Cities whose skylines make you cry

[pj3000]

We're all very well aware that NYC and Chicago are way beyond everyone else when it comes to US skylines. And of course, NYC is far above Chicago and Chicago is far above all the rest.

But I prefer not to define tiers by individual ranking because you then you really need to apply the same methodology for the rest of the cities in the nation. Meaning, you can't just say "NYC, then Chicago, then all the rest" or something akin to that, because that's just not a valid analysis of the set. There would be others who stood in their own tier too... who knows? Maybe Tulsa is also all by itself somewhere down on the list when you really break down the numbers... or maybe some tiers have 2 cities in them, some have 3, and some have 8 or 12... it fucks everything up and you end up not really having tiers, because the tiers are then defined by the data points, rather than being the standard structure that the data points must fit into.

There are so many ways we could define tiers... total height groupings, # of buildings over 150m, over 200m, over 300m, over 400m, total height of buildings taller than 150m, total height of buildings taller than 200m, etc. etc... it could go on and on and on. And it might be interesting to do... and we'd see that NYC and Chicago would still come out on top... but for simplicity, I keep tiers easy.

To me, tiers are defined steps with equal rise separating them. I keep it simple:

Tier 1 = 1-10 tallest skylines
Tier 2 = 11-20 tallest skylines
Tier 3 = 21-30 tallest skylines
Tier 4 = "
Tier 5 = "

And then within that structure, you can apply whatever you want to define as "tallest". Maybe it's the standard, "number of buildings 150m+, with total combined height of those buildings determining order in a tie". Or maybe it's a different definition for tallest... you can do whatever quantitative analysis you want to... go nuts... but you still gotta have a standard structure that cities fit into, not tiers fitting to the cities.

That's why I said earlier that Houston and Dallas could be considered Tier 1 skyline cities.

And there's no such thing as half tiers or fitting into tiers because of a skyline's enhancement due to mountains, or coastline, or rivers, or walkability, or street-level feel, or pizza.

[chris08876]

I might be in the outlier, but from a skyline perspective, Houston is an interesting case study. I kinda like it. The multiple skylines in one city. The various nodes separated from each other. Its like you have 5-6 mini cities all within the same city.

Miami-Dade is another example. Multiple skylines as you move up the coast, North.

Multi-nodal skylines are exciting IMO. A lot of potential. Instead of it all being clustered in one centralized area, its spread out. Adds a sort of new dynamic.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

DTLA is a tiny geographical area in an absolutely massive urbanized region.

Los Angeles is not, nor will it ever be a hub and spoke city. There are just too many local municipal competitors out there that can offer better alternatives to the workforce and companies' bottom line than locating in DTLA.

That is true, but because the downtown LA area is "small", several developers are proposing 60 story plus skyscrapers (3-4 at or over 1000 ft).
It will look very different by the time the Olympics arrive.

Century City, Hollywood, Koreatown are all going taller as well because available land is shrinking. There's a 45 story proposal in the Echo Park neighborhood at the moment as well.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Miami-Dade is another example. Multiple skylines as you move up the coast, North.

Multi-nodal skylines are exciting IMO. A lot of potential. Instead of it all being clustered in one centralized area, its spread out. Adds a sort of new dynamic.

Florida condo towers lined up on the coast don't do a ton for me in terms of "skyline" aesthetics though. They don't have the same multi-nodal functionality like you see in Houston. They're linear beach housing.

Miami, Gables, Grove skyline multi-nodality is cool... not into the Sunny Isles, etc. crap.

[LA21st]

Yea, Im not impressed by Florida coast skylines. Going off google maps, they don't seem to do anything for street level either.

[homebucket]

The problem with Houston is that while it has a decent number of taller skyscrapers relative to other Tier 2 skylines, I don't find any of its buildings particularly attractive or iconic. Its tallest building, the JPMorgan Chase Tower looks like someone copied and pasted a suburban office park repeatedly on top of itself. The Bank of America Center is somewhat intriguing but I wouldn't describe it as sleek or beautiful. It's more just kinda like "huh... at least it's unique". 1600 Smith Street looks like it could be the largest jail in the world.

