SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   City Discussions (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Skyline: uniqueness vs number of buildings? (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=240360)

Dariusb Sep 18, 2019 3:19 PM

Skyline: uniqueness vs number of buildings?
 
Which is more important to you when it comes to a skyline: unique architecture or number of towers? I promise, this is my last thread for today, lol!

Chisouthside Sep 18, 2019 3:23 PM

a combination of both.
size, big enough for it to feel mighty but with unique and layered architecture from different periods. SF is a good example i think.

Steely Dan Sep 18, 2019 3:27 PM

both.

i'd also add height variability.

lots of towers. lots of different kinds of towers. lots of different heights of towers.


not surprisingly, something like this is close to my ideal:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...6fa33035_h.jpg
Skyline from the south by Jonathan Lurie, on Flick

Handro Sep 18, 2019 3:34 PM

That's tough.

I know it's a tired, boring comparison, but I think the best example of this is Chicago vs. NY.

Chicago (above) is varied, balanced... almost artful. It's large enough to make a big impact, but:

NYC is MASSIVE. It's more a "wall" of towers than a place like Chicago (or any other smaller city with a respectable skyline), so it doesn't quite have that "artful" balance. But that giant web of dense urban development massages a part of my brain that I think only weirdos like people on this forum have, ha.

I might go size on this one, although even having seen it 1m+ times, I still have a moment of awe one I catch the Chicago skyline at night, early morning or dusk.

JAYNYC Sep 18, 2019 3:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dariusb (Post 8690743)
Which is more important to you when it comes to a skyline: unique architecture or number of towers? I promise, this is my last thread for today, lol!

Unique architecture. It's why skylines like Atlanta, Philadelphia and NYC (variety of spires, crowns, and glass colors/styles) stand out whereas skylines like Houston, Dallas and Chicago (mostly tall nondescript boxes) don't, IMO.

Crawford Sep 18, 2019 3:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Handro (Post 8690767)
I know it's a tired, boring comparison, but I think the best example of this is Chicago vs. NY.

That's like the worst comparison. Neither NYC nor Chicago are known for repetitive highrise clusters. If anything, they're quite unusual in not having a significant share of the Hong Kong or Moscow style residential mass-production highrise clusters.

The best North American example of such a style would probably be Toronto. Toronto presents a pretty meaningful contrast to American-style skylines.

Handro Sep 18, 2019 4:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8690795)
That's like the worst comparison. Neither NYC nor Chicago are known for repetitive highrise clusters. If anything, they're quite unusual in not having a significant share of the Hong Kong or Moscow style residential mass-production highrise clusters.

I sense from this and other threads that you tend you disagree a lot, which is fine, but you have a very confrontational style which is pretty grating when I'm here to chat with like-minded people about something we find interesting. Maybe calm down a little bit and realize we're not fighting to be right about these very arbitrary and subjective things.

Anyway.

I think it's a good comparison between North American cities. New York certainly doesn't have the same height discrepancy between towers that Chicago has a lot of, which creates less of a layering effect.

A photographic example, although I've noticed it more in person:

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon....L._SL1500_.jpg

Obadno Sep 18, 2019 4:08 PM

When I think of aesthetic skylines its Chicago

Nyc is simply massive and impressive in that right, plus its so culturally ubiquitous that its cool to see it in person. (I would guess LA is similar to people back east but I've been to it so many times I dont get that sort of feeling from it)

the urban politician Sep 18, 2019 4:11 PM

For me it's about variability in heights and buildings from different periods.

Toronto has a jumble of highrises but its skyline doesn't visually impress me.

Chicago, as mentioned above, has all of these features.

NYC does too, but it's also so huge that it's hard for buildings to stand out that aren't really huge. But its scale is what's so impressive.

Crawford Sep 18, 2019 4:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Handro (Post 8690818)
I think it's a good comparison between North American cities. New York certainly doesn't have the same height discrepancy between towers that Chicago has a lot of, which creates less of a layering effect.

I think most would agree Chicago has greater "height discrepency" than NY. Chicago doesn't have a huge amount of midrise fabric, thus creating greater contrast between very tall and very low landscapes, which is typical in the U.S. (and even more exaggerated in the Sunbelt).

But what does this have to do with the topic? Neither city is known for repetitive elements in the skyline. There are repetitive complexes, like Presidential Towers in Chicago, but they don't dominate the skyline, as one sees in, say, Hong Kong.

iheartthed Sep 18, 2019 4:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAYNYC (Post 8690791)
Unique architecture. It's why skylines like Atlanta, Philadelphia and NYC (variety of spires, crowns, and glass colors/styles) stand out whereas skylines like Houston, Dallas and Chicago (mostly tall nondescript boxes) don't, IMO.

