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.
In another thread, LA's skyline was noted as underwhelming while Philadelphia's was put in the top 5. I'm assuming that post meant scaled for population, but I don't see it that way in view of L.A.'s in city limits triple skyline complemented by hundreds of mid/low rises.
If you look at total buildings over 500 feet, you can clearly see that Los Angeles is at least two leagues above Philadelphia.
Not to beat a dead horse, but L.A. city plans prohibited high rises for many years and if people have read the history of the aqueduct and 1932 Olympics its pretty clear that if they wanted them back then, they would have had them.
So in conclusion, going back to the thread topic, L.A., Houston, and Miami appear to have pulled into a very distinct sub-Chicago peer group that doesn't have any other eligible members right now.
Interesting call out of Philadelphia specifically, but nonetheless, it can make a case for top 5 skyline.
The other thread took into account other facets of what makes a good skyline too. It's rather narrow criteria to rank a skyline solely on the most height.
Both LA and Philadelphia have large and nice skylines, but one could argue that Philadelphia's is more attractive due to layout, building styles/architecture, more intense density of structures, and a better layering of low/midrise with height at the center. Most everything on CD is subjective in the end though, especially your last sentence arbitrability making a new tier for LA, Houston, and Miami...
*Philadelphia too had a strict non-written rule "prohibiting" buildings taller than William Penn atop City Hall ~492' until 1987 when Liberty Place was built.
I think he was referring to that tier of 500ft or taller buildings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco
If you look at total buildings over 500 feet, you can clearly see that Los Angeles is at least two leagues above Philadelphia.
...
So in conclusion, going back to the thread topic, L.A., Houston, and Miami appear to have pulled into a very distinct sub-Chicago peer group that doesn't have any other eligible members right now.
I think Philly has about 15, LA has about 33, Houston is about 40 and Miami about 59. By 500ft Philly isn't really in the same tier as Miami. Probably not in the same tier as Houston. It gets dicey after that because LA has twice as many as Philly but the gap between LA and Miami is larger.
Filling in the gaps Dallas has 19, Atlanta 17 so I would tend to agree that their is a gap.
Miami ~ 60
Houston ~ 40
LA ~35
SF 24
Boston 22
Seattle 21
Dallas 19
Las Vegas 17
Atlanta 17
Philly 14
Pittsburgh 10
Minneapolis 10
So yeah, there is daylight between LA and Philly on his chosen barometer of 500ft. I would put money on it that both Houston and LA will be in the 50s by the end of the decade
Last edited by atadytic19; 12-03-2022 at 04:00 PM..
Interesting call out of Philadelphia specifically, but nonetheless, it can make a case for top 5 skyline.
The other thread took into account other facets of what makes a good skyline too. It's rather narrow criteria to rank a skyline solely on the most height.
Both LA and Philadelphia have large and nice skylines, but one could argue that Philadelphia's is more attractive due to layout, building styles/architecture, more intense density of structures, and a better layering of low/midrise with height at the center. Most everything on CD is subjective in the end though, especially your last sentence arbitrability making a new tier for LA, Houston, and Miami...
*Philadelphia too had a strict non-written rule "prohibiting" buildings taller than William Penn atop City Hall ~492' until 1987 when Liberty Place was built.
That's right I forgot Philadelphia had that height rule also.
I wouldn't say Philadelphia has an advantage with structural density or anything else, given that L.A.'s skyscrapers are flanked by several square miles of historic low rises such as these:
In that respect though they are peers, newer skyscrapers juxtaposed with older low rises, I would still argue L.A.'s older low rises are more architecturally interesting than these:
I think he was referring to that tier of 500ft or taller buildings.
I think Philly has about 15, LA has about 33, Houston is about 40 and Miami about 59. By 500ft Philly isn't really in the same tier as Miami. Probably not in the same tier as Houston. It gets dicey after that because LA has twice as many as Philly but the gap between LA and Miami is larger.
