# Skylines- not the best way to rate a city



## yooik4890 (Jul 30, 2008)

Something I often see on this board is people posting skylines of cities (often taken at certain angles to misrepresnt the size of a downtown) that strongly suggest a city is more "vibrant" than it really is (Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Charlotte come to mind). Portland, OR has a far less impressive "skyline" than Dallas, but its downtown feels far more urban and vibrant. Similarly, Paris and London do not have impressive "skylines", but are vibrant and impressive.


----------



## skyboi (Mar 30, 2008)

Look again at Paris and London ... there are skylines in those two Cities and they are going to build more soon , beside the present skylines there ,their street level are dynamic due to population and great number of visistors all year round there to see their magnificent historical buildings which Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta don't have , and what is wrong with Cities with skylines ? when the City grows people need more housing , offices , we are not going to live in huts and caves no more ...


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

They are not. But they can show one city's economic status especially in Asia.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

I think a lot of people try to draw all sorts of inferences from looking at skylines. Back in the 1990s, there was a great push in East Asia to get skylines and huge skyscrapers up as a sign of economic development. But vibrancy doesn't relate too closely to skyscrapers and skylines. Rather, we have to look more closely at what is happening at ground level. We can't draw conclusions on what's happening on the ground when we focus on the sky.


----------



## rossie1977 (Jul 17, 2007)

personally i don't rate cities by skyline at all, some of the nicest cities i have visited had zero skyline e.g. innsbruck in austria

but this is a skyscraper forum so obviously most people want huge skylines


----------



## earthJoker (Dec 15, 2004)

> Skylines- not the best way to rate a city


Of course not, just look at all the European cities with no Skyscrapers, many of them are vibrant.


----------



## Paws (Jul 25, 2008)

skylines look great from a distance and on postcards, but they don't mean anything when walking around the city or living there, which is what really matters. So yes I agree, skylines aren't the best way to judge a city at all


----------



## dösanhoro (Jun 24, 2006)

I think there is place for various things in the world. I have noticed on ssc some users really think of scrapers as some type of kitchy bling bling mental confidence enlargement for cities. They would think the higher the denser and more well lit some place the better. I think some people even start to associate skyscrapers with developing nations. I don´t think less of places with or without skyscrapers. There is place for both in this world . Skylines are part of a city but dont define the whole city really. I still like skylines. 

Do you like pyramids? They make a meager skyline. Lack of height , lack of lighting and just a few scrapers to boost the modern image of Egypt.


----------



## diegodbs (Mar 12, 2008)

Paws said:


> skylines look great from a distance and on postcards, but they don't mean anything when walking around the city or living there, which is what really matters. So yes I agree, skylines aren't the best way to judge a city at all


You are right, not only are skylines "not the best way to judge a city" but I would say they are perhaps the worst way. Cities must be worth living and that kind of downtowns full of skycrapers where nobody actually lives means nothing to me. Oh yes it means something: I will never live there.


----------



## AltinD (Jul 15, 2004)

What you guys are talking about? This is SKYSCRAPERCITY so of course there will be too much emphasizing of the skylines. 

Bottom line, when skylines are rated, the vibrancy or lack of it for the place are (and should be) irrelevant to the discussion.


----------



## karim aboussir (Dec 4, 2006)

marrakech morocco is a great spectacular city with a very strong international population but not one single skyscraper in that city


----------



## Jasonhouse (Jul 27, 2002)

yooik4890 said:


> Something I often see on this board is people posting skylines of cities (often taken at certain angles to misrepresnt the size of a downtown) that strongly suggest a city is more "vibrant" than it really is (Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Charlotte come to mind). Portland, OR has a far less impressive "skyline" than Dallas, but its downtown feels far more urban and vibrant. Similarly, Paris and London do not have impressive "skylines", but are vibrant and impressive.


I hope you realize that this rant is tantamount to heresy with a crowd such as we have here... I suggest you lock your doors and shut your windows mate!

:lol:


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

I agree. The five most urban cities in the US are Boston, Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia and San Francisco. This is based on density, public transportation, downtown residents, walkability and lively city neighborhoods. Of the bunch Boston and San Francisco's skylines are rather small compared to cities like Miami and Houston which lack a downtown population like SF and Boston.


----------



## Delirium (Oct 8, 2005)

_''Skylines- not the best way to rate a ''city_

Of course not. Helium has spoken :bowtie:





(although it's nice to have great vibrancy _and_ a skyline :|)


----------



## Imperfect Ending (Apr 7, 2003)

WANCH said:


> They are not. But they can show one city's economic status especially in Asia.


