I was going to post this in the surprising skylines thread since the op didn't specify surprisingly good or surprisingly bad, but looking at his posts, he obviously meant good, so here's the bad one. In no particular order, I think Raleigh, Albuquerque. Portland Oregon, San Diego, Jacksonville, Birmingham and Memphis all have really piss poor skylines for their metros.

I think San Diego isn't bad. It has improved recently. I think LA is the one that is pretty bad for a city of it's size.

I am pretty sure Portland has put serious restrcitions on height after a tower ruined some sight lines years back. Maybe someone from Portland can confirm that? Portland has great surroundings, so they try to keep that in perspective.

I sense this getting closed. But honestly I think most US skylines are pretty sucky, as they usually lack density, diversity, or innovation (or all three)...or are just plain small and unimpressive

I don't know about Portland's height limits, but they had a cap on the total number of Downtown parking spaces for decades. This improved ambiance and walkability (narrow streets, not as many cars), but also reduced the amount of new office space and other uses that got built. The cap has gone away, and they've seen a lot more construction since.

For all the great architecture and diversity, clean streets and lively neighborhoods... I think the thing that Milwaukee lacks is more height and density in the skyline for the size metro it has. People see the skyline and think it's a much smaller city then it actually is.

I was going to post this in the surprising skylines thread since the op didn't specify surprisingly good or surprisingly bad, but looking at his posts, he obviously meant good, so here's the bad one. In no particular order, I think Raleigh, Albuquerque. Portland Oregon, San Diego, Jacksonville, Birmingham and Memphis all have really piss poor skylines for their metros.

before the lock on this trollish thread, you forgot Tucson, El Paso, Colorado Springs, Fresno, Bakersfield, San Antonio, Phoenix, Wichita, and Jacksonville.

before the lock on this trollish thread, you forgot Tucson, El Paso, Colorado Springs, Fresno, Bakersfield, San Antonio, Phoenix, Wichita, and Jacksonville.

Why is this trollish? If we can have a thread about great skylines, why can't we have one about horrible ones? That's a really wussified thing to post; grow a pair. :ohno: I agree with your other cities however, but I didn't forget Jacksonville.

Ah: just realized you're from Querque, hence your hurt feelings, since I named it in my op. I got it. Still al lil thin skinned though. My cities (Greenville, SC) skyline is underwhelming and I'm not gonna snivel about it.

Orlando skyline is cute but it deserves better and bigger !!

Orlando skyline is cute but it deserves better and bigger !!

It's actually gotten much better in the last 10 years. Prior to that it was really bad.

Why is this trollish? If we can have a thread about great skylines, why can't we have one about horrible ones? That's a really wussified thing to post; grow a pair. :ohno: I agree with your other cities however, but I didn't forget Jacksonville.

Ah: just realized you're from Querque, hence your hurt feelings, since I named it in my op. I got it. Still al lil thin skinned though. My cities (Greenville, SC) skyline is underwhelming and I'm not gonna snivel about it.

No, we've had this discussion before (try searching old threads about a subject before creating new ones). We don't learn anything new, and the negativity of the subject invites 'city v. city'. I personally don't care about Albuquerque's shitty skyline. It's a situation in nearly every western city and the reasons are well known. My skin might be a lot thicker than you think. :|


...and post pictures to illustrate your point.

pictures?

Orlando and Sacramento come to mind. I don't think Portland's is too bad.. small, yes, but I wouldn't call it "surprisingly sucky". Seems more urban/lively than other skylines of similar size. Oklahoma doesn't impress much either.

Phoenix - Population: 1.5 million - 5th largest city
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Phoenix.skyline.750pix.jpg

Los Angeles a megacity of nearly 20 million:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2231/2243979280_5cb04d1b5f_o_d.jpg

Phoenix - Population: 1.5 million - 5th largest city
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Phoenix.skyline.750pix.jpg

That is bad.

Los Angeles a megacity of nearly 20 million:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2231/2243979280_5cb04d1b5f_o_d.jpg

Well, the entire LA county is around 11 million, not 20. Plus, that's a really bad angle, plus there are tons of high rise areas in LA county.

Colorado Springs Metro pop. 626,227

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3277/2562349397_7a41bd992c_o.jpg

Well, the entire LA county is around 11 million, not 20. Plus, that's a really bad angle, plus there are tons of high rise areas in LA county.