Filling in the gaps Dallas has 19, Atlanta 17 so I would tend to agree that their is a gap.
Miami ~ 60
Houston ~ 40
LA ~35
SF 24
Boston 22
Seattle 21
Dallas 19
Las Vegas 17
Atlanta 17
Philly 14
Pittsburgh 10
Minneapolis 10
So yeah, there is daylight between LA and Philly on his chosen barometer of 500ft. I would put money on it that both Houston and LA will be in the 50s by the end of the decade
Honestly we could have just stayed with 600 feet, which is a great benchmark where the boys start getting separated from the men. At that height you're not setting any records, but it is indisputably a legitimate skyscraper.
Not a lot of ambiguity here, you can just look up the under constructions and see where things are going.
Honestly we could have just stayed with 600 feet, which is a great benchmark where the boys start getting separated from the men. At that height you're not setting any records, but it is indisputably a legitimate skyscraper.
Not a lot of ambiguity here, you can just look up the under constructions and see where things are going.
True. Looking at it that way those 3 (Miami, LA and Houston) has more 600footers than the next group has 500 footers. The is definitely daylight there.
IMO LA skyline is massive no matter how good look at it.
True. Looking at it that way those 3 (Miami, LA and Houston) has more 600footers than the next group has 500 footers. The is definitely daylight there.
IMO LA skyline is massive no matter how good look at it.
Here's another way of looking at things-
A few pages earlier, someone posted the U/C projects in NYC and its mind blowing. They don't get talked about because they're in their own solar system where they can't be reached.
If you look at Chicago's U/C projects-big but less impressive.
It's not likely, but possible that if LA/Houston/Miami kept their foot on the gas that one or all all of them could at least get into the same ballpark as Chicago, to the extent where Chicago would be seen as more of a peer to them than NYC for skyscrapers.
A 695ft skyscraper would be noticeable in every city on earth when you're standing near it which is more of the context that Losfrisco was describing. The 110fwy goes right by it only 200ft away. From a distance not nearly as much. It's the black building in the left third in this photo from the LA Times and the freeway travels between it and the brown building just to the left of it.
Nov. 9 photo shows how Santa Ana winds left the Southland with clear views looking north along Avalon Boulevard in South Los Angeles. (Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)
A few pages earlier, someone posted the U/C projects in NYC and its mind blowing. They don't get talked about because they're in their own solar system where they can't be reached.
If you look at Chicago's U/C projects-big but less impressive.
It's not likely, but possible that if LA/Houston/Miami kept their foot on the gas that one or all all of them could at least get into the same ballpark as Chicago, to the extent where Chicago would be seen as more of a peer to them than NYC for skyscrapers.
That’s a tall ask. Chicago has around 130 buildings over 500 ft, so more than double Miami, more than triple Houston and close to quadruple LA.
Miami will get to half Chicago at current rates of construction, the other two highly unlikely
That’s a tall ask. Chicago has around 130 buildings over 500 ft, so more than double Miami, more than triple Houston and close to quadruple LA.
Miami will get to half Chicago at current rates of construction, the other two highly unlikely
The only way I could see it happening where Houston and/or LA come close to the Chicago tier amount, is if they accelerate their growth to where Miami currently is.
But that is doubtful--at least in the short, 10 year term. Who knows in the future.
Chicago just has to keep a decently steady clip of construction going of like 2-3 every couple of years to stay way, way ahead--and consistently ahead of Miami.
That’s a tall ask. Chicago has around 130 buildings over 500 ft, so more than double Miami, more than triple Houston and close to quadruple LA.
Miami will get to half Chicago at current rates of construction, the other two highly unlikely
Agreed. It depends on one's definition of being "in the same ballpark", but I don't see LA even getting close to 50% of Chicago's total in the next 2 decades. There are currently two serious proposals for skyscrapers over 500ft adjacent to the under construction La Brea D line station so LA could see additional pockets of skyscrapers appear and grow.
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.
