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

[WhipperSnapper]

3 decades ago? 4 supertall was probably half the world's supply.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Of course not. Many people hate tall buildings; most people don't care about such things.

But we aren't discussing favorites but rather top skylines, which obviously implies ascribing some value to individual buildings within a greater skyline.

The OP actually does state size is not the only criteria, and that aesthetics matter. Would that not make the intent of this thread to include a “favorites” element?

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

The OP actually does state size is not the only criteria, and that aesthetics matter. Would that not make the intent of this thread to include a “favorites” element?

Yes. Two lists. Size and beauty.

Size is more objective, and leaves little wiggle room. But beauty, or aesthetics is more subjective and perhaps a more interesting way to judge a skyline, and everyone can have an opinion and a favorite city.

Beauty includes such factors as geographic setting, extrinsic to the skyline, and such intrinsic factors as balance, of old and new, arrangement of the buildings in a harmonius and pleasing pattern, architectural significance and beauty of the buildings, and perhaps other factors like street life, walkabiliy, etc. Good beautiful skylines and downtowns are usually attractive to people, and therefore more vital and busy.

Preservation of historical buildings and districts assists in attracting people. In my neck of country, San Diego has preserved and repurposed the Gaslamp district downtown near the ballpark, and created a very busy street scene. Los Angeles is preserving and repurposing many of the historic buildings in the Broadway area, and street life is increasing, although honelessness is a problem as it us in many cities. It is essential that a solution to homelessnrss is found. It is not enough to have a large skyline, or a beautiful one, but one where people like to gather and perhaps live in safety and pleasure, where a walk gives enjoyment.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by Nite

Montreal has brought itself back to having one of the top 10 skylines in North America again.

Yes, I consider Montreal to have a more beautiful skyline, albeit smaller, than Toronto. A walk in downtown Montreal is a pleasure, as is the view from the hill behind that gives the city its name, especially in autumn leaf season.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Klippenstein

Stop reminding me One Chicago is not a supertall.

Yeah, One Chicago and Philly's 1st Comcast tower from 2008 both came pretty damn close to "supertall",

But their developers didn't stick cheater poles on their roofs to get them there

Over the past 30 years, there have only been 7 towers over 900' tall completed in the US outside of NYC (which has roughly tripled that number).


source: https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=98906994


Austin and Miami now both have supertalls that have commenced foundation work as well.

As the near-fututre economic outlook looks ever more uncertain, let's hope they don't go all Chicago Spire on us.

[homebucket]

^ whoa is that to scale? I never realized the highest occupied floor on Wilshire Grand was so low.

And what’s the consensus on poles vs spires vs crowns? Are certain ones seen as more legitimate height adders than others or are they all the same?

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Nite

Montreal has brought itself back to having one of the top 10 skylines in North America again.

Agreed.

For North America, my top ten would be (height/density/variety/topography):

1) NYC (naturellement)
2) Chicago
3) Toronto
4) San Francisco
5) Philadelphia
6) Los Angeles
7) Montreal
8) Vancouver
9) Calgary
10) Houston

I am aware that Miami has scores of highrises, but I don't find the skyline as a whole very appealing. Dallas has a mix of notable skyscrapers, but falls short on ground level density. Boston is wonderful at the street level, but I don't get excited about the skyline.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by MAC123

Which is kinda insane. 3 decades ago NYC had 4 supertalls (including the unfortunately destroyed Twins). Today it has over 4 times that amount, with numerous plans for more which will even dwarf that number.

NYC has been on a monster building boom for the past 12ish years. Before 2010 there were only 2 buildings on Long Island taller than 500', one in Brooklyn (built 1929) and one in Queens (built 1990). Per Wikipedia, there are 12 in Brooklyn and 9 in Queens today.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by homebucket

^ whoa is that to scale? I never realized the highest occupied floor on Wilshire Grand was so low.

yes, that's staight from the SSP diagrams, so it's definitely to scale.

for "california's tallest skyscraper" wilshire grand sure is a mighty over-achiever. it's occupied height is only 827'. the substantial decorative crown takes it up to 934', and then the 166' tall stick on top takes it up to an "official" 1,100'. that's roughly 275' vertical feet of unoccupied bonus height.

