17 most beautiful skylines

[IcedCowboyCoffee]

These sorts of conversations are always baffling to follow because everyone speaks with their own unspoken qualifications and definitions. No one can even seem to agree on what a skyline is, and these conversations always become about the most beautiful cities and not the most beautiful skylines.

Is a skyline not the shape of the line formed in the sky by a city's architecture? A city can be beautiful at street level but have an absolutely dull skyline (Paris), and vice versa (Dallas).
And density is not a qualifier for beautiful; a city can be dense and have row after row of skyscrapers but form a boring skyline. So simply having a bunch of buildings does not a beautiful skyline make.
Should nature even count? If you've got mountains/water in the backdrop from one viewpoint, then you inevitably lose them when you view the skyline from the opposite side, so can that nature really be said to be part of the skyline if you lose it depending on from where you're looking at the actual skyline from?

[Crawford]

Chicago arguably had more skyline peaks than NYC. Definitely more supertalls for a period, and fewer skinny and/or insubstantial (wimpy spires, etc.) towers. Willis, JHC and Aon are just beasts.

But Chicago never had more than a fraction of NYC highrises. It's something like a 7:1 ratio. NYC's core was always huge relative to Chicago, and highrises in NYC always covered far more geography. And the skyline always had more depth and complexity.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by DZH22

I would say it's when it peaked relative to other major skylines, particularly NYC and Toronto in North America, many of the Asian cities, plus Dubai and maybe Moscow.

Oh ok, maybe in that sense.

But I've never compared Chicago to other cities

Only ever to itself.

Cuz no homer has ever homered as hard as this homer!

[Martin Mtl]

I find that quality and balance remain more important than quantity. For that reason, to me, Chicago has the best-looking skyline. For me, again, it beats NY, let alone other NA cities.

[Notonfoodstamps]

Numbers in isolation don't really do much from an aesthetic standpoint. Sure they add depth and grandure but theres plenty of massive skylines that aren't what I'd call "beautiful" in a colloquial sense.

Size, layout, architecture, massing, scenery all play are roll i.e Chicago > NYC or Vancouver > Toronto.

[Crawford]

I guess it's all subjective, but I can't think of any architecturally distinctive towers in Vancouver, while Toronto has a ton. You have lots of Mies, Calatrava and the like. The financial district is pretty thick with renowned towers.

And NYC has far more highrise icons than Chicago, from basically every era, so don't get that either. I think very few would agree they have comparable notable prewars, or comparable towers of more recent distinction. I mean, ESB, Chrysler, 30 Rock, Woolworth, Flatiron, etc. For Chicago, I guess Wrigley and Tribune would be most famous? I'd say those would be more on the level of Metlife, GE or 40 Wall.

And obviously numbers matter, a lot. It has to be a big weight in the overall metric. Otherwise you can really make the Jacksonville>Toronto arguments.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

And NYC has far more highrise icons than Chicago, from basically every era, so don't get that either. I think very few would agree they have comparable notable prewars, or comparable towers of more recent distinction. I mean, ESB, Chrysler, 30 Rock, Woolworth, Flatiron, etc. For Chicago, I guess Wrigley and Tribune would be most famous? I'd say those would be more on the level of Metlife, GE or 40 Wall.

Chicago's pre-1960s skyline was much shorter than NYC's. According to Wikipedia, Chicago only has two towers taller than 600 feet (180m) that were built before 1960. The tallest buildings in NYC list only goes down to 650 feet, but NYC likely had dozens of buildings that tall by 1960.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I guess it's all subjective, but I can't think of any architecturally distinctive towers in Vancouver, while Toronto has a ton. You have lots of Mies, Calatrava and the like. The financial district is pretty thick with renowned towers.

Toronto has loads of notable skyscrapers by notable architects, but none of its towers were designed by Calatrava that I am aware of.

[PhillyRising]

Milwaukee?

Philadelphia has a way better skyline.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by DZH22

Basically, however strong you feel the current boom is, it hasn't been as strong as the booms of most of Chicago's rival skylines on a global scale.

Yep. NYC's skyline has been totally transformed in the last 10-15 years, and that's saying a lot given how hard it is to create a visible impact. A bunch of new icons/landmarks have been created:

432 Park
One Vanderbilt
53W53
8 Spruce
Brooklyn Tower
56 Leonard
One Manhattan Square
1 WTC
3 WTC
Hudson Yards
Billionaires' Row

And this isn't even including 270 Park, 350 Park, 175 Park, 2 WTC, The Torch, and more.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Toronto has loads of notable skyscrapers by notable architects, but none of its towers were designed by Calatrava that I am aware of.

Brookfield Place, in the financial district, has that famous Calatrava interior:

https://bharchitects.com/en/project/...rly-bce-place/

SOM were the exterior architects, but it's the interior that's really iconic.

Granted, Toronto doesn't have anything close to NYC or Chicago, but compared to Vancouver I'd say it's pretty loaded with iconic towers from big-deal architects.

[Notonfoodstamps]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I guess it's all subjective, but I can't think of any architecturally distinctive towers in Vancouver, while Toronto has a ton. You have lots of Mies, Calatrava and the like. The financial district is pretty thick with renowned towers.

And NYC has far more highrise icons than Chicago, from basically every era, so don't get that either. I think very few would agree they have comparable notable prewars, or comparable towers of more recent distinction. I mean, ESB, Chrysler, 30 Rock, Woolworth, Flatiron, etc. For Chicago, I guess Wrigley and Tribune would be most famous? I'd say those would be more on the level of Metlife, GE or 40 Wall.

