here is the link if anyone wants to argue with you just have them read this...
not everyone knows this in the world cause I've noticed when I have these discussions it throws many people off who are not from here..they don't realize how Miami has changed dramaticly tripling it's size in a matter of three years..this also includes neighboring skylines near downtown...

http://www.answers.com/topic/manhattanization

what happened to Freedom Square?

here is the link if anyone wants to argue with you just have them read this...
not everyone knows this in the world cause I've noticed when I have these discussions it throws many people off who are not from here..they don't realize how Miami has changed dramaticly tripling it's size in a matter of three years..this also includes neighboring skylines near downtown...

http://www.answers.com/topic/manhattanization

3rd place...i really like FIRST place...because NY and chicago have a stanglehold on 1 and 2....this is something we need to celebrate...but we need some 800, 900...and a couple 1000 footers...now...with all the supertalls being built...we will NEVER catch burj dubai in height....but 4 1000 footers would be something that not even NY has...

yes...i'ma dreamer..

what happened to Freedom Square?

that is 600 biscayne..or the other name is Liberta...
I believe it's the same developer as 900 biscayne..
It won't begin till 900 is completed..
someone correct me if I'm wrong..
That is from what I remember..

3rd place...i really like FIRST place...because NY and chicago have a stanglehold on 1 and 2....this is something we need to celebrate...but we need some 800, 900...and a couple 1000 footers...now...with all the supertalls being built...we will NEVER catch burj dubai in height....but 4 1000 footers would be something that not even NY has...

yes...i'ma dreamer..

I don't worry much about Miami's role in the "height game" because the city is hindered by FAA restrictions while so many others are not. In the long run (particularly in this era of supertalls becoming commonplace) it's not a winning hand.

But to me---so what? Miami is blessed with a spectacular location and can definitely make its mark with QUALITY architecture that is bold and exciting. The results on that front are mixed so far, but I believe it will become more important as the city matures and doesn't feel the need to salivate over every new project that is announced in the future---especially those that need to be improved before getting the go-ahead. Size isn't everything, as they say (they were talking about buildings, right?) :lol:

(btw, doesn't NYC have five over 1000' when including what's currently U/C?)

3rd place...i really like FIRST place...because NY and chicago have a stanglehold on 1 and 2....this is something we need to celebrate...but we need some 800, 900...and a couple 1000 footers...now...with all the supertalls being built...we will NEVER catch burj dubai in height....but 4 1000 footers would be something that not even NY has...

yes...i'ma dreamer..

According to Emporis Chicago has 10 900+ towers either U/C, approved, and one is still only proposed but I thinks its made it to approved. And most of those are really 1000+. I think Chicago is the Dubai of the Western World as far as skyscrapers go. New York dominates as far as number of buildings go, but Chicago dominates in height.

But to me---so what? Miami is blessed with a spectacular location and can definitely make its mark with QUALITY architecture that is bold and exciting.

OBP is going to be quality architecture at its best, that building looks hawt:)

(btw, doesn't NYC have five over 1000' when including what's currently U/C?)

Accoring to emporis it does.

OBP is going to be quality architecture at its best, that building looks hawt:)

I just hope it happens. As we've all learned, there's no guarantees until you see actual construction (Met3 for example) and OBP is still years away---even by their own projections.

Still, it WOULD be the definitive centerpiece that we seek---and better yet, NOT another condo! :cheers:

:ohno: Here we go again.:bash:

:ohno: Here we go again.:bash:

Tell me about it, arch.

Let me guess: People in Miami will think they have the best skyline (or 3rd best or whatever)...people in Seattle will think they have it...San Francisco, Philly, Los Angeles, on and on.

Gee, you think this stuff might just be based on OPINION and personal taste (not to mention geographic bias based on where people live)---like the weather?

But maybe it'll be good for a laugh or two...:cheers:

Doubt it.

:ohno: Here we go again.:bash:

:lol:

So I'll guess I'll add this topic as my DO NOT DISCUSS TOPICS!

Religion, Politics, Sports, and now SKYLINES. LOL!:nuts:

Who gives a F***. Be thankful we have a great skyline. One of the great skylines in the country. Leave it alone now.:bash:

^^ Dam$ it Director I'd love too.. but One last thing and this is going to rest. I promise:nuts: ..

:soapbox:
number of buildings does not make a skyline..you can have 1000 buildings but if 98% are all no more than 3 stories..thats not much of a skyline is it...
Not talking about number of buildings..We talkin bout skylines...

look at the LA picture you literally can count the buildings on that skyline..I don't see 768buildings, I maybe see a mere 24 on that skyline.. they are tall but only a hand full..Just like Houston, Dallas, Atlanta,Philadelphia, with the exception of San Fransisco and Seattle you can't really count their buildings on their skyline as easily...Like Miami
That is what the rating is all about...

but everyone is right they will defend their city till death:mad2: ...
apologies If I stirred anyone up...but again this topic is about skylines...

not architecture, not color, not life in a city, not but this city has 900 buidlings that are probably no more than 3 stories.. not by the water or not...
You get my point

Monday, November 9, 2009

Miami Ranks #3 Among U.S. Cities For Best Skyline (http://www.talberttalkstravel.com/2009/11/miami-ranks-3-among-us-cities-for-best.html)

The most recent list compiled by Egbert Gramsbergen and Paul Kazmierczak, who contributed to the Almanac of Architecture and Design 2007, ranks Miami #3 in the United States behind only New York and Chicago.


http://homepages.ipact.nl/~egram/skylines.html

Monday, November 9, 2009

Miami Ranks #3 Among U.S. Cities For Best Skyline (http://www.talberttalkstravel.com/2009/11/miami-ranks-3-among-us-cities-for-best.html)

The most recent list compiled by Egbert Gramsbergen and Paul Kazmierczak, who contributed to the Almanac of Architecture and Design 2007, ranks Miami #3 in the United States behind only New York and Chicago.


http://homepages.ipact.nl/~egram/skylines.html

We've been ranked 3rd in the U.S. by them for the past three years now, but I find it interesting that we've moved back up into the teens worldwide. Maybe this new rule accounts for our change in ranking with cities ranked higher last year not having as many buildings under construction that have topped out.

"Update
aug 2009: updated most cities (the top 300 and some more). Change of rules: we only count u/c buildings when they are topped out. In prior versions all u/c buildings were counted."

I guess they want to make sure that whatever was supposedly under construction actually gets built.

Cool.

S.I.B. #76 Whoot Whoot! :eat:

S.I.B. #76 Whoot Whoot! :eat:

Looking at that list, I would have thought Sunny Isles would have been ranked higher than a few other cities. They also have Tokyo ranked 3rd in the world and Chicago 5th even though not only does Tokyo not have a supertall, it doesn't even have nearly the number of tall buildings over all that Chicago has, and Chicago has a beautiful waterfront setting too.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2435/4097501488_0b5a2f2c17_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2435/4097501488_0b5a2f2c17_b.jpg

Congrats Miami, although there are a few other cities that come pretty close!!

All of Dade together easily passes Toronto.

All of Dade together easily passes Toronto.

And since they included Miami Beach as part of Miami's count, why not Sunny Isles Beach and Aventura? They included Burbank, El Segundo, and West Hollywood as part of L.A.'s count, and Burbank is clear on the other side of the Hollywood Hills in San Fernando Valley. You can't even see it from L.A.

I wonder where the ranking would be if they counted all of the three-county metro together.

I wonder where the ranking would be if they counted all of the three-county metro together.

That's a thought! We'd probably move up in the rankings worldwide, but we'd still be third in the U.S.

well read my signature line! One of the main editors of Emporis a few years ago gave the the total number of highrises in the tri county area and it was well over a 1000+.

well read my signature line! One of the main editors of Emporis a few years ago gave the the total number of highrises in the tri county area and it was well over a 1000+.

Both New York and Chicago have over 100 buildings over 500 feet tall that are either already built or under construction. The heights of these buildings would make up for several more shorter-than-500 feet tall South Florida high-rises. How many high-rises do New York and Chicago have that are under 500 feet? I couldn't begin to tell you, but I'm pretty sure their combined height would outdo all of South Florida.

Anyway, this aerial I took back in July reminds me so much of when I first saw the Manhattan skyline silhouetted against the setting sun as I was coming from JFK. It was absolutely jaw-dropping. It looked like a jagged mountain range, and that is what the Miami skyline looks like to me in the upper right of this photo. Ironically, I didn't even notice the skyline when I snapped the picture. I was looking straight down the coast. Imagine when I got home and pulled the picture up on my computer and saw what I had. I'm so glad Shutterstock approved this one as part of my gallery there for so many other people to see.

And Dave, Chicago still does have more skyscrapers than Shanghai, and they both deserve third on that list better than Tokyo. I just don't know about those people. At least they seem to like Miami.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3498/3734168837_74a7bd4c96_b.jpg[/QUOTE]

Both New York and Chicago have over 100 buildings over 500 feet tall that are either already built or under construction. The heights of these buildings would make up for several more shorter-than-500 feet tall South Florida high-rises. How many high-rises do New York and Chicago have that are under 500 feet? I couldn't begin to tell you, but I'm pretty sure their combined height would outdo all of South Florida.

well I imagine both NYC & Chicago would number in the thousands since Emporis counts a highrise as anything over 12 stories. He did say that after the those two metros they had data that indicated the tri county metro region ranked third in the US.

I believe Emporis for 2007 were only considering buildings that were at least 90 meters and only including cities that had at least 1000 points.

well I imagine both NYC & Chicago would number in the thousands since Emporis counts a highrise as anything over 12 stories. He did say that after the those two metros they had data that indicated the tri county metro region ranked third in the US.

What has become noteworthy about Florida is the fact that we also have tall buildings outside of the South Florida tricounty metropolitan area with buildings over 500 feet tall in Tampa, Jacksonvile, and at Cape Canaveral with the Vehicle Assembly Building (525 feet), built in 1965 to house the Saturn V rocket that put a man on the moon, being the first in Florida over 500 feet tall.

Two years ago, this source had the Miami skyline ranked 18th in the world, which was almost as shocking to me as being ranked 3rd in the U.S. I think with all the projects that are still planned for when the market improves, we could have quite a stronghold on 3rd in the U.S. and could well move up in the rankings worldwide.

Quite frankly though, I prefer Chicago's skyline over New York because of its continuity. It doesn't have that break in the middle that the Manhattan skyline has that we've discussed before. Photographing Chicago is definitely on my "things-to-do" list.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2594/4098065281_7d161a0daa_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2594/4098065281_7d161a0daa_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2496/4098065285_740a5f1489_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2496/4098065285_740a5f1489_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2762/4098065279_fba3b6c344_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2762/4098065279_fba3b6c344_o.jpg

Chicago doesn't have all that much more "highrises" than South Florida if you are going by the Emporis ~100 foot definition. According to Emporis earlier this year, the Chicago metro area had 1219 completed buildings over 100 feet while South Florida had 1144 (the NYC area had over 6000). Chicago's just happen to be much more centralized into a single skyline while South Florida's are broken up into literally dozens of smaller skylines.

Imagine if Miami, Miami Beach, Sunny Isles, Aventura, Hallandale, Ft.Lauderdale, Coral Gables, Dadeland, West Palm Beach..etc were 1 skyline.

well even if you exclude the rest of the highrises throughout miamis metro, it is rapidly catching up

ratio of miami (excluding suburbs) to chicago buildings

1970 65x
1980 14x
1990 9x
2000 6x
2007 3x

as dave pointed out, if you include the suburbs they are already about even

But are you talking about the total number of high-rises or are you taking into account the heights of those high-rises as well? Florida has a lot of short high-rises while Chicago has a lot that are taller. It would be interesting to see what kind of figures we get if we added up all the heights of all those high-rises. That is how I came to the conclusion that Miami already had the 3rd largest skyline in the U.S. myself three years ago, using the World Almanac, before I ever heard it or read it anywhere. VisionMia is the one who first brought it to the Forum's attention a couple of years back. It was just an intellectual exercise, and it took me all afternoon. I wasn't expecting the result I got because we don't even have a building over 800 feet tall yet, but Miami came in 3rd in the 400 tall and up height range. I was shocked because I wasn't expecting us to be there until 2010. Houston still has more that are 500 feet tall and up, but the World Alamanca criterion of 400 feet tall and up placed Miami 3rd. Starting at 100 feet tall in up is just too much research for me. I'd have to pay somebody to do that.

No it did not take into account the height of the building. Obviously South Florida's are composed largely of unnumbered 10 to 25 story condos.

And by the way, Houston has 31 buildings over 500 feet tall now. By my count there are now 33 in Miami-Dade County (34 if Paramount at Edgewater made it the last foot or so above 500 feet). Keep in mind the City of Houston is geographically huge so using Miami-Dade County is a better comparison.

And Dave, Chicago still does have more skyscrapers than Shanghai, and they both deserve third on that list better than Tokyo. I just don't know about those people. At least they seem to like Miami.


Yeah, Shanghai is far under counted, it may not beat New York but the number is much closer to NY than what is listed.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3492/3188872395_1f4ac7e2d5_b.jpg

And by the way, Houston has 31 buildings over 500 feet tall now. By my count there are now 33 in Miami-Dade County (34 if Paramount at Edgewater made it the last foot or so above 500 feet). Keep in mind the City of Houston is geographically huge so using Miami-Dade County is a better comparison.

