Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

NcSc74

Skyline preference...core, clustered core or linear

19 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

356170116_5f001ef866.jpg

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.

neworleansskylinetp5.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.