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.
Yeah, I like to uses peer/tier grouping rather than baseless A>B>C logic
NYC, Chicago & Miami are the skyscraper outliers…. for obvious reasons.
All the other skylines have wayyyy to many factors that could place them above, even or below other skylines in their “peer” group. Height, setting, density, layout, architecture all play cumulative factors.
It would be interesting to do secondary skylines, outside of easy walking distance from the main skyline.
Brooklyn (just barely far enough away)
Jersey City
A section or two of Miami outside its core
Bellevue
Buckhead
Century City
Long Island City
Newark
etc.
I agree some of those secondary city skylines, can be surprisingly good. In different parts of the US, examples include Evanston, IL, Clayton, MO, Long Beach, CA, Bellevue, WA, and Tacoma, WA.
When I measure aesthetics, density, height, and whether it's a true downtown as opposed to beachfront high-rises then my list will go as follows:
NYC: duh. This city has all of America's skylines in one borough and then some.
CHI: of course it's 2nd with no competition in sight right now. Broad shoulder skyline with a strong posture like no other. Home of the skyscraper.
SF: definitely 3rd. It would be Miami but not all of it is a true downtown just a bunch of beachfront condos that stretch far down the shore. SF is comparable to parts of Manhattan in its skyline density and architecture diversity. Looks like a smaller slice of Hong Kong sometime with the new highrises added to the city
PHI: a true downtown with highrises ranging from all eras in time and historical landmarks that make you appreciate this city's history
SEA: expansive skyline with density and different eras of architecture. It's still growing and will pass Philly soon but right now Philly skyline is too urban to be replaced by Seattle.
MIA: though it has a bunch of beach condos, it still warrants some type of credit for the amount of continuous high-rises. Outside of that the skyline is ugly and bland.
HOU: Houston have some tall modern buildings that stands firm and powerful like Chicago but with much less buildings. The skyline broke the image I had of Texas.
LA: though the skyline doesn't match the population of the area it is still a large Skyline with an imposing height on the building's it does have. The skyline is also growing and stretching towards other skylines in the region. I believe in the future they will all connect and out of nowhere Los Angeles will become the second-largest Skyline in the next 50 years. Just a wild guess though lol
BOS: naturally I wanted to pick Atlanta but since it doesn't have the density of Boston it makes it not as impressive of a central Skyline to me. Density means urbanity which means more human activity which means more of a production of a sophisticated and enlightened American society with more developed personalities in my opinion so the more of that the better.
^I think Charlotte's skyline is severely underrated here. That shot is amazing.
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.