The CSA is approaching 19 million.

Los Angeles a megacity of nearly 20 million:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2231/2243979280_5cb04d1b5f_o_d.jpg

Every skyline will have their bad angles. Here's a better one:

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/8816/losangeles19.jpg

LA's skyline is fine as is.

To call San Diego's skyline "piss poor" is a bit much. The city's street level urbanity and transit more than make up for it.

It's a lot more interesting to have a so-so skyline with vibrant urban cores along with adequate transit than hulking glass behemoths rising over lifeless sidewalks and streets.

It's a lot more interesting to have a so-so skyline with vibrant urban cores along with adequate transit than hulking glass behemoths rising over lifeless sidewalks and streets.
I agree, which is why cities like Philly and Boston are so great, even though their skylines suck.

I agree, which is why cities like Philly and Boston are so great, even though their skylines suck.

WHOA! Back up... Philadelphia and Boston's skylines do not suck... at least definitely not Philly's. Philly's skyline definitely offers an accurate representation of the city's size and importance. It has a near-perfect scale of buildings ranging in height from low to mid to high rise and then a healthy number of skyscrapers in Center City.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a9/Philadelphia_skyline_from_south_street_bridge.jpg

http://press.visitphilly.com/uploads/photos/1415_l.jpg

And as for Boston, I'll agree that its skyline is somewhat disconnected and lacks any notable skyscrapers aside from the Hancock Tower & the Prudential Center, but there are still countless skylines across the United States-- dozens off the top of my head--that are far suckier than Boston's.

http://www.bc.edu/centers/cwf/meta-elements/jpg/boston-skyline.jpg

http://www.mikelevin.com/BostonSkyline1024.jpg

http://peakcreative.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/boston_skyline.jpg

Suckiness is a matter of perspective. While LA skyline is a little undernourished, it does sort of look like Emerald City because it rises out of a vast flatland and all of it's buildings are over 600 ft. Philly and Boston both have small skylines ( in comparison to Chicago), but as you can see from DShoot88's photo they are both nice compact balanced skylines.
Phoenix, you're on you own.

WHOA! Back up... Philadelphia and Boston's skylines do not suck...
Are you challenging my opinion? I don't think they are anything special. Call me a skyline snob, sue me.

what you mean portland is sucky? i think its an adorable city :D you would be suprised how dense it is.
http://i632.photobucket.com/albums/uu50/beast_benny/3471332249_2d9094664b_b.jpg

http://i632.photobucket.com/albums/uu50/beast_benny/3383053599_ec58a98ecb_o.jpg
http://i632.photobucket.com/albums/uu50/beast_benny/20071022_ohsudntn_0601.jpg
http://i632.photobucket.com/albums/uu50/beast_benny/portland-skyline-sm.jpg

Austin has a pretty bad skyline too.

As someone who's spent 99.9% of their life in Sacramento, I can conclusively say that our skyline is truly a piece of crap. It lacks density. The different buildings don't really flow together. There are huge gaps, regardless of what angle you view the city from (I would know, I've seen this city from just about every angle possible). What's worse is that there seems to be a height limit here, even though the airport is far enough away not to warrant one, I don't think. I mean, while I would prefer a denser skyline and cityscape than to have one or two taller buildings, don't you think it's a little ridiculous that a metro area of OVER two million people has a 423 ft tall high-rise as their tallest building? I've heard time and time again from outsiders that they are very disappointed when they see Sacramento, the capital of the most populous state in the country, and realize how puny it looks.

IMO, for a metro not that much smaller than New York, Los Angeles Skyline is pretty underwhelming. The fact that Chicago which is much smaller (in metro size) beats LA's skyline in terms of grandness just amazes me.

New York City has a surprisingly sucky skyline.

Oklahoma doesn't impress much either.

What Oklahoma are you talking about? Not sure if you mean OKC or Tulsa, but here are the skylines:

OKC: city pop, 560,000; metro pop, 1.3 million.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/64/199469180_9216942db8.jpg

Tulsa: city pop, 395,000; metro pop, 980,000.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1385/1362728482_9569486b2f_o.jpg

Bartlesville: city pop 35,000
http://samhoodonline.com/pictures/downthumb.jpghttp://www.mcanawrealtors.com/caffeine/uploads/files/53.jpg

I guess Oklahoma also has some real sucky skylines, despite all the oil..