I'm pretty sure Paramount at Edgewater made it past 500 in comparing it to Quantum in this photo below. I have two sources listing it a 562 feet and even the hard hats told me it would be taller than 500 feet. And while Miami-Dade County might be a better comparison to Houston in terms of high-rises, Houston has three buildings over 900 feet tall including a supertall and a healthy crop of buildings in the 500, 600, and 700 feet tall height range. With the help of Miami Beach and Sunny Isles Beach, would Miami still edge out Houston in the 500 feet tall and up height range?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2528/4099329998_aa707598df_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2528/4099329998_aa707598df_b.jpg

Yeah, Shanghai is far under counted, it may not beat New York but the number is much closer to NY than what is listed.

:omg: I've never seen anything like photo in my life! And that's not photoshopped? I guess Dave is right and Emporis is wrong, which is certainly not surprising.

Q, check out these threads:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=754278&page=3

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=377383&page=8

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=401827&page=61

Shanghai is crazy but Hong Kong is still my favorite skyline. Not just because Central and Kowloon, but because the highrises just keep wrapping around the Island and Mainland, even over by the airport. Amazing place.

Q, check out these threads:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=754278&page=3

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=377383&page=8

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=401827&page=61

Shanghai is crazy but Hong Kong is still my favorite skyline. Not just because Central and Kowloon, but because the highrises just keep wrapping around the Island and Mainland, even over by the airport. Amazing place.

THANK YOU! Hong Kong has such a beautiful setting with the harbor and the mountains. It's like they put New York and Rio together!

And Dave, Chicago still does have more skyscrapers than Shanghai, and they both deserve third on that list better than Tokyo.

No, now I believe you are right. It's just that I didn't check much below 500 feet, where I tend to stay fixated, and while Shanghai doesn't have as many buildings taller than 500 feet listed as Chicago has, it does have a ton of shorter high-rises and it's amazing how so many of their taller buildings are spread out amid so many of the shorter high-rises. That photo above looks like Sao Paolo with taller buildings spread throughout it, and it's a very interesting-looking configuration of buildilngs to me.

check this link out!lol!
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_largest_skyline_in_the_US

check this link out!lol!
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_largest_skyline_in_the_US

Well, I'm glad we're finally getting the recognition we deserve. I don't get Atlanta being placed where it is though, over Dallas, Houston, and Los Angeles.

I would say miami is well on its way to having one of the larger skylines. Emporis says it has about 300 highrises what would that number be now? Chicago is around 1,100 and Toronto is 1,800.

I am not hating on Atlanta at all... but there is no way in hell Atlanta got a better skyline than Philly or Seattle. The way I see it, Atlanta looks perfect on #7 in comparison to those skylines and how those cities are put together against how Atlanta is so spread out. I love LA, but for a city it size the skyline is very mediocre or small (Tall buildings... but it doesn't make up for the lack of skyline). Plus... How did Seattle manage not to be on this list??? In my view... Seattle should it been on this list instead of LA.

My list would it gone this way:

1. NYC
2. Chicago
3. Miami
4. Seattle
5. Philly
6. San Francisco
7. Atlanta
8. Dallas
9. Houston

Yeah, Shanghai is far under counted, it may not beat New York but the number is much closer to NY than what is listed.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3492/3188872395_1f4ac7e2d5_b.jpg

:master::master::master: This not a sea of buildings... Matter fact this should be describe better as an OCEAN and there is no way in hell NYC or even Chicago can compete at the level that Shanghai is at.

Chicago doesn't have all that much more "highrises" than South Florida if you are going by the Emporis ~100 foot definition. According to Emporis earlier this year, the Chicago metro area had 1219 completed buildings over 100 feet while South Florida had 1144 (the NYC area had over 6000). Chicago's just happen to be much more centralized into a single skyline while South Florida's are broken up into literally dozens of smaller skylines.

Imagine if Miami, Miami Beach, Sunny Isles, Aventura, Hallandale, Ft.Lauderdale, Coral Gables, Dadeland, West Palm Beach..etc were 1 skyline.

It would be an amazing skyline...but to me...already is....I dont think of all those cities you mentioned about as separate skylines...I see them as one...including Ft. Lauderdale and even West Palm Beach....especially when I drive to work from Aventura to South Beach and take Collins Ave....I see it as one big city...with lots of traffic and slow drivers!! but that is another topic...:lol:

I would say miami is well on its way to having one of the larger skylines. Emporis says it has about 300 highrises what would that number be now? Chicago is around 1,100 and Toronto is 1,800.

Did you not read the list? Miami already has one of the larger skylines.

It would be an amazing skyline...but to me...already is....I dont think of all those cities you mentioned about as separate skylines...I see them as one...including Ft. Lauderdale and even West Palm Beach....especially when I drive to work from Aventura to South Beach and take Collins Ave....I see it as one big city...with lots of traffic and slow drivers!! but that is another topic...:lol:

I would be happy if we could just count all of Miami-Dade county as one big skyline or at least Miami, Miami Beach, and Sunny Isles Beach. But in spite of that, after living in South Florida for 25 years, I never dreamed there would be a day when Miami would have the third largest skyline in the country. Like the guy who wrote the Wiki page said, it surprised even him. And we know it's not going to stop right here the way developers are still buying up property and getting in position to make their move when the economy improves.

I am not hating on Atlanta at all... but there is no way in hell Atlanta got a better skyline than Philly or Seattle. The way I see it, Atlanta looks perfect on #7 in comparison to those skylines and how those cities are put together against how Atlanta is so spread out. I love LA, but for a city it size the skyline is very mediocre or small (Tall buildings... but it doesn't make up for the lack of skyline). Plus... How did Seattle manage not to be on this list??? In my view... Seattle should it been on this list instead of LA.

My list would it gone this way:

1. NYC
2. Chicago
3. Miami
4. Seattle
5. Philly
6. San Francisco
7. Atlanta
8. Dallas
9. Houston

I think Atlanta has a linear skyline a lot like Miami in many ways, including Buckhead and the far reaches it is quite large like Miami, New York, Chicago. It just never seems to have any shots that can capture the entire line of towers..... here's one that has to be taken from very far away to get them all....

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4023/4488878436_75dd9d3680_b.jpg

It should also be noted that Atlanta is one of the few cities in the nation that has a skyscraper over 1000 feet tall. Miami still needs to get past that hurdle before it can ultimately be among the giants in my opinion. That and a really good rail system that has multiple lines & stations. They also need to annex some other areas to get the population of the "Miami" city proper up over 1 million as well.... not an argument! just my opinion, please don't try and "correct me"....

Here's another Atlanta shot, a little closer, but leaving out most of the Buckhead skyline....

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z10/ddawguga/P1011281.jpg?t=1270899783

I agree with Barfolomew. I wish the "unincorporated Miami-Dade" areas were "incorporated" into the City of Miami. That must be at least a million people, probably closer to 2 million. That'd really represent Miami accurately, as the current City of Miami borders are only but a small speck of the real Miami.

On another note, the tree canopy in Atlanta is amazingly beautiful. It looks like a city in the middle of a forest. Awesome.

I wish the "unincorporated Miami-Dade" areas were "incorporated" into the City of Miami. That must be at least a million people, probably closer to 2 million. That'd really represent Miami accurately, as the current City of Miami borders are only but a small speck of the real Miami.

It must be quite impressive for someone visiting Miami for the first time as they drive along I-95 from Broward County into Downtown Miami. How many times during a Dolphins' game has Sunny Isles Beach been mistaken for Miami?:):cheers:

It would be nice if we could count all of this as part of Miami's tally of tall buildings.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4008/4376231423_7137258c48_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2096/4508845096_2cd8923a9d_o.jpg

It would be nice if we could count all of this as part of Miami's tally of tall buildings.


I did a rough count of the county as a whole around when this thread started, I believe we were right behind Seoul. But Beijing is far under counted from what I saw it has way more than Dade, I would imagine it would be more around Guangzhou from what I saw of the two of them, and Shanghai of five years ago easily beats Tokyo of today, although Tokyo is a way awesome city.

I think another skyline that seems to get neglected in these polls is Los Angeles, which definitely has a solid canyon of towers. Even the older sections of the city have mass....

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2723/4472151067_ed02bb229f_o.jpg

Oh, that's a very nice shot of the Los Angeles skyline. It is particularly stunning after a winter storm has moved through and the Los Angeles skyline can be captured set against the snow-capped San Gabriel Mountains. I think the Los Angeles skyline doesn't get more attention because its setting is often obscured by smog.

So this is what Los Angeles looks like without the smog, beautiful city and what is more impressive is Century City that I have seen in other foreground photos that give the city downtown more density.

So this is what Los Angeles looks like without the smog, beautiful city and what is more impressive is Century City that I have seen in other foreground photos that give the city downtown more density.

Imagine if Century City were actually in downtown Los Angeles. The size in land area of both Houston and Los Angeles works against them because, as I've said on other threads, not all of their skyscrapers are in their downtown.

Well, even said, aside from the whole Century city portion missing in the picture, the old downtown still leaves many buildings to be desired in density. There must be at least 600-700 twenty story buildings in the "old downtown" (prior to Wilshire towers going up in the 80's and 90's).

When you drive through downtown L.A., it definitely takes a long time to get from one side to another too, walls of canyons of buildings smack against each other for 10-15 miles in any direction.

These are just some of the elements of major U.S. Cities that Miami still needs to strive for, although I'm hoping we eventually get a 1000 foot tower at some point in history.

When you drive through downtown L.A., it definitely takes a long time to get from one side to another too, walls of canyons of buildings smack against each other for 10-15 miles in any direction.

Sorry, Barf, but I don't get this from any pictures of L.A. I've seen and having lived there before, I know downtown L.A. pretty well. Between 10 and 15 miles is a distance halfway from downtown L.A. to the Pacific Ocean. Miami's first 1,000 footer is scheduled to break ground sometime next year. Anyway, here is some New York density courtesy of MathJak107 and his wife Marilyn during their recent helicopter ride.

http://mm-photography.smugmug.com/Other/HELICOPTER-RIDE-OVER-NYC/DSC1385/827318167_FYr4j-X2.jpg
3[/QUOTE]

Yeah, Shanghai is far under counted, it may not beat New York but the number is much closer to NY than what is listed.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3492/3188872395_1f4ac7e2d5_b.jpg

Shanghai,great googly moogly:nuts: that is some awesome densuty,absolutely mind-boggling,maybe Miami will have this density in another 50 years.

^^^^150 years :)

if you want to see dense see this :)

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=54694741&postcount=4585

:cheers:Thank you, NihonKitty!

Oh, that's a very nice shot of the Los Angeles skyline. It is particularly stunning after a winter storm has moved through and the Los Angeles skyline can be captured set against the snow-capped San Gabriel Mountains. I think the Los Angeles skyline doesn't get more attention because its setting is often obscured by smog.

So this is what Los Angeles looks like without the smog, beautiful city and what is more impressive is Century City that I have seen in other foreground photos that give the city downtown more density.

People who don't live in California usually only hear about how beautiful San Francisco is, but Los Angeles can be quite beautiful when you see it at the right moment from the right angles, such as from Mulholland Drive, where most of the night shots are taken. I am one of the few people who has moved from Los Angeles to San Francisco and then back to Los Angeles. I went into the Los Angeles forum and asked on their pictures thread if someone could find a photo like this below one, and this is what they came up with. Few people know that Los Angeles looks like this in the winter.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Slideshows/_production/ss-100226-LA/ss-100302-LA-01b.ss_full.jpg

Sorry, Barf, but I don't get this from any pictures of L.A. I've seen and having lived there before, I know downtown L.A. pretty well. Between 10 and 15 miles is a distance halfway from downtown L.A. to the Pacific Ocean.

Quantum, I should have clarified what I meant there.

In LA, you can drive from one end of 1st street out by the Pomona Freeway, for instance, all the way into Hollywood with wall to wall shops, businesses, towers, lofts, apartments, etc.... The city has that many miles of endless business to cover. Through the actual downtown, sure only about 5 miles I suppose...

Miami needs that thousand footer though, yes, also that better rail system and incorporating some other areas into it's population figures. Then, it will truly rank with NYC, Chicago, LA, Houston, Atlanta, and any other of the "bigger" cities to the north and west. Until then, it's just a town with less than 1/2 million people, tallest building is only 780 feet, covering 36 square miles, and a single line elevated train.

I did a rough count of the county as a whole around when this thread started, I believe we were right behind Seoul. But Beijing is far under counted from what I saw it has way more than Dade, I would imagine it would be more around Guangzhou from what I saw of the two of them, and Shanghai of five years ago easily beats Tokyo of today, although Tokyo is a way awesome city.

Agreed Tokyo is a way awesome city and very clean.

^^^^150 years :)

I hope not....:nuts:. Way to crazy. The way we are building is working fine, IMO...we just need a couple of taller buildings and a very nice rail system and I think we will be set....ohh...almost forgot....and get all those homeless people off the streets of downtown Miami and South Beach (especially along Washington Ave).

Hong Kong 1, Chicago 2

Minneapolis should get more credit as a top US skyline.

Agreed Tokyo is a way awesome city and very clean.

I was walking around Shibuya with my friend who was born in Yokohama and works in Tokyo, I asked him since there are no trash cans on the side walks where do people throw their trash, because they obviously do not throw it on the ground. He said he had no idea what people did with their trash.
http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/7230/img7747m.jpg

They throw it away in the place they got it from or at home. The reason there's no public trash cans is because of "terrorist threat" which is BS... Now think about how clean tokyo is, you can't even find trash anywhere..if there were trash cans it would be even cleaner :lol:

Here is my video walking in Tokyo :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K9WcRCAqmM
6K9WcRCAqmM

Hong Kong 1, Chicago 2

Minneapolis should get more credit as a top US skyline.