And obviously numbers matter, a lot. It has to be a big weight in the overall metric. Otherwise you can really make the Jacksonville>Toronto arguments.

I mean Toronto & Vancouver aren't what I'd call cities with an overwhelming supply of architectural "gems" even if Toronto has more distinct buildings. I like Calgary's skyline (aesthetically) way more than either's despite it being substantially smaller.

NYC falls into the same trope. It's too busy. Every building tries to out-do the next by being more outlandish and in your face so they become increasingly forgettable. Chicago is all about quality over quantity, and due to it being less dense individual buildings have room to breathe.

A lot of people do in fact prefer Chicago's skyline (aesthetically) over NYC's.

Again this thread is about whats the "prettiest" skylines, not the largest. Now do I agree Milwaukee deserves a slot over Philly, Pittsburgh, SF, etc..? Hard no, but it's not just on size alone.

[Quixote]

^ Yep. There's a certain monumentalism about Chicago because the individual buildings "count for more." The Loop's 500x500 grid with mid-block alleys means that most buildings span half a block in at least one direction. Willis/Sears, JHC, Trump, 77 Wacker, Marina City, Wrigley, Tribune, 35 Wacker, Aon, etc. are all stand-alone buildings.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Brookfield Place, in the financial district, has that famous Calatrava interior:
.

I'm aware of Brookfield Place, but Calatrava didn't design the towers, only atrium. The towers were SOM.

[Quixote]

I always like to reference the juxtaposition of One WTC, 8 Spruce, and the Woolworth to make the case for NYC being unmatched. Three buildings with totally different materiality, texture, and color. One has a flat roof, one an antenna, one a crown. Only in New York. Cue Jay-Z and Alicia Keys.


Andrew Prokos

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by badrunner

That's a very flattering picture. Here's what it looks like the morning after, when you sober up:

And that's a cherry picked unflattering picture from quite a long while ago! (the downtown cores 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th tallest towers are yet to be built and the tallest is only half complete) and even then, its actually still quite nice.

Anyways, here are some more updated pictures (my own actually!) from last year:

Vancouver2 by Ian, on Flickr

Vancouver5 by Ian, on Flickr

Vancouver Skyline 2 by Ian, on Flickr

Skytrain to Vancouver by Ian, on Flickr

Vancouver Skyline by Ian, on Flickr

Vancouver Skyline by Ian, on Flickr

Vancouver Skyline by Ian, on Flickr

Vancouver Skyline by Ian, on Flickr

Vancouver. Canada by Ian, on Flickr

Downtown Vancouver, The Butterfly by Ian, on Flickr

As for "iconic" looking structures, for those saying there are none just shows your ignorance of the city, please look up Vancouver House, Hotel Vancouver, The Sun Tower, One Wall, The Butterfly, the Kengo Kumo Tower, The Turn, The Marine Building, Canada Place, etc...

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

As for "iconic" looking structures, for those saying there are none just shows your ignorance of the city, please look up Vancouver House, Hotel Vancouver, The Sun Tower, One Wall, The Butterfly, the Kengo Kumo Tower, The Turn, The Marine Building, Canada Place, etc...

I'm not sure I follow. We're talking about skyline comparisons, so people shouldn't need any background knowledge just to look at the skyline pictures and notice whether anything stands out as iconic or interesting. If there were elements of the skyline that stood out to them in that way, they could still say, "Wow that looks pretty cool! I wonder what that is?" But if that isn't happening and these buildings aren't standing out and reading as interesting when people look at the skyline then I don't see how reading about the buildings after being given their names can improve the skyline.

I think a lot of it comes down to the height limits combined with the large quantity of buildings in a similar height range preventing most from standing out (or even being visible from many angles) even if some have unique designs. Plus the tendency for many to be very similar colours and materials.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I'm not sure I follow. We're talking about skyline comparisons, so people shouldn't need any background knowledge just to look at the skyline pictures and notice whether anything stands out as iconic or interesting. If there were elements of the skyline that stood out to them in that way, they could still say, "Wow that looks pretty cool! I wonder what that is?" But if that isn't happening and these buildings aren't standing out and reading as interesting when people look at the skyline then I don't see how reading about the buildings after being given their names can improve the skyline.

I think a lot of it comes down to the height limits combined with the large quantity of buildings in a similar height range preventing most from standing out (or even being visible from many angles) even if some have unique designs. Plus the tendency for many to be very similar colours and materials.

Well, from the track record of most the forum members saying such comments they have long had obvious biases against Vancouver (hence using a pic from nearly 20 years ago, for example).

And there are a lot of towers across skylines around the world that I like / stand out, but have no idea what their names are.

A lot of these comments are zombie lies, talking about a Vancouver skyline from two decades ago.

If you don't think Vancouver House or the Butterfly stand out, then I don't know what else to say.

For example I don't know a single tower's name off by heart in Philadelphia, Boston, Dallas, Houston, Miami, etc... but that's because of my ignorance, and I wouldn't say because of that ignorance that there aren't any towers that stand out / are interesting.

[Prahaboheme]

Any skyscraper enthusiast should be able to easily call out the Hancock or Prudential Center in Boston or Comcast Center in Philly.

[James Bond Agent 007]

In addition to Milwaukee I wouldn't put Tokyo on there either.

SF and Minneapolis would be better.