I am talking about cities that are called 'big' not small cities like Casper, Wyoming or Wichita, Kansas, etc.
But, anyways my answer would probably be Fresno, California
or San Jose, California
There is no such thing as a "bad" skyline. Just some that are better than others. As small city with a small skyline, can be beautiful, just like a big city with a big skyline.
If Brooklyn (pop. ~2.5 million)was its own city, it would be the 4th largest city in America, behind only New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago). And for such a population, it has a stumpy, meh skyline.
If Brooklyn (pop. ~2.5 million)was its own city, it would be the 4th largest city in America, behind only New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago). And for such a population, it has a stumpy, meh skyline.
Fairly old, but not much has changed.
I totally agree. Brooklyn is getting some quality additions, but not near enough. I always though because Manhattan is saturated the way it is, that more highrises would flood Brooklyn, but it's all happening way too slowly. Brooklyn deserves some bigger buildings.
The way a skyline looks isn't totally the fault of the city it belongs to per-se, and that goes for prospering ones too. It's just that the populations grown faster than the CBD's been able to develop or if it even wants to.
Really, if you look at areas that have had large population spurs in the last 10-15 years, many of their skylines just look meh for example...Phoenix, Norfolk, Orlando, Jacksonville, Sacramento, Mississauga (haha local humour) and hell I don't even think LA's is that great. They're unique as their own for sure but maybe the city would spend their money elsewhere...like another sprawling suburb?
Historically, a large population would affect the skyline but nowdays there are apparently other methods to grow...what seems better? Or both?
__________________
Fawdie (n): Forty ounces of urine-flavored beer
[QUOTE=ChiMIchael;4627946]Why hasn't anyone mentioned Milwaukee.....goodness that skyline is extremely disappointing!!!!!!! I've seen better skylines in cities of 80k.
QUOTE]
How about Harrisburg, PA?
(Wikipedia)
(usadancebg.com)
Ok theere population is 50,000 but there metro is about 500,000.Does this count as a small good skyline?
If Brooklyn (pop. ~2.5 million)was its own city, it would be the 4th largest city in America, behind only New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago). And for such a population, it has a stumpy, meh skyline.
And therein lies the answer... Brooklyn is not a city, and its skyline does not function as the core for the city. It is simply just another part of the overall NYC skyline.
If Brooklyn (pop. ~2.5 million)was its own city, it would be the 4th largest city in America, behind only New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago). And for such a population, it has a stumpy, meh skyline.
LOL
Brooklyn isn't its own city and it is completely independent of the size of its downtown.
No offense, but it is clear by this statement that you know nothing or very little about Norfolk and Hampton Roads. In most cases, you would be correct that beyond local governments, city boundaries are arbitrary to the overall population in the metro...what is different with Norfolk is that it is a small 250K city in the middle of a metro of 7 cities, all with their own downtown and skyline (well not every one of them.)
Virginia Beach has the tallest building in the state...Portsmouth, Hampton, Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Newport News...they all have at least one skyline in the metro...a couple of those cities have more than two...while at first glance this might not mean much, but you must understand that this is not a typical metro and there are a number of urban centers and skylines within this city...if they were all together, then it would be seen as a much larger city for its size, but Norfolk is not the center of Hampton Roads anymore...heck it is hard to argue where the center of the region is beyond the military bases.
Correct, every city and metro area works differently, because some enhance the central city while some metros pull away from it. Detroit is an example where the metro area has hurt the central city.
Actually it isn't that bad, it's just the way the skyscrapers are spread ot a little. If they were lumped together more tightly it would change the whole complexion of the skyline. BTW, The setting reminds me of a mixture of Chicago and Grand Rapids, which is nice imo.
Here's a bad edit job of your pic, but you get the idea.
At least these cities have skylines, in contrary to many cities in Europe...that on the other hand look very good on street level. But that is of course different for each city, for example Frankfurt has a much bigger skyline than Washington DC.
Why hasn't anyone mentioned Milwaukee.....goodness that skyline is extremely disappointing!!!!!!! I've seen better skylines in cities of 80k.
You are smoking crack, my friend.
kettlemoraine on flickr.com
markofphotography on flickr.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duffstuff129
If Brooklyn (pop. ~2.5 million)was its own city, it would be the 4th largest city in America, behind only New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago). And for such a population, it has a stumpy, meh skyline.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. (Bertrand Russell)
Prev
Fairly old, but not much has changed.
Linear Mode
