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.
Most people are surprised that SF actually has a sizable number of highrises and they are even more surprised that SF is now one of the most active cities as far as highrise development.
Since when is 3 buildings over 200 meters a sizeable number of high rises? SF looks more like paris to me. A city of mid rises.
414 high rises. But, of course the Bay Area hating Chicago troll will pretend that only buildings over 200 meters are "true" high rises... just because SF only has three of them. If Chicago had 3 over 200 meters, 67 from 100-200 meters, and 414 total, you would not be saying the same things...you would be vehemently defending Chicago's 414 high rises.
No I wouldn't, I would say that Chicago has a lot of midrises. But it doesn't it has alot of high rise buildings, SF does not. And pretending like SF is high rise is just a stretch of the imagination if you ask me. LA has taller and more compelling buildings than SF. Dont get me wrong I like it better than Dallas. But people love to hype of SF as if it is some sort of urban mecca when it is not. It just happens to be the only spot on west coast outside of seattle that has urban characteristics. Maybe my opinion would change if SF actually builds a real skyscrapper one day, but until then...its skyline is nothing special. It's hillside views are much more compelling than any buildings' view in the whole metro for crying out loud.
San Francisco has 70 buildings over 100 meters. That's 70 buildings taller than 328 feet. 11 of them are above 500 feet, and 7 are above 600 feet. Our two tallest towers are 853' and 779.' None of those are "real skyscrapers?" Stop deluding yourself.
SF not an urban mecca? LA doesn't have "urban characteristics?" ...if you say so
No I wouldn't, I would say that Chicago has a lot of midrises. But it doesn't it has alot of high rise buildings, SF does not. And pretending like SF is high rise is just a stretch of the imagination if you ask me. LA has taller and more compelling buildings than SF. Dont get me wrong I like it better than Dallas. But people love to hype of SF as if it is some sort of urban mecca when it is not. It just happens to be the only spot on west coast outside of seattle that has urban characteristics. Maybe my opinion would change if SF actually builds a real skyscrapper one day, but until then...its skyline is nothing special. It's hillside views are much more compelling than any buildings' view in the whole metro for crying out loud.
hahaha
sf is the 2nd densest city in the U.S after ny..sorry chic u lose
Actually sf is only the 2nd most dense city if you count cities with populations over 100k or so. There are suburbs in New Jersey that are more dense than SF.
San Francisco has 70 buildings over 100 meters. That's 70 buildings taller than 328 feet. 11 of them are above 500 feet, and 7 are above 600 feet. Our two tallest towers are 853' and 779.' None of those are "real skyscrapers?" Stop deluding yourself.
SF not an urban mecca? LA doesn't have "urban characteristics?" ...if you say so
Fair enough, you have a couple sky scrappers, and it is better than dallas. I just don't think sf's skyline is compelling, thats all.
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.
