# North America's largest cities and their skylines on Bing Maps



## dleung (Mar 5, 2008)

No more subjective photos and speculations on density. Now that Bing Maps can zoom out to cover an entire cbd (for North America so far), each city's skyline is in full view in 3D, without any distortion via perspective. It also shows the quality of the surrounding urbanism, and not just the skyline. All cities with 2 million + population are shown below at roughly the same scale. That's 31 American cities and 3 Canadian cities. Some skylines punch way above the city's population, others punch way below. List is ranked by the metropolitan population.

New York: 22.2 million









Los Angeles: 17.8 million









Chicago: 9.8 million









San Francisco: 7.6 million









Dallas: 6.8 million









Philadelphia: 6.5 million









Toronto (Canada): 6.5 million









Houston: 6.0 million









Atlanta: 5.8 million









Miami: 5.5 million









Washington: 5.5 million









Detroit: 5.3 million









Boston: 4.6 million









Phoenix: 4.4 million









Montreal (Canada): 3.6 million









Seattle: 3.4 million









Minneapolis: 3.3 million









San Diego: 3.1 million









Denver 3.1 million









St Louis: 2.9 million









Cleveland: 2.9 million









Tampa: 2.7 million









Baltimore: 2.7 million









Orlando: 2.7 million









Pittsburgh: 2.4 million









Charlotte: 2.4 million









Sacramento: 2.4 million









Portland: 2.2 million









Cincinnatti: 2.2 million









Vancouver (Canada): 2.1 million









San Antonio: 2.1 million









Kansas City: 2.1 million









Indianapolis: 2.1 million









Columbus: 2.0 million


----------



## ThatDarnSacramentan (Oct 26, 2008)

That's pretty interesting, I must say. However, it looks like some of these are fairly outdated. I can say for sure that Sacramento's map is definitely outdated, probably from 2006 or so. San Francisco's also looks a few years behind, but, for what it's worth, this looks like an interesting tool.


----------



## Bodalo (Jan 2, 2011)

I love New York and Los Angeles (L)


----------



## Spookvlieger (Jul 10, 2009)

I always fail to zoom out that much on bing maps? How do you do that?


----------



## b3ta (Feb 16, 2006)

Missing Mexico City, and the population figures seem off.

But good effort. I didn't know pittsburgh had such a cool skyline


----------



## Ashtonian (Nov 16, 2009)

It seems Vancouver is punching above it's own weight.


----------



## Clone (May 19, 2010)

American city's have the most beautiful skyline but are so ugly form the sky. All the same Grid plan with highway's who cut the city in to small blocks.


----------



## dave8721 (Aug 5, 2004)

Miami's is missing several 50 to 60 story buildings. Quite outdated. Plus Miami's skyline being linear doesn't fit into square boxes very well, it extends well to the north and a little to the south.


----------



## Epi (Jul 21, 2006)

I can count off the top of my head about 30 major buildings in downtown Toronto not represented there... those renderings are at best 2007. Good for places with very little development the last few years, especially because of the financial meltdown, but not good for Toronto.


----------



## hammersklavier (Jan 29, 2010)

Even places like Philadelphia, with relatively little skyline development even in the best of years. It's missing the city's current tallest building!


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

New York is mind boggling!!! Everything else seems minor in comparison....


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

this is a better angle for KC since it includes the crossroads/crown center side of downtown


----------



## koolio (Jan 5, 2008)

@Taller

Yep ... and the screen shot does not even encompass Lower Manhattan! Development in NYC can remain stagnant for at least half a century and I don't think any North American city will even come close to matching such density and height.


----------



## dleung (Mar 5, 2008)

As always, people complain about missing buildings, lol. Vancouver is missing it's 2 tallest buildings as well as dozens more... not that it makes a difference when downtown has 580 towers, hehe. People should take the opportunity instead to check out the subtle differences in the urban fabric of different cities within Canada/USA, or at least appreciate the fact this is the closest we're getting to an objective comparison. It answers the "5 best skylines in NA" thread relatively definitively IMO... won't say which cities, lol.



joshsam said:


> I always fail to zoom out that much on bing maps? How do you do that?


Try again. This feature is relatively new on bingmaps. So far I think it only works for some Canada and US cities.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

dleung said:


> As always, people complain about missing buildings, lol. Vancouver is missing it's 2 tallest buildings as well as dozens more... not that it makes a difference when downtown has 580 towers, hehe. People should take the opportunity instead to check out the subtle differences in the urban fabric of different cities within Canada/USA, or at least appreciate the fact this is the closest we're getting to an objective comparison. It answers the "5 best skylines in NA" thread relatively definitively IMO... won't say which cities, lol.


