The LA metro has a population of ~18 million.

The Houston metro has a population of ~7 million.

Is what you stated supposed to be impressive / significant?

If anything, it's embarrassing that LA has trailed, and continues to trail, Houston for so long, from a development perspective.

Not saying it to say anything impressive. Just seems thats the way it's going. In LA's defense, the earthquake concerns did matter for a long, long time and still are there.
You're right, LA should've been 3 already. But I just think LA's thinking bigger moving forward.

I'd say Philly is looking pretty good these days from the East, or West, or all over - to the guy who said you can only view the skyline from the south or Mann Center.

Also, might add two 500 footers have broken ground this summer which will expand the skyline south. Also, 2 towers are supposed to announced for Schuylkill Yards before the year is out, and one of them will probably be in the 700-800 ft range expanding the skyline way west, further than FMC Tower.

https://scontent-iad3-1.cdninstagram...ninstagram.com

https://scontent-iad3-1.cdninstagram...ninstagram.com

https://scontent-iad3-1.cdninstagram...ninstagram.com
https://www.instagram.com/p/BvQOQMdjeHM/

https://scontent-iad3-1.cdninstagram...ninstagram.com
https://www.instagram.com/p/BxkFCw2jdvE/

https://scontent-iad3-1.cdninstagram...ninstagram.com
https://www.instagram.com/p/BznzDeqHqMY/

I would like you to cite an instance where anyone on SSP has claimed NYC and Philly have remotely similar highrise counts.

I like the Emporis cutoff. 500 ft. is too high for a bottom cutoff. Sao Paulo has essentially nothing above 500 ft., but has one of the most jaw-dropping skylines on earth. So, yeah, I would weight by height range, but with a far lower bottom cutoff.

And there has to be some way to incorporate the non-highrise things that contribute to a skyline (bridges, monuments, elevation changes, waterways, etc.) but no clue how to do this. Plus how to account for building quality and diversity (500 commieblocks aren't equivalent to 500 starchitect towers, obviously).

the problem is that the lower you go, the more worthless the data becomes.

some cities have every. single. last. building over 10 floors catelogued. others are missing thousands of them.

worthwhile comparisons become meaningless with such wild inconsistencies in the numbers.

You're right, and I don't have a solution. All I know is that Sao Paulo would basically be at 0 under our metrics, and its skyline is overwhelming.

It was never that they didn't "deserve" their own tiers. It's about "what are the tiers?" "what are the criteria?". Like I said in my first post about it, we all know that NYC and Chicago are far and away ahead of everywhere else. They're basically outliers, and I'm interested in seeing where everywhere else shakes out via some combination of total height and number of buildings ranking, looking at the numbers and figuring out sensible tiers. So yeah, NYC and Chicago can be in their own tiers, but let's just classify the tiers based on the data with hard dividing lines. I'm not sure what makes most sense from a proportionality standpoint... how to define the tiers based on a stepped-down approach from NYC to Chicago to Toronto to... that's what I'm looking into.

I would like you to cite an instance where I claimed anyone on SSP has claimed NYC and Philly have remotely similar highrise counts.

You and I both know what you're doing.

In the Phoenix 101 thread, I repeatedly stated:

1. NYC and Philly are nothing alike from a development perspective
2. Philly is more like an East Coast version of Houston or Dallas from a development perspective than Philly is like NYC from a development perspective

You were one of the primary forumers who claimed the opposite on both points.

The data and skyline photos referenced within this thread support my claim 100%. Philly's layout is not like NYC's, and much more closely resembles that of Houston or Dallas.

I'm that guy... but that's not really what I said.

I think you get the best perspective on the Philly skyline (able to appreciate its depth, volume, length, and height) from those angles. Most other angles, even though they are impressive (like the ones you posted) don't fully do it justice because a lot of it gets blocked out by itself... which one could argue is a good thing since it means the buildings are pretty tall and densely situated.

No idea what youse guys are even talking about.

For North America:
1) NYC is like in its own skyscraper universe period -- everyone knows that (I would hope).
2) Chicago - classic, massive, iconic.
3) Toronto - recent growth and modern towers are stunning

After that -- you've got: SF, Philly, Miami, LA, Houston, Seattle, and maybe Dallas and Atlanta in the next category.

That was easy.

Uh, how about right now?
Indeed I did. What's your point? Nothing in this thread (city highrise counts) has anything to do with the other thread (metropolitan streetscapes and development patterns).

Yeah, these things are hard to stratify objectively. How do you determine what score to give an arch vs cable stayed vs suspension bridge? What about a bay vs river? Or do they just get considered as bonus points? But that would mean a causeway in Miami gets assigned the same value as the Brooklyn Bridge or Bay Bridge. Beyond height, I don't think there is a way to objectively measure a skyline.

True. I'm going to look through some of the data and figure out what could be an acceptable valid range for considering cities on an aggregate height/volume basis.

you're just parroting here.

We get it. Stop saying the same old shit. No one has ever claimed that those are not the top.

Some people might want to find out what cities a valid 4) and 5) and 6) etc. tiers might be comprised of... with actual data. In order to do that, you have to determine tier criteria.

Good luck with that!

Well, this is why I have been a member since 2003, for the nerdiest conversations on the internet! It's been fun, really.

Houston *needs* an iconic, tall, and modern tower and also a bunch of new residential highrises downtown to add variety and street activity.

If I say anything else I would just be repeating people.

:tup:

I don't see the point in having more than four tiers... with two of those tiers being held by just 2 or 3 cities. I just really don't think there is a vast quantity difference among the primary cities in the next 20ish major American metros. Then, as has been discussed, there is the argument of how to define a building that contributes to the skyline. Some cities have a few really tall towers, but hardly any medium height towers (::ahem:: Texas ::cough:: ). Others have more medium height towers but not many taller (Miami?).

Depending on how the buckets are defined, you might that some smaller cities like Pittsburgh will get ranked with some bigger cities... But no city under the Chicago/Toronto level has such a massive competitive advantage that it couldn't be easily displaced by a healthy building boom in another city.

never realized that crying over skylines results in tiers.



:sly:

get it? tiers? tears? crying?



I'll let myself out...

:runaway:

Not sure where you got most of that from. I wasn't questioning LA's urban identity. I just wished it had a larger skyline. Houston and Miami are similar polycentric metros but they both have larger and more numerous skylines compared to LA while being much smaller.