^That has to be one of the strangest posts I've ever read on UO. What is it you do for a job exactly that you have the occasion to travel to every city in America and rate their women?

It's a pretty amazing post.

It's a pretty amazing post.

I thought so as well.

Who even knew that Caligula posted on this forum? Maybe his San Diego harem was getting some food, and he had time to make this informative post.

I'd say that Columbus' main problem is not that there aren't attractive women here, but the fact that there are a LOT of men here and that there are also a LOT of old ladies. What happens is that men move here because there is lots of work available. They work their asses off in order to get rich, die young, and leave their widows on their own for 20+ years. So the city doesn't end up skewing old 'cause there's so many young guys and rich old ladies.

As C-Dawg states, people from Michigan are indeed extremely friendly and outgoing.

Who even knew that Caligula posted on this forum? Maybe his San Diego harem was getting some food, and he had time to make this informative post.

 

I post a lot on this forum but most of my posts are pretty short or just copy-paste-FYI type posts. I don't know how C-Dawgs has the time for all that and work and visiting the USA and its women...

 

Caligula... classic! :)

^I only post when I'm not working, so it's not like I can do it every day. I can go weeks (or even months) between visiting a forum. My work is typically 100% on or off. And I travel a ton, so time spent in airports is pretty boring...not a whole lot to do other than read the internet and reports. A flight delay can leave you with hours to kill. :|

 

*I spend the majority of my life traveling for work for tech support and business development. It's a good life, but I'll probably never be rich. One of the big perks is getting to meet people I'd never meet at home, but that has its emotional ups and downs. Saying goodbye is really hard since you don't always know when you'll see someone again. You can fall in love, and you know it's only going to be a short-term fling or long-distance with occasional chances of crossing paths again. Still, just having it in the first place is a good thing.

 

**Your home life suffers most since you can't see your friends as much or have a traditional relationship. I probably live some sort of millennial dream life, but sites like Elite Daily really underestimate the sacrifices of constant travel...it's not something you can do for your whole life and stay healthy. You get really tore up and worn out. I can't imagine being a parent doing a job like mine. That's got to be brutal. I sometimes work on the road for weeks on end for a big project or client, and I'd really miss my kids if I had them. I don't have any life balance to be honest, but the crazy lifestyle works for me right now. I like getting to experience other cities too. I didn't fully grasp how big and diverse the United States was until all of this travel. America is nuts...

Density! "Seattle leapfrogged Baltimore into the No. 10 spot" https://t.co/AS9LMaMCKF https://t.co/FpPm2EicSs

Most and least happy cities of Europe

http://www.citylab.com/politics/2016/02/europe-happy-cities-eurobarometer-athens/461958/?utm_source=SFTwitter

Cincinnati in the top 10! (although you'd never understand why with the photo they ran):

 

Thrillist: AMERICA'S 20 MOST BEAUTIFUL SKYLINES, RANKED

Wow. Chicago, Vegas, and San Francisco should not be on that list. I think SF and Chicago have very bland skylines. Vegas is Vegas.

I disagree about Chicago but Vegas? Vegas has probably the tackiest skyline in the world. SF is decently scaled, but it's far too 70s/80s to be at all interesting. Remove the natural elements and you are left with a very uninspiring, bland skyline with one standout building wit the Transamerica Pyramid.

 

Don't even get me started on Honolulu with its sea of nothingness, Atlanta's post-modern blandness that is so disjointed its hard to even refer to it as a singular skyline, or San Diego's monotony.

 

This list is questionable at best.

Chicago certainly belongs on the list.  I too would never include Honolulu or Vegas. Seriously though, Vegas? 

 

As for the photo included for Cincinnati, its certainly not an all inclusive shot!

I think my list would go something like New York, Chicago, Seattle, Los Angeles, Philly, Pittsburgh, Houston, Atlanta, Dallas, Minneapolis, Detroit (old skyline, not GM Towers), Cincinnati and Cleveland.

 

Cincy's skyline always impresses me especially when driving through the cut in the hill.  It's very much put together quite well in the basin area with depth north to south and east to west.

Chicago's has to be on the list for its sheer scale of so many towers. And if you view Chicago's skyline from the river, north/east of Union Station, you'd be crazy not to include it.

 

Pittsburgh's skyline is a stunner when you emerge from the Fort Pitt tunnel. It's such a dramatic change from the landscape on the west side of the tunnel.

Philly and KC have a lot of nice prewar towers as well.

I discount Chicago because I don't think their skyline is beautiful. I think it's impressive, but not beautiful. That's just my opinion though. I've never been impressed. Though I've never been on the lake to see it from that angle.

Yeah, I was going to edit and add KC as well.  I think they are on par with Cincy, but Cincy's natural settings may be a bit better.  That Skyline has a lot of depth to it in all directions and some nice, art deco towers in there.

