[chiphile]

Hi,
I was bored today, and I found pics of American skylines from relatively the same distance. Thus, I figured since these are somewhat scale, we can compare them side by side.

I used the diagrams to compare the tallest buildings in each city and then scaled the pics.

Please note that this really sucks, so if you feel your city has not been given due credit, it's probably true, this took me about 20 minutes. And sorry for the small sizes too.

I hope someone can take these and improve on it, perhaps make a scale so people can add world cities to this as well. If your city is not on here, please feel free to add with attention paid to the scale of the other pictures. Also, feel free to modify "my" pic and keep adding cities on to it if you want.

Can someone do lower manhattan? If people get into this, this should be fun... otherwise I'll just go :runaway:

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/8531/nycchisw8.jpg

[bryson662001]

While I agree with you that your execution of the idea was rather poor....the idea itself was a good one. It would take alot longer then 20 miniuts to get it right IMO

[Jasonhouse]

I think he did pretty good considering...


I think that the real problem is that the angles of the pictures offer less than the most flattering view of the cities shown.

[Stanzmastertron3000]

Neat!

[Dallascaper]

I made this during the old city vs. city days, comparing Dallas to Calgary.


http://www.farscapefantasy.com/DFW/Dallas/Nov29/Dallgary.blue.jpg

[VivaLFuego]

Cool, pretty decent approximations if you ask me!

[LSyd]

that is cool. the problem is the angles...and also how cities are layed out. like Atlanta's downtown-midtown line, which then curves around wierdly for Buckhead...

-

[SHiRO]

Cool idea!

[KevinFromTexas]

Cool idea for sure. It would be best to only use images that show the "long side" of a city's skyline, though, so that it's fair for each city. And I noticed some of those don't show the entire skyline either.

[Exodus]

Heres a better pic of Detroit to work with.
http://steelflame.zoto.com/img/1024x768x1/61cadf6f728788e4a8dbe1df642bcc14-.jpg

[shappy]

Hi,
I was bored today, and I found pics of American skylines from relatively the same distance. Thus, I figured since these are somewhat scale, we can compare them side by side.

I used the diagrams to compare the tallest buildings in each city and then scaled the pics.

Please note that this really sucks, so if you feel your city has not been given due credit, it's probably true, this took me about 20 minutes. And sorry for the small sizes too.

I hope someone can take these and improve on it, perhaps make a scale so people can add world cities to this as well. If your city is not on here, please feel free to add with attention paid to the scale of the other pictures. Also, feel free to modify "my" pic and keep adding cities on to it if you want.

Can someone do lower manhattan? If people get into this, this should be fun... otherwise I'll just go :runaway:

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/8531/nycchisw8.jpg

neat. Why restrict to the U.S.... here's Toronto:

this shows the skyline along Yonge and Bay streets up to about Bloor street. I think I made it too small.
http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/2801/comp1vq7.jpg

and from the lake
http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/1214/comp2yf9.jpg

[chiphile]

^Cool! I added that to the original, plus I tried Lower Manhattan as well.

I would love to see someone do Hong Kong, Shanghai, Dubai and others around the world.

http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/3430/nycchiqv6.jpg

[Lecom]

If that took you just 20 minutes, those had to be some of the most productive 20 minutes out there. Great job, I loke those a lot.

[ratbear]

The Seattle photo is from a really unflattering angle. The Seattle skyline is laid out in a relatively north-south fashion, the photo you posted is looking north to the southern edge. The taller towers are towards the southern portion of the skyline, therefore blocking about 3/4 of the rest of the skyline. Its like looking at the front of a bus, you can't see how long it is from that angle. I know you posted a disclaimer that it was a rush job, its just that Seattle looks so dinky in that shot, and has a skyline at least as big as, say, Dallas, Minny, Philly, Detroit, etc. :cheers: :shrug:

[tocoto]

Boston
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r226/tocotobucket/buildings/DTpanosmaller.jpg

[chiphile]

The Seattle photo is from a really unflattering angle. The Seattle skyline is laid out in a relatively north-south fashion, the photo you posted is looking north to the southern edge. The taller towers are towards the southern portion of the skyline, therefore blocking about 3/4 of the rest of the skyline. Its like looking at the front of a bus, you can't see how long it is from that angle. I know you posted a disclaimer that it was a rush job, its just that Seattle looks so dinky in that shot, and has a skyline at least as big as, say, Dallas, Minny, Philly, Detroit, etc. :cheers: :shrug:


Yeah I pretty much found the worst pic of Seattle, if you could give me one that you'd prefer, I can try and work with it. I'll try and do Boston and give justice to Detroit as well in a couple of days.

