Cities whose skylines make you cry - Page 10

Maldive · #**181** Posted **Aug 13, 2019, 4:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JManc

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.

^what I said, though as a lone foreigner in the thread ;-) I realise my post might be ignored. That's ok.

My NYC boosterism is rooted in experiences/visits. Many visits but haven't been there in a while.

And now it's bigger.... geez.

JAYNYC · #**182** Posted **Aug 13, 2019, 4:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

That's not what I said. I said that there isn't a substantial enough difference in quantity, among the top 20 metro area skylines ( minus the two mega skylines), to make any of them significantly out of competitive reach from one another. Also, I mean top 20 by metro area, so OKC, Orlando, SLC, and San Antonio wouldn't make it. And San Jose is a satellite city of San Francisco, so I'm not sure that it counts, either.

Fair enough.

So then by your tier criteria, I suggest you check out the skylines of Houston, L.A., Atlanta, Philly, S.F. and Miami; then check out the skylines of Phoenix, Riverside, Tampa and St. Louis and get back to me.

JAYNYC · #**183** Posted **Aug 13, 2019, 5:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by edale

It's a subjective exercise. There is no formula one can create for something that is inherently subjective.

Some people prefer really tall buildings over everything else. Some prefer density of buildings. Other people really like spires and interesting roofs punctuating skylines, while still others prefer a mix of architectural styles and eras represented in the skyline. There's no real rhyme or reason to it, and it mostly comes down to personal preference.

I think most people agree with Steely's categorizations of 1) NYC because it's huge and has so many great buildings, density, height...has it all. 2) Chicago more or less has many of the same qualities that NY has, just less so. Then there's the rest. Not saying someone couldn't prefer.... Honolulu (to pick somewhere random) to Chicago, but I think there is a general consensus among people who care about this stuff that NYC and Chicago are the top two skylines in the country/continent.

Obviously.

But to suggest there are not clearly defined skyline tiers after those two cities is ridiculous.

pj3000 · #**184** Posted **Aug 13, 2019, 5:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by edale

It's a subjective exercise. There is no formula one can create for something that is inherently subjective.

Some people prefer really tall buildings over everything else. Some prefer density of buildings. Other people really like spires and interesting roofs punctuating skylines, while still others prefer a mix of architectural styles and eras represented in the skyline. There's no real rhyme or reason to it, and it mostly comes down to personal preference.

I think most people agree with Steely's categorizations of 1) NYC because it's huge and has so many great buildings, density, height...has it all. 2) Chicago more or less has many of the same qualities that NY has, just less so. Then there's the rest. Not saying someone couldn't prefer.... Honolulu (to pick somewhere random) to Chicago, but I think there is a general consensus among people who care about this stuff that NYC and Chicago are the top two skylines in the country/continent.

What I'm saying has nothing to do with personal preference. We all know that NYC and Chicago are the superlatives by far.

I'm talking about height/number. Height and number. Or maybe just height alone. Or number alone. So even if we say...

Tier 1: NYC
Tier 2: Chicago, Toronto

What cities are legitimately Tier 3? And how do we separate them from Tier 4? Tier 5? etc. What are the set criteria?

How do we define the tiers? It's not "all the rest". There can be zero subjectivity to it, if we want to. I'm talking about data, facts. Not architectural style, setting, blah blah blah

JAYNYC · #**185** Posted **Aug 13, 2019, 5:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj3000

What I'm saying has nothing to do with personal preference. We all know that NYC and Chicago are the superlatives by far.

I'm talking about height/number. Height and number. Or maybe just height alone. Or number alone. So even if we say...

Tier 1: NYC
Tier 2: Chicago, Toronto

What cities are legitimately Tier 3? And how do we separate them from Tier 4? Tier 5? etc. What are the set criteria?

The answer is simple.

You can say it's "subjective" all you want, but if you can look at the downtown skylines of places like Houston, L.A., Dallas, Atlanta, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Miami and not easily comprehend that they are on a different tier from "the rest", I don't know what to tell you.

38 Geary · #**186** Posted **Aug 13, 2019, 5:08 PM**

Here's my very quick attempt using data from Wikipedia and arbitrary scoring system... excuse me if I got any numbers wrong.

