San Francisco, California š šŗšø the actual best skyline on the West Coast
kinda looks like santiago de chile lol
Careful, your post isn't a blind love of San Francisco's "unique" (and by unique, I mean the same) experience. That kinda talk is unheard of round those parts.
Honestly though anyone with their head out of their ass can see what you are talking about. That angle bears a resemblance for sure.
I mean sf is a gorgeous city and easily one of my favorites, imo its the 3rd most beautiful city in the us after chicago and nyc.
I'm from SF, and don't think anyone talks like that here from what I've seen. Lots of pretentious people, sure, but "it's like (x city) kinda but with" has been the start of many conversations about san francisco I've seen between locals and between locals and "transplants". Especially comparing it to nyc with a lot more nature access(or various other differentiators depending on the conversation and conversants) is a really common thing. I certainly can see the comparison the commenter above was making, looking at photos. Edit: having seen OP's rightfully downvoted comments, yikes.
Same architect built the two biggest towers, which is why they have the similar look.
I could see what you mean because it's got the one real tall tower over all the other ones and it looks the exact same as Santiago's. But SF actually has a lot of moderately tall skyscrapers surrounding it
One of my favorite places in the world.
Sad the Transamerica tower is hardly visible.
Thems fighten words
š„
Northern Californian here but LA is a better skyline to me (that's if the smog clears out long enough to see it), especially at night, the view with an endless sea of lights is awesome.
Lmfao, good one. But no. Sorry.
It's an opinion, but alright.
Seeing those photographs with mountains covered in snow is so cool.
Don't understand why this edgy offended reply gets upvotes but the comment you're replying to is downvoted. They said it was just their opinion
I donāt think itās LA, but itās definitely not Seattle
SF probably deserves number 1
Why not Seattle? Genuinely curious.
In terms of actual skyline itās just too flat and spread out. The number of buildings by each height is actually surprisingly close (3 vs 2 at 800+ feet, 11 vs 8 at 600+ feet), but in addition to having that edge SF also has more interesting buildings. Salesforce is not insignificantly taller than Columbia, and Transamerica is more distinctive than any other actual building in either city. Space Needle is a nice offset to this to be fair. Both have their boring buildings, but in addition to Transamerica, I think 181 Fremont, 555 California, and the Embarcadero Center buildings are all more interesting than any of Seattleās top 20. Having Rainier (the mountain, not tower) is cool and all, but I feel like that has to be a much lesser consideration. I was rolling my eyes at the thread the other day where people were throwing out towns with like two buildings over 300 feet as ānice skylinesā just because they were set in the mountains. Nice setting does not equal nice skyline. On the other hand Iād say SFās hills contribute to the skyline itself from some angles since theyāre actually in the city, especially if youāre capturing Coit Tower.
Yeah, but:
Exactly my point. Thatās all Seattleās got.
Not with those 3 unfinished and abandoned skyscrapers towering over LA Live.
That is a crazy opinion.
I vote SF because itās a more dense and walkable city, although Seattle is no slouch either.
Right!? I never said Seattle was bad, just doesnāt compare to SF when you look at the numbers and actual size.
Itās compares visually, the way most people experience a skyline š
What numbers and actual size are you referring to? Both have almost an identical number of skyscrapers.
High rises. What makes up the density. San Francisco has 482 high rises, 27 of which are skyscrapers, Seattle has 120 high rises, 24 of which are skyscrapers
Howāre you defining high rises here? Also - do apartment buildings around the perimeter of a city really matter when looking at the skyline?
So high rises donāt count? Theyāre part of a cityās density, and skyline. You just donāt count them or what? The council on tall building and urban habit would say otherwise. & in San Francisco, apartment bindings rise up to 400 feet, which is considered a high rise, since a skyscraper is over 492 feet. š
Iām just saying that theyāre arenāt 482 buildings in the skyline pictures youāre sharing, so Iām not sure why they matter when making a comparison between the two. No need to get so snarky.
I mean it really doesnāt matter, itās still apart of the skyline, and you can view it from all angles in real life unlike a picture and see all 482. Idk what youāre trying to justify.
What do numbers and actual size have to do with the appearance of the skyline?
OP working hard here in the comments.
Yup, I got time today.
They're like if Eminem wrote Stan about somebody who is weirdly obsessed with San Francisco.
E: OP was unhappy with this and appears to have blocked me lol.
Stan Francisco
Oh well, people have options and preferences. Mines an actual skyline, yours is Temu. Not the same.
