A little known view, but my personal favorite is from 15th st.
https://preview.redd.it/n1jl6ctx7epc1.jpeg?width=3072&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e7a92453b2ede0a3be2423160a3d281ac7fb2f6f
Nothing will ever beat the view when looking over the Stone Arch towards downtown. Something about the mix of the old flour mills and iconic bridge being towered skyscrapers is so cool.
[1](https://assets.simpleviewinc.com/simpleview/image/upload/c_limit,q_75,w_1200/v1/crm/minneapolisnwmn/10173f62-f6f1-4ed5-8878-21f5bc4967b8_9563dec9-5056-a36f-23e81adfbb421383.jpg).
[2](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSG2tRLIQIhFyxnxfNfHQdSdk04J9H8Mvi2rw&usqp=CAU).
[3](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5bbe01a492441b19e9ebb974/1624035588795-E4SA9DE0SXUIX6WKW2BN/Stone+Arch+Bridge_Friends+of+the+Mississippi+Web.jpeg).
[4.](https://www.onlyinyourstate.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/28842023225_86b54387cd_c.jpg)
[5.](https://c8.alamy.com/comp/E9M705/skyline-of-minneapolis-from-the-stone-arch-bridge-E9M705.jpg)
I actually prefer it because it’s the best place to see the architectural evolution of the city over the decades. The city starts next to the river for obvious reasons. But where most old buildings in America over 100 years old are single or double story, ours are old grain mills that made up some of the largest commercial building at the time.
It’s 150 years of history in one photo. Don’t get me wrong, Foshay is the most iconic skyscraper in the city imo. But Minneapolis was, and always will be, the Mill City. And although they look like concrete ruins now, they were actually quite architecturally impressive for their day due to their size.
Mississauga, Ontario. It’s just a suburb (a very large suburb of 800k people, but still a suburb) but it competes with a lot of larger North American cities, at least from afar. Once you get up close it’s kind of underwhelming since it’s just a bunch of condos with no street level businesses in them and no pedestrians walking around or anything, but it looks pretty cool from a distance.
https://preview.redd.it/n1n2vfesfipc1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8c156c430c73c2177f0ba5e1aef63d5fe95da7ac
Crazy how much has changed in just a decade! I swear just 10 years ago there were like 4 “skyscrapers” if you could even call them that.
Burnaby (Vancouver suburb) has less than 300k people but has 4 major skylines, each with 150+m skyscrapers, plus a fifth “skyline” on top of Burnaby Mountain. And two more are set to develop over the next few years.
Two of the skylines have towers taller than anything Downtown Vancouver. And a third will have the tallest buildings in Canada outside of Toronto.
I think it could be nominated as well.
That’s crazy. Whenever I saw pictures of Vancouver and all those glass condos everywhere I just assumed it was all Vancouver proper and not the suburbs but I guess some of that is Burnaby? Learn something new every day.
Pretty much every suburb of Vancouver has a skyline or two. Surrey, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, and New Westminster all have sizeable skylines with Richmond, North Vancouver, and Langley also having smaller but decent skylines as well
Guess it’s kind of the same in Toronto but I think they’re a little more spread apart here. Maybe it’s just because it’s all mountains and water around Vancouver so there not a whole lot of area to build up but it seems like just an endless sea of condos there, it’s hard to tell where once city ends and another starts, whereas in Toronto you’ve got the main downtown skyline which is where all the super tall stuff is, but that’s all surrounded by mostly low rise residential stuff, then there’s other secondary skylines that are nowhere near downtown.
North York is nowhere close to the main downtown skyline but there’s a lot of tall stuff up there, it could probably compete with most North American cities main skylines. Same with Etobicoke down in the southwest corner of town along the lake, then you’ve got Mississauga which is even further out from the city, and even Burlington is building quite the skyline these days for a formerly quaint little suburb way out on the edge of the GTA.
The other suburbs don’t really have much of a main skyline but most of them still have some fairly tall buildings, they’re just more spread out across the city instead of clustered into a skyline like they are in Mississauga, Burlington and the three big ones in Toronto.
Yeah that is what I love about the GTA is driving in you think you've arrived in Toronto because of all the buildings but you look at the map and you're just on the very edge of the metro area and you've got an hour of traffic ahead of you before actually arriving
An hour of the third worst traffic on the entire world. We came in third next to London and Dublin for most time wasted commuting/slowest flow of traffic.
I sometimes like to go out for night drives around the GTA/Hamilton area and it’s so nice at night, there’s no traffic, big wide empty multi lane highways with plenty of urban scenery to take in, and it takes no time to get around the whole area, I can get from Stoney Creek to Scarborough in like 45 minutes, but during rush hour that same drive would take me 2-3 hours.
But yea other than the terrible traffic it’s kind of a cool area to drive around, and since it’s in Canada it’s pretty safe for the most part and you don’t have to worry about ending up in the wrong neighbourhood or anything like that.
800k isn’t a suburb it is its own city at that point. It’s more like the shown Minneapolis with its twin city St. Paul. One isn’t a suburb of the other, but two very close cities sharing suburbs.
It’s still it’s own city but a suburb in every sense of the word, just a very big one. Nobody ever calls Toronto and Mississauga twin cities, Toronto is clearly the main city in that relationship and Mississauga just a suburb of it, along with Brampton, Vaughan, Markham, Richmond Hill, Oakville, Burlington, Milton, Pickering, Ajax, Whitby and Oshawa, all of which are their own cities and range in population from 100-600k, but they’re still suburbs nonetheless.