[A42251]

This really illustrates how Midtown Manhattan and Chicago totally dwarf everything else.

Whats really amazing about Midtown Manhattan it thats it is just as long and dense east-west as it is north-south.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Interesting idea. I think you did a great job. One thing you can't see in comparing Midtown and Chicago in those photos, however, is how much wider and more filled in Midtown is.

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/8759/nyaerialjy0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[chiphile]

^Yes I'll try and do midtown from all 4 sides, either way, paying attention to each side would further neglect the other 3 sides, a testament to the massiveness of midtown.. the fact that most pics of it have to be taken from air or afar shows it has no rival. Many angles can make Chicago look a lot smaller.

Anyhow, here's a start to my world tour.. Is there any way I can change the title of this thread?


http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/3756/internationalsa7.jpg


http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/3430/nycchiqv6.jpg

[Exodus]

This is more of a fair comparison of Detroit. I used Chicago as an example.

http://steelflame.zoto.com/img/original/d656ca998b3b0a6d31ebb22b29880111-.jpg

[GeorgeLV]

Let me contribute a Las Vegas skyline for you. It's a crop from a photo VTown420 posted in this Las Vegas photo thread. http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=121307

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/8665/lvstripxq0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
(Unfortunately most of downtown is cutoff.)

[BroncoCSU05]

i like how the denver pic we're using for "comparison" is missing 2 of the 3 largest buildings in the city

[Xing]

Wouldn't it be easier to know the distance from the city to where the photo was taken, and measure it that way? Using a place I know as an example (hoping to parden myself from this SSP cliche), St. Louis' was obviously taken a the other side of the river, and with a wide angle lens,while many of those other cities were taken from what seems to be a good 10 Miles.

[HurricaneHugo]

i dont even want to know how san diego would look....

[Detroit5000]

detroit's no slacker, but it does look a little like you stretched it, exodus. look how fat the rencen complex looks...

[LMich]

He didn't stretch it at all, but as someone said these are useless comparisons if they are all taken from different distances.

[chiphile]

exact same distances are near impossible to find, all of them were shrunk using a 1000 ft. scale i used.

I got the original idea from the first two new york and chicago pics, the Chicago pic was taken from O'Hare airport, about 18 miles, and the Midtown pic from JFK airport, about 15 miles?

And I agree that other cities have been robbed, seattle especially and denver as well as houston, so if you have better pics that aren't giant sized, please direct me to them.

I used this pic: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0225834/M/
and this: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0764361/M/

[Exodus]

detroit's no slacker, but it does look a little like you stretched it, exodus. look how fat the rencen complex looks...I didn't stretch it at all. I even tried to judge the height difference of the buildings, even the angle of both skylines are very similar. So while the odds say it isn't 100% accurate, it's probably one of the best/fair comparisons on here.

[InlandEmpire]

Maybe some shots more like these that I took awhile ago would rep Seattle better; not sure how you would scale them though. Just a thought :)

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/337/picture793ff4.jpg


http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/3126/argosycruise1kx0.jpg



wow that first one is a little crooked- whoops!

[Wheelingman04]

^ Seattle has one of my favorite U.S. skylines.

[Patrick]

Nice Idea! But the LA Pic is way to small. LA has many mini skylines, like Toronto. It would be a lot longer. If I find a pic of it I'll post it :)

[shappy]

speaking of Toronto, I used the Chicago pic for scale. I aligned the CN Tower to the Sears tower to get the scale right for those two structures. However, the distance from Sears to Hancock is about 1/5th of a km shorter than the distance from the CN Tower to Bloor street (which is that second clump to the left). And in the pic, the distance from CN to Bloor is shorter. So the Toronto pic is scaled down more than it should... oh well.