Not really...


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

I haven't noticed anyone rating a city by its skyline...there are a lot of skyline ratings going on, but that is just rating the skyline, not the overall city. Maybe you should check out VibrantCity.com if that's what you're looking for. 

What cities CAN compare to London and Paris? (although I lived in London for a while, and I definitely like Atlanta better).


----------



## jcarloschile (Jul 12, 2008)

I agree completely. Paris is not famous all around the world because of the skyscrapers in La Defense.


----------



## techniques1200s (Mar 11, 2005)

philadweller said:


> I agree. The five most urban cities in the US are Boston, Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia and San Francisco. This is based on density, public transportation, downtown residents, walkability and lively city neighborhoods. Of the bunch Boston and San Francisco's skylines are rather small compared to cities like Miami and Houston which lack a downtown population like SF and Boston.


The thing about SF's skyline (and maybe Boston's too, but I can't speak for that) is that it's actually not that small at all...it's just relatively short when compared to many similarly sized or smaller skylines in the US. It's very densely built, and comprised of highrises that are largely 500 feet tall or less, with a few 600 footers and just a couple more taller than that. The volume of relatively tall buildings in SF is pretty decent, but the overall lack of serious height and general lack of interesting/eye-catching design ensures that SF's skyline isn't really one that's thought of when thinking of the bigger skylines in the US, even though it's definitely in the top 10 in terms of raw numbers of highrises. That's something that's been changing the last few years however, as we're having our first skyscraper boom since the 1980's. There may even be multiple 1000+ foot towers on the way soon.


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

WeimieLvr said:


> What cities CAN compare to London and Paris? (although I lived in London for a while, and I definitely like Atlanta better).


Atlanta apparently.


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

"The thing about SF's skyline (and maybe Boston's too, but I can't speak for that) is that it's actually not that small at all...it's just relatively short when compared to many similarly sized or smaller skylines in the US. It's very densely built, and comprised of highrises that are largely 500 feet tall or less, with a few 600 footers and just a couple more taller than that. The volume of relatively tall buildings in SF is pretty decent, but the overall lack of serious height and general lack of interesting/eye-catching design ensures that SF's skyline isn't really one that's thought of when thinking of the bigger skylines in the US, even though it's definitely in the top 10 in terms of raw numbers of highrises. That's something that's been changing the last few years however, as we're having our first skyscraper boom since the 1980's. There may even be multiple 1000+ foot towers on the way soon."

Also, the Golden Gate bridge steals some of downtown's thunder when it comes to memorable built icons in that city. I wish the Transamerica pyramid had an aluminum skin.


----------



## mbuildings (May 6, 2007)

WANCH said:


> They are not. But they can show one city's economic status especially in Asia.


the skyline of a city has nothing to do with it's economical status.


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

_00_deathscar said:


> Atlanta apparently.



..


----------



## City_of_Fury (Jun 8, 2008)

mbuildings said:


> the skyline of a city has nothing to do with it's economical status.


Of course... Has nothing to do with the economical, social or political status of a city.
For example Sao Paulo has one of the best skylines in Latin America in life quality Montevideo is much better and Montevideo has no tall skyscrapers...
Other example can be scandinavian cities, like Cophenagen, Helsinki, etc.. that has no a Manhattan but are excelent cities and places to live...
Manila has a beautiful skyline but it has much poverty. 
The developemnt of a city has to do with a good quality of life, good education and a well medical system.. An important and efficient transport system, etc.
And has nothing to do with 200+mts. skyscrapers


----------



## earthJoker (Dec 15, 2004)

AltinD said:


> What you guys are talking about? This is SKYSCRAPERCITY so of course there will be too much emphasizing of the skylines.


Outside of skyscrapercity.com there is a real life, that's what we discussing about.



WeimieLvr said:


> I haven't noticed anyone rating a city by its skyline...there are a lot of skyline ratings going on, but that is just rating the skyline, not the overall city. Maybe you should check out VibrantCity.com if that's what you're looking for.
> .


That's a company webpage, not good hno:


----------



## AltinD (Jul 15, 2004)

earthJoker said:


> Outside of skyscrapercity.com there is a real life, that's what we discussing about.


Really? Let me remind you to go back to the first post and READ it.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Skylines don't mean much to me, a good skyline makes for a good postcard but that's about it, lots of tall buldings doesn't mean anything on its own.

You can have a great city with or without a great skyline, the way the city looks, feels and operates at ground level is far more important I think.


