This city is the Capital of The United States of America and it is very beautiful. It doesn't have many tall buildings, but the buildings are built in a style of architecture seen nowhere else and that many Americans are proud of. The layout is also well planned as seen in the pictures below.

http://www.mvr.usace.army.mil/PA_brochure20775/washington%20monument.jpg
http://www.mvr.usace.army.mil/PA_brochure20775/white%20house%20pic.jpg
http://www.stananapol.com/News/MILLIONMAN2.jpg
http://www.clevelandskyline.com/Dreind44.jpg
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect4/pentagon_col080202_dg.jpg
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect4/originals/Fig4_22.jpg
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect4/washdc_ww2_memorial_may24_2004_dg.jpg

Actually the Washington area does have a pretty decent hi-rise section called Rosslyn, in Alexandria, Virginia, right across the Potomac River.

It's just magnificent. 10/10.

No skyline! 5/10

1/10

no skyline. I gave 1 because it had the Washington Monument

Here's another picture, there seems to be a highrise section in the background.

http://wwwa.house.gov/case/photos1/Washington%20DC%20City%20Shot.jpg

For the capitol of such a nation, I think it would have a nicer skyline. 6.

Use some common sense people. Yes, it is the capital of the most powerful nation in the world, thus you cannot have any tall buildings because of terrorism. It doesnt have a skyline, but it beats out everyone in city planning and layout, and it beats most cities in architecture.

I don't think terrorism is really a big reason for why there aren't many tall buildings. We have plenty of others cities in the USA with tall buildings that are probably at a greater risk than Washington, which is heavily guarded.

Washington doesn't have many tall buildings because the purpose of the city is to serve as the Capital, which it does well. It is made simply for government to operate in. Tall buildings are more suitable for New York and Chicago which are commerce centers.

The layout is very nice though and much better planned than any other city I think in the world. Most of the famous buildings are built with superb architecture and positioned for good viewpoints. The surrounding environment is beautiful with the water and many lawns and parks. New York is an example of power, but Washington is an example of the simple elegance the country was founded upon.

Use some common sense people. Yes, it is the capital of the most powerful nation in the world, thus you cannot have any tall buildings because of terrorism. It doesnt have a skyline, but it beats out everyone in city planning and layout, and it beats most cities in architecture.

there are no tall buildings in the district of columbia bc planning regulations state that no building may exceed a certain height, that height being relative to the dome of the capital building. The districtm, however, is surmounted on all sides by other municipal entities that are free from this planning regulation. Just across the Potomac River, the Virginia side is practically covered with mid and high rise buildings ... looking more like china than the mid atlantic ... rosslyn, ballston, crystal city, pentagon city, tysons corner etc all have skylines ... not pretty ones lol but skylines for real

2/10

not kidding

3,5 Has some highrises, but nothing special.

I won´t vote until I see some pictures of Washington where I can see a skyline.

BTW: I define skyline as the appearance of a city (most likely at the horizon) seen from the side and not from above!
Even a bunch of 40-60m high buildings on flat land would make a skyline.

Nearby Arlington, VA
http://www.commuterpage.com/ART/villages/graphics/arlington-skyline.gif
Nearby Rosslyn, VA
http://www.beyonddc.com/images/photos/va/rosslyn/skyline11-rcw.jpg

crystal city was wonderful

Here's another picture, there seems to be a highrise section in the background.

http://wwwa.house.gov/case/photos1/Washington%20DC%20City%20Shot.jpg

That would be Roslyn in Virginia.

I don't think terrorism is really a big reason for why there aren't many tall buildings. We have plenty of others cities in the USA with tall buildings that are probably at a greater risk than Washington, which is heavily guarded.

Washington doesn't have many tall buildings because the purpose of the city is to serve as the Capital, which it does well. It is made simply for government to operate in. Tall buildings are more suitable for New York and Chicago which are commerce centers.

The layout is very nice though and much better planned than any other city I think in the world. Most of the famous buildings are built with superb architecture and positioned for good viewpoints. The surrounding environment is beautiful with the water and many lawns and parks. New York is an example of power, but Washington is an example of the simple elegance the country was founded upon.

Actually, the height is limited by the height of the Washington Monument!