Number of buildings 500-599 ft (2 pts)
Miami - 33 (66)
Houston - 18 (36)
LA - 10 (20)
SF - 13 (26)
Seattle - 12 (24)
Dallas - 9 (18)
Atlanta - 5 (10)
Philly - 6 (12)

Number of buildings 600-699 ft (4 pts)
Miami - 11 (44)
Houston - 8 (32)
LA - 9 (36)
SF - 5 (20)
Seattle - 4 (16)
Dallas - 6 (24)
Atlanta - 6 (24)
Philly - 1 (4)

Number of buildings 700-799 ft (6 pts)
Miami - 6 (36)
Houston - 8 (48)
LA - 6 (36)
SF - 2 (12)
Seattle - 3 (18)
Dallas - 3 (18)
Atlanta - 2 (12)
Philly - 3 (18)

Number of buildings 800-899 ft (8 pts)
Miami - 1 (8)
Houston - 0 (0)
LA - 1 (8)
SF - 2 (16)
Seattle - 0 (0)
Dallas - 1 (8)
Atlanta - 2 (16)
Philly - 1 (8)

Number of buildings 900-999 ft (10 pts)
Miami - 0 (0)
Houston - 2 (20)
LA - 0 (0)
SF - 0 (0)
Seattle - 1 (10)
Dallas - 1 (10)
Atlanta - 0 (0)
Philly - 2 (20)

Number of buildings 1000 ft or taller (20 pts)
Miami - 0 (0)
Houston - 1 (20)
LA - 2 (40)
SF - 1 (20)
Seattle - 0 (0)
Dallas - 0 (0)
Atlanta - 1 (20)
Philly - 1 (20) + 20 points bonus for being the tallest outside of NYC and Chicago = 40

Totals:
Houston - 156
Miami - 154
LA - 140
Philly - 102
SF - 94
Atlanta - 82
Dallas - 78
Seattle - 68

edale · #**187** Posted **Aug 13, 2019, 5:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj3000

What I'm saying has nothing to do with personal preference. We all know that NYC and Chicago are the superlatives by far.

I'm talking about height/number. Height and number. Or maybe just height alone. Or number alone. So even if we say...

Tier 1: NYC
Tier 2: Chicago, Toronto

What cities are legitimately Tier 3? And how do we separate them from Tier 4? Tier 5? etc. What are the set criteria?

How do we define the tiers? It's not "all the rest". There can be zero subjectivity to it, if we want to. I'm talking about data, facts. Not architectural style, setting, blah blah blah

Well more goes into a skyline than height and numbers. So go ahead and look at your facts and your data and come up with whatever set of tiers you so desire. The result will simply be a ranking of cities based on the number of tall buildings they have, not a ranking of skylines.

pj3000 · #**188** Posted **Aug 13, 2019, 5:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by homebucket

Here's my very quick attempt using data from Wikipedia and arbitrary scoring system... excuse me if I got any numbers wrong.

Number of buildings 500-599 ft (2 pts)
Miami - 33 (66)
Houston - 18 (36)
LA - 10 (20)
SF - 13 (26)
Seattle - 12 (24)
Dallas - 9 (18)
Atlanta - 5 (10)
Philly - 6 (12)

Number of buildings 600-699 ft (4 pts)
Miami - 11 (44)
Houston - 8 (32)
LA - 9 (36)
SF - 5 (20)
Seattle - 4 (16)
Dallas - 6 (24)
Atlanta - 6 (24)
Philly - 1 (4)

Number of buildings 700-799 ft (6 pts)
Miami - 6 (36)
Houston - 8 (48)
LA - 6 (36)
SF - 2 (12)
Seattle - 3 (18)
Dallas - 3 (18)
Atlanta - 2 (12)
Philly - 3 (18)

Number of buildings 800-899 ft (8 pts)
Miami - 1 (8)
Houston - 0 (0)
LA - 1 (8)
SF - 2 (16)
Seattle - 0 (0)
Dallas - 1 (8)
Atlanta - 2 (16)
Philly - 1 (8)

Number of buildings 900-999 ft (10 pts)
Miami - 0 (0)
Houston - 2 (20)
LA - 0 (0)
SF - 0 (0)
Seattle - 1 (10)
Dallas - 1 (10)
Atlanta - 0 (0)
Philly - 2 (20)

Number of buildings 1000 ft or taller (20 pts)
Miami - 0 (0)
Houston - 1 (20)
LA - 2 (40)
SF - 1 (20)
Seattle - 0 (0)
Dallas - 0 (0)
Atlanta - 1 (20)
Philly - 1 (20) + 20 points bonus for being the tallest outside of NYC and Chicago = 40

Totals:
Houston - 156
Miami - 154
LA - 140
Philly - 102
SF - 94
Atlanta - 82
Dallas - 78
Seattle - 68

See, now we're getting somewhere. Thanks.

