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.
Oh really? Then how about giving us your definition of a skyline...b/c i'm sure that if you don't call this one a skyline you'll be surprised at the actual meaning of the word.
No, it's a skyline.
I'm just saying that those don't count as skyscrapers.
Yeah, it's a nice natural skyline, but as far as the buildings go, it ain't much.
lol! that sounds like something he would say, especially considering the crap they where putting up in New York during the 40's and 50's. Most of those skyscrapers really did look like huge filing cabinets (for people nonetheless). But to answer your question, skyscrapers do save a lot of space. Could you imagine the kind of environmental problems in places like India and China would have due to deforestation if it wasn't for skyscrapers? I say cram all the urbanites into their boxes so everyone else has more of the "real" world to enjoy.
You think people who live in cities don't travel or get out of the city??? The stuff taking up space is the suburban sprawl...
That is one of the main point of clustered dense cities, to preserve the natural wonders of the world... It is this everybody should have a front lawn mentality that is bad for the environment, deforestation, etc.
City living is quite green. New Yorkers have some of the lowest carbon footprint, if not the lowest in the U.S. Over half the people there don't even own a car...
Even small cities in europe are still quite dense and oriented around a dense town center in comparison the suburban mess in the U.S.
If people in older cities had the technology to build upwards 500 years ago they definitely would have...
So yeah I agree with you, but not quite sure which way you are going with it.
There is more to do in larger cities then you can do in small rural towns. I would say that 100,000 people or larger is considered a large city as that is the point you can do "city things".
Okay. That's your opinion and I respect that. But here's some food for thought: the cities with all the taller buildings (500ft+) constitute a very SMALL minority of the total amount of US cities with skylines. You're honestly more likely to run into a city like Broomfield with a lower skyline than a city like Kansas City (MO) with really tall buildings.
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.
