Skyline Pictures - Page 18

mthd · #**341** Posted **Apr 17, 2013, 11:43 PM**

san francisco, january 2010, by me.

the original is about 18,000 pixels wide.

Jasonhouse · #**342** Posted **Apr 18, 2013, 1:55 AM**

^Pure awesomeness.

You almost make the water look like something to be swam in, when it's anything but.

mthd · #**343** Posted **Apr 18, 2013, 2:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasonhouse

^Pure awesomeness.

You almost make the water look like something to be swam in, when it's anything but.

Thanks Jason. lots of people swim in the bay. just not for any rational reasons!!!

TimCity2000 · #**344** Posted **Apr 18, 2013, 3:21 AM**

birmingham, alabama... taken by myself last week:

SpawnOfVulcan · #**345** Posted **Apr 18, 2013, 4:06 AM**

It still feels unusual to see Children's in that view.

Boquillas · #**346** Posted **Apr 18, 2013, 4:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RockMont

Best one of all, with Mt. Evans in the background.

I believe that's Pike's Peak. This is looking south.

LMich · #**347** Posted **Apr 18, 2013, 8:27 AM**

A few years old (2010) - and you can tell because the skyscraper crowns aren't as well lit as they are now - but this is the view you get of the Detroit skyline going upriver below the bridge:

Looking up the Detroit River by Wade Bryant, on Flickr

It's going to be really neat to see the view when the second bridge is built providing more texture to this shot.

MolsonExport · #**348** Posted **Apr 18, 2013, 12:38 PM**

^wonderful shot.

north 42 · #**349** Posted **Apr 18, 2013, 1:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LMich

A few years old (2010) - and you can tell because the skyscraper crowns aren't as well lit as they are now - but this is the view you get of the Detroit skyline going upriver below the bridge:

Looking up the Detroit River by Wade Bryant, on Flickr

It's going to be really neat to see the view when the second bridge is built providing more texture to this shot.

Yeah, the view of our downtowns should be pretty sweet from the new bridge, unfortunately though, the opposite view will be of Zug Island and that whole industrial hellhole on the American side looking south.

smArTaLlone · #**350** Posted **Apr 18, 2013, 6:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Austinlee

Calgary's skyline is getting intense.

With that population and that skyline, Calgary must have ZERO sprawl.

TarHeelJ · #**351** Posted **Apr 18, 2013, 6:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by smArTaLlone

With that population and that skyline, Calgary must have ZERO sprawl.

True...and part of the evidence lies in the small difference between city limits and metro populations - only about 200,000.

Reverberation · #**352** Posted **Apr 18, 2013, 9:07 PM**

Texas Medical Center:

Here are a few oldies from 2009;

BIMBAM · #**353** Posted **Apr 19, 2013, 5:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

True...and part of the evidence lies in the small difference between city limits and metro populations - only about 200,000.

Of course, that doesn't mean it doesn't have low density autocentric development characteristic of late twentieth century development patterns. It's actually quite famous for that urban form, being a young western city, but has admirably been able to keep office space and large institutions fairly centralized downtown and has built an impressive LRT network.

BIMBAM · #**354** Posted **Apr 19, 2013, 6:04 AM**

I don't think this has been posted yet:

photo credit: http://www.anotherenthusiast.com/wp-...IMG_5068aa.jpg

Vancouver

Orlando · #**355** Posted **Apr 19, 2013, 6:14 AM**

texcolo · #**356** Posted **Apr 19, 2013, 6:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boquillas

I believe that's Pike's Peak. This is looking south.

Good eye! That is Pike's Peak.

isaidso · #**357** Posted **Apr 19, 2013, 1:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by smArTaLlone

With that population and that skyline, Calgary must have ZERO sprawl.

Nope, Calgary has tons of sprawl. The reason Calgary has such a huge skyline for its population is due to its role as a major Canadian head office city and strict zoning regulations. Zoning concentrates it all downtown, and huge demand for office space fuels the skyscraper boom. Very few of those are residential.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

True...and part of the evidence lies in the small difference between city limits and metro populations - only about 200,000.

That's an incorrect conclusion. City and metro populations are close because Calgary is only now growing to a size where new developments are being built beyond city limits. It doesn't indicate little sprawl.

Beedok · #**358** Posted **Apr 19, 2013, 3:08 PM**

Calgary has one of the lowest population densities of major Canadian cities last I checked.

whiteford · #**359** Posted **Apr 19, 2013, 5:30 PM**

yah but... to be fair, calgary has very little sprawl when compared to other cities of its population. it is hard to compare as it is a unicity though. the sprawl is not as bad as is said. really.

isaidso · #**360** Posted **Apr 20, 2013, 7:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by whiteford

yah but... to be fair, calgary has very little sprawl when compared to other cities of its population. it is hard to compare as it is a unicity though. the sprawl is not as bad as is said. really.

Like what? Calgary residential is predominantly sprawl. Only recently have there been moves towards density (condo towers, row houses, mid-rise residential).