I did not know Hong Kong was a U.S. City???????:nuts:

^^...NihonKitty.....Tokyo is a very clean and beautiful city...I wish to go back again soon. It was amazing when I rode the bullet train....the minute everyone got on it..everybody started using their high tech phones and computers...it was like you were in another space and time...way ahead in technology. AMAZING.

The first post on the thread contains a link to the world's biggest skylines, Miami is 19 on the list, the third for the U.S.

Hong Kong is 1, NYC is 2, Chicago is 5, which I think are pretty fair rankings.

Not that it matters, really.

A surprising amount of Miami bashing goes on when you review other threads and other websites. There is no real reason for it except that what happened here in Miami with its building "boom" didn't happen in the city where they live or in their hometown. They try to pass off their city bashing as an honest difference of opinion, but if that is the case, then why all the snide, sarcastic remarks and gross generalizations like the skyline is "nothing but empty condos" when the Miami skyline is not all condos and they're not all empty. Whatever. Miami now has the third largest skyline in the U.S. regardless, and I did the numbers myself over two years ago before I ever read this anywhere or heard this from anybody. It was pretty shocking to me because I wasn't expecting the result I got.

It's one thing for people to disagree with Miami being #3 and bashing it. With that being said alot of people are not used to Condo skyscrapers like Miami has and for many people I assume they feel like it's not real buildings or something. Which is nonsense, but it doesn't really matter afterall Miami just needs to get a supertall (which it is right?) and then it's position as #3 in US can't be questioned by anyone anymore..

By the way if you personally ask me what is the most underestimated city in the world and especially on this website it's of course Tokyo. Just look at this Panorama
http://www.neox.to/skytree/tokyo20100104.jpg
^ Click link since it's kind of big to post here. Sky tree is on the right of this photo but it's not even halfway done when that pic was taken.

If you have the time check out this video (which I made in HD).
Ny5lpk6oJ-k

Thanks, NihonKitty! I guess people who are used to a 600 feet tall building being a dark glass office tower just don't know what to make of a white or pastel-colored 600 feet tall building with balconies going clear up to the top of the building, but I think it is absolutely an amazing thing. Before the Santa Maria was completed in 1997, I didn't know that buildings over 500 feet tall could even have balconies because of the increased wind load produced by the balconies during a storm. And I see these buildings as literally being castles in the air giving the city a storybook kind of quality. To me, driving across the Rickenbacker Causeway, the Miami skyline as it stands today looks like something out of a fairy tale. I guess people figure a "serious" skyline is not supposed to look like that, but I think it's amazing that it does. And the supertall is in the works. The powers-that-be are well aware of what you've said, and you will probably be able to visit the observation deck five years from now.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2798/4488412496_93f93bf0dc_b.jpg

All of Dade together easily passes Toronto.

Are you sure about that? You realize that Toronto has lots of skylines besides the downtown one, and the downtown skyline is bigger than what you see from the lake:

Toronto

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1383/1289441495_33a47e4557_b.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1383/1289441495_33a47e4557_b.jpg

Are you sure about that? You realize that Toronto has lots of skylines besides the downtown one, and the downtown skyline is bigger than what you see from the lake:

Then, could perhaps provide us with a photograph that is more of an example of the point you are making rather than the one you posted which doesn't speak to that.

go miami!!!!!!:okay:

Goes North from Lake and not so much east-west.

http://www.blogto.com/upload/2009/07/20090731-aerial.jpg
http://www.blogto.com/upload/2009/07/20090731-aerial.jpg

Clusters looking north of downtown.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/ganjavih/misc/Porter/DSC07261.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/ganjavih/misc/Porter/DSC07261.jpg

More buildings in the background looking east.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/ganjavih/misc/Porter/DSC07256.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/ganjavih/misc/Porter/DSC07256.jpg

People bash Miami because they feel having a large amount of condo towers does not qualify. Or that Miami's CBD is not as large as cities like New York, Boston, Chicago, Toronto, San Francisco, Seattle and Philadelphia.

The first post on the thread contains a link to the world's biggest skylines

and then the link disappears! No matter, I have it here: http://homepages.ipact.nl/~egram/skylines.html

Now just looking at the numbers from this list, Miami+Miami Beach-4909(I initially did not notice that they were put together already) Sunny Isles-1094, and Aventura-144 that adds up to 6147, Toronto's number is 6053. If Coral Gables, Surfside, Bal Harbor, North Bay Village, and North Miami, and wherever else in the county are added that will be a couple hundred more. I'm not gonna argue it beyond that. I was just adding the numbers presented. If there are more areas close enough to Toronto that are not already included in the total please add them, because maybe I am mistaken then.

Goes North from Lake and not so much east-west.

http://www.blogto.com/upload/2009/07/20090731-aerial.jpg
http://www.blogto.com/upload/2009/07/20090731-aerial.jpg


Thanks for the great shots of Toronto! Do you have a larger version of this one? I really like this one.

People bash Miami because they feel having a large amount of condo towers does not qualify. Or that Miami's CBD is not as large as cities like New York, Boston, Chicago, Toronto, San Francisco, Seattle and Philadelphia.

Facts are facts, and that is no reason to bash the city with snide, sarcastic remarks and gross generalizations that I hear all the time on other threads and on other websites. And I will warn, brig, and then ban anybody anywhere on SkyscraperCity for persisting in this type of adolescentile behavior. My boss has no problem with that as long as I follow procedure. A tall buildling is a tall building, giant condo or office tower. So what? Different cities have CBDs of different sizes. So what? There is no reason for city-bashing. I don't do it as far as other cities are concerned, and there is no real reason for the degree of Miami bashing that I see going on these websites.

and then the link disappears! No matter, I have it here: http://homepages.ipact.nl/~egram/skylines.html


The link didn't disappear. It is still there. It's just that I merged this thread with a pre-existing thread on the same subject and the link is not where you expected it to be.

How or why does Toronto even fit in with the discussion? It's not a U.S. City, so obviously it's really not among the U.S. rankings. If I had to make a list today on skyline ratings, I would ultimately have to agree that Miami's skyline, although quite linear, is large enough to be put at #3, not for the number of towers or the central business district, but simply because when one looks at it to scale from a distance, all the other potentials don't measure up to it's girth. Almost all the other cities, even those with dense cores like Philly, San Fran, Houston, Atlanta, LA, or Seattle, all lack the linear perspective that makes a large skyline a large skyline.

However, it could also be argued that San Francisco is only dwarfed because of issues with hills. Some buildings roofs in that town stand eye level to the street depending on where you're standing....

How or why does Toronto even fit in with the discussion? It's not a U.S. City, so obviously it's really not among the U.S. rankings.

Actually, Toronto doesn't fit into all of this and shouldn't be on the thread. It's just that Aceventura was arguing that counting all of Miami-Dade county, Miami would actually be third in North America instead of Toronto, and some other people were simply stating this was not true. Toronto is off topic here, but at least we got some nice pictures.

but I find it interesting that we've moved back up into the teens worldwide.

Miami moved up from the 20's to 19 because Miami Beach was counted separate before, with the additional 800 or so points Miami was able to leapfrog a few, sorry to stray off topic again.

I always thought KCPhotos did a good job of capturing the dense core of San Francisco....

http://urban-photos.com/gallery/albums/city_galleries/sanfransisco/sanfran_12_9604.jpg

http://urban-photos.com/gallery/albums/city_galleries/sanfransisco/sanfran_02_9610.jpg
http://urban-photos.com/gallery/albums/city_galleries/sanfransisco/sanfran_50_9611.jpg

If this shot were taken from the hill in the foreground, it would probably reveal the actual true linear skyline of San Francisco... there really are some rare shots out there, if anyone has them, please.... post them...

http://urban-photos.com/gallery/albums/city_galleries/sanfransisco/sanfran_9242.jpg

And of course, the general compact sardine effect....

http://urban-photos.com/gallery/albums/city_galleries/sanfransisco/sanfran_9882.jpg


And dont forget Chinatown.... Miami or any FLA city for that matter doesn't have a real "China" town like the older bigger cities....

http://urban-photos.com/gallery/albums/city_galleries/sanfransisco/sanfran_9837.jpg

Having lived in San Francisco, I'd probably be more inclined to vote for it for third best over Miami. I certainly never imagined that one day people would be saying Miami had a larger skyline than San Francisco.

People under estimate Density so much. If you look at the number of skyscrapers sure Miami is #3, but when you combine skyscrapers with tons of lowrise buildings (like San Francisco) it looks more impressive imo.

People under estimate Density so much. If you look at the number of skyscrapers sure Miami is #3, but when you combine skyscrapers with tons of lowrise buildings (like San Francisco) it looks more impressive imo.

San Francisco is quite impressive!:cheers:

What do you guys think about Atlanta?

Then, could perhaps provide us with a photograph that is more of an example of the point you are making rather than the one you posted which doesn't speak to that.

More of an example? No, I can't as the photo I posted is a good example of the point I was trying to make: that a lot exists behind the wall of towers one sees in the traditional lake front views. That photo is what lies behind the wall of towers along the lake front.

Regarding the second point I made that Toronto has multiple skylines, I could post those as well (unless you'd prefer it not clogged up with Toronto photos). There are significant clusters in Mississauga, North York, Scarborough, Yonge/Eglinton, and highrises scattered throughout the metropolitan area. You can see some of them in the photos Elnerico posted.

Then there's always Hamilton. It's not really that important though. Miami has a lot of towers regardless.

More of an example? No, I can't as the photo I posted is a good example of the point I was trying to make: that a lot exists behind the wall of towers one sees in the traditional lake front views. That photo is what lies behind the wall of towers along the lake front.

Regarding the second point I made that Toronto has multiple skylines, I could post those as well (unless you'd prefer it not clogged up with Toronto photos). There are significant clusters in Mississauga, North York, Scarborough, Yonge/Eglinton, and highrises scattered throughout the metropolitan area. You can see some of them in the photos Elnerico posted.

Then there's always Hamilton. It's not really that important though. Miami has a lot of towers regardless.

You may think what you posted was a good example of the point you were trying to make, but much is cut off, and to me this shot just looks like a generic overview of a CBD. Elnerico's first photo that I like a lot is the kind of photo that I had in mind that would have been a better example of the point you were trying to make.


Are you sure about that? You realize that Toronto has lots of skylines besides the downtown one, and the downtown skyline is bigger than what you see from the lake:

Toronto

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1383/1289441495_33a47e4557_b.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1383/1289441495_33a47e4557_b.jpg

What do you guys think about Atlanta?

I think lots of U.S. skylines are better than that of Atlanta.

Anyway, not to belabor this Miami-Dade County versus Toronto issue any more, but I would like to elaborate a bit on the point Aceventura was making. I know some of you have heard it before, but bear with me for the people who haven't.

Miami-Dade County has the distinction of having three major skylines noteworthy enough to have their own separate listing in the World Almanac and Book of Facts. Those skylines are the skylines of Miami, Miami Beach, and Sunny Isles Beach which has the distinction of being the second largest skyline in all of the State of Florida after Miami. Each of these cities has buildings over 500 feet tall. Then, you have the high rises in Aventura and the mid-rises in North Bay Village, Coconut Grove in Miami, Coral Cables, and then Dadeland down in Kendall. Then, you have the mid rises which are scattered throughout all of unincorporated Miami-Dade County.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4001/4523349717_a12703e777_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2779/4440285810_594982aae2_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4019/4349636068_785b2abc31_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4056/4523349709_ed76afb6d5_b.jpg

It's one thing for people to disagree with Miami being #3 and bashing it. With that being said alot of people are not used to Condo skyscrapers like Miami has and for many people I assume they feel like it's not real buildings or something. Which is nonsense, but it doesn't really matter afterall Miami just needs to get a supertall (which it is right?) and then it's position as #3 in US can't be questioned by anyone anymore..

By the way if you personally ask me what is the most underestimated city in the world and especially on this website it's of course Tokyo. Just look at this Panorama
http://www.neox.to/skytree/tokyo20100104.jpg
^ Click link since it's kind of big to post here. Sky tree is on the right of this photo but it's not even halfway done when that pic was taken.

If you have the time check out this video (which I made in HD).
Ny5lpk6oJ-k


I really enjoyed watching that video of Tokyo...it brought back memories of this great amazing-cosmopolitan city, look at those buildings, streets, the lights on the buildings at night, that's what you call a "city". Only when one travels outside of the USA, one can realized that maybe 1,2 maybe 3 cities in the USA can trully call themselves "Cosmopolitan" - New York City, Chicago and perhaps San Francisco...everything else does not even compared...we still got a long way to go Miami.

I think lots of U.S. skylines are better than that of Atlanta.
I really like Atlanta. It's probably my favorite city in the US :) I really like their train (as far as US trains go).

Here I am in Atlanta
http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss106/AhoChaudeJP/Atlanta.jpg

Some of my "Skyline" pics

http://i37.tinypic.com/2e2gx0o.jpg

http://i33.tinypic.com/2zez61i.jpg

http://i36.tinypic.com/2rnizyc.jpg

(This is one of the skylines the problem with Atlanta is it has 3 CBD)
http://i38.tinypic.com/2jeeqhh.jpg

http://i37.tinypic.com/2jeenn4.jpg

I really enjoyed watching that video of Tokyo...it brought back memories of this great amazing-cosmopolitan city, look at those buildings, streets, the lights on the buildings at night, that's what you call a "city". Only when one travels outside of the USA, one can realized that maybe 1,2 maybe 3 cities in the USA can trully call themselves "Cosmopolitan" - New York City, Chicago and perhaps San Francisco...everything else does not even compared...we still got a long way to go Miami.

