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.
I like how about 500 pictures of downtown SF have been posted, and some people are still saying things like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jluke65780
SF density is med-low rises and doesn't have a huge impact on the skyline.
I think we can tell who didn't read the thread. SF literally has hundreds of highrises. That is a fact, not an idea, or an opinion. It's true that towers in downtown SF average around 400-500 feet tall or thereabouts (the tallest four towers range from 645' to 853' feet)...but there are tons of towers in SF, most being packed very densly in downtown. Plus, 400-500 feet...even 300 feet, isn't exactly a "midrise." No they're not supertalls either, but they ain't short.
so i guess dallas kills paris and london also then? :/ i agree dallas has bigger monster buildings but that isn't all of the skyline to me.
sky·line (skln)n.1. The line along which the surface of the earth and the sky appear to meet; the horizon. 2. The outline of a group of buildings or a mountain range seen against the sky.
To me, those are just very technical definitions, and most people (especially on C-D) use the word "skyline" to talk about a concentration of skyscrapers. I guess it just depends on one's definition.
yes lets see what emporis has to say, since everybody is going to have their favorites...lets look at #'s.
San Francisco is known as the air-conditioned city because of its two-season climate: a cool, pleasant summer and a mild spring. Flowers bloom throughout the year, and warm clothing is needed every month. Sea fogs and associated low stratus clouds are a striking characteristic of the city climate. On average, though, the sun shines during 66% of the daylight hours. There are wide contrasts in climate within short distances of the bay. Nearby communities of Marin County, to the north across the Golden Gate and sheltered from the prevailing winds by high peaks and ridges of the Coast Ranges, enjoy warmer and sunnier weather than the city.
Tall Buildings in San Francisco:
414 http://www.emporis.com/files/status/building/green.gif (broken link) existing 43 http://www.emporis.com/files/status/building/blue.gif (broken link) planned 20 http://www.emporis.com/files/status/building/red.gif (broken link) demolished 13 http://www.emporis.com/files/status/building/yellow.gif (broken link) unbuilt 6 http://www.emporis.com/files/status/building/green-blue.gif (broken link) under construction
A major inland American city, Dallas is, by far, the largest city in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex - a multi-polar regional metropolis. The city and metropolitan area lies amidst vast, high, and varying rolling prairies - with hundreds of large & small lakes, rivers, creeks, waterways and meanders.
Dallas, called "Big D", is often a reference to where 'America's East really ends,' and Fort Worth is where 'America's West really begins.'
Tall Buildings in Dallas:
241 http://www.emporis.com/files/status/building/green.gif (broken link) existing 44 http://www.emporis.com/files/status/building/yellow.gif (broken link) unbuilt 20 http://www.emporis.com/files/status/building/blue.gif (broken link) planned 15 http://www.emporis.com/files/status/building/red.gif (broken link) demolished 9 http://www.emporis.com/files/status/building/green-blue.gif (broken link) under construction
So for all this density doesn't mean that much and actual buildings crowd... SF has an additional 173 buildings over Dallas...
When I think of cool skylines with good density is Seattle, Philadelphia, Chicago, Houston, Boston, and a few others. SF density is med-low rises and doesn't have a huge impact on the skyline.
I know you love your town, but Houston really doesn't deserve to be on that list with those other cities in terms of skyline density. Take out Houston and put in San Francisco, and you've got an accurate list.
I'm just curious: I wonder if the same people who think Dallas has a better skyline than San Francisco also think that Atlanta's skyline is superior to San Francisco's. After all, Atlanta's buildings are even more unique and architecturally varied than Dallas's.
Yes I do. I think Atlanta has an even better skyline than Dallas. In terms of building skyline, Atlanta>Dallas>SF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akhenaton06
I know you love your town, but Houston really doesn't deserve to be on that list with those other cities in terms of skyline density. Take out Houston and put in San Francisco, and you've got an accurate list.
I'm just curious: I wonder if the same people who think Dallas has a better skyline than San Francisco also think that Atlanta's skyline is superior to San Francisco's. After all, Atlanta's buildings are even more unique and architecturally varied than Dallas's.
I'll give a few cities, including Atlanta an edge over SF in terms of architecture, and flashy lit up crowns on buildings and such...but in my opinion dense masses of high rises beat out smaller, less dense skylines that happen to have a few more "unique" towers.
I'll give a few cities, including Atlanta an edge over SF in terms of architecture, and flashy lit up crowns on buildings and such...but in my opinion dense masses of high rises beat out smaller, less dense skylines that happen to have a few more "unique" towers.
I'm from Texas. Was born here, blah, blah, blah. But! I voted for San Francisco.
When I lived in Oakland and traveled into work in The City I loved to mix up my commute and take a transbay bus just so that I could see the view of The City coming in across the Bay Bridge. Hard to see whilst sitting underwater in the Transbay Tube. The view rolling in on the Bay Bridge, right as you slip through Treasure Island, never, ever failed to take my breath away. Also, I used to visit a friend who lived in the Oakland Hills who had a deck with a sensational view of The City, The Bay Bridge, and The Golden Gate Bridge (you could see the Richmond Bay from there also). We'd sit in her hot tub with red wine and watch the sun set. Some of my favorite moments were spent sitting from that vantage point and watching as the fog came in and encased The City.
I know you love your town, but Houston really doesn't deserve to be on that list with those other cities in terms of skyline density. Take out Houston and put in San Francisco, and you've got an accurate list.
I'm just curious: I wonder if the same people who think Dallas has a better skyline than San Francisco also think that Atlanta's skyline is superior to San Francisco's. After all, Atlanta's buildings are even more unique and architecturally varied than Dallas's.
Actually Downtown Houston has very good density. I'm speaking on how density effects a skyline. SF density is too low to really make an impact on its taller buildings. Also, I too believe ATL has a better skyline than SF. It's not a fact that SF has a better one. SF skyline is nice, but it lacks height and uniqueness.
It's decent, but not near the density of the skylines of Seattle, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Boston. But I don't want to get sidetracked here with that side argument.
Quote:
SF density is too low to really make an impact on its taller buildings.
I disagree. San Francisco has a dense skyline and street-level density:
Now what I will say is that due to the topography of the city, the "backside" doesn't have much in the way of highrises due to the hilliness of the area, so from that vantage point, it can appear as though the city doesn't have a dense skyline. But it's the topography that gives that illusion.
Last edited by JMT; 07-08-2012 at 03:54 PM..
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.
I think we can tell who didn't read the thread. SF literally has hundreds of highrises. That is a fact, not an idea, or an opinion. It's true that towers in downtown SF average around 400-500 feet tall or thereabouts (the tallest four towers range from 645' to 853' feet)...but there are tons of towers in SF, most being packed very densly in downtown. Plus, 400-500 feet...even 300 feet, isn't exactly a "midrise." No they're not supertalls either, but they ain't short.
The view rolling in on the Bay Bridge, right as you slip through Treasure Island, never, ever failed to take my breath away. Also, I used to visit a friend who lived in the Oakland Hills who had a deck with a sensational view of The City, The Bay Bridge, and The Golden Gate Bridge (you could see the Richmond Bay from there also). We'd sit in her hot tub with red wine and watch the sun set. Some of my favorite moments were spent sitting from that vantage point and watching as the fog came in and encased The City. 