Virtually all of us have read articles or have seen the likes of Dateline or 60 Minutes run pieces on how taller men often have an edge over shorter ones in being in powerful positons. And how shorter men in positons of power often display a Napolean complex.

Is it sad those distinctions exist? Of course. But that doesn't change the fact that people's perceptions often run in those directions.

It probably does have to do with the way that we are wired.

Do those very distinctions between tall and short extend to the skylines of our cities and how we view those cities?

When a skyline goes to super heights, does it convey a power to a city that wouldn't exist if the skyline were shorter? Does a tall skyline invite not only other tall buildings, but a more fertile ground for development and cultural/entertainment enrichment, as well?

Is a skyline's height (and perhaps mass) a magnet that has more to do with a city's prominence and growth than what we may have believed? Is our sense of height as it relates to people transferable to our sense of height as it relates to cities?

Yes and No. I think it has more to do with the international influence the city has, which refects importance, which may reflect the size of the skyline.

Yes and No. I think it has more to do with the international influence the city has, which refects importance, which may reflect the size of the skyline.

I don't think we disagree at all. I don't feel my "height theory" is the main reason cities grow. But I do think that height does play in to how we give our home towns their importance.

If we see the tallest buildings from way out in the suburbs and the skyline seems massive as we approach, I do feel that affects our perceptions. And when perceptions are so affected, they tend to have further development feed on them.

Uhh, yeah I suppose we do a have an uknowing appretation for taller cities. But then you look at washington dc and with its very small skyline, yet it comes of as one of the most dominate places in our (or at least my) mind(s). This seems to be a very deep disscuion a guess.

Nope, I never watched Dateline or 60 minutes before.

It does for me, and not just the skyline but overall how well known the place is.
the entire state of Montana could flat out dissapear from the U.S. and I would never know it. If a place like Houston dissapeared, id be pretty upset.

generally big cities with a great character have impressive skylines and skyscrapers (e.g. new york, honk kong, etc..)

Yet in many cases great cities like Paris do not have such gigantic skylines. There are many facets to power and one of them is raw wow factor which is invoked upon seeing NY Chicago HK Shanghai ect.

^ Paris has the Eiffel Tower, though, which remains one of the tallest structures in the world.

I think there is something to the "height" theory, though it's not at all precise. A large visible skyline has a lot to do with the way a city projects its image, and the way it sticks in our mind. But a huge skyline can't make up for a lack of substance, nor does the absence of a skyline mean we don't think well of a city. Each place depends on a pretty wide combination of factors.

Hell yes.

Size does matter. Bigger the better.