I really think Japanese cities should be a model for Urbanity and Cities :)

You may think what you posted was a good example of the point you were trying to make, but much is cut off, and to me this shot just looks like a generic overview of a CBD. Elnerico's first photo that I like a lot is the kind of photo that I had in mind that would have been a better example of the point you were trying to make.

Alright, but I was only attempting to show the CBD in response to my first point. I hadn't addressed my second point regarding multiple skylines at all. Trying to do too much in one photo isn't always effective. No worries, you preferred his method.

At least we agree on Atlanta. I'd put New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Houston, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Miami, and Seattle all above Atlanta as far as skylines go.

Hey QuantumX, I don't have a larger pic as that seemed to be what I could find on the internet but I have two similar pics if your interested - in larger size of course.

http://www.lucaciriani.it/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/toronto-aerial.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Toronto_downtown_aerial.JPG

Anyways, I was surprised to learn that Miami ranked so highly, as Miami is not one of those cities you think about when you think about North American city skyline's. It has come a long way.

Alright, but I was only attempting to show the CBD in response to my first point. I hadn't addressed my second point regarding multiple skylines at all. Trying to do too much in one photo isn't always effective. No worries, you preferred his method.

At least we agree on Atlanta. I'd put New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Houston, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Miami, and Seattle all above Atlanta as far as skylines go.

Hey QuantumX, I don't have a larger pic as that seemed to be what I could find on the internet but I have two similar pics if your interested - in larger size of course.

http://www.lucaciriani.it/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/toronto-aerial.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Toronto_downtown_aerial.JPG

Anyways, I was surprised to learn that Miami ranked so highly, as Miami is not one of those cities you think about when you think about North American city skyline's. It has come a long way.


Well, the two of you certainly have opened my eyes to the degree that the Toronto skyline extends northward from Lake Ontario. I mean it is HUGE! I had no idea. It would be nice to see some taller buildings farther north in the skyline to really add to that impressive spread.

The photo of mine that I've posted below serves to illustrate the point Aceventura was making where I tried to incorporate all three of Miami-Dade county's major skylines into one photo. It's hard! Whether all of Miami-Dade county's high-rises altogether beat the Toronto skyline, I really don't care, but Miami's new ranking among U.S. skylines surprises a lot of people because it's very recent, only in the last three years. It even surprised many of us when we learned of this. Many of us knew that with so many projects planned and then approved by the city, we could still have the third largest skyline in the country at some point even if they didn't all get built, but when it happened so soon, it was like "WHAT? WE ARE ALREADY THERE?" It's just that many of us weren't expecting it to happen as quickly as it did and even without a new tallest building making it to construction (I don't count the Four Seasons as part of the most recent boom), but so many condos in the 400 feet tall and up height range made it to construction that Miami is now ranked third in the U.S. even though lots of other American cities have buildings that are taller. We are third in the U.S., but it's really kind of on a technicality. That's why when I tell people Miami now has the third largest skyline in the U.S., they go "Are you sure about that?"

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4001/4349636102_4a26ce220e_b.jpg

Alright, but I was only attempting to show the CBD in response to my first point. I hadn't addressed my second point regarding multiple skylines at all. Trying to do too much in one photo isn't always effective. No worries, you preferred his method.

At least we agree on Atlanta. I'd put New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Houston, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Miami, and Seattle all above Atlanta as far as skylines go.

I don't think I would put some of those cities above Atlanta. Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Miami and Seattle don't have a single tower over 1000 feet tall. Outside of New York and Chicago, Atlanta has the tallest tower in the United States. Atlanta's skyline is long and goes on for miles. It's nearly impossible to contain it in one photograph, it extends into Buckhead and beyond. It's very similar to Miami's in that perspective....

Look at this link:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Atlanta_cityscape_032008.jpg

I think until you actually visit Atlanta, it's kind of difficult to say that all those other cities with smaller CBD areas have a larger skyline. Pittsburgh and Minneapolis don't even come close.

Natures Message just made this nice thread on Atlanta, check it out :)
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1112447

Some more rare shots of San Fran....

http://www.urban-photos.com/gallery/albums/city_galleries/panoramics/pano_sanfrancisco_6508.jpg

http://www.urban-photos.com/gallery/albums/city_galleries/panoramics/pano_sanfrancisco_4574.jpg

http://www.urban-photos.com/gallery/albums/city_galleries/panoramics/pano_sanfrancisco_4606.jpg

Outside of New York and Chicago, Atlanta has the tallest tower in the United States.

Ummmm...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratosphere_Las_Vegas

... No.

Ummmm...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratosphere_Las_Vegas

... No.

technicality! anyways lets see more miami pics shall we?

http://www.bryansereny.com/miami-luxury-condos/downtown-miami-9-07.jpg

http://www.bryansereny.com/miami-luxury-condos/downtown-miami-9-07.jpg

Ummmm...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratosphere_Las_Vegas

... No.

First of all that's an observation deck. Not a skyscraper with rooms or offices. Second, I didn't mention Las Vegas in the cities I was listing in the rebuttal. So, "Ummm.... NO" that one doesn't count.

Atlanta Georgia has the tallest OFFICE BUILDING in the U.S. outside of NYC & Chicago. That's a fact.

I think I would have to say this at the least: Miami has finally caught up with other major U.S. cities in terms of number of high rises over a certain height. As far as overall skylines go, based on density and magnitude, I would still not put it at number three. I think San Francisco and Philadelphia have Miami beat still. Population, transportation and overall height of taller towers.

If you take away two buildings in downtown Miami, it really doesn't look like much. Wachovia and Four Seasons, both only little really compared to the bigger giants of the north, are what give Miami the effect that seems to make it pop. In reality, those two buildings are relatively small compared to all the thousand footers in NYC, Chicago and other cities.

The other thing to consider is this: Take Chicago for instance. It has a building that is over 40 years old, John Hancock center, over 1000 feet tall. It was built in 1969.

For that much time, these older northern cities have experienced large girth and density. Miami is simply really not there yet.

My system is based on a whole different method though. I base it on the number of buildings over 1000 feet tall, populations of 1+ million, and mass transit. Miami's tallest building is number 51 on the list in the united states. New York, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, San Francisco, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Seattle, Boston, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia all have buildings higher than Miami's tallest. Heck even Indianapolis has a taller building.

Miami needs that 1000 footer to really and truly have the number three spot in my opinion. It's not fair to the other cities that have higher skyscrapers really when you think about it. We're talking about "sky" lines here....

People bash Miami because they feel having a large amount of condo towers does not qualify.

Here I'm quoting myself on City-Data on the thread "What is the most futuristic city in America?"

Skyscrapers and condo towers are futuristic in and of themselves because they allow more people to live and work in a smaller area creating less encroachment into the natural environment and wildlife habitats as the world's human population increases exponentially and expands upwards and not outwards.

Miami's new skyline is often bashed for all its giant condos, but this is the wave of the future, and that is for people to be able to live, work, and play in the urban core without having to commute as much as they would otherwise. Many of Miami's newer skyscrapers that a lot of people think are strictly condos are really mixed-use structures where people can live, work, and play in the same building. A city within itself is what many of the early Chicago architects envisioned that a skyscraper would eventually become, and not just a corporate symbol of economic power. This is what makes Miami futuristic along with the fact that most of its skyscrapers were built in the 21st century. This is what our larger buildings and clusters of buildings still on the drawing board will be. They will be virtually self-contained cities within themselves.

technicality! anyways lets see more miami pics shall we?

http://www.bryansereny.com/miami-luxury-condos/downtown-miami-9-07.jpg

http://www.bryansereny.com/miami-luxury-condos/downtown-miami-9-07.jpg

Wow! What an angle! This looks to have been taken from Opera Tower. Have you visited my QuantumPX thread and the Downtown Miami Pictures thread for more Miami pics?

I think I would have to say this at the least: Miami has finally caught up with other major U.S. cities in terms of number of high rises over a certain height. As far as overall skylines go, based on density and magnitude, I would still not put it at number three. I think San Francisco and Philadelphia have Miami beat still. Population, transportation and overall height of taller towers.

If you take away two buildings in downtown Miami, it really doesn't look like much. Wachovia and Four Seasons, both only little really compared to the bigger giants of the north, are what give Miami the effect that seems to make it pop. In reality, those two buildings are relatively small compared to all the thousand footers in NYC, Chicago and other cities.

The other thing to consider is this: Take Chicago for instance. It has a building that is over 40 years old, John Hancock center, over 1000 feet tall. It was built in 1969.

For that much time, these older northern cities have experienced large girth and density. Miami is simply really not there yet.

My system is based on a whole different method though. I base it on the number of buildings over 1000 feet tall, populations of 1+ million, and mass transit. Miami's tallest building is number 51 on the list in the united states. New York, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, San Francisco, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Seattle, Boston, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia all have buildings higher than Miami's tallest. Heck even Indianapolis has a taller building.

Miami needs that 1000 footer to really and truly have the number three spot in my opinion. It's not fair to the other cities that have higher skyscrapers really when you think about it. We're talking about "sky" lines here....

Don't forget Cleveland, Ohio and Charlotte, North Carolina. So if a city has one building over 1,000 feet tall, it has a better skyline than Miami's? Also, population and mass transit have nothing to do with a skyline.

Don't forget Cleveland, Ohio and Charlotte, North Carolina. So if a city has one building over 1,000 feet tall, it has a better skyline than Miami's? Also, population and mass transit have nothing to do with a skyline.

Quantum, please don't be ridiculous. Neither of those two cities have 1000 foot towers. I didn't say what you're inferring either. It's really impolite to resort to innuendo, it lacks tact.

Population often effects the skyline, since people need to occupy the space in the rising office towers that make them available. If a city has 8 million people, like NYC, the effects are easily seen in the buildings. It's really just common sense. Height comes with the number of people. The four largest U.S. cities all have 1000 foot towers. (NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston).

So in essence, you're wrong, population and mass transit have just about everything to do with a city growing a skyline. Cities with less than 100,000 people don't usually have skylines. It's common sense.

First of all that's an observation deck. Not a skyscraper with rooms or offices. Second, I didn't mention Las Vegas in the cities I was listing in the rebuttal. So, "Ummm.... NO" that one doesn't count.

Atlanta Georgia has the tallest OFFICE BUILDING in the U.S. outside of NYC & Chicago. That's a fact.

Dude, I'm not wrong. You made the declaration that "Outside of New York and Chicago, Atlanta has the tallest tower in the United States." Stratosphere is a tower. And the Stratsophere Tower is more than "an observation deck"--it features an observation deck, an amusement park, several restaurants, and a hotel--but it is not merely an observation deck. A tower is a tower. An office building/hotel/condominium that is taller than it is wide is a tower. The Empire State Building is a tower. The Willis (Sears) Tower is a tower. And the Stratosphere Tower is a tower. That is a fact. Therefore, Atlanta does not have the tallest tower in the United States outside of New York and Chicago.

Quantum, please don't be ridiculous. Neither of those two cities have 1000 foot towers. I didn't say what you're inferring either. It's really impolite to resort to innuendo, it lacks tact.

WHAT? DON'T BE RIDICULOUS? My response to you was based on your logic and way of thinking. I know Cleveland, Ohio and Charlotte, North Carolina don't have buildings over 1,000 feet tall, but you gave a string of cities that each had one building that was taller than the Four Seasons, and I simply added to that particular string. I was resorting to innuendo which lacks tact?

Population often effects the skyline, since people need to occupy the space in the rising office towers that make them available. If a city has 8 million people, like NYC, the effects are easily seen in the buildings. It's really just common sense. Height comes with the number of people. The four largest U.S. cities all have 1000 foot towers. (NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston).

No, height does not necessarily follow suit with the number of people. You gave that example yourself with Atlanta.

So in essence, you're wrong, population and mass transit have just about everything to do with a city growing a skyline. Cities with less than 100,000 people don't usually have skylines. It's common sense.

While population and mass transit do have everything to do with a city GROWING a skyline, they have nothing to do with one existing skyline being better another existing skyline, but that is in essence what you said, along with ANY city with a supertall having a skyline better than Miami's.

Dude, I'm not wrong. You made the declaration that "Outside of New York and Chicago, Atlanta has the tallest tower in the United States." Stratosphere is a tower. And the Stratsophere Tower is more than "an observation deck"--it features an observation deck, an amusement park, several restaurants, and a hotel--but it is not merely an observation deck. A tower is a tower. An office building/hotel/condominium that is taller than it is wide is a tower. The Empire State Building is a tower. The Willis (Sears) Tower is a tower. And the Stratosphere Tower is a tower. That is a fact. Therefore, Atlanta does not have the tallest tower in the United States outside of New York and Chicago.

The Stratosphere Tower is simply an observation tower. It doesn't have any hotel rooms up there. The hotel is next to it, I slept it in for a week, I know. It's 24 floor tall. And please don't call me "dude". I'm not your "dude". I've never worked on a dude ranch, and I don't wrest these ridiculous conclusions simply to appease your intellect which is flawed.

Atlanta has the tallest office building outside of NYC and Chicago. That' the point here.

It's not fair to the other cities that have higher skyscrapers really when you think about it. We're talking about "sky" lines here....

It is also not fair to Miami if its numerous buildings over 400 feet tall were not counted. There is also a "line" in the word skyline and not just a few very tall buildings. I liken it to winning an Olympic bronze medal in boxing with a technical knockout rather than landing a solid punch. We still came in third.

I don't wrest these ridiculous conclusions simply to appease your intellect which is flawed.

Barf, I can't believe you said this. An old southern adage comes to mind again - "The pot called the kettle black."

Regardless...we are #3 in the USA...whether some people in here like it or not....so can we just drop it....