----------



## rockin'.baltimorean (Jul 5, 2008)

philadweller said:


> I agree. The five most urban cities in the US are Boston, Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia and San Francisco. This is based on density, public transportation, downtown residents, walkability and lively city neighborhoods. Of the bunch Boston and San Francisco's skylines are rather small compared to cities like Miami and Houston which lack a downtown population like SF and Boston.


^^:yes::applause:


----------



## type001 (Sep 21, 2005)

> I agree. The five most urban cities in the US are Boston, Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia and San Francisco. This is based on density, public transportation, downtown residents, walkability and lively city neighborhoods. Of the bunch Boston and San Francisco's skylines are rather small compared to cities like Miami and Houston which lack a downtown population like SF and Boston.


The first 2 sentences are pretty dead-on. But the third sentence needs a little tweaking. Houston might have a taller building than Boston and San Fran, but it's skyline isn't significantly larger (I'd say the same for Miami, but I suppose they're having some huge condo tower boom). But furthermore, you didn't include Philly in the list with Boston and San Fran. I would say its skyline is pretty comprable in size.


----------



## NYCboy1212 (Jul 30, 2008)

Jonesy55 said:


> Skylines don't mean much to me, a good skyline makes for a good postcard but that's about it, lots of tall buldings doesn't mean anything on its own.
> 
> You can have a great city with or without a great skyline, the way the city looks, feels and operates at ground level is far more important I think.


actually it means more than that 1 it can help save the environment by saving space instead of getting rid of forest and wilderness it helps keep the human habitants to a minimum. 2. It helps to add more things to a city saving space for even more things due to the fact boundaries of city wont get larger. NYC is one of the major cities in the world that its skyline also tells how vibrant it is.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

You can't tell how vibrant a city is by its skyline, but this is skyscrapercity.com, not vibrantcity.com. Most people who visit this site, are people who have an interest in towers.


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

IMO its not important if a city has a good and tall skyline, but much more important is the general urbanity of the city-the street level feel, the architecture of the buildings throughout the city, and quality of Public transportation.
So a city may have a great skyline , but its downtown are might lack any good street-level feeling, meaning that there aren't many shops, restaurants etc., and there are more cars than people on the streets. 
On the other side, there are many cities, especially in Europe (though not only), that don't necessarily have a great skyline consisting of many high towers, but that have a great, vibrant city life, with pedestrian zones in the central area, with vibrant districts with bars, shops, art galleries etc. and just generally a feeling of urbanity and city life around.
So IMO high buildings don't necessarily give a city a higher ranking regarding urbanity and city life, though i'd say that a big skyline makes a city more impressive when looking at it on pictures, and gives cities a feeling of modernity, and potentially a feel of economic power.


----------



## hoosier (Apr 11, 2007)

skyboi said:


> Look again at Paris and London ... there are skylines in those two Cities and they are going to build more soon , beside the present skylines there ,their street level are dynamic due to population and great number of visistors all year round there to see their magnificent historical buildings which Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta don't have , and what is wrong with Cities with skylines ? when the City grows people need more housing , offices , we are not going to live in huts and caves no more ...


There is nothing wrong with city skylines, just that they in and of themselves are not indicative of the quality/vibrancy/urbanity of a city.


----------



## NYCboy1212 (Jul 30, 2008)

what about walkability

http://walkscore.com/walkable-neighborhoods.shtml


----------



## tocoto (Jan 18, 2003)

I agree with the original premise of the thread. It might be worth noting that Boston and SF have around 20 buildings over 500 feet, more than many cities including Philly and Atlanta I believe. Both are building quite a few highrises now and both have 1000+footers in the planning process. They are also among the cities with the largest amount of office space, more than Philly, Houston Dallas, or Atlanta.


----------



## drunkenmunkey888 (Aug 13, 2005)

Yes, I completely agree that skylines are definitely no way to rate a city. Furthermore, you really don't need to look to hard to find perfect examples. European cities are lightyears ahead of Latin American or Asian cities (except in South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore obviously) but have very few cities that can compete in terms of skylines. 

Unfortunately thats how many cities seem to think though, that an impressive skyline would make a city impressive *cough Dubai cough* so we see lifeless supertalls spring up everywhere


----------



## sarflonlad (May 13, 2005)

Where American-Asian style skylines exist in Europe, they co-exist amongst some of the dullest ground level experiences you can find on the continent. Paris and London have put their boxy skylines outside the main 'downtown' districts - La Defense and Canary Wharf look nice from a distance or on a photo, but **** me, they're dull. No one visit these cities for the skyline. Skylines in Europe = dull.

