:rolleyes:

Nobody has ever claimed that Phoenix doesn't have a disappointing skyline.

Some have claimed that two very similar cities like NYC and Philly are "completely different" but nobody has ever claimed such absurdities about Phoenix.

San Antonio is really disappointing for how huge it is. The one good thing is that it probably has the most historically intact downtown in Texas by far and is a great urban experience. Just needs a few 600-800 feet towers.

And wow, guess I never really realized how utterly depressing Jacksonvilles skyline is. It like gave me anxiety to look at those Jacksonville photos.

Being split down the middle definitely hurts Jacksonvilles skyline(and its downtown in general) but it is about what I expect for a metro of 1.5 million, but to each their own I guess.

Raleigh and Orlando are the 2 that popped in my head when I first read the thread title. Phoenix is also a good addition.

Jacksonville’s setting makes it pretty good, in my opinion. Sure, it’s nothing that impressive from a pure buildings/density standpoint... but it’s really not that big of a city, so I don’t expect too much more.

I mean, for a city under 2M... it’s got a 600-footer and a 500-footer... and maybe I’m weird, but I actually like the Postmodern-y Barnett Bank Tower (or whatever it is now) and the ‘70s leftover-acid trip-designed Wells Fargo. They just don’t have peers around them, so they stand out so much. But if either of those towers were in another, more dense city, they would be touted as standouts rather than maligned like they are.

To me, downtown Jacksonville makes a MUCH better impression in person... mainly when traveling thru it over one of the bridges. The width of the St. John’s River makes it more of a bay style setting, and the overall layout, with development on both banks provides nice vistas that allow understanding of why the city is there... because it’s a highly functional and pretty port location.

Though I don't think those buildings (mostly in the 3-6 floor range) would make much of an impact on the skyline if they were still around.

Yeah, the canonical Arch shot from the east side is pretty underwhelming and the topography doesn't cooperate from that vantage point. The downtown skyline looks fuller from pretty much every other angle. It definitely lacks height; a shiny new tallest or two would do wonders if strategically placed. Thankfully Ballpark Village is helping to balance the skyline a bit more by filling in a major hole on the south side. Given the success of the first residential high rise and the first office building it's highly likely we'll see more.

https://secure.meetupstatic.com/phot...461799558.jpeg
source

https://live.staticflickr.com/3279/3...aa3594f0_o.jpg
source

Personally I think the urban skyline from the southwest is quite pleasant:

http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/j...r/stlchunk.jpg



P.S. I think Jacksonville has an attractive skyline. Nice shape and it looks good against the water.

Saint Louis' skyline is impressive when you drive in from the east over the I-55/64 bridge. You get a sense of the depth of the urban environment because you're able to view downtown and to see all the buildings making their mark in the "background", as the skyline stretches all the way to the central west end and Clayton. It gives off a "big city feel" to me.

I'll never forget as a kid my dad was taking me and my sisters to the beach in Jacksonville. For some reason he stopped on one side of the river and we all got out and looked at the skyline. As a very young kid(maybe 4-5) I think I can confidently say thats when I fell in love with skyscrapers. The skyline was massive for my young and uneducated mind. So yeah, Jacksonville always has a place in my heart.

Aerial shots of Houston and Dallas don't make me cry (except the freeways), but 2 decades later ... they kinda look the same.

Texas had the 15th? largest economy in the world during glory days.

Houston and Dallas haven't built a lot of tall tower's 500' or above for some reason but both have built a crap ton of sub 500' buildings in 20 years. That just doesn't make an impact as much on the skyline...

About half the cities in the former USSR with its hundreds of monotonous and rundown commieblocks.

Huh? Texas would be the 10th largest economy in the world, if it were independent. Bigger than Canada and South Korea

There's no way Houston or Dallas should be included in this discussion.

The skylines of both cities are easily, without question/debate, Tier 2 skylines (in the U.S.).

I would say Houston and Dallas are easily “tier 1” US skylines, unless an arbitrary tier 1 only includes NYC and Chicago.

My unscientific and subjective Tiers 1 and 2:

Tier 1:
NYC
Chicago
SF
Seattle

Tier 2:
LA
Dallas
Houston
Boston
Pittsburgh
Philly
Miami

NYC is on another level - it probably has more highrises than every other city you have listed COMBINED. Chicago, SF, Seattle (???) are not on the same level/tier.

based purely on numbers, i would agree that NYC is in its own tier, skyline-wise, relative to the rest of the US. chicago would also be in its own tier below NYC. the rest would all start in tier 3.

Just to chime in here.I really like both Cincinnati's and St Louis's eclectic skylines.I like their diversity. Shiny green and blue glass just doesn't do it for me.

I've never been to either, but for whatever reason I equate /romanticize St. Louis with paddle wheel river boats. My mind just goes there.
My own city, Ottawa, is pretty underwhelming in the height department, but has decent density. Like Jacksonville, it's still a fairly small metro.

I agree with this.

1) New York (really there are like 4-5 different NYC 'skylines')

2) Chicago





3) LA, SF, Seattle, Philly, Miami, Houston, etc.

I nearly agree, but IMO it's:

1) New York (really there are like 4-5 different NYC 'skylines')



2) Chicago
3) LA, SF, Seattle, Philly, Miami, Houston, etc.