What skyline do you think is pathetic for its size? (largest, places)

[Craziaskowboi]

Phoenix and San Jose have terrible skylines for cities their size. Memphis, Milwaukee and San Antonio should have bigger skylines. Detroit has an interesting skyline, but they need more new skyscrapers. Boston and Portland have decent-sized skylines for cities their size, but the buildings are kind of dull. Honolulu and Miami have large skylines that do absolutely nothing for me. Oklahoma City has a new skyscraper that sticks out like a sore thumb. St. Louis would have a lousy skyline without the Gateway Arch.

[Tom Lennox 70]

I was unimpressed with the skylines of Norfolk, Albuquerque, Jacksonville, Oklahoma City, Amarillo, and Abilene TX based on the size of these places. Colorado Springs also has a relatively small skyline though a skyline really isn't that important to the overall feel and quality of life like many of these are pleasant places especially Colorado Springs and the Hampton Roads area. They have very few high-rises for a city their size. Many smaller cities have more impressive skylines such as Memphis, Nashville, or Tampa.

Now for the opposite, Atlantic City, Ocean City MD, and Myrtle Beach SC have skylines that are very impressive for their size because of all the hotel towers.

[KodeBlue]

Originally Posted by BMOREBOY

I'm not sure about everyone else but I consider LA to have a top 10 skyline as well but that doesn't take away from it being pathetic for its size. Baltimore's skyline is pathetic to me as well, not for density but height. Our tallest building is 35 or 40 floors, cities such as Raleigh, Des Moines, etc have buildings taller than we do now which is ridiculous. We pretty much have three million residents in the metropolitan, our skyline is supposed to be gleaming.

You already know how long it takes to get things done around here. I still can't believe that it's taken them 3 years to fix the overpass on 695 at Liberty RD.

[Austinite101]

Definitely San Antonio.

[KayneMo]

I say Phoenix and San Antonio.

I think Oklahoma City has a pretty decent-sized skyline.

[JJG]

Originally Posted by Gnutella

Phoenix and San Jose have terrible skylines for cities their size. Memphis, Milwaukee and San Antonio should have bigger skylines. Detroit has an interesting skyline, but they need more new skyscrapers. Boston and Portland have decent-sized skylines for cities their size, but the buildings are kind of dull. Honolulu and Miami have large skylines that do absolutely nothing for me. Oklahoma City has a new skyscraper that sticks out like a sore thumb. St. Louis would have a lousy skyline without the Gateway Arch.

Bit of an exaggeration.

[Deeman804]

Originally Posted by MB8abovetherim

This thread is as usefull as a c*ck measuring contest. I like LA's skyline, you see the Library Tower kinda sits in the middle and if viewed at the right angle downtown resembles a middle finger pointed toward the east coast. LA doesn't care about grandiloquently inflating it's status in such a um.....phallic way. Go ahead guys, keep building up up up and up. Angelenos enjoy their sunshine



Oh and for the record: Los Angeles has one of the 10 largest skylines in the US. People! Don't hate a great city just because you fail to see it in it's ENTIRETY

Have to break it to you, but Library Tower is quite phallic. I tend to think that it is a c**k pointing toward Hollywood, lol

[nycjowww]

in terms of population i would vote brooklyn , bronx, queens since all these borough have over 1 - 2 million people but those arent cities . so ill go with Baltimore.

[natethegreatforlife]

Phoenix, way to small to represent a city of 4 million+

[MB8abovetherim]

Originally Posted by Deeman804

Have to break it to you, but Library Tower is quite phallic. I tend to think that it is a c**k pointing toward Hollywood, lol

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I suppose you're right