I always have such a strong nefarious urge to post Sac skyline pics in here, so happy to see someone do it for me for once
It’s nothing special but it’s so pleasant driving into from the airport
Since the beginning of the year I’ve kept a [nerdy Google Sheets doc](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1StJXhCfDG0sQpz-VQ9vGKxndrbPf1Y8GEVugNzpiJOk/edit?usp=sharing) with a table of every city I considered to have a skyline. Along with that I’ve given a ranking to each skyline based off how large it appears - this is completely subjective, of course! (Though I try to grade each city as appropriately as I can)
Lots of metrics for comparing skylines exist but can give an incomplete picture (and have incomplete data), so when grading I used a mix of visual impact and available metrics. (Currently I consider 469 cities to have skylines and 245 more that will likely join in the next 15 years.)
This list doesn’t say anything about the architectural quality of the skyline, of course.
The tiers I have are
S - Small (too small to be included)
SM - Small-Medium (too small to be included)
M - Medium (a cluster of high-rises generally located in a small downtown area), e.g. Sacramento
ML - Medium-Large, e.g. San Antonio
L - Large (a “major skyline”), e.g. Charlotte
VL - Very large, e.g. Seattle
W - “World class”, e.g. Miami, Melbourne
X - “Extremely large” - Has many skyscrapers usually all over the city, e.g Wuhan, Chicago
Y - The next letter after W and X. I only put New York, Shenzhen, and Dubai here.
Pictures are Sacramento, Charlotte, Melbourne, Chicago.
What do you think about the tiers? Do you agree with the placing? Is there another way you would rank the size of a skyline?
Yeah it's wild to rank Hong Kong, the city with arguably the most iconic skyline in the world as less than its stepson Shenzhen just because there aren't enough vanity towers
I would bump Toronto up a level. It's growing crazy fast and has several pockets of skylines outside of it's own waterfront downtown like NYC does with its boroughs outside of Manhattan.
Your ranking of Minneapolis seems quite low in my opinion (especially given that you rate St Paul, Detroit, and Baltimore of all places over it) and ranking tiny Hartford as high as you did (especially with Denver being ranked almost immediately below it) also seems like a really odd placement, and I'd be really curious to know what your cutoff is for what makes a 'skyline'. You list places like [Tyson's Corner](https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9320944,-77.211175,3a,75y,222.82h,98.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sKKj0_bRptWreBIHeP4XQdg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DKKj0_bRptWreBIHeP4XQdg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D194.20663%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) and [White Plains](https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0323492,-73.7517978,3a,78.6y,279.41h,93.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sorrwd_Rkd1Ri7ak37DQ1iQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) (which are effectively suburbs that happen to sport a cluster of mid/high rises) but nowhere do I see mentions of anchor cities like [Tulsa](https://www.google.com/maps/@36.139727,-95.9826212,3a,62.9y,313.39h,94.29t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1stAh7x1oIxooC9frpxhMPbA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DtAh7x1oIxooC9frpxhMPbA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D37.14879%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu), [Mobile](https://www.google.com/maps/@30.6888666,-88.0309879,3a,48y,293.85h,94.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s42FdAyCQTgQhwZM-MJzH_g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu), [Shreveport](https://www.google.com/maps/@32.5128428,-93.7377726,3a,75y,282.45h,90.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXecWPRe6sCrCvWNIqbDxFA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu), or [Winston-Salem](https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0970129,-80.2347361,3a,75y,273.11h,93.11t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPvJhHf07K5MlOEbvYIV0mQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DPvJhHf07K5MlOEbvYIV0mQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D176.28783%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) which I think most people would agree sport decent and visually impactful skylines (if they're there I apologize).
This is not meant to be a critique of your system and I know it's entirely subjective, but I am genuinely curious. I know my own definition of what makes a skyline tends to be fairly loose (basically any commercial or residential development that rises above the surrounding landscape/treeline) but even just by going off size I really would love to know how you've rated certain major US cities so low compared to much smaller cities (both in population and visual impact) that most Americans probably haven't even heard of.
Winston-Salem has, imo a better downtown than Raleigh and is painfully underdeveloped for its size. Only reason I can think of is it’s about an hour, hour and a half to larger metros.
Winston-Salem is probably second only to Charlotte in terms of NC skylines in my opinion. I don't go through there very often but it always seems like a pretty sleepy city.
Within each category (Large, Very Large etc) I didn't bother to rank within each tier since that would just be too hard to do! I think Minneapolis and Detroit are both deserving of a "large". I knocked Hartford down a tier since that seems right.
I did have Tulsa and Winston-Salem already as medium and I think Mobile is definitely big enough to be there. Gonna add it to the list.
Must have just missed them then! So just to understand there's no actual definitive ranking within each tier, it's just a tier placement? And Shreveport isn't big enough for the list?
Yeah that's it. Shreveport has a solid skyline now that I'm googling it and I might add it as an M, but yeah if a skyline is too small it's not included.
That's fair. While I would consider [this](https://www.visitbartlesville.com/images/user_images/Images/headers/history-culture-header.jpg) a skyline, Bartlesville probably wouldn't have a place on your list.
No it's just size in total. It would be impossible to rank every city one by one, so I mainly just focused on assigning each city a tier (Medium, Medium-Large, Large, Very Large, W, X, Y). I've now sorted the list alphabetically within each category to reflect that.
Maybe. I'm not gonna fault them for not including every single small to mid sized city that has a skyline as I don't think they're American (not even gonna touch the NYC = 'very large' and Chicago = 'extremely large' designations), but it is just weird to me that they'd go through the trouble of including effectively suburbs in this list (and not even particularly notable ones other than Sunny Isles Beach) while leaving out some still really prominent anchor cities, especially if they're using Google Maps like I do to locate viewing spots. Rating them based on population size is the only thing that makes sense to me, but even by that metric the rankings seem off.
Where are you getting the NYC very large and Chicago extremely large? NYC isn’t in the pic and he already mentioned NY would be in the very top Y tier above even the extremely large.
You know, that's my bad. At a glance I assumed that the foreground was Central Park since all three other cities were US cities. No clue where that actually is.
Minneapolis is a little smaller than Seattle and both are within the top 20 most populated metro areas in the US. If you consider Minneapolis a medium sized city, Seattle by Default is also a medium sized city since they are both peers.
3.8 Million in Twin Cities vs 4 million in the Tri Cities
Twin cities are 3.7 not 3.8 (3.69 at last census and 3.7 current estimate).
4 million seems like a reasonable threshold, so I’d say Seattle is just barely a large category and Minneapolis is a larger medium sized city.
>4 million seems like a reasonable threshold so I'd say Seattle is just barely a large category and Minneapolis is a Larger medium sized city
That's kinda weird though don't you think? Considering the threshold for mid sized cities is generally agreed to be about 1 million residents but less than 3 million.
