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.
Good Points... most in and around Boston don't necessarily care. In fact, they are very critical of what gets built. Just because Boston doesn't necessarily have the best skyline, doesn't mean buildings haven't been proposed. Bostonians are notorious for opposing proposals for very tall structures unless they are deemed architecturally fit. Furthermore, the proximity of the airport knocks down the height of some proposed buildings in certain locations (see South Station Tower below).
The 60s and 70s also did a number on Boston's skyline leaving us with MANY squat, flat boxes. We're trying to get away from that.
Transnational Place is proposed to be the tallest in the city at about 1100 feet, but faces fierce opposition by many neighborhood groups who fear the building will create wind and shadow issues. Many more claim that the building is not fitting for an "iconic" tower and that it would fit in anywhere in the U.S. People in Boston like to hold out for something special... the urbanity is priority number one and the skyline is of far lesser importance. That said, there are a bunch of tall buildings under construction right now including The Clarendon, Russia Wharf, the W Hotel, 45 Province Street, One Franklin, etc.
Transnational Place Proposal (pending.. faces opposition from many residents):
South Station Tower (height lowered due to FAA Regulations... set to start construction soon). This is the current proposal, the previous one was taller (proposed to be Boston's tallest):
Under Construction:
Russia Wharf:
One Franklin:
45 Province Street:
The W Hotel:
The Clarendon:
I once saw a documentary that Prince Charles did about the London skyline. In it he was kind of upset about the new skyscrappers going up in London - he liked the historic "Church steeple" skyline instead. He was also upset (totally reasonable) about historic buildings being bulldozed to build the skyscrappers also.
In one scene he came to New York and said that the Americans did not have skylines so they had to invent them. I personally disagreed with him - I will take NY, Chicago, Seattle etc. over old London's steeples anyday. In any case he could still find a historic church steeple skyline over the river in parts of Brooklyn!
Boston reminds me of London in this regard. There is a lot of historic buildings - and even streets are historic! They seem to be very unsure about building over their history, which again is entirely reasonable - and the result is sort of a in between skyline. Its not bad but not what you expect for either great city.
So we aren't counting metros? What about a city that used to have much more than 500,000?...Because Buffalo is actually VERY dissapointing for its size considering its past as the 6th largest American city. People around here (many, many, many, of us Buffalonians) think our skyline is nice, but is disappointing for even today - a binational metro of near 2 mil.
Something like this should be in the works for a future boom...
I chose LA simply because of its size. For a city with a metroplex exceeding 15 million people, its skyline is merely adequate. LA's skyline is often compared to Houston which has a metroplex 1/3 the size of Los Angeles.
And, who voted for NYC and Chicago?! Those two both have iconic skylines that are have pretty much set the benchmark for city skylines.
Who cares? Skylines, while cool to look at, really don't prove much. Some think Detroit has a cool skyline, but who wants to live there. Most of Europe's best cities don't have much in the way of a skyline.
Who cares? Skylines, while cool to look at, really don't prove much. Some think Detroit has a cool skyline, but who wants to live there. Most of Europe's best cities don't have much in the way of a skyline.
I was just coming in to post something to this effect. The idea that a skyline is the sum total of a city's value is just silly. Tell it to the residents of London, Paris, Madrid and Rome.
I think LA's skyline is pathetic given its population mass and density. Other notable cities of pathetic skyline compared to size of metro would be DC (although they have federal restrictions) and San Jose, CA.
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.
Nice pictures Irfox