 

 

C'mon... DC???  This is a horrible list.  The images they choose for some cities could have been much better too.

LA and Seattle had good photos

Cincinnati in the top 10! (although you'd never understand why with the photo they ran):

 

Thrillist: AMERICA'S 20 MOST BEAUTIFUL SKYLINES, RANKED

 

Philly ahead of New York? Clearly this is click bait stuff.

Given that they admit they are using natural setting, scenery, glitz factor right off, I think Nashville is the most undeserving city on there. particularly since I despise their signature building(unfortunately their signature building should have been that Signature Tower that is now in Jakarta or somewhere.)

Harsh critics here!

"But perhaps the coolest thing about this skyline is that most of the buildings are connected by the Minneapolis Skyway System, so people can move through downtown without having to walk in the brutal Minnesota cold." Besides that this list seems kind of backwards, the higher the rank the more insults they had. St.Louis has only one recognizable structure but it was on the list? Miami has a lot of bland white structures now and you include a link to a building that will make it "uglier" but you name it as well. There were more comments that didn't make sense but this list isn't that good imo.

My hood in San Diego "won" best neighborhood. Cubs "Hilliard Green" on the list too.

 

http://www.trulia.com/blog/bestneighborhoods/

 

The only Cubs I know is...

 

Harsh critics here!

 

Let's just say you aren't always in a boat or in a damn helicopter when you're in Chicago. If you don't have access to either of those things, it's not an attractive skyline. It's big, yes. But from any other angle, it's bland. It has one good angle, and it's largely inaccessible. Compare that to Pittsburgh or Cincinnati where there are multiple vantage points that are easily accessible that all show a beautiful skyline.

I think it's cool you can see the skyline from so far away, like coming in from a ways out on the interstate or from a platform on the Elevated on the northside.

 

That said, the skyline is pretty awesome when you are on Michigan Avenue over looking the Chicago River.  Or if you are walking north along the waterfront.  I may just think this because of the sheer scale though. 

 

Cincinnati really does have a great skyline because of not only it's overall density for a city it's size, but also because of the natural setting.  I spend a lot of time in Indianapolis and their skyline doesn't hold a candle to Cincy despite the fact that the cities are around the same size more or less.

Harsh critics here!

 

Let's just say you aren't always in a boat or in a damn helicopter when you're in Chicago. If you don't have access to either of those things, it's not an attractive skyline. It's big, yes. But from any other angle, it's bland. It has one good angle, and it's largely inaccessible. Compare that to Pittsburgh or Cincinnati where there are multiple vantage points that are easily accessible that all show a beautiful skyline.

 

Once you're in or near downtown, there aren't many places to view the Chicago skyline because the city is so flat. That doesn't mean it has a bad skyline, though.  If you're down by the Shedd Aquarium, you can get a pretty great lakeside panorama which presents a spectacular shot of the whole skyline. Also, if you're ever driving into the city on one of the freeways coming from the Northwest, the city looks humongous, and the skyline is certainly very impressive.

 

Cincinnati's skyline is pretty great from a bunch of angles, but when you're viewing it from due north (fairview park, for example), it looks bad. I also think the skyline doesn't look great when viewed from the West / 75. Our skyline also suffers from being on the short side. We have a great density of skyscrapers, but most aren't very tall. This is especially evident when you compare it to a skyline like Pittsburgh, which has both building density and height. Cleveland has some good height, but it's skyscrapers all seem spread out rather than clustered tight in one cohesive skyline. Height + density + architecture of the buildings + natural setting seems to be the formula for skylines.

Vantage points can make or break a skyline.  From due east (especially from an elevated view in UC) and west (from Edgewater), Cleveland's skyline stacks up quite well with many on the list.  From the lake or from the south, not so much.  That said, I don't care nearly as much about skylines as I did when I was younger.  The best parts of Downtown Cleveland, IMO, are found in the gaps of the skyline. 

 

Vantage points can make or break a skyline.  From due east (especially from an elevated view in UC) and west (from Edgewater), Cleveland's skyline stacks up quite well with many on the list.  From the lake or from the south, not so much.  That said, I don't care nearly as much about skylines as I did when I was younger.  The best parts of Downtown Cleveland, IMO, are found in the gaps of the skyline. 

 

I suppose the skyline values are somewhat variable according to surroundings and vantage point. While I love seeing Cleveland from the lakefront (pic2), I absolutely hate the view from the Flats with the river in the foreground (pic1).

I think Cleveland looks best coming over the innerbelt or main ave bridges from the West. Coming in on the east shoreway it's less than impressive. I prefer density to height so I've always thought Cincinnati's skyline was very nice.