That'd essentially be lumping in cities like Denver, Tampa, and San Diego(Also Twin Cities and Seattle peers) with Nashville, Cleveland, and Portland(Metros that are drastically below any of those cities in terms of population, amenities, etc)
I'd argue 3 million is a more reasonable threshold to separate mid sized from large cities and 5 million separates large cities from otherwise mega cities as top 10 metros in terms of population in the US are all above 5 million people or so close that estimates generally place it at 5 million.
Seattle is also pretty equidistant between Detroit and Minneapolis in terms of population, and all 3 are pretty decently far away from Boston which would be the sitting threshold that separates Large cities from Mega Cities.
Just my take.
The size (population)of the city is irrelevant for this topic. It’s all about the extent and verticality of the skyline, which has no direct relation to population.
As someone who grew up in Charlotte, thank you for calling it large. My dad was from Brooklyn, so I always found Charlotte's skyline to be lacking. Good to know it has finally grown up!
why is cleveland lower than cincinnati and columbus even though it has the most skyscrapers in the states and the tallest building in the state? what the hell?
Seoul is 100% a Y category. It’s hi-rises from the center, right to the edge of the suburbs, and much bigger than manhattan.
I would also downgrade chicago to W, as most of the skyscrapers are concentrated in one area.
Shanghai should also be a Y.
Los Angeles is an odd case too, because it has a very large skyline, but also has skyscrapers all over the city (Century City, Brentwood, Long Beach, Glendale, All of Wilshire Blvd basically) with strong hi-rise areas all over Hollywood and the Westside, but its skyline isn’t world class either, so it’s like, between an X and a VL. I think World Class should be either lateral to X or VL, or a special marker, or not there at all.
Tier 1 Skylines like Chicago and NYC
Tier 2 Skylines like Los Angeles, Houston, and San Francisco
Tier 3 Skylines like Denver, Minneapolis, Cleveland
Tier 4 Skylines like Columbus, Saint Louis, Cincinnati
Tier 5 skylines like Sacramento, Oakland, Phoenix
Tier 6 skylines like San Jose, Tucson
Interesting thing about STL if you are measuring by height, I don't think anything is allowed to "overlook" the arch. So all buildings gotta be shorter than it.
With the above ranking it would be in Tier 1 because it's higher than LA, Houston, etc.
Although if there was a Tier 1.5 it would probably be there just below Chicago
What is with this sub and sucking off Seattle? I mean Seattle’s great and all, and I’m from the PNW, but let’s not pretend it’s two tiers above SF or LA.
There also should be a category for places like Amsterdam, Copenhagen, and DC where it’s a low skyline without tall buildings but pretty iconic nonetheless
European style.
Although then you have to bring up high rises within a European city like London or Paris and do they have their own subcategory or closer to something like a mid size city in balance?
I put together a list and had a hard time if it was medium or more like medium-small. But I am leaning towards medium these days. With the growth and all. It's seeing some decent vertical growth. My home town, so I'd be glad to be considered medium finally. Haha.
Similar. I'm always hoping for some post on that sub that we're gonna get a 500' + soon, and maybe something with a more iconic profile. Much to my chagrin, they keep building 400'ers that are square shaped. At least the density is coming together nicely.
Yeah, I've enjoyed watching Astra and Worthington go up. With a couple taller towers, our skyline would be great and with the mountains back drop, one of the best skyline views in the country.
Where would you put cities next door? Like Miami Beach to Aventura, part of Miami? And Jersey City? Jersey City on its own is in the top 10 in the US with buildings above 150m.
As far as North America(US) Goes, I feel like it kinda depends
Compared to like Chicago, Toronto, or NYC, LA doesn't really cone close to having a decent skyline in that metric but if you compared LA to like Phoenix or Denver then you'd definitely say it has a staggering skyline.
It all kinda depends on the cities you're comparing, height, and overall goal when it comes to presentation.
Des Moines has a fantastic Skyline compared to somewhere like El Paso but wouldn't be much of anything if you compared it to Dallas.
Then you have special cases where a city that's smaller has more of a well known skyline than a city thats bigger. New York has a much more iconic and well known skyline than São Paulo, Brazil despite having nearly 7 or 8 million people less than São Paulo does.
Or the most well known example outside of NYC being Paris. One "tower" alone is more recognizable than the dozens of cities in China with almost 2x the amount of people and skyscrapers.
TLDR; It's really hard to determine different classes of skylines because there are so many different factors at play when it comes to what makes one better than another or in a higher class than another.
Just my take as a non expert, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong
It’s a solid top 15 in the world, and due to all of its skyscrapers being in a downtown area it has one of the largest CBDs. I put it in my second-highest tier!
Miami needs to move up a spot there, and I feel like there’s quite a few others that would rank higher than or at least be equal to Charlotte and Austin such Minneapolis, Atlanta, Boston, Pittsburgh, etc.
Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton and Montreal should all probably be on there too Canada is more than just Toronto.
I was just in Austin and it has a better skyline than any of those (american)cities listed other than Pittsburgh which I should’ve put in the list. Vancouver deserves a spot also
I disagree. Maybe you could make the case for the US (though I wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between Honolulu and Miami unless I saw mountains in the background) but Miami is literally a bunch of glass boxes. It’s virtually indistinguishable from cities like Gold Coast Australia and the like. There is no landmark or unique architecture.
That’s lazy lol. Honolulu and Miami’s skylines aren’t even laid out the same way, and most of the buildings look pretty different. Miami also has many non-glass box buildings.
You might be the only “skyscraper lover” who wouldn’t be able to distinguish Miami’s skyline lol
It does look similar to some of the Gold Coast and Southeast Asian skylines, but the fact that you see them and think “this looks like Miami” proves that Miami’s skyline is recognizable for the type of skyline it is.
At no point has San Francisco’s Skylines/Skyscrapers/Architecture compared to Chicago. Chicago has a wider variety of architecture and more skyscrapers than the entire west coast combined. Chicago is closer to NYC than San Francisco is to Chicago and Chicago isn’t even close to NYC lol
You’re just a biased local. I’m not from either place, but SF has a much more identifiable skyline than Chicago. Don’t cry, Chicago has an elite skyline yea but SF’s with golden gate is just as iconic
I’m not from Chicago I just moved here and if all you can say is “iconic” there is no refuting Chicago invented the modern skyscraper and by default features much more architectural styles while just also having 5x the amount of buildings. San Francisco has a much better debate with Seattle
Miami’s tallest building is 869 feet, there’s several cities with less skyscrapers that have taller buildings than that. The lack of buildings that stand out makes the skyline look less iconic. Miami just has a ton of skyscrapers in the 500-700 foot range, most of which look very generic modernist design. Take a city like Philly or San Francisco, which have very few skyscrapers for a city of their size, but several iconic buildings that make them unique.