San Diego isn't terrible, but the height limit hasn't helped. What it has done is widened the skyline out, so the entire center city ends up denser and fuller looking... albeit short.

And I think LA is fine. If anyone from the LA metro could post a picture of their region from the Getty, I think anyone could see how grand Los Angeles is, high-rise wise.

Austin has a pretty bad skyline too.

Looks pretty decent for a ~1.7 million metro to me...

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4055/4645882571_22dabc378e_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nylonsandcake/4645882571/

As someone who's spent 99.9% of their life in Sacramento, I can conclusively say that our skyline is truly a piece of crap. It lacks density. The different buildings don't really flow together. There are huge gaps, regardless of what angle you view the city from (I would know, I've seen this city from just about every angle possible). What's worse is that there seems to be a height limit here, even though the airport is far enough away not to warrant one, I don't think. I mean, while I would prefer a denser skyline and cityscape than to have one or two taller buildings, don't you think it's a little ridiculous that a metro area of OVER two million people has a 423 ft tall high-rise as their tallest building? I've heard time and time again from outsiders that they are very disappointed when they see Sacramento, the capital of the most populous state in the country, and realize how puny it looks.

Well stated, Sacramento's skyline isn't terribly impressive. I recall there were some plans for some higher scrapers, but I understand they got derailed owing to the development crash.

LA clearly has a lot of things going for and against it... but the skyline sure isn't one of the things going for it. Like other posters have said; it's not bad, but for a city that size it is tiny. Minneapolis (without St. Paul) has a better skyline and is much smaller.

But again, with all the things going for the city do people from LA really have to be defensive about the skyline? Probably not. :)

I was at ACL in '08 and I don't remember Austin that way. They are very progressive, good for Austin.

I was at ACL in '08 and I don't remember Austin that way. They are very progressive, good for Austin.

It's had quite a growth spurt, huh?

When you guys talk about LA, you do realize there is more to it than just the downtown skyline you see in isolated pictures.

I sense this getting closed. But honestly I think most US skylines are pretty sucky, as they usually lack density, diversity, or innovation (or all three)...or are just plain small and unimpressive

compared to? Hong Kong? NY, Chicago, Shanghai. What other nation has as many cities as the US that even have decent skylines.

San Jose has over 1,000,000 people in the city:
http://www.sapdesignguild.org/community/images/skyline_sj.jpg

When you guys talk about LA, you do realize there is more to it than just the downtown skyline you see in isolated pictures.

Having clumps of buildings seperated from eachother is part of the problem. When you're in NY, chicago, Seattle, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, etc you don't have to go looking for the skyline. It's just there. Even in smaller cities you just know where skyline is. For a city this size it shouldn't be a scavenger hunt for 600ft buildings.

compared to? Hong Kong? NY, Chicago, Shanghai. What other nation has as many cities as the US that even have decent skylines.
Well, yes, the world. Take Brazil. Every city I've been to in Brazil has been better than almost every US skyline. Take Asia, same thing. Take Argentina, same thing. Europe is really the only place where the skylines are lacking... Hell, even Canada has better skylines with Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal...

And again, please note the last part of my comment: "as they usually lack density, diversity, or innovation (or all three)...or are just plain small and unimpressive".

And I wouldn't call the majority of US skylines "decent". Just because you have a few tall buildings doesn't mean it's decent.

Having clumps of buildings seperated from eachother is part of the problem. When you're in NY, chicago, Seattle, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, etc you don't have to go looking for the skyline. It's just there. Even in smaller cities you just know where skyline is. For a city this size it shouldn't be a scavenger hunt for 600ft buildings.
Yes, thank you. Incongruity for me is a major miss on a skyline. At least LA has the mountains going for it to enhance it's skyline...but for 15 million region, it's really pretty pathetic

It's subjective. Some places in Asia and South America have a lot of highrises but their skylines aren't particularly nice to look at nor is the architecture compelling.

Well, yes, the world. Take Brazil. Every city I've been to in Brazil has been better than almost every US skyline. Take Asia, same thing. Take Argentina, same thing. Europe is really the only place where the skylines are lacking... Hell, even Canada has better skylines with Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal...

And again, please note the last part of my comment: "as they usually lack density, diversity, or innovation (or all three)...or are just plain small and unimpressive".

And I wouldn't call the majority of US skylines "decent". Just because you have a few tall buildings doesn't mean it's decent.




