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.
yep. San Francisco is DENSED.There aren't a lot of tall towers but there are a lot of skyscrapers compacted in the grid. Most of SF is developed except for the Transbay Terminal/Tower area. Dallas has open space and surface parking lots. San Franciscans are hip, cosmopolitan, innovative, progressive; Dallas residents are urban cowboys.
Look, it's one thing to talk about the density, and yes San Francisco IS more dense. LOOK AT WHERE THE CITY IS LOCATED. It's not like San Fran has a lot of flat land to spread out.
But when you start throwing out the same tired ass stereotypes about these cities, it becomes a turn off....
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,099,088 times
Reputation: 1028
Dallas may have some taller buildings, but falls far flat from San Francisco. It has no coastline, no bay, and not any kind of topography that could even remotely compete with San Francisco. IMO, San Francisco wins by 5 miles.
Dallas may have some taller buildings, but falls far flat from San Francisco. It has no coastline, no bay, and not any kind of topography that could even remotely compete with San Francisco. IMO, San Francisco wins by 5 miles.
Here's the truth: 99.9% of San Franciscans never think about Dallas, TX. And they wouldn't care if it had 10X more skyscrapers. Which is why this thread was started by someone from the Dallas area and not SF. Dallas is a fine city in it's own right but it's just not in the same category as San Francisco and it never will be no matter how many shiny skyscrapers they erect.
Here's the truth: 99.9% of San Franciscans never think about Dallas, TX. And they wouldn't care if it had 10X more skyscrapers. Which is why this thread was started by someone from the Dallas area and not SF. Dallas is a fine city in it's own right but it's just not in the same category as San Francisco and it never will be no matter how many shiny skyscrapers they erect.
.... except for the number of San Franciscans and other Californians who keep moving here, apparently.
What started out as a thread comparing skylines turned into another "take a shot" thing.
^^ What are you talking about? Dallas' skyline in design is in no way far behind San Francisco's. I think its location and the city itself is influencing you.
San Francisco has a beautiful skyline. However, there's too many bland designs for me. Love the Transamerica, but other than that, there aren't many towers that will capture my attention (there are others). Dallas has the BOA, and Fountain Tower, as well as many really interesting designs
SF also has the BofA Tower, Coit Tower, and the bridges (if you include them in the skyline). Dallas isn't bad though.
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.