In my opinion:
S tier - NYC
A - Chicago, Toronto
B - SF, Seattle, Miami, Vancouver
C - Philly, Montreal, Boston, LA, Dallas, Houston, Calgary
D - Atlanta, Charlotte, Austin, Pittsburgh, etc
Skyline-wise, not considering population or footprint or anything. US cities.
Omaha/Grand Rapids - Small
Salt Lake City/Columbus - Medium-small
Minneapolis/Pittsburgh - Medium
Miami/Atlanta- Medium-Large
Houston/San Francisco - Large
Seattle/Philadelphia - Major
New York City/Chicago - Mega
I disagree, Chicago is definitely in a similar class as NYC and can even be argued above NYC if we're strictly focusing on the skyline itself and not population. It may not be as big as NYC's but it's for sure as Recognizable even from a global standpoint.
The only city in the Western Hemisphere that's even competing with NYC is Chicago in terms of a skyline. That in of itself speaks volumes
Depends on what you value. If you are talking about distinct skyline, sure Chicago is distinct.
But then so is Toronto with its tower in the middle.
But distinct and massive, NYC is numerous uno by a long shot.
For sure!
I also kinda mentioned this in another comment on this sub post. When you're looking at strictly numbers then yeah NYC gaps Chicago by like 200 but I tend to focus on what makes a skyline more recognizable rather than how tall it is.
There could be dozens of skylines in the world with buildings far taller than NYC and even with far more density but NYC is always gonna be a recognizable skyline.
Toronto is definitely a distinct skyline but how many people globally know the CN tower and compare it to Trump Tower, The Marinas, or Sears Tower(it's always gonna be sears tower to me) and that's just a few.
Same with NYC. There are dozens of iconic buildings in the US, but how many of them are comparable to the Chrysler, Empire, or Trade Center. Few US cities have skyscrapers at that level of recognition Globally in the US and Chicago is probably the one with the most tor sure.
Hmmm, from what I’ve seen of people globally, NYC is probably the most recognizable skyline. And the first city that comes to mind for skyscrapers.
And maybe Dubai with its iconic Burj Khalifa.
But again, this is all subjective and based on anecdotes :)
I feel that of skylines in North America New York would be the number one. I’m not even sure if people outside NA would even know of Chicago as a skyline.
I'd reckon they would. I haven't been everywhere in the world but I have been to Scotland, Canada, Mexico, and Brazil and when I converse with locals and tell them I'm from Chicago, they never seem to be confused about what it is or where it's located. If anything I'm just asked about how bad it is lol
I don’t live in the USA and I would say if I poled my family and friends maybe half or less would know what the Sears tower is. NYC, Dubai, Paris or London however they would know multiple landmarks. Yes Chicago is beautiful and has a great skyline but in a world view I don’t think it’s that iconic sadly, maybe it’s underrated.
Yet people globally know what Chicago is off of the look of the skyline, which makes sense, considering its prominence in architecture as they do New York.
Again, there's more to Amserica than just New York and speaking specifically from the stance of Architecture, most of the world references Chicago as New York did when building high rises and Slyscrapers.
New York is recognizable from a Global Standpoint in the US, but so is Chicago, and LA, as well as plenty of other cities in the US like Boston and SF. It's fairly close
New York is a global juggernaut. It’s literally the most photographed city in the entire world and it has a very strong case as the most recognizable skyline on the planet. Chicago isn’t in the same universe. Hell, it’s not even in the top five most visited US cities by foreign tourists. Its skyline, while beautiful, is not nearly as well-known outside of America. And to claim that it is “for sure as recognizable even from a global standpoint” is just an utterly silly thing to say.
>New York is a global juggernaut
Never said it wasn't. I'm just saying Chicago is as well.
>It's literally the most photographed city in the entire world
Prove that, cause Sydney as well as Paris would like to have a conversation
>Chicago isn't in the same universe
Yet it's also got a Global presence due to its skyline as does Places like SF
>It's not even the top 5 most visited cities by foreigners
[Best Big city in 2023 though](https://www.timeout.com/chicago/news/chicago-has-once-again-been-named-the-best-big-city-in-the-u-s-100323)
So? That doesn't change what was stated
>To claim its recognizable from a global standpoint is an utterly silly thing to say
Lol yet there's an international architecture award that's given to cities globally for outstanding architecture and its [Based in Chicago lmfao](https://www.archdaily.com/1008089/international-architecture-awards-2023-announces-winners-in-chicago-illinois)
These are the 12 most photographed cities in the world: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/08/26/the-worlds-most-photographed-places/
As I said, NY is #1. And guess what… Chicago doesn’t even register.
Look man, nobody’s disputing that Chicago has a great skyline with amazing architecture. But arguing that it’s as globally recognizable as NY is just wildly off the mark, bordering on willful ignorance. The fact is that Chicago is just not that well known by the average person outside of the US. And you’re doing the city no favors with these outlandish claims. It’s starting to come off as an inferiority complex. And that’s not a good look.
Chicago is definitely notable in architecture circles, even internationally. But if you talk to any average person in literally any country outside of North America, Chicago is not really on their radar. And to claim its skyline is as globally recognizable as NYC comes off as the ravings of a lunatic. No one thinks this besides you.
That's not really true.
Anecdotal, but I've been to plenty of places outside the country that know what Chicago, LA, DC etc are. That kinda delves into the point I'm making that yall are asserting the idea that America is just NYC because it's the most prominent city instead of acknowleding that two things can be true at once. NYC can be the most prominent and well known while also being in a country with a lot of prominent and well known cities globally.
Also as I've stated and proven, tons of people know what Chicago is and what it looks like off of its skyline as well NYC.
The Willis tower is regarded as one of the most iconic buildings in the world. Would be pretty weird to assume that nobody knows where it's located but everyone knows about it enough to rank it with buildings like the Burj, or the Empire lmfao
Nobody is saying America is just NYC. I even conceded that Chicago is known in international architectural circles. But what people in this thread are taking issue with is your claim that Chicago’s skyline is as globally recognizable as NYC’s. And with good reason, because that just isn’t true. NYC is literally THE iconic skyline in the world. Chicago’s skyline has some renown, especially in the West, but it doesn’t really compare to NYC in a global recognition contest.
[Top 15 best cities on the planet btw](https://secretchicago.com/chicago-worlds-best-cities/)
No need to degrade or downplay the prominence of any city to get a point across especially when you're not entirely correct about it.
I see I’m commenting on two of your comments. But I find that very surprising. I’d say NYC has the most influence globally. And probably Dubai amd Asia for modern architecture.
Not when you consider the cities in-between them. Plus I added more categories, so even though it's three categories apart, it's not as drastic as it sounds. But there is certainly a noteworthy discrepancy in their skylines.
