Worst skyline

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by trueviking

i wont argue that canadian cities often have a different urban quality and layout compared with american ones for various reasons beyond population, so maybe you are right, the comparison does have flaws.

That's just it though. Everything in this world has a reason behind it, but it doesn't change the reality that US metros tend to have smaller skylines than comparably sized Canadian metros.

Phoenix or Jacksonville having smaller skylines because of A, B, or C, doesn't change the fact that they have smaller skylines. These factors don't make the comparison unfair. It's akin to saying that comparing Mumbai with New York's skyline is unfair because India is a poorer nation. It doesn't change the fact that New York's skyline is much better than Mumbai's, now does it? Everything on earth is a result of the factors that caused it. Dwelling on the causes is insightful, but doesn't change the reality.

This thread is about cities with small skylines for their size.

[pj3000]

^ What you are saying applies if one is simply saying this skyline is smaller or that skyline is bigger. Period.

But when one starts to make comparisons between two cities based on some parameter... like here, specifically comparing city skylines based solely on population numbers, the comparison loses all validity when that parameter for comparison (population in this case) doesn't mean the same thing. A metro area of one million in population in the US does not represent the same thing as a metro area of one million in Canada.

You can simply say that Calgary has a more impressive skyline than Jacksonville and that is completely true (whether Edmonton and Winnipeg do is actually debatable considering neither has a building over 500 ft). But when you say that Calgary and Jacksonville are comparably-sized metros but Calgary boasts a much larger skyline, it loses validity as a comparison because taken out of their contexts, they really are not comparably-sized metros. Jacksonville, though having a larger metro area than Calgary, in reality functions as a smaller city in the US than Calgary does in Canada.

[vid]

Brandon, Manitoba, 41,511 people. Manitoba's "second city".


©Brandon Economic Development

That's an old picture, there is an 11 storey hotel just to the left of it now.

[Ayreonaut]

Has anyone seen that "local TV matters" commercial with the prof from Brandon. WTF kind of accent does he have? It's the most annoying thing I've ever heard!

[pj3000]

I love the fields of gold just outside of downtown Brandon.

[crooked rain]

^ it's like one of those downtowns in a farmers field you see in China.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by pj3000

And that's the thing... Canadian hubs are far fewer in number, but therefore contain a much higher percentage of a region's population, commerce, etc. than what you have in the states. Really, what other city is in Manitoba aside from Winnipeg? Is there even one close to 100,000 people? When you have that greater concentration, a more impressive skyline should result.
.

i still dont know if i buy this argument...canadian cities, although fewer in number, still service similar populations....winnipeg is indeed the only city in manitoba, but manitoba is the size of texas with only 1.2 million people...its not like it is drawing from a vast population......it may have 80% of the province's population, but that is still a small number compared to jacksonville....it isnt a greater concentration of people, only a higher percentage of the regional population.

i would think that american cities would have even a greater advantage, because many of them have large population bases around them to draw from....canadian cities like calgary, edmonton and winnipeg pretty much stop dead once you get to the outskirts.....i dont see the advantage of being one city in the middle of nowhere as opposed to being set within other cities nearby.....it is still the same commerce and population that the city is servicing.

canadian cities are more dense and more centralized than their american counterparts, at almost every scale....this isnt because they are drawing commerce from larger areas, its has to do with social and cultural factors....

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by pj3000

You can simply say that Calgary has a more impressive skyline than Jacksonville and that is completely true (whether Edmonton and Winnipeg do is actually debatable considering neither has a building over 500 ft)

you're kidding right?....which one is 750k and which is 1.3 million?




http://www.cypix.net/gallery.html?fo...%20%20INDUSTRY
http://www.danharperphotography.com/main.html

[Phil McAvity]

Those two shots play right into my point about residential buildings in Canada because if we were just comparing office towers, Jax would probably have the better skyline. All the towers in the forefront of the Winnipeg picture are apartments/condos as are many in the background.

Regardless, Allentown Pennsylvania has the worst skyline.

