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.
An impressive skyline has "wow" factor. One reason I've never cared to visit DC, besides the fact I find political types extremely annoying. No skyline at all.
Crazy talk.
Skylines are completely overrated. They can be nice to look at, Chicago's in particular. But they add next to nothing with regards to my enjoyment of the city. Most financial districts where these skyscrapers are located are dull anyway.
An impressive skyline has "wow" factor. One reason I've never cared to visit DC, besides the fact I find political types extremely annoying. No skyline at all.
DC may not have a ton of tall buildings but it does have wonderful architecture that to a lot of people is more pleasing to the eye than some gigantic boxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
Crazy talk.
Most financial districts where these skyscrapers are located are dull anyway.
Skylines are completely overrated. They can be nice to look at, Chicago's in particular. But they add next to nothing with regards to my enjoyment of the city. Most financial districts where these skyscrapers are located are dull anyway.
Chicago's looks a lot better at night when you can't tell that most of the buildings are very old.
DC may not have a ton of tall buildings but it does have wonderful architecture that to a lot of people is more pleasing to the eye than some gigantic boxes.
Not have a ton? Try none at all.
Basically every State Capitol could be dropped in DC and you wouldn't even notice, that boring style just blends in there.
Location: Pittsburgh (via Chicago, via Pittsburgh)
3,887 posts, read 5,489,993 times
Reputation: 3107
skylines and architecture are an aesthetic quality just like mountains, oceans and other forms of admirable scenery are....but they also have another trait..functionality. Those who dismiss the skyscraper need a major lesson in the value of urban space. I guess places like New York and Chicago should just sprawl for a hundred miles and not build up? I don't care if YOU don't care about skylines... but don't try to "dismiss" them with petty arguments about Walmart building a skyscraper in Arkansas...get real.
I like and appreciate city skylines, but I can't imagine spending a bunch of time in a forum having heated arguments about the superiority of one city's skyline over another.
I admire a skyline with unique architecture, character and recognizability.
If I were shown unlabeled photos of skylines of large American cities, I would in fact be able to identify only the skylines with those criteria.
The sheer height of buildings does not alone make a city's skyline great.
I agree that the emphasis on skylines is overblown. As a day-to-day matter, there are far more important factors that will make a city a good or bad place to live.
That being said, skylines do look cool (in my opinion, of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder), and they do serve a function. Sure, some buildings are driven largely by vanity, but for some places skyscrapers really are the most efficient form of building b/c otherwise the sprawl would be even worse than it already is. As for why it is such a popular thing to debate, I think that is largely b/c it is an easy thing to debate...skyscrapers are tangible objects that can easily be quantified, whereas talking about more intangible qualities of a city it is hard to back up your argument with hard facts and numbers.
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.