50 Best US Skylines

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by homebucket

1. NYC - 1.36 (SD = 0.95)

2. Chicago - 2.13 (SD = 1.01)

3. SF - 4.09 (SD = 1.78)

4. LA - 4.90 (SD = 2.07)
5. Philly - 5.23 (SD = 1.54)

6. Seattle - 5.84 (SD = 2.32)
7. Pittsburgh - 6.22 (SD = 2.64)
8. Miami - 6.40 (SD = 2.10)
9. Houston - 6.47 (SD = 2.03)

10. Atlanta - 8.42 (SD = 1.83)
11. Boston - 9.00 (SD = 0.89)
12. Dallas - 9.11 (SD = 1.27)

Useful.

Consensus data like this is way more interesting to me than any one individual's opinion.

[Antares41]

Jersey City is a top 25 if not 20 US skyline. Much more grand than many list 25 thru 50 in the original ranking. Just had to get that off my chest...lol

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by Antares41

Jersey City is a top 25 if not 20 US skyline. Much more grand than many list 25 thru 50 in the original ranking. Just had to get that off my chest...lol

You're right. But I think most people lump it together with NYC - similar to Miami and it's suburbs.

[BlueDot]

Originally Posted by Antares41

Jersey City is a top 25 if not 20 US skyline. Much more grand than many list 25 thru 50 in the original ranking. Just had to get that off my chest...lol

Say it loud.. say it proud brother!! LOL

[MolsonExport]

NYC and Chicago, in my view, stand head and shoulders above all other skylines, due to quality and variety acquired over many decades. As such, they will probably never be bested, no matter how much is built elsewhere, unless NYC and Chicago tore down the wonderful edifices from the 1910s-1930s, that they possess in spades relative to other cities.

[JManc]

Chicago is tops during the day, New York at night.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by 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.

One benefit of Chicago is that while it may be hard to take it all in at once (which i think is also true of Toronto and NYC) it has some really nice vantage points like the river and Millenium Park where you can take in a lot. The river skyscraper canyon is wider than the canyons typically formed by streets and also isn't perfectly straight. So it has an incredible sense of grandeur to it. I struggle to think of any single location in NYC that offers the sense of splendor as the river corridor. And it mirrors nature with the symbolism of a river canyon with steep walls. And Millennium Park has this sense of having many of the city's finest and tallest neatly lined up to display themselves for the park visitor's viewing pleasure.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by 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.

I agree with your point about Chicago. Chicago makes for a very pretty picture from afar, but I don't think it has great urban canyons other than the Chicago River (Manhattan is pretty much unmatched at the canyon effect). And, from my experience, the best places from within the city to take in the Chicago skyline, other than roofs of apartment buildings, seems to be from the freeways. NYC gives better vantage points of particular clusters of the skyline from inside the city.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Antares41

Jersey City is a top 25 if not 20 US skyline. Much more grand than many list 25 thru 50 in the original ranking. Just had to get that off my chest...lol

Easily top 25 by volume, but most of it was built in the past 20 years so it looks pretty boring by itself.

[jbermingham123]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

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.

This is definitely true of Vancouver.. I couldnt believe how short its buildings were IRL vs in photos.

Seattle, on the other hand, feels the other way around, particularly from anywhere on or near the water. Downtown is on a very steep hill, which gives a 150-200 ft boost to all the buildings. When you are looking up at Columbia center from anywhere in the city near the water, you are looking at something 320m/1050 ft above you, even though it is not a supertall.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Easily top 25 by volume, but most of it was built in the past 20 years so it looks pretty boring by itself.

And it's just part of the core metropolitan skyline mass. No sense in breaking it out into 10 different skylines.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

NYC and Chicago, in my view, stand head and shoulders above all other skylines, due to quality and variety acquired over many decades. As such, they will probably never be bested, no matter how much is built elsewhere, unless NYC and Chicago tore down the wonderful edifices from the 1910s-1930s, that they possess in spades relative to other cities.

1910-1930 high-rises are, by far, my favourite architecturally but having a good inventory of them isn't enough to keep a skyline ahead indefinitely. If it were, skylines like Cleveland and Detroit would still feature in most people's Top 10.

A skyline needs to add to its inventory each decade so it can add to its architectural layering. If it doesn't, it may start looking stale/dated and the skyline that's missing architecture from certain eras. Even if one equates 1 good 1920's building to 4 modern buildings the same quality, scale and architectural layering will eventually outweigh one's preference for 1920s high-rises. Paris > Detroit.

In the eyes of most, skylines that don't continually refresh start slipping down the ranks. 20 years ago, I viewed things much the way you do but a tipping point does get reached. Chicago's place as #1 or #2 (depending on who you ask) is on shaky ground and it's not just Toronto set to zoom right past it. I wouldn't be surprised if I have Melbourne ahead of Chicago 15 years from now.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by The ATX

You're right. But I think most people lump it together with NYC - similar to Miami and it's suburbs.

