Give your opinion of the top 10 skylines in the U.S. & top 10 in the world

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by DZH22

Honolulu has 0 building over 150 meters and Boston is building their 26th. I don't understand how Boston keeps getting lumped in with the Honolulu's and San Diego's (3 over 150m) of the world.

i certainly wouldn't lump boston in with honolulu.

boston's skyline is considerably taller and has FAR more architectural distinction.

boston's skyline is great. it just needs a couple, two, tree exclamation points.

[MolsonExport]

Montreal tops Boston (for me!) for its layers and mountain backdrop + waterfront (thus burly bridges). It just seems to have more oomph than Boston. Just my opinion (and I love Boston, truly one of my favourite American cities, up there with NYC, Chicago, and San Francisco).

And Montreal is really beefing up its skyline.


SSP


SSP

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by DZH22

Honolulu has 0 building over 150 meters and Boston is building their 26th. I don't understand how Boston keeps getting lumped in with the Honolulu's and San Diego's (3 over 150m) of the world.

Boston's skyline is overall superior to Honolulu's. The point I was making was in reference to someone using natural setting as one of the main arguments that Boston's skyline should be in the top 10. Honolulu and San Diego are a couple other examples where natural setting isn't enough to overcome it's skyline deficiencies, at least when we're talking about Top 10 skylines.

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

Here are my U.S. lists, which I reserve the right to modify when the wine wears off:

Height, mass, number:

1. NYC
2. Chicago
3. Miami (shear number of tall buildings, mostly residential, is massive)
4. Houston
5. SF, LA, Atlanta, Philadelphia (tied for 5th)
6. Dallas
7. Seattle (or maybe tied with Dallas and/or Boston)
8. Boston (moving up)
9. Minneapolis, Las Vegas tied for 9
10. Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Austin, Detroit, Denver (tied for 10th)

Beauty, aesthetics:
1. Chicago, great lakefront location, wonderful mix of old and new skyscrapers. More pleasing skyline than NYC in my opinion. If you are visiting, go on a historic building walking tour led by a docent, and also an archictecture boat tour on the river loop.
2. San Francisco, tied with Seattle for beautiful setting and nice pleasing skylines on the waterfront, with hills and mountains in distance.
3. NYC (the sheer massiveness overwhelms like Hong Kong, several skylines really, which is OK, but not fan of skinny towers) the harbor setting is great and lively, and the historic mix of buildings wonderful. You could walk for a lifetime and still leave sights unseen. Go on several walking tours and take in all the skylines: Downtown. Union Square/Village/Flatiron districts. Midtown south (Empire State district), Midtown west, Midtown center, Midtown east. Brooklyn, which has developed an impressive skyline. Also walk the high line along the Hudson.
4. Boston....history & harbor & growing skyline.
5. Miami, great harbor, bay, large number of buildings, but very little historical mix. Mostly bland tall new condo towers
6. Pittsburgh. Wonderful setting where 2 rivers meet to form the Ohio. Nice forested hills. Good mix of old and new buildings. Big fan of Cathedral of Learning on U.Pitt campus. They have rooms for almost every nation, decorated and furnished in the style of that nation ca. 1935.
7. Philadelphia, nice balanced impressive skyline with old and new, but not wild about the latest Comcast tower with the "post". Tied with Atlanta, which is Multicentric, but the overall effect of multi skylines is impressive from a distance. Sometimes more mundane when you get there. Typical office parks where everyone drives.
8.San Diego. Great harbor/bay setting with mountains behind, and a large central park (Balboa Park), and busy historic Gaslamp, and one of the best baseball parks, but the 500 foot ht limit because of the airport gives a table top effect. Tie with Honolulu. Same tabletop but great setting.
9. L.A., yes, L.A. Impressive skyline (#5), nice mix of old and new, tall mountains behind that are white with snow after winter storms. L.A. should move up in the beauty list before the Olympics. Tied with Denver..come on, the Rockies backdrop and a nice medium sized skyline with some historical balance.
10. Tie, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Detroit...first 2 classic river cities with modest skylines with a good mix of old and new, plus St. Louis has the Arch; Detroit...great mix of historical buildings and newer, although not a big fan of RenCen. Also Minneapolis, Dallas, Houston, Baltimore, possibly Austin. 3 classic Texas skylines, Houston and Dallas rising abruptly and impressively from the flatlands, Austin on the river near the hills, sprouting skyscrapers. Baltimore nice harbor, good mix of old and new. Cleveland almost made the tie gor #10 for Terminal Tower. OK, tied for #10. Cleveland is moving up. Filling in.

