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.
Just a reminder to stay on topic and refrain from personal attacks.
This thread is about Philly vs. San Francisco Skylines, if you want to discuss other
cities please create another thread.
I'd have to go with Philadelphia...though I like San Francisco's skyline IMHO...only a few towers are notable and Philly has many; when the American Commerce Tower is built it will truly transform Philadelphia's already awesome skyline. Also Philly is one of only 3(maybe 4) cities with 2 towers topping 900 feet.
Last edited by PITTSTON2SARASOTA; 11-21-2009 at 05:06 PM..
Ive driven into both of these over their bridges and both are really nice.
SFs skyline is a bit more breathtaking in person tho and its skyline seems bigger too. At the same time Philly actually has some better individual towers imo.
I have to be honest here. I used to think San Fran was one of my favorites in this country. But if you take away the Bay and hills, I would not be that impressed. I don't think San Fran has added to their skyline too much over the last few years. Who knows? Maybe they don't have the room. Anyhow, I like the fact that Philly has a balance. I am glad it is not the type of skyline that is all the same height. I love like some others have said regarding the balance within Philly's skyline. I think if I were to vote on building placement, etc alone and without natural setting I would easily pick Philly over San Fran.
I do like San Fran's density, and beyond some of the praises. Philadelphia still has room for improvement as does all skylines.
But that doesn't mean that they should rely soley on that fact of having nice surroundings. I don't think it would hurt to add to look to improve the already nice layout.
I think cities should continue to grow. It just seems in San Frans case like they have not done a whole lot of building since the eighties-very early nineties.
What SF has and needs is measured growth. We just don't have the room to throw up towers left and right and regret it later if a mistake is made. SF has actually put up quite a few new towers in the past decade. Especially One Rincon, which sticks out like a sore thumb besides the Bay Bridge. It's the space between the One Rincon and Downtown where all the skyscrapers are which needs to, and will be filled.
In fact, the Chronicle just wrote about a new transit district plan a few days ago which would fill this space. It's very impressive, height, density, transit, this new district will transform the SF skyline.
Towering plan for new S.F. skyline unveiled (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2009/11/20/MNQ71AM8R8.DTL&o=0 - broken link)
Oooh, that's a tough one. I personally am more partial to San Francisco, although that's as much due to the geography of the surrounding area as to the city itself.
I do agree with a lot of the people on here who say that SF's skyline is denser and more intriguing although Philadelphia has more and better high-rise buildings.
Overall, I'ma go with SF.
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.
