odd things we geek out about.
Well, taller and bigger skyscrapers have sort of always been a human symbol of "success," a symbol of healthy city growth, and sort of a symbol that a city "has arrived."
Personally, I love skylines, building densities, and watching a city just develop and grow. As with many hobbies, it's not for everyone and everyone won't care.
But for those that do, it's exciting, fascinating and awesome to watch skyscrapers go up. Then compare cities and how each are developing and growing, or not.
Maybe a nerdy thing, but hey, we all have our odd things we geek out about.
Much of the time its a symbol of high inequality and obscene wealth like billionaires row or the towers that are going up in SE Asia and the Middle East.
Well, taller and bigger skyscrapers have sort of always been a human symbol of "success," a symbol of healthy city growth, and sort of a symbol that a city "has arrived."
Personally, I love skylines, building densities, and watching a city just develop and grow. As with many hobbies, it's not for everyone and everyone won't care.
But for those that do, it's exciting, fascinating and awesome to watch skyscrapers go up. Then compare cities and how each are developing and growing, or not.
Maybe a nerdy thing, but hey, we all have our odd things we geek out about.
Thanks for your replies; I was interested in and appreciate your perspective!
Orlando :
It was already mentioned that due to the proximity of the Orlando Executive Airport it can't build taller than 450 feet.
A nice 750-800 foot Skyscraper would do wonders for it's Skyline.
Jacksonville :
This anemic Skyline could use about a dozen or so 500+ footers in the heart of Downtown.
How did this Florida skyline miss out on the High rise Residential boom going on in the rest of the state's major cities in the past two decades?
Columbus Ohio is a city whose downtown (and skyline) seems sort of anemic. Especially for a city pushing a million in a metro twice that size. IIRC Columbus is the 2nd biggest city in the Midwest. But it sure doesn’t feel like it, especially for a state capital. There are a maybe a dozen tall buildings in and around downtown and lots of surface parking lots, so there is room for a taller, denser Columbus. Whether residential, commercial, or mixed use, some more high rises would definitely improve the city’s profile.
St Louis’ skyline is actually fragmented and sits on an east-west axis across the entire breadth of the city. Photos of the skyline are typically taken from the East Side of the Mississippi River (Illinois), featuring the Gateway Arch as its dramatic centerpiece and 15 or so tall buildings as its backdrop.
But further west from downtown, there’s much more that can’t be seen from the riverfront. There are some fairly tall buildings in Midtown around SLU. Plenty of high-rises exist in the Central West End (CWE), including three over 300’. A few tall apartment buildings overlook Forest Park from the west. And Clayton (just outside the St Louis city limits) has an impressive skyline, including two towers over 400’.
It seems that, out of every 3 new towers that are announced in St Louis, one inevitably ends up downtown, one in the CWE, and one in Clayton.
So the recommendation of St Louis needing “10-12 towers between 300 and 500 feet” might seem excessive…but it’s not, because they would surely be spread all across the width of the city.
To go along with all those 300-500 footers though, the city would greatly benefit from plenty of new infill in the 100-300 foot range, which would help connect the above-mentioned sub skylines into one single unified skyline.
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.
