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.
Miami‘s metro is larger than Dubai’s… you see how silly that argument sounds now?
There is very little economic pressure that requires/incentivizes LA to build skyscrapers at the rate Miami does. If there was, it would have done such. Apples to oranges economics
Also L.A. doesn't need skyscrapers to get noticed (world class city 30 years prior to first ones being completed), whereas Miami obviously does.
Skyscrapers for L.A. are basically like a rich tycoon finally deciding to install a basketball court in his house or an airstrip on his property....one of those "hey I want of those things" feathers in the cap.
Also L.A. doesn't need skyscrapers to get noticed (world class city 30 years prior to first ones being completed), whereas Miami obviously does.
Skyscrapers for L.A. are basically like a rich tycoon finally deciding to install a basketball court in his house or an airstrip on his property....one of those "hey I want of those things" feathers in the cap.
It's not so much about being noticed or not, it's macro economics.
Miami builds lots of skyscrapers because it has the largest condo market in the US outside of NYC. The expectation being you're going to get premier waterfront views and to do that you to build taller than the building next to you so it's a self sustaining cycle.
Yeah not sure how anyone could call it "underwhelming."
Philadelphia is nearly the same metropolitan size as Atlanta and one city looks a little underwhelming than the other. Anecdotally backed up by the dozens of threads of Atlanta vs. Philadelphia skylines.
With Atlanta, there’s a couple of ways to make it look impressive - but it’s just illusions. If you go many miles out and at a certain angle, it looks like a large dense city that stretches on like Chicago. Also, there’s another angle that has buckhead in front of downtown in front of midtown and it looks like one large impressive core.
But Philadelphia. You can look at it from far away, close up, an aerial, from any side and it still looks quite large/impressive.
Given it’s a metro of 6 million, Atlanta is a little underwhelming to me. Which shouldn’t be Surprising given it’s population density is 3,790 people per sq mile (which isn’t too far off from the density of Raleigh, NC)
Philadelphia is nearly the same metropolitan size as Atlanta and one city looks a little underwhelming than the other. Anecdotally backed up by the dozens of threads of Atlanta vs. Philadelphia skylines.
With Atlanta, there’s a couple of ways to make it look impressive - but it’s just illusions. If you go many miles out and at a certain angle, it looks like a large dense city that stretches on like Chicago. Also, there’s another angle that has buckhead in front of downtown in front of midtown and it looks like one large impressive core.
But Philadelphia. You can look at it from far away, close up, an aerial, from any side and it still looks quite large/impressive.
Given it’s a metro of 6 million, Atlanta is a little underwhelming to me. Which shouldn’t be Surprising given it’s population density is 3,790 people per sq mile (which isn’t too far off from the density of Raleigh, NC)
You find Philly’s skyline to look larger and more imposing than Atlanta’s?
To each their own I guess…
You find Philly’s skyline to look larger and more imposing than Atlanta’s?
To each their own I guess…
Yeah this because the core is great but I’ve always thought Philly’s skyline left something to be desired. Every time I go to Philly it’s right after visiting NYC first so maybe my perception is off…
Never thought our skyline was underwhelming. A lot of the new highrises are being built north of downtown in Uptown and Victory Park. I would like to see more skyscrapers in downtown though.
Given it’s a metro of 6 million, Atlanta is a little underwhelming to me. Which shouldn’t be Surprising given it’s population density is 3,790 people per sq mile (which isn’t too far off from the density of Raleigh, NC)
Atlanta has some impressive skyscrapers, and a lot of buildings over 300 feet (roughly 75-80+).
But I think Atlanta's issue, when comparing to a city like Philadelphia, is that Atlanta has a lot of gaps in their density. Philadelphia has a much, much more dense city core, and continues its density blocks and blocks outside of the center city core area. Not so much in height, but at the street level as well as blocks and blocks of continuous 3,4,5, etc story dense buildings.
Atlanta turns quickly "hodge podge" suburban a few blocks from downtown and midtown. A gas station here, a green lawn there, a strip mall over here, a vacant lot there, a 10 story building here, etc. This is the main difference between development of sunbelt and northeastern/midwestern cities though, and I think it's fascinating to study.
Atlanta has some impressive skyscrapers, and a lot of buildings over 300 feet (roughly 75-80+).
But I think Atlanta's issue, when comparing to a city like Philadelphia, is that Atlanta has a lot of gaps in their density. Philadelphia has a much, much more dense city core, and continues its density blocks and blocks outside of the center city core area. Not so much in height, but at the street level as well as blocks and blocks of continuous 3,4,5, etc story dense buildings.
Atlanta turns quickly "hodge podge" suburban a few blocks from downtown and midtown. A gas station here, a green lawn there, a strip mall over here, a vacant lot there, a 10 story building here, etc. This is the main difference between development of sunbelt and northeastern/midwestern cities though, and I think it's fascinating to study.
Yeah. I think that has a lot to do with cities like Chicago, NYC, Philly, etc being older and historically larger cities. Places like Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, etc didn’t really start to boom until after WW2. Older cities were pretty much well established and had much more robust cores. For Example: Chicago and NYC is over 130 years ahead in development in comparison to Dallas. It would take generations for any sunbelt city to match that level of urban density and skyline size. I think cities that are small geographically may have a better advantage of building up due to lack of space.
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.
