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.
People on city-data, including in the Phoenix forum, tend to bash Phoenix relentlessly for having little culture, lacking a skyline, not enough greenery, etc. I don't know of any other city that gets as much flack as Phoenix on the board, and it's odd, because there are plenty of people who like Phoenix, and recognize that the city has been improving - including its downtown - for years now.
I would add Huntsville, AL definitely to the list. It has a very unimpressive skyline for a city of its size. However, I like it as a city. The burbs are beautiful...especially the mountains around it.
Agreed. I think it's a common American and CD misconception that you have to have a huge skyline to have great architecture. Washington, DC is one of the best examples of this. DC is a unique way to design a city that you don't see America.
Of course, one thing I've always find ironic is that American cities are known for having massive skylines, urban and suburban sprawl, and very few height restrictions but our nations capital is not at all like this (well maybe the suburban sprawl part but I'm not sure). Not that I don't Paris model for DC, I've just always thought that was interesting.
OK, as far as the worst skyline, I think I would have to nominate Orlando, San Jose, and Lubbock. Orlando is probably the better of the three, and to be fair, Lubbock isn't that big. So I think San Jose would probably be the worst skyline, especially considering the size of the city.
Why does this design bull**** save DC? It has no skyline so why dance around the issue?
Why does this design bull**** save DC? It has no skyline so why dance around the issue?
As some one had said before, Just because DC has low rise buildings, doesn't mean that it doesn't have a skyline. But because of the low rise buildings, the Capital and the Washington Monument seem stick out WAY more than if the city where covered in tall skyscrapers. It would be similar to Paris. With the exception of La Defense (which is technically a suburb), The Paris sky line has height restriction on almost all buildings, but that skyline would still consist of The Eiffel Tower, Notre Dame, The Paris Opera House, The Pompidou Centre, and other famous peaces of architecture that vividly stand out but would be lost in the shuffle if the a huge skyline where placed in the middle of Paris. You can say the same for DC and its skyline. It just isn't what American's are used to. Does that make sense?
And besides, DC does have the Arlington, VA skyline which is right across the Potomac. It's not a spectacular skyline, but I wouldn't say it's the worst.
Why does this design bull**** save DC? It has no skyline
Nonsense. First of all, nothing needs to "save" DC; I'm unclear as to why you think otherwise.
Secondly, what you mean to say is that DC doesn't have a traditionally American big city skyline, with 40 story glass and steel skyscrapers. Those types of buildings can be nice and all. But to drive into the city at night and see the Washington Monument, Lincoln, Capitol dome, Federal Triangle buildings and others cast against the night sky is to see what is IMO one of the most beautiful and unique skylines in America.
As some one had said before, Just because DC has low rise buildings, doesn't mean that it doesn't have a skyline. But because of the low rise buildings, the Capital and the Washington Monument seem stick out WAY more than if the city where covered in tall skyscrapers. It would be similar to Paris. With the exception of La Defense (which is technically a suburb), The Paris sky line has height restriction on almost all buildings, but that skyline would still consist of The Eiffel Tower, Notre Dame, The Paris Opera House, The Pompidou Centre, and other famous peaces of architecture that vividly stand out but would be lost in the shuffle if the a huge skyline where placed in the middle of Paris. You can say the same for DC and its skyline. It just isn't what American's are used to. Does that make sense?
You can't simply change the definition of "skyline" to mean "pretty buildings."
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14thandYou
Nonsense. First of all, nothing needs to "save" DC; I'm unclear as to why you think otherwise.
Secondly, what you mean to say is that DC doesn't have a traditionally American big city skyline, with 40 story glass and steel skyscrapers. Those types of buildings can be nice and all. But to drive into the city at night and see the Washington Monument, Lincoln, Capitol dome, Federal Triangle buildings and others cast against the night sky is to see what is IMO one of the most beautiful and unique skylines in America.
Again, how do these make a skyline? The Washington Monument juts up into the sky, but it's all alone.
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.