New York is, in a big part, the skyline. It was the first to create such a sensational dense high rise triumph. Tourists wonder the streets with their eyes glazed in awe at the towers above them. Skylines in the USA are a symbol of the optimism and hope that Americans have in their hearts... the type of stuff Europeans cynically chuckle at. Whilst the Skyline in Asia is a symbol of success and 'mines bigger than yours' mentality. 

I wonder what African cities' skylines will stand for...


----------



## Kamyu02 (Mar 23, 2008)

Who can believe that a city is better or worst than another one JUST because the Skyline. Also more or biggest Skyscrapers doesn't mean a city is richer than other one, they're of Private Investors the Government only approves it's construction. 

In fact, there isn't a single or rational justification to build skyscrapers such as the Empire State or the Shanghai World Finance Center, they are pure EGO.


----------



## Ian (Nov 26, 2006)

drunkenmunkey888 said:


> Yes, I completely agree that skylines are definitely no way to rate a city. Furthermore, you really don't need to look to hard to find perfect examples. European cities are lightyears ahead of Latin American or Asian cities ...


Don't you think that the 'perfect example' for _lightyears ahead_ would be comparing an european city with a north american one...  I mean, stereotypically speaking latinamerican and asian cities are far better known for their density rather than their skylines, specially latinamerican ones... And in the other hand, US cities are the perfect example of lifeless cities with the 'nice and tidy' skyline view...



. Remember just stereotypically speaking m))


----------



## jcarloschile (Jul 12, 2008)

drunkenmunkey888 said:


> Yes, I completely agree that skylines are definitely no way to rate a city. Furthermore, you really don't need to look to hard to find perfect examples. European cities are lightyears ahead of Latin American or Asian cities (except in South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore obviously) but have very few cities that can compete in terms of skylines.
> 
> Unfortunately thats how many cities seem to think though, that an impressive skyline would make a city impressive *cough Dubai cough* so we see lifeless supertalls spring up everywhere


European cities are also lightyears ahead of North American cities.


----------



## august88 (Dec 2, 2007)

ya know, im glad someone came up with this thread. that "rate the skyline" thread got me some defensive comments cuz i rated a skyline a 3. of course i would never rate a whole city based on its downtown but apparently, that's the mentality that some people have.

it also makes me wonder how practical skylines are for a city, at least here in california. most of california's major cities are located right under the san andreas fault n we've been expecting an earthquake that's gonna repeat what happened to san francisco 100 years ago. one can only imagine how that'll look like seeing how close those buildings are.:runaway:


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

Skyline means nothing. Especially in Europe.

Even the richest and most prosperous cities have no skyline at all. Best example is Munich, which is germanys richest and fastest growing citiy. Yet, it got no skyline while some rundown Ruhr cities such as Essen have one.


----------



## yooik4890 (Jul 30, 2008)

jcarloschile said:


> European cities are also lightyears ahead of North American cities.


No way.


----------



## drunkenmunkey888 (Aug 13, 2005)

Ian said:


> Don't you think that the 'perfect example' for _lightyears ahead_ would be comparing an european city with a north american one...  I mean, stereotypically speaking latinamerican and asian cities are far better known for their density rather than their skylines, specially latinamerican ones... And in the other hand, US cities are the perfect example of lifeless cities with the 'nice and tidy' skyline view...
> 
> 
> 
> . Remember just stereotypically speaking m))


Well what I meant by Latin American and Asian cities was to prove my example. For instance, Sao Paulo has arguably the biggest skyline in the world, yet has a much smaller GDP than Paris, which apart from a few scattered offices, apartments, and La Defense, has no skyline whatsoever. Dhaka, Mumbai, every other mainland Chinese city [except Shanghai and Beijing] have very impressive skylines but are nowhere near Madrid or Copenhagen in quality of life and architectural sophistication. The reason why I didn't include North American [Australia and New Zealand as well] cities is because economically speaking, they are pretty well off and quality of life is still very high. 

Using skylines to rate cities is just retarded. IMO Architectural sophistication would be a much better way to rate a city because it doesn't discriminate against sleek skyscrapers or elegant baroque structures. Hong Kong has a ton of skyscrapers, yet I think its office buildings look very sophisticated. On the other hand, Madrid has very few skyscrapers but has some of the most beautifully designed buildings in the world


----------



## espada89 (Jul 26, 2008)

ofcrs.who the hell rates whole thing about the city by just looking at skyline?
even many cities hev a strict regulation about height of building.also depends on the enviroment,situation etc..
i probably think everybody understands that.
but then this is skyscraper city forum anyway.


----------