Well done for finding this, dleung! Makes us look at cities in a very different way! You are absolutely right; there are one or two skylines I was at times tempted to include in the top five, but these new perspectives really highlight a surprising lack of height variation in them.

I'm _quite_ impressed by the view of Minneapolis, and Pittsburg!

But, when it comes down to it, any judgement of the _beauty_ of a skyline has to take into account more than simple apparent density from an aerial view. That would be like choosing Miss Universe on who is the tubbiest and tips the scales highest! At the end of the day aesthetics play a greater rôle than some may realise! :yes:


----------



## *Jarrod (Mar 30, 2005)

Maps are probably outdated because they've probably been working on it for awhile. Maybe to release it all at the sametime. It takes time to do these things. Populations are a little off but meh. All those freeways look scary to me. Just driving on the Whitemud here in Edmonton puts me on nerves. It's a really cool idea and really cool to compare. 

It'd be neat to see places like Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg and Ottawa and some Mexican cities.


----------



## Nouvellecosse (Jun 4, 2005)

dleung said:


> As always, people complain about missing buildings, lol. Vancouver is missing it's 2 tallest buildings as well as dozens more... not that it makes a difference when downtown has 580 towers, hehe. People should take the opportunity instead to check out the subtle differences in the urban fabric of different cities within Canada/USA, *or at least appreciate the fact this is the closest we're getting to an objective comparison. It answers the "5 best skylines in NA" thread relatively definitively IMO*... won't say which cities, lol.


Umm, how do ya figure? Some of the densest cities that look the most impressive in aerials have layers of density that you can't even see from a skyline perspective because many buildings are hidden behind other buildings. 

The most impressive aerial does not make most impressive skyline (and vice versa).


----------



## Nouvellecosse (Jun 4, 2005)

koolio said:


> @Taller
> 
> Yep ... and the screen shot does not even encompass Lower Manhattan! Development in NYC can remain stagnant for at least half a century and I don't think any North American city will even come close to matching such density and height.


Isn't there already a NA city that matches its height?


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

Nouvellecosse said:


> Umm, how do ya figure? Some of the densest cities that look the most impressive in aerials have layers of density that you can't even see from a skyline perspective because many buildings are hidden behind other buildings.
> 
> The most impressive aerial does not make most impressive skyline (and vice versa).


+1
You can't judge a horse by looking down on it from on top of the barn! 

In the case of New York, I think it has the best aerial, and the best skyline both. Sometimes a dense aerial looks dull as a skyline.


----------



## Squiggles (Aug 21, 2007)

The look a lot like SimCity shots. Strange.


----------



## 863552 (Jan 27, 2010)

Those popullations are far too big.


----------



## Botswana (Aug 29, 2009)

^^ It does doesn't it? I was optimistic that this was a new Maxis game. :lol:


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

Solopop said:


> Those popullations are far too big.


They are Metropolitan area populations, not just city proper.


----------



## Flus (Jan 6, 2011)

and Las Vegas?


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Flus said:


> and Las Vegas?


Las Vegas should be around 1.9 million and below the cut off.


----------



## spotila (Oct 29, 2004)

agreed, lol @ the people complaining about missing buildings. Good work, really interesting stuff.


----------



## Carlota II (Oct 27, 2008)

North America????

And Mexico???????


----------



## ChitownCity (May 11, 2010)

I just pray that in my lifetime Chicago's river north will completely fill up....

Vancouver tipping the scale....


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

avimael39182 said:


> North America????
> 
> And Mexico???????


dleung, you need to add Mexico City, Guadalajara, Monterrey, and Puebla. :|


----------



## Vanman (May 19, 2004)

Very interesting comparison. Chicago and New York are the obvious knockouts, Minny and Pittsburg are surprisingly impressive, Atlanta and Pheonix are a mess, and LA looks pathetic considering its population. It would be cool to see other Canadian cities such as Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, Quebec.


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

Interesting. Though, is there a reason Chicago was shot with a directly E-W angle? It makes the skyline seem much less tall than it is...



> I just pray that in my lifetime Chicago's river north will completely fill up....


Those parking lots!!!! GAhhhhh


----------



## dleung (Mar 5, 2008)

Because Chicago's skyline runs north-south, so rotating the view captures more of it?

