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.
SF is larger and at street level it's no competition. SF has more skyscrapers over a larger area, has FAR greater skyscraper density, more old buildings, etc etc. It is NOT a photogenic skyline at all in the way that Seattle's is.
Seattle is one of the most photogenic skylines in the world, honestly. SF has recognizable buildings and it will all change in 2017 when what is UC now is built (incl a 1,070 footer), but until then, Seattle's skyline has the form, better postmodern architecture (by far from a skyline perspective and individual post-1975 tall building way), and it's quite sizable with a beautiful backdrop to boot.
SF is hillier, but you really wouldn't even know it from most of SF's postcard skyline views. Seattle slants upward directly from the water and is surrounded by the Cascades and immediate hills (Capitol Hill).
seattle is very nice. I wud say that seattle is #4 skyline in usa. but, that being said, I think the sf skyline is much better becaue it is far too dense and has too many highrises compared to seattle.. SF wins no doubt
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.
