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

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

First claim: basically agree.

Second claim: wild overswing!

I don't know if it's as much a case of Toronto skyline being less crafted so much as the shape Toronto decided to craft is much more typical and therefore looks more spontaneous. Quite a few cities seem to have a CBD peak that descends into smaller towers while it's quite uncommon to have, for instance, a row of large buildings on one side of a street and open space on the other.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by 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.

These are really great points. Tall buildings and massing by themselves do not necessarily make for the best skylines (with great examples why, e.g., Benidorm). Sao Paulo's buildings go on forever, but nobody holds it up as a great skyline. Tokyo's buildings go on past forever, however, there are some really great nodes (E.g., Shinjuku, Shiodome) that look awesome, especially if Fujiyama makes a welcome appearance. New York is like that: Midtown, Financial district, downtown Brooklyn, etc.

Toronto's skyline may have degraded somewhat despite the insane massing, as the bank towers (and what they represent) are eclipsed by the blue wall of condo towers.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by 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.

The first thing that instantly came to mind when I read these comments about Ottawa was Paris-La Défense.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The first thing that instantly came to mind when I read these comments about Ottawa was Paris-La Défense.

I'm not a huge fan of La Défense, but it is a pretty legible symbol of the power of corporate France, as communicated during a time when the old, 19th century headquarters of the right bank were not saying that as forcefully as they once did. It says in bold, 1960s, prismatic shapes that Paris is a modern corporate behemoth, with the unspoken corollary being that it is no kind of faded Venice.

[Nite]

A nice shot of a part of montreal that didn't have tall buildings until recently plus the new REM line



and a wonderful pano from Mount Royal


https://forum.agoramtl.com/t/skyline...25/728?page=18

[edale]

Wow, love that Montreal pano!

[Nite]

Vancouver

[Nite]

a recent cool shot of Montreal

[pdxtex]

If this were a beauty pageant or dog show, the most perfect skylines are all in North America. Cities get points for symmetry, a natural backdrop, signature structure, etc. Chicago is the perfect balanced skyline. Its, long and linear, but balanced and still girthy. It looks good facing it east or west.

[DZH22]

It feels like my city has been given an injection of anabolic steroids. It may not be any taller at its absolute top level, but it sure has beefed up over the last few years. It's one more substantial 200m+ building (which is well on its way) from finally actually being as large as I always thought it was when I was a kid!

After that we kind of run out of steam and I don't know where things go from here. But I feel like, in the skyscraper game, "a bird in the hand is better than 2 in the bush" is as true and relevant a saying as any. I have been waiting my whole life for this stuff to actually be BUILT and not just proposed/discussed/chopped down/canceled. It's been a good run. The last upcoming glass peak will be towards the left side of this shot. For scale the 2 glass buildings in the back, Boston's 4th and 5th tallest respectively, are 691' and 685'.

Boston's Financial District by Terry Donovan, on Flickr

[Nite]

Vancouver




https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...2250&page=1120

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Nite

Vancouver

Looks girthier than most cities twice its size.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Looks girthier than most cities twice its size.

and that's just one of the many skylines scattered through Metro Vancouver.
The two tallest buildings in the Metro are currently under construction outside of downtown and 20 of the 25 tallest building built or under construction are outside of downtown vancouver as well.

None of these Metro Vancouver skyline is downtown Vancouver

[MolsonExport]

Vancouver and Toronto are like Asian cities in this regard (multinodal 'downtowns'). I suppose Atlanta as well.

[craigs]

source

[Maldive]

Toronto Future Model showing the progression of the classic waterfront skyline view, looking north. GREY buildings are built.

The largest skyline in the city actually runs south to north from the lake, much of it hidden behind these waterfront 'scrapers. Even the towering financial district is slowly being obscured from the waterfront POV. SCROLL a little bit >>>


steveve

NOTE: a number of towers over 200 metres (up to 299 metres) that are coded in pink as 'Proposed" are actually in progress (site demolition and/or site prep).

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by Nite

regarding that Toronto has no iconic skyscrapers, I think Scotia Plaza is most Torontonians favourite skyscraper

I was surprised to find out the architect isn't Richard Keating, considering how much it resembles Keating's earlier (1980)
Enterprise Plaza (Interfirst Plaza) in Houston (which reminds me a bit of his Bank of America Building in San Francisco).


Enterprise Plaza and Centerpoint Energy Downtown Houston by Mabry Campbell, on Flickr


Houston - Downtown: Enterprise Plaza by Wally Gobetz, on Flickr


Downtown Houston by Jackson Myers, on Flickr

[chris08876]

First time responding to this thread, so my top 10. These are IMO.

Top 10 for the U.S.: Highest to lowest.


1) NYC - sheer magnitude and the staple of the silloute (facing NJ side the best, coming in via the NJ turnpike). The ultimate city experience and gold standard like it or not.

2) Atlanta - City within the trees, multiple nodes, has length, looks awesome at night. Vastly underrated city. Multiple nodes give the feeling of being much larger. Highway system coupled with the skylines looks futuristic as fuck. Criminally underrated city.

3) Philadelphia - A lot of symmetry to the skyline. Has a in your face approach when seeing it. Night time, it is superior in many respects. Likely a tie between slot 2 and 3.

4) San Francisco - topography to match

5) Chicago - Lakefront view, sheer magnitude.

6) Miami - The Singapore of the U.S.. Best viewed from South Beach facing West. Multiple skyline nodes.

7) Seattle - Looks like a mini Manhattan from the water

8) Nashville

9) Boston - The London of the U.S.. Jack of all trades city, offers much and the skyline has a very Euro feel to it.

10) Pittsburg - One of the best topographies. Picturesque skyline, old America.

[LAsam]

^ No love for Los Angeles! What about LA's skyline keeps in out of the top 10 for you?

[Omaharocks]

In the U.S.

1) Chicago
2) NYC
3) (Tie) Philadelphia and Seattle (in person I think Philly is more balanced from more angles, but Seattle from the water is hard to beat)
5) Atlanta
6) L.A.
7) San Francisco
8) Austin
9) Minneapolis
10) Miami

If looking at all of North America, I'd probably slot Vancouver and Toronto above Austin, and Montreal above Minneapolis.