Cities whose skylines make you cry

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by DZH22

Every time I have been there it feels a little too far, and ends up being kind of hazy. Try Hamilton Park in Weehauken. The skyline is just like... BAM!

Oh yeah, that's a really great spot! I forgot about that one.

And yes, Eagle Rock is a bit far, but it's incredible on a clear day because you can really get the full, insane length of the skyline from downtown all the way to upper Manhattan/Bronx and beyond

[DZH22]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Oh yeah, that's a really great spot! I forgot about that one.

And yes, Eagle Rock is a bit far, but it's incredible on a clear day because you can really get the full, insane length of the skyline from downtown all the way to upper Manhattan/Bronx and beyond

I just realized you're from Pittsburgh. I would say Hamilton Park is the closest approximately of any skyline view I have seen to Mount Washington in Pittsburgh. However, Mount Washington is THE best skyline view of any city in the country and I don't think it's up for debate!

I bet the view is amazing from Eagle Rock on a clear day. I have just been unlucky the last couple of times. My grandparents lived in that town (West Orange) but it's been a long time since they passed and we don't really visit that area anymore.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Yeah, but Boston's greatness lies not in its skyline, but its awesome built environment.

Except you titled the thread "Cities whose skylines (not 'built environment') make you cry".

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yeah, it's weird that the best views of Boston's skyline are from the runway at Logan.

Whoever compared Boston's skyline to Baltimore needs to put down the crack pipe.

If you actually comprehended the post(s) you're referring to, you would realize that no one actually compared Boston's skyline to Baltimore's. Rather, it was stated that Boston's skyline is beyond disappointing underwhelming for a city of its importance/significance/magnitude, whereas Baltimore's is not disappointing nor underwhelming because the city is essentially average across the board and therefore no one would expect it to look like anything other than what it looks like.

[DZH22]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

Except you titled the thread "Cities whose skylines (not 'built environment') make you cry".

Yes, and your list of 16 includes 6 with 0 over 500', the 2nd biggest with 5 over 500', and then one that is about to hit 20 over 500'. One of those *something doesn't belong here* kind of lists. I mean, outside of Boston, the other 15 cities average 1.733333 500' towers between them! We are literally talking about a skyline over 10 times larger in terms of impact buildings! It's so transparently bias no matter how you try to spin it. You can't fudge the data.

[DZH22]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

If you actually comprehended the post(s) you're referring to, you would realize that no one actually compared Boston's skyline to Baltimore's. Rather, it was stated that Boston's skyline is beyond disappointing underwhelming for a city of its importance/significance/magnitude, whereas Baltimore's is not disappointing nor underwhelming because the city is essentially average across the board and therefore no one would expect it to look like anything other than what it looks like.

No one would expect a major enough city that has multiple professional sports teams to have any tall buildings? No one would expect Baltimore to have a taller tower than Hartford? Asinine to the max. Baltimore has one of the worst major skylines in the country, precisely because of its pathetic height. Oh yeah and most of the few towers it does have (besides BOA mainly) are absolutely nothing to write home about either!

[DZH22]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

Rather, it was stated that Boston's skyline is beyond disappointing underwhelming for a city of its importance/significance/magnitude.....

It's tied for 7th in the country in 150 meter buildings with 20, with 3 more U/C (it will have 23 at least topped out by the end of this year). It's literally right where it's supposed to be. Frankly, if it had 1 taller building (or cheating spires instead of antenna that don't count), it wouldn't catch 1/10 of the guff it does about its skyline.

https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/cities

Yet somehow Boston having 23 buildings over 150m is wayyyyy more disappointing than Baltimore having 4. Chew on that folks.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by DZH22

Let's start with Baltimore. I would certainly expect a major city with multiple pro sports teams to at least be visible before I'm literally right on top of it. (I drove in earlier this summer, been a bunch) Its tallest building is shorter than Hartford, CT's! Boston has a dozen taller buildings. It also beats Baltimore 18 (soon 20) to 4 in the 500'+ department, and 34 to 7 in 400'+. They aren't on the same stratosphere.

Boston's airport is also closer than the majority of major cities. Its lucky it doesn't have some terrible 500' limit like San Diego. Without the airport's extreme proximity it would have been easier to get a few taller buildings downtown.



Using this methodology, Boston is up to 56, but 58 THIS WEEK, 60 by the end of the year, and has 12 more points (2 more over 600') in prep phase. So yes, it's a step down, but not a HUGE step down by any means. In the past few years it has gone from 2 buildings over 200m to 4, with a 5th in prep. (and a 6th possible at South Station if they ever all get on the same page)

The skyline is so expansive that so much depends on the angles its viewed from. The best way in is probably 93 North (via Quincy) as the skyline literally envelops you, and the financial district towers are allowed to stand out. 90 East has improved drastically with 1 Dalton, which lines up 3 buildings from ~745'-790' in a row on the final approach. From the airport area it's basically an unbreaking wall of buildings 500'-600'. There are a lot of hills which offer tons of awesome views (I know of at least 30 good skyline views) but also serve to block a lot of views or make buildings seem stumpier by being behind the hills.

