Quote:
Originally Posted by lzppjb
Charlotte has a nice skyline. But I don't guess I understand what makes one skyline better than another. Some skylines that are considered really nice I find to be ugly and boring. Do people only consider height and density?
I know Austin's skyline is a fledgling, but I think it's one of the most attractive. Combine the attractive buildings with the greenery and the river, and you get some of the best photos of a downtown I've seen. I know I'm biased, but that's just what I've noticed.
I tend to not be as impressed with dense skylines that are just big, tall blocks. Other people do seem to be impressed with those.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv
I hate Vancouver's skyline. It is atrocious. It has no form. It is flat. The buildings are all badly designed and generic. Signature towers are few and far between and unfortunately blend into the rest of the skyline without actually defining the city's skyline like a signature tower should.
I'd love to mimic Vancouver's street activity, sure, but I'd rather do it in a more interesting and aesthetically pleasing way.
|
I'm with you both here. I don't doubt for one second that Vancouver is an extremely livable city. But
god, I look at pictures of that skyline and almost
NO buildings stand out. It's so monotonous, it's almost annoying. Actually, it
is annoying. The best and most famous skylines (New York, Chicago, Shanghai, San Francisco...to name a few) all have landmarks and/or famous towers...even general silhouettes that give identity to their physical appearance. Even Seattle, no matter how many Vancouver-style towers they build, they'll always have the Columbia Center and the Space Needle to set them apart. In fact, the city most in danger of becoming our Vancouver is San Diego. Low and strict height limits and gravitation towards generic condo schlock has boxed the San Diego skyline into an unfortunate corner.
I love Charlotte's skyline, but it was built around a few major corporate headquarters. Totally different formula. The same is true of Minneapolis, and even Dallas or Houston, to compare/contrast cities within the same state. Definitely worth mentioning that in all three of those (I'm exempting Charlotte here, thank you Duke Energy Center), the centerpiece and tallest tower(s) was built 20 years ago or more.
What floored me about Austin's skyline...even as it is right now...when I stood on the Congress Avenue bridge when I was there (we were waiting for the bats to depart at dusk
), it was amazing that the skyscrapers were all a safe distance apart from each other. They didn't gather in one core, but didn't float in a sea of indefiniteness as in, say, Atlanta (still, that works for Atlanta...
only for Atlanta). They created a wall along Lady Bird Lake, and that was the skyline. It's almost like Miami, but minus the generic condo overload (another city in danger of becoming Vancouver, only crossed with Sao Paulo). Austin shouldn't try to be anything else, except Austin.
Prev
Linear Mode