Later: most beautiful world skylines.

This post is kinda all over the place. Not sure how Petco Park factors into San Diego's skyline.

What's your overall top 10? No ties please.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

10. Tie, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Detroit...first 2 classic river cities with modest skylines with a good mix of old and new, plus St. Louis has the Arch; Detroit...great mix of historical buildings and newer, although not a big fan of RenCen.

Your eyes may not have to be burdened by it for much longer... There is angst brewing that it may not survive once the Hudson tower is open.

[Crawford]

I cannot imagine they'd demolish the RenCen.

But it's basically been a white elephant since it opened. GM doesn't need all that space, the hotel sucks, the retail has never worked, and all the remaining space is filled by GM-affiliates. And from street level, it's horrible.

I honestly don't know how to best use that site over the next 50 years. Maybe partially demolish, and build midrise housing? Knock down the center tower, and the two short towers? Build housing on those sites?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Your eyes may not have to be burdened by it for much longer... There is angst brewing that it may not survive once the Hudson tower is open.

wait.

what?

there are actually discussions being had to demolish the ren cen????


i find that very hard to believe.

[dc_denizen]

I kind of struggle to see how the skyscraper areas of Montreal at street level exceeds Boston . Both are similar for sure but Boston’s has more interesting curvy streets and parks affording interesting angles , vs montreals straight streets

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I cannot imagine they'd demolish the RenCen.

But it's basically been a white elephant since it opened. GM doesn't need all that space, the hotel sucks, the retail has never worked, and all the remaining space is filled by GM-affiliates. And from street level, it's horrible.

I honestly don't know how to best use that site over the next 50 years. Maybe partially demolish, and build midrise housing? Knock down the center tower, and the two short towers? Build housing on those sites?

Yeah, it's hard to imagine, but I also don't see great options for it in the future. The best hope for it is probably to develop all of that parking east of the complex into mixed use in order to create a neighborhood around it.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

wait.

what?

there are actually discussion being had to demolish the ren cen????


i find that very hard to believe.

The discussions haven't gotten to demolish it yet, but GM basically has a skeleton staff there now. Deloitte was the second largest tenant and they pulled out last year. The restaurants and retail space can't be supported anymore. And once the Hudson's tower opens the Ren Cen will have a hard time competing against it due to age and location.

[edale]

Ok, give it up. Boston doesn't have a great skyline. Its tallest towers, historically, were separated from the rest of the skyline and stood out like sore thumbs. The waterfront CBD area looks decent from the harbor, but is kind of bulky and short. Boston is one of my favorite cities in North America, but I've always found the skyline lackluster. And the two tallest are pretty ugly, especially the Prudential Tower.

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by DZH22

Here's the Top 15 of each city. The point I'm making is, HOW ARE THESE 2 CITIES EVEN COMPARABLE WHATSOEVER WITH BOSTON?!?! They're not trying to overcome the "same issues" here. Boston has over 20 buildings taller than San Diego's tallest, and 30 buildings taller than Honolulu's tallest. There are several orders of magnitude of differences among these skylines.

Bruh. Boston is a great city. Urban, walkable, educated. The skyline just isn't one of its strengths. It's perfectly fine, but not elite. You're just going to have to accept it.

[Maldive]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I don't agree.

Sticks are sticks.


you are entirely free to hold the position that BofA NY is taller than JHC because the former's pole is a decorative architectural feature, while the latter's poles are merely functional broadcast antennas, but that's a hair-splitting rabbit hole that i won't follow you down.



source: https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=98916404




from a purely visual perspective, the building above on the left is taller than the one of the right anyway you slice it.

Given the CTBUH HQ is down the street from your 72nd floor 3,000 sq ft penthouse suite... I'll bet you've had words with them on occasion.


In the distant past, I may have shared similar thoughts with a few Aussies on their supertall (see link below):

FCP circa 1975 (298m) = not a supertall

Q1 = supertall built 30 years later (cue cheering Gold Coasters)

https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=98918027

[cabasse]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

wait.

what?

there are actually discussions being had to demolish the ren cen????

i find that very hard to believe.

that would be absolutely nuts. would they demolish just the office towers and leave the hotel? that would have to be the biggest building complex to be demolished (intentionally) yet.

Originally Posted by DZH22

Nobody seems to understand my Boston arguments, which at this point are focusing on the fact that it's being held to a different set of standards from other skylines mentioned on this thread.


1. Boston is considered "too short" and I certainly do get that. But why don't we hold that against cities like Montreal or Vancouver, whose single tallest buildings wouldn't crack Boston's Top 5?

