Dated Skylines

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by pj3000

While I'm sure your figures are accurate, I'm not quite getting the relevance of the comparison here though.

Phoenix is a MUCH bigger place than Tulsa or Memphis -- to the extent that I don't see how these in any way are members of a valid data set for comparison in this case. I mean... Phoenix is probably what?... 4+ times larger than Memphis or Tulsa.

And since when did 200ft become some sort of metric of significance around here?

He's pointing out that a place usually considered lacking in high rises actually has quite a few more constructed than most people seem to think.

"The much maligned Phoenix by comparison"

Reading comprehension is your friend.

[pj3000]

I guess the Phoenix skyline is so utterly pathetic for a metro of its size, that it must be compared with places 4 times smaller, like Tulsa and Memphis.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I guess the Phoenix is so utterly pathetic for a metro of its size, that it must be compared with places 4 times smaller, like Tulsa and Memphis.

Lol did Phoenix steal your lunch money? It’s not pathetic at all it just doesn’t have height.

You act like you have a personal beef with my town.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Lol did Phoenix steal your lunch money? It’s not pathetic at all it just doesn’t have height.

You act like you have a personal beef with my town.

I was asking a legitimate question about a city comparison -- a comparison that features: 1) a "which one of these is not like the other" group and 2) a height metric (200ft) that is highly arbitrary and not a value that is ever used around here as an indicator.

But of course, you have to respond with lightning-fast speed to a perceived slight with a senseless and bitchy post.

I have no beef with your town. But whiny Phoenicians are particularly annoying. So, you're gonna get it twice as hard in return... and you'll have nowhere to go with it (like your above post) because the truth is evident -- Phoenix' skyline does indeed require a much lower bar for comparison, i.e., the 200ft metric and much smaller cities like Tulsa and Memphis.

[homebucket]

San Francisco's skyline would have qualified for this thread if it were not for the past few years. 13 out of its top 50 skyscrapers have been built in the past 10 years. 4 out of its top 11 have been built in the past 2 years. The FiDi (North of Market) part of the skyline is still rather old and boxy. The SOMA side is much newer, modern, glassy, and residential. Mid-Market and Central SOMA are the next areas for expansion.


https://www.bisnow.com/san-francisco...-skyline-96984

My photos:

2013


2017


2018


2019

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I was asking a legitimate question about a city comparison -- a comparison that features: 1) a "which one of these is not like the other" group and 2) a height metric (200ft) that is highly arbitrary and not a value that is ever used around here as an indicator.

But of course, you have to respond with lightning-fast speed to a perceived slight with a senseless and bitchy post.

I have no beef with your town. But whiny Phoenicians are particularly annoying. So, you're gonna get it twice as hard in return... and you'll have nowhere to go with it (like your above post) because the truth is evident -- Phoenix' skyline does indeed require a much lower bar for comparison, i.e., the 200ft metric and much smaller cities like Tulsa and Memphis.

Yeah confirmed you have a complex. Sorry Phoenix stole your girlfriend or whatever that must have been tough for you.

The previous poster's point was clear and obvious but you always act like a dick, specifically about Phoenix like a weirdo, and I'm inclined to engage with that because I find fascinating and strange.

[Bailey]

here is a more recent photo of downtown Houston




Here is another recent photo from about 3-5 years ago. notice all the cranes. Most of those are finished by now.



Downtown Houston has added a numbers of building over the last decade but most are in the 50 story height =as compared to a 1,000 footer. Most of the rest of the downtown projects are infill (residential, smaller office, etc.). In my opinion, this exactly what downtown needed...infill, create neighborhood feel, with the occasional 50 story tower mixed in.


Examples of some infill projects..








And we do have a few notable ones UNDER CONSTRUCTION that WILL alter the skyline form certain angles...

Here are two examples:

[DZH22]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Yeah confirmed you have a complex. Sorry Phoenix stole your girlfriend or whatever that must have been tough for you.

The previous poster's point was clear and obvious but you always act like a dick, specifically about Phoenix like a weirdo, and I'm inclined to engage with that because I find fascinating and strange.

Discounting DC for obvious reasons, Phoenix easily has the worst skyline of any of the US cities with all 4 major pro sports teams (soccer doesn't count). In fact, it probably has the worst skyline of any of the US cities with multiple major pro sports teams. The height, density, and designs are all lacking. I'll admit I haven't been, but from both google earth's aerial view as well as street view, it looks positively ghastly.

Of course, a city in a desert with literally infinite space to build doesn't really need tall buildings. Considering I grew up with Boston, NYC, Montreal, and Philadelphia as my most visited cities I am extremely biased against the new, car-centric, suburban-like downtowns of the newer southern cities. For instance, Charlotte has an awesome skyline but no cohesive city surrounding that skyline! I am just not impressed by these places, where the skyline IS the city, as opposed to the skyline organically rising within an existing cityscape.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by DZH22

Discounting DC for obvious reasons, Phoenix easily has the worst skyline of any of the US cities with all 4 major pro sports teams (soccer doesn't count). In fact, it probably has the worst skyline of any of the US cities with multiple major pro sports teams. The height, density, and designs are all lacking. I'll admit I haven't been, but from both google earth's aerial view as well as street view, it looks positively ghastly.

That isnt the point, somebody pointed out "typically Maligned" Phoenix actually does not have as dated a skyline as people think Pj300 went off on a totally unnecessary tangent to which I was teasing him.

Dont join Pj300 on his wildly unnecessary tangent.