[bowesst]

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/5039/img2172lc0.jpg

[Exodus]

i dont even want to know how san diego would look....http://steelflame.zoto.com/img/original/66f8d81eea5a20f9cb2c0be5983f29c9-.jpg

[Nouvellecosse]

I made this during the old city vs. city days, comparing Dallas to Calgary.

Hehe, yeah, I remember that! I participated in the thread in which Dalgary made its debut. From what I recall, Calgary had a smallish lead in the voting, something like maybe 4:3. I was all set to vote for Calgary til that pic was posted. It illustrated Dallas' soaring height so well that I had to rethink. I don't think I ever did vote in that poll...

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Nice Idea! But the LA Pic is way to small. LA has many mini skylines, like Toronto. It would be a lot longer. If I find a pic of it I'll post it :)

http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1824485/0/nouser_1824/T0_-1_1824485.jpg (http://www.imagehosting.us/index.php?action=show&ident=1824485)

:notacrook:

[vgmLiquid]

Here is one of St Paul if we want to add it to the list:
http://i5.pbase.com/o4/02/589102/1/65995801.tRbLJORW.MSM_9619resize.jpg

From that angle of Minneapolis you have there you can't see the Target Plaza to the left or any of the new developments to the right...so I would suggest either this one instead:

http://www.emporis.com/files/transfer/sixwm/2006/10/496510.jpg
http://k43.pbase.com/o4/02/589102/1/66612435.38TXRduX.MM1_1072resize.jpg
http://www.minnescraper.com/forum/files/mpls_1a_116.jpg

[jcchii]

this is pretty unscientific.

[EtherealMist]

Bostons skyline is clearly the biggest :)

http://www.northrup.org/Photos/boston/low/boston-skyline-with-canon-10d%20(5).jpg

[rds70]

Here is a better Denver photo to use:

http://www.denver-cityscape.com/images/downtownpano82806.jpg

[UncleRando]

Here is a skyline shot of Cincy...I don't think it would work to well for what you have been doing, but what the hey:

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e33/UncleRando/Misc/Other%20Photos/Night27.jpg

For more pics of Cincy and other Ohio cities check out:

http://www.urbanohio.com/

follow the links (SW Ohio: Cincinnati: Skyline..you get the idea) for any location you choose!

[rgolch]

Nice Idea! But the LA Pic is way to small. LA has many mini skylines, like Toronto. It would be a lot longer. If I find a pic of it I'll post it :)


That may be true, but he posted the most prominent parts of the skylines. Rememeber, the chicago skyline climbs even farther north almost into evanston, and much further south past hyde park. Also there are many parts of the NY skyline that are not included. All in all, he did a good job.

[jpIllInoIs]

^^ Once again the photos need to be about the same distance out. The Midtown Manhattan shot is 15 miles away. The Chicago skyline is 18 miles away. That Denver photo is about 3 miles out and therefore not comparable as in the original post of the thread.

[UncleRando]

^Well with all the hills and what not in the Cincy region...it is essentially impossible to get a skyline shot from that kind of distance :shrug:

[Jularc]

:) My attempt of the Chicago Skyline and Midtown (+ Upper) Manhattan. (Maybe if there is a pic with the Chicago skyline stretching much further that will be a cool pic to get!)


http://www.pbase.com/image/72268730/original.jpg

[VivaLFuego]

:) My attempt of the Chicago Skyline and Midtown (+ Upper) Manhattan. (Maybe if there is a pic with the Chicago skyline stretching much further that will be a cool pic to get!)


http://www.pbase.com/image/72268730/original.jpg

Nice! I do remember long ago someone got a pic of the Chicago skyline from a rooftop in Hermosa, that got downtown and most of the north shore up to Edgewater which would be great to put side-by-side with Evanston.

That said, I think your scaling is very -slightly- off. I'm just comparing Empire State to the John Hancock as reference points. To the top of JHC's antenna is about 1500ft, to the top of Empire State's antenna is about 1460ft, so they should appear about the same height.

[UrbanSophist]

Wow. I think that shows that Chicago is no slacker when it comes to skyline.

