# Good Skyline=Bad city planning



## ERGO PROXY (Jul 21, 2007)

I have noticed that one of the best planed cities in the world do not have very impressive skylines. For example Washington D.C. was build on the perfect grid. It has an excellent city planning and a superb public transit system; however, Washington’s skyline is not so great. Huston and L.A. have one of the most impressive skylines in the world, but these cities are not very well planned. The same go to European cities vs. American cities. I just would like to know your opinion on it. Thank you.


----------



## Zaki (Apr 16, 2005)

ERGO PROXY said:


> I have noticed that one of the best planed cities in the world do not have very impressive skylines. For example Washington D.C. was build on the perfect grid. It has an excellent city planning and a superb public transit system; however, Washington’s skyline is not so great. Huston and L.A. have one of the most impressive skylines in the world, but these cities are not very well planned. The same go to European cities vs. American cities. I just would like to know your opinion on it. Thank you.


How can you use just one example to judge the whole world. Your analysis is very flawed. Chicago has one of the best skylines in the world and also has a perfect grid system and is a well planned city. Same goes for Toronto. New Shaghai, etc. And then you have some asian cities for example Mumbai with no planning at all and they have shit skylines to go with it.


----------



## EricIsHim (Jun 16, 2003)

Manhattan has a perfect grid, it has a very awesome skyline.
Hong Kong and Singapore don't have a well defined grid street network; both have a beautiful skyline.

So, skyline doesn't necessarily related to the street network; and a grid street network doesn't mean it's a good city planning.


----------



## ERGO PROXY (Jul 21, 2007)

> Manhattan has a perfect grid, it has a very awesome skyline. Hong Kong and Singapore didn't have a well defined grid street network; both have a beautiful skyline.


Islands are exceptions. Any overpopulated city will look good from the ocean side.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

The _CBD_s of Houston and LA aren't poorly planned.

A city is comprised of much more than a CBD.


----------



## Zaki (Apr 16, 2005)

ERGO PROXY said:


> Islands are exceptions. Any overpopulated city will look good from the ocean side.


Chicago and Toronto are neither islands nor overpopulated and they both have some of the best skylines in the world.


----------



## Metropolitan (Sep 21, 2004)

Well, in federal countries, the rank of capital is often attributed to smaller cities, and sometimes even to cities built from scratch. As a result, they are indeed often planned, and the result is often disappointing, but is it really because they are planned, or isn't it more because they are artificial places peopled by more politicians and lobbyists than businessmen ?

Check out large planned cities: New York City, Paris, Barcelona... they all have a planned street patterns, and they don't look that bad in the end. Frankly, I don't see any correlation between good and bad skylines and the fact a city has been planned or not.


----------



## ERGO PROXY (Jul 21, 2007)

> The _CBD_s of Houston and LA aren't poorly planned.
> 
> A city is comprised of much more than a CBD.


Have been in Houston? This city has some very pretty buildings, but it also has a huge Goodyear factory almost in the middle of the downtown. You can smell Houston from several miles away. Do you call it a good city planning?


----------



## PedroGabriel (Feb 5, 2007)

Good skyline= bad city planning -> possibly yes.
grid organization = good planning -> not quite true.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

The two are unrelated.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

ERGO PROXY said:


> Have been in Houston? This city has some very pretty buildings, but it also has a huge Goodyear factory almost in the middle of the downtown. You can smell Houston from several miles away. Do you call it a good city planning?


Fair enough, but when I said CBD I was referring more to structures that contribute to a skyline than I was to sprawlling factories. My point being that when American cities are labelled as 'poorly planned' it's usually a result of uncontrolled suburban sprawl rather than something inheirent to an impressive skyline.


----------



## dogbo (Jul 30, 2005)

Washington DC's skyline is inhibited by height restrictions that apply to buildings built in the District so that is a bad example to use for poor skylines. The skyline is essentially as "planned" as to not block the view of the US Capital building.


----------



## SCL (May 19, 2005)

Vancouver, one of the most fantastically planned cities in North America, has one of the more impressive skylines. 

A skyline represents two things:

The city grew quickly in the 20th century.
There is valuable land, a sign of desirability and economic activity.


----------



## PD (Jun 11, 2007)

ERGO PROXY said:


> Huston and L.A. have one of the most impressive skylines in the world,


Im not so sure you would find this statement universally accepted.

As for planned cities looking bad, Melbourne Australia is a fully planned city with an awesome skyline.


----------



## BoulderGrad (Jun 29, 2005)

I wouldn't say LA is poorly planned. It grew up around the automobile, so it was quite well planned that a lot of cars would need a lot of freeways. Its more that the growth of the city so far outpaced the cities ability to make new freeways that they're having to stop and change gears. Now the downtown has a skyline (a fairly recent development) They are greatly expanding public transit, and many areas are starting to densify. What makes you say the city is poorly planned?


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

Singapore is one of the best 'planned' cities in the world, and it's got a gorgeous skyline.


----------



## Veinticinco (Sep 13, 2005)

Grids are boring, European cities with seemingly random roads are better IMO. The skyline is not effected by the street plans..


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

What a strange thread... you can't make sweeping international conclusions on a couple of cities. 

I think an example of bad planning would be all the people who would like to control the design a skyline by its shape... plan it to look pretty, without giving consideration to the neighbourhoods that the structures are in. A skyline is an organic result of the development of a city... judging it on its symmetry, or shape seems a bit silly to me.


----------



## SCL (May 19, 2005)

twiz said:


> Grids are boring, European cities with seemingly random roads are better IMO. The skyline is not effected by the street plans..


Yea, I know. New York is just so incredibly dull. So are San Francisco, Chicago, Miami, Philly, etc....


----------



## SuburbanWalker (Jun 23, 2007)

ERGO PROXY said:


> I have noticed that one of the best planed cities in the world do not have very impressive skylines. For example Washington D.C. was build on the perfect grid. It has an excellent city planning and a superb public transit system; however, Washington’s skyline is not so great. Huston and L.A. have one of the most impressive skylines in the world, but these cities are not very well planned. The same go to European cities vs. American cities. I just would like to know your opinion on it. Thank you.


The reason DC doesn't have a notable skyline is because of legislated height limits. The city layout has nothing to do with at all.


----------