Washington doesn't really have much of a skyline. Height restrictions were created about 100 years ago. Nothing can be taller than the capitol building, below the dome. Since there has been a demand for large buildings in DC, everybody builds right up the the limit which is about 150 feet. Instead of a skyline, DC has an artificial horizon. Every building in the dense areas is within 5 feet of the limit. On the one hand, it maintains the drama of the capitol and the washington monument. On the other hand, the inability to build tall buildings requires buildings with a large footprint, creating, as Dickens remarked 150 years ago, a "city of magnificent distances". As great as DC is, cities with more height and density are better for street level interest, pedestrians and dramatic views. On my frequent visits there, I always have to take my best walking shoes, just to get lunch.

Well as far as skyline, its a 3, but its a lovely city in the way its planned out and everything. Id rate the aerial a 10 ;o)

I think that our capital city should not have skyscrapers. Even though tall buildings make a city more interesting and modern, old-world buikdings make a city more grand. Take a look at some of the most beatiful cities in the world (according to many) like Paris, London, or Buenos Aires, the most grand parts don't have tall buildings, they are all off to the side. However this is a rating of skylines, and WA. D.C. doesn't have one.

An article that addresses the common height restriction myths in DC, and also discusses their practical and asthetic implications.......

D.C.'s height limits: Taking the measure of their impact

Mike Livingston
Contributing writer

It's a popular myth that the Washington Monument is decreed by law to be the tallest building in the District of Columbia. However, D.C. does have height restrictions that leave the 555-foot-tall monument and the Capitol pretty much unchallenged -- and create a pleasant atmosphere few other major cities can achieve, planners and architects say.

"President George Washington issued the first building height regulations for the city in 1791, concerned as much about structural and fire safety as about urban design," wrote architect Roger K. Lewis for The Washington Post in 1994.

Thomas Jefferson was quoted in the same piece, hoping the new capital would emulate Paris with buildings "low & convenient, and the streets light and airy."

That image of D.C. was threatened, many people believed, in 1894 at 16th and Q streets NW where Thomas Franklin Schneider built the 14-story Cairo apartment tower (today a condominium building), which soared to the unprecedented height of 160 feet.

Neighbors cried foul, and Congress in 1899 enacted a height limit for the District prohibiting private buildings from topping out higher than the Capitol, which reaches 288 feet above Capitol Hill at the crest of the Statue of Freedom.

A revised height law in 1910 did away with the fixed maximum. That legislation, still in effect, states that no new building may be more than 20 feet taller than the width of the street in front of it.

For example, the height limit for buildings fronting a 110-foot-wide stretch of Connecticut Avenue NW is 130 feet, while the limit for buildings facing 60-foot-wide residential streets in Cleveland Park would be 80 feet. At some parts of Pennsylvania Avenue, however, a height limit of 160 feet is permitted.

The law allows the District government to grant exemptions for "spires, towers, domes, minarets, pinnacles" and engineering structures such as ventilation shafts, fire sprinkler tanks, telecommunications risers and elevator penthouses. Such exemptions are administered by the D.C. Board of Zoning Adjustment.

Only in Washington?
As a result of the height limit, in Washington, "the buildings that represent the most prominent institutions ... have the most prominence on the skyline," says Howard Decker, chief curator of the National Building Museum (www.nbm.org), adding, "It's extraordinary that there is still a city where that's the case."

At one time, height restrictions weren't so unusual. Many large U.S. cities adopted statutory height limits in the early 20th century, Decker explains.

When architect Daniel Burnham worked on Chicago's master plan of 1909, he envisioned a skyline of 20 stories or less. Burnham had served on the 1901-02 McMillan Commission that planned the "monumental core" of modern Washington -- and favored a 160-foot height limit. Chicago's limits were respected until the 1930s, the age of the art deco skyscrapers.

Even New York City, about a century ago, had height limits based on the amount of sunlight reaching the street.

Architect Michael Wynn Stanley, with the D.C. firm of Leo A Daly (ww.leoadaly.com), moved from New York five years ago and says Washington's height limits were "quite a shock ... a little frustrating in the beginning."

On one of his first projects in D.C., Stanley recalls, he was trying to fit 2.3 million square feet on a given site, and "I kept hitting my head on the ceiling." In New York, the project would have taken the form of a 20-story tower.

However, since then Stanley has come to appreciate the benefits of height restrictions. "Over a couple of years of working here and living in the city, I have to say I'm an enormous fan" of the limits.

While the streets of New York sometimes suffer from a lack of sunlight and warmth, he says, in Washington "the quality of the streets is terrific because of daylight and air."

A brick on the head of the city
Does the height limit push developers into the suburbs?

Stanley doesn't think so.

"This city is still incomplete," the architect says. "There are large portions of this city that are just open parking lots."