Regardless...we are #3 in the USA...whether some people in here like it or not....so can we just drop it....

And we have developers still moving forward even in this economic environment, so not only does Miami have the 3rd largest skyline in the US, we're going to put a lock on it, just like New York and Chicago have a lock on 1st and 2nd.

Actually what Atlanta has is a 800 foot building with a 200+ foot metal cage plopped on top! :)

:lol: Yeah, the official listed height of the roof is 933 feet. There are several buildings in Atlanta that are more impressive though much shorter imo.
How close in height would Jade Beach be to B&G Diamonds if scaffolding is not included?

Are people also aware that Atlanta currently has MASSIVE amount of empty office space?

Friday, April 16, 2010
Empty office space sets record
Atlanta Business Chronicle - by Douglas Sams Staff Writer


Metro Atlanta has broken a new record for empty office space, a first even for a region whose developers are famous for overbuilding.

The amount of available office space stands at 39.3 million square feet, according to the real estate brokerage Colliers International. The figure eclipses the old benchmark of 35.4 million square feet in 2003, a glut that developed in the rebound from the dot-com crash.

Metro Atlanta has the equivalent of 33 Bank of America Plaza towers (which, at 55 stories, is the tallest building in Georgia) standing empty. It could take almost a decade to absorb enough office space to get the supply back to normal.

The excess is the result of easy credit from 2005 to 2007 that fueled a speculative office building boom, especially in Buckhead and Midtown, where several towers were under construction at once. Then, the worst recession in 80 years robbed developers of the job growth needed to fill all those buildings.

As job losses have mounted in the past year and corporate downsizing has become commonplace, the vacancy rate for metro Atlanta office buildings has soared to 22.2 percent, equal to the highest on record, first reported at the start of 2003, according to brokerage firm Jones Lang LaSalle Inc.

The vacancy rate is based on a metro Atlanta inventory of office buildings that approaches 139 million square feet, Jones Lang LaSalle said.

The vacancy rate has not exceeded record levels yet, in part, because not all of the empty offices are technically “vacant.”

Companies are holding onto empty floors because they don’t think it’s worth putting them on the market for lease. There isn’t enough demand.

It will take at least eight years to absorb enough vacant office space to get metro Atlanta back to 14 percent vacancy, or about the point when developers historically have broken ground on new speculative towers, said Lanie Rea, research manager for Jones Lang LaSalle.

For one of the rare times in its history of boom times, speculative office development in the Capital of the New South has come to a halt.

“The city has zero speculative space,” said Bob Stoner, regional vice president of Eola Capital, which owns the most office real estate in Atlanta. “We may go three or four years before we see another spec development.”

Huge chunks of space
The current excess has brought about the return of “see-through buildings,” symbols of the 1990s real estate glut.

Owners of the most recognizable office towers on the Atlanta skyline are dealing with huge chunks of empty space.

In Midtown, BentleyForbes Group LLC has about 334,000 square feet to fill at Bank of America Plaza.

Hines needs tenants for about 388,000 square feet at One Atlantic Center.

American International Group has about 282,000 square feet of empty space at its 271 17th Street Building, also known as the BB&T tower.

On the Perimeter, Rubenstein Partners and Barry Real Estate Companies Inc. have 363,000 square feet to fill, primarily because anchor tenant Royal Philips Electronics moved to Alpharetta.

The office market around Sandy Springs and Perimeter Mall — Atlanta’s largest — has 5.9 million square fee of empty space, according to Colliers International.

In Buckhead, where overdevelopment has created one of the most competitive office markets in the U.S., 4.9 million square feet is empty. In northwest Atlanta, home to Cobb Galleria Centre, about 6.2 million square feet is empty.

The roots of the current glut stem from several sources, including the lax underwriting standards of the middle decade and the belief that commercial real estate prices would continue climbing.

http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2010/04/19/story5.html?b=1271649600^3201151

^ wow that is a astonishing rate of empty office space for Atlanta! At least Miami built it's 3 newest office towers in the downtown/Brickell district. I wonder what Miami's office vacancy is.

wow that is a astonishing rate of empty office space for Atlanta! At least Miami built it's 3 newest office towers in the downtown/Brickell district. I wonder what Miami's office vacancy is.

Miami is at 18.5% vacant 1st quarter '10 according to this source: http://therealdeal.com/miami/articles/office-vacancies-up-rents-steady-in-miami-dade-a-cushman-wakefield-report-says

Miami is at 18.5% vacant 1st quarter '10 according to this source: http://therealdeal.com/miami/articles/office-vacancies-up-rents-steady-in-miami-dade-a-cushman-wakefield-report-says

Miami has a tad higher office vacancy rate than the national average, but it's close and certainly not as extreme as some other areas. Here's a recent Reuters article detailing more of the national picture. New York and DC have the strongest markets, while some other office markets like Phoenix and Denver (although not listed in the article) have really struggled with high vacancy rates:

Office vacancy rate hits 16-year high

REUTERS/Brendan McDermid
On Monday April 5, 2010, 1:26 am EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. office vacancy rate in the first quarter reached its highest level in 16 years, but the decline in rents eased and crept closer to stabilization, according to a report by real estate research firm Reis Inc.

The U.S. office vacancy rate rose to 17.2 percent, a level unseen since 1994, as the market lost about 11.6 million net square feet of occupied space during the first quarter, according to the report released on Monday. The U.S. vacancy rate inched up 0.2 percentage points from a quarter earlier and was 2 percent higher than a year ago.

"As labor markets stabilize, we expect occupancies and rents to require another 12 to 18 months before showing signs of improvement, given typical lags in commercial real estate," Reis director of research Victor Calanog said in a statement. "Even as occupancy continues to deteriorate, we're observing signs of renewed leasing activity across different metros."

The U.S. office vacancy rate hit a cyclical low of 12.5 percent in the third quarter 2007.

Rental rates fell an average of 0.8 percent in the first quarter, a less steep decline that seen last year. Asking rent fell 4.2 percent from a year earlier. Factoring months of free rent and landlord contributions to space improvements for each tenant, effective rent was down 7.4 percent from a year earlier.

Both asking and effective rent were off 0.8 percent from the fourth quarter 2009. The fact that effective rent is no longer falling at a greater rate than asking rent is an indication that landlords may have offered enough concessions to stimulate leasing activity.

"While we do not foresee positive rent growth resuming until next year at the earliest, office buildings at least do not seem to be experiencing as much distress relative to 12 months ago, when we were just heading into 2009 and most markets and economies around the world were still in deep turmoil," Calanog said.

LESS OF A BLOODBATH IN 2010

"We expect less of a bloodbath in fundamentals in 2010 versus 2009, but rents will still decline and vacancies will still continue to rise," Calanog said. "This is bad news for loans supported by office properties that have to contend with at least six to eight more quarters of falling income."

Tight credit markets also have curbed office construction with only 3.6 million square feet of office space coming online, the lowest level of completions since Reis began publishing quarterly data in 1999.

The office vacancy rate increased in 57 of the 79 primary metropolitan areas Reis tracks. Effective rents fell in 56 out of 79 markets, down from 70 in the fourth quarter 2009.

New York, the largest office market, saw its vacancy rate rise 0.1 percentage point to 11.7 percent from 11.6 percent. Effective rent slid 2.1 percent, less than half the 5.3 percent drop seen in the fourth quarter 2009.

Washington DC has overtaken New York as Reis's tightest market, with DC sporting the nation's lowest vacancy rate of 10.4 percent. Detroit, home of the U.S. auto industry, continued to suffer the most, with a 26.2 percent vacancy rate, the highest in the nation.

(Reporting by Ilaina Jonas; Editing by Lincoln Feast)

Miami is at 18.5% vacant 1st quarter '10 according to this source: http://therealdeal.com/miami/articles/office-vacancies-up-rents-steady-in-miami-dade-a-cushman-wakefield-report-says

Palm Beach County's vacancy in the first quarter of the year was 24.5 percent, up from 22.1 percent during the same period a year ago, according to Cushman & Wakefield.


Broward's vacancy was 19.4 percent, compared with 16.1 percent a year earlier.

Well, the two of you certainly have opened my eyes to the degree that the Toronto skyline extends northward from Lake Ontario. I mean it is HUGE! I had no idea. It would be nice to see some taller buildings farther north in the skyline to really add to that impressive spread.


I've learned a lot about places beyond Canada from SSC. Miami has been a big eye opener for me too. Hope you don't mind us outsiders peeking in once in a while.

Regarding taller buildings north, there are 2 towers over 200 m currently in construction: AURA at 252 m is being built about 10 blocks north (inland) of the bank tower cluster, and Four Seasons at 210 m is another 15 blocks further north (inland) in Yorkville. Another Yorkville tower over 200 m seems imminent. It's called One Bloor.

AURA (75 floors | 252 m)

http://i46.tinypic.com/30x7tiu.jpg

Four Seasons (55 floors | 210 m)

http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/3012/fourseasons1tf6.jpg

One Bloor (65 floors | 219 m)

http://i39.tinypic.com/98hbtu.jpg

Miami's skyline gets criticized somewhat for being all condo towers. Are there significant office towers under construction or on the horizon? Is there a traditional central business district or are they more scattered throughout Metro Miami?

Miami's flown under lots of people's radar; especially folks beyond the United States. It looks fabulous! 1 or 2 well positioned new office towers over 200 m would be a great plus, however. I'll be keeping tabs. It's been nice watching Miami grow. :okay:

I don't think I would put some of those cities above Atlanta. Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Miami and Seattle don't have a single tower over 1000 feet tall. Outside of New York and Chicago, Atlanta has the tallest tower in the United States. Atlanta's skyline is long and goes on for miles. It's nearly impossible to contain it in one photograph, it extends into Buckhead and beyond. It's very similar to Miami's in that perspective....

Look at this link:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Atlanta_cityscape_032008.jpg

I think until you actually visit Atlanta, it's kind of difficult to say that all those other cities with smaller CBD areas have a larger skyline. Pittsburgh and Minneapolis don't even come close.

All very good points and thank you for the link. I suppose it boils down to how one quantifies things. Atlanta's skyline is so spread out and people tend to look at just the main cluster in a city. I prefer the main cluster in Minneapolis, San Francisco, Seattle, and Pittsburgh. Counting all towers in the metropolitan area, you're quite right, Atlanta beats most of them.

There's also something to be said for looking beyond some magical number like 1000 feet. Toronto doesn't have any towers over 1000 feet either, but it arguably has the 3rd biggest skyline on the continent.

I've learned a lot about places beyond Canada from SSC. Miami has been a big eye opener for me too. Hope you don't mind us outsiders peeking in once in a while.

I certainly don't mind, and thanks for the renderings of what's to come in Toronto. Off topic, but certainly appreciated by me. I can hardly wait to see what kind of impact they have on the skyline.

Miami's skyline gets criticized somewhat for being all condo towers.

Well, it certainly isn't all condos, and this is what I had to say about that on another website.

My post on City-Data on "The Most FUTURISTIC city in the United States" thread:
Yes, most of Miami's skyscrapers were built in the 21st century, but it is not only for looks that I chose Miami in spite of its mass transit system which certainly could be better. Many people knock Miami's new skyline and 3rd largest skyline in the U.S. status because so many of our new skyscrapers are giant condos or mixed-use projects, but getting more people to LIVE VERTICALLY LIKE THE JETSONS is the wave of the future, especially with the planet's ever growing population and urban sprawl encroaching more upon the natural environment. People living in the sky among the clouds always has been a futuristic concept, but so many of you just don't get it. Giant condos and mixed-use projects in the CBD that are virtually self-contained cities unto themselves where people can live, work, and play all in the same complex or all within the CBD without having to commute anywhere always has been a futuristic idea and this is where Miami is going, especially not having the mass transit system that other cities have. Our first giant condo built here in Miami was the Santa Maria in 1997 at 51 stories at 520. My first thought was "That looks like a place where the Jetsons would live and would be a great setting for a live-action movie about the Jetsons."

Are there significant office towers under construction or on the horizon?

These are our two most recently completed office towers.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4002/4544473042_8c023e08da_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4021/4539878746_9b98b9491c_b.jpg

Is there a traditional central business district or are they more scattered throughout Metro Miami?

Slice this photograph down the middle and you have the beginning of the CBD on the right and the beginning of the Brickell Financial District on the left, the two districts being divided by the Miami River.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4023/4350491230_772fb965e2_b.jpg

Miami's flown under lots of people's radar; especially folks beyond the United States. It looks fabulous! 1 or 2 well positioned new office towers over 200 m would be a great plus, however. I'll be keeping tabs. It's been nice watching Miami grow. :okay:

Miami has flown under the radar because this all happened very quickly, and there is much still planned.

There's also something to be said for looking beyond some magical number like 1000 feet. Toronto doesn't have any towers over 1000 feet either, but it arguably has the 3rd biggest skyline on the continent.

I don't think there really is an argument there. Toronto does have the 3rd biggest skyline on the continent.

Very interesting. Honestly, when I first joined SSC and looked beyond Canada, I frequented the usual suspects: New York, Hong Kong, Chicago, etc. Over the last year or so, I've increasingly been watching what's happening in Miami.

Those 2 new office towers you posted look encouraging. They're both very good. You did mention that transit isn't Miami's strong suit. With the obvious spike in density levels, do you see that as impetus for more MetroRail subway lines? It seems like a natural progression, but an end result achieved in reverse.