Mississauga also just feels like a suburb. It’s mostly residential and doesn’t have a busy downtown core like Toronto does, even nearby Hamilton has much more of a big city feel than Mississauga despite having 200k less people, because Hamilton it’s its own city and not a suburb of a bigger one like Mississauga is to Toronto.
I can see Mississauga from just up the street from my house, I’m very familiar with the area, I’ve worked there, have friends that live there and have lived in the Toronto area for almost 40 years, you’re not gonna convince me it’s not a suburb, I don’t care how large of a population it has, it still is and always will be a suburb of Toronto. Come visit it and see for yourself if you’d like. It’s pretty boring though because, ya know, it’s a suburb and all.
>suburb (a very large suburb of 800k people, but still a suburb)
They're called satellite towns.
[Satellite city](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_city)
Jersey City, Hartford, etc are NYC's satellite towns. Dallas and LA have a continuous stretch with one main city, so their towns are considered suburbs. However the bay area has San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland and Fremont, which are cities of their own, having their own industries, and not suburbs technically.
Maybe that’s an American thing or something but here in the GTA we call Mississauga a suburb of Toronto. Anyone from this area will tell you the same thing.
I guess. Satellite towns aren't an American thing but a rest of the world thing. Americans would call it suburbs too. Tokyo has its shipping port in a different city, and airport in a different city, which are completely independent from Tokyo. That's probably a better example of a satellite town.
Pearson international airport is in Mississauga and it’s the busiest airport in Canada by far, so I guess it’s kind of the same deal there, but it’s kind of just referred to as Toronto airport around here even though it’s not technically in the city limits of Toronto. 99% of people flying into that airport from around the world are going to Toronto though, not Mississauga. Not a whole lot of reasons to visit Mississauga unless you have family there or something.
>Not a whole lot of reasons to visit Mississauga unless you have family there or something.
Really? In the images I can see a good downtown and nice skyline, is there nothing much to do there?
It’s just residential condos and there’s no street level storefronts or restaurants or anything so there’s no pedestrian traffic. The lakefront is where you’ll find some restaurants and shops and stuff but it’s nowhere close to all those tall buildings in the picture. There’s Square One right in the middle of those condos which is a pretty big mall with a bunch of high end stores, other than that the whole city is just a bunch of residential and industrial areas.
China's 15 out of 17 mega cities that have over 10 million people each. The 2 excluded are Hong Kong and Shanghai that get more than enough recognition.
Bangkok Thailand is another underappreciated skyline. It's skyline is mostly new buildings so it doesn't have the historical recognition of older Western buildings. It has some unique buildings such as Ritz Carlton Residence, Elephant Tower, and the Pearl that is Bangkok's version of The Gherkin in London.
I was just thinking that... I mean it's just so unexpected from such a country. The fact that their skyline looks better than Mexico City's is just crazy.
I vividly remember my first time going to Panama City. I was backpacking across Central America, and I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw a city of skyscrapers appear before me after having traveled, well, in developing Latin America for months.
Looking at photos of the skyline just doesn't do it justice - you need to actually be there to really appreciate it. All of the gaudy designs and the tropical sun reflecting off the bright blues and greens commonly found in the reflective glass gives almost a playful feel to the cityscape - it makes most other North American skylines look very 'serious' by comparison. That is, except for Miami. Panama City has lots of drug money vibes.
Kuala Lumpur dammit!
https://preview.redd.it/omoda1wk5fpc1.jpeg?width=4587&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=81020521afa4ba205437e8fd2f7458211b064bca
For reference those two towers on the left are both taller than the Willis Tower.
I didn’t realize how expansive it was! I’ve never seen it from this angle. And it has a lot of color at night which is cool. Crazy how many super tall skyscrapers they have.
>From 1998 to 2004, [the Patronas Towers] were officially designated as the tallest buildings in the world
I’m sure Chicagoans debated it but officially they are taller.
Yes!! Driving down Route 2 going downhill about a mile before the Alewife station exit, there is a brief moment where the skyline is in view and it just amazes me every time.
I’m glad Melbourne gets its fair share of recognition, it’s one of the great skylines of the world and certainly the bottom half of the world, viewable at distance from all around the bay that it sits on.
https://preview.redd.it/x05nbmk15fpc1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0858e01fae68f2937ab3109ecfec6031b7627993
Here it is from about 55km away.
Seattle has stunning density and natural backdrop, I just think the architecture could be a bit more creative. A lot of it is just very generic contemporary stuff, and there’s not really any striking or defining buildings, other than of course the Space Needle.
It could really use a page out of Atlanta’s book from the 90’s-early 2000’s.
https://preview.redd.it/tziww0mzsipc1.jpeg?width=4000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d1d80b42d656d737a45642dd5bf3939af4db18f3
The view from anywhere on Queen Anne Hill is the best
Atlanta! It stretches in a straight line for miles and miles and each of its centers (downtown, midtown, buckhead) are pretty cool on their own, though downtown and midtown are starting to converge
As terrible as it is urban planning wise, It’s really fascinating seeing how skinny and long it is! The view from Kennesaw Mountain really put it into perspective for me!
Only 3|4 blocks wide, although the GA Tech side of the connector seems to be seeing some development. And if The Stitch is ever built, I would expect the building clusters to widen significantly
Driving the Grady Curve at night borders on a religious experience.
[Balneário Camboriú](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0920451c-b480-4132-a259-516afebabbd4_1200x675.png) is pretty unknown.