You ARE a skyline snob! :lol:

Seriously though, some of their comments on density and diversity, streetscape and streetwalls, etc is all correct. The US is a good blend of the old (European skylines with hardly any skyscrapers but GREAT streetscaping and interaction) and the new (think Asian and Arab skylines with lots of big skyscrapers that don't interact very well at ground level and are too spread apart). Canada is another good example of the blend, but if you look away from their biggest cities and you dont have that many "great" skylines either. I'd take a blend of the old and new instead of just a mash of a lot of large, often bland, buildings mashed together.

You ARE a skyline snob!
Hey, at least I admit it. It's hard to impress me.

i dont think south American or Asian cities are diverse like you seem to think northsider. and cities like San Fransisco, new york, and Chicago are by far denser than any Chinese skyline. also most skylines around the world don't show a good central skyline, they just have bunch of spread out skyscrapers that dont blend together at all. and i don't find really anything different between Canadian, American, or Australian skylines.

Have you even taken a look at South American, spec. Brazilian, skylines, they lack diversity and innovation. Its just a sea of bland highrises. Same with some Asian cities.

The USA, as a nation, has more diversity than any other nation. And are one of the best in innovation, AS A WHOLE, and are above average in skyline density, not the best, but above the avg. That equals best nation for skylines. Canada has like 5 skylines, the southern US has just as many skylines. Vancouver, Toronto, Edmonton, Calgary, Montreal vs Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Miami, and Charlotte. CA prob. wins, but its a decent matchup of a country vs a region of a country.. Same with Australia.

Unless you find a country that has a match for the following skylines, even just 3/4 of these, it shouldn't even be up for discussion which nation has the best skylines: NYC, Chicago, SF, Seattle, Houston, LA, Minneapolis, Philly, Miami, Atlanta, Dallas, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, San Diego etc.
And then some of our smaller skylines like Austin, KC, Baltimore, Nashville, Tampa, Ft. Lauterdale, Boston, St. Louis, etc. Really no contest, since they're is like 30 other skylines on my mind yet.

i dont think south American or Asian cities are diverse like you seem to think northsider.
Yea? Have you been? I have, and I would say they are. I'd take the Fortaleza skyline over pretty much every US skyline besides SF, Seattle, Chicago, Miami, and NYC (really the only skylines in my opinion worth anything)

also most skylines around the world don't show a good central skyline, they just have bunch of spread out skyscrapers that dont blend together at all.
Please show me a good skyline outside of the ones I mentioned above that does not "lack density, diversity, or innovation (or all three)...or are just plain small and unimpressive"

and cities like San Fransisco, new york, and Chicago are by far denser than any Chinese skyline
I think at the street level it would appear so. But in terms of skyscraper density....I'm not sure about that.

Have you even taken a look at South American, spec. Brazilian, skylines, they lack diversity and innovation. Its just a sea of bland highrises.
Taken a look? Yes, I've been to many cities in South America. (Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo, Fortaleza, Santos, Salvador)

Unless you find a country that has a match for the following skylines, even just 3/4 of these, it shouldn't even be up for discussion which nation has the best skylines: NYC, Chicago, SF, Seattle, Houston, LA, Minneapolis, Philly, Miami, Atlanta, Dallas, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, San Diego etc.
And then some of our smaller skylines like Austin, KC, Baltimore, Nashville, Tampa, Ft. Lauterdale, Boston, St. Louis, etc. Really no contest, since they're is like 30 other skylines on my mind yet.
I'm sorry, are we talking about 'best skyline nations' or 'Suprisingly sucky skylines'? Because I thought we were talking about the latter.

San Diego? Portland, OR? I have to disagree with that. I consider San Diego skyline as the one of best US skylines. I know San Diego has height limitation which they can't have more than 500' skyscrapers but San Diego skyline isn't bad for its height limitation compared to many US cities with height limitation. Portland, OR... Their skyline isn't bad but could do better. I don't think Portland has "sucky" skyline since they have many unique looking skyscrapers and adding new skyscrapers lately. Portland has height limitation too.

The worst US skylines I have seen in person: Eugene, OR; Omaha, NE; Lincoln, NE; Vancouver, WA; and Stockton, CA.