Cities usually build the line first, then more density follows. Why hasn't it happened yet in Miami? You talk about 'giant condos and mixed-use projects in the CBD' as virtually a self-contained city. I use the term 'vertical gated community', but these people still need to get around. Even though people can theoretically never leave their building/complex, most do have to travel somewhere else to work. 36 km of track seems awfully low. Perhaps I don't have a firm enough grasp of how Miami is laid out, vis a vis work-home commuting?

A side issue, but related: does Miami have a protected 'green belt' to prevent sprawl and encourage densification? I realize the Everglades and the sea wall Miami in, but Miami can't just spread forever north. Or will it?

Those 2 new office towers you posted look encouraging. They're both very good. You did mention that transit isn't Miami's strong suit. With the obvious spike in density levels, do you see that as impetus for more MetroRail subway lines? It seems like a natural progression, but an end result achieved in reverse.

Cities usually build the line first, then more density follows. Why hasn't it happened yet in Miami?

Yes, our elevated rail system Metrorail is being expanded somewhat after the fact because it should have happened decades ago, but why so little has happened with it since it opened back in 1984 is beyond me. Spellbound could help you more there, but a lot of it has to do with government corruption and money not going where it should have gone.

You talk about 'giant condos and mixed-use projects in the CBD' as virtually a self-contained city. I use the term 'vertical gated community', but these people still need to get around. Even though people can theoretically never leave their building/complex, most do have to travel somewhere else to work. 36 km of track seems awfully low. Perhaps I don't have a firm enough grasp of how Miami is laid out, vis a vis work-home commuting?

No, you are right. The fact that we don't have a transit system to match the skyline I think is one of the city's biggest embarrassments. As has been said before, we haven't had the best city planners down here.

A side issue, but related: does Miami have a protected 'green belt' to prevent sprawl and encourage densification? I realize the Everglades and the sea wall Miami in, but Miami can't just spread forever north. Or will it?

We do have a western Urban Development Boundary to protect the Everglades, and the tri-county metropolitan area (Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach) is one of the largest in the country. Some sources say 7th, others say 5th. We'll have to wait for the latest census results. Miami proper is actually quite small in land area, only a little over 36 sq miles.

With the obvious spike in density levels, do you see that as impetus for more MetroRail subway lines? It seems like a natural progression, but an end result achieved in reverse.?

Just a point of clarification--there are no subway lines in Miami. Metrorail is entirely elevated.

There is one important addition to Metrorail currently under construction that will make travel to the airport easier. It's not a direct link (i.e. actual airport Metrorail station) but it at least addresses a longstanding problem with the system.

Any further heavy-rail expansion is pretty much mothballed at this point and unlikely. The reasons for that are myriad but essentially it comes down to money and some measure of poor planning. The feds have made it clear that the impetus today is on more cost-efficient light-rail systems and unfortunately Dade County has yet to plan with that reality in mind. The result has been that other cities have been receiving funding for their new or expanding light-rail while Miami languishes with a transportation masterplan that has become quite outdated. Local politics plays a role in all this as well but it's a complicated subject. The hope is certainly that the MDTA (Miami's transit agency) updates their thinking and planning to reflect new realities, but the track record on that to date hasn't been very good, frankly.

Cities usually build the line first, then more density follows. Why hasn't it happened yet in Miami? You talk about 'giant condos and mixed-use projects in the CBD' as virtually a self-contained city. I use the term 'vertical gated community', but these people still need to get around. Even though people can theoretically never leave their building/complex, most do have to travel somewhere else to work. 36 km of track seems awfully low. Perhaps I don't have a firm enough grasp of how Miami is laid out, vis a vis work-home commuting?

A side issue, but related: does Miami have a protected 'green belt' to prevent sprawl and encourage densification? I realize the Everglades and the sea wall Miami in, but Miami can't just spread forever north. Or will it?

There's no real "green belt" in the sense I gather you mean it, but certainly the inherent geography squeezes development between the Everglades and the coast. Greater Miami is probably the most linear North/South MSA in the country. It literally stretches over 100 miles from the Martin County Line to Florida City in the south. To put it in perspective, it's greater than the distance between New York and Philadelphia and about the same as the distance between Los Angeles and San Diego. That linearity and lack of centralization makes effective regional transit a real challenge and means the car is (and will remain) king for a very long time.

Here is something on YouTube about the Miami Metro -rail on the Today Show back in the late 1980's


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eISimpg9i6Y




Listen to Reagan's comment back in 1985 that it would be cheaper to buy everyone a limousine than the number of riders who partaked in Metro-rail.

There is one important addition to Metrorail currently under construction that will make travel to the airport easier. It's not a direct link (i.e. actual airport Metrorail station) but it at least addresses a longstanding problem with the system.



This is inaccurate; The new line under construction is going directly to the airport, although it will require a short (1-2 minute) automated people mover to the actual ticket counters. The original plan was to move pick-up/drop-off, ticket counters and baggage claim for all passengers into the intermodal center. There will still be check in available at the intermodal center, but not baggage.

That linearity and lack of centralization makes effective regional transit a real challenge and means the car is (and will remain) king for a very long time.

A regional commuter rail line on the FECR tracks is planned to be operational by 2014. This line runs through the most densely populated parts of the region. Additionally, there are plans for high speed rail from Miami to Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach.

Quantum, congratulations on that shot of Met 2, of looks magnificent. It is now scheduled to open next quarter, although only the part of the office tower will be ready, the hotel is now scheduled for Autumn.

Quantum, congratulations on that shot of Met 2, of looks magnificent. It is now scheduled to open next quarter, although only the part of the office tower will be ready, the hotel is now scheduled for Autumn.

Thanks, Sodermalm! It is precisely the shot I went to the roof of the Miami Tower Thursday to capture. I'm rarely as satisfied with anything I've done as I was when I pulled that shot up on my computer when I got home. I can't think of anything I would have done differently.

This is inaccurate; The new line under construction is going directly to the airport, although it will require a short (1-2 minute) automated people mover to the actual ticket counters. The original plan was to move pick-up/drop-off, ticket counters and baggage claim for all passengers into the intermodal center. There will still be check in available at the intermodal center, but not baggage.

It's not inaccurate. I think you may have just misconstrued what I said.

Metrorail will not stop directly at the airport (i.e. no transfer involved to physically arrive there, like with MARTA or BART for example) but rather at the MIC, where passengers headed for the terminal will have to exit one train and board another. It will be a short trip---presumably timed so that the people-mover is in synch with arriving Metrorail trains---but what I meant was an actual Metrorail station AT the airport itself with no transfer involved, which is not the case. A passenger exiting Metrorail at the MIC without transfering will not be at MIA.

Either way, it's a huge advance over what existed previously transit-wise and I hope people learn to take advantage of it.

The funny thing is how much of this could have been avoided in the first place. I don't know how many of you fellas know the real history of Metrorail but it actually goes back nearly 40 years to the "Decade of Progress" bonds passed way back in 1972. The proposed system was called "DART" (Dade Area Rapid Transit) back then, and a stop AT the airport was part of the plan. It was local politics that turned the tracks north up 27th Avenue and West to Hialeah---ignoring how essential a direct MIA station was to any successful system (as much for local workers as tourists and travelers)

Metrorail ridership numbers were terrible from the start, but I'll always believe that not sticking to the original plan made it an awkward system that we are still dealing with today. There could have been a station at MIA for the past 25 years if not for some seriously inept local politics that prevented it along with a feeble transit agency that has no ability to make decisions independent of those politics.

But I digress. The MIC link is a really good thing and needed. The next phase (hopefully) is to get these MDTA clowns off their lazy asses and do some actual 21st-Century Urban Transit Planning. Where the hell are their realistic light-rail plans while so many other places are actually building it? I love Miami dearly but transit remains an enduring frustration. MDTA has been poorly run for a long, long time and thinking residents should demand better.

No, you are right. The fact that we don't have a transit system to match the skyline I think is one of the city's biggest embarrassments. As has been said before, we haven't had the best city planners down here.

Sounds familiar. It echoes much of the sentiment here although 20 years of neglect at the mayor's office is more behind our lack of subway track than anything else. We now have a very progressive municipal government. It's funding that's the problem. Too many services are dumped on the city without the corresponding taxation powers.

Just a point of clarification--there are no subway lines in Miami. Metrorail is entirely elevated.

Ah, thanks for the correction.


Any further heavy-rail expansion is pretty much mothballed at this point and unlikely. The reasons for that are myriad but essentially it comes down to money and some measure of poor planning. The feds have made it clear that the impetus today is on more cost-efficient light-rail systems and unfortunately Dade County has yet to plan with that reality in mind. The result has been that other cities have been receiving funding for their new or expanding light-rail while Miami languishes with a transportation masterplan that has become quite outdated. Local politics plays a role in all this as well but it's a complicated subject. The hope is certainly that the MDTA (Miami's transit agency) updates their thinking and planning to reflect new realities, but the track record on that to date hasn't been very good, frankly.

So MetroRail is heavy rail and doesn't meet federal guidelines for funding? If I'm reading this right, you're saying that Dade County should push for light rail and federal funding, but nothing is happening. It puts things into perspective reading this. Torontonians get really frustrated with the transit issue too, but it's definitely front and centre here. Everyone agrees it needs to be done, but the feds and province won't cough up the money needed.

We have about 6 million in Toronto, 9 million in the Golden Horseshoe, but only about 80 km of subway track. We have regional and national rail on top of that. Many argue that we need to bump the subway up to the 300-500 km range. Lack of federal/provincial money, means we're massively expanding the streetcar system instead of the subway.



That linearity and lack of centralization makes effective regional transit a real challenge and means the car is (and will remain) king for a very long time.

Shouldn't linearity make effective regional transit a snap? 1 or 2 lines running parallel for the entire length with feeder lines running east-west every 0.5 km? Most of the feeder lines could be street car with a subway feeder line every 3 km?

Just a point of clarification--there are no subway lines in Miami. Metrorail is entirely elevated.

Ah, thanks for the correction.

I actually did catch where you said subway and thought referring to it as our elevated rail system would cover that, but then, we could have had both for all you know. Many of us would agree though that the route chosen did not result in high ridership numbers, which didn't help in its expansion, and linearity could have been better utilized.

Whether Miami is 3rd or 30th ,Miami has an impressive skyline,hopefully it progresses to the mentality of an urban city as its parameter boundaries have been utilized. As noted there are many condominiums in the downtown that are underutilized but the demand will grow as the market changes and more will be built and hopefully as well more office buildings.


Miami is going through growing pains,yea it is great to see a building boom,but there has to be a stable economy to go along with it and for the most part Miami was not ready as there was over- speculation ,flipping and other variables . It is hard to forsee these things but one thing you can say,Miami is a gutsy city and in my opinion Manny Diaz was a great mayor that catapulted Miami into the 21st century.

Whether Miami is 3rd or 30th ,Miami has an impressive skyline,hopefully it progresses to the mentality of an urban city as its parameter boundaries have been utilized. As noted there are many condominiums in the downtown that are underutilized but the demand will grow as the market changes and more will be built and hopefully as well more office buildings.

Noland, did you catch my post where I mentioned that I had dropped by Tibor Hollo's company and inquired about One Bayfront Plaza? It is still a go, but now for 2012 rather than next year.

Miami is going through growing pains,yea it is great to see a building boom,but there has to be a stable economy to go along with it and for the most part Miami was not ready as there was over- speculation ,flipping and other variables.

Yes, I liken it to an awkward adolescent growth spurt.

It is hard to forsee these things but one thing you can say,Miami is a gutsy city and in my opinion Manny Diaz was a great mayor that catapulted Miami into the 21st century.

And that is why I call myself QuantumX from the Brave New Miami, one gutsy citizen with a camera!:):cheers:

Noland, did you catch my post where I mentioned that I had dropped by Tibor Hollo's company and inquired about One Bayfront Plaza? It is still a go, but now for 2012 rather than next year.



Oh boy, projects that are a ''go'' with dates that are moving targets have a really sour record in my mouth.

If as the rumours have it they are robustly financed, then they could still start next year and just build it a bit slower. Dissapointing.

I'm placing all my drool on the Santander project now. If that one doesn't go soon, then things look boring for a while.

^^ I agreed.....if not the Santander Building...then give us Metrorail east to Miami Beach and north to Aventura....pls.......:nuts:

It's not inaccurate. I think you may have just misconstrued what I said.

Metrorail will not stop directly at the airport (i.e. no transfer involved to physically arrive there, like with MARTA or BART for example) but rather at the MIC, where passengers headed for the terminal will have to exit one train and board another. It will be a short trip---presumably timed so that the people-mover is in synch with arriving Metrorail trains---but what I meant was an actual Metrorail station AT the airport itself with no transfer involved, which is not the case. A passenger exiting Metrorail at the MIC without transfering will not be at MIA.


Again, this is a misrepresentation, the station is at the airport. The people mover will not be timed for the metrorail, it will never be more than a 1-2 minute wait. There are two trains running back and forth on two linear tracks, with no stops at a relatively high speed. It will be much faster than taking the people mover at SFO to the BART station, the mover from ATL's international terminal, or even from Zurich's midfield terminal. Really not even much different than taking those long escalators up from the Arlanda express.

You are technically correct that the structure where the metrorail stop is located is not owned by the aviation department, but nobody knows or cares about that. There would have been no way to put the station at the current baggage check, short of demolishing part of the terminal, and they still would have had to build a separate people mover anyway. I do think the MIC should be renamed the Miami Airport Intermodal Center, because obviously out-of-towners are confused by the name.

So, what's in the pipeline for Miami? I have an 'Inventory of the world's 200 m+ towers' thread and have contributors from South Korea, China, Australia, Japan, but none from the United States. I currently have Miami listed as having 3 buildings over 200 m? I measure to roof height only, and add towers once they top out.