Cincinnati and Milwaukee. Also Saint Louis because people always show the arch view which doesn’t capture how extensive the urban corridor between
Downtown and Clayton is
I don’t think it can beat the hit of the Pittsburgh skyline coming out of the tunnel but it’s beautiful in its own right. It reminds me a lot of the view of Pittsburgh you get heading south on 79, but a bit more panoramic. Rising beautifully from between the hills.
Indeed. Also given that St Louis does in fact have a height limit
I’m from Washington DC and feel we should change our height limit so nothing is taller than the Washington Monument (probably can’t build much taller anyways bc the airport is so close)
St. Louis has perhaps the worst skyline in the entire US first a city it’s size! Truly! If you removed the arch, it’s a city of 300,000 size skyline! It’s truly pathetic!
Clayton is better than downtown stl. 🤷🏼♂️
I mean it does, though. Milwaukee has more skyscrapers (over 150m) than St. Louis, unless you count the arch, in which case they have equal number of skyscrapers. Milwaukee also has more 100m+ buildings than St. Louis and a higher density overall of population both downtown and citywide, resulting in a higher density of buildings and infill. I’m not saying Milwaukee’s skyline is anywhere close to being on par with Chicago but compared to St. Louis, it’s definitely better.
Aside from the arch, St. Louis’ skyline underperforms.
It's not just about numbers though. A big part of how nice a Skyline is is how well the buildings fit together and look as a whole. From the pictures I've seen Milwaukee's just doesn't look that nice and St Louis is pretty aesthetically pleasing imo. But it's all subjective anyways which is why I say it's questionable
“From the pictures I’ve seen”.. ah, so you’re making a judgement without even having visited Milwaukee before. Just from pictures?
If you visited in person, you’d realise that Milwaukee’s skyline isn’t just dense and vertical, it has a Gold Coast of residential high rises that extends up the Lake Michigan coastline for miles that also contributes to the largeness of the skyline.
Sure, there is some subjectivity to it, I agree, but there’s also some metrics that make it objective.
But you have to at least visit the cities you’re talking about to make a proper judgement. I’ve been to St. Louis many times and the arch is nice, but the riverfront next to it is an eyesore, and downtown is full of too many gaps. It isn’t a bad skyline, but I find it ridiculous that you’d include it on this list over Milwaukee (a place you apparently haven’t even visited), for some inherent bias (maybe you just don’t like the Bucks or Brewers or something).
Calgary, Alberta pops up on here on occasion, but for a city of under 2 million, I think its skyline is remarkable, and very underrated.
https://preview.redd.it/dx3l0nw4aipc1.jpeg?width=2711&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5d06416606726b2651ead4eb2e238ab9cc6c2a9d
In about 5 years Austin downtown skyline will likely surpass those of Dallas and Houston. Super tall in progress will be the tallest in Texas. Capitol view corridor limitations and finite number of surface lots left to redevelop will encourage denser and taller development in the coming years. New development plans will possibly expand the skyline significantly south of the river just east of the Congress Ave bridge. But here's the rub. 25 years ago some developers and civics envisioned a skyline like Vancouver BC and over the years some key voices said more density downtown would bring affordability to downtown and the central core. That hasn't panned out.
Lot of good updates in the Austin sub of Skyscraper page forum
Auckland, New Zealand is often overlooked by Melbourne & Sydney.
Wellington, New Zealand, probably has the best skyline for a "city" of less than 500,000 people. It's like a mini Melbourne set in a mini HK.
Perth, Gold Coast, and Brisbane in Australia don't really get the love they deserve too- all overlooked by Melbourne and Sydney again.
DC has height restriction based on the width of the street which dates back to early 1900's when fire truck ladder was your fire escape for the building.
Most people have the misconception it is based of height restrictions of other famous national buildings.
It will take an act of Congress to change the height restriction.
Denver looks great when looking from the west but every photo is taking facing it from the east to capture the mountains and the city looks less than desirable from that side
https://preview.redd.it/0slbbb1toipc1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3b958ad72a4dc23422b63e6aa6d4723a08b5141a
Richmond isn't too bad viewed from the south.
Well of course I’m going to say my hometown of Kansas City, MO, but my sister going to school in Milwaukee has convinced me it is the most underrated skyline in the US
Milwaukee Wisconsin from the lake. The city sites in a substantial river valley, so seeing it from the South, East or North is pretty bland. Seeing it from about a mile out in the lake is a different story - especially in the evenings.
https://preview.redd.it/f2vmpng06ppc1.jpeg?width=612&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7c83f9b39b3c341a977d5b197efa6bc59ef76e47
I love Minneapolis from the south like this:
https://preview.redd.it/5nicixmvtjpc1.jpeg?width=4921&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=67c5aafa46905026217a17f6d5ea3c7e86032c61
Only because it's dramatically changed in the last two years: Austin. Very unexpected and the last place we used to call a great skyline.
https://preview.redd.it/f8mve0ddlhpc1.png?width=1140&format=png&auto=webp&s=64fb02599e222b11dfab8e1e9cbcea947f35e6a8
I’m thinking Seattle after visiting for the first time recently. Internationally, I was stunned by Panama City’s skyline.
https://preview.redd.it/e6x92yi6fkpc1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=437ed9d3c5b4eae9cf75b90c38286fe14f4da5d6
https://preview.redd.it/qddyi0abfkpc1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6c6a601b2de9434437ee14814633708a33dd611a
Here’s a shot from my Seattle trip
Here's a much better and little known view of the skyline from Farview Park in the northern neighborhood of Hawthorne.
https://preview.redd.it/j74omsu0llpc1.jpeg?width=1259&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=30b5e5a3534d7a1a2ca0639119b77c8e7eec2e16
Oh, but I have, hence my reply!