Even without height limits, there is no guarantee that a project would go to the District instead of the suburbs, says Greg Smith, a transit advocate with Friends of the Earth (www.foe.org). "Cities with tall skylines have sprawling suburbs too."

D.C.'s height limit actually might make the city more attractive, Decker says.

The restrictions have "sparked the development of a variety of different kinds of centers of activity," he says, mentioning Penn Quarter, Adams Morgan and Dupont Circle as examples.

Those neighborhoods feature a mix of residential and commercial real estate, including retail and nightlife as well as offices.

"One wonders," Decker says, "if the vitality of these centers is a result of the fact that the city has a brick on its head."

Sneaking space into buildings
Low height limits mean low ceilings -- a 10-story building in D.C. is not as tall as a 10-story building in Manhattan, and it's hard to build more than 10 stories in the District.

Rob Reis, design director in the Washington office of Minneapolis-based Ellerbe Becket (www.ellerbebecket.com), says his firm is "constantly being asked how to make [office] space feel more open and light and airy."

Thus the design of the interior, as well as the facade, is affected by the height limit.

"The restrictions," Reis says, "have led to creative solutions."

Outside, for example there may be a high ratio of "glazing," or window surface, to masonry. Inside there are design tricks with ceilings, floor plans and decor.

Some clients, forgo the suspended ceilings usually seen in office suites and expose mechanical elements in exchange for more headroom.

Others try to maximize interior sunlight with floor plans that position open lines, rather than individual offices, in front of windows.

Ellerbe Becket's work on the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center features a horizontal skylight along the cornice, illuminating office space with no side windows.

The limited vertical space in the District-- in contrast to the 9-foot-plus ceilings typical of Rosslyn high-rises -- stimulates "more design effort," Reis says. "We look at the materials we use, the colors, compressed mechanical systems" to make 8 and a half vertical feet feel more like 9 and a half.

Although people try a variety of design elements to deal with the height restrictions, Washington has more aesthetic safeguards in place than most cities, including the Historic Preservation Review Board and the Commission of Fine Arts, architects and others say.

If you build downtown, Decker of the building museum says, "you'll have a lot of people looking over your shoulder."

Perhaps the converts are the most devout.

Stanley, the transplanted New Yorker, concludes that "Washington has a far better living standard, and environmental standard, in its urban fabric" than a city of skyscrapers.

Mike Livingston is a Takoma Park-based freelance writer.



© 2004 American City Business Journals Inc.

Web reprint information


All contents of this site © American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved.

North of the Mall is one of the densest collection of office buildings where many of the most powerful people in the world have offices. I'm talking about Think Tanks, Int'l law firms, lobbying groups, etc, etc... These buildings are extremely attractive and expensive and numerous. It just so happens that they are not skyscrapers. But, much like the City of Paris, they are very attractive. If Paris can have height limits on buildings in most areas of town, then so can Washington!!

While there are some good arguments to be made for DC's height restrictions, one of the side effects is that the city, while very dense and heavily built, doesn't have much architectural drama, except for the ceremonial buildings. Most downtown streets have almost all buildings going right up to the limit and cram as many floors as possible into that height. There is less of a skyline than an attificial horizon.

"It doesnt have a skyline, but it beats out everyone in city planning and layout, and it beats most cities in architecture."
you haven't come around that much, have you? paris has no good city-layout? what about st. petersburg? and what about the amazing baroque streetpattern of dresden? or the streetpattern of barcelona? have you been at any of this places? have you seen karlsruhe? i don't think so.
and yeah, the architecture is great, but not that great. most of itcan't be compared to the parliaments, palaces, castles and churches of europe or the palaces and temples of asia!

i like the streetpatern, makes it look more like a residence city rather than the seat of a democratic governement, but it is cool -> 8/10

Washington is a great citybut i fear that it will be a dangerous place to live!

Washington isn't really a skyscraper city but a government city with only over 600 thousand people within the city. Half of those are working for the government.DC is mostly comprised by monuments and memorial buildings.As a historic city,it doesn't really need a skyline. Skyscrapers are built beyond the borders of the city, where 4.5 million people live.DC is one of the most beautiful cities in America and just because the majority of its inhabitants are black, it is no reason to think that it's dangerous living there.

This poll would be lot more interesting if D.C. had a skyline. But I love D.C. though. 1/10

Washington is a great citybut i fear that it will be a dangerous place to live!

I'd say NYC is just as much, if not more dangerous to live in than D.C.