[WonderlandPark]

Wow. I think that shows that Chicago is no slacker when it comes to skyline.

And a little different angle would show building's like Manhattan's upper areas to the left of the skyline for miles, Chicago's North Shore/Gold Coast are full of pretty tall towers and would continue that photo far to the left.

[UncleRando]

Wow. I think that shows that Chicago is no slacker when it comes to skyline.

DUH!!!!!!!!!:hyper:

[pwright1]

The Seattle photo is from a really unflattering angle. The Seattle skyline is laid out in a relatively north-south fashion, the photo you posted is looking north to the southern edge. The taller towers are towards the southern portion of the skyline, therefore blocking about 3/4 of the rest of the skyline. Its like looking at the front of a bus, you can't see how long it is from that angle. I know you posted a disclaimer that it was a rush job, its just that Seattle looks so dinky in that shot, and has a skyline at least as big as, say, Dallas, Minny, Philly, Detroit, etc. :cheers: :shrug:

Yes indeed.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/pwright1/seattle2/seattle14/dec192006034Medium.jpg

[Trantor]

^^ Once again the photos need to be about the same distance out. The Midtown Manhattan shot is 15 miles away. The Chicago skyline is 18 miles away. That Denver photo is about 3 miles out and therefore not comparable as in the original post of the thread.

well, thats why they SCALED the photos to the same size, using buildings size as comparassion... :rolleyes:

[Trantor]

it would be nice to see São Paulo in the comparassion... problem is to find a decent angle of its skyline in its longest axis...

I have this skyline shot of Londrina, a small brazilian city in Paraná state, which has 500k people. Its decent for the purpose of the thread. I will scale it to size...
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g250/chevette_photos/Londrina-Skyline.jpg

[ATLskyline]

atlanta's downtown and midtown from stone mountain, about 15 miles away.

http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/6147/stonemountain0yn.jpg

I dont know how to scale it but the tallest is right in the middle at 1,023 ft.

[Trantor]

how about this?
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y37/gutooo/do%20cenu/pan01g.jpg

[BnaBreaker]

I don't know if it's just me or not, but whatever that is supposed to be Trantor, it is just a big white rectangle for me.

[Trantor]

^well, its happening to me too now!! WEIRD!! It only happens on Firefox. Try to see the image on IE...

[LMich]

Now you're just posting pictures to show off, as you know full well there is no way to scale these properly to match with the others of this thread. lol

[villelumiere]

Wow. I think that shows that Chicago is no slacker when it comes to skyline.

Purely for skyline Chicago is the best in the USA.

The points others have made about midtown's density and depth are well bmade and true. Chicago cannot compete with midtown for sheer depth and density but on skyline as per skyline it is superior. basically Midtown with the ESB only has one true megascraper. the spire of the chrysler is cheating slightly adn at a 15 mile distance the Chrysler is not as imposing as say the Aon or the AT and T.


The result is that from a distance the CHI skyline is more dramatic with its huge beasts like the hancock and Aon making a bigger impression than any NY building except the ESB. Alternatively Midtown seen from above is THE filled in dense North American urban landscape and I doubt if many CHI lovers would deny that.

[Hot Rod]

Nice! I do remember long ago someone got a pic of the Chicago skyline from a rooftop in Hermosa, that got downtown and most of the north shore up to Edgewater which would be great to put side-by-side with Evanston.

That said, I think your scaling is very -slightly- off. I'm just comparing Empire State to the John Hancock as reference points. To the top of JHC's antenna is about 1500ft, to the top of Empire State's antenna is about 1460ft, so they should appear about the same height.

ya Viva, I agre, I think the scale Jularc used of NYC is too big - ESB should be the same height (slightly smaller) than Big John. The way he has it, ESB looks almost as imposing as Sears, which we all know is definitely not the case!!! You can see the big 4 1000 footers of Chicago from 50+ miles away, esp Sears.

Nonetheless, the illustration only further proves that Chicago and Manhattan are definitely the BIG BOYS when it comes to downtown skylines (not that anyone on this forum didn't already know that). :worship:

Jularc, can you repost the Chi/NY comparison with Manhattan scaled a little bit smaller or Chicago larger - it will definitely show the density of Midtown (that we know exists) while also showing the height (and a little smaller density - but huge nonetheless) of Chicago. Definitely would be interesting.

