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.
^^^great pic of Dallas, I like how BofA stands out like a big green thumb....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relegate
"What I mean by thin, is that in Dallas and Houston so much of the old stock has been razed for parking lots, that when you get off the ground and look down its like a downtown sprouting from the ground. San Francisco is like a downtown sprouting from a city."
This is a tangent, but - SLO - where do you think Seattle falls on that spectrum (Dallas thin vs. SF bulk "sprouting out of a city")? Is it more like Dallas & Houston or more like SF? I find it to be somewhere in the middle, but curious what you think.
Sure its a bit of a rant....
I think its clearl Seattle is in the middle. Seattle has a lot of the intangibles that San Francisco has, but has more old stock and close in neighborhoods than Dallas and Houston. Seattle always does well in skyline comparisons, for the same reasons San Francisco does.....
Honestly when I judge a skyline I only judge a skyline. Let's be honest here for a moment, everyone has a different opinion of what they like and not like. For example I hate the skylines of Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, & New York. They look so old, I just hate that. Lets move on to the 21st century here. Although New York's skyline at night with all the lights and stuff is awesome, I'm definitely more of a fan of it at night than during the day, when it looks so brownish and old. I prefer modern tall glassy skylines like Dubai, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Chicago, Singapore, & Frankfurt.
I'm still very young compared to many of you and its a psychological blanket for me to like cities that feel or look as young as me. I like Dallas's actual skyline more than San Francisco's for that very reason but its hard to argue against San Francisco on sheer size or Dallas on height. The deal breaker is San Francisco's setting which is awesome. I wont vote because it's nearly a tie for me but to suggest a preference in skyline is anything other than subjective is ridiculous.
You can argue a skyline is larger, taller, denser, and all that 9 ways to Sunday but you can never argue someone's opinion.
Honestly when I judge a skyline I only judge a skyline. Let's be honest here for a moment, everyone has a different opinion of what they like and not like. For example I hate the skylines of Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, & New York. They look so old, I just hate that. Lets move on to the 21st century here. Although New York's skyline at night with all the lights and stuff is awesome, I'm definitely more of a fan of it at night than during the day, when it looks so brownish and old. I prefer modern tall glassy skylines like Dubai, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Chicago, Singapore, & Frankfurt.
I'm still very young compared to many of you and its a psychological blanket for me to like cities that feel or look as young as me. I like Dallas's actual skyline more than San Francisco's for that very reason but its hard to argue against San Francisco on sheer size or Dallas on height. The deal breaker is San Francisco's setting which is awesome. I wont vote because it's nearly a tie for me but to suggest a preference in skyline is anything other than subjective is ridiculous.
You can argue a skyline is larger, taller, denser, and all that 9 ways to Sunday but you can never argue someone's opinion.
You hurt me inside...
For the second, def true, but people can't help but try and prove people they've never met (and probably never will) wrong on the internet!
Don't take it (or this) personally. I completely understand the allure for older things (even though I disagree with it).
I'm just not into old. I hate old. Old anything basically. I have arguments with friends all the time. Number one topic is Jetsons or Flintstones and I go with the Jetsons all day. The future is such a mystery (the past is so history) and modernization and new things (especially shiny things) just catch my eye so fast while old things make me go like "wow, this is sooooooo before my time".
Look at the way it sparkles and twists and turns and looks so advanced for its time. If I lived in Dubai, wow I would feel like I live in the city of RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW! I love that, I want that!
Looks like its from my great grandfathers time period, oh that's because it is. Geez I can only imagine the parties and the scene was like back then. No iPhone's (hell I update my iPhone to the newest one every year, because the old one gets, well, old!), no internet, no advanced technology, no nothing (that I care for).
I do like some of New York's new buildings though and I love Comcast Center in Phildelphia. I was hoping they get ACC moving too (loved the glass facade) but that one died.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caesarstl
For the second, def true, but people can't help but try and prove people they've never met (and probably never will) wrong on the internet!
Haha its whatever, people should have their opinions, be proud of it, and just move on and let others have theirs, in my opinion.
Just for a second, let's get away from the San Fran vs. Dallas part of this. I have to ask.... do some of you think the Dallas skyline is just not known at all? And this isn't a knock or directly twoards you, lrfox. It just seems to be a way of thinking here that the Dallas skyline (and the city for that matter) really isn't known at all.
I'll give the "wow factor" to San Fran as well, because of the location/backdrop. But ONLY because of that. I still say Dallas has the more, let's say, creative skyline.
Yeah, absolutely fewer.
Look, I'm not trying to say that Dallas has a bad skyline. It doesn't. It's one of the best in the country (better than my home city- Boston), and it's very pretty. I'm sure plenty of people from outside of Dallas would recognize it. I would in a heartbeat. However, the thread is San Francisco vs. Dallas and there's really no comparison. More people are familiar with SF's iconic skyline than they are with Dallas's. Not a shot at Dallas which has a great skyline.
What's bugging me about this thread is that the Dallas supporters keep going "well because of the backdrop... nature... bridge... hills... etc." Make no mistake about it, those things are a factor. However, they're a very real part of the skyline. When people look at the SF skyline, they're not using some sort of tunnel vision to block out the mountains, bay and bridges. They're looking at the complete package. It all goes together and SF's is much more attractive in my opinion regardless of the reasons. It just is.
Now for hypotheticals. If you cut Dallas's skyline and put it where San Francisco's is while cutting San Francisco's and putting it where Dallas's is, I bet Dallas's would be prettier. Natural setting plays a huge role in the appeal. But we can't just exclude the natural setting from the equation. It's like saying an ice cream sundae is only good because of the hot fudge and whipped cream. If you didn't have hot fudge and whipped cream, the plain chocolate ice cream would be better. Maybe so, but the sundae has the fudge and whipped cream and it is soooo good.