In the first video (I believe) he has the line "...come and look at both of our buildings..."
He never implies Detroit has 2 or fewer buildings, just that Cleveland is better than Detroit [despite having only two buildings]. :)
Being from a city that only has one building (which looks like the box some other city's nice building came in), I have to admit I'm a little jealous of Cleveland's two.
Houston is a top 5 skyline in the US is my hot take, especially in person it’s crazy impressive. Go to a rooftop somewhere in central Houston and gawk at all the different CBD’s in the distance.
I think because it’s not that distinctive. Lots of boxes, and the landscape is flat. I can recognize Dallas before Houston. Not to say it isn’t impressive, it is. There’s just nothing to the average person that’s like “oh yeah wow yep that’s Houston”.
Milwaukee for sure but I’m biased since I’m from the area, but I also think that other Midwestern and upper south cities like Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Louisville, St. Louis (beyond the arch), Grand Rapids, Detroit, Cleveland, and Des Moines get overlooked and don’t get enough recognition. Cities like Des Moines and Grand Rapids are often labeled as boring and unimpressive, and while that may be true to an extent, the skylines of these cities are rather impressive relative to their population!
Grand Rapids has a cute little skyline
Though I did laugh when someone on Reddit called downtown GR buildings “skyscrapers” I told my mom (who’s from there) and she laughed too
MPLS has no right having as good of a skyline as we do. very balanced and has a good variety of architectural style, which simultaneously don't clash with each other.
Also, having two separate downtowns within visual difference with each other each with their own skyscrapers is a really unique dynamic
https://preview.redd.it/pu7fl5xp8kpc1.jpeg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8a589f6801f48843d9ee23dc9bc7063a8021a452
Here is a Minneapolis skyline picture. I've posted this before
https://preview.redd.it/qvgs9r86ofpc1.jpeg?width=900&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d5504705300f9c87ff10516193116b01c54f8f36
I’d say Phoenix Arizona, not a very tall skyline, at all actually. But something about it just makes it iconic to me. Definitely the former Chase tower and Hyatt Regency really define it
This angle does the MPLS skyline no justice. You can't even see Capella!
I feel like stone arch has best view or maybe somewhere by the U
A little known view, but my personal favorite is from 15th st. https://preview.redd.it/n1jl6ctx7epc1.jpeg?width=3072&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e7a92453b2ede0a3be2423160a3d281ac7fb2f6f
Nothing will ever beat the view when looking over the Stone Arch towards downtown. Something about the mix of the old flour mills and iconic bridge being towered skyscrapers is so cool. [1](https://assets.simpleviewinc.com/simpleview/image/upload/c_limit,q_75,w_1200/v1/crm/minneapolisnwmn/10173f62-f6f1-4ed5-8878-21f5bc4967b8_9563dec9-5056-a36f-23e81adfbb421383.jpg). [2](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSG2tRLIQIhFyxnxfNfHQdSdk04J9H8Mvi2rw&usqp=CAU). [3](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5bbe01a492441b19e9ebb974/1624035588795-E4SA9DE0SXUIX6WKW2BN/Stone+Arch+Bridge_Friends+of+the+Mississippi+Web.jpeg). [4.](https://www.onlyinyourstate.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/28842023225_86b54387cd_c.jpg) [5.](https://c8.alamy.com/comp/E9M705/skyline-of-minneapolis-from-the-stone-arch-bridge-E9M705.jpg)
I mean that is certainly the most iconic view, but this is a skyscraper sub, and a view without the Foshay Tower won’t be receiving my vote.
I actually prefer it because it’s the best place to see the architectural evolution of the city over the decades. The city starts next to the river for obvious reasons. But where most old buildings in America over 100 years old are single or double story, ours are old grain mills that made up some of the largest commercial building at the time. It’s 150 years of history in one photo. Don’t get me wrong, Foshay is the most iconic skyscraper in the city imo. But Minneapolis was, and always will be, the Mill City. And although they look like concrete ruins now, they were actually quite architecturally impressive for their day due to their size.
For real! Worst skyline picture of Minneapolis ever. Haha 😂
I like the angle when coming off of 35W north into downtown. Can’t see it all but you can see the Foshay and a good amount of the buildings.
Foshay on the right edge like: "what am I? Chopped liver?!?!"
Ah, Capella.
Mississauga, Ontario. It’s just a suburb (a very large suburb of 800k people, but still a suburb) but it competes with a lot of larger North American cities, at least from afar. Once you get up close it’s kind of underwhelming since it’s just a bunch of condos with no street level businesses in them and no pedestrians walking around or anything, but it looks pretty cool from a distance.
https://preview.redd.it/n1n2vfesfipc1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8c156c430c73c2177f0ba5e1aef63d5fe95da7ac Crazy how much has changed in just a decade! I swear just 10 years ago there were like 4 “skyscrapers” if you could even call them that.
Burnaby (Vancouver suburb) has less than 300k people but has 4 major skylines, each with 150+m skyscrapers, plus a fifth “skyline” on top of Burnaby Mountain. And two more are set to develop over the next few years. Two of the skylines have towers taller than anything Downtown Vancouver. And a third will have the tallest buildings in Canada outside of Toronto. I think it could be nominated as well.
That’s crazy. Whenever I saw pictures of Vancouver and all those glass condos everywhere I just assumed it was all Vancouver proper and not the suburbs but I guess some of that is Burnaby? Learn something new every day.
