Why do desert cities have such shitty skylines?
 

I've only been to Palm Springs and Las Vegas and if one puts aside the hotels and residential towers of Las Vegas (same deal with Reno), the city has almost no skyline which is bizarre for a city of it's size. The largest desert city in America Phoenix, has it's airport close enough to downtown to inhibit it's skyline but even when that's not a factor other desert cities like Tucson, Albuquerque and El Paso have almost no skyline and I can't figure out why

:shrug:

I think it's a good question. There are other cities, not really desert cities, that are perplexing as well. Colorado Springs, for example, has a population of almost 500,000 but a very small skyline.

I think it has to do with sprawl. The land is cheap and is not forested.

^I have no idea what either of those things have to do with a city having a skyline

You can add Salt Lake City and Provo to the list, especially Provo, it looks like ~100k people live there yet the population is over 600k

Since the largest desert cities are also the newest big US cities it makes sense that the skylines are still immature, especially compared to old eastern cities like Boston, Philly, etc.. Arizona has only been a state for a bit over 100 years, although the area has been inhabited for 1000's of years.

Phoenix is beginning to add quite a bit of density now and is growing into it's own. The airport location limits downtown Phoenix height but the sheer quantity of buildings are growing substantially. Here's a recent photo I took.

https://i.imgur.com/fTCQhCv.jpeg

I don't think the vegetation which makes up land directly impacts it's price. Desert cities are newer, many have not grown to land locked levels but Phoenix and Las Vegas now have. I expect these two cities will look much different in the next 10-20 years.

Part of it is because the cities are new. Las Vegas was just a little town 75 years ago.

Another part of it is cheaper land. There's no real need for landowners to build upward.

Finally, part of it is that the metro areas are not that big. Las Vegas doesn't really go much farther than Boulder City or Summerlin. You can drive 20 miles from Downtown Las Vegas and you're in the middle of the desert. But 20 miles from Downtown Boston are places like Brockton, Foxboro, Framingham, Waltham, etc.

Firstly, the age and growth rate of a city just determines how many older buildings there are, but has no bearing on the size of the skyline but I think the idea of cheaper land in the desert makes sense although comparing metro Lost Wages to metro Bwawstun is silly because Bwawstun is over twice the population of Lost Wages

Thank you for ironically proving my point. This is a good skyline for a city of a million people except Phoenix is 5X that. Just look at cities with similar metro populations as Phoenix like Bwawstun and San Francisco and in terms of skylines, they both annihilate Phoenix

Its because western cities developed post vehicle. The density of older cities is because they built out their cores 100 years ago and suburbs have grown around the existing central node.

Phoenix, LA, Vegas, Tucson, SLC etc were several independent towns in farmland that grew into each other making the development more broad and less tall and centralized.

LA has a tiny downtown too relative to its regional population.

Also because the major skyscrapers in Midwestern and Northeast cities were built for corporate headquarters. As others mentioned, Phoenix, LV, Albuquerque and others developed later, and didn't have at that time, large companies building downtown headquarters, even as "redevelopment" like in some places.

San Antonio,
 

San Antonio, tx has a fairly, nice skyline.
No commerce , no trade- no money, no industry, for skyscrapers in the desert. There are no industrial city-centers in the southwest like the northeast has. There is a shortage of raw materials too. Coal, copper, iron, water
( International shipping lanes) and oil deposits abound in the northeast in comparison to the southwest U.S.- Lumber abounds in the north also. All these raw materials were what fueled American industrial might and wealth a long time ago. The southwest has it's minerals.
The industrial might of Detroit is what won world war two. Detroit is called the arsenal of democracy for a good reason. Ford built the tallest skyscraper
in Michigan on the bank of the Detroit River and then G.M. bought it from Ford to locate their World Headquarters in. An eyewitness account places Jimmy Hoffa- buried there, under it. Seriously. This is the latest on that investigation.

[QUOTE=forward looking;10111068]San Antonio, tx has a fairly, nice skyline.
No commerce , no trade- no money, no industry, for skyscrapers in the desert. There are no industrial city-centers in the southwest like the northeast has. There is a shortage of raw materials too. Coal, copper, iron, water
/QUOTE]

Incorrect phoenix has a lot of manufacturing. It's entirely due to the time period in which these cities developed where there is no need to build up instead of out.

Phoenix and LA are just now tipping the balance between sprawl and height with far more developments now coming to the core (mostly housing still) than before because the city is so sprawled now that there is a legitimate economic incentive to build centrally at higher density then just pushing out another 15 minute commute further.

Most companies as another person said that built these famous tall buildings were corporate HQ's and most companies still prefer suburban campuses rather than a single 60-100 story HQ tower like they did 50 years ago. Why? one cause its cheaper and two because their workforce is not centralized downtown so it makes more sense to sit close to a highway to pull from a larger pool of workers.