Originally Posted by homebucket

And what’s the consensus on poles vs spires vs crowns? Are certain ones seen as more legitimate height adders than others or are they all the same?

i'm not sure there's real consensus here. gather 10 different scraper-nerds and you'll probably get 10 different opinions.

speaking strictly for myself, i go by my extremely unscientific "visual bulk" rule. if, to my eye, a part of a buildling (regardless of whether or not it's "occupiable") looks substantial enough to be part of that building, then i say that counts. if it's just a stick or a pole, i say no dice.

so i'll give wilshire grand, comcast 1, and salesforce their unoccupied crowns, but the poles on trump chicago and wilshire grand are "cheaters" IMO.

the more substantial boxy spire dealie on comcast 2 is very "gray area" for me.

others are more than free to disagree with me, but they aren't likely to sway me from my position.

[WhipperSnapper]

An unscientific visual bulk rule is common among height measurement enthusiasts. I think Trump Chicago looks better with its architecural spire than if there wasn't one. It matters.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i'm not sure there's real consensus here. gather 10 different scraper-nerds and you'll probably get 10 different opinions.

speaking strictly for myself, i go by my extremely unscientific "visual bulk" rule. if, to my eye, a part of a buildling (regardless of whether or not it's "occupiable") looks substantial enough to be part of that building, then i say that counts. if it's just a stick or a pole, i say no dice.

so i'll give wilshire grand, comcast 1, and salesforce their unoccupied crowns, but the poles on trump chicago and wilshire grand are "cheaters" IMO.

the more substantial boxy spire dealie on comcast 2 is very "gray area" for me.

others are more than free to disagree with me, but they aren't likely to sway me from my position.

I think I have a similar viewpoint. Crowns like the one on SF's Salesforce Tower are usually more substantial and can add to the bulk/silhouette of a building, making it more imposing. The 90s cell phone antenna thing on Comcast is like a beefy spire/pole. As far as I can tell, there's nothing inside the boxy lower portion of the spire. And then Wilshire Grand's is like a toothpick, serving as a "mast" to it's sail-like crown.

If you had to reorganize the diagram you posted by visual bulk, then Salesforce would slide to the 3rd from left position and Wilshire Grand to the far right.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by homebucket

... beefy spire/pole.

Sorry, couldn't help it.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I think Trump Chicago looks better with its architecural spire than if there wasn't one. It matters.

and i think the sears tower looks bettter with its small forest of antennas on top than it did before they were added.

but they still shouldn't figure into its height figure IMO.



source: https://www.archdaily.com/62410/ad-c...owings-merrill source: https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/bui...llis-tower/169

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by homebucket

I think I have a similar viewpoint. Crowns like the one on SF's Salesforce Tower are usually more substantial and can add to the bulk/silhouette of a building, making it more imposing. The 90s cell phone antenna thing on Comcast is like a beefy spire/pole. As far as I can tell, there's nothing inside the boxy lower portion of the spire. And then Wilshire Grand's is like a toothpick, serving as a "mast" to it's sail-like crown.

If you had to reorganize the diagram you posted by visual bulk, then Salesforce would slide to the 3rd from left position and Wilshire Grand to the far right.

That's where all the roof mechanicals are housed, so yes, there is a purpose and a function to the lower "boxy" poriton of the spire.

[summersm343]

There's no doubt in my mind the spire on Comcast Technology Center is a part of the building. It's not tacked on at all... and the entire spire/spine of the building lights up at night which looks great











https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=252127

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by summersm343

That's where all the roof mechanicals are housed, so yes, there is a purpose and a function to the lower "boxy" poriton of the spire.

Yeah I figured it had a purpose. By "nothing" I meant like an observation deck or rooftop bar or meditation garden or something that the public or employees can utilize.

[dc_denizen]

wheres seattle on this list

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Yeah I figured it had a purpose. By "nothing" I meant like an observation deck or rooftop bar or meditation garden or something that the public or employees can utilize.

No, nothing in the mechanical penthouse but the mechanicals. The bar/rooftop/garden, etc. is technically the top two floors of the building where the Four Seasons hotel lobby is, Jean Georges Philadelphia restaurant, and an upscale cocktail lounge called JG Skyhigh... all of which have sweaping views of the city:

https://www.fourseasons.com/philadel...es/jg-skyhigh/
https://www.fourseasons.com/philadel...-philadelphia/

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by summersm343

There's no doubt in my mind the spire on Comcast Technology Center is a part of the building. It's not tacked on at all... and the entire spire/spine of the building lights up at night which looks great

It does look better incorporated than most typical spires. But ultimately it's just a spire that didn't skip leg day.

Don't get me wrong. I don't have anything against spires. One of my favorite buildings, the BofA Tower in NYC has a spire. The Transamerica Pyramid and 181 Fremont (seen below in the center) both have a spire.



https://www.architectmagazine.com/de...-san-francisco

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

wheres seattle on this list

IDK, you tell us. The thread title is literally give your opinion.