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

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No. That's like saying a person's appearance changes if I close my eyes or take a lot of drugs. The person is the same.

A skyline doesn't change bc someone looks at it from a different angle. It's the same skyline.

So when I look Lower Manhattan from NJ, Ellis Island or Brooklyn I see exact the same image, the same silhouette?

We're talking about skylines here, not density.

Originally Posted by homebucket

Exactly. Other places have more or as beautiful natural settings, bigger and more iconic skylines, or both.

If you want to put Boston in the top 10, you're going to have to make a more compelling argument.

Boston is a bit like San Diego in this regard. Lots of buildings, but they're not tall enough, so we end up seeing a plateau.

It's not like Boston skyline is ugly, but there are several others in the US much more attractive.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Yuri

So when I look Lower Manhattan from NJ, Ellis Island or Brooklyn I see exact the same image, the same silhouette?

Yes. It's the exact same buildings and skyline. Your perspective changed, the skyline obviously didn't.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Boston is a bit like San Diego in this regard. Lots of buildings, but they're not tall enough, so we end up seeing a plateau.

It's not like Boston skyline is ugly, but there are several others in the US much more attractive.

Right, and it's not a knock on Boston. It's just an "it is what it is" type of thing. If we're talking about urbanity it's a completely different story (easily top 5), but this is purely focused on skylines.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yes. It's the exact same buildings and skyline. Your perspective changed, the skyline obviously didn't.

Building are the same, skyline/silhouette change. It's our eyes that make sense of a skyline and the angle is important.

And even though New York has thousands of tall buildings, it doesn't mean it will be the favourite of anybody. Pittsburgh, for instance: it's rather small, but it was love at first sight for me, since I see it in a local geographic magazine when I was a kid. It's very subjective.

Originally Posted by homebucket

Right, and it's not a knock on Boston. It's just an "it is what it is" type of thing. If we're talking about urbanity it's a completely different story (easily top 5), but this is purely focused on skylines.

Yes. It's skyline, not density or urbanity. I didn't mention Houston, but I kinda like its skyline and even though they're far for being an example or urbanity.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

And even though New York has thousands of tall buildings, it doesn't mean it will be the favourite of anybody.

One thing about being in New York is that you can be in the city and be completely oblivious to the skyline. The buildings are all around you but you can't really see the full skyline unless you're in New Jersey, or a well positioned rooftop Manhattan, or an outer borough. I would bet that most tourists don't ever really get a good view of the skyline because they don't tend to go to the places with the best vantage points.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Yuri

And even though New York has thousands of tall buildings, it doesn't mean it will be the favourite of anybody.

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.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

For me it's hard to separate the height of a skyline from the city's actual urbanity.

but for others, that's not as hard to do if you're just looking at shots of skylines in isolation and judging them on aspects like size, height, balance, compostion, style, variety, etc., (some of those measures being WAY more subjective than others).

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

Forever, OKC's skyline will be a joke because of that building.

as they say, "forever" is a long time.

there might very well be additional skyscrapers added to the OKC skyline in the coming decades that could help massage the great Devon goliath back into better overall balance with the skyline.



it's happened before.

here's what chicago's mag mile skyline looked like when JHC was first built back in '69.

as the 2nd tallest building in the world at the time, it was more than twice as tall as anything around it and must have been quite jarring.

but over the decades, other tall towers have been built up around JHC and it's nowhere near as much of a "sore thumb" anymore.


source: https://www.architecturalrecord.com/...scraper-museum

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

One thing about being in New York is that you can be in the city and be completely oblivious to the skyline. The buildings are all around you but you can't really see the full skyline unless you're in New Jersey, or a well positioned rooftop Manhattan, or an outer borough. I would bet that most tourists don't ever really get a good view of the skyline because they don't tend to go to the places with the best vantage points.

I've never been there but I thought that would be the case. I mean, looking up at the sidewalk, we don't make sense of how tall a building is. If it's 200m or 300m, you barely notice the difference. And I imagine the average Manhattan dweller don't live the island that often to make sense of the city's skyline at daily basis. Same for tourists.

Chicago has their beaches and that park right in front of the Loop, so it seems it's easier for people to see their skyline a lot more.

