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.
Phoenix - WAY too high at #16 (probably not even Top 25 for me)
New Orleans - strictly judged by its skyline is also too high (Top 50 yes... Top 25 no)
Los Angeles - not in the Top 5 (Top 10 yes)
I love Phoenix' skyline and its setting. Sure, it's lower rise, and needs a lot of density, but it is a beautiful skyline, even as-is.
The way it goes from downtown to midtown Phoenix is beautiful, and driving from the north mountains into Phoenix, it is really striking.
New Orleans has a significant amount of high rises over 300 feet--26 total, and that is more than Indianapolis, Cincinnati, St Louis, Cleveland, San Antonio, etc. I like how dense it is and has a solid overall skyline.
LA's setting is stunning, and density downtown keeps getting better, as does height. I think it's easily top 5, top 7 at the lowest ranking.
Los Angeles too far up. Houston too far down. No mention of Providence, Mobile, or Bellevue.
I'm a fan of LA's skyline and it's getting denser and higher.
As for Houston, ehhh, it has a lot of tall buildings, but it's so clustered together downtown that it is not super recognizable. It's nice but not one of my favorites.
Providence has a cute skyline, maybe barely misses the top 50, at 52 or 53. It only has 4 or 5 over 300 feet.
Mobile looks strange to me. It's like Oklahoma City with one super high tower that looks extremely out of place on the skyline. An impressive achievement in a city that is smallish, but not one of my favorite skylines. Maybe 55th or 56th in the US.
Last edited by jjbradleynyc; 12-27-2019 at 09:38 AM..
Boston isnt that great right now.. but in a few years that will change since 5/11 tallest buildings are U/C or through the pipeline (WT, SST, One Brom, SSHQ, Chiafaro Aqr)
Future Skyline (2) 2025: https://s1024.photobucket.com/user/o...irtmo.jpg.html However, Copley Place Tower (In between Hancock and Pru) was canceled. Also 111 Federal was shortened by 75ft from that image. Also, Raffles next to Hancock is not in the photo. Back Bay Station towers arent either.
Here’s the Tapp one for Grand Rapids. Could help or hurt the case for it being in this discussion, but it definitely shows different angles of the skyline other than the signature riverfront shot that makes it looks like there’s only 3 buildings lol.
Denver has the snow capped front range and all those 14er peaks in the background. Easily the best skyline in the United States. Vancouver BC wins easily for the same reason but that's not in the United States. I personally don't get the big deal about a bunch of office towers. What I care about a city is walk scores, livability, and public transportation. Huge office towers where everyone flees at 5pm does nothing to improve any of that. Other than Manhattan, the places I want to be in US cities aren't anywhere near those office towers. They tend to be the low rise parts of the city.
As a Salt Lake homer I do agree our downtown and skyline is somewhat lacking and is somewhere in the 30’s. Hopefully with the construction boom (6 towers u/c and planned) and a new tallest building 2022 we will move up the list.
There's a high degree of subjectivity in any of these kind of rankings. But I think you've got some that are ranked shockingly low. I am biased toward older build skylines, but I would also take into account both natural and man-made features. Here is my re-ordering of your list with a few additions and a recent image is linked to each city.
*I think these certain cities have so different a build-out as to not be appropriately categorized or ranked alongside the traditional city skylines.
Thanks for the pictures - which also show that perspective matters; some of the city skyline photos you chose are not the "iconic" views most often seen.
There were some rankings I'd consider surprising on your list, such as Kansas City at #16. Funny thing about the photo you chose: it's close to one of the two most common views of the skyline today, but it's taken from somewhere just west of the National World War I Museum (Liberty Memorial) overlook of Union Station - so the station does not occupy the front center position in the photo (which is where it is usually located). Maybe it was to more prominently feature the Kaufman Center for the Performing Arts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25
I assume there are intentionally no secondary skylines like Bellevue, or they're included with the main skyline.