7.0 There really isn't a skyline, but there are some great buildings in the city, and most everything is free.

to small, Halifax has bigger buildings 3/10
The only thing of any interest is the Whit house and ither gov. buildings. Take those away and you have a lame city

At least we could have posted some better pictures before people voted...



http://img158.exs.cx/img158/3131/washington240kv.jpg



http://img158.exs.cx/img158/5246/washington250nh.jpg



http://img158.exs.cx/img158/6057/washington263oc.jpg

I think that the law prohibiting any buildings taller than the monument is really stupid! Most countries capitals are very nice, and have great skylines, but the U.S.A. has probably the worst skyline for it's capital! :( The layout of the city is wonderful though! :)

4/10

BTW, I am sorry to say, but the last three pictures that were taken make it look like a depressed commie town! When I visit my aunt in Tucson, I will stop in D.C. to take some new photos, mabye I will apreciate the city more when I visit! :)

Dense, historic, majestic, yet human scaled. I like it very much. 8.

DC can't be judged by aerial photos, you see its true beauty in sreet level shots.

Looks very much like Roma.

7.5, it's ok, but it should have a few more skyscrapers, unfortunatly this cannot be allowed becuase the US government won't allow it.

I have to agree with others, that DC cannot be rated by it's skyline. There is a height restriction to make the monuments clear and to make them stand out, but we have great arhitecture and good density. I give this city a rating to give a city like St. Petersburg, Russia....7.5/10.

6/10.......Skyline sucks and the street level and architectural style of buildings look good.

BTW, I am sorry to say, but the last three pictures that were taken make it look like a depressed commie town! When I visit my aunt in Tucson, I will stop in D.C. to take some new photos, mabye I will apreciate the city more when I visit! :)



if you think it's a depressed commie town, than prepare to be amazed! :)

no real skyline but great monument i give it a 6

why would they need skyscrapers in D.C.!? Its not a commerce and business center..its a national government center...
Washington D.C. is very beautiful...you cant judge it by looking at a skyline. It is the same as Rome in a way, which also doesnt have a skyline. D.C. has some of the greatest monuments and memorials. If you think D.C. sucks looking at pictures..your a fool. Visit the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, Washington Monument, White House, Jefferson Memorial, U.S. Capitol building--which is one of the greatest buildings in the world, Lincoln Memorial, the many museums...etc. You cant tell me this city isnt beautiful or monumental by visiting. I cant believe people have said this city is fake....which is complete foolishness. :)

For better or worse, DC collectively decided a long time ago to opt for an artificial horizon of constant height buildings rather than a dramatic skyline. What really counts though is what's there on the street level and DC has it all. It is a great place to walk around, it has a great subway and lots of things to do, including the best museum complex in the world, which is mostly free.

One of the worst American skylines ;) 5/10
But the city center is really nice and well planned.

Some good European density. The skyline is as big as it's going to get though. I give it a 6/10.

It is a magnificent, stately, powerful city. It's a 10. Cities with dignity and power such as Washington, DC are in another class as those cities with towering office buildings. Federal government represents something much more stately than a gleaming steel tower, IMO.

4/10

Skyline sucks, but I like the Washington Monument.

If it were the city overall, I might give 10/10, but since it is the skyline and there's just the goverment buildings and such, I'll have to give it a 5/10. Sorry, the city is probably great but there isn't that much of a skyline.

2/10

8.. i like those short white buildings

Lamest capital in the world.

8/10
What it lacks in height it makes up for in street-level interest. It's not a "drive-by" city, which is to say it's not that imposing from the perspective of a driver whipping by on the interstate. It's a city best appreciated on foot. So, skyline? Not tall, but definitely urbane.

It´s a "drive-by shooting" city.

Take your shots at the city, obviously being that this is a skyline forum, skylines are almost a necessity, but really, does it matter?

Skylines do a good job at attracting people and making the city look good, but DC does not need this. DC ground level is gorgeous and regardless of what a lot of people say, it has some of the best low rise architecture of any city in the US. It's low level architecture is very very good. It's dense, it's well planned and the transit is good. A city, especially like DC doesn't need a skyline. I personally think it's immature to act as if it does.

It has as much nice development as most of those cities that people go crazy for on these forums, but it's not low rise, but just as good quality. DC is not a dangerous place to live really outside of a few parts, the entire west side is very nice.

Rosslyn is going to build a tower about 485 ft, and that will just be the beginning, I think that it's good for a city like Rosslyn that actually needs a skyline to attract some attn.

