Good ranking and explanation. However, Istanbul and Paris also deserves to join the "Europe's Top 5 Skylines" league.Moscow, Frankfurt, London in that order.
Moscow wins by its sheer height, it's consensually agreed to be the continent's best current skyline. The cluster is physically smaller than some others in Europe but it's growing. Nice juxtaposition in some angles between the communist highrises and the new CBD. The individual skyscrapers have interesting designs.
Frankfurt has height and a decent cluster. The buildings are somewhat dated which brings the cluster down slightly. The spaces between buildings in the main cluster are somewhat larger than normal, however from certain angles they line up well.
London has two main clusters, which is different to the rest of the continent. Like Frankfurt and Moscow it has height, with the two clusters having distinct architectural characteristics. Having separate clusters prevents it from ranking higher.
Beautifully and accurately written. Moscow = Champion in Europe.- Moscow has three supertalls and several +200m buildings, some of which have excellent designs.
- Frankfurt has a shorter skyline, more dated buildings, but together they make a nice and reasonably tall cluster.
- London has a taller skyline than Frankfurt, with better skyscrapers, however the separate clusters puts it below Frankfurt.
- Paris has a nice cluster, who's strength is density. It's weakness is height, with only one building in La Defense over 200m. This puts it below the top three in which there are supertalls and various +200m towers.
- Istanbul's skyline is taller than Paris, but its undoing is its lack of density. Towers strung in a line, which makes for a rather sparse skyline.
- Warsaw's skyline is shorter than those above, which puts it below them. However, it is growing at a good rate. I personally like the juxtaposition between the Palace of Culture and Science, and the modern buildings.
- Benidorm: the cheapest skyline of the lot. Density but no quality.
Aye, Frankfurt has been at the top of the pile for a long time. The Messeturm and Commerzbank, completed in the early and late 90s respectively, ensured that it had the tallest and most complete cluster on the continent. It's indisputably been the King of Europe for decades.
The rise of Moscow has been very recent and very dramatic, to the extent that it's viewed by most Europeans as the city that has usurped Frankfurt's crown. Most learned Europeans have travelled to different cities across the continent, and many believe this to be the case.
Cities like Moscow, London, Warsaw and Milan have come from nowhere in the past decade.
For example, London only had two skyscrapers in the year 2000, now it's one of the tallest and best skylines on the continent:
Similarly, Milan only had one tower, a concrete monstrosity.
Quietly, in the past decade it's towers have popped up, so quietly that it hasn't registered on the general consciousness of many Europeans that purvey such things:
Warsaw has come up in a similar fashion to Moscow:
But nothing in Europe comes close to Moscow currently. A skyline of supertalls, with a multitude of highrises comprising the rest of the city. Aside from the taller skylines (Frankfurt, London, Istanbul), if you placed the Moscow cluster next to the towers that comprise any other European city, the scale would make the other look provincial:
As far as 'forgotten' skylines in this thread, that's easily Rotterdam and the Hague. No-one's fault, I wouldn't expect forumers on the Oasis to be familiar with European skylines to a great degree.
The Hague Skyline by Tom Roeleveld, on Flickr
I think the view from the Bosphorus shows it betterObviously, Istanbul is one of the biggest mega cities in the world and it's skyline is also very spread out like other big cities in Europe such as London and Moscow.
This reason alone puts Istanbul lower than others. But, the size of it's whole skylines is enormous and there are nearly 50 buildings in the list to construct.
Istanbul-Turkey by ayhanaltun, on Flickr