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.
6 Indianapolis (the city needs a good 10 more skyscrapers between 300-500 feet. Underwhelming overall for its size)
If we are going to list out things Indianapolis needs, or any other city you mentioned for that matter, more tall buildings to win an internet penis measuring contest isn't one of them.
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.
To be fair, that's the point of this thread, which cities' skylines are impressive/underwhelming for their size.
I disagree about the effects of skyscrapers on a downtown --- there's probably a negative correlation between skyscraper density and surface lots if anything, and LA has a subway for people to get in and out of downtown. I guess it's true that the total amount of traffic in the downtown will still be higher, but that sacrifice seems like it's easily been worth it for the US cities that do have skyscraper-filled downtowns, considering all the benefits that go along with that level of residential/office/commercial/entertainment density.
To be fair, that's the point of this thread, which cities' skylines are impressive/underwhelming for their size.
I disagree about the effects of skyscrapers on a downtown --- there's probably a negative correlation between skyscraper density and surface lots if anything, and LA has a subway for people to get in and out of downtown. I guess it's true that the total amount of traffic in the downtown will still be higher, but that sacrifice seems like it's easily been worth it for the US cities that do have skyscraper-filled downtowns, considering all the benefits that go along with that level of residential/office/commercial/entertainment density.
Skyscrapers works great when there's underlying public infrastructure that can support the population density they bring. Most major cities don't have a subway system to get people in and out of DT. LA is one of a handful of cities that does, so he does have a valid point.
If we are going to list out things Indianapolis needs, or any other city you mentioned for that matter, more tall buildings to win an internet penis measuring contest isn't one of them.
OP is not wrong. Indianapolis being similar in size to cities such as Nashville, Charlotte, Austin, Cincy, Columbus, and Cleveland has a skyline density and height similar to cities nearly half it's size. I believe Indy only has 12 buildings over 300 feet. While the other cities have about 20+ buildings in the 300+ ft range.
OP is not wrong. Indianapolis being similar in size to cities such as Nashville, Charlotte, Austin, Cincy, Columbus, and Cleveland has a skyline density and height similar to cities nearly half it's size. I believe Indy only has 12 buildings over 300 feet. While the other cities have about 20+ buildings in the 300+ ft range.
If we're looking at buildings 300+ feet tall, this is the breakout for an assortment of listed (excluding Austin) and unlisted cities:
Charlotte - 35 (20 built in the last 8 years)
Nashville - 31 (20 built in the last 8 years)
Pittsburgh - 30
Cleveland - 21
Cincinnati - 18
Columbus - 17
St Louis - 17 (this includes the Arch)
Kansas City - 14
Louisville - 14
Milwaukee - 12 (14 if you include the Brewers Stadium and Casino well west of downtown)
Indianapolis - 12 (the most recently built building downtown is 290 feet tall)
OKC - 10
Toledo OH - 5
Lexington KY - 3
Fort Wayne - 3
Grand Rapids - 3
So what's the takeaway here?
1) The gap between Indianapolis and places like Columbus and Kansas City does exist, but may not be as pronounced as the chatter in this thread would have you believe.
2) Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh are legacy cities. At the peak of the nation's skyscraper boom, Cincy and Cleveland were both much larger and more influential cities than Indianapolis was. As an aside, I think Cincy has the best skyline of the cities listed here. Cincinnati is a great city.
3) The so called star cities in the sunbelt are kicking the Midwest's ass up and down in terms of new tall buildings.
4) Comparing Indianapolis to places like Lexington and Grand Rapids, at least as far as the skyline is concerned, is obviously off base.
I think it's hilarious when people say a city NEEDS to build tall buildings.
Says who?
IMHO, Miami was very impressive compared to its population and size. It's like half the city is tall buildings.
SF has an impressive skyline for how tiny the footprint is.
Pittsburgh punches way above its weight here too.
SF's skyline is pretty underwhelming given vs. Chicago, a similar-sized CSA. SF is more multi-nodal though.
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.
