Give your opinion of the top 10 skylines in the U.S. & top 10 in the world

[DZH22]

Boston

Boston crop2 by David Z, on Flickr
https://i.redd.it/jzbz6cs1qd1a1.jpg

[Maldive]

Originally Posted by Klippenstein

I thought of a couple more... Balance, Quality Viewing Angles (not just one good side)

Also Multi-Nodal and Balance are probably better descriptors than Multi-Polar. Multi-Nodal meaning separate skylines (e.g. Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan)

So what kind of weight would you give to the multi-nodal aspect of skylines?

Toronto has a number of skylines nodes beyond downtown (sometimes photos can capture 3 at once) with a bunch more u/c and in the pipeline... all over the city.


FUTURE HIGH-RISE NODES: (places like Etobicoke Centre just west of downtown, Scarborough's massive "Golden Mile" redevelopment and the shopping mall redevelopment/revolution plans in every corner of the city):

Mall Redevelopment Examples:
1. Galleria Mall (u/c)
2. Cloverdale Mall
3. Yorkdale (22 towers up to 50 storeys with 8000 residential units)
4. Fairview Mall (the 1st Phase in 2023 alone will see three rental and condo towers with heights of 58, 48, and 38 storeys)
5. Scarborough Town Centre
6. Sherway Gardens
7. Don Mills Centre (including Shops of Don Mills)
8. Agincourt Mall (9 towers up to 43 storeys)
9.Bayview Mall
10. Centre Point at the northern edge of the city (22 towers up to 50 storeys)

... all of which will see multiple tall mixed-use towers (including tens of thousands of residential units and public realm) now underway and in the future.

Below, this is a portion of the dozens of towers planned for Scarborough’s Golden Mile. This site is known as the Choice Properties (Phase One to begin in 2023 with 3 towers).


UT

Why?
Obviously these future tall communities (and skylines) are being driven by available space (huge parking lots) and the Billions of dollars of transit infrastructure soon to open, under construction and soon to start.

Suffice to say that's gonna be a lot of nodes.

[badrunner]

Top 20 North American skylines grouped into tiers (in no particular order within the tiers):

NYC

Chicago, Toronto

LA, SF, Philly

Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, Seattle

Boston, Pittsburgh, Vancouver, Montreal, Calgary

Austin, Detroit, Charlotte, Minneapolis

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Top 20 North American skylines grouped into tiers (in no particular order within the tiers):

NYC

Chicago, Toronto

LA, SF, Philly

Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, Seattle

Boston, Pittsburgh, Vancouver, Montreal, Calgary

Austin, Detroit, Charlotte, Minneapolis

This is the most accurate list I've seen on this thread

[Crawford]

Agreed.

[homebucket]

Here's an updated power ranking based on ADP (average draft position), along with standard deviation. You can see it more or less follows badrunner's tiering system. The main differences are that Pittsburgh ranks higher here and Atlanta/Dallas lower.

1. NYC - 1.36 (SD = 0.95)

2. Chicago - 2.13 (SD = 1.01)

3. SF - 4.09 (SD = 1.78)
4. LA - 4.90 (SD = 2.07)
5. Philly - 5.23 (SD = 1.54)

6. Seattle - 5.84 (SD = 2.32)
7. Pittsburgh - 6.22 (SD = 2.64)
8. Miami - 6.40 (SD = 2.10)
9. Houston - 6.47 (SD = 2.03)

10. Atlanta - 8.42 (SD = 1.83)
11. Boston - 9.00 (SD = 0.89)
12. Dallas - 9.11 (SD = 1.27)

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Top 20 North American skylines grouped into tiers (in no particular order within the tiers):

NYC

Chicago, Toronto

LA, SF, Philly

Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, Seattle

Boston, Pittsburgh, Vancouver, Montreal, Calgary

Austin, Detroit, Charlotte, Minneapolis

I would adjust the list a bit, for US, Canada, Mexico

1.Top tier: NYC
2.Next tier: Chicago, Toronto
3.Next tier: Houston, Miami, L.A., S.F., Philadelphia, Atlanta
4.Next tier: Pittsburgh, Mexico City, Seattle, Dallas, Boston, Vancouver, Minneapolis, Montreal, Calgary, Monterey, Detroit
5.Next tier: Austin, Denver, Charlotte, Nashville, Edmonton, Cleveland, Jersey City, Las Vegas
6.Next tier: Tampa, Jacksonville, Milwaukee, San Diego, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Portland, St. Louis, Kansas City, New Orleans, Columbus, Indianapolis, Honolulu, Louisville
7.Next tier: Tulsa, Phoenix, Orlando, Raleigh, Oakland, Buffalo, Hartford, Oklahoma City, Memphis, St. Petersburg, Providence, Atlantic City, Winnipeg, SLC, Birmingham