2a. Why are users acting like cities with 0-3 buildings exceeding 150 meters are somehow "in the same boat" from a skyline perspective as a city with 25 such buildings?

2b. Why are cities whose single tallest buildings wouldn't crack Boston's Top 20-30 being judged as if they're close to the same level?

Doesn't even mean Boston *must be* a top 10 as there is a lot of competition. I'm just pointing out the rampant hypocrisy of how it is judged compared to how other skylines are being judged.

yeah i agree boston is way above any of the others in the list (even as much as i like austin's now) - it's just much meatier. it belongs with the atlanta-dallas-SF-seattle tier for sure.


https://www.google.com/maps/@42.356789,-...V1DDxbclqvLjuVrTkM0iw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[ATXboom]

Based on sheer impressiveness at distance - not street level:

1. NYC
2. Chicago
3. Seattle
4. San Fran
5. Miami
6. Philly
7. Houston
8. Atlanta
8. LA
9. Boston
10. Dallas
11. Minneapolis
12. Denver
13. Pittsburgh

Fast risers I'd expect on this list in next 1-2 decades:
- Nashville
- Austin
- Charlotte
- San Diego

With Canada:
Toronto - insert #3
Vancouver - insert #4
Montreal - insert #9

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by ATXboom

Based on sheer impressiveness at distance - not street level:

1. NYC
2. Chicago
3. Seattle
4. San Fran
5. Miami
6. Philly
7. Houston
8. Boston
8. Atlanta
9. Dallas
10. Minneapolis
11. Denver
12. Pittsburgh

No LA?

[edale]

Originally Posted by DZH22

Nobody seems to understand my Boston arguments, which at this point are focusing on the fact that it's being held to a different set of standards from other skylines mentioned on this thread.

1. Boston is considered "too short" and I certainly do get that. But why don't we hold that against cities like Montreal or Vancouver, whose single tallest buildings wouldn't crack Boston's Top 5?

2a. Why are users acting like cities with 0-3 buildings exceeding 150 meters are somehow "in the same boat" from a skyline perspective as a city with 25 such buildings?

2b. Why are cities whose single tallest buildings wouldn't crack Boston's Top 20-30 being judged as if they're close to the same level?

Doesn't even mean Boston *must be* a top 10 as there is a lot of competition. I'm just pointing out the rampant hypocrisy of how it is judged compared to how other skylines are being judged.

If the Hancock and Prudential buildings were in with the CBD, Boston would probably have a much stronger skyline. As it is, the skyline is unbalanced and disjointed. Obviously, the aesthetic quality of a skyline is impacted by more than just the number of tall buildings. Cleveland, for example, has tall buildings, but its skyline suffers from a lack of density, and lack of 'filler' buildings that surround their tallest skyscrapers. Boston is kind of the opposite in that they have a nice density of buildings around the same height, but it's not punctuated by taller buildings to provide peaks to the skyline.

I don't see any hypocrisy. Boston has taller buildings than San Diego, but it largely has the same skyline issues- a plateau. A 500 foot plateau of buildings (with some taller buildings away from the main cluster) is as boring as a 400 foot plateau. And a city with smaller buildings, but better overall arrangement of skyscrapers can absolutely have the better skyline. Hence Montreal ranking higher for most people than Boston.

[ATXboom]

Originally Posted by homebucket

No LA?

Good question! DT LA doesn't move my needle much. In reality it probably sits around 9 - could replace Dallas. In fact I'll edit that in. Good catch.

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

I am a pedant about this particular thing. Antennae are for insects, antennas are for signals.

You and I are cut from the same linguistically punctilious cloth.

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Montreal tops Boston (for me!) for its layers and mountain backdrop + waterfront (thus burly bridges). It just seems to have more oomph than Boston.

I agree that Montreal has a better skyline than Boston, but that isn't saying much. (N.B. The foregoing comment is not a reflection on the quality of the cities themselves, but of their middling skylines.)
I have said this before: Philadelphia is probably in the top-10 U.S. skylines, but that Comcast building is one of the unsightliest, clunkiest skyscrapers anywhere. Frankfurt's Commerzbank Tower is comparably abominable.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Gresto

I have said this before: Philadelphia is probably in the top-10 U.S. skylines, but that Comcast building is one of the unsightliest, clunkiest skyscrapers anywhere.

philly's Comcast 2 does seem to get a lot of hate on this forum, but i've never really understood it.

i think it's a totally solid addition to one of the best "high peak" skylines in the nation.


Philaddelphia Skyline as seen from the 59th street bridge in West Philadelphia by Krtz07, on Flickr