50 Best US Skylines

[jbermingham123]

How about we make some categories. I propose the following 4:

Height, Bulk, Density
Expansiveness/Polycentrism
Interaction with Surrounding Landscape
Architectural Quality

Points awarded in reverse numerical order for each list (e.g. #1 gets 10 points, #10 gets 1 point)


Height, Bulk, and Density:
1. NYC
2. Chicago
3. Toronto
4. Miami
5. Philly
6. Houston
7. SF
8. Seattle
9. Dallas
10. Atlanta

Expansiveness and/or Polycentrism:
1. Toronto
2. NYC
3. Miami
4. Houston
5. Vancouver
6. Los Angeles
7. Dallas
8. Atlanta
9. Chicago
10. Seattle

Interaction with Surrounding Landscape:
1 TIE: Seattle & Vancouver
2. SF
3. NYC
4 TIE (Lake Cities): Chicago, Toronto, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Buffalo, etc
5. Miami
6. Pittsburgh
7. Montreal
8 TIE Boston, San Diego
9. Ottawa
10. Portland

Architectural Quality (of buildings visible on skyline):
1. Chicago
2. NYC
3. SF
4. Seattle
5. Philly
6. Toronto
7. Vancouver
8. Pittsburgh
9. Miami
10. Boston

Final Results:
1. NYC 36
2. Toronto 30
3. Chicago 28
4. Miami 23
5 TIE: SF + Seattle 21
7. Vancouver 20
8 TIE. Philly + Houston 12
10. Pittsburgh 8


This definitely isnt perfect, feel free to edit

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by IluvATX

[A]nd post shitty pics of Houston.

For what it's worth, one of those "shitty pics" comes from the Flickr account of a member of this forum and a participant in this very thread.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by JManc

Dallas or Austin over Houston?







Banned...

The current Austin skyline is different even from a year ago. I would definitely put it over Dallas and Houston. The way is in strung out along the river is a beautiful sight.

I'm talking about the aesthetics of the downtown skyline. What Austin doesn't have is decent skyline nodes. Houston's multiple skyline nodes are impressive. I've seen some outstanding pics here of the nodes, but don't know where they are.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by IluvATX

This is supposed to be opinion. Houston may have a large skyline, but it’s a swampy, ugly, polluted, sprawled out mess of a city.

Disagree completely. The skyline nodes are beautiful, and sprout from a beautiful urban canopy.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by IluvATX

This is supposed to be opinion. Houston may have a large skyline, but it’s a swampy, ugly, polluted, sprawled out mess of a city.

This thread was about skylines not salty takes on other cities.

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

The current Austin skyline is different even from a year ago. I would definitely put it over Dallas and Houston. The way is in strung out along the river is a beautiful sight.

I'm talking about the aesthetics of the downtown skyline. What Austin doesn't have is decent skyline nodes. Houston's multiple skyline nodes are impressive. I've seen some outstanding pics here of the nodes, but don't know where they are.

Yeah. Austin has definitely come a long way in just a few years and is the most fresh and modern, I'll definitely concede that.

[bigstick]

Originally Posted by SpawnOfVulcan

Well, you dislike everything about Birmingham, so your comments should be taken with a grain of salt.

Did I say I disliked Birmingham? No, I did not, sorry, but the Birmingham skyline is nothing, facts.

[MolsonExport]

1. Jacksonville
2. New York City
...
...
...
48. Toronto

[JManc]

Originally Posted by IluvATX

I guess you forgot that you started it by shitting on my list. BTW where is your list? Or anyone else’s that is happy to criticize, but not participate? Are you afraid of how unpopular your own list might be? As Craig’s said you are not required to read or participate in this thread.

Bro. It was a joke. Lighten up.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by jbermingham123

I gotta say, I think it acutally blew past that threshold in the last year and a half or so without us even realizing. So, I know this is controversial, but I'm calling it now:

1. NYC
2. Toronto
3. Chicago
4. Seattle
5. SF
6. Vancouver
7. Houston
8. Miami
9. Philly
10. Dallas = Atlanta

Toronto's skyline is growing so fast that it seems inevitable that it will overtake Chicago, if it hasn't done so already. I don't know if it's there yet for me, but I don't think ranking it above Chicago is a controversial take now.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Toronto's skyline is growing so fast that it seems inevitable that it will overtake Chicago, if it hasn't done so already. I don't know if it's there yet for me, but I don't think ranking it above Chicago is a controversial take now.

Toronto's skyline is overwhelmingly a uniform mass of rather generic glassy residential towers of recent vintage. It almost looks like there's one architect in town. It's also much more scattered around the region, while Chicago's skyline is super concentrated in a single mass. And Chicago has many more very tall, bulky iconic office buildings.

I don't know how you incorporate these differences into a skyline comparison tho. By my subjective worldview, it will be hard to rank Toronto ahead of Chicago on any skyline measure except N of metropolitan buildings above a certain height.