With the other Tier 2 skylines, you've got iconic structures or modern supertalls (Liberty Place, Library/US Bank, Transamerica Pyramid, Space Needle and Comcast, Wilshire Grand, Salesforce). Houston also doesn't get any assists like the others do from its natural surroundings. The fact that many of Houston's skyline pictures include its freeways so proudly and prominently is also a turn off.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by chris08876

I might be in the outlier, but from a skyline perspective, Houston is an interesting case study. I kinda like it. The multiple skylines in one city. The various nodes separated from each other. Its like you have 5-6 mini cities all within the same city.

Miami-Dade is another example. Multiple skylines as you move up the coast, North.

Multi-nodal skylines are exciting IMO. A lot of potential. Instead of it all being clustered in one centralized area, its spread out. Adds a sort of new dynamic.

Houston has one of the most under-appreciated CBD skylines in the U.S., IMO. And when you factor in its multi-nodal factor (Uptpwn/Galleria area, Texas Medical Center, Greenway, Energy Corridor, etc.) and random towers scattered throughout the loop there's no other U.S. city like it, Los Angeles aside (though one could argue Atlanta - with Buckhead and Midtown - could also be in the conversation).

Miami's elongated linear coastal skyline is essentially Florida's version of Chicago.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by pj3000

We're all very well aware that NYC and Chicago are way beyond everyone else when it comes to US skylines. And of course, NYC is far above Chicago and Chicago is far above all the rest.

But I prefer not to define tiers by individual ranking because you then you really need to apply the same methodology for the rest of the cities in the nation.

you are free to tier things how ever you want. there are no rules to this silly game.

but i think for many of us, to properly respect the GIANT skyline gaps between NYC and the rest, and then between chicago and the rest, it makes sense to tier those two independently.

if we open this up to canada ("america jr."), then toronto is climbing into tier 2 status with chicago right now, so you'll get something that looks more like this:


tier 1: NYC

tier 2: chicago, toronto

tier 3: the rest

tier 4: the other rest

tier 5: and so on

Originally Posted by pj3000

not into the Sunny Isles, etc. crap.

what's interesting about sunny isles (a beach burb 12 miles north of downtown miami) is that it's now home to 15 500+ footers. that would place it 12th in the nation for number of such buidlings.

now, whether or not you like the aesthetics of linear beach-front condo skylines is an entirely different matter, but the numbers are a bit eye-opening none-the-less.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by homebucket

The problem with Houston is that while it has a decent number of taller skyscrapers relative to other Tier 2 skylines, I don't find any of its buildings particularly attractive or iconic. Its tallest building, the JPMorgan Chase Tower looks like someone copied and pasted a suburban office park repeatedly on top of itself. The Bank of America Center is somewhat intriguing but I wouldn't describe it as sleek or beautiful. It's more just kinda like "huh... at least it's unique". 1600 Smith Street looks like it could be the largest jail in the world.

With the other Tier 2 skylines, you've got iconic structures or modern supertalls (Liberty Place, Library/US Bank, Transamerica Pyramid, Space Needle and Comcast, Wilshire Grand, Salesforce). Houston also doesn't get any assists like the others do from its natural surroundings. The fact that many of Houston's skyline pictures include its freeways so proudly and prominently is also a turn off.

Well...1600 Smith St. was the Houston HQ for United Airlines so you might be on to something there.

Pennzoil and Transco are iconic but one is obscured and the other is not downtown.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by JManc

Well...1600 Smith St. was the Houston HQ for United Airlines so you might be on to something there.

Pennzoil and Transco are iconic but one is obscured and the other is not downtown.

Never seen the Pennzoil building before but just took a look and it looks quite nice.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

you are free to tier things how ever you want. there are no rules to this silly game.

but i think for many of us, to properly respect the GIANT skyline gaps between NYC and the rest, and then between chicago and the rest, it makes sense to tier those two independently.

if we open this up to canada ("america jr."), then toronto is climbing into tier 2 status with chicago right now, so you'll get something that looks more like this:


tier 1: NYC

tier 2: chicago, toronto

tier 3: the rest

tier 4: the other rest

tier 5: and so on.

