i don't know about that. the CN tower is such a dead give away for toronto at just about any distance. it's SO much taller than anything else in toronto that it makes for one hell of a distinctive and defining exclamation point.

and chicago has the sears/hancock double antenna bookends that give its skyline a fairly distinctive silhouette at distance as well.

maybe i'm just a nerd who pays too much attention to these kinds of details, but i could never mistake one of these for the other from the opposite sides of their respective lakes.


https://live.staticflickr.com/7833/4...3a174502_h.jpg
ACV_1464 by photolitherland, on Flickr

https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1897/4...ece9cd5c_h.jpg
https://www.flickr.com/photos/erocketship7/44618201742

If you took out the dead giveaway towers, they look extremely similar in terms of scale and layout from afar.

I can see how the average American would mistake Toronto for Chicago from afar. Toronto and Vancouver are nice cities, but up close they both look too Sim City-ish. A lot of it looks the same - especially in Vancouver. A smaller skyline can be inspiring if the buildings hold their own. Pittsburgh and SF are nice to look at.

The beloved is a good mix of size and uniqueness IMO. The views from the west are underrated.

well, sure, take out the icons of anyplace and you could be anywhere.

the "dead giveaway towers" are precisely why i don't think they look eerily similar at a distance.

but like is said, i'm a dyed-in-the-wool skyscraper nerd, so it's probably impossible for me to not see those distinctions.

I like NYC's skyline for the sense of scale as well. But I will say it was better and more balanced in the 1930s and the later 20th century with the Twin Towers.


At those times, the ESB simply dominated Midtown along with the Chrysler to a certain extent. The WTC totally dominated lower Manhattan, which at one point was dominated by a collection of signature towers that represented the economic might of those who make Wall Street what it is today.

The skyline was just epic. Iconic beyond words. A mass of skyscrapers in each district dominated by one or two colossal giants in a island setting that could be seen from miles away, land and water.

Those editions of the NYC skyline are the best ones in my book. Represented the power of the city and America.

I don't really agree. If you took out the CN Tower, Sears, and John Hancock, I'd know I was looking at either Chicago or Toronto, but I wouldn't quickly know which one. I'd wouldn't confuse Chicago for just about any other city in North America.

i wasn't speaking literally.

the icons of a given skyline tend to define it and hence why i disagreed with your initial assertion that the chicago and toronto skylines are "eerily similar at a distance".

their respective skyline-defining icons make that impossible for me to see. that's all.

in the interest of not dragging it out further, it's probably time to agree to disagree.

Chicago really needs to get rid of that red building and/or change its color. Just my 2c.

In terms of the question at hand, I like skylines with a healthy distance between skyscrapers. So like LA before the additional of the Wilshire Grand, or something like that.

Nooo. I love that red building. Stands out and is iconic...for a 70's box. As for skylines, I'm here in Chicago right now and am reminded why this skyline is my favorite...proportion, massing and aesthetics. New York is iconic at night and is massive but more chaotic.

Miami is also like that too. Just any overwhelming amount of "mass production high rise clusters". No supertalls, just huge number of mostly residential 400-800 footers.

I kind of like Cincinnati. Nice example of a smaller skyline with a decent mix of old and new. Carew Tower is a nice 1920s example.

L.A. missed out on taller early 2oth century skyscrapers because of the old 150 foot height limit it imposed (dumbly). L.A. even in the 1920s could have had several 400 foot+ art decos/neo gothics etc. if not for that law. So the L.A. skyline is dominated by lots of post 1950s modernist/postmodern towers, mostly flat topped and lots and lots of pre 1950 150 footers with a couple that were allowed to go a bit higher with clock towers/spires (e.g. Eastern Columbia). Not that they are bad--they are good (e.g. Eastern Columbia) & are being refurbished--but the height is pretty uniform 150 feet. City Hall was the only tall building in the 1920s significantly exempted from the law (454' tall). Would love to see L.A. put up some art deco inspired towers today to make up for the earlier height ban.

Old and new - Broad Street, Philadelphia:

https://scontent-iad3-1.cdninstagram...om&_nc_cat=111
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...65#post8691265

Huh? That thing kicks ass! If they ever try to paint it a different color I will hold a protest in front of he building

^Love that red tower. Philly is going to get its own red skyscraper very soon.

one trillion percent disagree.

after nearly a half century, Big Red is now a chicago skyline classic. a damn fine work of international style, big and bold, muscular, chicago 2nd school.

and i love how all of that vibrant red metal juxtaposes with the older historic stone buildings on michigan avenue.

layers, textures, colors.... the entire history of the skyscraper all in one tapestry. this is why skylines like chicago's and new york's are so damn special.



never change, Big Red.

http://images.skyscrapercenter.com/b...overall_mg.jpg
source: http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/buil...th-wabash/2188

I can't be the only one who isn't a fan of the recent crop of toothpick supertalls in Midtown Manhattan. I love NYC's skyline because of the aesthetic of this impenetrable wall of skyscraper density. They look so fragile and out of place among the giants of previous generations. Not to mention the somewhat dystopian feeling I got when I was recently in Central Park. Like Billionaires Row overseeing the masses from 400m up.

I'm not a fan either. I think they're ugly and look very out of place. But market reality will put a stop to that nonsense after the current crop under construction finishes being built.

Not sure how someone can simultaneously be a urbanist and yet opposed to small, irregular building footprints, which are pretty much the secret sauce of urban street level vitality. Small lot sizes preserve historic landscapes and add interest and variety to streetscapes.

That said, if you prefer fat, blocky towers, those are more the norm, everywhere, even in Manhattan. Grand Central and Hudson Yards will have the biggest skyline changes in the coming years, and those towers have enormous footprints. There are 3 million square ft. office towers planned and u/c in these areas.

If there's a recession, there will be a temporary pause, but "market reality" says that Billionaires Row is the most expensive stretch of urban real estate on the planet, and that isn't likely to change, so this is likely the very beginning of the superskinny trend, at least along that corridor.

There are roughly a dozen assemblages in the corridor held by major developers. Durst, Solow, Barnett, Vornado, Macklowe, Related (basically the first rank of Manhattan developers) all have assemblages. They aren't spending upwards of a billion on painstakingly complex, decade-long land assemblages for the hell of it.

Oh yeah, totally forgot about Miami. Agree that Miami is the closest U.S. analogue to the Asian, Latin American or Middle Eastern style, residential-heavy with lots of repetitive, resorty-feeling complexes, and not too many one-offs or buildings from different eras. Maybe San Diego too, though to a lesser extent.
Agree. Cincy has a nice skyline, with the bridges, elevation and building variety. It hasn't built much in recent decades, but it give the skyline a unique feel. Cincy has a cool city center, if a tad depressed. I enjoy walking through its core, with a refreshing dearth of hipsters, urban sophisticates and the like.

I agree on just about every account here regarding NYC and Chicago. NYC is the most impressive skyline I've ever seen while Chicago's is the most beautiful and balanced. We could use another supertall or two in the Loop.

And for the love of god, don't EVER paint over BIG RED. One of my favorites in Chicago. The pop of color is so welcome in our skyline. If money was not an issue, I would buy the Renaissance Hotel on the river, tear it down and build a tall, red skyscraper between the white Kemper Insurance Building and dark grey Leo Burnett Building.