My advice and nothing more than that, when you see a place in person. It will change your perspective. I don't know if you are going off of photos or real life experience. My opinion is alway this, when you are standing on street level or flying over a skyline, it does something to the way that it looks online or in photos. I've seen some great skylines in real life, and I will say that some of them were not nearly impressive on photos (or vice versa). Just like some people photograph well; some skylines do the same thing. But in person .... oiieeee!
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Matrix Revolution
Honestly when I judge a skyline I only judge a skyline. Let's be honest here for a moment, everyone has a different opinion of what they like and not like. For example I hate the skylines of Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, & New York. They look so old, I just hate that. Lets move on to the 21st century here. Although New York's skyline at night with all the lights and stuff is awesome, I'm definitely more of a fan of it at night than during the day, when it looks so brownish and old. I prefer modern tall glassy skylines like Dubai, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Chicago, Singapore, & Frankfurt.
I'm still very young compared to many of you and its a psychological blanket for me to like cities that feel or look as young as me. I like Dallas's actual skyline more than San Francisco's for that very reason but its hard to argue against San Francisco on sheer size or Dallas on height. The deal breaker is San Francisco's setting which is awesome. I wont vote because it's nearly a tie for me but to suggest a preference in skyline is anything other than subjective is ridiculous.
You can argue a skyline is larger, taller, denser, and all that 9 ways to Sunday but you can never argue someone's opinion.
What's bugging me about this thread is that the Dallas supporters keep going "well because of the backdrop... nature... bridge... hills... etc." Make no mistake about it, those things are a factor. However, they're a very real part of the skyline. When people look at the SF skyline, they're not using some sort of tunnel vision to block out the mountains, bay and bridges. They're looking at the complete package. It all goes together and SF's is much more attractive in my opinion regardless of the reasons. It just is.
Now for hypotheticals. If you cut Dallas's skyline and put it where San Francisco's is while cutting San Francisco's and putting it where Dallas's is, I bet Dallas's would be prettier. Natural setting plays a huge role in the appeal. But we can't just exclude the natural setting from the equation. It's like saying an ice cream sundae is only good because of the hot fudge and whipped cream. If you didn't have hot fudge and whipped cream, the plain chocolate ice cream would be better. Maybe so, but the sundae has the fudge and whipped cream and it is soooo good.
Now... off to the ice cream shop.
I guess when you grow up in North Texas like I did, you don't see mountains and ocean as an important factor in a skyline because, well, there are none. Because of this, there's more importance on just the buildings themselves which would explain why the Dallas backers don't care or even see the backdrop as a big deal.
The closest to San Francisco's waterfront-like set up is this.... and that's not even IN Dallas, or even built yet.
My advice and nothing more than that, when you see a place in person. It will change your perspective. I don't know if you are going off of photos or real life experience. My opinion is alway this, when you are standing on street level or flying over a skyline, it does something to the way that it looks online or in photos. I've seen some great skylines in real life, and I will say that some of them were not nearly impressive on photos (or vice versa). Just like some people photograph well; some skylines do the same thing. But in person .... oiieeee!
I appreciate the time you took to offer me advice. That's awesome of you to do so.
Actually skylines are the first things I want to see in a city when I get there bar none. I'm a very skyline obsessed person and have been since the age of 9 when I started collecting skyline posters for my bedroom wall. I now am a grown adult and have my own place in Austin that I room with friends from childhood. We all just finished college here and want to settle here. My apartment is full of skyline posters from around the world, I have plenty of night time New York ones too (none of its dayline (I call skylines during the day a dayline). See my issue with judging a skyline off foot is that you don't see a skyline, you see numerous skyscrapers and from the air (plane) you see the depth of urbanity not the skyline. It's a one dimensional view, it shows you size but not height (unless you're flying perpendicular to the skyline which very few commercial planes do).
I think the one thing I should clarify though is that I don't have a tolerance for any skyscraper (or skyline) older than 1970. It just looks plain old to me. Like I mentioned before though I like glass, metal, twists & turns, incredible height, & modern design. I don't have any appreciation for anything historic to be honest. Dubai & Hong Kong are beasts, I'm jealous that those cities and their skylines are not in America. I haven't been to Dubai but I hear it's a modern wonderland especially with the marina and stuff. I've been to Hong Kong and it was AWESOME, bar none my favorite city in the world.
and if you do want to count it from 300 feet upwards, here's how they compare:
SF: 95
Dallas: 57
If you go by the emporis skyscraper definition, that leaves the following number of highrises between 12 stories and 330 feet in each city (including built, as well as proposed, under-construction, demolished, and unbuilt buildings... because it's all mixed together, and I'm not about to sort through ALL of that data):
SF: 412
Dallas: 259*
*that Dallas number includes at least 111 radio masts, and well over a dozen unbuilt/demolished buildings, which obviously don't count...I stopped adding them up once i got that far (SF by comparison only had two radio masts in the stats, and maybe a dozen unbuilt/demolished buildings). So Dallas has more like 100+ highrises between 12 stories and 330 feet, not 259 of them, while SF's number is still more or less correct at about 400.
So yeah, Dallas has some taller tallests. But SF has more total skyscrapers than Dallas (4 or 27 more, depending on the definition used), and far more total highrises than Dallas, no matter how you measure it.
Last edited by rah; 06-07-2012 at 05:53 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.
You hurt me inside...