The worst US skylines I have seen in person: Eugene, OR; Omaha, NE; Lincoln, NE; Vancouver, WA; and Stockton, CA.

awww dont dis on vancouver, washington they just recently went from a city of 40k to 169k in like 20 years they are trying their best and they have some huge plans for the skyline.they even rising the height restriction to 20 storeys :D
some projects in vancouver are
the new bridge
http://i632.photobucket.com/albums/uu50/beast_benny/d2b7d849836b663a0bc126c09baf5fce_cu.jpg
http://i632.photobucket.com/albums/uu50/beast_benny/L_IMAGE1223cc986ef9388fad0191322812.jpg
and the complete waterfront redevelopment, which is getting realy close to beginning construction.
http://i632.photobucket.com/albums/uu50/beast_benny/3616122130_4bf8516691_b.jpg
and finally the new library area which has already started
http://i632.photobucket.com/albums/uu50/beast_benny/riverwestvancouver.jpg

^^That project looks excellent, what is it composed of?

I just think because the US has so many cities with over 500,000/1,000,000 people that there's bound to be some poor(er) skylines. Not every city is going to need to build supertalls & skyscrapers to house their offices, nor apartments. New York being one of the financial/business capitals of the world has an amazing skyline, but it also has had (and still does have) the demand to built upward for over a century. Much the same could be said for Chicago. I don't know about you, but I personally wouldn't expect a small city in the middle of no-where, and of little importance to build enormous towers for offices or residences when little-to-no demand exists (other than oil-wealthy Emirates).

Honestly, if the US were multiple countries with each being dependent on one or two main cities with the necessity to build big, I'd assume there would be more amazing skylines.

With all that said, I do still think the US has an abundance of amazing skylines. New York, Chicago, Seattle, Miami, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Philadelphia, LA ... the list could go on! And while they may not stack up to the extremely high standards set by New York and Chicago, they're still amazing nonetheless.

end of rant.

Yea? Have you been? I have, and I would say they are. I'd take the Fortaleza skyline over pretty much every US skyline besides SF, Seattle, Chicago, Miami, and NYC (really the only skylines in my opinion worth anything)

I really hope you're joking. Only thing this place can claim is density. Not a single ounce of diversity or innovation.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3187/2431445884_079424b102.jpg

Please show me a good skyline outside of the ones I mentioned above that does not "lack density, diversity, or innovation (or all three)...or are just plain small and unimpressive"

Philly
http://press.visitphilly.com/uploads/photos/1415_l.jpg
http://www.advisorsquare.com/new/ifaphiladelphia/Philly_skyline.jpg

Atlanta
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/152/375966413_e09a4a5a56.jpg

Houston, Dallas, Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Detroit, Jersey City, Cleaveland, and Cincinnati just to name a few. They may not be these huge monolithic skylines in South America and Asia you seem to adore, but they have more diversity, character and innovation than most of them.

awww dont dis on vancouver, washington they just recently went from a city of 40k to 169k in like 20 years they are trying their best and they have some huge plans for the skyline.they even rising the height restriction to 20 storeys :D


I am speaking of present day skylines. Sure these projects for Vancouver, WA looks great. My opinion on Vancouver, WA might change once these projects got built. I am willing to keep my mind open for that. :)

Having clumps of buildings seperated from eachother is part of the problem. When you're in NY, chicago, Seattle, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, etc you don't have to go looking for the skyline. It's just there. Even in smaller cities you just know where skyline is. For a city this size it shouldn't be a scavenger hunt for 600ft buildings.

Actually in those cities (Dallas, Atlanta, and Miami), it's kind of hard to figure out where exactly downtown starts and midtown or whatever begins. Houston is the same way. Houston is worse than LA not because of it's buildings but because there are skyscrapers all over the place.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Houston_Cityscape.jpg

Here is the LA Basin (not showing the San Fernando Valley which has skyscrapers too in Glendale, Burbank, and the Warner Center). And don't be fooled. Century City (in the foreground) is not that dense.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Los_angeles_from_getty_panorama.jpg

Well stated, Sacramento's skyline isn't terribly impressive. I recall there were some plans for some higher scrapers, but I understand they got derailed owing to the development crash.

