View Single Post
  #15  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2008, 6:25 AM
SLO's Avatar
SLO SLO is offline
REAL Kiwi!
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: California
Posts: 12,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewAtlantisMiami View Post
In the 70s, San Francisco actually was 3rd behind New York and Chicago in terms of sheer number of tall buildings until Houston moved it out in in 80s with so many buildings over 500 feet tall. San Francisco's density and vibrancy is indisputable. I would say it is second only to New York in that regard.

Houston's skyline is more dispersed throughout the city, but its sheer number of tall buildings is indisputable. Miami is not 3rd based on what has already topped out though. Statistically, according to the World Alamanac and the Almanac of Architecture and Design in terms of tall buildings, Miami's number three ranking is based on what has made it to construction that has not gone vertical enough yet to even be visible on the skyline. For some of our buildings under construction, they are still doing foundation work. With the number of Miami's buildings that have actually topped out, Houston is still third behind New York and Chicago until Miami's buildings all actually reach their height specifications. We have a few that didn't and are not actually as tall as listed.
Agree on SF. And these types of photos are great.
Having spent time in both cities recently, Miami seems way in front, maybe its because you can see all the beach front highrises as well, but Houstons dt seems a bit more dense.
SF is having a pretty good boom as well, and if some of the proposed buildings get built it will be even more impressive.
Reply With Quote