Just curious, have you ever left the Bay area? Like you do know that other cities exist right?
Actually, I think we found the mayor of San Francisco here.
What is Temu?
ITS ON!!! SKYSCRAPER WARRRR!!!
Hereās one from September 9th 2020 at 12:43pm during the worst wild fire smoke ever. I took it from Corona Heights. Skyline looks cool even in this doomer-ish scenario.
The Godzilla movie
Oh, I thought that was Hong Kong for a sec.
Itās insane when youāre in downtown SF and start realizing how hilly SF really is
Same thing in Seattle. The walk up from the ferry terminal is a leg killer
Smaller hills
I wouldn't say they're smaller but there are definitely less of them since most of Seattle was re-graded 100+ years ago which led to the original hills being liquified & used as fill to create Harbor Island
The tallest hill in Seattle is only 520 feet in elevation, San Franciscoās highest hill is 922 feet. Just for clarification.
I remember being in Seattle struggling to get fro SLU to Queen Anne and hearing someone on my conference call explaining how SF is a hilly city and nobody understands their struggle. It cemented my choice forever. All I could think of was that south park episode. It's SEAllTheWay
I live in SF and have visited Seattle multiple times and love it there. The cities feel very similar to me in a way that sometimes if I squint in Seattle it kinda feels like SF. That being said, the hills in SF are on a different level, especially in certain neighborhoods. You feel them even harder because the city has a grid structure unlike cities like Seattle and Pittsburgh that built around the hills more so than through them.
Sounds like you missed those "certain neighborhoods" in Seattle when you visited then.. I guess Seattle's famous windy downtown roads had you all discombobulated. A grid of streets? Unheard of! /s
I'm from Seattle and we have a lot of hills, but SF has actual mountains in the city almost twice as high as the highest hills in Seattle.
I live in SF and like it here. I like the skyline too. But it really needs sooooo many more skyscrapers for a bunch of reasons. And Iām getting second hand embarrassment from OPs answers in here smh.
Needs infill
Itās amazing the see the city from the Marin Headlands.
The sf skyline is so unique, coupled with the bridges and hills and Sutro tower
Way more interesting than seattle imo with the variety of architecture and bridges.
Iām born & raised in NYC and I can tell you coming out West and seeing these two cities set in gorgeous natural landscape, it doesnāt really matter. Seeing SF from Marin, TI, the hills around Berkeley or Seattle from QA or the ferry to/from Bainbridge - itās all gorgeous. Weāre splitting hairs here but Iām lovin the pics haha..
North of NYC in the Hudson River Valley is honestly equally gorgeous to me, but have a huge soft spot for the eastern deciduous forests.
If you go hiking in some of the āmountainsā along the river, you can actually see the NYC skyline Robert well on a clear day as well.
I think the Bay Bridge and Golden Gate Bridge put SF over Seattle. Seattle is nice too though.
i know seattle has mt. rainier, but bay area has a better overall natural landscape. with that being the background of SF's skyline, i choose SF over Seattle
What makes it better? Seattle has a bay, the Puget Sound, two large lakes, an (ugly) river, two mountain ranges, a volcano, forest.
the SF Bay Area has large mountains and hills going for miles, major bridges, a major city across the water from SF, constant rolling fog, large islands, a historic prison :P etc etc
Seattle's great too, but SF Bay Area has more variety which gives a more busy and more striking background for the SF skyline
I'm from the Bay and I think it's beautiful, but we do not have large mountains nearby like Seattle or even LA does. The Sierras are 3 hours away. Other than that it's a draw with Seattle for me. I think the forests and clarity of the water make the Puget Sound prettier, but SF had actual ocean access which is hard to beat.9
oh i agree Mt Tam is nowhere near Mt Rainier, but you still get striking views from ground level, along with the other variety of things around SF. Mt Rainier is gorgeous tho.
And behind this photographer is an even more attractive mountain range
All around the city.
SF's "mountains" are hills in comparison
Seattle has Olympic mountains on the west and Cascades in the east, mt baker on the north and mt Rainer in the south. But I agree SF is denser and Seattle has some catching up to do.
Pacific Ocean, Mt tam, Mt Diablo, both dormant volcanos, Alcatraz island; bridges, S.F. bay,.. no ocean view in Seattle
I looked this up to be certain, but neither Mt Tam or Diablo were any sort of volcano.
Those are just little hills when you're actually there. Our mountains in SEA tower over the skyline on two sides.