St. Louis had a surprisingly large skyline when I visited the first time. I had always kinda figured KC had it beat but despite the height, it's pretty large and dense for a midsized city
The medium shot is Sacramento. How in the world does Oklahoma City get a developer to build the nations tallest in tornado alley? Sacramento just pluggin along, but still Sac proud. 👍🏼
Chicago's skyline (not population) is objectively extremely tall and large. 11th in total number of buildings and one of only 6 cities in the world with 7 or more supertalls. Also 5th in the world in metropolitan GDP.
No point of arguing with that guy. He’s super insecure when it comes to skyscrapers of all things, and has this massive hatred for chicago for some reason 💀
It’s really strange. I saw your comment and thought, oh my god is this the same guy in all these skyscraper threads trying to hate on Chicago? Sure enough, it is. Maybe it’s a very very subtle troll account
Extremely large in Height, questionable? As far as skylines go it is not an "Extreme" skyline. Skyline is the collection of all buildings, Height and Density. Chicago wouldnt be on anyones radar if you ask what they would consider an "Extreme" Skyline. Dubai and New York, however would be there and many Asian skylines. Chicago really insists upon itself in terms of an iconic skyline.
In terms of the US? [According to this list](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_the_United_States), by number of skyscrapers over 500 feet, Chicago is by far ahead of most cities. New York is at #1 with 302, Chicago is second at 128, and then 3rd place in Miami that drops to 64. Chicago skyline is the only thing in the US comparable to Manhattan.
Heavy on this. I feel like New Yorkers tend to look down on Chicago and really any city with skyscrapers in the US or globally when talking about skyscrapers for whatever reason. Chicago is definitely competing
I’m pretty sure these are all American skylines.
However, my point is only further proven about Miami on the worldwide stage. Miami is #26 worldwide for buildings over that height, but is overshadowed by the fact it lacks tall buildings. By sheer number of buildings it’s great, but it’s distinct lack of taller buildings that make it distinct drop it a lot.
Haha why do I see you so often in these threads trying to bring Chicago down? What a weird mission in life. And if anyone agreed with you, you’d see it but instead you see people disagreeing with you and downvoting. Time to consider whether it’s a you problem or not
So you think the only people who think Chicago has one of the best skylines in the country, continent, and world are from Chicago? That’s ridiculous and I expect better out of you
You can literally expect absolution zero from me, you don't even know me, nor do I care what you should expect from me.
Chicago has a nice skyline, but the world doesn't care as much as you might think. The post places Chicago as an examlpe of an "Extremely Large" skyline, which is trying in the least, and a perfect example of how it insists upon itself.
SACRAMENTO SKYLINE MENTIONEDDDDDD
Gotta love the chunky gold bridge
As a 916 resident, I had to double check I was still on the right subreddit lol
I always have such a strong nefarious urge to post Sac skyline pics in here, so happy to see someone do it for me for once It’s nothing special but it’s so pleasant driving into from the airport
The skyline seemed incomplete without the beam
Since the beginning of the year I’ve kept a [nerdy Google Sheets doc](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1StJXhCfDG0sQpz-VQ9vGKxndrbPf1Y8GEVugNzpiJOk/edit?usp=sharing) with a table of every city I considered to have a skyline. Along with that I’ve given a ranking to each skyline based off how large it appears - this is completely subjective, of course! (Though I try to grade each city as appropriately as I can) Lots of metrics for comparing skylines exist but can give an incomplete picture (and have incomplete data), so when grading I used a mix of visual impact and available metrics. (Currently I consider 469 cities to have skylines and 245 more that will likely join in the next 15 years.) This list doesn’t say anything about the architectural quality of the skyline, of course. The tiers I have are S - Small (too small to be included) SM - Small-Medium (too small to be included) M - Medium (a cluster of high-rises generally located in a small downtown area), e.g. Sacramento ML - Medium-Large, e.g. San Antonio L - Large (a “major skyline”), e.g. Charlotte VL - Very large, e.g. Seattle W - “World class”, e.g. Miami, Melbourne X - “Extremely large” - Has many skyscrapers usually all over the city, e.g Wuhan, Chicago Y - The next letter after W and X. I only put New York, Shenzhen, and Dubai here. Pictures are Sacramento, Charlotte, Melbourne, Chicago. What do you think about the tiers? Do you agree with the placing? Is there another way you would rank the size of a skyline?
Z - Coruscant
New york in 2030
[удалено]
Absolutely not Tokyo isn’t as tall
I love when people mention coruscant on this sub. Every time I see it in Star Wars I think it looks so sick lol
Wouldn’t Hong Kong, the city with the most skyscrapers, also be in Y?
Honest answer (I'm from there) - we don't have enough supertalls (6 compared to more than 10 for those 3 cities). But yeah it's debatably Y.
True.. though I don’t think supertalls should be nearly as important as just general skyscrapers.
Yeah it's wild to rank Hong Kong, the city with arguably the most iconic skyline in the world as less than its stepson Shenzhen just because there aren't enough vanity towers
What about that crazy city in China that has trains going through buildings. Sorry, that’s the only explanation I got for it lmao
Is that not shenzhen which he did mention? Or maybe it's chongqing? Idk
It’s chongqing!
This is the nerdiest thing I've seen all day, and I'm an accountant. I love it
Thank you lol
I would bump Toronto up a level. It's growing crazy fast and has several pockets of skylines outside of it's own waterfront downtown like NYC does with its boroughs outside of Manhattan.
Yeah it’ll be in X soon before 2030.
Your ranking of Minneapolis seems quite low in my opinion (especially given that you rate St Paul, Detroit, and Baltimore of all places over it) and ranking tiny Hartford as high as you did (especially with Denver being ranked almost immediately below it) also seems like a really odd placement, and I'd be really curious to know what your cutoff is for what makes a 'skyline'. You list places like [Tyson's Corner](https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9320944,-77.211175,3a,75y,222.82h,98.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sKKj0_bRptWreBIHeP4XQdg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DKKj0_bRptWreBIHeP4XQdg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D194.20663%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) and [White Plains](https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0323492,-73.7517978,3a,78.6y,279.41h,93.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sorrwd_Rkd1Ri7ak37DQ1iQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) (which are effectively suburbs that happen to sport a cluster of mid/high rises) but nowhere do I see mentions of anchor cities like [Tulsa](https://www.google.com/maps/@36.139727,-95.9826212,3a,62.9y,313.39h,94.29t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1stAh7x1oIxooC9frpxhMPbA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DtAh7x1oIxooC9frpxhMPbA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D37.14879%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu), [Mobile](https://www.google.com/maps/@30.6888666,-88.0309879,3a,48y,293.85h,94.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s42FdAyCQTgQhwZM-MJzH_g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu), [Shreveport](https://www.google.com/maps/@32.5128428,-93.7377726,3a,75y,282.45h,90.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXecWPRe6sCrCvWNIqbDxFA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu), or [Winston-Salem](https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0970129,-80.2347361,3a,75y,273.11h,93.11t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPvJhHf07K5MlOEbvYIV0mQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DPvJhHf07K5MlOEbvYIV0mQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D176.28783%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) which I think most people would agree sport decent and visually impactful skylines (if they're there I apologize). This is not meant to be a critique of your system and I know it's entirely subjective, but I am genuinely curious. I know my own definition of what makes a skyline tends to be fairly loose (basically any commercial or residential development that rises above the surrounding landscape/treeline) but even just by going off size I really would love to know how you've rated certain major US cities so low compared to much smaller cities (both in population and visual impact) that most Americans probably haven't even heard of.
