Dominax Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 WHAT ABOUT A BIGGER SKYLINE!Fort Worth is growing rapidly they otta create taller structures for their downtown like Dallas and Houston Skylines. If they would of before This city could of reached its Millionth resident by now of the looks of the areas.(maybe) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willy1 Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 WHAT ABOUT A BIGGER SKYLINE!Fort Worth is growing rapidly they otta create taller structures for their downtown like Dallas and Houston Skylines. If they would of before This city could of reached its Millionth resident by now of the looks of the areas.(maybe)<{POST_SNAPBACK}>I agree that FW should be adding taller structures to the DT FW Central Business District. But, the height of a city's downtown has little to do with its population. There are many cities that have a much taller skyline than their population should suggest, and there are many cities that have a much larger population than the skyline would suggest.Cities with taller skylines than their population would suggest:All of these cities fail to make the top 20 largest cities list, but far out-rank some of the cities that are much larger than they are. * Atlanta - one of the tallest skylines in the nation, yet only ranked 42nd in population at 419,122. Atlanta's Bank of America Building is the 7th tallest building in the nation at 1023 feet. It's the tallest building in the country outside of NYC and Chicago.* Seattle's B of A building is the 16th tallest building in America, yet Seattle is only the 23rd largest city.. and it's not just a tall skyline it's very dense. It ranks up there with Dallas or Houston, I would say. * Pittsburg - the 56th largest city, but an 840 foot tower.* Clevland - 947-footer, but only the 36th largest city...* Miami - 64 stories @ 776 ft. #46 with a population of 380K. Like Honolulu, this citie also has many more skyscrapers that you would normally see in a city of this size... not much larger than Arlington TX (pop 360K).* Honolulu HI, has 48 buildings that are in the 30 - 45 story range. Yet this citiy's population is only 377K Cities with smaller skyline than their population would suggest:All of these cities have relatively small skylines yet all are among the 20 largest cities in the nation.* phoenix 1.4 million, tallest building is 40 stories and 486 ft tall. Most buildings are in the 20-25 story range.* san diego - 1.26 Million. tallest building is 34 stories @ 500 ft.* san antonio - 1.23 Million. tallest is 38 stories @ 546 ft.* san jose - 904K... 17 stories @ 279 ft.* jacksonville - 778K... 42 story @ 617 ft* columbus - 730K... 41 story @ 629 ft* austin - 681K... 33 story @ 516 ft* Memphis - 672K... 33 story @ 470 ft* Baltimore - 636K... 40 story @ 528 ft.* fort worth - 619K... 40 story @ 567 ftThe prime example here to me is that Atlanta is the 42nd largest city in the U.S. Yet has a skyline that dwarfs the skyline of Phoenix, which by now has probably surpassed Philly as the 5th largest city. There are also cities that have far more high rise buildings than you would suspect from a city their size, yet the buildings may not be particularly tall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VicMan Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 A lot of cities with smaller populations with large skylines have tons of suburbs. Also, many of those cities are restricted from growth due to running out of land (San Francisco), while Houston has tons of room for annexation.San Francisco's Transamerica: 260 meters tall (853 feet)Population of SF: 744,230 (It's not the second largest city of California - It's behind San Diego and San Jose).Also, building codes, such as earthquake protection codes, affect skylines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonDFW Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 Willy, skylines follow metro populations, and have never followed core city populations. Whether a city annexes a suburb should have little effect on the downtown skylineI agree that FW should be adding taller structures to the DT FW Central Business District. But, the height of a city's downtown has little to do with its population.Fort Worth functions partially as a suburb, so it's going to have less of a skyline. There are no examples quite like it but perhaps San Jose is a reasonable comparison. Not exactly the same of course. More extreme examples would be Arlington and Plano at a third of a million and quarter million respectively, with no skylines to speak of. Fort Worth obviously has more history and is more separated than those two, so obivously you see a bigger skyline.Cities with taller skylines than their population would suggest:All of these cities fail to make the top 20 largest cities list, but far out-rank some of the cities that are much larger than they are. * Atlanta - one of the tallest skylines in the nation, yet only ranked 42nd in population at 419,122. Atlanta's Bank of America Building is the 7th tallest building in the nation at 1023 feet. It's the tallest building in the country outside of NYC and Chicago.42nd means nothing. Huge metro, 9th largest in the US just behind Houston, and its skyline matches that.