50 Best US Skylines

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by jbermingham123

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.

The city of Pittsburgh's highly varied topography ranges between 710' and 1,370'.

Omaha is at 1,060'.

Des moines is at 873'.

Minneapolis is at 830'.

[chris08876]

Have to represent Newark NJ here. Should be somewhere in the top 50.

If anything, Newark excels in the urban fabric more than most places and a ton is going on. 2030 will be something nice for Newark, skyline and city to change in big ways!

A bit older, 2 years ago.

Newark also has the benefit of the multi nodal nature of viewing the skyline. From the right angles, Newark along with its proxies, forming a unique viewing dynamic, especially, depending on the angle, Jersey City intermingling with the view.

For the pre-war architecture lovers, a nice stock of that style within the city.











Credit: DmitriyArbatov

[edale]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

The city of Pittsburgh's highly varied topography ranges between 710' and 1,370'.

Omaha is at 1,060'.

Des moines is at 873'.

Minneapolis is at 830'.

The City of Cincinnati's highest elevation is ~960'. It's at the top of Mt. Airy, where a huge, beautiful water tower currently stands. Downtown's elevation is 660 feet.

[wwmiv]

Kansas City ranges from 724’ to 1081’

[Comrade]

Salt Lake's skyline is pretty meh but its surrounding isn't so I give it points for that:

[DZH22]

The Boston skyline continues to round into form with its new flashier, "on steroids" evolution. I'd say it completely overwhelms skylines such as Pittsburgh and Minneapolis at this point, with its 6th 200m / 10th 600'+ building close to topping out. It's a lot better than it used to be and had one of the better booms of the last decade.

boston_dusk by dvorahart, on Flickr

IMG_0405 by David Z, on Flickr

DJI_0985 by Phil, on Flickr

Boston + Acadia (4 of 41) by IanGGoldstein, on Flickr

[MolsonExport]

that first shot of Boston is very nice (and impressive)

[Tuckerman]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

The city of Pittsburgh's highly varied topography ranges between 710' and 1,370'.

Omaha is at 1,060'.

Des moines is at 873'.

Minneapolis is at 830'.

All of these cities are West of the Mississippi; Atlanta's mean elevation is 1030' (which is why it is considered highest East of Mississippi) with area variation as high as @1700' at Stone Mountain. In general most ATL is piedmont and undulating topography and heavily forested. Try running the Peachtree Rd. Race!

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

All of these cities are West of the Mississippi;

You might wanna consult a map for Pittsburgh.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

All of these cities are West of the Mississippi; Atlanta's mean elevation is 1030' (which is why it is considered highest East of Mississippi) with area variation as high as @1700' at Stone Mountain. In general most ATL is piedmont and undulating topography and heavily forested. Try running the Peachtree Rd. Race!

Nobody is contesting Atlanta’s crown. We’re contesting the bolded contention:

Originally Posted by jbermingham123

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.

This is a highly incorrect claim.

Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Omaha, etc. are all east of Denver and all contain points above 1000’.

And fwiw, Minneapolis is not west of the Mississippi, either… it is ON the Mississippi.

Atlanta’s municipal high point (just outside of downtown) is 1,068’ which is actually lower than Pittsburgh’s (1,365’) and barely higher than Cleveland’s (1,050’).

Here’s two more to add to the list, and two that certainly compete with Atlanta’s topography and elevation, and compare the data to Atlanta’s:

Just outside of San Antonio city limits sits a minor summit with a peak elevation of 1,896’ (Mount Smith) and the highest point in the metro area is, I believe, Turkey Knob at 2,044’. Downtown San Antonio sits at roughly 670’. Kerr County’s high point (in the CSA) is 2,420’. There’s also Enchanted Rock in the CSA at 1,825’ (425’ prominence).

The highest point within Austin City Limits is Comanche Peak (1,070’), for Travis County it is Shingle Hills Peak (1,430’), and for the metropolitan area is an unnamed hill outside of San Marcos (1,640’). Downtown Austin sits at roughly 500’. The most prominent peak in the metro area is Shovel Mountain at 344’ (Shovel Mountain is the parent peak of both Comanche Peak and the Shingle Hills).

Downtown Atlanta and the municipal high point is 1,068’. The highest point in Fulton County is an unnamed point in Milton at 1,280’ and in Gwinnett also an unnamed point (1,290’). The highest point in the metro area is Bear Mountain in Cherokee County, with an elevation of 2,307’ and a prominence of 1,287’.