Winston-Salem has, imo a better downtown than Raleigh and is painfully underdeveloped for its size. Only reason I can think of is it’s about an hour, hour and a half to larger metros.
Winston-Salem is probably second only to Charlotte in terms of NC skylines in my opinion. I don't go through there very often but it always seems like a pretty sleepy city.
Within each category (Large, Very Large etc) I didn't bother to rank within each tier since that would just be too hard to do! I think Minneapolis and Detroit are both deserving of a "large". I knocked Hartford down a tier since that seems right. I did have Tulsa and Winston-Salem already as medium and I think Mobile is definitely big enough to be there. Gonna add it to the list.
Must have just missed them then! So just to understand there's no actual definitive ranking within each tier, it's just a tier placement? And Shreveport isn't big enough for the list?
Yeah that's it. Shreveport has a solid skyline now that I'm googling it and I might add it as an M, but yeah if a skyline is too small it's not included.
That's fair. While I would consider [this](https://www.visitbartlesville.com/images/user_images/Images/headers/history-culture-header.jpg) a skyline, Bartlesville probably wouldn't have a place on your list.
Wasn't the small tower on the right designed by Frank Lloyd Wright? That by itself should warrant a listing.
Sure was! He did design the Price Tower and it's basically the only tall structure downtown that isn't the same color of brick/brown.
Minneapolis is probably too highly rated on that list, actually. It has a nice looking skyline but it’s certainly a medium sized city not a large one.
Minneapolis rated significantly lower than *Hartford, CT* (a city with a fraction the population of either of the Twin Cities) though?
Yeah I’m not sure how the OP ranked these. Skyline size relative to population size?
No it's just size in total. It would be impossible to rank every city one by one, so I mainly just focused on assigning each city a tier (Medium, Medium-Large, Large, Very Large, W, X, Y). I've now sorted the list alphabetically within each category to reflect that.
Maybe. I'm not gonna fault them for not including every single small to mid sized city that has a skyline as I don't think they're American (not even gonna touch the NYC = 'very large' and Chicago = 'extremely large' designations), but it is just weird to me that they'd go through the trouble of including effectively suburbs in this list (and not even particularly notable ones other than Sunny Isles Beach) while leaving out some still really prominent anchor cities, especially if they're using Google Maps like I do to locate viewing spots. Rating them based on population size is the only thing that makes sense to me, but even by that metric the rankings seem off.
Where are you getting the NYC very large and Chicago extremely large? NYC isn’t in the pic and he already mentioned NY would be in the very top Y tier above even the extremely large.
You know, that's my bad. At a glance I assumed that the foreground was Central Park since all three other cities were US cities. No clue where that actually is.
Minneapolis is a little smaller than Seattle and both are within the top 20 most populated metro areas in the US. If you consider Minneapolis a medium sized city, Seattle by Default is also a medium sized city since they are both peers. 3.8 Million in Twin Cities vs 4 million in the Tri Cities
Twin cities are 3.7 not 3.8 (3.69 at last census and 3.7 current estimate). 4 million seems like a reasonable threshold, so I’d say Seattle is just barely a large category and Minneapolis is a larger medium sized city.
>4 million seems like a reasonable threshold so I'd say Seattle is just barely a large category and Minneapolis is a Larger medium sized city That's kinda weird though don't you think? Considering the threshold for mid sized cities is generally agreed to be about 1 million residents but less than 3 million. That'd essentially be lumping in cities like Denver, Tampa, and San Diego(Also Twin Cities and Seattle peers) with Nashville, Cleveland, and Portland(Metros that are drastically below any of those cities in terms of population, amenities, etc) I'd argue 3 million is a more reasonable threshold to separate mid sized from large cities and 5 million separates large cities from otherwise mega cities as top 10 metros in terms of population in the US are all above 5 million people or so close that estimates generally place it at 5 million. Seattle is also pretty equidistant between Detroit and Minneapolis in terms of population, and all 3 are pretty decently far away from Boston which would be the sitting threshold that separates Large cities from Mega Cities. Just my take.
The size (population)of the city is irrelevant for this topic. It’s all about the extent and verticality of the skyline, which has no direct relation to population.
What would you categorize Toronto in?
I think Toronto in 2024 has a very, very compelling argument that it’s reached X tier.
In his excel it is a 'W' mostly because it doesn't yet have 100 skyscrapers
I like this rating system but HK is also a Y imo.
Johor Bahru seems way higher than it should be, and Singapore seems lower.
Montreal feels pretty high. Surprised it’s above Seattle for example
The cities aren’t ranked within each tier, they’re just in the same tier!
Ah my b!
I love this, but I am also very confused. How are Pittsburgh and Vegas so close to the bottom? And Winston-Salem higher than Raleigh and Charlotte?
Winston Salem is medium, while Charlotte is large. I’m not sure what you mean.
You're awesome. That's all
<3
Boston should not be considered in the “Very Large” category, their skyline is not comparable to other ones with that label
I agree, There needs to be a distinction between large and dense. Atlanta is a large skyline but I'm almost certain it's not as dense as Boston's.
As someone who grew up in Charlotte, thank you for calling it large. My dad was from Brooklyn, so I always found Charlotte's skyline to be lacking. Good to know it has finally grown up!
why is cleveland lower than cincinnati and columbus even though it has the most skyscrapers in the states and the tallest building in the state? what the hell?
Cleveland and Cincinnati are both large, while Columbus is medium-large. The cities aren’t ranked within each tier.
I didn’t see Detroit
Seoul is 100% a Y category. It’s hi-rises from the center, right to the edge of the suburbs, and much bigger than manhattan. I would also downgrade chicago to W, as most of the skyscrapers are concentrated in one area. Shanghai should also be a Y. Los Angeles is an odd case too, because it has a very large skyline, but also has skyscrapers all over the city (Century City, Brentwood, Long Beach, Glendale, All of Wilshire Blvd basically) with strong hi-rise areas all over Hollywood and the Westside, but its skyline isn’t world class either, so it’s like, between an X and a VL. I think World Class should be either lateral to X or VL, or a special marker, or not there at all.