I couldn't include Mexican cities, because they aren't represented in 3D on Bing maps

Anyone else notice that Minneapolis, Indianapolis and Vancouver all have the exact same stadium? Though that's changing as we speak, with the construction of Vancouver's new half-billion-dollar retractable roof  Yes, after the Olympics :doh:


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

I'll miss the old _"Marshmallow-in-Bondage"_


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Northsider said:


> Interesting. Though, is there a reason Chicago was shot with a directly E-W angle? It makes the skyline seem much less tall than it is...


You mean how tall the individual buildings appear? That shouldn't make a difference.




dleung said:


> Anyone else notice that Minneapolis, Indianapolis and Vancouver all have the exact same stadium? Though that's changing as we speak, with the construction of Vancouver's new half-billion-dollar retractable roof  Yes, after the Olympics :doh:


And the one in Minneapolis had its roof collapse a few weeks ago.


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

dleung said:


> Because Chicago's skyline runs north-south, so rotating the view captures more of it?


That doesn't make much sense


isaidso said:


> You mean how tall the individual buildings appear? That shouldn't make a difference.


But it does... Look at NYC's angle or even Toronto's. Chicago's just looks like a blob of white


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

I see what you're saying. It would have been better taken from a 45 degree angle to the street grid.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

CTBUH, or the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat is a great resource. One can easily produce lists of buildings for a city based on criteria. I wanted to see how cities stacked up so looked at 150 m+ buildings that are completed, topped out, or under construction. 

The site mentions that data for buildings under 150 m may be incomplete, so used 150 m as a cut off. I've reproduced the data below:

Hong Kong: 274
New York: 230
Dubai: 142
Shanghai: 120 
Chicago: 111
Tokyo: 104
Shenzhen: 69
Singapore: 66
Guangzhou: 60
Chongqing: 59
Seoul: 59
Kuala Lumpur: 47
Bangkok: 45
Nanjing: 40
Panama City: 37
Abu Dhabi: 36
Tianjin: 36
Houston: 32
Toronto: 32
Mumbai: 31
Busan: 30
Miami: 30
Jakarta: 29
Moscow: 29
Sydney: 29
Makati: 27
Melbourne: 27
Osaka: 27
Los Angeles: 25
Wuhan: 25
Beijing: 23
Dalian: 23
San Francisco: 21
Doha: 20
Dallas: 19
Boston: 18
Chengdu: 18
Atlanta: 17
Hangzhou: 17
London: 17
Incheon: 16
Calgary: 15
Istanbul: 15
Kuwait City: 15
Las Vegas: 15
Macau: 15
Seattle: 15
Frankfurt: 14
Philadelphia: 14
Wuxi: 14
Brisbane: 13
Hefei: 11
Sao Paulo: 11
Suzhou: 11
Mexico City: 10
Minneapolis: 10
Rotterdam: 10
Xiamen: 10
Buenos Aires: 9
Manama: 9
Mandaluyong: 9
Pittsburgh: 9
Taichung: 9
Detroit: 8
Jinan: 8
Montreal: 8
Sharjah: 8
Changsha: 7
Denver: 7
Gold Coast: 7
Jersey City: 7
Riyadh: 7
Taipei: 7
Tel Aviv: 7
Changzhou: 6
Charlotte: 6
Dongguan: 6
Hanoi: 6
Nagoya: 6
Nanchang: 6
Xi'an: 6
Columbus: 5
Kaohsiung: 5
Kunming: 5
Nanning: 5
Madrid: 5
Ho Chi Minh City: 5
Yokohama: 5
Warsaw: 5
Amsterdam: 4
Astana: 4
Baltimore: 4
Bogota: 4
Caracas: 4
Cleveland: 4
Guiyang: 4
Johannesburg: 4
Hwaseong: 4
New Orleans: 4
Perth: 4
Santiago: 4
St. Louis: 4
Tampa: 4
Tulsa: 4
Vienna: 4
Auckland: 3
Austin: 3
Barcelona: 3
Benidorm: 3
Cincinnati: 3
Chiba: 3
Fort Worth: 3
Fuzhou: 3
Indianapolis: 3
Jeddah: 3
Huizhou: 3
Miami Beach: 3
Milan: 3
Oklahoma City: 3
Phnom Penh: 3
Portland: 3
San Diego: 3
Taguig City: 3
Vancouver: 3
Ulsan: 3
Almaty: 2
Cologne: 2
Anyang: 2
Jacksonville: 2
Kansas City: 2
Kawasaki: 2
Louisville: 2
Harbin: 2
Hiroshima: 2
Medellin: 2
Milwaukee: 2
Mississauga: 2
Monterrey: 2
Niagara Falls: 2
Paris: 2
Rio de Janeiro: 2
San Antonio: 2
Sandy Springs: 2
Stuttgart: 2
Taiyuan: 2
Tehran: 2
Addis Ababa: 1
Ankara: 1
Berlin: 1
Bonn: 1
Buffalo: 1
Cairo: 1
Cali: 1
Cartagena: 1
Curitiba: 1
Dortmund: 1
Durban: 1
Dusseldorf: 1
Gifu: 1
Hamburg: 1
Hanover: 1
Hanamatsu: 1
Ichikawa: 1
Inazawa: 1
Izumisano: 1
Jiangmen: 1
Lagos: 1
Lanzhou: 1
Malmo: 1
Manchester: 1
Manila: 1
Nashville: 1
Nuremburg: 1
Pyongyang: 1
Santo Domingo: 1
Sapporo: 1
Shekou: 1
Suwon: 1
Tashkent: 1
Takamatsu: 1
Urumqi: 1
Utrecht: 1
Weihai: 1
Zwolle: 1


