Which is easier to remember correctly if you break it down into 3 words:

cin

cin

atti




:youmad:

The inability for people to understand sarcasm and a little sass on this forum is truly astonishing.

Bunch of self important gasbags

Maybe your 'sarcasm' sucks? Maybe it's hard to tell what is sarcasm and what is serious, when all your posts essentially have the same tone and point.

Maybe I'm a self important gasbag :shrug:

Except your posts carry no tones of sarcasm, whatsoever.

I've heard criticisms of Jacksonville's skyline before, but I think folks are being way too hard on it. I think one of the issues is that the river actually breaks up the skyline so you have the main northbank cluster and the southbank cluster, plus a secondary northbank cluster. The typical skyline shot is usually of the main northbank cluster taken from the southbank:

https://newvitruvian.com/images/skyl...skyline-11.jpg
https://newvitruvian.com/images/skyl...skyline-11.jpg

However this vantage point doesn't capture the "backside" density of the northbank or the other clusters which can be had from other vantage points:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...e_Panorama.JPG
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...e_Panorama.JPG

http://metroscenes.com/jacksonville/...nes.com_17.jpg
http://metroscenes.com/jacksonville/...nes.com_17.jpg

https://i.etsystatic.com/5459756/r/i...25280_9esn.jpg
https://i.etsystatic.com/5459756/r/i...25280_9esn.jpg

Jacksonville's skyline is just fine.

It's a long-running gag to compare Jacksonville to Toronto because someone (I'm not mentioning names so as to not conjure him/her) was insistent that he/she either preferred Jacksonville's skyline to Toronto or was trying to argue that Jacksonville had a more aesthetically pleasing skyline than Toronto. I understand that arguing aesthetics is subjective but it got ridiculous to the point of trolling.

To be fair, autocorrect on some phones is capable of doing some really stupid shit. My text messages to friends and family as well as my posts here make me sound like an idiot whenever I'm browsing on a phone. It's a combination of fat, stubby fingers and, well, being an idiot :tup:

The natural setting in Pittsburgh adds for the dramatic too. Its more post card worthy. I forgot the name of it but there is that tunnel that leads you from a seemingly suburban almost rural area and then bam! you're right downtown with one of the best angles of the skyline.

Most likely

That’s just your perception man

I'm not impressed.

There is literally 1 building that is remotely aesthetically pleasing (the one that is a weak duplicate of San Diego's One American Plaza).

Remove that 1 building and you have an assortment of relatively short low density boxes.

Modis (Wells Fargo) looks like what you would get if you asked a three year old to "draw a building" in 1970.

That's...different. But I have actually heard people say that they felt Jax's skyline is subpar so I took the mentions seriously.

I didn't say it was impressive, but I realize that the mentions of Jacksonville could very well be for different reasons. Of course aesthetics is the most subjective reason and that's completely a matter of personal preference, but from my experiences, most who have criticized Jacksonville's skyline have said something to the effect of it not being fitting or big enough for its size. That's really not the case when compared to its peers but the attractiveness of its individual buildings are in the eye of the beholder.

Do you honestly find any of the building's in Jacksonville's skyline to be attractive?

This may come as a surprise to this forum, but people don't move to Phoenix looking for a Chicago.

Heck, most normal people don't factor in a city's skyline when considering a move. They think about things like jobs, affordability, cost of living, climate, recreation, schools -- not whether the city has built some 500 footers recently or some cool bars are located near the courthouse or law firm.

Phoenix will never be a Chicago, because it has land, lots of land. It had a population of 100k in 1950. It also has a massive 4 runway airport just east of downtown.

Yes actually I do. There are probably a good 6 or 7 that I actually like, maybe like 3 that are sorta blah, while the rest are just okay. I think, from certain vantage points, the skyline is layered, has variety, and has decent height and density.

That may be true but the discussion is about skylines, and the fact remains that for a major city, Phoenix has one of, if not the smallest skyline for its population.

Thank you.

That is true, I'm not disputing that. What I am saying is that the skyline aspect that attracts people to Phoenix is the mountains - like Camelback, South Mountain, Piestewa Peak and the long distance vistas across the Valley. Not whether or not they have a view of the Chase building.

This is true in many western cities -- "Do not block my view of the _____!!" [usually it's mountains].

It's entirely different than a city like Chicago.

Which goes back to my post, people don't move to Phoenix in search of Chicago. People don't move to Los Angeles in search of New York.

Nobody has ever claimed that isnt the case