Is the data for Miami correct? Please feel free to let me know if you spot any other errors in the data tables.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1104105

What about buildings in the 100 - 200 metre range? I realize that you guys still use Imperial Measures so I'll give you a rough guide: 50 floor office buildings are usually over 200 m while a condo tower usually needs 60 floors to break the 200 m barrier due to lower floor heights.

What's under construction, approved, or been proposed? I'm under the impression that there was a significant amount of over building in Miami so has it corrected itself or will that take longer?

You guys need more photos. I like this one: :okay:

http://www.alexshay.com/shay-graphics/miami%20night.jpg
http://www.alexshay.com/shay-graphics/miami%20night.jpg

We need more photos where? I have tons on QuantumPX, and this one you've posted is pretty old, but I'm glad you like it. We've been posting news of projects all through the forum. I posted some news on our planned supertall One Bayfront Plaza (1,010 feet) above. Perhaps you might check with some of the development threads in the Miami forum. The Santander building referenced above planned for 1401 Brickell Avenue next to the Four Seasons will supposedly be 840 feet tall. Met3 approved at 828 feet we might see after I'm dead. We've been hearing about that one for almost a decade now. Oh, and we might see Brickell Financial Center II approved at 903 feet tall when the economy improves more.

I got a fever! And the only prescription is more pictures!
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/628756/

We've been posting news of projects all through the forum. I posted some news on our planned supertall One Bayfront Plaza (1,010 feet) above. Perhaps you might check with some of the development threads in the Miami forum. The Santander building referenced above planned for 1401 Brickell Avenue next to the Four Seasons will supposedly be 840 feet tall. Met3 approved at 828 feet we might see after I'm dead. We've been hearing about that one for almost a decade now. Oh, and we might see Brickell Financial Center II approved at 903 feet tall when the economy improves more.

I guess I was getting a little lazy! :|

I'll go through the development threads.

I guess I was getting a little lazy! :|

I'll go through the development threads.

This is a nice Miami pictures thread, if I do say so myself.:):cheers:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=751506&highlight=miami

^^ I agreed.....if not the Santander Building...then give us Metrorail east to Miami Beach and north to Aventura....pls.......:nuts:

Metrorail to Miami Beach would be a dream, but never will it happen. Who would want an elevated concrete way in the middle of SoBo. I can't say I disagree even if it would be really cool.

If I may dream for another sentence or two, I would be thrilled with a line to Aventura, or to FIU. It would be quite interesting to get on a train from Dadeland Mall to Aventura Mall, a shopper's dream I guess. I never understood why a line to SunLife stadium would be more important than a line running the spine of US 1, where there are so many apartaments, businesses, and retail. The ridership difference between going south from Civic Center rather and going north are obvious, specially rush hour. A line to FIU could open downtown to a lot more renters, that could commute to school (just as UM).

We need more photos where? I have tons on QuantumPX, and this one you've posted is pretty old, but I'm glad you like it. We've been posting news of projects all through the forum. I posted some news on our planned supertall One Bayfront Plaza (1,010 feet) above. Perhaps you might check with some of the development threads in the Miami forum. The Santander building referenced above planned for 1401 Brickell Avenue next to the Four Seasons will supposedly be 840 feet tall. Met3 approved at 828 feet we might see after I'm dead. We've been hearing about that one for almost a decade now. Oh, and we might see Brickell Financial Center II approved at 903 feet tall when the economy improves more.

One Bayfront is only going to be 1,010 feet now? I thought it was 1,049? Or is it 1,049 feet including the roof?

One Bayfront is only going to be 1,010 feet now? I thought it was 1,049? Or is it 1,049 feet including the roof?

That is the height restriction imposed by the FAA and MIA. We had to fight to get even that much because MIA is virtually in the middle of the city.

That is the height restriction imposed by the FAA and MIA. We had to fight to get even that much because MIA is virtually in the middle of the city.

Aww man, so much for the "tallest building south of Manhattan" title, lol oh well atleast Miami is getting it's first signature skyscraper. New York has the Empire State Building, Chicago has the Sears Tower, and now Miami will have One Bayfront Plaza. :)

Aww man, so much for the "tallest building south of Manhattan" title, lol oh well atleast Miami is getting it's first signature skyscraper. New York has the Empire State Building, Chicago has the Sears Tower, and now Miami will have One Bayfront Plaza. :)

I wouldn't count the tallest building south of Manhattan out just yet until it's actually built.

I wouldn't count the tallest building south of Manhattan out just yet until it's actually built.

Thats true, atleast let them get it off the ground first.

A line to FIU could open downtown to a lot more renters, that could commute to school (just as UM).

Metrorail to FIU would be a huge boost for the Downtown and Brickell renting markets. A 40,000-student university (4th largest in the state) with a short, 15-minute Metro ride to Downtown would be such a big thing for both FIU and Downtown. A university that large, with that many commuters and on-campus residents would really boost Metro ridership for sure.

I forgot all about this, the Golden Girls intro! There is a quick view of downtown Miami around the 4 second mark. Wow, how it's changed over the years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qxm158EyPZw

I forgot all about this, the Golden Girls intro! There is a quick view of downtown Miami around the 4 second mark. Wow, how it's changed over the years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qxm158EyPZw

They could have at least shown the Southeast Financial Center (now Wachovia/Wells Fargo) in that shot and the Centrust Tower (which later became Bank of America) was under construction with the Metro-Dade Bldg about to open (now the Stephen P. Clarke Building).

They could have at least shown the Southeast Financial Center (now Wachovia/Wells Fargo) in that shot and the Centrust Tower (which later became Bank of America) was under construction with the Metro-Dade Bldg about to open (now the Stephen P. Clarke Building).

in that shot of the golden girls it appears Wachovia was a parking lot.

I think that shot was just stock footage they used for the first season or two of Golden Girls---after that, it was a shot of Miami Beach.

Can't imagine many people paid much attention to it either way, to be honest, but the show itself could be VERY funny and (imo) has held up well over the years. That was a genuinely talented cast.

GG has inspired some pretty bizarre art in recent years, too... :lol:

http://a718.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/80/l_fd3f1c6a7149a0f1e7c1f3868042ff3d.jpg

in that shot of the golden girls it appears Wachovia was a parking lot.

Wow! You're right! I didn't even notice that the first time. Now that is some really old stock footage, older than the show itself.

Yeah they need to do a remake of the golden girls with the new skyline shot. Kind of what they are doing with the A-Team this summer.

I've been observing this forum a while, judging from my username. So, I decided to join today.

Metrorail to Miami Beach would be a dream, but never will it happen. Who would want an elevated concrete way in the middle of SoBo. I can't say I disagree even if it would be really cool.

If I may dream for another sentence or two, I would be thrilled with a line to Aventura, or to FIU. It would be quite interesting to get on a train from Dadeland Mall to Aventura Mall, a shopper's dream I guess. I never understood why a line to SunLife stadium would be more important than a line running the spine of US 1, where there are so many apartaments, businesses, and retail. The ridership difference between going south from Civic Center rather and going north are obvious, specially rush hour. A line to FIU could open downtown to a lot more renters, that could commute to school (just as UM).

A Metrorail line to South Beach is a very good idea. If executed correctly, it would NOT in any way "spoil" the ambiance. The station can be built north of Lincoln Road, where the convention center and government offices are. It can be just like Downtown Miami. From there, street cars could be used.

The reason I say street cars is because the Metromover screwed up downtown with all the "elevated concrete". Dismantling the system would be ugly, thanks to Loft 2 and the Miami Tower stations. And I too am only dreaming, because both systems were denounced in Miami Beach.

Between the malls? Why not.

Metrorail to FIU would be a huge boost for the Downtown and Brickell renting markets. A 40,000-student university (4th largest in the state) with a short, 15-minute Metro ride to Downtown would be such a big thing for both FIU and Downtown. A university that large, with that many commuters and on-campus residents would really boost Metro ridership for sure.

So you believe billions of tax dollars should be forked over to escalate a temporary renting market where college students wouldn't even consider living until they have an edumacation? Not to mention, these students attend a suburban campus, and are likely to own cars.

If what I had previously discussed came true, which was a Metrorail line to South Beach, it would more popular for college students both living off campus and willing to party, get drunk, can't drive, etc.

I think that shot was just stock footage they used for the first season or two of Golden Girls---after that, it was a shot of Miami Beach.

Can't imagine many people paid much attention to it either way, to be honest, but the show itself could be VERY funny and (imo) has held up well over the years. That was a genuinely talented cast.

GG has inspired some pretty bizarre art in recent years, too... :lol:

http://a718.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/80/l_fd3f1c6a7149a0f1e7c1f3868042ff3d.jpg

There is nothing I personally hate more than when people call Miami Beach, Coral Gables, or even Homestead simply "Miami". Afterall, Miami Beach at the time was for old people, which was what Golden Girls was shown to take place in. Of course, it was all done in Los Angeles. The set can be seen at Disney World.

Also, MOD! Please censor! Thanks for a scar I'll have for the rest of my life.

Yeah they need to do a remake of the golden girls with the new skyline shot. Kind of what they are doing with the A-Team this summer.

How about, NO. It's unbelievable how you could compare the A-Team to Golden Girls, and its impact on the respective areas they took place. Yeah, tall gleaming towers SCREAM old people just like jet skis and lasers. If any remake were to be done, the only opening and bump shots that would make sense today would be Miami Lakes and golf courses in the area.

There is nothing I personally hate more than when people call Miami Beach, Coral Gables, or even Homestead simply "Miami".

And you are telling this to whom, Spellbound? He knows this.

How about, NO. It's unbelievable how you could compare the A-Team to Golden Girls, and its impact on the respective areas they took place. Yeah, tall gleaming towers SCREAM old people just like jet skis and lasers. If any remake were to be done, the only opening and bump shots that would make sense today would be Miami Lakes and golf courses in the area.

Relax bud enjoy a little sarcasm.

It's hard to differentiate sarcasm from text.

The series "The Golden Girls" was first aired in 1985 and in this YouTube video the opening credits shows nothing but an aerial view of Miami Beach.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgssjkrRqA4

The series "The Golden Girls" was first aired in 1985 and in this YouTube video the opening credits shows nothing but an aerial view of Miami Beach.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgssjkrRqA4

The link Clean Polo posted does show an aerial of downtown Miami from what looks like 30 years ago.

Relax bud enjoy a little sarcasm.

I already issued this guy a warning about his attitude with what he said to you and this is what he said - You're encouraging me to keep up the "wrong attitude"? If he's not another Barney manifestation, he is apparently here to just get people stirred up in typical Barney fashion.

The name alone lets me know it's a Barney sock puppet. Not one of his better efforts.

Off topic!:ohno::lol:

The name alone lets me know it's a Barney sock puppet. Not one of his better efforts.

What the heck is a Barney sock puppet?

The dinosaur?

I've been observing this forum a while, judging from my username. So, I decided to join today.



A Metrorail line to South Beach is a very good idea. If executed correctly, it would NOT in any way "spoil" the ambiance. The station can be built north of Lincoln Road, where the convention center and government offices are. It can be just like Downtown Miami. From there, street cars could be used.

The reason I say street cars is because the Metromover screwed up downtown with all the "elevated concrete". Dismantling the system would be ugly, thanks to Loft 2 and the Miami Tower stations. And I too am only dreaming, because both systems were denounced in Miami Beach.

Between the malls? Why not.



So you believe billions of tax dollars should be forked over to escalate a temporary renting market where college students wouldn't even consider living until they have an edumacation? Not to mention, these students attend a suburban campus, and are likely to own cars.

If what I had previously discussed came true, which was a Metrorail line to South Beach, it would more popular for college students both living off campus and willing to party, get drunk, can't drive, etc.



There is nothing I personally hate more than when people call Miami Beach, Coral Gables, or even Homestead simply "Miami". Afterall, Miami Beach at the time was for old people, which was what Golden Girls was shown to take place in. Of course, it was all done in Los Angeles. The set can be seen at Disney World.

Also, MOD! Please censor! Thanks for a scar I'll have for the rest of my life.

I hate when ppl call Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Pasadena, Burbank and Universal City...Los Angeles..!!!!

What the heck is a Barney sock puppet?

The dinosaur?

I'd like to know as well, considering I'm the only being oppressed at the moment.

I'd like to know as well, considering I'm the only being oppressed at the moment.

Why do you feel you are being oppressed with the profile name obviously created to make trouble?

Barney Muldoon used to always find a way to humor us until he would get bipolar and out of control.
He would begin with simple debates and as the days wore on he would get sarcastic and out of control.
Barney was so bad the mods would have to delete everything he would post in the Miami forum. He comes and goes once every blue moon with a contradicting screenname. I once posted a picture with the Barney the purple dinosaur over the Miami skyline. I think Toucano removed everything on this forum related to Barney.

I hate when ppl call Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Pasadena, Burbank and Universal City...Los Angeles..!!!!

Best. Response. Ever. :cheers:

Barney Muldoon used to always find a way to humor us until he would get bipolar and out of control.
He would begin with simple debates and as the days wore on he would get sarcastic and out of control.
Barney was so bad the mods would have to delete everything he would post in the Miami forum. He comes and goes once every blue moon with a contradicting screenname. I once posted a picture with the Barney the purple dinosaur over the Miami skyline. I think Toucano removed everything on this forum related to Barney.

Completely agreed.

I found some of the 'Barney' stuff VERY funny and creative (it's not like we're curing cancer here or being read by more than a couple of dozen people on a regular basis) but it's become the predictable pattern you described. The "Jets" sig is the worst one yet---or at least the most obviously fake right from the get-go.