They’re all roughly comparable and each wins on a different metric (Atlanta on a prominent peak, San Antonio with highest elevation, and Austin with greatest range of elevations).

——

Edited to add: DFW metroplex high point is Slipdown Mountain (1,368’).

[Tuckerman]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Nobody is contesting Atlanta’s crown. We’re contesting the bolded contention:



This is a highly incorrect claim.

Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Omaha, etc. are all east of Denver and all contain points above 1000’.

And fwiw, Minneapolis is not west of the Mississippi, either… it is ON the Mississippi.

Agreed; but Minneapolis is West of the Mississippi; St.Paul is East. The more important point is the continental divide. In any case it is Atlanta's mean altitude and forest that keeps it from being as hot as other parts of Georgia; not too far south of ATL the fall line occurs and doors the elevation down towards sea level; further north of the city elevations go up to 4700'. The effect is reduce the subtropical nature of this part of Georgia - - although no one calls it "coolAtlanta"

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

Agreed; but Minneapolis is West of the Mississippi; St.Paul is East.

Technically, the City of Minneapolis straddles the Mississippi River.

While most of the city is "west" of the big river, the northeast quadrant of Minneapolis' incorporated city limits is "east" of the river.

The reverse is true for St. Paul, most of it is "east" of the Mississippi, but a section due south of downtown is "west" of the river.

Because the Mississippi cuts a twisty, mostly diagonal path through the twin cities, I've put "east" and "west" in quotes, referring to the macro-level directions.

[Crawford]

Boston has a lot of tall buildings, but it has no real notable buildings, and the tallest buildings are outside the immediate core, so it doesn't look that impressive from most perspectives.

Boston has actually had a crapload of core redevelopment in recent decades, but so much is kinda generic. A lot of midrise medical & biotech boxes and the like. It has a bit of DC-like "we're building a ton but it's hard to tell".

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Boston has a lot of tall buildings, but it has no real notable buildings,

Cobb's Hancock Tower in Boston absolutely qualifies as "notable" in my book.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

further north of the city elevations go up to 4700'.

You have to get pretty far outside the metro for those elevations. Highest point in the metro is Bear Mountain.

[ATXboom]

Tiers is only way to go. American only:

NYC

Chicago

SF, Boston, Philly, Seattle, Miami

Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, LA

Minneapolis, Denver, Austin, Charlotte,

Pittsburgh, Detroit, Baltimore, San Diego

Nashville, Cincinnati, Portland, Cleveland

Columbus, Indianapolis, New Orleans, Kansas City, St Louis,

Phoenix, OK City, Tulsa, Tampa,

Omaha, Des Moines, etc

Toledo, etc

[LivinAWestLife]

I'll put in my own 2 cents, US only. I mainly factored in size and aesthetics, as well as how large a skyline should be relative to a city's population.

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

11. Austin
12. Boston
13. Dallas
14. Jersey City
15. Charlotte
16. Denver
17. Minneapolis
18. Nashville
19. Detroit
20. San Diego
21. Cleveland

22. Cincinnati
23. Portland
24. Bellevue
25. Sunny Isles Beach
26. Honolulu
27. Kansas City
28. Milwaukee
29. Baltimore
30. St Louis

31. Tampa
32. Fort Lauderdale
33. New Orleans
34. Oakland
35. Salt Lake City
36. Columbus
37. Orlando
38. St. Petersburg
39. Sarasota
40. Phoenix

41. Tulsa
42. San Antonio
43. Sacramento
44. Buffalo
45. Hartford
46. Birmingham
47. Indianapolis
48. Clayton
49. Omaha
50. Des Moines

If Canada is included, Toronto would be #3, Vancouver #4, Montreal #7, Calgary #12, and Edmonton #19. Mississauga, Kitchener, and the Vancouver suburbs could make the top 50.

[BnaBreaker]

Although Nashville's skyline has gone through quite an evolution over the past fifteen or so years, it still doesn't hold a candle to the top skylines in the country. I suppose that likely goes without saying. However, with those additions, perhaps along with it's natural hilly backdrop, I'd say one could make a healthy argument that it's a top 25 skyline. Here's a shot from literally this morning... wish it were better quality, but it's from a traffic helicopter. Still does a good job at capturing the majority of it though:

[bobdreamz]

Nice shot! I didn't know Nashville was so "Hilly" !

[pj3000]

Wow, very nice. Nashville is starting to look like a "big city". I was last there about 6 years ago, and there's a noticeable difference since then.

Originally Posted by BnaBreaker