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

*north American cities only*

01. New York: 230
02. Chicago: 111
03. Panama City: 37
04. Houston: 32
04. Toronto: 32

06. Miami: 30
07. Los Angeles: 25
08. San Francisco: 21
09. Dallas: 19
10. Boston: 18

11. Atlanta: 17
12. Calgary: 15
13. Las Vegas: 15
14. Seattle: 15
15. Philadelphia: 14

16. Mexico City: 10
17. Minneapolis: 10
18. Pittsburgh: 9
19. Detroit: 8
19. Montreal: 8

Denver: 7
Jersey City: 7
Charlotte: 6
Columbus: 5
Baltimore: 4
Cleveland: 4
New Orleans: 4
St. Louis: 4
Tampa: 4
Tulsa: 4
Austin: 3
Cincinnati: 3
Fort Worth: 3
Indianapolis: 3
Miami Beach: 3
Oklahoma City: 3
Portland: 3
San Diego: 3
Vancouver: 3
Jacksonville: 2
Kansas City: 2
Louisville: 2
Milwaukee: 2
Mississauga: 2
Monterrey: 2
Niagara Falls: 2
San Antonio: 2
Sandy Springs: 2
Buffalo: 1
Nashville: 1


----------



## Wunderknabe (Jun 29, 2010)

isaidso said:


> CTBUH, or the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat is a great resource. One can easily produce lists of buildings for a city based on criteria. I wanted to see how cities stacked up so looked at 150 m+ buildings that are completed, topped out, or under construction.
> 
> The site mentions that data for buildings under 150 m may be incomplete, so used 150 m as a cut off. I've reproduced the data below:
> 
> ...


That list is incomplete, it misses Frankfurt for example.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Thanks, I'll add it.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

lilweezychronic said:


> Your fact is incorrect. hno:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_London
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_the_world


someone didn’t check what that was a list of.
:|


----------



## DFDalton (Jul 16, 2009)

Northsider said:


> Interesting. Though, is there a reason Chicago was shot with a directly E-W angle? It makes the skyline seem much less tall than it is...
> 
> 
> Those parking lots!!!! GAhhhhh


With what parking costs in downtown Chicago, the last thing they need is fewer parking spaces. Though it would be nice if all those surface lots were replaced with tall buildings containing several floors of underground parking.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

What is slightly disturbing to me when I look through those maps is the complete lack of green-space and parkland in a number of cities. Many cities look as if they had never bothered to plan any parks in the history of the city, or perhaps developers just grabbed every bit of space which can lead to a pretty sterile existence.


----------



## Nouvellecosse (Jun 4, 2005)

DFDalton said:


> With what parking costs in downtown Chicago, the last thing they need is fewer parking spaces. Though it would be nice if all those surface lots were replaced with tall buildings containing several floors of underground parking.


_Or_ if the downtown office workers used the more than adequate L and Metra services?


----------



## DFDalton (Jul 16, 2009)

Nouvellecosse said:


> _Or_ if the downtown office workers used the more than adequate L and Metra services?


He said from Halifax to the suburban Chicagoan....


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

DFDalton said:


> With what parking costs in downtown Chicago, the last thing they need is fewer parking spaces. Though it would be nice if all those surface lots were replaced with tall buildings containing several floors of underground parking.


We have [arguably] the 2nd or 3rd best transit system in the country, completely focused on getting people downtown. We need _fewer_ parking spaces. I guess I'm all for underground parking, but sacrificing prime real estate for cars is the stupidest thing to ever happen to cities.

"If you plan cities for cars and traffic, *you get cars and traffic*. If you plan for people and places, you get people and places."


----------

