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

[craigs]

Originally Posted by JManc

The problem with Toronto's skyline is that other than the CN Tower, none of the buildings really stand out on their own. That's more or less Miami's and Houston's issue.

Agreed re: Toronto (my #3) and Miami (my #10), and that is also true of Vancouver. I ranked Houston #6 among US/Canada skylines, in part because I think three of Houston's skyscrapers stand out.

I have always loved 1000 Louisiana/Wells Fargo Plaza's curving greenish glass façade:


Williams Tower is a classic of 1980s post-modernism:


And my favorite in Houston, 700 Louisiana/TC Energy Center:


If we add up all of Houston's skyscraper clusters, it's quite impressive.

[JManc]

Yeah, Houston has a lot of buildings...just scattered all over. Hooray for no zoning!



Pennzoil Place (back trapezoidal building next door to BoA in last pic) is one of my favorites too.

[Maldive]

Originally Posted by JManc

The problem with Toronto's skyline is that other than the CN Tower, none of the buildings really stand out on their own. That's more or less Miami's and Houston's issue.

As @Steely would say, comments like this "are so 2003"... except even then Toronto had some of the finest skyscrapers on the continent.

* Royal Bank Plaza's serrated twin towers with (real) gold-infused curtainwall

* Scotia Plaza's soaring red granite (easily one of the best looking 'scrapers on the continent)

* If you are fan of Mies' modernist black monoliths, there's 5 of them downtown (we're going to loan one to Miami so there's a touch of black)

As for the comment that the skyline is too scattered (couple hundred construction cranes will help that issue)... Toronto has had one of the tallest financial districts on the planet for nearly half a century... and those towers ain't scattered.

No pics... so no evidence to contradict. Back to the regularly scheduled navel gazing.


NOTE: special thanks to @Steely for loaning AS+GG to the city where we're building one of their best (and slightly wacky) designs on the continent (plus two more from them in the pipe-line).

160 Front Street West - 240 metres - AS+GG - under construction

No-one is quite sure what the 2 mouths are for yet (flying cars aeroport?)


3D


ProjectEnd

Tunafish

70Challenger

ryanbruin17

Red Mars

[Docere]

1. NYC
2. Jacksonville

[ue]

.

[Nouvellecosse]

I agree that Chicago has more individual "stand out" buildings than Toronto in the skyline. Although I'm not sure how much of a "problem" that is. There are some skylines that I enjoy where individual buildings really stand out, and others I enjoy where they mostly blend together. For the latter it's like a choir or a symphony where for me, the point is less about how discernible the individual voices or instruments are and more about the combined effort.

[ue]

.

[ue]

.

[JManc]

I should double down on my Toronto skyline 'critique' with a drive by comment about the Leafs.

Seriously though, yes, Toronto has stand out buildings but gazing over the skyline, they aren't instantly recognizable (except maybe Scotia Plaza) like those in Chicago or New York. You could superimpose the CN Tower and the Skydome onto a generic skyline and most people wouldn't notice. if Toronto added a couple of trophy super talls, it would be among the top skylines in the world.

[kittyhawk28]

Hot take, but I think San Diego, even though it doesn't have the tallest skyline, has one of the best skylines by virtue of its surprisingly dense skyline of midrises and highrises >300 ft. The waterfront, small city blocks, and the fact that many of its towers are condo towers inspired by Vancouverism, add to its aesthetic.





There are currently over 40 towers in San Diego over 300 ft, with over 20 more planned or under construction over the next decade.

[homebucket]

40 towers over 300 ft is not actually that much though. I’m guessing most if not all of the generally viewed top 10 skylines have far more than that. DZH, can you remind us again how many towers over 300 ft that Boston has?

And the other issue is not just the lack of top end height but also the lack of signature/iconic towers. One America Plaza is probably the one that fits the bill the most as far as being architecturally interesting. But I don’t know if it’s good enough to be iconic to the average person where someone can place it instantly as being San Diego. Like an ESB, Sears/Hancock, Transamerica, Library, Space Needle.

SD is basically Miami if you razed half the towers, and took the remaining towers and sliced off the top halves.