Bellevue sits across Lake Washington from Seattle, and a ridge of hills obscures the Seattle skyline when you approach Bellevue from the south. It reads as a separate city skyline rather than a secondary one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco
OP never said anything about quantity of skyscrapers, yet nearly every single ranking on this thread has NYC first.
I'll be the outlaw and break from this rigid conformity of thought.
1. Pittsburgh-a tall, dense skyline in which careful thought was given to height of each building, their placement relative to each other, and how all of this would appear from a distance. NYC looks like someone's Sim City game in progress. Hey-just get as many buildings on that island as you can! Don't worry about there being any rhyme or reason for any of it! The US Steel building makes the PGH skyline look more serious and imposing than the Boston skyline, despite fewer buildings. It is complemented by the sleek, serious and modern looking BNY Mellon tower, which joins it to tower over the new-age gothic PPG Place and vintage Gulf Tower. All of this meticulously arranged on a point in the heart of a valley where three rivers converge.
2. Seattle-for reasons similar to Pittsburgh. A dense, balanced skyline that tells a story and gives way to stunning landscape.
3. Los Angeles and Philadelphia-Supertall towers to let you know they mean business, but placed in a way that pays homage to their legacy high rises that blend in seamlessly with the new skyscrapers....all giving way to vast landscapes in the background.
4. Atlanta-a unique triple skyline with supertalls that don't obscure the lush greenery around them.
Rather than listing everything a few notes-
Houston has a skyline befitting of its metro size, Dallas (along with Boston) definitely does not. Chicago has somewhat of the same "hey, here's a bunch of buildings" problem as NYC, but not as bad. If we were judging only by height and quantity, they'd have to be at the top, but we aren't.
San Francisco only began to have an impressive skyline after their last two towers were built. Before that, its was a big "that's it?" when looking at it.
I tend to downgrade the NYC skyline because while it does have more tall buildings than any other skyline in the United States, it strikes me as a fairly formless collection - a sort of group of prima-donna ballerinas jostling each other. I think Chicago's skyline forms a more pleasing whole visually, both in the somewhat iconic view from Lake Michigan and from that Grant Park Fountain view aquest1 posted.
My list would rank Chicago ahead of New York. If I were to base it purely on aesthetics, New York would rank lower than #2.
I'd say Philadelphia's has become one of the best-composed skylines out there of late. I'd probably move it into the top 5 (where I think one person has it already - just about everyone puts it in the top 10 already) as a result.
Some other comments:
Pittsburgh may be the best example of a city skyline that is enhanced by its setting. People rave about San Francisco's topography, but I would say Pittsburgh's rivals it if not surpasses it. There's certainly no better highway approach to a major US city skyline than the approach to downtown Pittsburgh from the south (via the bowstring arch bridge to the right of the Golden Triangle). That bridge, the Fort Pitt, is located at the north end of the tunnel of the same name that carries I-279 into the city. You go into a hill and emerge from it with a Wow! moment as the Triangle appears right before you. IIRC, this freeway is also the one that takes you to the city's airport, so if you fly into Pittsburgh, your ride downtown will take you through this sequence.
I don't understand why Miami's skyline would get an asterisk simply because the city is situated on a coastline. That's a pretty attractive collection of tall buildings no matter where they would be located.
I'm not sure what that large gherkin houses in San Francisco, but I think it throws the skyline off whack.
I too would rank Houston's skyline ahead of LA's. The latter has gotten quite impressive, but Houston's is clustered more tightly.
Judging from all those cranes in its photo, we will need to reassess Nashville's skyline in a year or two.
St. Louis' skyline is not all that impressive, but I would say it has the best exclamation-point structure of any city skyline.
There's a high degree of subjectivity in any of these kind of rankings. But I think you've got some that are ranked shockingly low. I am biased toward older build skylines, but I would also take into account both natural and man-made features. Here is my re-ordering of your list with a few additions and a recent image is linked to each city.
*I think these certain cities have so different a build-out as to not be appropriately categorized or ranked alongside the traditional city skylines.
I would rank St. Paul's skyline above most of these cities.
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.
