Cities with most disproportionate skylines

[montrealman]

We all love a good skyscraper skyline. However, they sometimes feel disproportionate to the population size of the metro area they represent: some smaller cities have very impressive skylines, while some urban behemoths have mediocre to non-existent ones (whether due to cultural legacy, geography, height restrictions, what have you).

I know this will be an extremely subjective thread with no right or wrong answers, but I'm interested to see what others think.

I'll start off with Vancouver. Very impressive skyline for a metro area of only 2 million people.

[montrealman]

Another one: Honolulu. Sizeable skyline for metro area of approx. 1 million people.

[Mr Downtown]

Tulsa always struck me as more impressive than you might expect for a city of 400,000.

[montrealman]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Tulsa always struck me as more impressive than you might expect for a city of 400,000.

Interesting, would you consider Tulsa to be a regional hub? (Sorry about my ignorance of Oklahoma). I find that these cities with wider regional economic or political footprints tend to amass office blocks (whether for corporate regional offices or gov't buildings) in amounts that are less directly related to their own population sizes.

[Jimby]

I would suggest for Canada it would be Niagara Falls, Regina and Calgary.
Calgary with a small metro of 1.2 million has taller buildings than much bigger Montreal and Vancouver and much more on the way.

This picture doesn't show the entire skyline but is my most recent pic. Brookfield has a project with a 247M tall office tower which is in the permitting process at city hall, plus there are several condo towers in the Beltline district adjacent to downtown either planned or under construction in the 30-40 storey range. Cadillac Fairview currently has a 40 storey office tower under construction, as well as the 41 storey Eighth Avenue Place west tower is half way up and fully leased. Half a dozen hotels projects are moving forward, and at least 2 of them are more than 30 storeys.


central skyline from Hope Slope by LUMIN8, on Flickr

[jigglysquishy]

Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. Metro population: 215,000



Source:http://www.newstalk980.com/story/sol...nt-plant/74817

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Tulsa always struck me as more impressive than you might expect for a city of 400,000.

Uh oh, now I just know we're going to start getting the "Miami is sure impressive for a city of 400,000! Pittsburgh is sure impressive for a city of 300,000!" posts. Tulsa is a "city" of 950,000. Still a pretty nice skyline though.

[QuantumX]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Uh oh, now I just know we're going to start getting the "Miami is sure impressive for a city of 400,000! Pittsburgh is sure impressive for a city of 300,000!" posts. Tulsa is a "city" of 950,000. Still a pretty nice skyline though.

But Miami has a huge metro area. That's why I wasn't going to say anything myself. The OP did specify metro area rather than city population.

[Inkoumori]

I hate to be "that guy" but Lagos;


kivesing.org

[Inkoumori]

Could go on and on-

Dhaka
Karachi
Delhi
Tehran
Kolkata

[montrealman]

Panama City (metro population of 1.2 million) is a serious overachiever.


Panama City by Alex E. Proimos, on Flickr

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Inkoumori

Could go on and on-

Dhaka
Karachi
Delhi
Tehran
Kolkata

One of these is not like the others...

[Inkoumori]

^
produce then

[MonkeyRonin]

Just look at the GDP per capita and HDI index of those cities respective countries. Iran is a lot more developed than India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, or Nigeria.

(GDP per capita / Human Development Index)

Bangladesh: $1,790 / 0.500
Pakistan: $2,787 / 0.504
India: $3,693 / 0.547
Iran: $13,053 / 0.707


I'm not quite sure what any of this has to do with skylines (or why you posted a shantytown in Lagos in the first place), but Tehran's is pretty decent anyway. Its more mid-rise heavy though.


Tehran Skyline by Moh Masoumi, on Flickr

[Inkoumori]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Just look at the GDP per capita and HDI index of those cities respective countries. Iran is a lot more developed than India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, or Nigeria.

Sure it's richer than the others, but it hasn't the skyline of a city of 12m +

Which is the point of this thread if I'm not mistaken.

[Inkoumori]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

I'm not quite sure what any of this has to do with skylines (or why you posted a shantytown in Lagos in the first place), but Tehran's is pretty decent anyway. Its more mid-rise heavy though.

To be clear, I was not disparaging any city, anywhere. Just thinking about which massive cities have no "skyline" per se.

It's possible to put Rio and Sao Paulo in that mix too. Do they have innumerable highrises? Yes. But Sao Paulo, for how big it is has yet to crack 600'.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Tulsa is a "city" of 950,000. Still a pretty nice skyline though.

Exactly. Based on that picture, I'd say Tulsa's skyline is, by US standards, pretty average for a million-person metro.

[QuantumX]

But aren't we going by metro areas though and not the actual size of the city versus it's skyline?

[Redkey]

Large for its population:

Calgary AB, metro 1.25m:


Calgary Skyline by Yulia Koch, on Flickr

Yellowknife NT, metro 19500:


downtown yellowknife by .jerms., on Flickr

Small for the population: (sorry)

Winnipeg MB, metro 750k:


Winnipeg Skyline at Night by Travel Manitoba, on Flickr

Hamilton ON, metro 720k:


Hamilton by colampearson, on Flickr

[Inkoumori]

Originally Posted by QuantumX

But aren't we going by metro areas though and not the actual size of the city versus it's skyline?

We're going for schmaltz.