Who exactly are you trying to convince? Because I'm not aware of anyone who would make the following statement:

"Boston has an impressive skyline!"

And yes, based on the figures YOU posted (which include a substantial number of "proposed" towers), Boston's skyline is, in fact, a "huge step down" from every other city of its caliber's skyline (D.C. aside).

That said, I heard the Boston Convention And Visitors Bureau is hiring. No need for you to apply - just send them a link to your posts on this thread. 😂

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by DZH22

It's tied for 7th in the country in 150 meter buildings with 20, with 3 more U/C (it will have 23 at least topped out by the end of this year). It's literally right where it's supposed to be. Frankly, if it had 1 taller building (or cheating spires instead of antenna that don't count), it wouldn't catch 1/10 of the guff it does about its skyline.

https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/cities

Yet somehow Boston having 23 buildings over 150m is wayyyyy more disappointing than Baltimore having 4. Chew on that folks.

Dude. Just stop.

[DZH22]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

Dude. Just stop.

It must be tough arguing against actual facts and data.

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

And yes, based on the figures YOU posted (which include a substantial number of "proposed" towers), Boston's skyline is, in fact, a "huge step down" from every other city of its caliber's skyline (D.C. aside).

A "substantial" number of proposed towers? It's actually just 2, with the 691' finishing up about a year's worth of foundation work, and the other 600'+ proceeding with demo on a parking garage.

If you think TWO = SUBSTANTIAL, you're the one who needs to stop.

[DZH22]

Originally Posted by edale

This is....not a smart take.

I sense a trend with this user.

[edale]

I've always thought Milwaukee had a pretty pathetic skyline. I think they've added a couple lakefront residential buildings, but it used to be the US Bank building was the only tall/notable building in the whole skyline.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The only beach in Detroit is Belle Isle Beach.

Regarding Miami, someone correct me if this is wrong, but the only part of Miami city with a beach is Virginia Key, right? Most of the beaches we associate with Miami are in Miami Beach.

Exactly. Miami is pretty questionable but I guess Virginia Key counts though I couldn't imagine swimming on those beaches when so many better ones are nearby but some people do. Virginia Key's beaches (Hobe Beach) are generally more for water sports than swimming. Even then only some of Virginia Key is a part of the city of Miami.

There is also this tiny "beach". Its a man made water attraction at Jungle Island on Watson Island. Again for water games, not really swimming
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mi...!4d-80.1917902

And this pile of sand poured on the ground in Brickell Key (nice view though):
https://www.google.com/maps/@25.7639...!7i8704!8i4352

[Jawnadelphia]

https://www.instagram.com/p/B1DufwzjHe0/


https://www.instagram.com/p/B1C-MkfA2J7/

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by edale

I've always thought Milwaukee had a pretty pathetic skyline. I think they've added a couple lakefront residential buildings, but it used to be the US Bank building was the only tall/notable building in the whole skyline.

along with a smattering of new residential towers, the 550' tall NML HQ tower was completed in 2017 and certainly helped out milwuakee's lakefront skyline immensely.


A Milwaukee Rosy Dawn by In Wonder Photo, on Flickr



but because of the topography of the bluffs along the lake, lakefront shots of milwaukee tend to downplay the impact of the supporting buildings behind the row of lakefront highrises. when viewed from the other direction, milwaukee's skyline looks about right for an MSA of 1.5M:


View of Downtown Milwaukee from Polaris by John December, on Flickr

[DZH22]

IMG_3849 by David Z, on Flickr

IMG_3848 by David Z, on Flickr

[Boisebro]

Originally Posted by edale

I've always thought Milwaukee had a pretty pathetic skyline. I think they've added a couple lakefront residential buildings, but it used to be the US Bank building was the only tall/notable building in the whole skyline.

I'm probably the biggest Milwaukee homer on the board, but it does make me sad-ish. Milwaukee hasn't had a new tallest in nearly 50 years, though the new recent developments have helped pack-in some nice density. It could still use a few more 400-500 footers, and one 850 footer to give it a peak.

one of the better views of Milwaukee's skyline is driving north on I-794. this isn't a great shot, but you get the idea:


image

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by edale

I've always thought Milwaukee had a pretty pathetic skyline.

You thought correct. It is - very.

Originally Posted by edale

I think they've added a couple lakefront residential buildings, but it used to be the US Bank building was the only tall/notable building in the whole skyline.

Even with the additions, the Milwaukee skyline is pathetic. It looks like what I would expect the skylines of places like Richmond, VA, Des Moines, IA or Fayetteville, NC to look like if I had never previously seen any of them.

[Sun Belt]

Guys, Boston has one of the top skylines on the East Coast. It's girthy and stretches/extends quite long down the high spine.

1] N.Y. [duh]
2] Miami [it is the Chicago of Canada in Florida after all]
3] Boston
4] Phila. [swapable w/ Boston, but Boston does have a better waterfront]
5] Atlanta [it's an East Coast city, because the state is on the East Coast].
6] Charlotte [mini-Lanta]
7] Baltimore [?]

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Guys, Boston has one of the top skylines in New England.

There - fixed that ^ for you.