18 replies to this topic

[NcSc74]

This topic is inspired by the renderings of future Charlotte towers and I was thinking of different skyline types. Charlotte has a tight core and I wondered what if it were more linear would it look "bigger". I am a traditionalist and prefer a core with tall in the middle and then buildings that taper off on the edges.  As cites in the south begin to build for the sky what skyline silouete is your honest to goodness favorite.

[krazeeboi]

I prefer the Houston model of having a dense core of 'scrapers, but I don't like having the tallest in the middle and the rest tapering off in terms of height; that doesn't seem authentic to me.

[suburban george3]

I actually like them both, but if I had to choose it would be the tight dense clustered core like Charlotte's!  

[Skyliner]

I am a fan of the tightly compact (dense) skyline with "village-style" neighborhoods surrounding it.  Ideally, you can designate district(s) to support the supertall towers, avoiding the massive amount of unbalanced highrise sprawl found in many cities today, and hopefully preserving more land outside for parks and natural recreation.  Yes, it is merely a dream.  With that said, I actually enjoy looking at the sprawling skylines as well, but only when they have a continuous density.

[Spatula]

I've grown to like skylines that are sort of a loose association of moderately tall buildings with a few clusters of taller ones inside. It only works if the buildings are up to architectural standard though, since each building is visible from more angles.

[NcSc74]

Spatula, on Jun 29 2007, 07:27 PM, said:

I've grown to like skylines that are sort of a loose association of moderately tall buildings with a few clusters of taller ones inside. It only works if the buildings are up to architectural standard though, since each building is visible from more angles.

Any one in particular that fits your criteria.

[Spatula]

Winston Salem is a good example. The taller buildings aren't adjacent to each other, but spread out a bit. There isn't an abrupt 'skyline begins here' sort of cutoff, like Houston or Charlotte. The result is that it makes the skyline look larger than it is, and it amplifies the architectural significance of each building in it.

[ironchapman]

Generally speaking, I prefer a dense core, but I do like having some spread out over an area, just so long as they aren't seemingly randomly placed throughout the city.

Now, even though I prefer dense cores, I still think it is possible to have an attractive skyline without one (I think Atlanta is a good example of that).

[jervais]

I like a little of both...however a dense core is good if the core is large... For example a dense core with three tall buildings vs a dense core with 80 tall buildings... both put off very different images of a dense core.

[Spartan]

I generally prefer a cluster. Usually this will be associated with multiple districts and a more viable urban core. Skyscrapers are useless for the urban form if they don't have street-level retail too- and unfortunately too many of our Southern cities don't grasp that concept. I'd much rather see 50 ten storey buildings than 10 fifty storey buildings if it meant a quality urban fabric would be created.

[dxartist]

I generally like the cluster look.  There's something very classic looking about it, especially when you are seeing the skyline from a distance.  Although a linear look makes the skyline larger, when you get up close or are in the middle of it, it doesn't feel as urban.  Just my 2 cents.

[Alabadrock]

I like the clustered look.  But, also, I like them being in sor of a line.  Atlanta is a good example.  Their skyline is exactly all in one place.  The Bank of America Plaza is sort of over there saying, "Catch up!"  But, I like it like that, it give room for surprises and interesting structures.

[NCB]

The cluster look can be overall more impressive IMO, but I also like the linear look, as you can really get a view of all the buildings that make up a skyline. New Orleans has a linear skyline, as nearly all of the major high-rises are along, or very close to, Poydras Street or Canal Street, forming a line. However, New Orleans has a very dense urban core and the skyline has continuous density. If that is the case with a linear skyline, I would have it about even with a dense cluster. Though I prefer a dense cluster over a more spaced out linear skyline like you see in Atlanta.

[kayman]

Spartan, on Jul 4 2007, 10:08 PM, said:

I generally prefer a cluster. Usually this will be associated with multiple districts and a more viable urban core. Skyscrapers are useless for the urban form if they don't have street-level retail too- and unfortunately too many of our Southern cities don't grasp that concept. I'd much rather see 50 ten storey buildings than 10 fifty storey buildings if it meant a quality urban fabric would be created.

This is due to the "quantity over quality" and auto-oriented culture that seems to be prevalent through the majority of this region.  I take Atlanta for example, the developers went building-crazy in the 1980's and 1990's, but on a streetlevel during throughout that period Midtown and parts of Downtown Atlanta was basically empty on a street-level.  They just recently begun to bring things to the people-scale in the area with developments like Atlantic Station and the Midtown Mile.  

I much prefer a compact core with a somewhat linear pattern (but not a true linear) where all the building flow outward from the core.  This doesn't mean the tallest has to be in the center, but it should be somewhere within this core though.  The only cities I can think that have such patterns of development would be Memphis, New Orleans, and Birmingham to an extent.

[NCB]

The outward "flow" pattern in the New Orleans skyline is almost perfect, in that the two tallest skyscrapers are in the center, and nearly everything is a step down from there, going outward. I've always liked that, and can remember being a young kid thinking about how the skyline looked just like steps.



Of course it all depends on the angle, because if you only saw the skyline from that angle, you would probably think that the core was pretty expansive. However, if you see the skyline like this, it looks almost completely different.

[Alabadrock]

NCB, on Jul 7 2007, 03:28 PM, said:

The outward "flow" pattern in the New Orleans skyline is almost perfect, in that the two tallest skyscrapers are in the center, and nearly everything is a step down from there, going outward. I've always liked that, and can remember being a young kid thinking about how the skyline looked just like steps.

That's exactly how Birmingham's is.  It steps up and hits that main high point in the middle.  But, then you also have "The Heaviest Corner on Earth" which is sort of the midtown, and kinda jumbles up the steps, but, you get the idea I think.

[Spatula]

Other examples of the multi-clustered look I mentioned would be the European cities Rotterdam and Frankfurt. It gives them a lot more character than they would have if all the buildings were right next to each other in a little clump, but they aren't too far away either to look like separate skylines.

Asheville, in the southeast, is a small-scale example.

[CapeFearRiver10]

I prefer a skyline that looks linear from a larger body of water but has very dense aerial views like Chicago.

[A2]

ironchapman, on Jun 30 2007, 08:39 PM, said:

Generally speaking, I prefer a dense core, but I do like having some spread out over an area, just so long as they aren't seemingly randomly placed throughout the city.

Now, even though I prefer dense cores, I still think it is possible to have an attractive skyline without one (I think Atlanta is a good example of that).

^^^While not as dense as NYC, you have to admit that Atlanta has come a looooong way in densifying its Midtown and Downtown area. From Midtonwn over to Atlantic Station there is a race to densify the city even more with an additional 20 plus highrises u/c. Plus the "Midtown Mile" area will be laden with high end retail lining the canyons of skrapers lining Peachtree. Here is a great shot compliments of atlantatimemachine.com:
(just think of what this shot will look like in 5-10 years )



And here is two other shots of just downtown Atlanta. To me Downtown is definately NOT LINEAR. It is a cluster. Where Atlanta goes linear is in Midtown but that is fast changing as seen in the photo above.
(photos compliments of atlantatimemachine.com)





A2

Edited by A2, 28 July 2007 - 09:24 PM.