[Trantor]

ok, I scaled a São Paulo pano, based on the 452 meters height of the Sears Tower and the 212 meters height of the TV Bandeirantes Tower in São Paulo.

Then I cropped the picture, to show mostly the buildings at the same distance as TV Bandeirantes Tower. This is the result...
http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/7281/citysizesgm5.jpg

[Dylan Leblanc]

http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1824485/0/nouser_1824/T0_-1_1824485.jpg (http://www.imagehosting.us/index.php?action=show&ident=1824485)

:notacrook:

That is the most spectacular photo of Los Angeles I have ever seen!!! Is it yours??

Since the Sao Paulo pic has now been scaled down and fit into the comparison, perhaps someone could try to fit in this LA one.

[Mr Roboto]

This is a very cool thread, but seems to be an apples to oranges comparison in many cases. Its hard to determine a cutoff factor for the skylines; what to include and what not to, so people from different cities dont feel short-changed. Some go on for miles, while others may have gaps but have fairly dense clusters. I also guess its hard to find appropriate pictures with the right angle. But it is very interesting seeing the cities lined up next to each other, nice job.

[Machiavelli]

Houston

http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/2339/image00001gx8az4.jpg

Much better representation of Houston's skyline...

The picture is not good when determining height or depth as the skyline angles outward...

[wrabbit]

Can't remember the website where I found these Chi/NYC amalgams:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/chi-map.gif
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/chi-earth.gif

[villelumiere]

I remember seing that amalgam some time ago as wwell. fascinating.

In fairness the fact that CHI is nearer tends to exaggerate its dimensions compared to NYC but ( and Lmich may accuse me of dogging NY here but I'm only speaking as i see ) this amalgam reveals how midtown has been crying out for a couple of real TALL skyscrapers. The NY Times building will be a help there though i haven't been recently enough to comment on it with any force.

[CGII]

Here's one I made of Milwaukee from a couple of years ago:

US Bank=602 ft.

http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/6586/skylinepano3fd.jpg

[MNMike]

That is an interesting pic of houston. I have never seen one that showed all the skylines at once like that.

[Hot Rod]

yes, that was very nice. Houston is awesome!

[Caronte]

Uhm... Buenos Aires skyline

http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/8808/skylinezp1.jpg

[dimondpark]

ok, I scaled a São Paulo pano, based on the 452 meters height of the Sears Tower and the 212 meters height of the TV Bandeirantes Tower in São Paulo.

Then I cropped the picture, to show mostly the buildings at the same distance as TV Bandeirantes Tower. This is the result...
http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/7281/citysizesgm5.jpg

ya know, this really puts into perspective just how massive Sao Paulo is.

[Trantor]

Diamond Park, my memory is quite weak, and I dont remember your nickname at SSC. Are you Urbanguy there?

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

heres another LA Pic showing the various skylines.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a278/Imyurdada/labasinyh7.jpg

edit: how can i have the pic show as a larger one?

[Urban Zombie®]

^Does that LA pic come in size Large by any chance?

[chiphile]

this LA stuff is getting stupid... Every city shown here has some considerable suburban skylines too, no one's showing pics from space of their entire metro area..
This compares the main skylines of each city on a scaled basis, and the original pic has LA scaled almost perfectly and there's nothing more to it fellas, that's the LA skyline. Start your own thread of pics of LA from space because that has absolutely nothing to do with this.

[LMich]

No need to get mad at the LA folks. The whole premise of the thread is fault unless more parameters are put in to make the comparisons better. Really, nothing against the starter, but he himself admitted that this was his "sad attempt at scaled U.S. skyline comparisons." I couldn't agree more.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

this LA stuff is getting stupid... Every city shown here has some considerable suburban skylines too, no one's showing pics from space of their entire metro area..
This compares the main skylines of each city on a scaled basis, and the original pic has LA scaled almost perfectly and there's nothing more to it fellas, that's the LA skyline. Start your own thread of pics of LA from space because that has absolutely nothing to do with this.