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Toronto's skyline is growing so fast that it seems inevitable that it will overtake Chicago, if it hasn't done so already. I don't know if it's there yet for me, but I don't think ranking it above Chicago is a controversial take now.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Toronto's skyline is overwhelmingly a uniform mass of rather generic glassy residential towers of recent vintage. It almost looks like there's one architect in town. It's also much more scattered around the region, while Chicago's skyline is super concentrated in a single mass. And Chicago has many more very tall, bulky iconic office buildings.

I don't know how you incorporate these differences into a skyline comparison tho. By my subjective worldview, it will be hard to rank Toronto ahead of Chicago on any skyline measure except N of metropolitan buildings above a certain height.

Saw this video last night. It's a pretty fair take on the two cities.

• Video Link

I personally don't think they are as similar as some Torontonians wish to believe.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by jbermingham123

Interaction with Surrounding Landscape:
1 TIE: Seattle & Vancouver
2. SF
3. NYC
4 TIE (Lake Cities): Chicago, Toronto, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Buffalo, etc
5. Miami
6. Pittsburgh
7. Montreal
8 TIE Boston, San Diego
9. Ottawa
10. Portland

I would put Chicago as the clear winner in this category. I think the sheer size of NYC's skyline counts against it in this regard. My ranking for this might be something like:

1. Chicago
2. Toronto
3. Seattle/Vancouver
4. Los Angeles
5. San Francisco
6. Pittsburgh
7. Miami
8. Boston
9. NYC
10. San Diego

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I would put Chicago as the clear winner in this category. I think the sheer size of NYC's skyline counts against it in this regard. My ranking for this might be something like:

1. Chicago
2. Toronto
3. Seattle/Vancouver
4. Los Angeles
5. San Francisco
6. Pittsburgh
7. Miami
8. Boston
9. NYC
10. San Diego

I'm not hugely impressed by cities on vast lakes, for some reason. That said, Chicago definitely wins the lakefront and built environment competitions while Toronto, with its gentle hills, ravines and tree canopy, wins the topography-behind-that-lakefront contest.

[isaidso]

50 is ambitious. Despite decent familiarity with US skylines I'd better just limit mine to Top 12.

1. New York
2. Chicago
3. San Francisco
4. Miami
5. Los Angeles
6. Houston
7. Atlanta
8. Seattle
9. Philadelphia
10. Minneapolis
11. Brooklyn
12. Pittsburgh

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by jbermingham123

I gotta say, I think it acutally blew past that threshold in the last year and a half or so without us even realizing. So, I know this is controversial, but I'm calling it now:

1. NYC
2. Toronto
3. Chicago
4. Seattle
5. SF
6. Vancouver
7. Houston
8. Miami
9. Philly
10. Dallas = Atlanta

I'm pretty close to putting Toronto ahead as well but still have it in 3rd. I'll re-assess when Pinnacle One Yonge and The One get closer to topping out. Maybe Frank Gehry's Forma will be the clincher.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by jmanc

yeah. Austin has definitely come a long way in just a few years and is the most fresh and modern, i'll definitely concede that.

+1

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by bilbao58

Saw this video last night. It's a pretty fair take on the two cities.

I personally don't think they are as similar as some Torontonians wish to believe.

I've never seen many Torontinians comparing them. It mostly seem to be out-of-towners who aren't as familiar with the cities beyond the superficial similarities like being on a great lake with a grid layout and tall buildings.

[pdxtex]

Ooh subjective opinions, my favorite! Look, NYC is massive but its not pretty, its just massive. A skyline can be pretty, and large but it needs to have symmetry or a special context. New York is a 5. You might swipe left, you might swipe right. Chicago is a ten. Its the lake. Its the main cluster of the CBD and the the tapering quality of the condos as you go north and south. Toronto has the same quality, and a giant statement piece to boot.

[MonkeyRonin]

There's a difference between how well a skyline photographs, and how it's experienced in person. Chicago has an extremely photogenic skyline - it's nicely shaped, balanced, and has great layering of some of the best examples of every era of skyscraper design.

The real life experience is different though, and this where I feel it falls short - the skyline is basically an island, and the city lacks good vantage points to take it all in. In other words, unless you've got a helicopter or a boat, it's hard to get a true sense of it.

On the contrary, this is where a multipolar skyline in a more complex geography like New York really shines - there are towers in every direction you look, and the city's hills and water make it easier to see and a more readily apparent part of the landscape. Toronto is like this as well (to a much lesser extent). The details & architectural quality matter less than the breadth, height, and visibility of the skyline(s) in this context.

The "nice setting skylines" like Vancouver, San Francisco, and Seattle meanwhile are a little bit of each. The backdrop makes for instantly great pictures while the topography offers plenty of great in-person views; but the shorter building heights make for a less impressive feeling in reality than they do in photos.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I've never seen many Torontinians comparing them. It mostly seem to be out-of-towners who aren't as familiar with the cities beyond the superficial similarities like being on a great lake with a grid layout and tall buildings.

Agree. Torontonians don't think about Chicago nearly as much as some think. There's an appreciation for Chicago and some superficial similarities (as noted) but Torontonians are pre-occupied with Toronto. There's a surprising ground swell of civic engagement, confidence in what Toronto is, and what Toronto is becoming. The desire isn't to be like Chicago or another New York but for Toronto to become a bigger better version of itself.