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.
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)
Chicago
Miami
San Francisco
Austin- Very impressive from where the city was just 15 years ago.
Nashville
Least impressive:
Jacksonville- Very small
Indianapolis- Outdated and small
Los Angeles
Raleigh
Phoenix- This should be competing with Atlanta or Seattle.
St. Louis- Horrible
Jacksonville's skyline is tricky because its core and most of its tallest buildings are located on a bend in the St. John's River on both sides of the river. As a result, there really aren't many obvious or convenient locations that gives one a full view of its total skyline which is separated into distinct clusters due to the area's geography and infrastructure. Most skyline shots directly face the northbank cluster which obscures a good bit of density on its backside since its tallest towers up front, right along the river.
A good aerial or pano reveals a skyline that's not nearly as shabby as some make it out to be:
With a city population of 471,000 per the 2020 census count and a metro total of 755,000, I'd offer that Colorado Springs has a pitifully small skyline and downtown.
A more recent in-personal observation of mine suggests that San Jose is the winner here for having a skyline that punches in FAR lower than it's population size and economic power suggests that it should have.
I understand that local ordinances, including at least one prompted by downtown's location in regard to air flight traffic, are the major skyline-suppressing factors at work there.
Honorable mention should also go to St. Louis which seems to have stagnated in many ways including in terms of downtown construction and anything resembling a 21st century version of it's skyline.
Telling for that city is the fact that as a junior high aged student (circa 1968) I was wowed by a National Geographic issue story on that city and a riverfront photo that impressed me. A view from that same spot today is basically unchanged.
Last edited by atler8; 05-31-2022 at 02:38 PM..
Reason: removed blank line spaces
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)
You've strayed from a sensible point of view of admiring skylines (and equating skylines with relative city importance) to saying this city--or any city--should build skyscrapers to match their importance. For New York, tall buildings have been the symbol forever. Not for Los Angeles. LA doesn't need any skyscrapers to be important; it has other features. Besides, skyscrapers have terrible effects in the autocentric USA context-- the more tall buildings you have in a central area, the worse the plague of parking lots, parking garages, suburbanites flooding in and out everyday in single-occupancy vehicles. Just look at poor Hartford. I wouldn't wish more skyscrapers on any place.
Colorado Springs is close enough to Denver that it doesn't serve as the regional capital for most things, even if it's not in the metro. I'm not surprised at the skyline.
San Jose is part of greater San Francisco. In that context it's not surprising either. If it were an independent city of two million, then sure it would be underwhelming.
Likewise, Tacoma and its immediate surroundings have a small office sector because Seattle steals its big companies and the white-collar residents often commute up north. You could describe it as a 900,000-person county but that's misleading.
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.