Maybe Tier 3 is Houston, Miami, LA, Philly
and Tier 4 is SF, Atlanta, Dallas, Seattle?

We can actually crunch the numbers and determine criteria.

pj3000 · #**189** Posted **Aug 13, 2019, 5:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by edale

Well more goes into a skyline that height and numbers. So go ahead and look at your facts and your data and come up with whatever set of tiers you so desire. The result will simply be a ranking of cities based on the number of tall buildings they have, not a ranking of skylines.

I will. Because otherwise it's totally based on personal preference/bias.

JAYNYC · #**190** Posted **Aug 13, 2019, 5:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by homebucket

Totals:
Houston - 156

Philly - 102

Dallas - 78

Yet people implied I was crazy to suggest Philly more closely resembles an East Coast version of Houston or Dallas from a development perspective than Philly resembles NYC from a development perspective.

pj3000 · #**191** Posted **Aug 13, 2019, 5:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

The answer is simple.

You can say it's "subjective" all you want, but if you can look at the downtown skylines of places like Houston, L.A., Dallas, Atlanta, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Miami and not easily comprehend that they are on a different tier from "the rest", I don't know what to tell you.

Right, they are... so you're saying that it's not:

NYC
Chicago
All the rest

as others want to put forth. There is another tier after them... so that means, there must be another tier after the cities you listed too. Get what I'm saying?

JAYNYC · #**192** Posted **Aug 13, 2019, 5:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by homebucket

Philly - 1 (20) + 20 points bonus for being the tallest outside of NYC and Chicago = 40

Yeah, not sure why you saw fit to subjectively award Philly with an extra 20 points based on that. The building in question is underwhelming - dare I say hideous - and unimpressive on the city's skyline regardless of its height.

JAYNYC · #**193** Posted **Aug 13, 2019, 5:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj3000

Get what I'm saying?

Yes and no. Because you can't just say "all the rest", because "all the rest" suggests Houston and Phoenix are in the same tier.

pj3000 · #**194** Posted **Aug 13, 2019, 5:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

Yeah, not sure why you saw fit to subjectively award Philly with an extra 20 points based on that. The building in question is underwhelming - dare I say hideous - and unimpressive on the city's skyline regardless of its height.

Yeah... that was just a bit questionable

Not a fan of the new Comcast tower either

pj3000 · #**195** Posted **Aug 13, 2019, 5:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

Yes and no. Because you can't just say "all the rest", because "all the rest" suggests Houston and Phoenix are in the same tier.

Exactly. I'm not saying "all the rest" for a Tier 3 after NYC and Chicago, nor for any tier. That's precisely what I've been arguing against. You can't say "all the rest" after Houston, L.A., Dallas, Atlanta, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Miami either, for the same reasons.

Steely Dan · #**196** Posted **Aug 13, 2019, 5:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by homebucket

Totals:
Houston - 156
Miami - 154
LA - 140
Philly - 102
SF - 94
Atlanta - 82
Dallas - 78
Seattle - 68

here's how the "big 3" shake out with your point system (including U/C):

NYC - 1,356
chicago - 520
toronto - 374

and some people actually questioned why they deserved their own tiers

38 Geary · #**197** Posted **Aug 13, 2019, 5:36 PM**

If people don't want to award Philly with an extra points, it'd shape out like this. Also adding the numbers from Steely.

Totals:
NYC - 1,356
Chicago - 520
Toronto - 374
Houston - 156
Miami - 154
LA - 140
SF - 94
Philly - 82
Atlanta - 82
Dallas - 78
Seattle - 68

JAYNYC · #**198** Posted **Aug 13, 2019, 5:36 PM**

I'd honestly like to see where the NYC metro area skylines (Brooklyn, LIC, Jersey City, etc.) MINUS MANHATTAN rank, combined as one.

Can anyone crunch those numbers?

JAYNYC · #**199** Posted **Aug 13, 2019, 5:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by homebucket

If people don't want to award Philly with an extra points, it'd shape out like this. Also adding the numbers from Steely.

Totals:
NYC - 1,356

Philly - 82

Yet seemingly everyone in this forum swears the two are comparable.

LA21st · #**200** Posted **Aug 13, 2019, 5:42 PM**

LA will pass Houston in the next decade with this system. Miami's still building pretty tall, so who knows. But eventually, LA will be 3. Far behind NYC and Chicago, but it will be the 3 spot.