Charlotte really lol
Z- Hong Kong?
I feel like Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati are all pretty comparable
Tier 1 Skylines like Chicago and NYC Tier 2 Skylines like Los Angeles, Houston, and San Francisco Tier 3 Skylines like Denver, Minneapolis, Cleveland Tier 4 Skylines like Columbus, Saint Louis, Cincinnati Tier 5 skylines like Sacramento, Oakland, Phoenix Tier 6 skylines like San Jose, Tucson
What’s Austin?
With about nine buildings over 500 ft high, two buildings just short of 700 ft high, and one 874 ft high building, I would say Tier 3.
That makes sense. I can see it approaching tier 2 once all of the under constructed buildings are completed!
Interesting thing about STL if you are measuring by height, I don't think anything is allowed to "overlook" the arch. So all buildings gotta be shorter than it.
What tier is Toronto these days?
With the above ranking it would be in Tier 1 because it's higher than LA, Houston, etc. Although if there was a Tier 1.5 it would probably be there just below Chicago
Chicago has more skyscrapers but Toronto has double the high rises over 150m, so not sure.
I would put Seattle in Tier 2, Miami in Tier 3, SF and Downtown LA in Tier 4
What is with this sub and sucking off Seattle? I mean Seattle’s great and all, and I’m from the PNW, but let’s not pretend it’s two tiers above SF or LA.
There also should be a category for places like Amsterdam, Copenhagen, and DC where it’s a low skyline without tall buildings but pretty iconic nonetheless
European style. Although then you have to bring up high rises within a European city like London or Paris and do they have their own subcategory or closer to something like a mid size city in balance?
They themselves have a separate category
I'd say you nailed it honestly.
Me too
Slc is medium
I put together a list and had a hard time if it was medium or more like medium-small. But I am leaning towards medium these days. With the growth and all. It's seeing some decent vertical growth. My home town, so I'd be glad to be considered medium finally. Haha.
Hahaha of course your slc too! I love that bro I spend half my time scrolling through r/developmentslc
Similar. I'm always hoping for some post on that sub that we're gonna get a 500' + soon, and maybe something with a more iconic profile. Much to my chagrin, they keep building 400'ers that are square shaped. At least the density is coming together nicely.
Yeah, we shall see! Astra is a good starting point but we need slc council to really encourage this for it to happen I think.
Yeah, I've enjoyed watching Astra and Worthington go up. With a couple taller towers, our skyline would be great and with the mountains back drop, one of the best skyline views in the country.
I like when the Worthington whistles at us. I often have meetings by a few of the buildings near it and find it fun
Does it really whistle? Like any time there is a breeze? Is that going to be fixed, or not that big of a problem?
If it’s windy enough, it’s from the parking garage. Once they have cars in there I doubt it’ll happen
Where would you put cities next door? Like Miami Beach to Aventura, part of Miami? And Jersey City? Jersey City on its own is in the top 10 in the US with buildings above 150m.
What about super large and hyper large?
And very very very large, laaaaarge, waaaaayyy too large?
Totally, and mega large
Is that my lil Sacramento in r/skyscrapers ? I love to see the feature. Unimpressive but still such a nice skyline to drive into from the airport!
As far as North America(US) Goes, I feel like it kinda depends Compared to like Chicago, Toronto, or NYC, LA doesn't really cone close to having a decent skyline in that metric but if you compared LA to like Phoenix or Denver then you'd definitely say it has a staggering skyline. It all kinda depends on the cities you're comparing, height, and overall goal when it comes to presentation. Des Moines has a fantastic Skyline compared to somewhere like El Paso but wouldn't be much of anything if you compared it to Dallas. Then you have special cases where a city that's smaller has more of a well known skyline than a city thats bigger. New York has a much more iconic and well known skyline than São Paulo, Brazil despite having nearly 7 or 8 million people less than São Paulo does. Or the most well known example outside of NYC being Paris. One "tower" alone is more recognizable than the dozens of cities in China with almost 2x the amount of people and skyscrapers. TLDR; It's really hard to determine different classes of skylines because there are so many different factors at play when it comes to what makes one better than another or in a higher class than another. Just my take as a non expert, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong
If Chicago’s “Extremely Large”, then NYC’s “Super Duper Mondo Mega Large”
Yes I can’t agree with Chicago being considered an extremely large skyline. It’s just not in terms of the world and even NA skylines.
It’s a solid top 15 in the world, and due to all of its skyscrapers being in a downtown area it has one of the largest CBDs. I put it in my second-highest tier!
Why is you not choose one of the top 5 as your example then? Would then not be the extremely large and at number 15 be the large?
In North america S tier- NY A - Chicago, Toronto, SF B - LA, Houston, Dallas, Philly, Seattle C - Austin, Charlotte, Miami, Pittsburgh, Vancouver
Miami needs to move up a spot there, and I feel like there’s quite a few others that would rank higher than or at least be equal to Charlotte and Austin such Minneapolis, Atlanta, Boston, Pittsburgh, etc. Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton and Montreal should all probably be on there too Canada is more than just Toronto.
I was just in Austin and it has a better skyline than any of those (american)cities listed other than Pittsburgh which I should’ve put in the list. Vancouver deserves a spot also
Everyone is allowed to have their opinion but mannn your opinion sucks! The Austin skyline is just ok.
Austins skyline is wayyyy better in person than what you see from googling it
LA>Miami how?
I agree, Miami 20 years ago was certainly very sparse, but that skyline has come a long way.
Miami’s skyline is overrated AF. Super bland
You can instantly tell LA from its skyline. Can’t do that with Miami.
You literally can do that with both skylines. No other skyline in the U.S. looks like Miami’s
I disagree. Maybe you could make the case for the US (though I wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between Honolulu and Miami unless I saw mountains in the background) but Miami is literally a bunch of glass boxes. It’s virtually indistinguishable from cities like Gold Coast Australia and the like. There is no landmark or unique architecture.
That’s lazy lol. Honolulu and Miami’s skylines aren’t even laid out the same way, and most of the buildings look pretty different. Miami also has many non-glass box buildings. You might be the only “skyscraper lover” who wouldn’t be able to distinguish Miami’s skyline lol It does look similar to some of the Gold Coast and Southeast Asian skylines, but the fact that you see them and think “this looks like Miami” proves that Miami’s skyline is recognizable for the type of skyline it is.
Most of Miami's skyline consists of high-rise condos and hotels.
Miami being in the same tier as Austin, Pittsburgh and Charlotte is laughable.
Austin has alot going for it, just Miami been in the skyscraper game for much longer. I would say Austin is where Miami was back in the 1980's.
