Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Houston has a more sprawling skyline than Philly. I'll take Philadelphia's smaller but more compact skyline. (Especially considering how much more interesting the neighborhoods at the base of that skyline is Philadelphia - Third Ward, really? Looks pretty bombed out and desolate to me ).
Philadelpha was founded in 1692 (houston 1836)..and was the culturally center for America for a a good amount of time. So yes thier nieghborhoods would be more interesting and historic than Houston's. And i might add that there neighborhoods are very charming (rowhouses and so forth). I will give it too them. Phildephia is not a bad city at all.
but to compare Houston and Philadelphia downtown centers together. (insult)
and its not "most deceiving neighborhoods at the base of a city's downtown." I think it is the most deceiving skyline?
Obviously you never heard of montrose nor river oaks or midtown
Philadelpha was founded in 1692 (houston 1836)..and was the culturally center for America for a a good amount of time. So yes thier nieghborhoods would be more interesting and historic than Houston's. And i might add that there neighborhoods are very charming (rowhouses and so forth). I will give it too them. Phildephia is not a bad city at all.
but to compare Houston and Philadelphia downtown centers together. (insult)
and its not "most deceiving neighborhoods at the base of a city's downtown." I think it is the most deceiving skyline?
Obviously you never heard of montrose nor river oaks or midtown
Heard of them, very unimpressive IMO.
And since it is about skylines that deceive, I think mentioning how I find Houston's nabes uninteresting compared to Philly's is relevant. Houston's very large skyline makes it looks like like it is ultra-dense and ultra-urban (not saying Houston is not urban, obviously it is), but in fact most of the neighborhoods between skylines can look downright rural.
Philadelpha was founded in 1692 (houston 1836)..and was the culturally center for America for a a good amount of time. So yes thier nieghborhoods would be more interesting and historic than Houston's. And i might add that there neighborhoods are very charming (rowhouses and so forth). I will give it too them. Phildephia is not a bad city at all.
Philly was also the nation's first "planned" city.
Philly's skyline is cool. I like Houston's too, but it is very expansive.
Really hard to pick from all the really great skylines on your list but if I had to choose I would say Boston for overrated. The Skyline has a few iconic buildings but is spread thin. I, personally, haven't seen a shot of the skyline where I was wowed incredibly.. though its not like that makes it a bad city or downtown at all.
Also, I wish those in Houston and Seattle were a bit more distinct. Most are pretty simple extrusions, thus there is an overrated quality to the skyline, IMHO.
One that I can plug as underrated/deceiving would have to be Cleveland. The city has 400k, metro is 2.4.. (Northeast Ohio Region is about 4.5Mil, however). The skyline has some massive talls for its size, and the way they separated by a 7 acre park (Public Square) makes them appear less dense. It truly depends on what angle you see it from.
Not so dense up close (Public Square is in between these 3.. key tower is largest at ~950 ft.)
[
Mirror Image (http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomsheridan/6832454609/ - broken link) by Thom Sheridan (http://www.flickr.com/people/thomsheridan/ - broken link), on Flickr
Looks nicer from the lake..
Downtown Cleveland from Lake Erie (http://www.flickr.com/photos/retrored/4040954153/ - broken link) by RetroRed (http://www.flickr.com/people/retrored/ - broken link), on Flickr
And from the East you can really start to see the difference.. (this photo may surprise some of you.. this angle still surprises me since I normally see it from the west side..)
Cleveland Skyline from the East Side (http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomsheridan/5984278371/ - broken link) by Thom Sheridan (http://www.flickr.com/people/thomsheridan/ - broken link), on Flickr
Anyways I am not one to post photos (or anything for that matter) but I think this is a reason why Cleveland has been used to "fake" larger cities for movies. (most recently Spider Man 3 and The Avengers) Most do not know it. There is a good amount of downtown construction right now so hopefully that will help to add more density eventually.
