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.
Look at the picture above closely. Mexico City's skyline or even Toronto do not look anywhere near as impressive as Chicago.
And out of Mexico City, Toronto, and Chicago...Chicago by far has the least weaknesses becuz it possesses everything that an amazing skyline would ever have while the others lack important qualities.
With the exception of Manhattan, Chicago EASILY has the best skyline in North America. Chicago's behemoth skyline is reverred and world famous for a reason. With 100 buildings over 500 feet concentrated in a small area, it is absolutely massive, super-tall, and incredibly dense.
I totally agree. Using your metric (# of buildings over 500 ft) then Chicago has, easily, the #2 skyline in North America (or the Americas for that matter). No other city is even in the conversation.
In fact, using this metric, no other city besides NYC and one or two in Asia are superior to Chicago.
BUT, I am saying that this is not the only metric. Why 500 feet? Why not 300 feet? How about 700 feet?
If you use other metrics, suddenly other cities are more competitive. If you use Emporis stats, then other cities have more highrises.
And, one must look into other details.
Why are Chicago buildings so tall? Well, they are packed in only one part of the metropolitan area, and their height is exaggerated by 20%-25% because they all have large parking garages at the base. The actual building often doesn't start until the 20th floor or so.
Why should Chicago be "rewarded" by encouraging driving, and by not putting parking underground?
In Mexico City, for example, there are highrises scattered in various districts, and, while there are many parking garages at the bases of buildings, I would not say it is like Chicago, where every building has artificically inflated height because of the parking garage.
Also, architecture should play a role in the discussion. Mexico City has amazing modern architecture that looks like its from another planet.
Scenery is also arguably a factor. Is there a difference between a 30-floor building on a flat plain, and one perched dramatically on a cliff, with a skybridge to another building? I would say there is a difference.
I totally agree. Using your metric (# of buildings over 500 ft) then Chicago has, easily, the #2 skyline in North America (or the Americas for that matter). No other city is even in the conversation.
In fact, using this metric, no other city besides NYC and one or two in Asia are superior to Chicago.
BUT, I am saying that this is not the only metric. Why 500 feet? Why not 300 feet? How about 700 feet?
If you use other metrics, suddenly other cities are more competitive. If you use Emporis stats, then other cities have more highrises.
And, one must look into other details.
Why are Chicago buildings so tall? Well, they are packed in only one part of the metropolitan area, and their height is exaggerated by 20%-25% because they all have large parking garages at the base. The actual building often doesn't start until the 20th floor or so.
Why should Chicago be "rewarded" by encouraging driving, and by not putting parking underground?
In Mexico City, for example, there are highrises scattered in various districts, and, while there are many parking garages at the bases of buildings, I would not say it is like Chicago, where every building has artificically inflated height because of the parking garage.
Also, architecture should play a role in the discussion. Mexico City has amazing modern architecture that looks like its from another planet.
Scenery is also arguably a factor. Is there a difference between a 30-floor building on a flat plain, and one perched dramatically on a cliff, with a skybridge to another building? I would say there is a difference.
If Mexico City has such a great skyline and compete with Chicago why does Mexico City have 2 votes and Chicago 16 votes
i'd take panama city, panama over 90% of american cities
Oh man I forgot about Panama City it has a killer skyline!
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.