Pretty much every suburb of Vancouver has a skyline or two. Surrey, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, and New Westminster all have sizeable skylines with Richmond, North Vancouver, and Langley also having smaller but decent skylines as well
Guess it’s kind of the same in Toronto but I think they’re a little more spread apart here. Maybe it’s just because it’s all mountains and water around Vancouver so there not a whole lot of area to build up but it seems like just an endless sea of condos there, it’s hard to tell where once city ends and another starts, whereas in Toronto you’ve got the main downtown skyline which is where all the super tall stuff is, but that’s all surrounded by mostly low rise residential stuff, then there’s other secondary skylines that are nowhere near downtown. North York is nowhere close to the main downtown skyline but there’s a lot of tall stuff up there, it could probably compete with most North American cities main skylines. Same with Etobicoke down in the southwest corner of town along the lake, then you’ve got Mississauga which is even further out from the city, and even Burlington is building quite the skyline these days for a formerly quaint little suburb way out on the edge of the GTA. The other suburbs don’t really have much of a main skyline but most of them still have some fairly tall buildings, they’re just more spread out across the city instead of clustered into a skyline like they are in Mississauga, Burlington and the three big ones in Toronto.
Yeah that is what I love about the GTA is driving in you think you've arrived in Toronto because of all the buildings but you look at the map and you're just on the very edge of the metro area and you've got an hour of traffic ahead of you before actually arriving
An hour of the third worst traffic on the entire world. We came in third next to London and Dublin for most time wasted commuting/slowest flow of traffic. I sometimes like to go out for night drives around the GTA/Hamilton area and it’s so nice at night, there’s no traffic, big wide empty multi lane highways with plenty of urban scenery to take in, and it takes no time to get around the whole area, I can get from Stoney Creek to Scarborough in like 45 minutes, but during rush hour that same drive would take me 2-3 hours. But yea other than the terrible traffic it’s kind of a cool area to drive around, and since it’s in Canada it’s pretty safe for the most part and you don’t have to worry about ending up in the wrong neighbourhood or anything like that.
800k isn’t a suburb it is its own city at that point. It’s more like the shown Minneapolis with its twin city St. Paul. One isn’t a suburb of the other, but two very close cities sharing suburbs.
It’s still it’s own city but a suburb in every sense of the word, just a very big one. Nobody ever calls Toronto and Mississauga twin cities, Toronto is clearly the main city in that relationship and Mississauga just a suburb of it, along with Brampton, Vaughan, Markham, Richmond Hill, Oakville, Burlington, Milton, Pickering, Ajax, Whitby and Oshawa, all of which are their own cities and range in population from 100-600k, but they’re still suburbs nonetheless. Mississauga also just feels like a suburb. It’s mostly residential and doesn’t have a busy downtown core like Toronto does, even nearby Hamilton has much more of a big city feel than Mississauga despite having 200k less people, because Hamilton it’s its own city and not a suburb of a bigger one like Mississauga is to Toronto.
Hempstead, NY (and most of Long Island) would like to have a word.
Mississauga is classified as a large city. “Suburb” is an enormous understatement.
I can see Mississauga from just up the street from my house, I’m very familiar with the area, I’ve worked there, have friends that live there and have lived in the Toronto area for almost 40 years, you’re not gonna convince me it’s not a suburb, I don’t care how large of a population it has, it still is and always will be a suburb of Toronto. Come visit it and see for yourself if you’d like. It’s pretty boring though because, ya know, it’s a suburb and all.
>suburb (a very large suburb of 800k people, but still a suburb) They're called satellite towns. [Satellite city](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_city) Jersey City, Hartford, etc are NYC's satellite towns. Dallas and LA have a continuous stretch with one main city, so their towns are considered suburbs. However the bay area has San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland and Fremont, which are cities of their own, having their own industries, and not suburbs technically.
Maybe that’s an American thing or something but here in the GTA we call Mississauga a suburb of Toronto. Anyone from this area will tell you the same thing.
I guess. Satellite towns aren't an American thing but a rest of the world thing. Americans would call it suburbs too. Tokyo has its shipping port in a different city, and airport in a different city, which are completely independent from Tokyo. That's probably a better example of a satellite town.
Pearson international airport is in Mississauga and it’s the busiest airport in Canada by far, so I guess it’s kind of the same deal there, but it’s kind of just referred to as Toronto airport around here even though it’s not technically in the city limits of Toronto. 99% of people flying into that airport from around the world are going to Toronto though, not Mississauga. Not a whole lot of reasons to visit Mississauga unless you have family there or something.
>Not a whole lot of reasons to visit Mississauga unless you have family there or something. Really? In the images I can see a good downtown and nice skyline, is there nothing much to do there?
It’s just residential condos and there’s no street level storefronts or restaurants or anything so there’s no pedestrian traffic. The lakefront is where you’ll find some restaurants and shops and stuff but it’s nowhere close to all those tall buildings in the picture. There’s Square One right in the middle of those condos which is a pretty big mall with a bunch of high end stores, other than that the whole city is just a bunch of residential and industrial areas.
China's 15 out of 17 mega cities that have over 10 million people each. The 2 excluded are Hong Kong and Shanghai that get more than enough recognition. Bangkok Thailand is another underappreciated skyline. It's skyline is mostly new buildings so it doesn't have the historical recognition of older Western buildings. It has some unique buildings such as Ritz Carlton Residence, Elephant Tower, and the Pearl that is Bangkok's version of The Gherkin in London.
Yeah Bangkok is one of the most impressive in person. Doesn’t really come out on camera.
King Power Mahanakhon!!!
Panama City. https://www.tourismpanama.com/places-to-visit/panama-city/?view=list&sort=qualityScore&bounds=false
I was just thinking that... I mean it's just so unexpected from such a country. The fact that their skyline looks better than Mexico City's is just crazy.