Actually, our major skyline projects got derailed before the recession. We had twin towers planned for this huge empty lot on our supposedly "beautiful" entrance to the city, supposed to be 597' each. John Saca, the developer (may he rot for what he did), split the funding for the project between a bunch of different banks, rather than securing financing from one bank. In the end, one bank gave up on it, forcing him to pull his now worthless money from all the banks, leaving a giant gaping hole in the ground across the street from the tallest building in the city. Ever since then, I've seen a few plans here and there for a new condo or hotel, but most of the development now has been sporadic townhouse projects all over the city, not unified in any way. I wouldn't mind the projects if they were in the same neighborhood, adding to the density and the overall vibe, but these projects aren't even within a mile of each other. What's truly sad is if you ever walk or drive around Downtown Sacramento, you'll see entire blocks of empty, abandoned single or two story buildings, and then right across the street will be brand new high-rises or developments. Developers need to buy that wasted land, tear those projects down, and build something, anything, new to bring good life back into downtown (bad life would be the vast amount of homeless people who walk the streets). Just today, I saw three parking garages next to each other. No, not one large garage, but three separate garages, and guess what? They're all across the street from the Capitol! But, I digress. Sacramento, as a large American metropolitan area (a shade over two million is a large metro, if you ask me), sucks.

Jacksonville has a decent skyline. I still think the Modis tower is '70s cool. :cool:

Jacksonville may be over 700k, but it's one of those county consolidations with a huge land area. If Jacksonville has to be sucky then so does Indianapolis, being only fair. Hey I don't want anyone to be sucky. It's true, these threads -are- negative!

I am speaking of present day skylines. Sure these projects for Vancouver, WA looks great. My opinion on Vancouver, WA might change once these projects got built. I am willing to keep my mind open for that. :)

yea i know present day Vancouver skyline does kinda suck XD.

^^That project looks excellent, what is it composed of?

which one?

Honolulu has a very SouthEast Asian style skyline with countless of buildings being built everywhere (limited land and high density city) and seriously lack abundant of eye-candy looking buildings. Eg. There are over three dozen proposed and approved projects on 300-400 foot residential/business buildings for the future, which many of them of copies.

US cities are very diverse in terms of style. New England states have very European looking cities/town, which I find attractive as well.

Samples of Honolulu
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2625/4230039539_8a84057718_b.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/30/61721355_dba0dbcba6_b.jpg

Lastly hidden in that mess of buildings is the Downtown/Financial District Skyline
http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/9915/honolulupanops2si7.jpg

I really hope you're joking.
I am absolutely not joking. I'd much rather have that than:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Houston_Cityscape.jpg

<shrudder> ugh
They may not be these huge monolithic skylines in South America and Asia you seem to adore, but they have more diversity, character and innovation than most of them.
I'm obviously not going to change your mind, and you won't change mine. I'm very unimpressed with most US skylines. Period. Especially "Houston, Dallas, Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Detroit, Jersey City, Cleaveland, and Cincinnati just to name a few." What is so great about them (except Dallas, I'll give it to you that Dallas is at least UNIQUE! And I enjoy Pittsburgh's)? But still, how does Atlanta or Cleveland compare to Chicago, NYC, or Miami? I mean, cmon...

and for the record. no one is dissing on vancouver. you can dis vancouver but you cant dis on vancouver. learn some grammar

To call San Diego's skyline "piss poor" is a bit much. The city's street level urbanity and transit more than make up for it.

It's a lot more interesting to have a so-so skyline with vibrant urban cores along with adequate transit than hulking glass behemoths rising over lifeless sidewalks and streets.

^^ 100% correct. San Diego downtown is alive at night unlike another large city to the north..of course their nightlife is elsewhere...San Diego also has a height limitations because of earthquakes of 500 feet(152m)..

and for the record. no one is dissing on vancouver. you can dis vancouver but you cant dis on vancouver. learn some grammar

LOLWUT?

^^ 100% correct. San Diego downtown is alive at night unlike another large city to the north..of course their nightlife is elsewhere...San Diego also has a height limitations because of earthquakes of 500 feet(152m)..
Not because of earthquakes, because of the airport.

^^ 100% correct. San Diego downtown is alive at night unlike another large city to the north..of course their nightlife is elsewhere...San Diego also has a height limitations because of earthquakes of 500 feet(152m)..

Downtown Seattle is alive at night time too.

FYI, earthquakes are not the reason why downtown San Diego has height limitation. It is because of flight traffic due to an airport next to downtown San Diego area.