š„± we got that too, you aināt naming nothing we donāt have š¤£
That's literally all I did lol
Yeah āin the Bay Areaā.
Right, so whatās your point? š¤£š¤£ puget sound, acts as a bay. Yet way father from the ocean. SF bay has way closer ocean access. Next.
I live in Seattle and my first time visiting SF blew me away with the architecture, and almost made me sympathetic to the NIMBYism there. I was simply expecting a slightly larger version of Seattle. I prefer the natural setting of the PNW but the cityscape of SF is on another level.
Agreed. I think there are underutilized areas that can see new development and an increase in density while preserving the character of the more historic neighborhoods.
I've always been of the opinion that SF has a criminally low number of skyscrapers for what it should have. There's less people living in SF than my suburban county, which is crazy to me.
What suburban county do you live in that has 850k people? Genuinely curious.
Also FYI San Francisco is the second densest city in the US (doesn't mean we shouldn't build more though).
Westchester County NY. Somehow there's like 190K more people around here than there is in that whole ass city.
Nassau has 1.3 million. Suffolk I think clocks in at 1.5, but it's geographically huge so it figures. Bergen, Middlesex and Essex counties out in Jersey exceed or match the population of SF.
I mean I'm not sayin' anything, but I just am continually astonished at how much of an anomaly NYC and environs is compared to literally anywhere else in the Country with the exception of like the Chicagoland area and the LA Basin.
And speaking of Chicago...that's another one that should have a bunch more infill than it does.
Westchester County NY. Somehow there's like 190K more people around here than there is in that whole ass city.
Ok that makes a little more sense since you are part of the largest metropolitan area in the country. It also has a lot to do with size...Westchester county is 450 square miles while SF is 47. SF is also just one small city on a peninsula that anchors the greater Bay Area which includes the cities of Oakland, Berkeley and San Jose.
To your point though, NYC is an anomaly within the US. I grew up close to both NYC and Philly and love dense cities similar to the northeast cities and SF is the closest you can get to that on the West Coast. Most cities out here are a sprawling mess of strip malls and suburbs. Seattle is kind of a mini SF in that it's not as dense but it's does have some walkable neighborhoods and a nice compact downtown. LA though? SD? Phoenix? Impossible to navigate without a car.
Ok Julian š
Salesforce tower looks so phallic ngl
Too bad thereās no mountain backdrop š„²
Thatās what I like to see!
That's like one day a year. The East Bay hills are no match for the Cascades and Olympics lol. I prefer the actual SF skyline though
Point is. We still got it. Lmao.
Much better!
Seems itās all about the angle/perspective for every skyline. š¤
Doesnāt need mountain backdrop if it is literally on a mountain š
Idk Seattles skyline is definitely more interesting and every angle is incredible
Definitely not. No bridges. If you are gna name mountains and snow caps, SF has that too. Canāt name a supertall in Seattle tho.
This comment just shows youāre a homer you are lol. SF has ONE super tall sky scrapper. Also if we bringing mountains into the mix you mine as well not even bother. And no bridges is a hilarious criteria. I donāt see any volcanoes in San Francisco so it actually does t count.
Oh and Mt Tam is a volcano and is in my other picture threat š
The Columbia center is 76 stories high
Thatās not a supertall.
You're not a supertall
Check and mate.
San Francisco has the least number of supertalls out of us cities with supertalls at ONE lol
San Francisco and ATL both have ONE, Miami has ONEand Austin, ONE. Next š¤£š¤£š¤£š¤£š¤£
Glad you figured out how to use google.
Apparently you still havenāt.
Your gonna wake up and be like āf*ckā why did I make myself look like an idiot on the internet last night
š„± you Seattle people are a drag šš¤£ next š£ļø
You can tell people are from San Fran when they run out of facts and start using emojis
Moderator removed comment
1mo
More running hills of š© on every street too
I have to say I am loving this skyscraper beef, itās hilarious
This is coming from someone whoās city has a higher homeless population and an entire Facebook page that shows homeless shitting all over downtown and 4th and pine š¤£ but whatever
You are the exact type of person that is making me root for the Oklahoma City tower. People with the skyscraper stick stuck so far up their ass that jiggling it around makes their mouth move like a puppet.
Depending on the angle, Seattle has 2-3 bridges. Like.... any view of Seattle's skyline looking south has Mt. Rainier framed against the West Seattle bridge
How so?
I like Seattleās skyline better. They have a cool Space Needle!
good, but too short and too small
There isnt really anything bigger on the west coast. Also this angle makes it look smaller than it is
gorgeous shot
There isnāt anything as expensive either. They need to build up.
