Skyline Battle of Ohio, which city has the best skyline? (Columbus: wedding, design)

[buckeyenative01]

I'll concede that Cincinnati's is relatively old. And individually, I'm not a big fan of some of those buildings (Fifth/Third, Scripps, the Atriums, P&G's po-mo boobs) but I like the way in which they comprise the skyline.

And while old, the Carew and Central Trust are as iconic in Cincinnati as the Terminal Tower in Cleveland. Ditto the LeVeque in Columbus.

"Better" skyline is a fun debate, but ultimately pointless. And for what its worth, the skylines of Cleveland, Cincinnati and Columbus put the likes of Phoenix Mesa and Tucson (both of which have a larger city population than both Cleveland and Cincinnati) to shame.

[costello_musicman]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Ohio is mediocre at best when it comes to skylines. Cleveland's looks and feels old (okay it is old). If we were still in the 1920s, it might win.

Cincinnati seems to be winning the poll and it has nothing to do with the skyline, but because physical geography forced a denser collection of boring buildings. Its most recent addition looks like runner up to a Miss America pageant.

Columbus' skyline is large... but it seems to only have one skyscraper per square mile. Having the least dense downtown is awesome if you like parking in one of its 500 surface parking lots.

Well if you avaerage the top 7 tallest in the skyline, Cleveland seems to not look too old. I think it even holds for the top 10 tallest.

Cleveland AVG Year: 1978.14 (1991 1930 1985 1964 1983 1992 2002)
Columbus AVG Year: 1974.43 (1973 1927 1990 1984 1988 1976 1983)
Cincinnati AVG Year: 1973.93 (2010 1931 1913 1990 1969 1984 1991)

When viewing a skyline, it's generally the taller buildings that stand out. And what makes Cleveland "old" is actually city density of it's older streetscapes from the ground (same with Cincy).

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by costello_musicman

Well if you avaerage the top 7 tallest in the skyline, Cleveland seems to not look too old. I think it even holds for the top 10 tallest.

Cleveland AVG Year: 1978.14 (1991 1930 1985 1964 1983 1992 2002)
Columbus AVG Year: 1974.43 (1973 1927 1990 1984 1988 1976 1983)
Cincinnati AVG Year: 1973.93 (2010 1931 1913 1990 1969 1984 1991)

When viewing a skyline, it's generally the taller buildings that stand out. And what makes Cleveland "old" is actually city density of it's older streetscapes from the ground (same with Cincy).

Why 7?

[costello_musicman]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Why 7?

^^ Because us Ohio cities don't have too many tall buildings that can be seen from a distance...especially if we're talking age of skyline.

Example: Cleveland pic (from wiki):

[abr7rmj]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Ohio is mediocre at best when it comes to skylines. Cleveland's looks and feels old (okay it is old). If we were still in the 1920s, it might win.

Cincinnati seems to be winning the poll and it has nothing to do with the skyline, but because physical geography forced a denser collection of boring buildings. Its most recent addition looks like runner up to a Miss America pageant.

Columbus' skyline is large... but it seems to only have one skyscraper per square mile. Having the least dense downtown is awesome if you like parking in one of its 500 surface parking lots.

That was the intent. The top of the building was designed to replicate a tiarra - Princess Diana's, to be exact. You know, Queen City and all.

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=princ...:429,r:11,s:48

I wouldn't call the PNC Tower boring. The most visible, iconic and prominent Cincinnati skyscraper (though not the tallest) was the tallest building west of NYC for a time and one of the most architecturally significant.

And I disagree that Ohio skylines are mediocre. They're just relatively stagnant and have been for the past two decades. Hopefully that can change soon, particularly in the 3C's. When it comes to states with the best collection of skylines, I'd go with this top 5:

1. California (San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, Oakland)
2. Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Harrisburg)
3. Texas (Houston, Dallas, Austin, Lubbock)
4. Ohio (Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo, Akron)
5. Florida (Miami, Tampa, Jacksonville, Orlando)

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by costello_musicman

^^ Because us Ohio cities don't have too many tall buildings that can be seen from a distance...especially if we're talking age of skyline.

Example: Cleveland pic (from wiki):

I get that, but using a specific number will obviously change the entire age structure. For example, just using 5 instead of 7 changes the order to Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus from oldest to youngest. That's why I tried to just use height as the standard instead of a top 10 or something, even if a 10-story building doesn't stand out nearly as much as a 40-story. They are still a part of the skyline.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by abr7rmj

That was the intent. The top of the building was designed to replicate a tiarra - Princess Diana's, to be exact. You know, Queen City and all.

Google Images

I wouldn't call the PNC Tower boring. The most visible, iconic and prominent Cincinnati skyscraper (though not the tallest) was the tallest building west of NYC for a time and one of the most architecturally significant.

And I disagree that Ohio skylines are mediocre. They're just relatively stagnant and have been for the past two decades. Hopefully that can change soon, particularly in the 3C's. When it comes to states with the best collection of skylines, I'd go with this top 5:

1. California (San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, Oakland)
2. Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Harrisburg)
3. Texas (Houston, Dallas, Austin, Lubbock)
4. Ohio (Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo, Akron)
5. Florida (Miami, Tampa, Jacksonville, Orlando)

I was basically being facetious with many of my posts the last few days. I thought that if I'm going to constantly be criticized for defending where I live, I might as well criticize everywhere.

[motorman]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

I was basically being facetious with many of my posts the last few days. I thought that if I'm going to constantly be criticized for defending where I live, I might as well criticize everywhere.

And would you believe that these same posts from the last few days have been some of your best--and certainly your funniest? As for myself, I enjoyed every one of them because you exposed a side of yourself I don't think I've seen before. And, after all, to do battle with your brothers and sisters from the other "2-Cs" ya gotta learn to get down in the trenches and fight mud with mud--it's much more effective (and fun) than continuously reeling off stat after stat. Trust me, your opponents from the 2-Cs would much rather be entertained than bored by what you say. The last few days have finally assured us that you have the potential to become a real contender in the Battle of The 3-Cs! (now what was it that we were suggesting about C-Bus again??)

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by motorman

And would you believe that these same posts from the last few days have been some of your best--and certainly your funniest? As for myself, I enjoyed every one of them because you exposed a side of yourself I don't think I've seen before. And, after all, to do battle with your brothers and sisters from the other "2-Cs" ya gotta learn to get down in the trenches and fight mud with mud--it's much more effective (and fun) than continuously reeling off stat after stat. Trust me, your opponents from the 2-Cs would much rather be entertained than bored by what you say. The last few days have finally assured us that you have the potential to become a real contender in the Battle of The 3-Cs! (now what was it that we were suggesting about C-Bus again??)

I'm an onion, what can I say.

Honestly, I figured that most of the stuff I posted like that would just be deleted as trolling (as some have in the past), so I didn't bother pushing the envelope, so to speak.

I still intend to post stats because I am a stats geek and love researching that kind of stuff. Unless I say specifically, though, I'm not making any particular claims by posting them. In any case, I will try not to make them as utilitarian.

[chet_kinkaid]

i would have to say cincinnati..for the setting and the compactness..but if columbus buildings were in cincinnati in the same space it would be more impressive..for the sheer square footage and multiple 500 foot buildings..cleveland even though they have teh 3 tallest buildings in the state..just because of the topography and views isnt as impressive..a 900 foot building in cincinnati would look incredibly awesome