I did a thread about Miami's non waterfront skyline views and many commented that it does look like a SE Asian city or even Vancouver.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1509/...20112fe3_b.jpg
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1509/...20112fe3_b.jpg

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4180/...09c403ae_h.jpg
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4180/...09c403ae_h.jpg

Miami has 11 proposed towers over 300+ meters. I think if even a third of them get built it will dramatically alter the skyline. Hopefully some will get built in the next decade.

....That's not urban :shrug:

EDIT: This was in response to another thread where someone said Miami wasn't urban lol

Urbanity has to be judged at street level, and involves stuff like volumes of parking.

Due to Hollywood people think the big scare is the San Andreas fault (San Francisco), but the bigger problem, by a long shot, is the Cascadia Subduction Zone. When it goes off it will be far more powerful and devastating. Portland, Seattle, Victoria, and Vancouver will get hit, sooner rather than later.

And vice versa. All 3 are quite different from one another.

No one sees the interiors apart from the owners, their guests and a few magazines. What they do see are the exteriors which are meh at best despite who designed them. My favorite architect, I.M. Pei, designed this.

The skinny towers are not good architecture. 432 Park looks nice from the street and has a clean lines but is about 900' too tall.

Actually... it wasn't understood that the Cascadia fault produced seismic activity until the 1980s.

Rumor has it that the billionaire penthouses have lots of gold fixtures, in some cases including solid gold toilet seats. Just like in the guilded age the plutocrats lit cigars with $100 bills, or $500 dollar bills (they had them back then) if they REALLY wanted to show off.

The last big "megaquake" (9.0 or larger) on the Cascadia subduction fault was in the year 1700. They even know the month--January 1700. Plenty of geologic and historic evidence. Google: Cascadia 1700 megaquake. Wikipedia has an article on it. The coast was hit by huge tsunamis from N. California up to BC, and some traveled over to Japan and caused damage. Large parts of the coast subsided and forests were flooded. The quake was probably as large as that which hit Japan in 2011 and Indonesia in 2004.

The last big "megaquake" on the southern San Andreas fault (Salton Sea to Riverside/San Bernardino segment) was also about 300 years ago. So that is probably overdue as well. However, the magnitude would probably be 8 or less. Subduction quakes tend to be very large. The SA segment north of Cajon Pass to Palmdale probably moved in 1812, causing the collapse of the "Great Stone Church" at Mission San Juan Capistrano. The segment from Palmdale north to Parkfield broke in 1857, producing the big Ft. Tejon quake that year. So the the southern segment of the San Andreas is probably most overdue.

Finally, some geologists speculate ("geopoetry") that a fault zone in the Mojave north into Nevada ("The Walker Lane" etc.) may be increasingly taking up the plate movement from the San Andreas, which is impeded by the transverse ranges (San Gabriels etc.). In the far future, the "Walker Lane" may become the new plate boundary, and the Gulf of California may move north into Nevada if the zone starts rifting open (sea-floor spreading). Don't buy beachfront land yet, this will take millions of years if it happens at all. Sizable quakes like Landers and Hector Mine (>7) were on the inland "Walker Lane", as was the more recent Ridgecrest quake. Some of the fairly recent volcanic activity along the Walker Lane (southern Owens Valley, Mammoth area etc.) may be related to this incipient rifting. Plate boundaries are not fixed. They evolve and shift.

That's obviously totally false, amigo.

Mt. St. Helens blew it's top in 1980.

You mean to tell me that nobody knew about seismic activity before that event? [Forget about all the mountains in the Pac NW - lol]

The historical record is pretty clear:

delete

I'll say as an avid NYC follower, Midtown is a chaotic mess. From a pure aesthetic standpoint, Lower Manhattan wins and is the most balanced skyline node that aesthetically wins IMO.

Now from a holy shit moment, Midtown does take the cake, but is overwhelming.

Chicago is unique in that it doesn't overwhelm one and like NY, it has a massive portfolio of architecture that spans the decades. In a way, Chicago is a giant urban-construct of a museum. You can see the various boom cycles embedded in its skyline and core. From pre-wars all the way to modern architecture. Not to mention that its very, very balanced.

I mentioned in another thread about luck and timing... very important in skyline development. Sometimes, its just luck in how a skyline looks and aesthetically pleases.

Chicago is more like caffeine mixed with some nice green tea. Its calm, can energize the spirit, and doesn't overwhelm. NYC is like a giant hit of methamphetamine. Just overwhelms the senses and can make one a bit on edge. Both excite the spirit, but depends if you want a nice buzz or a adrenaline rush that will cause you to crash hard at the end of the day.

I kinda felt this with Chicago when I went. A tad bit calm, somewhat sedated, but still provided a nice thrill with its skyline and even street energy.

On a side note, Miami is up and coming. Its made great strides in the last 10 years. It punches above its weight. Likewise with Seattle, which is booming like crazy.

Houston, Dallas and Chicago don't stand out? Really?

I'll leave Houston out to avoid sounding like a homer but Dallas is amazing imo, especially at night. And Chicago simply has too many iconic towers not to stand out.

I disagree with his assessment about Chicago; Sears, JHC and now Trump all have prominent spires/ antennae. Houston however, severely is lacking in this area.

i think you'd be hard-pressed to find many who would agree with his assessment of chicago's skyscraper architecture.

chicago is widely regarded as having some of the best skyscraper architecture throughout history, going all the way back to the very beginnings of the building type in the 19th century.

along with NYC, chicago is one of the absolute best skyscraper museums on the planet. i doubt you could find a single architectural historian at any university on the planet who would disagree with that.

as just one small example of this, in the 2013 edition of judith durpe's very popular book "Skyscrapers" (i'm sure all of us nerds have an edition of it laying around somewhere), there are 10 entries for individual chicago skyscrapers (the 2nd most of any city globally). NYC is obviously #1 with 18 entries.

Exactly.

The new Chicago Architecture Center is absolutely amazing. I could spend hours staring at that model.

Chicago is a great destination for a field trip for Architecture students. If anything, its a must in the curriculum.

Kinda like Mecca and Medina, every architect should go to at least Chicago and NYC once in their lifetimes. Praying is optional, but recommended. ;)

Just stay clear of the devil, the Kaufmans of the world. Some architecture is not meant to be seen, and can open Pandoras box if a future architect follow the footsteps of the devil. I'm sure Chicago has its terrible architects out there that mass produce budget developments with little creativity.

Hopefully one day the spire/mast conversation will reopen at the CTBUH. The masts on JHC and Sears should count towards the overall height. They are an integral part of the design IMO, and those towers without the masts would lose character.

Just remember that you're only going to get good pizza and hot dogs at one of those two cities :D

ARE YOU FUCKING INSANE?

both NYC and chicago are utterly awash in fantastic pizza.

they are two of the holiest cities in all of Pizzatarianism.

as for hot dogs, the only time i ever ate one in NYC was at nathan's down in coney island, so i don't have enough experience to comment.