Also DC is not fake, it's has the gritty, real and historical side of it that has nothing to do with the gov't if you go by what you see on tv and the papers, then it may seem that way, manhattan is the same way, just with tall buildings, but outside of manhattan just like outside of DT, there is a lot to see.

"Lamest capital in the world."

And DC is definitely not the lamest capital, isn't it absurd that just b/c a city doesn't have a skyline, it must be lame, that's just a ridiculous thought.

7/10

8/10

2/10

7/10 - only cuz of the monument. i think it is so simple yet so good looking. plus there is arlington and rosslyn, with sum pretty nice skyscrapers.

2/10

7/10

It´s a "drive-by shooting" city.
You're generalizing a stereotype. Just because the city is predominantly black doesn't mean that there's drive-bys all the time. Those things happen all over the world.

And for the lamest capital in the world crack; Visit the city before you make such judgments about it. Just because a city doesn't have a skyline doesn't mean that it's lame. DC is the most powerful city in the world. It could make change anywhere in the world in a second. I consider that to be very far from lame.

Washington is pretty without big buildings anyway.

5/10

For an area that large, not much of a skyline. 4/10

Even thought the metro area has a few high-rise districts, the city of Washington itself doesnt have much of a skyline. 4/10

6/10

6/10.

7.5/10

I have no idea why Washington needs skyscrapers, it looks fine without them. 3.5/10 (rating just the skyline - so the rating is a good thing!)

5/10

5/10

9/10- great density, very green and well-planned. one of the most beautiful capitals in the world no doubt. i would've given it a 10/10 if it had a skyline.

5/10

4/10

Didn't like the city...grey, boring...only its metropolitan subway is cool

I give it 4/10

8.5/10 !

8/10 Nice but need more highrises :)

More Washington DC pics

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/WashMonument_WhiteHouse.jpg/800px-WashMonument_WhiteHouse.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Npr_headquarters.jpg/748px-Npr_headquarters.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Mci_center_jan2006b.jpg/800px-Mci_center_jan2006b.jpg

Even if it doesn't have a huge skyline it is still a beautiful city... i live in Madison (the capital of wisconsin) and it sorta looks like DC, its has a height limit below the capital also.. although neither of our citys have tall buildings that doesn't mean that we dont have a skyline
Madison, Wisconsin
http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/2029/277215104688b6b7a04bwi9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/4922/2585684870090118636valruy6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Washington D.C.
http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/6263/38349319c3a42f782fgj6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/54/213556213b3b3054e42kb0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

I love washington. It's a beautiful city. I strongly disagree withtinou when you said it's grey and boring. Anyway, this city is inpossible to have a high rise skyline because of the restritction of height. It's one of the most beautiful cities I know of.And whats wtong with you keane? A Drive by shooting city??? And also LAMEST CAPITAL IN THE WORLD???????????????????????

Actually, the height is limited by the height of the Washington Monument!

No, actually the capital

4.5/10

7/10

8/10

in terms of skyline, why even vote? obviously no real CBD or tall towers.
in terms of architecture and because it is the capital, 8/10

Not interesting

Not interesting

me personally? I dont waste my time writing 2 words...

Sometimes I wonder why polls for some cities are begun. Washington is such a city. It's a fun, vibrant, exciting place to be. It's beautiful too, at times. But it just does not have a group of skyscrapers that can collectively be called a "skyline." I rate it a 2/10, and consider that generous. It's one of my favorite U.S. cities, but it doesn't belong in this forum.

10/10

Sorry for the capital of the USA, I'm not impressed by the skyline... 4.5 points

I can not see the skyline! But the city is nice and clean, high quality! 5/10

Any towers, or something like that???

Skyline : 0/10

I think a lot of people here are criticizing DC whithout ever being in there. At street leve DC is one of the most beautiful cities I've ever seen. It's very charming, clean, way nicer than most cities if the so called "skyline".

7.5/10

7/10

As I could see from the pictures there are very few highrises... Maybe someone has better pics with some sort of skyline in it but as from what I've seen so far I give it 6/10. :cheers:

here is the "skyline"


================> Scroll (its blurry at first, but its not all blurry)
http://beyonddc.com/galleries/FromCathedral/images/0pana2.jpg

================> Scroll
http://beyonddc.com/galleries/FromCathedral/images/0panb.jpg\
pictures from BeyondDC.com
taken from the national cathedral's observation deck

4/10

No skyline, but the city is very nice
8/10

no real skyline 4/10

If you want to see skylines, look across the river into Virginia which has highrises all over the place as well as Silver Springs, Maryland. But if you want to enjoy yourself on street level, DC is the city to be in for the metro area.