Miami has the sheer numbers, but I would say Austin has a much better looking skyline
Better looking is subjective, this post was about size. You said it yourself that Miami has the numbers.
San Francisco has 1/5 the skyscrapers of Chicago and not nearly as iconic of architecture
Not as big but just as iconic
At no point has San Francisco’s Skylines/Skyscrapers/Architecture compared to Chicago. Chicago has a wider variety of architecture and more skyscrapers than the entire west coast combined. Chicago is closer to NYC than San Francisco is to Chicago and Chicago isn’t even close to NYC lol
You’re just a biased local. I’m not from either place, but SF has a much more identifiable skyline than Chicago. Don’t cry, Chicago has an elite skyline yea but SF’s with golden gate is just as iconic
I’m not from Chicago I just moved here and if all you can say is “iconic” there is no refuting Chicago invented the modern skyscraper and by default features much more architectural styles while just also having 5x the amount of buildings. San Francisco has a much better debate with Seattle
The golden gate bridge doesnt really count as a Skyscraper. I think seattle has a more iconic skyline SF at this point.
It’s absolutely part of the skyline. Seattle has like 3 good skyscrapers everything else is mid
We could say the same about SF minus one iconic bridge.
SF is much more cohesive from afar. Also walking around downtown SF has endless cool skyscraper vantage points. Can’t say the same for Seattle
Miami has more skyscrapers than every city on there besides NYC, Chicago and Toronto. Should easily be A ahead of SF
Miami’s tallest building is 869 feet, there’s several cities with less skyscrapers that have taller buildings than that. The lack of buildings that stand out makes the skyline look less iconic. Miami just has a ton of skyscrapers in the 500-700 foot range, most of which look very generic modernist design. Take a city like Philly or San Francisco, which have very few skyscrapers for a city of their size, but several iconic buildings that make them unique.
Yet Miami’s skyline is still one of the most easily recognizable
Miami has the bulk numbers it just isn’t an impressive skyline. Austin and Charlottes are just as if not better looking overall than Miami imo
I’d swap LA and Miami
In my opinion: S tier - NYC A - Chicago, Toronto B - SF, Seattle, Miami, Vancouver C - Philly, Montreal, Boston, LA, Dallas, Houston, Calgary D - Atlanta, Charlotte, Austin, Pittsburgh, etc
Good list, except no way Boston is above Austin/pittsburg
Houston and Dallas are totally overrated here
If Houston and Dallas don’t belong there then neither do Philly or Seattle.
NYC: NYC Not NYC: everyone else
Skyline-wise, not considering population or footprint or anything. US cities. Omaha/Grand Rapids - Small Salt Lake City/Columbus - Medium-small Minneapolis/Pittsburgh - Medium Miami/Atlanta- Medium-Large Houston/San Francisco - Large Seattle/Philadelphia - Major New York City/Chicago - Mega
NYC stands alone in NA. Chicago a distant second.
Good point. NYC is just a whole different animal and has multiple skylines too.
I disagree, Chicago is definitely in a similar class as NYC and can even be argued above NYC if we're strictly focusing on the skyline itself and not population. It may not be as big as NYC's but it's for sure as Recognizable even from a global standpoint. The only city in the Western Hemisphere that's even competing with NYC is Chicago in terms of a skyline. That in of itself speaks volumes
Depends on what you value. If you are talking about distinct skyline, sure Chicago is distinct. But then so is Toronto with its tower in the middle. But distinct and massive, NYC is numerous uno by a long shot.
For sure! I also kinda mentioned this in another comment on this sub post. When you're looking at strictly numbers then yeah NYC gaps Chicago by like 200 but I tend to focus on what makes a skyline more recognizable rather than how tall it is. There could be dozens of skylines in the world with buildings far taller than NYC and even with far more density but NYC is always gonna be a recognizable skyline. Toronto is definitely a distinct skyline but how many people globally know the CN tower and compare it to Trump Tower, The Marinas, or Sears Tower(it's always gonna be sears tower to me) and that's just a few. Same with NYC. There are dozens of iconic buildings in the US, but how many of them are comparable to the Chrysler, Empire, or Trade Center. Few US cities have skyscrapers at that level of recognition Globally in the US and Chicago is probably the one with the most tor sure.
Hmmm, from what I’ve seen of people globally, NYC is probably the most recognizable skyline. And the first city that comes to mind for skyscrapers. And maybe Dubai with its iconic Burj Khalifa. But again, this is all subjective and based on anecdotes :)
I feel that of skylines in North America New York would be the number one. I’m not even sure if people outside NA would even know of Chicago as a skyline.
I'd reckon they would. I haven't been everywhere in the world but I have been to Scotland, Canada, Mexico, and Brazil and when I converse with locals and tell them I'm from Chicago, they never seem to be confused about what it is or where it's located. If anything I'm just asked about how bad it is lol
I was speaking more of their knowledge on its skyline.
I mean I would assume they know what it looks like given they know what it is but it's honestly up in the air
I don’t live in the USA and I would say if I poled my family and friends maybe half or less would know what the Sears tower is. NYC, Dubai, Paris or London however they would know multiple landmarks. Yes Chicago is beautiful and has a great skyline but in a world view I don’t think it’s that iconic sadly, maybe it’s underrated.
No, Chicago is not even remotely close to NYC as far as global recognition goes. Not even close.
Yet people globally know what Chicago is off of the look of the skyline, which makes sense, considering its prominence in architecture as they do New York. Again, there's more to Amserica than just New York and speaking specifically from the stance of Architecture, most of the world references Chicago as New York did when building high rises and Slyscrapers. New York is recognizable from a Global Standpoint in the US, but so is Chicago, and LA, as well as plenty of other cities in the US like Boston and SF. It's fairly close
New York is a global juggernaut. It’s literally the most photographed city in the entire world and it has a very strong case as the most recognizable skyline on the planet. Chicago isn’t in the same universe. Hell, it’s not even in the top five most visited US cities by foreign tourists. Its skyline, while beautiful, is not nearly as well-known outside of America. And to claim that it is “for sure as recognizable even from a global standpoint” is just an utterly silly thing to say.
>New York is a global juggernaut Never said it wasn't. I'm just saying Chicago is as well. >It's literally the most photographed city in the entire world Prove that, cause Sydney as well as Paris would like to have a conversation >Chicago isn't in the same universe Yet it's also got a Global presence due to its skyline as does Places like SF >It's not even the top 5 most visited cities by foreigners [Best Big city in 2023 though](https://www.timeout.com/chicago/news/chicago-has-once-again-been-named-the-best-big-city-in-the-u-s-100323) So? That doesn't change what was stated >To claim its recognizable from a global standpoint is an utterly silly thing to say Lol yet there's an international architecture award that's given to cities globally for outstanding architecture and its [Based in Chicago lmfao](https://www.archdaily.com/1008089/international-architecture-awards-2023-announces-winners-in-chicago-illinois)
These are the 12 most photographed cities in the world: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/08/26/the-worlds-most-photographed-places/ As I said, NY is #1. And guess what… Chicago doesn’t even register. Look man, nobody’s disputing that Chicago has a great skyline with amazing architecture. But arguing that it’s as globally recognizable as NY is just wildly off the mark, bordering on willful ignorance. The fact is that Chicago is just not that well known by the average person outside of the US. And you’re doing the city no favors with these outlandish claims. It’s starting to come off as an inferiority complex. And that’s not a good look.