Glass Condos in a Sea of Brick (http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomsheridan/6120873287/ - broken link) by Thom Sheridan (http://www.flickr.com/people/thomsheridan/ - broken link), on Flickr
[quote=ryanscav;23068264]Really hard to pick from all the really great skylines on your list but if I had to choose I would say Boston for overrated. The Skyline has a few iconic buildings but is spread thin. I, personally, haven't seen a shot of the skyline where I was wowed incredibly.. though its not like that makes it a bad city or downtown at all.
Also, I wish those in Houston and Seattle were a bit more distinct. Most are pretty simple extrusions, thus there is an overrated quality to the skyline, IMHO.
One that I can plug as underrated/deceiving would have to be Cleveland. The city has 400k, metro is 2.4.. (Northeast Ohio Region is about 4.5Mil, however). The skyline has some massive talls for its size, and the way they separated by a 7 acre park (Public Square) makes them appear less dense. It truly depends on what angle you see it from.
Not so dense up close (Public Square is in between these 3.. key tower is largest at ~950 ft.)
[
Mirror Image (http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomsheridan/6832454609/ - broken link) by Thom Sheridan (http://www.flickr.com/people/thomsheridan/ - broken link), on Flickr
Looks nicer from the lake..
Downtown Cleveland
from Lake Erie (http://www.flickr.com/photos/retrored/4040954153/ - broken link) by RetroRed (http://www.flickr.com/people/retrored/ - broken link), on Flickr
And from the East you can really start to see the difference.. (this photo may surprise some of you.. this angle still surprises me since I normally see it from the west side..)
Cleveland Skyline from the East Side (http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomsheridan/5984278371/ - broken link) by Thom Sheridan (http://www.flickr.com/people/thomsheridan/ - broken link), on Flickr
Anyways I am not one to post photos (or anything for that matter) but I think this is a reason why Cleveland has been used to "fake" larger cities for movies. (most recently Spider Man 3 and The Avengers) Most do not know it. There is a good amount of downtown construction right now so hopefully that will help to add more density eventually.
Glass Condos in a Sea of Brick (http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomsheridan/6120873287/ - broken link) by Thom Sheridan (http://www.flickr.com/people/thomsheridan/ - broken link), on Flickr[/QUOTE\] Bostons Underratted? It has the 3rd largest skyline in the north ( by building >500ft) after NY and Chicago Yet people completly ignore it when they rank skylines.
The downtown area is built on the lowest elevation in the city, at the confluence of the rivers. So that is completely incorrect.
I thought the same thing and had to read it again. You cannot see the entire skyline until your up on it. It should have been the other way around since the city is surrounded by rolling hills.
Without a doubt, Philadelphia's skyline makes the city seem so much smaller. Actually, the fact that the city was so provincial and community-oriented for years makes it seem so much smaller.
You can't really grasp how huge Philadelphia and its metro are unless you live or especially grow up in a rowhouse either in or very close to Philadelphia. When you feel the enormity of block after block of rowhouse after rowhouse, when you grow up in and thus are connected to all of the little sections and neighborhoods that add up to the large city and metro, when you go through the schools and grow up in the communities and are a part of the real Philly culture, then you understand just how huge the city is. Even at the most unpopulated point in Philadelphia's recent history, there were still over 1.5 million people in the city limits alone, yet people somehow think that it's not a huge city with a lot of people. From what I can tell, the reason for this is because the majority of Philadelphia neighborhoods are still exclusively for Philly people. A lot of the people who look at the pictures of the skyline and city with the seas of rowhouses radiating from the core outward see a place where they think they're not welcome or that they're not a part of and thus just write it off as not being evidence of a huge city or of a vibrant culture or whatever else.
Philadelphia is a great place to visit, but it's a much, much better city to live in than to visit. Also, another thing I've noticed is that almost every single skyline picture taken always makes the buildings seem so much shorter than they really are. I don't know why it is that people choose those angles but you very rarely see the way the buildings look from the street or some other ground-level place. From the street level, even a 50 ft building looks pretty damn tall, and Philadelphia has plenty of buildings from 100-200+ feet in height.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
).