[pj3000]

I don't think the Phoenix skyline is dated.

I just don't get why it was being compared to Tulsa and Memphis, of all places.

But maybe plinko's intent by comparing it to Tulsa and Memphis' 200ft building construction #s was to illustrate how pathetic Phoenix skyline actually is... having to go down to the level of Tulsa and Memphis to find places that Phoenix is superior to in building 200ft buildings.

Maybe he wanted to subtly turn this into yet another Phoenix skyline-bashing thread that we love so much... and causes massive Obadno anxiety.

[DZH22]

Originally Posted by Obadno

That isnt the point, somebody pointed out "typically Maligned" Phoenix actually does not have as dated a skyline as people think Pj300 went off on a totally unnecessary tangent to which I was teasing him.

Dont join Pj300 on his wildly unnecessary tangent.

Well, I share your pain in a way. My city has also built an absolutely crazy amount of 200'+ buildings over the last decade, but a much much much smaller amount of 300'+. The city feels significantly bigger from an urban perspective when you're actually in it, but the more *visible* projects remain fewer and further between! Even now, we have 2 over 500' currently out of the ground and growing, yet everything else going vertical is stuck between 100'-300'.

[initiald]

New Orleans has to top this list.

Other than that, downtown Atlanta too. Yes, yes; midtown and Buckhead have seen crazy growth, but downtown Atlanta still feels very 80s and early 90s. Hardly anything of note (other than the stadium) build downtown since 91 and 92 when the 2nd and 4th tallest towers were completed. Really just Twelve Centennial Park and W hotel. I hope some of the tall towers planned for downtown can get built.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by initiald

New Orleans has to top this list.

Other than that, downtown Atlanta too. Yes, yes; midtown and Buckhead have seen crazy growth, but downtown Atlanta still feels very 80s and early 90s. Hardly anything of note (other than the stadium) build downtown since 91 and 92 when the 2nd and 4th tallest towers were completed. Really just Twelve Centennial Park and W hotel. I hope some of the tall towers planned for downtown can get built.

Denver too, most of downtown is stuck in the 80's. 1144 15th was a breath of fresh air (in a city with dirty air) but there needs to be about a dozen glassy towers to really modernize the skyline. Unfortunately a lot of the new development has been low and mid rise so it hasn't had an impact on the skyline but the street-level density has increased significantly in the past 5 years.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by DZH22

Well, I share your pain in a way. My city has also built an absolutely crazy amount of 200'+ buildings over the last decade, but a much much much smaller amount of 300'+. The city feels significantly bigger from an urban perspective when you're actually in it, but the more *visible* projects remain fewer and further between! Even now, we have 2 over 500' currently out of the ground and growing, yet everything else going vertical is stuck between 100'-300'.

Worst part is no matter what’s happens our downtown will never have anything a ~600 because of the faa height restrictions.

Maybe someday when planes have verticals take off and Landing

[rsbear]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Portland, or

Opinions are personal and I'm not debating yours, but statistics are another way of determining how "dated" a skyline is:

15 of Portland's 31 tallest buildings have been completed since 2000.

I'm including in those 15 the new Courthouse which is nearly complete (and not listed on the link, below) and the Federal Building which was completely reskinned from its horrible 1974 original exterior to a very contemporary glass curtain wall within the past 10 years. The reskinned version is pictured in the link from Wikipedia, though completion date is listed as 1974.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...rtland,_Oregon

[SLO]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

This is true. Decent infill, virtually no visible impact on the skyline (due to the fact that most of its tallest were built in the 80s as been repeated here several times).

Not sure if we are saying the same thing, but I think it has had an impact on the skyline its really stretched downtown, but I agree without a big impact on height. The uptown area is pretty thick with towers that weren't there 10-15 years ago.

[Cory]

Most Houston skyline photos of downtown doesn't show what's going on behind the scenes.

[plinko]

For the cheap seats: Memphis and Tulsa were both mentioned in this thread. I love the Tulsa skyline but yes, it is indeed dated. I used 200ft (would 2 stories be better for you?) because it gave me a great cross section of both cities buildings. Also it seemed everybody was comparing the 20-25 top tallest.

I then added Phoenix to same said metric because it was mentioned IN THE FIRST F*CKING POST IN THIS THREAD, and that the idea that the Phoenix skyline is dated is wrong. The downtown skyline alone has tripled in the same timeframe as other cities mentioned, even bigger ones *ahem* Dallas.

I’ve made no judgement calls, no valuation of quality over quantity, just a simple observation based on a random but perfectly valid metric.

But hey, I mentioned the P place in a skyline thread based on numbers and of course it went sideways. How dare I?

Thanks for clarifying my intent with everyone else.

Originally Posted by pj3000

I don't think the Phoenix skyline is dated.

I just don't get why it was being compared to Tulsa and Memphis, of all places.

But maybe plinko's intent by comparing it to Tulsa and Memphis' 200ft building construction #s was to illustrate how pathetic Phoenix skyline actually is... having to go down to the level of Tulsa and Memphis to find places that Phoenix is superior to in building 200ft buildings.

Maybe he wanted to subtly turn this into yet another Phoenix skyline-bashing thread that we love so much... and causes massive Obadno anxiety.

[pj3000]

It was a subconscious dig at the P place... you just can’t help it.

None of us can.


*And please don’t take my posts too seriously.

[badrunner]

The Vancouver skyline is already looking dated despite it being practically brand new. Just too many ugly and generic looking condo towers.