Thing is, I'll be the first to say there's obvious intelligence and humor behind the facade. He just needs to come up with more fleshed-out characters to make it interesting.

Completely agreed.

I found some of the 'Barney' stuff VERY funny and creative (it's not like we're curing cancer here or being read by more than a couple of dozen people on a regular basis) but it's become the predictable pattern you described. The "Jets" sig is the worst one yet---or at least the most obviously fake right from the get-go.

Thing is, I'll be the first to say there's obvious intelligence and humor behind the facade. He just needs to come up with more fleshed-out characters to make it interesting.

"Barney Muldoon" is one of the central characters in a classic book by Robert Anton Wilson, titled the "Illuminatus! Trilogy". The name is also that of a pub in Fort Lauderdale. I was also clued in by Q as to his previous assaults on members of the forum, and tactics. If anything it sounds like a mental institution somewhere has WIFI available.

Why do you feel you are being oppressed with the profile name obviously created to make trouble?

Is it actually Barney? LOL I remember that guy. He was such a troll. But it was also fun sometimes.:lol:

The series "The Golden Girls" was first aired in 1985 and in this YouTube video the opening credits shows nothing but an aerial view of Miami Beach.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgssjkrRqA4

Was the show set in Miami? I don't mean filmed, just taking place. When you really think about it, Sex and the City is really a rip off of Golden Girls minus 30 years. :lol:

Was the show set in Miami? I don't mean filmed, just taking place. When you really think about it, Sex and the City is really a rip off of Golden Girls minus 30 years. :lol:

It was set on Miami Beach, and I think the house pictured in the series is on Pine Tree Drive just before you hit 41st Street going north.

Yeah, Golden Girls only used that intro I posted for the first season then the rest showed Miami Beach.

Yeah, Golden Girls only used that intro I posted for the first season then the rest showed Miami Beach.

I hadn't thought about it before, but the show ran concurrently with Miami Vice, and so both helped to popularize South Florida which in part contributed to the Beach boom in the 90s. I think the boom in downtown Miami was in part a continuation of the Beach boom, which I think is how we got the Four Seasons, which was planned in the late 90s. Along with Manny Diaz helping to clean up local government, anti-development sentiment on the Beach caused developers to look across the bay.

I hadn't thought about it before, but the show ran concurrently with Miami Vice, and so both helped to popularize South Florida which in part contributed to the Beach boom in the 90s. I think the boom in downtown Miami was in part a continuation of the Beach boom, which I think is how we got the Four Seasons, which was planned in the late 90s. Along with Manny Diaz helping to clean up local government, anti-development sentiment on the Beach caused developers to look across the bay.

Yeah, thats definitely a good thing.

If it were not for the anti-development sentiment on Miami Beach that evolved in the late 90s, Miami and Sunny Isles Beach would not have the skylines that they have today, and Miami Beach would have looked more like Australia's Gold Coast than Sunny Isles Beach does today. I know because I lived there at the time and saw what was on the drawing board.

Please don't compare Australia to ANYWHERE in the U. S.

Please don't compare Australia to ANYWHERE in the U. S.

why not?

Because the only thing Australia should EVER be compared to is Canada.

Because the only thing Australia should EVER be compared to is Canada.

Australia is a wonderful comparison to many other fine countries and cultures. I encourage people to compare it as often as they like with whatever they like, without concern as to what people like yourself think.

You're right! Australia is a wonderful comparison to not only Canada, but another "fine country" with culture that's called New Zealand.

Because the only thing Australia should EVER be compared to is Canada.

How true. When I look at this photo of Australia's Gold Coast I can't help but think of Manitoba.

http://www.bugbog.com/images/beaches/australia-beaches/gold-coast-beaches/gold-coast-beaches.jpg

The building are arranged awkwardly unlike here, where they essentially "snap" to the beach. Also, the waves are too violent, sands a different texture, and those trees couldn't ever grow near the ocean here.

You're right! Australia is a wonderful comparison to not only Canada, but another "fine country" with culture that's called New Zealand.

Actually, since I've been to Australia, and I've been to many other countries of the world, I can say that Australia (on the coast at least) reminds me a lot of the Caribbean, Greece, parts of Turkey, Spain, South Africa, Madagascar, and the Philippines. New Zealand actually looks different than Australia, if anything, New Zealand reminds me of Switzerland and the Alps in many ways.

I think I'll book a flight with Expedia and visit Europe this week actually... I need to cool down from this Florida heat for a while....

Actually, since I've been to Australia, and I've been to many other countries of the world, I can say that Australia (on the coast at least) reminds me a lot of the Caribbean, Greece, parts of Turkey, Spain, South Africa, Madagascar, and the Philippines. New Zealand actually looks different than Australia, if anything, New Zealand reminds me of Switzerland and the Alps in many ways.

I think I'll book a flight with Expedia and visit Europe this week actually... I need to cool down from this Florida heat for a while....

The euro also hit an 18 month low versus the US dollar last week, so nows it's cheaper to go!

Barney Muldoon used to always find a way to humor us until he would get bipolar and out of control.
He would begin with simple debates and as the days wore on he would get sarcastic and out of control.
Barney was so bad the mods would have to delete everything he would post in the Miami forum. He comes and goes once every blue moon with a contradicting screenname. I once posted a picture with the Barney the purple dinosaur over the Miami skyline. I think Toucano removed everything on this forum related to Barney.

I remember Barney!!
woahhh hes like the most epic troll in SSC, I think lol
funny guy.

My apologies Quantum for this off topic post, but just had to say this! lol

anyway, great photos as always!

What usernames did he go by?

I remember Barney!!
woahhh hes like the most epic troll in SSC, I think lol
funny guy.

My apologies Quantum for this off topic post, but just had to say this! lol

anyway, great photos as always!

Thanks! Maybe I'll do another aerial shoot next month.

What usernames did he go by?

I'm sure you can recall a few.

Was Rx727sfl2002 one?

I REMEMBER WHY RX WAS BANNED AND THAT WAS NOT THE THE REASON, I THINK DAITENGU WOULD VERIFY THAT. WOULDN'T THIS DISCUSSION BE MORE APPROPRIATE IN THE CLUB 50 THREAD? SO I TAKE IT YOU HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME LOOKING BACK INTO THE MIAMI FORUM IF YOU HAVE BEEN LOOKING UP POSTS THAT OLD?

I REMEMBER WHY RX WAS BANNED AND THAT WAS NOT THE THE REASON, I THINK DAITENGU WOULD VERIFY THAT. WOULDN'T THIS DISCUSSION BE MORE APPROPRIATE IN THE CLUB 50 THREAD? SO I TAKE IT YOU HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME LOOKING BACK INTO THE MIAMI FORUM IF YOU HAVE BEEN LOOKING UP POSTS THAT OLD?

http://www.hayabusa.org/forum/attachments/random-thoughts/157516d1252499980-time-some-gif-jpg-fun-keep-clean-ish-post-6-93271-caps_lock.jpg

Another reason to support the idea of Miami having one of the largest skylines in the states is the coastal perspective.. It seems that most of the cities with large skylines all sit on large bodies of water, NYC, Chicago for instance, while LA doesn't. (I'm trying to key the topics back into play here in whatever way I can....)

Viewing Miami from the Atlantic definitely has that Ellis Island look to many I would think.

Viewing Miami from the Atlantic definitely has that Ellis Island look to many I would think.

And I've heard it said that approaching the Port of Miami on a cargo freighter or a cruise ship from out at sea is the closest any other American city comes to actually looking like New York or Chicago because you get the Miami skyline and the Miami Beach and Sunny Isles Beach skylines combined with all three skylines having buildings over 500 feet tall.

I REMEMBER WHY RX WAS BANNED AND THAT WAS NOT THE THE REASON, I THINK DAITENGU WOULD VERIFY THAT. WOULDN'T THIS DISCUSSION BE MORE APPROPRIATE IN THE CLUB 50 THREAD? SO I TAKE IT YOU HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME LOOKING BACK INTO THE MIAMI FORUM IF YOU HAVE BEEN LOOKING UP POSTS THAT OLD?

I REMEMBER WHY HE WAS BANNED, TOO!! SOMETHING TO DO WITH ANGER CONTROL ISSUES AND LASHING OUT FURIOUSLY AT PEOPLE WITH LOTS OF ALL-CAPS, BOLDFACE, AND RED TYPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol:

And I've heard it said that approaching the Port of Miami on a cargo freighter or a cruise ship from out at sea is the closest any other American city comes to actually looking like New York or Chicago because you get the Miami skyline and the Miami Beach and Sunny Isles Beach skylines combined with all three skylines having buildings over 500 feet tall.

I'll have to try that sometime, maybe go out on a charter or fishing cruise next time I'm in town... Definitely bring my camera of course. I can only imagine how it will look in years to come when taller towers are in the skyline too...

I REMEMBER WHY RX WAS BANNED AND THAT WAS NOT THE THE REASON, I THINK DAITENGU WOULD VERIFY THAT. WOULDN'T THIS DISCUSSION BE MORE APPROPRIATE IN THE CLUB 50 THREAD? SO I TAKE IT YOU HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME LOOKING BACK INTO THE MIAMI FORUM IF YOU HAVE BEEN LOOKING UP POSTS THAT OLD?

I think someone mentioned that NYJets305 is just another username this guy uses to get in here and create problems....I dont know how true that is though....sure off topic!

I'll have to try that sometime, maybe go out on a charter or fishing cruise next time I'm in town... Definitely bring my camera of course. I can only imagine how it will look in years to come when taller towers are in the skyline too...

That's a thought. Maybe that's something we could arrange with Spellbound's dad. Btw, I put NYJets305 in the brig for 10 days with a warning to come back with a new attitude. If he continues to keep rubbing people the wrong way with being contradictory, then he's outta here. I think the user name obviously does that, but then, I have to follow procedure - warn, brig, then ban. I'm considering venturing into night now with the photography because I've done just about everything I want to do during the day.

That's a thought. Maybe that's something we could arrange with Spellbound's dad.

Absolutely...just give me a head's up. If I'm in town I'll join you. :cheers:

http://miamiandthebeaches.com/b/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/05-02-2009-haulover-dsc_4699.jpg

That's a thought. Maybe that's something we could arrange with Spellbound's dad. Btw, I put NYJets305 in the brig for 10 days with a warning to come back with a new attitude. If he continues to keep rubbing people the wrong way with being contradictory, then he's outta here. I think the user name obviously does that, but then, I have to follow procedure - warn, brig, then ban. I'm considering venturing into night now with the photography because I've done just about everything I want to do during the day.

That would be awesome if you could get some more night shots, as much as the skyline looks impressive during the day, it looks just as good if not better at night.

Absolutely...just give me a head's up. If I'm in town I'll join you. :cheers:

WELL! I'm willing to wait for when YOU'RE in town. Just give ME a heads up! Ah, duh? :lol::cheers::)

Again, this is a misrepresentation, the station is at the airport. The people mover will not be timed for the metrorail, it will never be more than a 1-2 minute wait. There are two trains running back and forth on two linear tracks, with no stops at a relatively high speed. It will be much faster than taking the people mover at SFO to the BART station, the mover from ATL's international terminal, or even from Zurich's midfield terminal. Really not even much different than taking those long escalators up from the Arlanda express.

You are technically correct that the structure where the metrorail stop is located is not owned by the aviation department, but nobody knows or cares about that. There would have been no way to put the station at the current baggage check, short of demolishing part of the terminal, and they still would have had to build a separate people mover anyway. I do think the MIC should be renamed the Miami Airport Intermodal Center, because obviously out-of-towners are confused by the name.


MDT agrees with my opinion:
http://www.miamidade.gov/transit/improve_airport.asp

For Immediate Release:
June 10, 2010


New Metrorail extension renamed as Airportlink





(Miami-Dade County, FL) -- It's a 2.4-mile Metrorail extension that will take the stress out of getting to and from Miami International Airport. And with less than two years to go before its scheduled spring 2012 opening, the project now has an official new name. Formerly known as the Miami Intermodal Center-Earlington Heights Connector, Miami-Dade Transit (MDT) is pleased to reintroduce the project as the AirportLink.
"We wanted to give the project a user-friendly name that really describes its function of providing a rapid transit connection to and from the airport," MDT Director Harpal Kapoor said. "The AirportLink name is an excellent identifier that will be easily understood by visitors and residents alike."
The rail extension, which broke ground in May 2009, will run from Metrorail's existing Earlington Heights station to the Miami Intermodal Center (MIC), a centralized transportation hub now under construction at the airport.
Anyone who has been on State Road 112 lately has seen the exciting signs of progress. A number of supporting columns have already sprung up, and the portion of the rail line bridging across the expressway is currently under construction, causing some nightly lane closures.
The People's Transportation Plan (PTP) half-penny sales surtax is providing most of the funding for the $526 million AirportLink, with the Florida Department of Transportation contributing $100 million.

AirportLink eh? Sounds good to me.

Miami has come along way... Nice PICS. Skyline wise it rocks, but sure it lacks some of the infrastructure.

As far as SF is concerned, posting many pics in this thread... the thing is, it lacks HEIGHT. It's certainly a beautiful panorama from anywhere around but it is pretty low rise. It only has 3 buildings of 200 meters...

Miami has come along way... Nice PICS. Skyline wise it rocks, but sure it lacks some of the infrastructure.

As far as SF is concerned, posting many pics in this thread... the thing is, it lacks HEIGHT. It's certainly a beautiful panorama from anywhere around but it is pretty low rise. It only has 3 buildings of 200 meters...

More is coming as we can now see, and we'll have a lock on third in the U.S. for sure!:):cheers: