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.
No, just no. No matter how it's sliced Houston shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath with Chicago in terms of skyline.
There are pros and cons to Houston's development of concentrated business centers in different parts of the city. If the three major centers were consolidated, the skyline would be much more impressive, though I agree, still not on the same level as Chicago's.
All sizes | Houston Medical Center | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/25126256@N04/2694644196/sizes/z/in/photostream/ - broken link)
I think it's obvious that if the majority of Houston's biggest towers were concentrated in it's downtown, the skyline would be much closer to that of Chicago's. In terms of towers over 500 ft, Houston has the 3rd most in the nation with a few more than 30, and Chicago having somewhere in the mid 40's, making Houston and Chicago more comparable than Chicago and NYC, under that condition. *I'm sure Miami will take this title within mid-decade, as last count it had like three 500 footers less than Houston.
Imagine three 900 footers in DT Houston, with the addition of over 40 towers over 400 ft, and you'd have a phenomenal singular skyline worthy of being the 4th largest city, but alas, they are not conjoined districts, but if all cities were like Chicago's, it would have more peers to join the conversation.
Chicago has 105 buildings over 500 feet, not "the mid 40's".
Not sure where you got those #'s, but I think Chicago and Houston are in pretty different groups when it comes to skylines, with NYC yet in another group.
Total highrises:
Chicago: 1,126
Houston: 363
Chicago: +310%
Highrises over 500 feet:
Chicago: 105
Houston: 32
Chicago: +328%
Highrises over 400 feet:
Chicago: 191
Houston: 52
Chicago: +367%
New York is obviously in a class of its own as far as the # of highrises. It would be way above Chicago. Chicago just has its a bit more on display pound for pound. New York has hundreds that get lost in the shuffle in central Manhattan. Certainly doesn't mean they aren't there though!
At first i was thinking Baltimore, and while their skyline isn't tall by any means, their core business district is dense, and is well connected to outlying neighborhoods. So the downtown matches the size of the city, but not height wise. I was thinking San Jose, but it's proximity to San Fran/Oakland gives it an excuse.
I voted other
The three other cities being:
Phoenix (for obvious reasons)
Orlando (downtown is nice, but more resembles a downtown of an area of 1 million, not 2+)
Sacramento (nice, but rather small for an area of 2.5 million)
None of these skylines are pathetic in my opinion (okay, Phoenix is kinda blahhh, but whatever)
Chicago has 105 buildings over 500 feet, not "the mid 40's".
Not sure where you got those #'s, but I think Chicago and Houston are in pretty different groups when it comes to skylines, with NYC yet in another group.
Total highrises:
Chicago: 1,126
Houston: 363
Chicago: +310%
Highrises over 500 feet:
Chicago: 105
Houston: 32
Chicago: +328%
Highrises over 400 feet:
Chicago: 191
Houston: 52
Chicago: +367%
New York is obviously in a class of its own as far as the # of highrises. It would be way above Chicago. Chicago just has its a bit more on display pound for pound. New York has hundreds that get lost in the shuffle in central Manhattan. Certainly doesn't mean they aren't there though!
Agree and also NYC and Chicago and even places like SF, Philly, Boston all give way from skyscrapers to many ~100 footers with density. The impact is hard to quantify but can be felt.
I actually made the comment more tounge and cheek with regards to Houston which has a very substantial skyline, one of the best in the country. Houston has great height and spread but lacks fill around it. But these are all subjective. Objectiviely even if combined it is not close to Chicago. I do think the spread of Houston makes it feel larger and not the opposite actually, especially from a distance. At close range Houston has the opposite impact where some other Dense cities benefit at the closer range views IMHO. Chicago actually has both and is FAR larger than Houston both to the naked eye and as numbers bear out.
How is Philadelphia mentioned in this thread? It has a gorgeous skyline. The scale is great (tapering away from the tallest like a mountain peak) and there's awesome architecture mixed in. It's better than most cities in the country. I don't think it's bad, even for its size.
Phoenix, on the other hand, is pretty bad. Same with Albuquerque. I think Boston's is just sort of "meh" for a MSA of over 4 million. It has nice angles, but it's mostly stumps and boring boxes. Baltimore's isn't wonderful either.
Though not "pathetic" because it's huge, Miami's skyline does nothing for me. too much sameness.
How is Philadelphia mentioned in this thread? It has a gorgeous skyline. The scale is great (tapering away from the tallest like a mountain peak) and there's awesome architecture mixed in. It's better than most cities in the country. I don't think it's bad, even for its size.
Phoenix, on the other hand, is pretty bad. Same with Albuquerque. I think Boston's is just sort of "meh" for a MSA of over 4 million. It has nice angles, but it's mostly stumps and boring boxes. Baltimore's isn't wonderful either.
Though not "pathetic" because it's huge, Miami's skyline does nothing for me. too much sameness.
But Philadelphia? No way.
But for the cities size, it's skyline TOPS when it comes down to scale and a city-size/skyline comparison and contrast. Miami's skyline is big for a city of 400,000. Condos or not.
At first i was thinking Baltimore, and while their skyline isn't tall by any means, their core business district is dense, and is well connected to outlying neighborhoods. So the downtown matches the size of the city, but not height wise. I was thinking San Jose, but it's proximity to San Fran/Oakland gives it an excuse.
I voted other
The three other cities being:
Phoenix (for obvious reasons) Orlando (downtown is nice, but more resembles a downtown of an area of 1 million, not 2+)
Sacramento (nice, but rather small for an area of 2.5 million)
None of these skylines are pathetic in my opinion (okay, Phoenix is kinda blahhh, but whatever)
But from a city-limits standpoint it's does pretty darn well for it's scale.
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.