[Double L]

Houston's skyline view from the Northwest and west of downtown has always fascinated me.


https://www.houstonchronicle.com/new...t-16258071.php


https://bryanmalloch.com/prints/z3v4...km0v0mqbny8ko8





The buildings are perfectly placed and display a symmetry that works together like no other.

[Maldive]

Originally Posted by JManc

I should double down on my Toronto skyline 'critique' with a drive by comment about the Leafs.

Seriously though, yes, Toronto has stand out buildings but gazing over the skyline, they aren't instantly recognizable (except maybe Scotia Plaza) like those in Chicago or New York. You could superimpose the CN Tower and the Skydome onto a generic skyline and most people wouldn't notice. if Toronto added a couple of trophy super talls, it would be among the top skylines in the world.

New "Stand-outs": Haven’t seen faceted diamond curtainwall many places in North America.

Designed by WilkinsonEyre, Phase 1 of CIBC Square’s diamond curtainwall = many moods from ever-changing-shades of blue during the day and the always magic sunset shots.

With a 2nd taller twin tower also under construction, both right near the waterfront.


BJT

Diamonds at night.


kris

Phase 2 u/c on the left.

Johnny Au

[homebucket]

I think Houston's skyline itself is pretty nice. Has good height, decent density, and respectable architectural interest. What holds it back for me (I have it 9th on my list) is that it has a rather mundane natural setting (flat with no large bodies of water) and the transition from downtown to sprawl is quite abrupt with very little to no mid rise density, or even low rise density. So it doesn't feel as impressive overall.

[The North One]

Houston is proof that height doesn't matter as much as other attributes. You can have 1,000 footers and still have a pretty banal skyline. The standout towers are the shorter postmodern ones.

Also it doesn't help that there's no major body of water downtown to view the skyline from. Makes it look shorter than it is.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by The North One

Houston is proof that height doesn't matter as much as other attributes. You can have 1,000 footers and still have a pretty banal skyline. The standout towers are the shorter postmodern ones.

Also it doesn't help that there's no major body of water downtown to view the skyline from. Makes it look shorter than it is.

There's also waayyyy too many surface parking lots downtown that are easily visible from aerial skyline shots.

[mrnyc]

toronto may be a new sea of bland apt bldgs, but chicago also bulked out a little from its long historic ‘all in a row’ type skyline with them too, so.

toronto is on a sao paulo track, which is fine. at least that is unique for north america, even if the buildings aren’t. although the architecture is getting better by the day, so thats good too. you dont really need super iconic structures to be a nice city, that’s overrated.

[DZH22]

Originally Posted by homebucket

40 towers over 300 ft is not actually that much though. I’m guessing most if not all of the generally viewed top 10 skylines have far more than that. DZH, can you remind us again how many towers over 300 ft that Boston has?

Mid to upper 80's. Also San Diego's singular tallest building is 500' on the nose, whereas Boston is currently building its 23rd tower between 500'-790'.

But yeah, if you're like one of the posters from a previous page who pretends that 400' buildings are as impressive as 600' buildings, then you can claim that the skylines are on par with each other. They're not.

By the way, 300' isn't considered a "skyline building" in any city that belongs on the Top 10 list here. I'd say the same about 100m (328') as the buildings that height in the center of my city might as well not be there from the skyline perspective. The only people who tout 100m are from the Canadian cities, especially Toronto and Vancouver. It's the only number that makes their cities look good compared to the Chicago's and Boston's of the world.

The way I see it, if your Top 25 doesn't compare, then the rest of what you do probably doesn't really matter. NYC could stop building altogether, and Sao Paulo could take its existing city and multiply it by 10. Considering its tallest building still would be around NYC's 200th tallest building, I would say that adding 9 more Sao Paolo's into the mix wouldn't put a dent in the skyline comparison with NYC.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by craigs

And my favorite in Houston, 700 Louisiana/TC Energy Center:


If we add up all of Houston's skyscraper clusters, it's quite impressive.

That's one of my favorite skyscrapers ever, so Houston gets massive points for that building alone.

If they ever block it from the southbound I-45 view with something else, then Houston will just tumble in my rankings.

[iheartthed]

That thing is fugly.