I'm not sure what constitutes a sucky skyline, because we all disagree on what's important. Minneapolis has a small skyline, but it photograph's realy well. The Chinese cities are overpowering in their sheer size, but with the exception of Shanghai or Hong Kong, I wouldn't characterize most of them as distinctive.

Downtown Seattle is alive at night time too.

FYI, earthquakes are not the reason why downtown San Diego has height limitation. It is because of flight traffic due to an airport next to downtown San Diego area.

You are right..But I'm sure earthquakes may have something to do with it also.

For those of you that don't if you ever fly into Lindbergh Field in San Diego you will be able to wave at the office workers and condo dwellers as you fly past their buildings..

Lindbergh Field is about two miles from Downtown San Diego.

I won't say our skyline sucks, but Tampa's skyline could be way further along than it is at the moment for a couple of reasons. Hopefully things will change once the economy rebounds and we can get a 600'.

I like our little downtown skyline and our shitty lack of density :) I'm real impressed with Austin though. I had no idea! Also you have no idea about what the rest of the world is doing unless you're on here-or watch The Amazing Race. . IMAGE HOSTED ON FLICKR (http://www.flickr.com) http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%202/3120512033_1e04679a21_b-3.jpg KLA 4067

Every skyline will have their bad angles. Here's a better one:

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/8816/losangeles19.jpg

LA's skyline is fine as is.


I love these skylines and vomit looking density that connects the two.......a truly unique urban layout compared to other US cities. Like a poster previously said it reminds you of Emerald City in cartoons. Just a note: I believe that Chicago has the most impressive skyline in the US (hands down) much more impressive than NYC especially now w/o the WTC. Skylines can be very deceiving now can't they?

Looks pretty decent for a ~1.7 million metro to me...

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4055/4645882571_22dabc378e_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nylonsandcake/4645882571/

Wow! Where did all those tall buildings come from? :lol:

Seriously, it looks like Austin's skyline has been filling out quite nicely over the past few years. But I bet it would looks much better at night. Definitely not bad for a metro area of about 1.7 million. On the other hand, if you head 70 miles down I-35 to nearby San Antonio, you'll find a skyline that seems kind of small and disconnected for a metro of its size (about 2.1 million).

You are right..But I'm sure earthquakes may have something to do with it also.

For those of you that don't if you ever fly into Lindbergh Field in San Diego you will be able to wave at the office workers and condo dwellers as you fly past their buildings..

Lindbergh Field is about two miles from Downtown San Diego.

Earthquakes has nothing to do with San Diego's height limit. If that were the case, there wouldn't be a supertall 100 miles to the north.

San Diego International Airport is about 2 miles away from downtown. If you've never flown into San Diego, take a look at this. You get VERY close to the buildings:

WODh3eOEfnE

But still, how does Atlanta or Cleveland compare to Chicago, NYC, or Miami? I mean, cmon...
Atlanta and Cleveland's skylines may not be as impressive as NYC, Chicago or Miami's skylines. But come on, Fortaleza, Brazil? Their skyline is even less impressive. Atlanta has a much nicer skyline than Fortaleza, especially at night. The most impressive thing about Fortaleza's skyline is not the buildings. It's the beachfront location. There's not much character or innovation in those buildings. Just density, quantity. Same goes for Beijing. Even Sao Paulo. What they've got are more tall buildings. More is not always better. Pittsburgh and Atlanta have way more character in their skylines than Beijing. Beijing, Sao Paulo and Fortaleza's skylines seem more about quantity than quality. It's not always good to focus on quantity over quality.

Earthquakes has nothing to do with San Diego's height limit. If that were the case, there wouldn't be a supertall 100 miles to the north.

San Diego International Airport is about 2 miles away from downtown. If you've never flown into San Diego, take a look at this. You get VERY close to the buildings:



This is very much off topic for a second, but I swear to god, if there were any city in the US in terrible need of a new airport, it's San Diego. I hate flying in and out of there. Looove the city, despise the airport.

I know return you to your regular topic.

Earthquakes has nothing to do with San Diego's height limit. If that were the case, there wouldn't be a supertall 100 miles to the north.

San Diego International Airport is about 2 miles away from downtown. If you've never flown into San Diego, take a look at this. You get VERY close to the buildings


Actually the airport borders downtown so the runways are literally across the street from it.
If you look at the video again downtown San Diego ends approximately at 1:08 and you see the runway immediately.

That video is more than 5 years old so there is more density in the East Village and Harbor areas.