* Seattle's B of A building is the 16th tallest building in America, yet Seattle is only the 23rd largest city.. and it's not just a tall skyline it's very dense. It ranks up there with Dallas or Houston, I would say.Very big metro. 15th largest in the US. Metro population of 3 million and it matches others in that area like MSP.* Pittsburg - the 56th largest city, but an 840 foot tower.Large metro with 2.4 million people. 56th again means nothing as its 21st largest metro. It also was large (actually larger) back when skyscrapers were booming, which helps over other cities like Phoenix.* Clevland - 947-footer, but only the 36th largest city...Over 2 million metro, and that rank jumps to 23rd up near Pittsburgh. Also like Pittsburgh it was larger (relative and absolute population) back when most of the skyscrapers were built.* Miami - 64 stories @ 776 ft. #46 with a population of 380K. Like Honolulu, this citie also has many more skyscrapers that you would normally see in a city of this size... not much larger than Arlington TX (pop 360K).HUGE metro. 6th largest in the US. Also Arlington is pure suburb.* Honolulu HI, has 48 buildings that are in the 30 - 45 story range. Yet this citiy's population is only 377KLandlocked.* phoenix 1.4 million, tallest building is 40 stories and 486 ft tall. Most buildings are in the 20-25 story range.Metro population drops rank drastically, especially back in the skyscraper boom days.* san diego - 1.26 Million. tallest building is 34 stories @ 500 ft.Metro population drops rank drastically, although no doubt fear of earthquakes are a factor.* san antonio - 1.23 Million. tallest is 38 stories @ 546 ft.Tiny metro, especially back in the skyscraper booms of Texas history.* san jose - 904K... 17 stories @ 279 ft.Very nearly a suburb like Arlington.* jacksonville - 778K... 42 story @ 617 ftTiny metro, much like San Antonio.* columbus - 730K... 41 story @ 629 ftFairly small metro, down by San Antonio in population.* austin - 681K... 33 story @ 516 ftMuch smaller than even Columbus in metro population.* Memphis - 672K... 33 story @ 470 ftSee Austin above.* Baltimore - 636K... 40 story @ 528 ft.Excellent comparison to Fort Worth. Partially functions as a suburb to DC.* fort worth - 619K... 40 story @ 567 ftPartially a suburb, see San Jose, Baltimore.The prime example here to me is that Atlanta is the 42nd largest city in the U.S. Yet has a skyline that dwarfs the skyline of Phoenix, which by now has probably surpassed Philly as the 5th largest city.Again, 9th largest metro in the US and that number is going to rise.So, we can see that skylines follow metro populations fairly well, as long as we consider situations where the city isn't the primary city in the metro (e.g. Fort Worth) or other local conditions like earthquake zones or landlocked areas.Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 Tokyo has 30 million people in its metro, and its tallest building (that's not a tower) is only 799 feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arche_757 Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 I dont think being a large city (population) is defined by having a tall building (assuming tall = 900' +I think Fort Worth has done just fine - in fact Id rather see them build 1-2 more Modern Art Museums than 50 highrises! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YakuzaIce Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 Great post Jason. Also some large cities with small skylines is also due to the fact that their population boom is recent. But a city like Pittsburgh was large many years ago which is why it has many high rises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonDFW Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 Tokyo has 30 million people in its metro, and its tallest building (that's not a tower) is only 799 feet.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>I thought we were talking about the US as Japan is an entirely different society. Not as bad as say picking Mexico city and saying why don't they have tall buildings since they have 30 million people.In any case, Japan has a strong emphasis on history. If any US city had lost 140,000 people in their recent history to an earthquake they'd have equally restrictive building requirements. Actually perhaps San Fransisco does, looking at the Sutro tower... and coincedentally their tallest building is right in line with the 799 foot tower in Tokyo.Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.