[edale]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

I would adjust the list a bit, for US, Canada, Mexico

Top tier: NYC
Next tier: Chicago, Toronto
Next tier: Miami
Next tier: Houston, L.A., S.F., Atlanta
Next tier: Philadelphia, Mexico City, Seattle, Dallas, Boston, Vancouver, Minneapolis, Montreal, Calgary, Las Vegas, Nashville, Monterey
Next tier: Pittsburgh, Austin, Denver, Charlotte, Detroit, Edmonton, Cleveland
Next tier: Tampa, Jacksonville, Milwaukee, San Diego, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Portland, St. Louis, New Orleans, Columbus, Indianapolis, Honolulu, Louisville
Next tier: Tulsa, Phoenix, Orlando, Raleigh, Oakland, Buffalo, Hartford, Oklahoma City, Memphis, St. Petersburg, Providence

Some curious choices, for sure (Vegas and Nashville ahead of Pittsburgh and Detroit? Miami ahead of SF...) but as much as some would like to claim otherwise, this is a subjective exercise. What's beautiful and impressive will differ based on a myriad of factors, and that's ok.

[Klippenstein]

Originally Posted by Maldive

So what kind of weight would you give to the multi-nodal aspect of skylines?

Toronto has a number of skylines nodes beyond downtown (sometimes photos can capture 3 at once) with a bunch more u/c and in the pipeline... all over the city.

Thanks for responding to my hypothetical metrics. For some reason, I'm kind of excited to flesh this out and I'm hoping some other skyscraper nerds might be as well.

I think "multi-nodal" is a complicated metric. A multi-nodal skyline can seem to multiply the size of a skyline or it can disperse it.

On one hand, if it's 2 or 3 nodes, then each is to some extent judged as its own skyline. If the individual nodes are solid in their character then it has a multiplying effect.

The ultimate example IMO is NYC.

[Credit: Alloy Development/Luxigon]



If the individual nodes are lacking it can disrupt the skyline and make it seem incomplete.


[Jesse Costa/WBUR]

I love Boston. I even defended it earlier, but I think Boston's skyline suffers from this. The sum somewhat feels less than the parts. So when looking it, it feels spread out.
I'm sure there are many examples, this one just came to mind since it has been discussed so much. If all of Boston's buildings were clustered in 2 strong nodes, I think it would easily beat Montreal because statistically it does.
Unfortunately for Boston, in this discussion, it's a lot closer because the Back Bay node doesn't feel like a complete skyline in itself. Though ^this^ picture really does show its good side.



If you have 2 strong nodes and a third less impressive one, I'd say the 3rd is almost irrelevant other than to add more mass.
This holds more or less true if there are a handful of nodes or more, each one doesn't need to be complete in its own right, but the stronger they are the more the character is multiplied.

Tokyo is a great example of many nodes without super strong characteristics. It is impressive because of its seemingly unending mass with almost no discernible center.
Though a skyline with less mass and more character would easily be ranked above it.

[source]

[CaliNative]

Delete

[DZH22]

Originally Posted by Klippenstein

If the individual nodes are lacking it can disrupt the skyline and make it seem incomplete.


[Jesse Costa/WBUR]

I love Boston. I even defended it earlier, but I think Boston's skyline suffers from this. The sum somewhat feels less than the parts. So when looking it, it feels spread out.
I'm sure there are many examples, this one just came to mind since it has been discussed so much. If all of Boston's buildings were clustered in 2 strong nodes, I think it would easily beat Montreal because statistically it does.
Unfortunately for Boston, in this discussion, it's a lot closer because the Back Bay node doesn't feel like a complete skyline in itself. Though ^this^ picture really does show its good side.

You posted a pretty old picture here. Compare it to the one I just posted in Post 441. A few years can make a big difference and it has for Boston. This version with all the taller new towers, with one more 200m U/C, is the one that is applicable going forward.