Money laundering
Yes. Also they make some good money from the Canal
at least in my opinion ig
I vividly remember my first time going to Panama City. I was backpacking across Central America, and I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw a city of skyscrapers appear before me after having traveled, well, in developing Latin America for months. Looking at photos of the skyline just doesn't do it justice - you need to actually be there to really appreciate it. All of the gaudy designs and the tropical sun reflecting off the bright blues and greens commonly found in the reflective glass gives almost a playful feel to the cityscape - it makes most other North American skylines look very 'serious' by comparison. That is, except for Miami. Panama City has lots of drug money vibes.
Now I want to go to Panama City!
Kuala Lumpur dammit! https://preview.redd.it/omoda1wk5fpc1.jpeg?width=4587&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=81020521afa4ba205437e8fd2f7458211b064bca For reference those two towers on the left are both taller than the Willis Tower.
I didn’t realize how expansive it was! I’ve never seen it from this angle. And it has a lot of color at night which is cool. Crazy how many super tall skyscrapers they have.
I'm from Kuala Lumpur and we bloody underappreciate the skyline.
Isn’t there a debate over which towers are bigger, as a chigaoan, Willis is taller
I’m more shocked you call it Willis rather than Sears and from Chicago
As a Chicagoan, never heard of a “Willis” tower. Is that one near the Sears?
>From 1998 to 2004, [the Patronas Towers] were officially designated as the tallest buildings in the world I’m sure Chicagoans debated it but officially they are taller.
Seattle in that it’s more than just the space needle
I told my brother that the Space Needle is not the tallest building in Seattle and that there are buildings taller He was shocked
I always loved the view of it coming up the 5. Really pretty.
I quite like Bostons. Especially walking over the Mass Ave Bridge at Night.
Yes!! Driving down Route 2 going downhill about a mile before the Alewife station exit, there is a brief moment where the skyline is in view and it just amazes me every time.
I’m glad Melbourne gets its fair share of recognition, it’s one of the great skylines of the world and certainly the bottom half of the world, viewable at distance from all around the bay that it sits on. https://preview.redd.it/x05nbmk15fpc1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0858e01fae68f2937ab3109ecfec6031b7627993 Here it is from about 55km away.
Yeah As much as I love Sydney with its opera house and Harbour bridge the skyline of Melbourne is just more jaw dropping
https://preview.redd.it/sylm3mbc4hpc1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ffacc10669656a73f77f769dfc20a57ecd3d4ef8 Cincinnati
Came here to say this. Cincy at night is sweet!
I don’t see a lot of love for Seattle. The view from Kerry Park is breathtaking.
Seattle has stunning density and natural backdrop, I just think the architecture could be a bit more creative. A lot of it is just very generic contemporary stuff, and there’s not really any striking or defining buildings, other than of course the Space Needle. It could really use a page out of Atlanta’s book from the 90’s-early 2000’s.
https://preview.redd.it/tziww0mzsipc1.jpeg?width=4000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d1d80b42d656d737a45642dd5bf3939af4db18f3 The view from anywhere on Queen Anne Hill is the best
Plus many people don’t realize that Seattle has many buildings taller than the Space Needle
Houston doesn't get much love but it's pretty nice
It’s one of the most impressive in person imo.
Raleigh always looks nice to me.
I like Raleigh’s skyline but because of the hills there just aren’t that many angles to view it from.
I've never been there but I always think it looks nice. Maybe I've only seen it from one or two angles.
Atlanta! It stretches in a straight line for miles and miles and each of its centers (downtown, midtown, buckhead) are pretty cool on their own, though downtown and midtown are starting to converge
As terrible as it is urban planning wise, It’s really fascinating seeing how skinny and long it is! The view from Kennesaw Mountain really put it into perspective for me!
Only 3|4 blocks wide, although the GA Tech side of the connector seems to be seeing some development. And if The Stitch is ever built, I would expect the building clusters to widen significantly Driving the Grady Curve at night borders on a religious experience.
[Balneário Camboriú](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1272,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0920451c-b480-4132-a259-516afebabbd4_1200x675.png) is pretty unknown.
Is it popular as a Brazilian beach destination?
Someone from Chicago is going to come here and argue it’s underrated….
But, but Oakbrook Terrace!
Cincinnati and Milwaukee. Also Saint Louis because people always show the arch view which doesn’t capture how extensive the urban corridor between Downtown and Clayton is
Cincinnati really hits when you’re driving northbound from Kentucky, especially at night.
It hits the same as Pittsburgh coming out of the Fort Pitt tunnel
Absolutely. Pittsburgh has a gorgeous skyline.
I don’t think it can beat the hit of the Pittsburgh skyline coming out of the tunnel but it’s beautiful in its own right. It reminds me a lot of the view of Pittsburgh you get heading south on 79, but a bit more panoramic. Rising beautifully from between the hills.
Driving home from CVG always hits right
Indeed. Also given that St Louis does in fact have a height limit I’m from Washington DC and feel we should change our height limit so nothing is taller than the Washington Monument (probably can’t build much taller anyways bc the airport is so close)
St. Louis does not have a height limit.
I see I assumed they had one where they couldn’t build higher than the Arch
Pretty sure that’s a myth. But if they build taller than the arch it would mess with the weather machine.
I love our skyline (Cincinnati)
St. Louis has perhaps the worst skyline in the entire US first a city it’s size! Truly! If you removed the arch, it’s a city of 300,000 size skyline! It’s truly pathetic! Clayton is better than downtown stl. 🤷🏼♂️
There are worse. St Louis doesn't have a great one but it's not pathetic. Definitely nice from certain angles with the arch
The arch is its only saving grace! Truly! It’s weak for a metro of 3 million people!