[vid]

I don't know, in that photo Jacksonville only has, like, 10 buildings. Winnipeg has that many large office buildings downtown and then some. And nowhere near as much parking. There is a giant scar to the left of downtown Jacksonville in that photo. Scary.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by trueviking

i still dont know if i buy this argument...canadian cities, although fewer in number, still service similar populations....winnipeg is indeed the only city in manitoba, but manitoba is the size of texas with only 1.2 million people...its not like it is drawing from a vast population......it may have 80% of the province's population, but that is still a small number compared to jacksonville....it isnt a greater concentration of people, only a higher percentage of the regional population.

i would think that american cities would have even a greater advantage, because many of them have large population bases around them to draw from....canadian cities like calgary, edmonton and winnipeg pretty much stop dead once you get to the outskirts.....i dont see the advantage of being one city in the middle of nowhere as opposed to being set within other cities nearby.....it is still the same commerce and population that the city is servicing.

canadian cities are more dense and more centralized than their american counterparts, at almost every scale....this isnt because they are drawing commerce from larger areas, its has to do with social and cultural factors....

you're still trying to compare these cities with Jacksonville when they simply are not counterparts. For instance, Calgary is the 4th or 5th largest metro in Canada. Jacksonville is the 40th largest metro in the US. To find a US counterpart for Calgary, you have to go way up on the US list of cities.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by trueviking

you're kidding right?....which one is 750k and which is 1.3 million?




http://www.cypix.net/gallery.html?fo...%20%20INDUSTRY
http://www.danharperphotography.com/main.html

Obviously, Winnipeg is much more dense and more of an urban environment than Jacksonville. I only said that it was debatable since some may equate impressive skylines with height. Jax has buildings over 500 ft, Winnipeg and Edmonton do not.

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by pj3000

you're still trying to compare these cities with Jacksonville when they simply are not counterparts. For instance, Calgary is the 4th or 5th largest metro in Canada. Jacksonville is the 40th largest metro in the US. To find a US counterpart for Calgary, you have to go way up on the US list of cities.

There is no perfect analogy by virtue of the huge population difference between the US and Canada. Comparing similar-sized cities is probably as good a comparison as any.

Originally Posted by vid

I don't know, in that photo Jacksonville only has, like, 10 buildings. Winnipeg has that many large office buildings downtown and then some. And nowhere near as much parking. There is a giant scar to the left of downtown Jacksonville in that photo. Scary.

Vid, Jax has 5 buildings over 400 feet tall, whereas Winterpeg has 2 and even then, they are just barely over 400 feet. That picture is not a good depiction of the Jacksonville skyline anyway since the skyline continues on the other side of the bridge. Go back in this thread a bit and you'll see the pictures. As well I would argue that Jacksonville's buildings are nicer than the Peg's. Bottom line? I don't think Jax merits consideration for the worst skyline especially with skyline runts like Phoenix, Sao Paulo, and especially Allentown out there.

[pj3000]

Going with the flawed line of logic that similar populations connote counterpart status between Canadian and US cities...

Let's take a look at similarly sized metros then (both around 700K or so):

Winnipeg, MB (and please disregard the Jax photo)


Allentown, PA



So is Allentown considered a counterpart city to Winnipeg? Is Allentown, Pennsylvania's national status in the US on par with that of Winnipeg's national status in Canada? Going with the logic presented, it must be true. Who knew?

[Phil McAvity]

^More importantly, when did the discussion shift to Canada vs the U.S.?

I thought the discussion was about the worst skyline.

Comparing cities of similar population regardless of the country they are in should be the criterion for measuring a cities skyline.

[pj3000]

^ It shouldn't be a Canada vs US thing at all. A few pages back someone basically said "Jacksonville ain't crap. Calgary has a lower population and its better." And i said it's not really a valid comparison based on population. Calgary's is much more impressive, period.

Comparison of international cities by population without taking into account proportion is pointless. The Allentown/Winnipeg comparison clearly points that out.

[Phil McAvity]

Well if you think it's so pointless, then why are you discussing it with us?

[pj3000]

^I wasn't discussing it with you... I believe it was with trueviking. Just trying to advance knowledge around here

[zuelas]

I'm gonna plant some tomatoes and corn in the empty fields around here and see if we can get some apartment towers blooming in the middle. (was that person drinking heavily?)

My vote, though, would have to go to Allentown. Nothing really to speak of in its downtown. Milwaukee, especially w/out its tallest bldg, would be the second crappiest.

[village person]

Jacksonville has a "second" skyline across the river, with 2 buildings over 400 ft (4 over 300 ft), as well as a small "third" little bulk in the foreground here:


Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sfpitma...7614326146117/

The main skyline is over to the left, seen here:

Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sfpitma...7614326146117/

Put it all together and this is the result:


Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/5701647...n/photostream/


Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonworth/154598605/

It aint no Allentown.


......but seriously, why live in a highrise on the river when there's an ocean a few miles away (Jacksonville Beach):

Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rizkphotography/282513182/

^Man in the warm water says, "Hi, Winnipeg!"