Great city - excellent and rarely seen skylines pano pics for D.C.- rate it 9/10 !

5/10

It's very much like the capital of Australia (Canberra) in that it's mainly just a political capital and doesn't need really tall buildings to achieve this.
Washington doesn't need a skyline to be an impressive city and going from what I have seen from friends who have been there I'll give it an 8.
Nice architecture but some rough parts aswell, although that is expected where ever you go.
Pretty cool looking metro system aswell.

Nice city, but I dont see the skyline. 4/10

8/10

6/10

here's a shot of the mall from flickr on July 4th (independence day for the US)

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1255/727057932_eb06e9ff84_b.jpg

Use some common sense people. Yes, it is the capital of the most powerful nation in the world, thus you cannot have any tall buildings because of terrorism. It doesnt have a skyline, but it beats out everyone in city planning and layout, and it beats most cities in architecture.

That has nothing to do with why there are no tall buildings in DC, it is because there are to be no buildings in the District taller than the Capitol, except for the Washington Monument. There are taller buildings in Rosslyn and Crystal City across the river.

nice, but a little boring though, 6/10

5/10

2/10

9/10

8/10

9/10 :)

it has no skyline because you cannot build anything taller than the street it borders is wide, so nothing is over 150 feet, this is so people can see the Washington Monument from almost anywhere

8/10

8/10

7/10

8. Good. Regards.

9/10

10/10

<3

http://s57.radikal.ru/i158/1002/25/46abd9432e3c.jpg

7/10

click for large size pano by me

http://www.pbase.com/lsyd/image/117920071/large.jpg (http://www.pbase.com/lsyd/image/117920071/original)

-

click for large size pano by me

http://www.pbase.com/lsyd/image/117920071/large.jpg (http://www.pbase.com/lsyd/image/117920071/original)

-Nice picture. But where's the skyline? :?

7.5/10

buildings are of medium heights but of nice designs.

I don't think terrorism is really a big reason for why there aren't many tall buildings. We have plenty of others cities in the USA with tall buildings that are probably at a greater risk than Washington, which is heavily guarded.

Washington doesn't have many tall buildings because the purpose of the city is to serve as the Capital, which it does well. It is made simply for government to operate in. Tall buildings are more suitable for New York and Chicago which are commerce centers.

The layout is very nice though and much better planned than any other city I think in the world. Most of the famous buildings are built with superb architecture and positioned for good viewpoints. The surrounding environment is beautiful with the water and many lawns and parks. New York is an example of power, but Washington is an example of the simple elegance the country was founded upon.

I agree.. But this is a Rate the Skyline thread... so lets just rate this based on our assessment.. For me.. its 6.0/10...

^^ Correct :okay:

6/10

http://www.visitingdc.com/images/national-mall-washington-dc.jpg

http://images.frontdoor.com/FDOOR/0-City-Pages/Washington-D.C./national_mall-2519.jpg

http://www.lotustoursdc.com/pics/Washington-DC-Capitol.jpg

http://www.dccondoloft.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/the-odyssey.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2650/3778891655_b8dfa2b370.jpg

Nice picture. But where's the skyline? :?

it's called subtlety.

-

No skyline:S

5/10, but an awesome city with some great buildings.

http://metroscenes.com/washingtondc/images/washington_dc_aerials_metroscenes.com_01.jpg


http://metroscenes.com/aerial/aerial_07_01.jpg

There's no skyline...how am I suppose to rate?

6/10

6/10

It's a beautiful city BUT there's no skyline :D

5/10 nice looking city but not a really a skyline you can rate.

Remember, the height limits in DC are the strictest in the US. No building is supposed to dominate the skyline, that's what the city is spreading out a lot right now, the skyline is compressed.

it looks a lot more beautiful in person than in picture. I enjoy it 7.5/10

9/10

Rosslyn, VA

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7163/6567971191_bd8f676c7e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/concord977/6567971191/)
Winter in Washington, DC 20111223 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/concord977/6567971191/) by concord977 (http://www.flickr.com/people/concord977/), on Flickr

Actually there is a skyline, but their is no variation in height. They're all restricted to a certain height as there is no building to be taller than the Capitol. The city is more beautiful in person and these aerial shots are not giving Washington any justice at all. It did look very superficial to me.

7/10

Just like Ottawa, it's not a skyline city.

Just like Ottawa, it's not a skyline city.

True, but I can definitely say Ottawa>>>>>>>Washington DC when it comes to architecture

7/10