Both pics, mine and the one by LA Beauty, show skyline in the CITY OF LOS ANGELES. Century City, Downtown, Wilshire, Hollywood. Niether of those show Glendale, Long Beach or other satelliete cities.

[2taall]

The best way to go about this comparison would be to find pics of the cities from at least 6-7 miles away. Actually, the further out, the better, but this distance should "level up" all the buildings pretty well in all but the very long skylines like NY and Chicago. This way you don't wind up with what you see in the pics of St. Louis and Denver where one big structure is in the foreground and makes every other similiar sized structure look half its height.

I would think the next logical thing would be to pic a building in Chicago in the pic, like the IMB at 700 feet, and use that to start drawing comparisons to other cities with 700 footers like Detroit and Denver.

Just be careful of where you think the base of the building is at on the picture. This needs careful estimation and could really affect the results.

BTW, Sau Palo, Detroit, San Diego are all drawn way too big.

[2taall]

Nice! I do remember long ago someone got a pic of the Chicago skyline from a rooftop in Hermosa, that got downtown and most of the north shore up to Edgewater which would be great to put side-by-side with Evanston.

That said, I think your scaling is very -slightly- off. I'm just comparing Empire State to the John Hancock as reference points. To the top of JHC's antenna is about 1500ft, to the top of Empire State's antenna is about 1460ft, so they should appear about the same height.

These are great pics to compare, but NY is too large I agree.

The tip of the spire on the ESM would be about the rooftop of the Sears.

[2taall]

So anyway, if we want to get this thing accurate we could try these guidelines:

-Skyline shots of at least 6-7 miles away (this should work on most medium and small skylines to "level up" the skyline's perspective.)

-Get a shot of the skylines widest side if it is significant from other angles.

-crop the picture to the base of the skyline's buildings(be careful where you think the base is as it's easy to mess up here)


That should give a good comparison.

[Mister F]

Both pics, mine and the one by LA Beauty, show skyline in the CITY OF LOS ANGELES. Century City, Downtown, Wilshire, Hollywood. Niether of those show Glendale, Long Beach or other satelliete cities.
Wouldn't it be better to stick to continuous skylines? I could show pics of Toronto showing North York, Yonge/Eglinton, Scarborough, etc. but I'm not. They may be in City of Toronto but they're still separate from downtown. If it were continuous high rises between the nodes then I could see your point.

[Plasticman]

I'd still like to see Atlanta's other skylines like the Houston shots. Those Houston shots are great. Atlanta looks a lot like Houston. The three Atlanta skylines shown are all pretty much downtown in a row but there is also plenty of large clusters, especially in Buckhead plus the 560'+ King and Queen Towers plus some other 300-400 footers out on the loop.

[Hot Rod]

Personally, I dont see a problem with contiguous skylines - just as long as its called out and clarified.

What I'm getting at is - although I know lots of cities like LA and TO have skylines other than downtown; im not so sure if the suburban skylines really ADD anything. If the pic needs to be 6-10 miles away from downtown and there is some suburban skyline included - that's unavoidable.

but those latest pics of LA seem ridiculous to me, because in an attempt to capture the entire LA scape - you can't even really see downtown.

So my vote is - if in order to meet the 6-10 mile away requirement you pick up some suburban skyline(s) and/or if you have a true contiguous skyline that adds to or can only be fully appreciated if the entire thing is captured (like TO or Atlanta) ... then yes.

But I think just taking a sweeping scape just to show different highrise clusters is not very value added and takes away from the comparison to Chicago's vast downtown scape.

[dave8721]

If we are trying to show a good spread, how about including the "longest" skyline in the US. Here is a peice of the east coast of Florida skyline. This one runs from Miami beach up to Hallandale (~17 miles of highrises). With a couple of interruptions the entire skyline runs pretty much up the coast for over 100 miles.

These pics go side to side if anyone is good at cropping. The two tallest at the middle left of the second pic are both 550 feet tall for scaling pruposes:

http://lprofile.net/marksfamily/S0646.jpg http://lprofile.net/marksfamily/S0647.jpg

[marcus]

edit