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.
It's close, both are on major rivers and both are overshadowed by a larger city in the same state. (You can see the Minneapolis skyline in the distance in the St. Paul photo) But I am ging to have to go with St. Paul. Not just because I grew up there but because although it does not have as much height, it has better architecture and is much more dense.
St. Paul has a very nice skyline, but I have to go with KC, because I think it is more dense (and I like tall skylines, so if it was KC vs. Minn., Minn. would win, but with this one, KC has more heighth)
It's close, both are on major rivers and both are overshadowed by a larger city in the same state. (You can see the Minneapolis skyline in the distance in the St. Paul photo) But I am ging to have to go with St. Paul. Not just because I grew up there but because although it does not have as much height, it has better architecture and is much more dense.
Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with about everything you said (aside from KC having more height).
1. KC is the largest city in its state (STL is the larger metro, but if we're talking skylines, it does not overshadow KC).
2. Better architecture?? The capitol building is very nice, but the rest is pretty bland to me. I prefer KCs architecture with the art deco towers.
3. Density seems to favor KC as well.
It really is true, KC is remarkable for its mix of newer and older towers. Many cities still have these art-deco buildings from the 20's and 30's, but KC seems to have more of a balance of the old and new, where many other established cities are seemingly overwhelmed with newer towers. I like!
Kansas City wins. St. Paul's skyline is nice when the State Capitol and Cathedral of St. Paul are included. However, it is too short and completely lacks tall glassy office towers which I would like to see for a lively city. To that end, I wouldn't rank Kansas City high either, but it is a little bit better than St. Paul.
Kansas City is not overshadowed by St. Louis. They are separated apart by the whole state of Missouri. One on the west side and one on the east. They are almost as far apart as possible for two cities in the same state. This is very different from Minneapolis and St. Paul. Development of St. Louis would hardly affect development of Kansas City. Besides, St. Louis is not that agressive about tall buildings either. Its skyline is more or less comparable to Kansas City's, although it is clearly the larger metro, and metro population is usually what matters in terms of everything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MN55
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.
