Worst skyline - Page 5

NYC4Life · #81 Posted **Dec 30, 2009, 9:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigcitydude

what do those words on the side of the hill in the background of the El Paso picture say anyway?

Those mountains are located in Ciudad Juarez on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande.

It reads (in spanish): "La biblia es la verdad."

Translates to in english: "The bible is the truth."

urbanlife · #82 Posted **Dec 30, 2009, 9:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

i never understand how anyone can think that anything other than metro population matters when it comes to describing the size of a city.

arbitrary civic boundaries are for school taxes and garbage collectors.....metro is the only true measure of a city's size....its completely ridiculous to pretend that the CBD isnt a function of the entire metro and only serves whatever small percentage of population is within some arbitrary legal boundary.

that is a tiny downtown for a city of 1.7 million.

No offense, but it is clear by this statement that you know nothing or very little about Norfolk and Hampton Roads. In most cases, you would be correct that beyond local governments, city boundaries are arbitrary to the overall population in the metro...what is different with Norfolk is that it is a small 250K city in the middle of a metro of 7 cities, all with their own downtown and skyline (well not every one of them.)

Virginia Beach has the tallest building in the state...Portsmouth, Hampton, Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Newport News...they all have at least one skyline in the metro...a couple of those cities have more than two...while at first glance this might not mean much, but you must understand that this is not a typical metro and there are a number of urban centers and skylines within this city...if they were all together, then it would be seen as a much larger city for its size, but Norfolk is not the center of Hampton Roads anymore...heck it is hard to argue where the center of the region is beyond the military bases.

ChiMIchael · #83 Posted **Dec 30, 2009, 9:25 AM**

Why hasn't anyone mentioned Milwaukee.....goodness that skyline is extremely disappointing!!!!!!! I've seen better skylines in cities of 80k.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/115/3...303704ff52.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3089/...d5c1dec8c1.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...eedowntown.jpg

urbanlife · #84 Posted **Dec 30, 2009, 10:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiMIchael

Why hasn't anyone mentioned Milwaukee.....goodness that skyline is extremely disappointing!!!!!!! I've seen better skylines in cities of 80k.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/115/3...303704ff52.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3089/...d5c1dec8c1.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...eedowntown.jpg

I enjoy Milwaukee's skyline...maybe not the best looking buildings in the world, but overall I think it looks pretty good...sure, it could be a much larger skyline seeing that it is the state's biggest city.

deja vu · #85 Posted **Dec 30, 2009, 3:26 PM**

Those are some beautiful photos. I like that skyline, though not the biggest. But then, this is a very subjective thread topic.

PartyLine · #86 Posted **Dec 30, 2009, 4:20 PM**

There's other views of dowtown Phoenix that are better than the ones posted on here that shows the whole skyline

vid · #87 Posted **Dec 30, 2009, 8:33 PM**

I'd like to see a photo of this city of 80,000 with a better skyline than Milwaukee.

ChiMIchael · #88 Posted **Dec 30, 2009, 9:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vid

I'd like to see a photo of this city of 80,000 with a better skyline than Milwaukee.

Fine. You win. I was exaggerating. That said, I have seen a few skylines in the 100K range (Peoria, Cedar Rapids) that were impressive for cities their sizes. Mil's skyline is bigger, but I feel that should have more to offer. But its perhaps like DC, where it prides no not having big buildings in its downtown.

PartyLine · #89 Posted **Dec 30, 2009, 11:12 PM**

This picture to me is a better one of Phoenix's skyline

PartyLine · #90 Posted **Dec 30, 2009, 11:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scottolini

San Antonio's skyline might be somewhat small for 2+ million person metro, but I don't think it is near the worst. Looks can also be deceiving, because while it may not impress you from afar, downtown San Antonio is a fantastic place. It's filled with historic buildings, and is great at street-level.

Photo courtesy of Reubenin Stt on Flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/reubeninstt/3482207524/

It all depends on where the photo was taken like this picture doesn't show the new grand Hyatt or the Marriott Riverwalk or Marriott Rivercenter buildings

SLO · #91 Posted **Dec 31, 2009, 12:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiMIchael

Fine. You win. I was exaggerating. That said, I have seen a few skylines in the 100K range (Peoria, Cedar Rapids) that were impressive for cities their sizes. Mil's skyline is bigger, but I feel that should have more to offer. But its perhaps like DC, where it prides no not having big buildings in its downtown.

Youre outta your mind.

pj3000 · #92 Posted **Dec 31, 2009, 12:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigcitydude

what do those words on the side of the hill in the background of the El Paso picture say anyway?

It's a warning to passing airplanes. It reads, "Don't land here. This place is hell on Earth!"

bigcitydude · #93 Posted **Dec 31, 2009, 1:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYC4Life

Those mountains are located in Ciudad Juarez on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande.

It reads (in spanish): "La biblia es la verdad."

Translates to in english: "The bible is the truth."

thanx a bunch for that NYC4Life...it was driving me a bit bonkers!

bigcitydude · #94 Posted **Dec 31, 2009, 1:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj3000

It's a warning to passing airplanes. It reads, "Don't land here. This place is hell on Earth!"

that's pretty good!!

KB0679 · #95 Posted **Dec 31, 2009, 1:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

This forum is about far more than skyscrapers.

Well duh, but the name of this site still means something.

KB0679 · #96 Posted **Dec 31, 2009, 2:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

i never understand how anyone can think that anything other than metro population matters when it comes to describing the size of a city.

arbitrary civic boundaries are for school taxes and garbage collectors.....metro is the only true measure of a city's size....its completely ridiculous to pretend that the CBD isnt a function of the entire metro and only serves whatever small percentage of population is within some arbitrary legal boundary.

that is a tiny downtown for a city of 1.7 million.

That might be true if Norfolk were truly the only significantly-sized city in its metro, like is the case for Charlotte. But it's not. Norfolk has its skyline, VA Beach has its skyline (the waterfront plus a seminal CBD skyline), Portsmouth has its own skyline, etc. The Hampton Roads metro is very polycentric. If you combine all of those skylines, you'd get something quite respectable for a metro of 1.7 million.

KB0679 · #97 Posted **Dec 31, 2009, 2:34 AM**

Although Milwaukee looks like more of a midrise city than a highrise city, its skyline is pretty respectable to me:

PartyLine · #98 Posted **Dec 31, 2009, 8:36 AM**

How about Orlando Fl metro pop 2,054,574

hammersklavier · #99 Posted **Dec 31, 2009, 9:00 AM**

There's a difference between Orlando city and Orlando metro?

The whole area was a hicky swamp back in 1950. What do you expect--it looks miserable today.

KB0679 · #**100** Posted **Dec 31, 2009, 6:18 PM**

I agree that Orlando's skyline could be better for its size, but I kind of like it, probably more for its natural setting:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2514/...4de4bcef41.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2255/...4272832dfa.jpg