HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2012, 9:02 PM
Patrick's Avatar
Patrick Patrick is offline
Senior Editor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 4,541
I've always noticed some of the world's greatest skylines are coincidentally so perfectly conical from most directions, I love it.

Pittsburgh


Source: http://www.sacp.org/

Seattle


Source: http://fineartamerica.com/featured/s...hew-adair.html

London


Source: http://www.housemanwaterhygiene.com/news

Sydney


Source: http://tnjn.com/staff/jricha16/

Makati


Source: thegunwiki.org

Post-WII Lower Manhattan arguably had the most conical skyline in history, at least for a time. Beautiful!


Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/recover...-fortstaunton/

Like Nowhereman1280 said earlier, New York's skyline is pretty "loafed" out. The pre-9/11 skyline, when viewed from great distances from the north or south, you'll notice how the ESB and WTC perfectly serve as the "peaks" of the entire skyline.


Source: http://www.flickriver.com/photos/67827566@N00/tags/wtc/

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1 View Post
Neither is Boston's skyline.

Obviously the Back Bay skyline isn't conical, I think you forgot about the actual Downtown Boston skyline:


Source: http://www.kaplaninternational.com/s...es-boston.aspx

One can argue that Boston actually has three "peaks" very simular to Chicago:


Source: http://www.photoforum.com/forum/urba...n-skyline.html

Last edited by Patrick; Jan 26, 2012 at 9:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2012, 9:02 PM
mhays mhays is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 12,816
Zoning can also create a dome, or a flat top.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2012, 9:47 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,538
It's also worth noting that observation/TV spires are almost always located off center from the typical "cone" of the skyline. This is probably because such a land use is too low density for the high value land at the center of the city, but still requires proximity to the CBD. This means they usually are built on less valuable land still adjacent to the core of highrises.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2012, 9:55 PM
Upward's Avatar
Upward Upward is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 8,040
It's just a matter of perspective. When the 3-dimensional world is compressed down to 2 dimensions, the vantage point determines the apparent distribution of the objects in the picture. The pictures above showing the supposed conical distribution are showing either

1. Only a part of the skyline, where the pattern holds locally

travelpod.com

or 2. A particular angle that places the tallest building at the center of the view with a smooth height gradient on either side

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/s...hew-adair.html

Seattle's skyline is decidedly non-conical in arrangement, despite how it appears from that and some other angles. The tallest building is near the southern edge of downtown. View the city from the east, or more easily, from the west, and a very different distribution is revealed. This view could have been used in an Alltel ad (maybe it was), with the ascending towers resembling signal bars on a cell phone.

(photo by me; yes, it's an old one)

I think what's really going on is that angles that show skyscrapers in an apparently conical grouping make for pleasingly stereotypical skyline photos that work well for postcards and such. This could be because of their resemblance to the classic Lower Manhattan skyline as seen from the harbor, which had the conical distribution with the tallest buildings in the center and progressively shorter buildings farther out. It's not surprising that the cliche skyline views of other cities evoke the form of the original iconic skyline.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/recover...-fortstaunton/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2012, 10:13 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Upward View Post
It's just a matter of perspective. When the 3-dimensional world is compressed down to 2 dimensions, the vantage point determines the apparent distribution of the objects in the picture. The pictures above showing the supposed conical distribution are showing either

1. Only a part of the skyline, where the pattern holds locally

travelpod.com
Uh no, I showed all three major parts of Chicago's skyline each one is a cone independent of the other two parts. Chicago is famous for its "triple peaked" skyline. Also, this holds true from ALL directions you view it from:

The first was from the East.

From the North:

stevendahlman.com

From the West:


uiuc.edu
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2012, 10:16 PM
MNMike MNMike is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,195
I guess Minneapolis is from most directions....in our case mostly due to zoning/city planning.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2012, 11:43 PM
Upward's Avatar
Upward Upward is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 8,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
Uh no, I showed all three major parts of Chicago's skyline each one is a cone independent of the other two parts. Chicago is famous for its "triple peaked" skyline. Also, this holds true from
Right, which is why I said the pattern holds locally.

Also, while the peak including Hancock has the shape from all directions of viewing, the one surrounding Sears does not (such as from the south).

The right way to analyze the distribution of height in a skyline is not by looking at views from any direction perpendicular to the buildings, because that will always involve perspective, but with something like a topo map showing the heights of buildings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2012, 12:00 AM
Patrick's Avatar
Patrick Patrick is offline
Senior Editor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 4,541
I know perspective is a helping factor in this picture, but the proximity of 311 South Wacker and AT&T should be enough to consider the cluster a "peak".


Source: http://perpustakaan.blogspot.com/201...lding-has.html

Less perspective:


Source: http://www.fineartphotographybyniraj.com/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2012, 4:36 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Upward View Post
Right, which is why I said the pattern holds locally.

Also, while the peak including Hancock has the shape from all directions of viewing, the one surrounding Sears does not (such as from the south).

The right way to analyze the distribution of height in a skyline is not by looking at views from any direction perpendicular to the buildings, because that will always involve perspective, but with something like a topo map showing the heights of buildings.
But that doesn't invalidate what they are saying. Chicago is a huge city and therefore has essentially multiple skylines centered around its multiple centers of business.

If you look at Chicago or just know the heights of the buildings, the result is the same. The tallest buildings are all clustered together and gradually descend in height until you get to the neighborhoods. This applies to Sears cluster just as much as Hancock or Aon. Though Sears gets screwed a bit because of artificial barriers to the conical form like the River or Rail Yards that cut off the edges of the cluster from the South and West.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2012, 4:44 PM
mhays mhays is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 12,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
It's also worth noting that observation/TV spires are almost always located off center from the typical "cone" of the skyline. This is probably because such a land use is too low density for the high value land at the center of the city, but still requires proximity to the CBD. This means they usually are built on less valuable land still adjacent to the core of highrises.
Often they're from fairs, which usually involve campuses.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2012, 4:32 PM
weatherguru18 weatherguru18 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 271
Houston doesn't either. Very spread out skyline...





Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2012, 5:38 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 4,738
^^Man, I want to visit Sydney so much. What a spectacular looking place.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Feb 7, 2012, 11:03 PM
scalziand's Avatar
scalziand scalziand is offline
Mortaaaaaaaaar!
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Naugatuck, CT/Worcester,MA
Posts: 2,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
Sure some larger cities start to take on a "Dome" shape as they hit the ceiling of where current engineering limits the price effectiveness of going higher (see the loop where you have many buildings peaking out around 700-800' or Manhattan where it's essentially a giant loaf shape of buildings), but as a rule skylines tend to take on certain shapes as a result of market forces.
I remember a study somewhere that showed another explanation of why that happens. The focus of that study was finding out what form would minimize the average travel distance required. A dome shape was the best at this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2012, 10:54 PM
gtbassett's Avatar
gtbassett gtbassett is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 224
San Francisco's skyline also bucks this trend, with the Transamerica Pyramid, the tallest building, on the northern edge of the CBD practically in the North Beach neighborhood. Also, if the future Transbay Tower ever gets built it will be in SOMA, south of the downtown Financial District essentially making our skyline more of a concave shape with the two highest peaks being on the outside of the skyscraper cluster that is downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:30 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.