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.
I've never honestly been very impressed by the Manhattan skyline. Too many of the buildings are bland in character---it takes variety to truly spice up a skyline. In NYC I'm a fan of the Chrysler Building and Empire State Building, but most of the rest of the skyscrapers tend to bleed into one another without many distinctive features. One must also not underestimate the power of surrounding scenery in terms of helping to enhance much smaller skylines as well---bigger might not always be "better."
Here are a few of my favorites, all of which are much, much smaller than NYC:
Pittsburgh: For a city of just 300,000, its skyline packs quite a punch that is perfectly accentuated by the confluence of two rivers to form the Ohio River, as well as a mountainous backdrop.
Seattle: Having a unique landmark such as the Space Needle certainly helps to add a modern, sophisticated effect to this city's skyline, and the setting of the Puget Sound and Mt. Rainier truly can't be beat.
Minneapolis: Much like Pittsburgh, Minneapolis impresses me because it has such an impressive skyline for a city of such diminutive stature. I mean, you'd expect New York City's skyline to look large---the city has nearly 8.3 million residents. However, for cities with roughly 300,000-350,000 in population, I find having such beautiful and massive skylines to be nothing less than amazing.
I've never honestly been very impressed by the Manhattan skyline. Too many of the buildings are bland in character---it takes variety to truly spice up a skyline. In NYC I'm a fan of the Chrysler Building and Empire State Building, but most of the rest of the skyscrapers tend to bleed into one another without many distinctive features. One must also not underestimate the power of surrounding scenery in terms of helping to enhance much smaller skylines as well---bigger might not always be "better."
Here are a few of my favorites, all of which are much, much smaller than NYC:
Pittsburgh: For a city of just 300,000, its skyline packs quite a punch that is perfectly accentuated by the confluence of two rivers to form the Ohio River, as well as a mountainous backdrop.
Seattle: Having a unique landmark such as the Space Needle certainly helps to add a modern, sophisticated effect to this city's skyline, and the setting of the Puget Sound and Mt. Rainier truly can't be beat.
Minneapolis: Much like Pittsburgh, Minneapolis impresses me because it has such an impressive skyline for a city of such diminutive stature. I mean, you'd expect New York City's skyline to look large---the city has nearly 8.3 million residents. However, for cities with roughly 300,000-350,000 in population, I find having such beautiful and massive skylines to be nothing less than amazing.
I disagree. NYC maybe second or even third for that matter, but its not the top skyline.
Agreed. As I said earlier Manhattan's skyline just seems to lack drama, diversity, and character. Sure there are hundreds of really tall buildings, but many of them are rather bland looking when set beside one another. I hate to say this, but the city's skyline took a huge hit when the World Trade Center collapsed, as those two massive towers provided a nice contrast when set against the other generally uniform buildings that comprised the skyline (damn terrorists!)
This photo tells the story the best. Yes, there are tons of large buildings, but only a select few draw your attention from the rest of the "maddening crowd." In a rush to be the city with the most skyscrapers, New York City became a city where sheer quantity trumped aesthetic quality.
Once again this image unimpresses me. There really isn't a single skyscraper in this photograph that "wows" me. Why? The buildings are so cluttered that it's hard for one or two to capture your attention.
http://www.solarexpert.com/photography/images1/Manhattan.jpg (broken link)
Here's another case of this "crowding" not leading to much creativity or drama in a skyline. Perhaps one or two buildings here draw my attention (especially that glass-fronted one on the right-hand side of the image), but overall I find those other cities I posted to have much higher quality skylines due to the depth and variety in architectural styles, as well as the surrounding setting. No offense, but I would hardly call Northeastern NJ as scenic as Mt. Rainier, the Puget Sound, or Mt. Washington.
Agreed. As I said earlier Manhattan's skyline just seems to lack drama, diversity, and character. Sure there are hundreds of really tall buildings, but many of them are rather bland looking when set beside one another. I hate to say this, but the city's skyline took a huge hit when the World Trade Center collapsed, as those two massive towers provided a nice contrast when set against the other generally uniform buildings that comprised the skyline (damn terrorists!)
This photo tells the story the best. Yes, there are tons of large buildings, but only a select few draw your attention from the rest of the "maddening crowd." In a rush to be the city with the most skyscrapers, New York City became a city where sheer quantity trumped aesthetic quality.
Once again this image unimpresses me. There really isn't a single skyscraper in this photograph that "wows" me. Why? The buildings are so cluttered that it's hard for one or two to capture your attention.
http://www.solarexpert.com/photography/images1/Manhattan.jpg (broken link)
Here's another case of this "crowding" not leading to much creativity or drama in a skyline. Perhaps one or two buildings here draw my attention (especially that glass-fronted one on the right-hand side of the image), but overall I find those other cities I posted to have much higher quality skylines due to the depth and variety in architectural styles, as well as the surrounding setting. No offense, but I would hardly call Northeastern NJ as scenic as Mt. Rainier, the Puget Sound, or Mt. Washington.
This same problem occurs in Brasil's Sao Paulo where there are lots of buildings but no real character.
Thank you for the excellent pictures. BTW, Pittsburgh looks awesome in person!
Thanks. I must clarify though that none of these photographs are my original work; they have all been lifted off of Google image searches. I spoke earlier this evening to a moderator who asked another moderator who said he saw nothing wrong with posting the pictures I have posted as long as they don't contain watermarks. The credit must go to the brilliant photographers who have generously shared their work for the Internet community so that they too could enjoy the beauty of these great American cities.
Pittsburgh is indeed an awesome place to visit. The view of the city skyline from atop Mt. Washington at either day or night is breathtaking. When you come out of the Pitt Tunnel at night and go from uneventful on the one side and dramatic big city lights on the other end, you become awestruck. The city is truly oustanding; it's just boring on evenings and weekends because it is still very much a 9-5 city where most folks work downtown and snub the city by living in the suburbs.
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.