Seattle is like 1 skyscraper behind and arguably has a better skyline. Vancouver is definitely better.
Vancouver is the same 400 foot tall apartment complex built 50 times.
Better skyline though.
SF is easily better
Seattle is 3 behind and has a shorter skyline but more importantly is more spread out and also has a highway going thru it
Facts. Seattle people argue facts. š
āSeattle people argue factsā is hilarious. What do you argue? Made up stuff while youāre drunk?
Lol both are good
Maybe cuz Im based in Tokyo, THE biggest city in the world so
18th tallest skyscraper in the U.S. larger than Boston, Miami, and Manhattan. That size talk is a drag. SF offers plenty within.
Offers plenty except for enough housing
Maybe cuz Im based in Tokyo, THE biggest city in the world so
Iām a huge SF fan, but what do you mean taller than Manhattan?
NYC LA CHICAGO TORONTO
Compared to what? New York and Chicago?
Compare to some real big TALL cities, TOKYO , DUBAI, NY, OSAKA
What about them?
The Salesforce tower definitely shot it to #1 on the West Coast imo
North America Top 10:
NYC
Chicago
Toronto
SF
Seattle
Vancouver
Calgary
Miami
Philly
Montreal
San Francisco above Toronto IMO. Due to historical matters.
It would look better without the Millennium Tower blocking Saleseforce Tower. Good news about that thoughā¦!
Ohā¦ I donāt know that building then. Looks vaguely like Bank of China, Hong Kong but much worse.
Oh you mean the beauty of 181 Fremont. Something Seattle tried to do with F6 tower šššš
Iām so sick of blue glass on blue sky. The New WTC is so much worse than the Twins, for instance.
Agreed
Nice shot. Hereās one I took last time I was in town
Agreed. Seattle is a very close second
Yes looks good from far but once you get in itās a mess.
Stop going to the tenderloin then
Vancouver and Seattle would like a wordā¦
Weāve been had a word. Next
LA is Mid, San Diego is cool but not near the best, Seattle a close third for me, Vancouver is my favourite but definitely a distant second to San Francisco.
Definitely my favorite skyline on the west coast.
Salesforce tower adds a lot to SF's skyline, but I think Vancouver's bay/density/mountain combination photographs better despite having few towers over 150m, making Vancouver my preferred west coast skyline.
https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2019/10/28/23/22/vancouver-4585887_1280.jpgĀ
That said, I've also threatened to start calling it the Greater Burnaby Region since the largest Vancouver area towers are being built in the Burnaby suburb.
Vancouvers skyline, despite being larger in shorter towers. Is nothing short of interesting. Less historical towers, and less density than SF. Sort of gives āTemuā skyline affects. San Franciscoās skyline is authentic. Much larger, plus SF is the only city on the West Coast where the entire city is next to the Pacific Ocean. Canāt get that in Seattle, or Vancouver.
Yeah looks very stale to me
Unfortunately you won't be able to qualify for the witness protection program because of the way you posted this. My advice would be to move to Canada living Ontario and tell them that you're from New Zealand. Otherwise you're going to be hunted for the rest of your life.
I'd probably agree. Followed closely by Seattle
Bay Areaaaa šš£ļø
Typical northern Californian. The best skyline in California is any where the sun sand and sea meet without a single person in sight. And the best city skyline on the west coast is Seattle. And I'm from SoCal. Commence the downvoting!
User deleted comment
1mo
Itās easily visible with the naked eye. Itās not the far.
User deleted comment
1mo
Seattle >>
San Francisco >>>> Seattle
Lol the beef starts
Haha. I love OPās commitment and bias
Went to SF for the first time last month and wow oh wow. I was just so impressed with how well the city flowed into the terrain. Whether or not itās the most ābeautifulā on the West Coast can be debated, I guess, but to me thereās no question it simply āworksā the best.
I've live in both places. Aesthetically Seattle has this one in the bag. If I were to give my top 10 west coast skylines on looks alone:
- Seattle
- San Francisco
- Vancouver
- Los Angeles
- Puerta Vallarta (Centro)
- San Diego
- Portland
- Long Beach
- Acapulco
- Anchorage
Last: Irvine
Honorable mentions to Honolulu and Vegas that would be on the list but I can't in good conscience call them "west coast"
Switch San Francisco with Seattle and you got yourself a good personal list.
In the states, maybe.
[Image]Ā
Hereās my shot from Dolores Park <3