Atlanta is unique but Chicago isn't? Is this a joke?

Handro Sep 18, 2019 4:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8690832)
I think most would agree Chicago has greater "height discrepency" than NY. Chicago doesn't have a huge amount of midrise fabric, thus creating greater contrast between very tall and very low landscapes, which is typical in the U.S. (and even more exaggerated in the Sunbelt).

But what does this have to do with the topic? Neither city is known for repetitive elements in the skyline. There are repetitive complexes, like Presidential Towers in Chicago, but they don't dominate the skyline, as one sees in, say, Hong Kong.

Chicago's contrasts and signature towers are what make it unique. NYC is massive, but it doesn't have varied heights punctuated by a few signature towers. New York is the best US example of "massive", Chicago's is the best US example of "not quite massive but certainly unique".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8690824)
When I think of aesthetic skylines its Chicago

Nyc is simply massive and impressive in that right, plus its so culturally ubiquitous that its cool to see it in person. (I would guess LA is similar to people back east but I've been to it so many times I dont get that sort of feeling from it)


Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 8690831)
For me it's about variability in heights and buildings from different periods.

Chicago, as mentioned above, has all of these features.

NYC does too, but it's also so huge that it's hard for buildings to stand out that aren't really huge. But its scale is what's so impressive.

Agreed.

iheartthed Sep 18, 2019 4:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 8690831)
For me it's about variability in heights and buildings from different periods.

Toronto has a jumble of highrises but its skyline doesn't visually impress me.

Chicago, as mentioned above, has all of these features.

NYC does too, but it's also so huge that it's hard for buildings to stand out that aren't really huge. But its scale is what's so impressive.

Toronto and Chicago's skyline seem eerily similar from a distance. But, on closer inspection, Toronto's looks like a bigger version of a West Coast city in that much of the high rise stock is late 20th century/early 21st century.

Obadno Sep 18, 2019 4:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8690832)
(and even more exaggerated in the Sunbelt).

No kidding, sunbelt cities are virtually a sea of single story buildings with random small clusters of buildings over 10 stories (or stand alone random towers).

Although newer developments in sunbelt areas seem to be moving into the 5-10 story apartment block and mixed use office tower mode instead of the pre 2000 garden apartment and vertical office park variety hour

Maldive Sep 18, 2019 5:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 8690851)
Toronto and Chicago's skyline seem eerily similar from a distance. But, on closer inspection, Toronto's looks like a bigger version of a West Coast city in that much of the high rise stock is late 20th century/early 21st century.

The never-ending boom in Toronto obscures it's early arch/skyline creds.

It was (and is still stuck there) #3 in North America in the 60/70s tall game (BMO was an early supertall when maintenance workers on the roof raised their hands).

The financial core built Mies' masterpiece -TD Centre, Pei's Commerce Court, the real gold glazing of RBC and later the red granite beauty Scotia Plaza.

Nothing west coast about the original core. Just harder to see that great stuff now.

JAYNYC Sep 18, 2019 5:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 8690844)
Atlanta is unique but Chicago isn't? Is this a joke?

Yes (skyline architecture-wise), and no.

JAYNYC Sep 18, 2019 5:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 8690851)
Toronto and Chicago's skyline seem eerily similar from a distance.

They are. And neither should ever be compared to NYC.

dave8721 Sep 18, 2019 6:16 PM

Or another comparison would be Miami: hundreds and hundreds of non-descript similar looking towers that don't really stand out and all around the same height vs a skyline like Atlanta with fewer towers but more variety. With Miami you are taken aback by the sheer scale of all the towers while with Atlanta you notice the details of the towers themselves. To each his own.

pdxtex Sep 18, 2019 6:21 PM

Skylines, like people have their best side. For me it's all about symmetry and order. I dont like skylines that are only massive and uniform in height. Toronto looking north from the islands will always be more pleasing to me than Manhattan or Vancouver.

Steely Dan Sep 18, 2019 8:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Handro (Post 8690818)
New York certainly doesn't have the same height discrepancy between towers that Chicago has a lot of, which creates less of a layering effect.

well, with NYC's current supertall rampage, it will certainly be adding A LOT of new height variability to its skyline.

https://newyorkyimby.com/wp-content/...n-1024x683.jpg
source: https://newyorkyimby.com/2018/10/che...irca-2022.html

the old midtown plateau is currently being annihilated, which is nice......


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.