Incredible Photos of Houston

latennisguy · #1 Posted **Apr 9, 2008, 6:31 PM**

I've noticed how many people underrate houston's skyline...(in this forum and others). So here are some incredible photos of Houston via flickr:

flickr deneyterrio

flickr P3t3rT

flickr OneEighteen

flickr emmiegrn

flickr OneEighteen

flickr sabotai

flickr eflon

flickr telwink

feel free to post others if you feel they are Incredible!

latennisguy · #2 Posted **Apr 10, 2008, 6:56 PM**

flickr AlphaTangoBravo / Adam Baker

flickr diveofficer

flickr mlsnp

flickr deji 01

flickr P3t3rT

NewAtlantisMiami · #3 Posted **Apr 10, 2008, 7:50 PM**

You are so right! Those are some incredible shots of Houston. And I think this is the first time I have seen a photo of all of its buildings in context in relationship to each other. Wow!

I have never underrated Houston's skyline though. With all your buildings that are over 500 feet tall, you've been third behind New York and Chicago for over 20 years now! But look out! Miami is hot on your heels!

Xeelee · #4 Posted **Apr 10, 2008, 8:39 PM**

Excellent pics.

And NewAtlantaMaimi is right... Miami is catching up...

SFUVancouver · #5 Posted **Apr 10, 2008, 8:45 PM**

I think Houston's bad reputation overwhelmingly stems from this old photo:

Source from the book The City Assembled by Spiro Kostof

It's like a bad mug shot that dogs a celebrity for years or a photo of a politician in a comprimising situation.

SLO · #6 Posted **Apr 10, 2008, 9:09 PM**

Yeah, I dont know that people under rate the Houston skyline. It is definitely impressive, after NYC & Chicago its in the second tier with 6 or 7 other cities....

NewAtlantisMiami · #7 Posted **Apr 10, 2008, 10:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLO

Yeah, I dont know that people under rate the Houston skyline. It is definitely impressive, after NYC & Chicago its in the second tier with 6 or 7 other cities....

Houston's skyline is more than second tier. With the number of buildings that it has that are over 500 feet tall, it has had a lock on third behind New York and Chicago for over 20 years now.

Los Angeles had a boom in the late 80s and early 90s, which gave it the tallest building west of Chicago, but it wasn't enough to give it the third biggest skyline in the country such as Houston had.

Miami just recently had a boom that was so incredible that what has made it to construction thus far gives Miami a third place ranking behind New York and Chicago with buildings in the 400 feet tall and up height range. In the 500 feet tall and up height range, Houston is still third, but we are not done here in Miami. The city has several more buildings planned including three supertalls with interest in further developing Miami still very strong. The planned twin Empire World towers at 1,010 feet I feature in my avatar. They were originally proposed at 1,200 feet, but the FAA said "No way!" with Miami International Airport in the middle of the city. Houston will need another big boom to stay third behind New York and Chicago in the 500 feet tall and up range.

NewAtlantisMiami · #8 Posted **Apr 10, 2008, 10:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLO

Yeah, I dont know that people under rate the Houston skyline. It is definitely impressive, after NYC & Chicago its in the second tier with 6 or 7 other cities....

This is how I would define the second tier. Before computers, I used the World Almanac and Book of Facts as my reference for the heights of buildings in North American cities. For many years, the World Almanac would list buildings 400 feet tall and up with of course New York and Chicago being the notable exceptions. For New York, they never counted anything below 500 feet tall. But in 2008, for the purposes of space (with the exception of New York and Chicago of course), there are 7 North American cities for which the World Almanac will only count from 450 feet tall and up. These are the cities that might now be considered second tier: Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas, Miami, San Francisco, and Toronto. Using their list starting at 450 feet tall and adding up the heights of all the buildings, Miami edges out Houston for third in the U.S. Toronto, Canada would be third if it were actually in the U.S.

Great_Hizzy · #9 Posted **Apr 11, 2008, 2:02 PM**

Some of the Houston photographers (or photogroups) on Flickr are absolutely incredible (including the ones who post on here). The color, clarity and angles are out of this world.

You came up with a good crop of 'em too, Latennisguy.

Xeelee · #10 Posted **Apr 11, 2008, 2:55 PM**

Miami seems to be mounting a run of it's own. We must keep pace in order to secure our position.

These are some nice pics.

NewAtlantisMiami · #11 Posted **Apr 11, 2008, 9:13 PM**

Houston's skyline is incredibly dynamic though, instantly recognizable, and I love seeing photographs of it like these. The last time I went to San Francisco, flying back to Miami, we flew directly over downtown Houston. It was so clear I could easily make out the skyline from what must have been 35,000 feet. It was awesome! We didn't start our descent into South Florida until we were well over the Gulf of Mexico.