Many never considered periphery skylines as historically they've been small. With their proliferation and growth, perhaps, people should start viewing them independently. Most aren't anywhere near the main cluster. And agree about Jersey City. I actually had Brooklyn in my Top 12.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by jbermingham123

This is definitely true of Vancouver.. I couldnt believe how short its buildings were IRL vs in photos.

Seattle, on the other hand, feels the other way around, particularly from anywhere on or near the water. Downtown is on a very steep hill, which gives a 150-200 ft boost to all the buildings. When you are looking up at Columbia center from anywhere in the city near the water, you are looking at something 320m/1050 ft above you, even though it is not a supertall.

Edmonton is a lot like that as well. Their downtown cluster is perched atop a hill so buildings look much taller than they are. The building below is the tallest in western Canada but only 251m. Regarding Vancouver, the buildings are short but at street level it feels denser than downtown Toronto. When you're a pedestrian one tends not to notice if a building is 25 floors or 50 floors.


Edmonton Alberta


DSC_1926-Edit by arvic_81, on Flickr


https://camoloveet.pics/product_details/56582533.html

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by BlueDot

Don’t think this has ever been discussed before; but I was curious to see what everyone’s opinions of on what they think of the 50 best skylines in the US? I’ve visited a few of these cities so I’ll start. 1. New York City (impressive, yet looks congested) 2.Chicago 3. Seattle (would love to visit there someday) 4. San Francisco 5. Denver 6. Minneapolis ( big and sprawling.. yet inviting for some reason) 7. Los Angeles 8. Philadelphia 9. Miami ( very picturesque) 10. Dallas 11. Boston 12. Atlanta ( impressive - but a pain to navigate) 13. San Diego 14. Houston ( see Atlanta) 15. Pittsburgh 16. Charlotte 17. Las Vegas 18. Nashville ( is in the midst of an economic boom) 19. Honolulu (definitely on my bucket list ) 20. Columbus 21. Austin 22. Tampa 23. Portland 24. Baltimore 25. Cleveland 26. New Orleans ( a lot denser then it looks ) 27. Indianapolis 28. Kansas City 29. Phoenix 30. Detroit 31. Sacramento 32. Orlando 33. Cincinnati 34. San Antonio 35. Milwaukee 36. Oakland 37. Salt Lake City 38. Memphis 39. St Louis 40. Richmond 41. Jersey City 42. Omaha 43. San Jose 44. Tulsa 45. Oklahoma City ( I dunno it just looks weird) 46. Des Moines 47. Jacksonville (needs more height) 48. Birmingham 49. Louisville 50. Providence

Top 50 seems kind of silly. Is anyone going to seriously evaluate the skyline aesthetics of Tulsa vs Des Moines? (Des Moines all the way!)

The ordering seems kind of random near the bottom. Anyway, ain't nobody got time for that, so I'll just re-post my top 20 list from the previous thread on this topic.

Top 20 North American skylines grouped into tiers (in no particular order within the tiers):

NYC

Chicago, Toronto

LA, SF, Philly

Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, Seattle

Boston, Pittsburgh, Vancouver, Montreal, Calgary

Austin, Detroit, Charlotte, Minneapolis

[mhays]

Good point about Edmonton and being on a hill. That's a big part of Seattle's secret sauce as well. Cleveland and the fringes of Downtown San Francisco too.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Top 50 seems kind of silly. Is anyone going to seriously evaluate the skyline aesthetics of Tulsa vs Des Moines? (Des Moines all the way!)

The ordering seems kind of random near the bottom. Anyway, ain't nobody got time for that, so I'll just re-post my top 20 list from the previous thread on this topic.

Oh I completely forgot about Des Moines. The US has so many of these sort of small entry-level skylines that it's almost impossible to keep track of them all.

[Maldive]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Edmonton is a lot like that as well. Their downtown cluster is perched atop a hill so buildings look much taller than they are. The building below is the tallest in western Canada but only 251m.

Edmonton photographs well from that ubiquitous bridge angle, but the city has just that single building over 200 metres.

A diagram search of the tallest 25 built and under construction buildings in (suburban) Mississauga & Edmonton... Missie has 20 on the list and Edmonton has 5.

Mississauga has 4 200 metre+ towers (u/c), tallest is M3 @ 260 metres (M1 and M2 are topped out just a couple metres shy of 200m).

Giddy up.

[bigstick]

Originally Posted by mhays

Good point about Edmonton and being on a hill. That's a big part of Seattle's secret sauce as well. Cleveland and the fringes of Downtown San Francisco too.

Atlanta is on the Eastern Continental Divide.

[jbermingham123]

Originally Posted by bigstick

Atlanta is on the Eastern Continental Divide.

This is one of my favorite fun facts.

Atlanta is the highest elevation major city east of the mississippi. And other than Oklahoma city, its the only major city east of Denver with an elevation over 1000 ft.