Boston crop2 by David Z, on Flickr
https://i.redd.it/jzbz6cs1qd1a1.jpg

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

I would adjust the list a bit, for US, Canada, Mexico

1.Top tier: NYC
2.Next tier: Chicago, Toronto
3.Next tier: Miami
4.Next tier: Houston, L.A., S.F., Atlanta
5.Next tier: Philadelphia, Mexico City, Seattle, Dallas, Boston, Vancouver, Minneapolis, Montreal, Calgary, Las Vegas, Nashville, Monterey
6.Next tier: Pittsburgh, Austin, Denver, Charlotte, Detroit, Edmonton, Cleveland, Jersey City
7.Next tier: Tampa, Jacksonville, Milwaukee, San Diego, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Portland, St. Louis, New Orleans, Columbus, Indianapolis, Honolulu, Louisville
8.Next tier: Tulsa, Phoenix, Orlando, Raleigh, Oakland, Buffalo, Hartford, Oklahoma City, Memphis, St. Petersburg, Providence, Atlantic City, Winnipeg

That's too many for me. It becomes increasingly harder to rank after the top 16 or so. The tiers get less distinct and things get more subjective. I will say though that there are still a lot of nice smaller skylines outside the top 20.

[Elkhanan1]

Thrown out there a couple of times in this thread, the idea that Toronto's skyline isn't carefully crafted is ridiculous. It's been crafted at least as carefully as Chicago's for fifty years. (No hate on Chicago. I love that city!)

The main, downtown cluster centred on the Financial District has a very intentional "mountain" arrangement of towers. And it draws down from the "peak" of First Canadian Place in every direction - north, south, east and west - not just on the side facing Lake Ontario.

It's been built out this way over 5 decades at least, to the point where local skyscraper geeks have lost all patience and are itching for freer height allowances in more places, "mountain" be damned.

This is starting to happen now because there's no more room inside the cluster to maintain its near-symmetrical tapering. Toronto's under relentless development pressure and there's a constant push to go higher than what's possible in the Financial District based on the availability and location of available sites. So, supertalls or near-supertalls are starting to appear outside of it.

In the next few years, the downtown skyline will lose its symmetry and the peak will shift off-centre to the east. A few years after that, there may be more of a wall of skyscrapers facing the lake or a much taller peak reconstituted back in the centre (as long as Nathan Phillips Square / City Hall remains shadow-free). Ultimately, the CN Tower may be the apex of the skyline, with supertalls and skyscrapers of diminishing height on either side of it. We'll just have to wait and see.

(Other clusters, like Midtown or Yonge-Eglinton, have a similar "mountain" configuration. Uptown or Bloor-Yonge will be forming a very strong "mountain" in the coming years too as new towers are added with stringent height restrictions. Together, the broader skyline, taking in multiple clusters along the spine of Yonge St, is developing a "clothesline" profile. Again, this is intentional.)

All told, Toronto is a solid #3 in the Americas and it's moving ever closer to #2.


This video from last summer shows the length and breadth of Toronto's skyline and I think it illustrates some of what I'm talking about, especially as the drone moves higher and further out over the lake.

• Video Link

[ssiguy]

Considering its rather small size of only 1.6 million in the metro area, Calgary pulls WAY above its weight.

For a metro area of less than 2 million, Calgary has one of the best skylines in the world. Personally, I can't think of one that beats it.

[ilcapo]

Except NYC and Hong Kong, im also a sucker for Vancouver.

[MolsonExport]

all right, let's throw in the towel and declare Boston the third best skyline in the world
nevermind the underwhelming photos.

[Nite]

nevermind

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by Elkhanan1

the idea that Toronto's skyline isn't carefully crafted is ridiculous. It's been crafted at least as carefully as Chicago's

First claim: basically agree.

Second claim: wild overswing!

[kool maudit]

Something I have been thinking of more and more is that a skyline doesn't only need height, massing or qualities of its own construction. It also need to have meaning. It cannot just be a well-crafted character, it needs to point to something.

For example: In Canada's capital of Ottawa, they are constructing some tall condo towers on the outer edges of the inner-city, leading some to welcome the fact that Ottawa is "finally getting a skyline".

From my perspective, though, I question the point. Ottawa's meaningful built cluster is Parliament Hill, and can only be Parliament Hill, because that's what Ottawa is. It's the capital of Canada. A government town. The spires of the Hill illustrate this circumstance.

No matter how many mortgage-holders Ottawa might choose to stack in towers above its transit stations, I can't see any such cluster of buildings ever becoming iconic or visually meaningful no matter its size or shape, because it's Ottawa. The meaning of the place is communicated by the public buildings -- the parliament, Supreme Court et cetera.

If Ottawa wanted to build something that would dramatically add to its roster of important buildings, which it doesn't, it should replace the Bank of Canada or something like that. Condos do nothing.

I mean, Lower Manhattan, to take the first example of the type, was visual shorthand for the rise of the US as the world's financial capital. Skyscrapers in general connote money-power and industry. I think there is something important here, and that it underscores why we just can't get excited about Benidorm or Surfer's Paradise, no matter how tall they build.

[JManc]

Lower Manhattan circa 1940 or so was the visual display of America as a rising economic/ global power.