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.
Agreed, it should be at Philly's level in height, IMHO.
*Homers, please note the "IMHO" part*
Boston's downtown is about 2 miles from Logan Int'l Airport so height restrictions prevent supertalls. There is also a lot of community opposition to tall buildings as well.
the Hancock building is the tallest at about 800 feet.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,041,021 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua
Boston's downtown is about 2 miles from Logan Int'l Airport so height restrictions prevent supertalls. There is also a lot of community opposition to tall buildings as well.
the Hancock building is the tallest at about 800 feet.
I like Boston and at street level I would choose it - from a pure skyline - the edge goes to Houston. But Boston does have great vantage points; especially from the water. Houston wins on skyline but i do think Boston is under-rated - height isnt everything
I think the odd piece here is when in the Downtown of boston it feels bigger but this is likely from density. In terms of preferance on spending time downtown Boston hands down; but on the same respect the Skyline of Houston has much much more height overall
However, there is no way it should be within one vote of Houston for better skyline. Either a whole bunch of NEers are voting for it out of favoritism or a whole bunch of people really have not been to Houston or at least seen good pictures of it's skyline and how it trails off for miles to the West and southwest in clusters of high rises. It's really hard to capture the feel of Houston's skyline in a photograph and it doesn't help that most of the ones you will find are slightly dated pictures of the CBD.
Houston wins this hands down for height, recognizable buildings, niceness of buildings in general, and overall look.
I still think Boston is a very nice city. The skyline just really is not one of its strong points.
Houston easily wins here. Boston's skyline is pretty weak IMO, for its size and location it should be a lot more impressive. Nothing about it really comes off as impressive. Houston's skyline is overall a lot better in most ways actually. I wouldn't rank Houston all that high on its own, but it blows Boston out of the water as far as skylines are concerned.
Nah, skyscraperpage is a bit off when it tells you the total number of high rises, my friend Dylan who actually designs the web layouts and codes it, even told me they put estimates on the total for the metro area, instead of the city.
A better location for number of buildings would be emporis. They're spot on.
skyscraperpage is better for proposed, under construction, canceled, or existing tall buildings information.
The actual number of highrises in a city, they tend to lack general information for that... pretty much they fail in that department.
^Well then lets stipulate that the website is equally incorrect for both cities. And Boston still comes out on top.
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.
