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.
Actually, ranking Oakland at #54 is ridiculous. I have been to most of the cities on this list, and many of them do not measure up to Oakland - by a long shot.
Well its nice to read something positive about Oakland. LOL
Anyway as already clarified by jluke, this is probably about height and what not.
I am pleased to report that our city, long a place that seemed against height, has actually passed zoning laws specifically meant to facilitate much taller buildings. We should be seeing improvements in height.
The Woodlands, TX shouldn't even be on that list. It's a suburb north of Houston that has one building that actually stands out. The rest of the building are so small that you really don't even see them. One building does not make a skyline.
This list is a complete joke. It doesn't go by height either. I never seen such a bull sh t list. Let's start with Cleveland at 19. You can't be serious. Little Rock and Mobile ahead of Newark, Omaha, Memphis and Buffalo? Please. I don't think so. Orlando at 61. Their downtown sucks. No way, I know better. Orlando ahead of Dayton, Providence, and Toledo as well as many others. You can't be serious.. Columbus at 22. Now I know that this is a joke. Atlanta at 6? Ahead of Boston, Miami, Dallas, Philly, Seattle,..Oh please. Spare me the hurtin to my ribs from laughing. Phoenix at 38? HAAAAAAAAAA!. St. Paul at 43? HAAAAAAAA. Des Moines at 44? AAAAHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
This list is nonsense. Kansas City last. Are you serious. Mobile!!!!! You are kidding us arent you? I wont even bother about the other 30 or so that should not even be on the list.......
This list is a complete joke. It doesn't go by height either. I never seen such a bull sh t list. Let's start with Cleveland at 19. You can't be serious. Little Rock and Mobile ahead of Newark, Omaha, Memphis and Buffalo? Please. I don't think so. Orlando at 61. Their downtown sucks. No way, I know better. Orlando ahead of Dayton, Providence, and Toledo as well as many others. You can't be serious.. Columbus at 22. Now I know that this is a joke. Atlanta at 6? Ahead of Boston, Miami, Dallas, Philly, Seattle,..Oh please. Spare me the hurtin to my ribs from laughing. Phoenix at 38? HAAAAAAAAAA!. St. Paul at 43? HAAAAAAAA. Des Moines at 44? AAAAHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
This list is nonsense. Kansas City last. Are you serious. Mobile!!!!! You are kidding us arent you? I wont even bother about the other 30 or so that should not even be on the list.......
This list is a joke.
KC, KS is last. But KC, MO is 23rd...which is relatively close I would say.
But I agree, there are some that are pretty skewed...not a bad list for how many cities are included though. I probably couldn't have done any better if it was at the top of my head.
Per World's Best Skylines, the following is a ranking of all U.S. City skylines based on the following criteria:
Total number of meters above 90 for all buildings, including those currently under construction. IMO, this is a good measure of skylines as it balances height and sheer number of buildings.
Location: The land of sugar... previously Houston and Austin
5,429 posts, read 14,844,510 times
Reputation: 3672
Quote:
Originally Posted by MilesBloodAxe
Per World's Best Skylines, the following is a ranking of all U.S. City skylines based on the following criteria:
Total number of meters above 90 for all buildings, including those currently under construction. IMO, this is a good measure of skylines as it balances height and sheer number of buildings.
1. New York, NY (incl. Jersey City, NJ)
2. Chicago, IL
3. Houston, TX
4. Los Angeles, CA
5. San Francisco, CA
....
Interesting. Especially considering someone in another recent thread was insistent Houston had no decent skyline. Thanks.
I think that's kind of a retarded way of evaluating a skyline, just based on the number of +90M buildings. Aren't layout, architecture, and geological setting also important factors?
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.
Miami is probably too low
New list