 

Columbus looks pretty good from the east and west on I-70, but horrible from north or south, because practically all the skyscrapers are on high street.

To me the lake view obscures half the buildings and isolates the ones you can see.  I prefer the flats view, where you're looking up at a city on a hill.  Photos don't always do justice to the topographical effect.

A rooftop view from the east is clearly tops in my mind...... the shot Mayday always takes from the Garfield Monument as seen below.  Judging not overall, but just from particular view, it is a top rate skyline, close to or on par with anything between NYC and Chicago.

 

^I agree that's a great view. You get a tier between the big skyscrapers and shorter ones. You also get the water peaking out in the distance. Cleveland looks excellent in that shot. I also love the view from Edgewater Park. Having an urban beach adds a lot of flavor.

 

The city really benefits from having those three big skyscrapers that are abnormally large for a city of 400,000 people. Cleveland by far has the best skyline of any city its size. At the 300,000 area, I'd say it's Pittsburgh or Cincinnati.

I disagree about Chicago but Vegas? Vegas has probably the tackiest skyline in the world. SF is decently scaled, but it's far too 70s/80s to be at all interesting. Remove the natural elements and you are left with a very uninspiring, bland skyline with one standout building wit the Transamerica Pyramid.

 

Don't even get me started on Honolulu with its sea of nothingness, Atlanta's post-modern blandness that is so disjointed its hard to even refer to it as a singular skyline, or San Diego's monotony.

 

This list is questionable at best.

 

Huh? SF has the third best skyline in America in terms of density and breadth (though it's a lot denser than Chicago). It's a massive urban core with Manhattan density. I think only the skylines of New York City and Chicago beat it. And while it's important to note the glory that is the Transamerica Pyramid (my favorite skyscraper in the world), SF really shines due to the gigantic Bay Bridge terminating in downtown. That bridge is over 500 feet tall and adds a lot to the skyline. San Francisco has a world class skyline that's only getting better. After the Salesforce Tower is done, I don't see how anyone can criticize it. And location should factor in. Chicago is great due to Lake Michigan. New York City rocks due to its rivers and old bridges. SF has arguably the best urban waterfront in America, and it's surrounded by hills and coastal mountains. Only Seattle can compete with that natural setting. If you put Oakland's skyline where its port is at, it would immediately improve the city ten-fold. Also, can you imagine LA's skyline where Downtown Long Beach is at? Or how about Santa Monica? Then again, by not having the urban core on the water, LA's beaches are cleaner...

 

*I do agree though that San Francisco's 70s and 80s stuff is mostly ugly. It's lacking a lot of the good mid-century design that New York City, Chicago, and Toronto have. SF's mid-century towers are not aging well since they look like compromised designs. Due to height limits, that was likely the case. Prop M in the 80's is also why SF doesn't have more supertalls. That was one of the dumbest pieces of legislation in the history of urban planning. San Francisco's fight against Manhattanization was very misguided and short-sighted.

Let's just say you aren't always in a boat or in a damn helicopter when you're in Chicago. If you don't have access to either of those things, it's not an attractive skyline. It's big, yes. But from any other angle, it's bland. It has one good angle, and it's largely inaccessible. Compare that to Pittsburgh or Cincinnati where there are multiple vantage points that are easily accessible that all show a beautiful skyline.

 

There are several other good angles of Chicago's impressive skyline - for instance when you approach it via the Kennedy Expressway from the northwest.  Ohioans sadly miss out on this incredible view a lot as they approach Chicago from probably its ugliest angle from the southeast:

 

Farther out:

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5297/5501177650_ce16b060f3_b.jpg

 

Closer in:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Kennedy_Expressway_and_Metra.jpeg

 

Jump to about 3:30 (sorry about the annoying effects I couldn't find a good video on a clear day of what this drive is like):

 

 

 

Its also pretty awesome from Lake Shore Drive (esp southbound):

 

 

http://www.trbimg.com/img-563d38ad/turbine/ct-lake-shore-drive-repaving-met-1107-20151106

I disagree about Chicago but Vegas? Vegas has probably the tackiest skyline in the world. SF is decently scaled, but it's far too 70s/80s to be at all interesting. Remove the natural elements and you are left with a very uninspiring, bland skyline with one standout building wit the Transamerica Pyramid.

 

Don't even get me started on Honolulu with its sea of nothingness, Atlanta's post-modern blandness that is so disjointed its hard to even refer to it as a singular skyline, or San Diego's monotony.

 

This list is questionable at best.