Right, it’s arbitrary how you define the tiers. But at least define the tiers. Don’t define the tier by the city. What are the parameters for that tier 1 that NYC is in?

Then you can follow the same methodology to define tier 2 and so on. Then you have a meaningful data set.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by pj3000

What are the parameters for that tier 1 that NYC is in?

the parameter is that it's "so much fucking bigger than any other north american skyline".

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by homebucket

The problem with Houston is that while it has a decent number of taller skyscrapers relative to other Tier 2 skylines, I don't find any of its buildings particularly attractive or iconic. Its tallest building, the JPMorgan Chase Tower looks like someone copied and pasted a suburban office park repeatedly on top of itself. The Bank of America Center is somewhat intriguing but I wouldn't describe it as sleek or beautiful. It's more just kinda like "huh... at least it's unique". 1600 Smith Street looks like it could be the largest jail in the world.

With the other Tier 2 skylines, you've got iconic structures or modern supertalls (Liberty Place, Library/US Bank, Transamerica Pyramid, Space Needle and Comcast, Wilshire Grand, Salesforce). Houston also doesn't get any assists like the others do from its natural surroundings. The fact that many of Houston's skyline pictures include its freeways so proudly and prominently is also a turn off.

I'd hardly refer to Wilshire Grand as "iconic", and the Space Needle doesn't do anything more for me than Reunion Tower in Dallas or the Tower of Americas in San Antonio. Just another semi-tall stick with an observation deck.

You also neglected to include two buildings (which, coincidentally have the same name) that could be considered the most distinct of all Tier 2 skyline buildings - Bank of America Plaza in Dallas (a.k.a. "the green building") and Bank of America Plaza in Atlanta.

And in general, I disagree with your assessment that Houston's CBD skyline suffers from bland architecture. IMO, 1400 Smith, Heritage Plaza and Bank of America Center are all unique and cool. The problem is that these buildings and Houston's two tallest buildings were all built in or around the 1980's, so the skyline hasn't had any new and exciting entries to give it any newfound appeal (as most of the cities you mentioned have).

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

the parameter is that it's "so much fucking bigger than any other north american skyline".

Tier 2?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Tier 2?

"so much fucking bigger than any other north american skyline not named new york"

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

I'd hardly refer to Wilshire Grand as "iconic", and the Space Needle doesn't do anything more for me than Reunion Tower in Dallas or the Tower of Americas in San Antonio. Just another semi-tall stick with an observation deck.

Except that Reunion Tower is a bizarrely 1980s-cheesy disco ball Mr. Microphone thing. I love it.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

The problem is that these buildings and Houston's two tallest buildings were all built in or around the 1980's, so the skyline hasn't had any new and exciting entries to give it any newfound appeal (as most of the cities you mentioned have).

This. Houston's skyline is looking, dare I say it..dated where as it once was the poster child of modern skylines along with Dallas and a handful of other cities. Now, it's New York that looks like something out of a sci-fi movie. Chicago as well with the fresh new architecture being built. We did kinda rip off Chicago's Aqua so that's cool but Houston mostly builds mid-rise bland boxes now. That's not cool. On a positive note, we did jist finish a sloped roof 600'er and another one is on the way. The first two since the Clinton era.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

I'd hardly refer to Wilshire Grand as "iconic", and the Space Needle doesn't do anything more for me than Reunion Tower in Dallas or the Tower of Americas in San Antonio. Just another semi-tall stick with an observation deck.

I was referring to WG as a modern supertall. I wouldn't call it iconic either.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

"so much fucking bigger than any other north american skyline not named new york"

right... and now tier 3, 4, 5...

and that's where it gets iffy, because now you have to totally change criteria of how a tier is defined, so much so that they are no longer tiers. And you get all the goofballs on here arguing about stupid shit on where their city's skyline fits or how this one's better than that one, etc, and it becomes a total joke.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by homebucket

I was referring to WG as a modern supertall. I wouldn't call it iconic either.

It's a box with a chopstick on top to sneak past the Library Tower. It's ok and no aliens have bothered to blow it up. OTOH, the LT has been obliterated countless times....