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.
All cities in the southwestern US have less impressive skylines than comparible sized cities back east. Albuquerque is similar in a similar tier as OKC, Memphis, and Raleigh, but has a much less impressive skyline. Tucson's skyline is even less impressive than that. Maybe it's because the southwest wasn't building skyscrapers until much later?
That may be a plausible excuse but then how do you explain Miami which is a young city too that is only 126 years old?
All cities in the southwestern US have less impressive skylines than comparible sized cities back east. Albuquerque is similar in a similar tier as OKC, Memphis, and Raleigh, but has a much less impressive skyline. Tucson's skyline is even less impressive than that. Maybe it's because the southwest wasn't building skyscrapers until much later?
Age, geography, and the sectors that drive the local economies of cities are all relevant factors in this context. The short answer is probably due to a lack of major corporate headquarters, particularly in finance and insurance.
And were their downtowns strong enough to attract the biggest office employers in past decades, or high-cost residents and tourists today? Was this true in the 70s to early 90s when CRE financing was artificially easier? Do they have scenic waterfronts or transit stations that make very specific locations worth far more than a few blocks away?
The Frost Tower is nice addition. I would’ve loved if it was a little taller. It has a very distinctive shape.
Same, would have been a nice 5-600 footer. I wish they found a way to make the parking podium taller/smaller and integrate it with the tower more. Would have been a pretty significant height bump.
Which cities have impressive skylines for their population size, and which cities are also underwhelming with their skylines, for their size?
Here's my take, below. Feel free to comment and chime in with your thoughts and opinions.
Very impressive skylines and downtown development density, for their size:
10 Stamford, CT (density is solid)
9 Charlotte (height is impressive)
8 Wilmington, DE (good density for size)
7 Tulsa, OK (great height for its size)
6 Honolulu (amazing density and number of bldgs)
5 Jersey City (incredible height, density, total number of bldgs)
4 Seattle (amazing overall number of bldgs, height good, density incredible, booming)
3 Nashville (continued boom with solid and ever-increasing density and number of bldgs for its size)
2 Miami (unbelievable amount of skyscrapers for its size, great density, booming, good height)
1 Austin (booming, height, density and total number of skyscrapers keeps growing)
Underwhelming skylines for their size:
10 Jacksonville (could easily use a good 8-10 skyscrapers downtown. Density is lacking as-is height)
9 Oklahoma City (the Devon Tower is impressive, but throws the skyline seriously out of wack since it is so much taller than surrounding towers. The city needs to build a good 4-6 more in the range of 500-800 feet to even out its oddball skyline)
8 Las Vegas (downtown needs an injection of density and total number of buildings--along with height. Add a good 10-15 between 300-600 feet and it would be so much better to match its size)
7 San Antonio (the city should have between 20-30 over 300 feet. It needs to add density, height and more buildings overall)
6 Indianapolis (the city needs a good 10 more skyscrapers between 300-500 feet. Underwhelming overall for its size)
5 Los Angeles (skyscraper construction has increased dramatically over the years. But the city needs a good 30+ more downtown over 300 feet, to match its size and importance)
4 Raleigh (construction is picking up over the past year or so, and will continue into the 2020s, hopefully. The city needs a good 15+ over 300 feet downtown. Right now it only has a handful)
3 San Jose (I realize zoning does not allow for anything over roughly what, 250 or so feet? But the city needs to build 3-5 "trophy" towers between 300-600 feet just to make a mark on how big it is)
2 Phoenix (I like this skyline a lot, but for its growth and its size, it has a very small and lower skyline)
1 St Louis (considering its history as a huge city, its legacy, importance in the US and its location as "gateway to the west," there are a very small number of skyscrapers over 300 feet high. St Louis badly needs an increase in height and density downtown)
Very good synopsis.
A good candidate for underwhelming is where I live: Huntsville, Alabama. City population is about 230,000 with an adjacent suburb over 60,000, and is the largest city in the state (but not the largest metro). The county is >400,000. The tallest building downtown is only 12 floors (previous height restrictions for the entire downtown are partly to blame), with only a few others in the 10 stories or so. There are many projects being built downtown, but no high rises.
I don't see things changing anytime soon unless it's residential construction.
I've not read the entire thread, but has anyone mentioned Nashville? It's undergoing a building boom with several high-rises and more planned, possibly second only to Austin. Nashville metro is about 2M.
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.