SLO · #12 Posted **Apr 11, 2008, 9:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewAtlantisMiami

Houston's skyline is more than second tier. With the number of buildings that it has that are over 500 feet tall, it has had a lock on third behind New York and Chicago for over 20 years now.

Los Angeles had a boom in the late 80s and early 90s, which gave it the tallest building west of Chicago, but it wasn't enough to give it the third biggest skyline in the country such as Houston had.

Miami just recently had a boom that was so incredible that what has made it to construction thus far gives Miami a third place ranking behind New York and Chicago with buildings in the 400 feet tall and up height range. In the 500 feet tall and up height range, Houston is still third, but we are not done here in Miami. The city has several more buildings planned including three supertalls with interest in further developing Miami still very strong. The planned twin Empire World towers at 1,010 feet I feature in my avatar. They were originally proposed at 1,200 feet, but the FAA said "No way!" with Miami International Airport in the middle of the city. Houston will need another big boom to stay third behind New York and Chicago in the 500 feet tall and up range.

Sure if you are talking skyline from a distance. I'd put Miami number 3 right now. Then you get into Houston, LA, Dallas, Atlanta's coming on, Philly? maybe, San Francisco, Boston, Seattle. (all good skylines btw)
On the other hand if you are talking about density of buildings/people & vibrancy along with height than San Fran is easily #3.

NewAtlantisMiami · #13 Posted **Apr 11, 2008, 10:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLO

Sure if you are talking skyline from a distance. I'd put Miami number 3 right now. Then you get into Houston, LA, Dallas, Atlanta's coming on, Philly? maybe, San Francisco, Boston, Seattle. (all good skylines btw)
On the other hand if you are talking about density of buildings/people & vibrancy along with height than San Fran is easily #3.

In the 70s, San Francisco actually was 3rd behind New York and Chicago in terms of sheer number of tall buildings until Houston moved it out in in 80s with so many buildings over 500 feet tall. San Francisco's density and vibrancy is indisputable. I would say it is second only to New York in that regard.

Houston's skyline is more dispersed throughout the city, but its sheer number of tall buildings is indisputable. Miami is not 3rd based on what has already topped out though. Statistically, according to the World Alamanac and the Almanac of Architecture and Design in terms of tall buildings, Miami's number three ranking is based on what has made it to construction that has not gone vertical enough yet to even be visible on the skyline. For some of our buildings under construction, they are still doing foundation work. With the number of Miami's buildings that have actually topped out, Houston is still third behind New York and Chicago until Miami's buildings all actually reach their height specifications. We have a few that didn't and are not actually as tall as listed.

Ayreonaut · #14 Posted **Apr 12, 2008, 12:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by latennisguy

flickr telwink

This one is so vivid, I love it.

NewAtlantisMiami · #15 Posted **Apr 12, 2008, 1:04 AM**

Yes, that one makes great wall paper!

TXLove · #16 Posted **Apr 12, 2008, 1:52 AM**

Sweet shots!!!!

latennisguy · #17 Posted **Apr 12, 2008, 4:43 AM**

let's continue with some more incredible photos of Houston:

flickr misnp

flickr Valentinian

flickr Can I Take Your Picture

TexasBoi · #18 Posted **Apr 12, 2008, 8:36 PM**

some of these are unbelievable.

anm · #19 Posted **Apr 13, 2008, 2:55 AM**

I like the mix of claddings.

SLO · #20 Posted **Apr 13, 2008, 6:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewAtlantisMiami

In the 70s, San Francisco actually was 3rd behind New York and Chicago in terms of sheer number of tall buildings until Houston moved it out in in 80s with so many buildings over 500 feet tall. San Francisco's density and vibrancy is indisputable. I would say it is second only to New York in that regard.

Houston's skyline is more dispersed throughout the city, but its sheer number of tall buildings is indisputable. Miami is not 3rd based on what has already topped out though. Statistically, according to the World Alamanac and the Almanac of Architecture and Design in terms of tall buildings, Miami's number three ranking is based on what has made it to construction that has not gone vertical enough yet to even be visible on the skyline. For some of our buildings under construction, they are still doing foundation work. With the number of Miami's buildings that have actually topped out, Houston is still third behind New York and Chicago until Miami's buildings all actually reach their height specifications. We have a few that didn't and are not actually as tall as listed.

Agree on SF. And these types of photos are great.
Having spent time in both cities recently, Miami seems way in front, maybe its because you can see all the beach front highrises as well, but Houstons dt seems a bit more dense.
SF is having a pretty good boom as well, and if some of the proposed buildings get built it will be even more impressive.