Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse
I think the issue is that the bigger and taller a skyline is, the shorter a 100m building is (or seems). So yes you'll get odd results when when comparing a skylines that are clearly much larger and taller in terms of their tallest, most visible buildings to much shorter/smaller skylines if one uses a not particularly relevant metric
|
Obviously metrics can be sliced any number of ways, but shorter doesn't necessarily mean "smaller".
Vancouver isn't even on this list (would likely jump into the mix if an 80 or 90m base was used), yet the much photographed
breadth and
density earns the city regular kudos... Houston and L.A. have taller core buildings but are not exactly wall to wall tall(ish) outside the core.
New York and Chicago obviously have both super height and tall breadth of skyline.
I happen to like skylines with tallish breadth (punctuated by some taller peaks of course). Don't agree that this list is "a not particularly relevant metric". My Vancouver example suggests otherwise but still think this exercise is a
somewhat interesting quantifier that hints at tall base density/size/volume of a skyline.
Of course discussions often turn to "favourite" skyline which is subjective and fine. Photography usually wins the day in lieu of any numbers game.
Prev
Linear Mode
