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.
My vote goes to San Francisco. Yes, the Sutro Tower knocks SF's skyline down about 800,000 pegs. And YES all you SF boosters, the Sutro Tower IS apart of the SF skyline, you can see that thing from EVERYWHERE. .
Yes it is a part of the skyline, I don't know who would deny that...and I love the thing. It's ultra unique, there's nothing else like it in the world, that I know of. What other cities can say they have an alien spaceship docking platform/mind control antenna/doomsday device towering over everything?
Forget that fact that I'm from San Francisco, one would have to be very biased to put Dallas above San Francisco. Yes, the skyline of Dallas does have height that San Francisco does not have. But San Francisco's skyline is far more expansive, sits on the San Francisco Bay, and is complimented by 2 bridges and rolling hills. I've been to Dallas and to even compare the two skylines is just silly. San Francisco wins this one by a long shot.
Like every building except Fountain Plaza & the Trammel Crow Building. I don't count the one bulding (2nd tallest) with the stuff they threw on top of it which just looks silly. Almost all the other tall building are boxey.
Go on to Skyscraper Page and pull up the skyline Diagram and 95% of the buildings are boxey. SF had to make them boxey because it was a city ordinance due to the potential for Rooftop Evacuation via Helicopter during earthquakes. They have relaxed on that somewhat and now more buildings are taking chances.
Really nice pics of Dallas, but come on... I grew up and lived in the DFW area for most of my life, but you can't post pics of Dallas while the Trinity is flooded and act like it has a waterfront.
Nice pics, but San Francisco's night skyline is rather boring compared to Dallas' colorfully lit night skyline.
Because SF's skyline doesn't need green neon and blinking lights to catch someone's attention. It's skyline is what it is and nothing more. It isn't gaudy or garish... it performs it function perfectly by melding into the topography it's built on. The hills, the skyline, the waterfront, the bridges all work in unison and they don't take away from each other. Dallas has a tall, glassy, attractive skyline and that's all it offers. If you like standing 15 miles away and marveling at buildings that you have no desire to see up close then Dallas' skyline will look more appealing.
Because SF's skyline doesn't need green neon and blinking lights to catch someone's attention. It's skyline is what it is and nothing more. It isn't gaudy or garish... it performs it function perfectly by melding into the topography it's built on. The hills, the skyline, the waterfront, the bridges all work in unison and they don't take away from each other. Dallas has a tall, glassy, attractive skyline and that's all it offers. If you like standing 15 miles away and marveling at buildings that you have no desire to see up close then Dallas' skyline will look more appealing.
You're really not giving Dallas that much credit, man.
I'd say Dallas is my favorite of the two, it was pretty hard for me to decide!
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.
