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.
boston defntly, it has the density the nice architechture (and i love how a lot of the buildings are brown) and its right on the water. Houston has no density at all no natural settings, it basically looks like a bunch of tall buildings just thrown in random spots
I agree, there is no backbone to Houstons skyline its just buildings thrown together.
I agree, there is no backbone to Houstons skyline its just buildings thrown together.
And isn't the world mostly composed of cultures, people, civilizations, etc just "thrown together". Houston, and its skyline, are a representation of this. Randomness is just as intriguing, if not more, than careful placement. May not be as aesthetically appealing, but at least you know there's more to the picture than meets the eye.
Imo, its not the buildings that are thrown together, as much as the concentration of buildings that are thrown together; the latter of which is why you see so many high rise clusters in the various localities of Houston.
We have no need to "stipulate" the official stats are right here; - Also if you want, there's a page that will give you the detail on every building in the city on Emporis, all 231 for Boston and 354 for Houston. Enjoy!
Emporis has the right amount, it's a legitimate website that a major corporation actually updates all the time.
Skyscraperpage was a website created by a kid who had a hobby for skyscrapers, he doesn't frequently update/display all the proper information. Dylan is lazy, he's normally always high, and he pays people in Vietnam to update his page for him whenever they do. They just do a cruddy job. lol.
Don't forget, Boston numbers don't include surrounding communities like Cambridge, which is across the river.
I think Houston wins on skyline, but Boston is a more beautiful city at street level. I think Boston's skyline is hurt by the fact that its airport is nearby and the fact that it can't have tall buildings.
And isn't the world mostly composed of cultures, people, civilizations, etc just "thrown together". Houston, and its skyline, are a representation of this. Randomness is just as intriguing, if not more, than careful placement. May not be as aesthetically appealing, but at least you know there's more to the picture than meets the eye.
Imo, its not the buildings that are thrown together, as much as the concentration of buildings that are thrown together; the latter of which is why you see so many high rise clusters in the various localities of Houston.
I really liked the way you said that because your right. Our skyline matches Houstons overall diversity. This is what makes Houston's skyline so unique.
Boston's is beautiful on the water. Houston's is beautiful and tall. I like them both. But I love Houston's different skylines.
Yeah, Boston's setting on the water make it look really nice. Houston's overall density (of the Downtown skyline) and massiveness of the other skylines dotted around the landscape make Houston unique.
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.
