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.
For me, a skyline is not about how tall the buildings are, but rather the mix of heights, the density, the architecture and the old and new mix of towers.
Memphis has a downtown density and good mix of building stock that makes it feel bigger than it is. From a distance, it appears much larger when approaching from Arkansas and the Mississippi River, due to how flat the terrain is all around the river delta region there.
I disagree about the pyramid. That's one of the coolest and most unique structures of any skyline. It adds a sleek and attractive aesthetic.
Back to height though, for example, Oklahoma City has a tallest skyscraper taller than those in Detroit, Baltimore, Boston, Phoenix or Tampa, but all of these cities have much better skylines thank OKC.
fair enough. and totally agree about OKC. not that i'd complain about having that building in my city, but man it just looks out of place.
This entire sequence below has me scratching my head quite a bit:
Orlando is severely underrated here. New Orleans severely overrated. If anything, I'd place Tampa and New Orleans as equals, with maybe Tampa ahead due to being more modern.
What Orlando lacks in height due to restrictions, it makes up for in aesthetic. Definitely higher than Jacksonville, Louisville and Memphis. Fort Lauderdale? Debatable. Same with Richmond and San Antonio.
But then... Compiling a list like that is no slouch, and I get that opinions will differ wildly.
I did take a renewed look at Orlando, and it does have a more impressive skyline now, than say, 10 years ago, easily.
I'd put it neck and neck with Louisville & Memphis. Better a bit than Jacksonville. Will definitely surpass Memphis and Louisville in the next decade most likely.
Buffalo always seems to be missing from these lists, probably because it doesn't go super tall, and the last decades have added density but not much height. I also think that most views on the US side don't provide a very good perspective, especially as the downtown area actually is a lower elevation than the rest of the city, and almost "hides" from other parts of town. The CBD also isn't as clustered as many other cities, and extends more on a N-S axis than E-W, that can seem like gaps depending where viewed.
That said, there are still some areas where one can get a pretty decent perspective of the skyline.
Closer Downtown view looking West and North from Seneca One tower showing downtown and city density
Of course I wouldn't put Buffalo in the top 30, but I still think it should lie somewhere within the top 50, if no other reason than its extensive intact pre-war buildings and extended skyline.
New York
Chicago
San Francisco
Philadelphia
Seattle
Miami
Atlanta
LA
Boston
Houston
Dallas
Minneappolis
Denver
Pittsburgh
Charlotte
San Diego
Austin
Cincy
Nashville
New Orleans
Portland
KC
Baltimore
St. Louis
Indy
Vegas has larger skyline than most of these cities. Seattle, Philly & SF over Miami when it has twice the amount of +400' buildings? (Same goes for Houston). Baltimore has twice as many +300' buildings as New Orleans, Portland, St. Louis, KC & Cincy?
I'm all for using architecture, density, layout to rank comparatively sized skylines, but those are massive disparities in size.
Omega
NYC
A++
Chicago
A+
Miami
(from here on out it's just tiered with orders being subjective)
A
Houston
SF
LA
Philly
Atlanta
Seattle
Las Vegas
Boston
Dallas
B
Minneappolis
Denver
Pittsburgh
Charlotte
San Diego
Austin
Nashville
Baltimore
I agree with your rankings, but in order to add on for the purpose of this thread, I'd like to add these to create a top 50.
A
Houston
B
Cleveland
Detroit
Honolulu
Tampa
C
New Orleans
Salt Lake
San Antonio
Columbus
Portland
Milwaukee
Jacksonville
Omaha
Ft. Lauderdale
Ft. Worth
Long Beach, CA
Phoenix
El Paso
Oklahoma City
Richmond
Hartford
Memphis
Louisville
Birmingham
Washington, DC (due to the monuments)
Everyone else outside the top 50 is a D or F. Still, even the "B" tier cities are still on the upper half of the Top 50.
Vegas has larger skyline than most of these cities. Seattle, Philly & SF over Miami when it has twice the amount of +400' buildings? (Same goes for Houston). Baltimore has twice as many +300' buildings as New Orleans, Portland, St. Louis, KC & Cincy?
I'm all for using architecture, density, layout to rank comparatively sized skylines, but those are massive disparities in size.
Omega
NYC
A++
Chicago
A+
Miami
(from here on out it's just tiered with orders being subjective)
A
Houston
SF
LA
Philly
Atlanta
Seattle
Las Vegas
Boston
Dallas
B
Minneappolis
Denver
Pittsburgh
Charlotte
San Diego
Austin
Nashville
Baltimore
C
KC
Portland
St. Louis
Indy
Cincy
This is a really good breakdown and ranking.
The only change I would make is to move Las Vegas to a "B."
Vegas has 55 or 60 + skyscrapers on the strip, and they are flashy, impressive--yet have super spotty density.
Vegas to me does not reflect a true city skyline like the rest of these, since Vegas' downtown is quite small and low-rising, if you move away from their strip.
Really, Miami deserves its own category? It's not that impressive to me; I'd throw it in with the B's along with Vegas. At the very least the A's. NYC and Chicago definitely are as they should be.
Vegas has larger skyline than most of these cities. Seattle, Philly & SF over Miami when it has twice the amount of +400' buildings? (Same goes for Houston). Baltimore has twice as many +300' buildings as New Orleans, Portland, St. Louis, KC & Cincy?
I'm all for using architecture, density, layout to rank comparatively sized skylines, but those are massive disparities in size.
Omega
NYC
A++
Chicago
A+
Miami
(from here on out it's just tiered with orders being subjective)
A
Houston
SF
LA
Philly
Atlanta
Seattle
Las Vegas
Boston
Dallas
B
Minneappolis
Denver
Pittsburgh
Charlotte
San Diego
Austin
Nashville
Baltimore
Really, Miami deserves its own category? It's not that impressive to me; I'd throw it in with the B's along with Vegas. At the very least the A's. NYC and Chicago definitely are as they should be.
Miami has 65 buildings +150m and 90 buildings +400'. That's over 2x as much as Seattle, SF, Boston, LA etc..
Sure it doesn't have beautiful architectural layering of SF or Philly but it's skyline (numerically) dwarfs anything that isn't NYC & Chicago.
Miami has 65 buildings +150m and 90 buildings +400'. That's over 2x as much as Seattle, SF, Boston, LA etc..
Sure it doesn't have beautiful architectural layering of SF or Philly but it's skyline (numerically) dwarfs anything that isn't NYC & Chicago.
But as you said, Miami doesn't have the architectural layering that NYC, Chicago, San Fran, and Philly have. That is a huge factor, skylines are more than just counting the tallest buildings.
Plus the tallest of NYC, Chicago, San Fran, Philly are more interesting than the Miami counterparts (IMO). Not saying Miami doesn't deserve a high spot, but not its own category, only NYC and Chicago deserve that.
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.