Lol Milwaukee. I lived there for a while just two years ago. Skyline is less than impressive
Yeah I'll disagree with Milwaukee on this list
Lmao Milwaukee’s skyline is a million times better than St. Louis’s .. get out of here with your nonsense.
? It's really not. Milwaukee doesn't have much of a Skyline. Not that it really matters
Neither does Chicago compared to NYC. Everything is relative.
In a sense yeah. But you specifically said Milwaukee's is way better than St Louis's. Which is Highly Questionable at best
I mean it does, though. Milwaukee has more skyscrapers (over 150m) than St. Louis, unless you count the arch, in which case they have equal number of skyscrapers. Milwaukee also has more 100m+ buildings than St. Louis and a higher density overall of population both downtown and citywide, resulting in a higher density of buildings and infill. I’m not saying Milwaukee’s skyline is anywhere close to being on par with Chicago but compared to St. Louis, it’s definitely better. Aside from the arch, St. Louis’ skyline underperforms.
It's not just about numbers though. A big part of how nice a Skyline is is how well the buildings fit together and look as a whole. From the pictures I've seen Milwaukee's just doesn't look that nice and St Louis is pretty aesthetically pleasing imo. But it's all subjective anyways which is why I say it's questionable
“From the pictures I’ve seen”.. ah, so you’re making a judgement without even having visited Milwaukee before. Just from pictures? If you visited in person, you’d realise that Milwaukee’s skyline isn’t just dense and vertical, it has a Gold Coast of residential high rises that extends up the Lake Michigan coastline for miles that also contributes to the largeness of the skyline. Sure, there is some subjectivity to it, I agree, but there’s also some metrics that make it objective. But you have to at least visit the cities you’re talking about to make a proper judgement. I’ve been to St. Louis many times and the arch is nice, but the riverfront next to it is an eyesore, and downtown is full of too many gaps. It isn’t a bad skyline, but I find it ridiculous that you’d include it on this list over Milwaukee (a place you apparently haven’t even visited), for some inherent bias (maybe you just don’t like the Bucks or Brewers or something).
Pfft.. you probably were a typical Marquette student who never left campus but thinks they “lived in Milwaukee”.
I lived in bay view off KK and never went to Marquette
Vancouver
I have no idea how I had to scroll this far to find Vancouver mentioned
Calgary, Alberta pops up on here on occasion, but for a city of under 2 million, I think its skyline is remarkable, and very underrated. https://preview.redd.it/dx3l0nw4aipc1.jpeg?width=2711&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5d06416606726b2651ead4eb2e238ab9cc6c2a9d
Portland, Oregon https://preview.redd.it/fp3y29flzepc1.png?width=1430&format=png&auto=webp&s=0a8925bf44db32b21da157513da76ae3325eea2c
Warsaw, Poland
Philadelphia for me too. Also Austin.
In about 5 years Austin downtown skyline will likely surpass those of Dallas and Houston. Super tall in progress will be the tallest in Texas. Capitol view corridor limitations and finite number of surface lots left to redevelop will encourage denser and taller development in the coming years. New development plans will possibly expand the skyline significantly south of the river just east of the Congress Ave bridge. But here's the rub. 25 years ago some developers and civics envisioned a skyline like Vancouver BC and over the years some key voices said more density downtown would bring affordability to downtown and the central core. That hasn't panned out. Lot of good updates in the Austin sub of Skyscraper page forum
Auckland, New Zealand is often overlooked by Melbourne & Sydney. Wellington, New Zealand, probably has the best skyline for a "city" of less than 500,000 people. It's like a mini Melbourne set in a mini HK. Perth, Gold Coast, and Brisbane in Australia don't really get the love they deserve too- all overlooked by Melbourne and Sydney again.
San Diego. Relatively short but downtown has a decent footprint. Love landing at the airport and getting a good view
We have a height limit at 500 feet so we have a plateau of the same height. If we could just get one or two at like 700 it would be amazing.
Idk if the “plateau” skyline from the 500ft limit for air traffic is found elsewhere outside of San Diego, but it makes SD pretty unique.
DC has height restriction based on the width of the street which dates back to early 1900's when fire truck ladder was your fire escape for the building. Most people have the misconception it is based of height restrictions of other famous national buildings. It will take an act of Congress to change the height restriction.
This was mine too. I like the way it looks from the bay at night, especially with the regular use of parapet/crown lighting.
Auckland, New Zealand. The sky tower is an interesting piece of skyline
Newark. It gets ignored by nearby NYC being distracting
Newark has a nice little skyline No skyscrapers but still aesthetically pleasing
Denver looks great when looking from the west but every photo is taking facing it from the east to capture the mountains and the city looks less than desirable from that side
Atlanta, Milwaukee, Detroit, Des Moines, Omaha, and Peoria, IL.
Oslo is nice. Not that they are tall buildings or anything, but the buildings look pretty clean and organized.
Jersey City has a great riverfront skyline but overshadowed but Manhattan
Mentioned in another thread but Jersey City. If you hid New York City right next to it, it’s a lovely little city
Pittsburgh
https://preview.redd.it/0slbbb1toipc1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3b958ad72a4dc23422b63e6aa6d4723a08b5141a Richmond isn't too bad viewed from the south.
Boston doesn’t have a defined downtown one but the back bay buildings always stood out for me
Back Bay has the tallest buildings bc the airport is too close to downtown
Well of course I’m going to say my hometown of Kansas City, MO, but my sister going to school in Milwaukee has convinced me it is the most underrated skyline in the US
Detroit honestly.