[IluvATX]

Originally Posted by LAsam

1) Cincinnati (Can't beat that view approaching the city from the airport)
2) Cleveland (3 iconic towers in one skyline... Terminal, Key, and BP... plus lakefront setting)
3) Columbus (Highlighted by Leveque Tower and beautifully curves around Scioto River)
4) Dayton (Punches above its weight as the 4th biggest MSA in Ohio)
5) Toledo (Old Owens Corning tower adds height along the banks of the Maumee River)
6) Akron (In the shadow of Cleveland but respectable in its own right)
7) Canton (In the shadow of Akron but respectable in its own right)
8) Youngstown (Running out of skylines...)
9) Cedar Point (Beautiful lakefront setting and roller coasters count, right?)
10) Kings Island (It's no Cedar Point, but it is home of The Beast)

Surely this is a joke.

[pj3000]

I liked San Francisco's skyline better prior to the addition of the big dildo.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I liked San Francisco's skyline better prior to the addition of the big dildo.

It's a fair opinion. A lot of people in SF don't like it either. I personally think it's the best recently completed non-NYC/Chicago supertall and fits well into the skyline, creating better balance and breaking the table top effect.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I liked San Francisco's skyline better prior to the addition of the big dildo.

I hate the look of Transamerica Pyramid, so I'm glad to see something in SF's skyline that takes attention away from it.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I hate the look of Transamerica Pyramid, so I'm glad to see something in SF's skyline that takes attention away from it.

That's an interesting take. I think most people by far prefer the Transamerica Pyramid over Salesforce Tower.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by homebucket

I personally think it's the best recently completed non-NYC/Chicago supertall.

That's a pretty small club.

Over the past 3 decades, there have only been 3 supertalls completed in the US outside of NYC/Chicago. And two of them use fairly egregious spires to reach above 1,000'.

Salesforce - SF
Comcast - Philly
Wilshire Grand - LA


And including Chicago only adds another two:

St. Regis (Vista)
Trump Chicago


Additionally, Austin and Miami now each have bona fide (roof height) super-talls U/C right now, so the recently completed non-NYC supertalls list will be growing.

[Klippenstein]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

And including Chicago only adds another two:

St. Regis (Vista)
Trump Chicago

Stop reminding me One Chicago is not a supertall.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

but for others, that's not as hard to do if you're just looking at shots of skylines in isolation and judging them on aspects like size, height, balance, compostion, style, variety, etc., (some of those measures being WAY more subjective than others).

Right. It's subjective. So my subjective take is that Boston's skyline is better than Atlanta's and Houston's alike. Houston is a suburban office park with big tall buildings in the middle of it.

Carry on.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by ue

2) Montreal: almost as good as Toronto for me and although I don't like many of the new towers, they haven't engulfed the older 1960s-1990s towers (yet) and so Montreal's skyline remains very distinctive to me. Some of the new towers aren't bad, either, but I do love Sun Life, Gauchetiere, CIBC, PVM, Bourse, etc. Do wish they got rid of that height limit, though as it's starting to become a tall Ottawa in areas.

https://www.facebook.com/jfsavariaphotographe

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

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

That's a pretty small club.

Over the past 3 decades, there have only been 3 supertalls completed in the US outside of NYC/Chicago. And two of them use fairly egregious spires to reach above 1,000'.

Salesforce - SF
Comcast - Philly
Wilshire Grand - LA


And including Chicago only adds another two:

St. Regis (Vista)
Trump Chicago


Additionally, Austin and Miami now each have bona fide (roof height) super-talls U/C right now, so the recently completed non-NYC supertalls list will be growing.

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.

Chicago and Miami have plans for a few more. It'll be interesting to see who builds a lot soon.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by DZH22

There are height limits but it could go taller in certain areas, up close to 1000'.

That'd be awesome, you'd think in a city like Boston there's be a market for a supertall (or near supertall) condo tower.

Chicago and Miami have plans for a few more. It'll be interesting to see who builds a lot soon.

I think Austin has a lot of supertall potential, we'll see if Seattle joins the club too.

As far as adding an official skyscraper Phoenix and the DC metro have yet to although I think there were plans for a 500+ footer in Phoenix (Astra) and one in Arlington VA at some point. Not sure what happened to those.

[BillM]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yes. It's the exact same buildings and skyline. Your perspective changed, the skyline obviously didn't.

Would you consider that Manhattan has some 700 foot buildings that are not part of the skyline?