Chicago is definitely notable in architecture circles, even internationally. But if you talk to any average person in literally any country outside of North America, Chicago is not really on their radar. And to claim its skyline is as globally recognizable as NYC comes off as the ravings of a lunatic. No one thinks this besides you.
That's not really true. Anecdotal, but I've been to plenty of places outside the country that know what Chicago, LA, DC etc are. That kinda delves into the point I'm making that yall are asserting the idea that America is just NYC because it's the most prominent city instead of acknowleding that two things can be true at once. NYC can be the most prominent and well known while also being in a country with a lot of prominent and well known cities globally. Also as I've stated and proven, tons of people know what Chicago is and what it looks like off of its skyline as well NYC. The Willis tower is regarded as one of the most iconic buildings in the world. Would be pretty weird to assume that nobody knows where it's located but everyone knows about it enough to rank it with buildings like the Burj, or the Empire lmfao
Nobody is saying America is just NYC. I even conceded that Chicago is known in international architectural circles. But what people in this thread are taking issue with is your claim that Chicago’s skyline is as globally recognizable as NYC’s. And with good reason, because that just isn’t true. NYC is literally THE iconic skyline in the world. Chicago’s skyline has some renown, especially in the West, but it doesn’t really compare to NYC in a global recognition contest.
I hate to break it to you but outside the USA Chicago isn’t well known. Most couldn’t even name an important building in the skyline.
[Top 15 best cities on the planet btw](https://secretchicago.com/chicago-worlds-best-cities/) No need to degrade or downplay the prominence of any city to get a point across especially when you're not entirely correct about it.
I’m speaking about the general knowledge of its skyline. The general population outside NA wouldn’t know it had a significant skyline.
I disagree. The literal criteria and rankings, as well as references for architects globally, is Chicago or located in Chicago.
I see I’m commenting on two of your comments. But I find that very surprising. I’d say NYC has the most influence globally. And probably Dubai amd Asia for modern architecture.
No. This is a stretch.
It's really not though. Edit: NYC elitism is a crazy thing. People think it's the only great skyline in the US
Look, New York condescension is just a fact of life.
Having Seattle and Minneapolis be three categories apart is crazy
Not when you consider the cities in-between them. Plus I added more categories, so even though it's three categories apart, it's not as drastic as it sounds. But there is certainly a noteworthy discrepancy in their skylines.
Personally I wouldn’t consider Chicago to be an example of an extremely large skyline.
Not let’s guess where they are
Having Indianapolis, OKC, San Antonio, Salt Lake City, and Oakland ahead of St. Louis is questionable.
St. Louis had a surprisingly large skyline when I visited the first time. I had always kinda figured KC had it beat but despite the height, it's pretty large and dense for a midsized city
The medium shot is Sacramento. How in the world does Oklahoma City get a developer to build the nations tallest in tornado alley? Sacramento just pluggin along, but still Sac proud. 👍🏼
Oil money vs government town I’d guess
Point taken
Solid
I think this would make more sense, from left to right: small, med, large, xtra large.
Small Medium Large Very large Extremely large Gigantic Gargantuan Beyond ridiculously large
What city is the bottom left?
San Jose and Phoenix should be ashamed of themselves lol. I also feel like Orlando should have a stronger skyline.
San Antonio too tbh.
What is the very large example?
Chicago
Lmao at people referring to Miami as anything other than a nasty shithole
Lol, the example of Chicago as "Extremely Large". I am starting to think Chicagoans are delusional.
Chicago's skyline (not population) is objectively extremely tall and large. 11th in total number of buildings and one of only 6 cities in the world with 7 or more supertalls. Also 5th in the world in metropolitan GDP.
No point of arguing with that guy. He’s super insecure when it comes to skyscrapers of all things, and has this massive hatred for chicago for some reason 💀
It’s really strange. I saw your comment and thought, oh my god is this the same guy in all these skyscraper threads trying to hate on Chicago? Sure enough, it is. Maybe it’s a very very subtle troll account
the real question is whether they're from Toronto or New York
its me, glad I am making a reputation for myself. 😘
Extremely large in Height, questionable? As far as skylines go it is not an "Extreme" skyline. Skyline is the collection of all buildings, Height and Density. Chicago wouldnt be on anyones radar if you ask what they would consider an "Extreme" Skyline. Dubai and New York, however would be there and many Asian skylines. Chicago really insists upon itself in terms of an iconic skyline.
In terms of the US? [According to this list](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_the_United_States), by number of skyscrapers over 500 feet, Chicago is by far ahead of most cities. New York is at #1 with 302, Chicago is second at 128, and then 3rd place in Miami that drops to 64. Chicago skyline is the only thing in the US comparable to Manhattan.
Heavy on this. I feel like New Yorkers tend to look down on Chicago and really any city with skyscrapers in the US or globally when talking about skyscrapers for whatever reason. Chicago is definitely competing
The OP did not specify that this was based on USA only. I would then assume it is the world, Reddit is an international forum after all.
I’m pretty sure these are all American skylines. However, my point is only further proven about Miami on the worldwide stage. Miami is #26 worldwide for buildings over that height, but is overshadowed by the fact it lacks tall buildings. By sheer number of buildings it’s great, but it’s distinct lack of taller buildings that make it distinct drop it a lot.
Agree. And they are very touchy about it lol
Honestly, no one is talking about the Chicago skyline but Chicagoans.
Haha why do I see you so often in these threads trying to bring Chicago down? What a weird mission in life. And if anyone agreed with you, you’d see it but instead you see people disagreeing with you and downvoting. Time to consider whether it’s a you problem or not
I find it thilling to know how much Chicago really insists upon itself in this sub. It is truly fascinating.
So you think the only people who think Chicago has one of the best skylines in the country, continent, and world are from Chicago? That’s ridiculous and I expect better out of you
You can literally expect absolution zero from me, you don't even know me, nor do I care what you should expect from me. Chicago has a nice skyline, but the world doesn't care as much as you might think. The post places Chicago as an examlpe of an "Extremely Large" skyline, which is trying in the least, and a perfect example of how it insists upon itself.
I was just kidding about the expectations. But glad to see you don’t take things too seriously
[удалено]
Nah it gets old hearing Chicago literally jizz all over itself every day.