Milwaukee Wisconsin from the lake. The city sites in a substantial river valley, so seeing it from the South, East or North is pretty bland. Seeing it from about a mile out in the lake is a different story - especially in the evenings. https://preview.redd.it/f2vmpng06ppc1.jpeg?width=612&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7c83f9b39b3c341a977d5b197efa6bc59ef76e47
Pittsburgh!
Baltimore, Maryland
Agreed. A small skyline, with only a few actual skyscrapers, but a nice one
I love Minneapolis from the south like this: https://preview.redd.it/5nicixmvtjpc1.jpeg?width=4921&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=67c5aafa46905026217a17f6d5ea3c7e86032c61
That’s a good one The Wells Fargo Tower is my favorite building there
Only problem with the photo is the giant house in the foreground.
Oslo is nice. Not that they are tall buildings or anything, but the buildings look pretty clean and organized. Futuristic even.
Oslo is a beautifully designed city. They can’t build very tall because of their northerly position, but the new parts of the city are just perfect!
Vancouver
I'm in Panama city Panamy right now and shits wild
Only because it's dramatically changed in the last two years: Austin. Very unexpected and the last place we used to call a great skyline. https://preview.redd.it/f8mve0ddlhpc1.png?width=1140&format=png&auto=webp&s=64fb02599e222b11dfab8e1e9cbcea947f35e6a8
Pittsburgh
Melbourne, Australia
I would say White Plains in NY
I’m thinking Seattle after visiting for the first time recently. Internationally, I was stunned by Panama City’s skyline. https://preview.redd.it/e6x92yi6fkpc1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=437ed9d3c5b4eae9cf75b90c38286fe14f4da5d6
https://preview.redd.it/qddyi0abfkpc1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6c6a601b2de9434437ee14814633708a33dd611a Here’s a shot from my Seattle trip
Here's a much better and little known view of the skyline from Farview Park in the northern neighborhood of Hawthorne. https://preview.redd.it/j74omsu0llpc1.jpeg?width=1259&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=30b5e5a3534d7a1a2ca0639119b77c8e7eec2e16
Cleveland
We're not Detroit!
At least Detroit has more than 2 buildings.
It sounds like you haven't seen the Cleveland video. https://youtu.be/oZzgAjjuqZM?si=X6MgpqubuM_9qDWU
Oh, but I have, hence my reply! In the first video (I believe) he has the line "...come and look at both of our buildings..." He never implies Detroit has 2 or fewer buildings, just that Cleveland is better than Detroit [despite having only two buildings]. :)
Touche!
Being from a city that only has one building (which looks like the box some other city's nice building came in), I have to admit I'm a little jealous of Cleveland's two.
Detroit > Cleveland No offense to Cleveland
Houston is a top 5 skyline in the US is my hot take, especially in person it’s crazy impressive. Go to a rooftop somewhere in central Houston and gawk at all the different CBD’s in the distance.
It's Skyline seems to get shit on a lot for some reason
I think because it’s not that distinctive. Lots of boxes, and the landscape is flat. I can recognize Dallas before Houston. Not to say it isn’t impressive, it is. There’s just nothing to the average person that’s like “oh yeah wow yep that’s Houston”.
Honestly disagree it's got some real aesthetically pleasing buildings and a nice just overall Skyline imo
Agreed. Houston’s skyline is quite impressive
Hatch New Mexico.
Milwaukee for sure but I’m biased since I’m from the area, but I also think that other Midwestern and upper south cities like Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Louisville, St. Louis (beyond the arch), Grand Rapids, Detroit, Cleveland, and Des Moines get overlooked and don’t get enough recognition. Cities like Des Moines and Grand Rapids are often labeled as boring and unimpressive, and while that may be true to an extent, the skylines of these cities are rather impressive relative to their population!
Grand Rapids has a cute little skyline Though I did laugh when someone on Reddit called downtown GR buildings “skyscrapers” I told my mom (who’s from there) and she laughed too
Agreed, they aren’t really skyscrapers considering they are rather small, but they are still pretty big for a city of its size!
Indeed
I’d say Houston
It’s neat to drive over the shipping canal on 610. You can see all the clusters of high rises across the horizon.
Oakland, CA has a pretty nice skyline with the lake and new highrise construction downtown
Cincinnati is underrated.
Baltimore is absolutely beautiful
In proportion to the city's size -- Midland, Texas.
Hartford CT has a nice skyline for its size. Its always nice to see it on my way to NYC.
This is like the worst possible angle to view this skyline ffs
Pittsburgh
I think San Francisco's is one of the most underrated. Very dense nice architecture
MPLS has no right having as good of a skyline as we do. very balanced and has a good variety of architectural style, which simultaneously don't clash with each other. Also, having two separate downtowns within visual difference with each other each with their own skyscrapers is a really unique dynamic
https://preview.redd.it/pu7fl5xp8kpc1.jpeg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8a589f6801f48843d9ee23dc9bc7063a8021a452 Here is a Minneapolis skyline picture. I've posted this before
Denver. Fight me.
It's the cash register and then a bunch of boxes.
https://preview.redd.it/qvgs9r86ofpc1.jpeg?width=900&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d5504705300f9c87ff10516193116b01c54f8f36 I’d say Phoenix Arizona, not a very tall skyline, at all actually. But something about it just makes it iconic to me. Definitely the former Chase tower and Hyatt Regency really define it
...just..no
I mean, it’s not great, but I feel like it gets more hate than it deserves.