Nashville skyline thread (Midtown, Charlotte: rent, house, neighborhood)

[Fly Dragon]

Nashville beats: SLC, Raleigh, Orlando, Jacksonville, and Milwaukee.
If counting how many new buildings, I'd give Nashville an edge over: NOLA, Pittsburgh, Indy, Columbus, Cincinnati, and KCMO. Otherwise, it's a tie with these cities.
Charlotte, Austin, and Vegas beat Nashville overall.

[Zedd90]

Originally Posted by Joakim3

KC has a beautiful skyline but to be frank it's not on the same level as any of those cities as a collective skyline.

KC has what? 14 buildings over 300'

Austin, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, Nashville all have +30 completed buildings over 300'. KC has the quality its just lacking in quantity compared to those listed cities.

Really? It looks as if KC has more buildings over 300', at least from a distance. I guess KC is lacking when it comes to the mid tier buildings with a height around 300'-400', but I assume KC has more buildings around the 400'-600' mark compared to Nashville. So I'm guessing it gives off an illusion of a denser environment.

Nashville on the other hand has an abundant amount of buildings in-between 300'-450', but lacking anything around 450' and above. If the batman building sat at 617', not including the spires, it would make Nashville's skyline look way more dominating. Actually, I wish the batman building was at least 800'.

[Zedd90]

Originally Posted by Fly Dragon

Nashville beats: SLC, Raleigh, Orlando, Jacksonville, and Milwaukee.
If counting how many new buildings, I'd give Nashville an edge over: NOLA, Pittsburgh, Indy, Columbus, Cincinnati, and KCMO. Otherwise, it's a tie with these cities.
Charlotte, Austin, and Vegas beat Nashville overall.

Vegas is debatable. I'll say they're about the same level. One's just more "vibrant" than the other.

[yadigggski]

Nashville is below Austin, Pittsburgh and Charlotte. Above the rest of the list IMO.

[jjbradleynyc]

Originally Posted by Zedd90

Really? It looks as if KC has more buildings over 300', at least from a distance. I guess KC is lacking when it comes to the mid tier buildings with a height around 300'-400', but I assume KC has more buildings around the 400'-600' mark compared to Nashville. So I'm guessing it gives off an illusion of a denser environment.

Nashville on the other hand has an abundant amount of buildings in-between 300'-450', but lacking anything around 450' and above. If the batman building sat at 617', not including the spires, it would make Nashville's skyline look way more dominating. Actually, I wish the batman building was at least 800'.

Also I think Kansas City may have a bit more buildings in the 100-200 foot range, due to KC being more established and built up a few decades before Nashville. That may result in folks thinking it has a bigger skyline.

I visited Kansas City back in 2016 and was pleasantly surprised at how great of a city it was--so much to do, good neighborhoods and growing. Its growth in 2021 is just not in the same conversation as Nashville's.

I'd love to see KC build 4 or 5 more skyscrapers downtown. They are due for a couple more in the 400-600 foot range.

Few cities can match the pace of Nashville's development of skyscrapers right now. Austin, Charlotte, NYC, San Fran, LA, Seattle and Miami are in the same grouping of cities as Nashville, when it comes to just sheer number/rapid skyscraper construction in 2021, in the US.

[Joakim3]

Originally Posted by jjbradleynyc

Also I think Kansas City may have a bit more buildings in the 100-200 foot range, due to KC being more established and built up a few decades before Nashville. That may result in folks thinking it has a bigger skyline.

KC is in the same boat as St. Louis. Both lack a lot of +100m buildings but both have (relatively) more infill buildings in the 100-200' range than Austin & Charlotte and probably Nashville as well.

Originally Posted by Zedd90

Vegas is debatable. I'll say they're about the same level. One's just more "vibrant" than the other.

Hate it or love it, Vegas is definitely a tier above all of them in size/grandeur. It has 43 buildings over 400' which is 4 less than Seattle.

[Zedd90]

Originally Posted by Joakim3

KC is in the same boat as St. Louis. Both lack a lot of +100m buildings but both have (relatively) more infill buildings in the 100-200' range than Austin & Charlotte and probably Nashville as well.



Hate it or love it, Vegas is definitely a tier above all of them in size/grandeur. It has 43 buildings over 400' which is 4 less than Seattle.

I agree, Vegas beats Nashville in height and vibrancy. However, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, and Austin is still top dog in height and overall density.

[BPt111]

Downtown Brooklyn and Long Island City NYC

[Joakim3]

Originally Posted by Zedd90

I agree, Vegas beats Nashville in height and vibrancy. However, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, and Austin is still top dog in height and overall density.

Compared to Vegas? Density I agree.. height, absolutely not.

The Stratosphere is a supertall. Vegas has over 17 buildings over +150m which is almost on par with Philly.

[whereiend]

Originally Posted by Joakim3

Compared to Vegas? Density I agree.. height, absolutely not.

The Stratosphere is a supertall. Vegas has over 17 buildings over +150m which is almost on par with Philly.

The Vegas strip is a one of a kind place in the world but I don't rate it that highly as a skyline. The main issue for me is that so many of the hotels are so big that you almost can't tell how tall they are. It's only when you are on foot and attempt to walk to that hotel right across the street that you recognize the enormity of the place.