 

Huh? SF has the third best skyline in America in terms of density and breadth (though it's a lot denser than Chicago). It's a massive urban core with Manhattan density. I think only the skylines of New York City and Chicago beat it. And while it's important to note the glory that is the Transamerica Pyramid (my favorite skyscraper in the world), SF really shines due to the gigantic Bay Bridge terminating in downtown. That bridge is over 500 feet tall and adds a lot to the skyline. San Francisco has a world class skyline that's only getting better. After the Salesforce Tower is done, I don't see how anyone can criticize it. And location should factor in.

 

As I'm sure you know, density doesn't mean a damn thing in terms of skyline aesthetics.  Sao Paulo is denser than everybody but one would hardly put it over, say, Seattle or even La Défense.  I actually like the San Francisco skyline and agree Salesforce will even out the skyline from The Pyramid but I don't believe it's the best skyline even in California, let alone the West Coast.  I do like the view from Potrero Hill; honestly never cared for the Treasure Island angle.  It highlights that Portman disaster that should've fell down with the Embarcadero in '89.

^It's true density doesn't make a skyline, but SF has a lot of good architecture with that density. It's just unfortunately overshadowed in some angles by bad architecture. And I don't think one can ignore the Bay Bridge with its role in the city's profile, nor the unique coastal geography and supporting skylines on Russian Hill and Nob Hill. San Francisco looks gorgeous from Marin, gorgeous from Golden Gate, gorgeous from Oakland, gorgeous from Twin Peaks, gorgeous from Dolores Park, gorgeous from Potrero Hill, and gorgeous from any hill on the west side of the city. The only weak view is the Treasure Island view due to Embarcadero Center dominating the waterfront along with many of the city's other ugliest skyscrapers being prominent. As long as you minimize that one ugly set of skyscrapers, SF is top notch.

 

*San Francisco is also one of the few cities in America where you can get a double skyline view. The view from the Oakland Hills is pretty amazing (though Oakland's skyscraper architecture is truly hideous), making the Inner Bay New York-ish. Oakland has two skylines separated by a few city blocks (the original Downtown skyline and the more modern one on Lake Merritt called "Kaiser City"), but the shorter one is more urban with better SF views. You can capture the Financial District, Nob Hill, Russian Hill, and half of the Oakland skyline in one shot. SOMA is missing in this shot, but there are some different angles in East Oakland where you can capture it.

 

^It's true density doesn't make a skyline, but SF has a lot of good architecture with that density. It's just unfortunately overshadowed in some angles by bad architecture. And I don't think one can ignore the Bay Bridge with its role in the city's profile, nor the unique coastal geography and supporting skylines on Russian Hill and Nob Hill. San Francisco looks gorgeous from Marin, gorgeous from Golden Gate, gorgeous from Oakland, gorgeous from Twin Peaks, gorgeous from Dolores Park, gorgeous from Potrero Hill, and gorgeous from any hill on the west side of the city.

 

I never thought of that. SF's syline IS actually pretty ugly. SF's residential architecture is clearly top notch; who doesn't LOVE Victorian era architecture? But the skyscrapers are hideous. It's dense and there are a lot of buildings but lets face it; it's a 'cheap' skyline. It looks like most of the buildings are from the 60s-70s, yeah? What a dark period for commercial development. The blunder years... Ha.

I think the San Francisco skyline's problem aside from the table-top effect + monotonous skyscrapers are the color/textures of the buildings.  Los Angeles is also a generally boxy skyline but it'd be hard-pressed to find someone who'd say it's skyline was worse than San Francisco's and that's mainly due to the textures/colors of the buildings (the glassy CalPlaza Towers compliments the brown Wells Fargo and clean-white 444 Building and 777 Tower).  It simply "pops out" more than a sea of beige boxes in San Francisco.

 

 

From an Urban Ohio perspective, one can’t argue that Cleveland and Cincinnati have great skylines. Especially for their size. The Terminal Tower and Carew Tower are top notch.

 

Pittsburgh has an amazing skyline but if not viewed from Ft Pitt or Mt Washington it is not as impressive. If not viewing Cleveland’s from the heights or Edgewater the same applies. The three aforementioned cities have great skylines for being in a relatively short distance from each other. What makes a great skyline is highly subjective. This discussion can go on and on with no resolution.

Maybe we should have a photo thread of the best angles to view various skylines in Ohio and maybe another thread for non-Ohio skylines?

^ I remember a thread from many moons ago about the best angles for Cleveland's skyline.

Pittsburgh has an amazing skyline but if not viewed from Ft Pitt or Mt Washington it is not as impressive.

 

From PNC Park on the North Shore:

 

From a riverfront park next to PNC Park:

 

So as long as you aren't looking from the North, South, or West of downtown, it isn't very impressive.

Hold on you all, the best skyline in all the midwest is Cedar Rapids, IA!  Of course only kidding, but I had to give a shout out to my hometown  :-D

^Ha. I'm sure you could find a better angle than that. If not... Yikes!

Looks like they're building something.