New England Skylines thread

H

Hubman

Active Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2016
Messages
725
Reaction score
137
This is a poll, but also a thread to discuss the skylines of NE cities outside of Boston.

Here are some photos of different skylines around NE, but I suggest looking them up to get a better perspective.

Providence:
providence-194423.jpg


Springfield:
springfield.jpg


Hartford:
hartford-ct-1300x550.jpg


Worcester:
Downtown_Worcester_Massachusetts.jpg


New Haven:
Nhskyline_eastshore.jpg


Bridgeport:
3f2ad0fa0e90d7b2bfa0d03ffcf1330f.jpg


Stamford:
960x540.jpg
 
Last edited:
Skyline ranking only, Cambridge not included but would otherwise place 3rd for me:
1. Hartford (3 buildings over 500' dominates the competition)
2. Providence
3. New Haven
4. Springfield
5. Stamford
6. Worcester
7. Manchester
8. Portland
9. Bridgeport
10. Lowell
11. Who the hell freaking cares anymore? Just finding 10 was a stretch.

Bonus - Favorite cities outside Boston/inner burbs
1. Providence
2. Portland
3. New Haven
4. Lowell
5. Nope
 
I love Springfield's skyline. The Campanile is my favorite building in in the city. I really enjoy the Chestnut Tower's (not pictured in the above photo) texture, especially how it looks after some rain with wet concrete panels. I was really looking forward to MGM's hotel tower as it would have been the first change on the skyline in decades and would have connected Chestnut Tower to the Metro Center towers when looking across the river. There are a number of good lots in Metro Center to build something of height on.

My list:

1.)Hartford
2.)Providence
3.)Springfield
4.)Stamford
5.)Worcester

...then everything falls apart. I do really like Portland's skyline line from South Portland. The city's architecture is pretty low to the ground but since the city is on a hill it has a 'Beacon Hill' effect and there is just some much going on with it that it is interesting.

Worcester's skyline always looks so sad to me. I think there is some great architecture there but nothing of any height that is appealing to me. Worcester Plaza isn't all too bad, if only it was 100 ft taller.
 
bakerm said:
Worcester's skyline always looks so sad to me. I think there is some great architecture there but nothing of any height that is appealing to me. Worcester Plaza isn't all too bad, if only it was 100 ft taller.
Click to expand...

I heard if you use google earth to measure it (no idea how to do this) that Worcester Plaza is actually over 300'! A guy I used to work with has the same hobby as me and launched into a discussion about all the heights being listed wrong in Worcester, Boston, etc. Supposedly 100 Front Street is also ~30-50' taller than actually listed. "The more you know!"

I was just in Worcester this weekend and it does feel like kind of a down-on-its-luck downtown. It's technically the 2nd biggest city in New England by population, but that is largely due to encompassing more land area than its peers. For instance, Lowell is over 1.5 times denser. Providence is over twice as dense. If anything, I would consider Providence the #2 city in New England. (just in general)
 
meddlepal said:
Fun fact: Worcester Plaza (glass tower in the Worcester picture) was proposed for ~700ft. Most folks who do not know Worcester's urban history don't know this.

stick_n_move posted a render of it way back: http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=264872&postcount=233
Click to expand...

I know! This is just one of those "imagine if" situations. Perhaps it could have set a precedent for Worcester having real skyscrapers and allowed it to develop into great business/economic hub...at least more of one than it is today.
 
meddlepal said:
Fun fact: Worcester Plaza (glass tower in the Worcester picture) was proposed for ~700ft. Most folks who do not know Worcester's urban history don't know this.

stick_n_move posted a render of it way back: http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=264872&postcount=233
Click to expand...

At one point in the 1980's Hartford had 2 proposals taller than the Hancock and another 2 over 700'. (one of them, Society Center, was scaled up from 700' and built in Cleveland as the Key Tower) The things that could have been!
 
DZH22 said:
At one point in the 1980's Hartford had 2 proposals taller than the Hancock and another 2 over 700'. (one of them, Society Center, was scaled up from 700' and built in Cleveland as the Key Tower) The things that could have been!
Click to expand...

It's sad that none of these got built. There skyline could rival Boston's if they had.
 
Semass said:
Stamford looks like a gray Ft. Meyers.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the picture I found was a little hazy, and might not be all that up to date (Stamford's skyline is always changing). Stamford doesn't have a very good skyline despite the abundance of high-rises, but it could soon.
 
Stamford is New England's version of White Plains in my opinion. And even though the city's skyline is growing, I don't think it's all that attractive.
 
Portlander said:
Stamford is New England's version of White Plains in my opinion. And even though the city's skyline is growing, I don't think it's all that attractive.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Stamford's skyline is big (for a city of 100,000) but it isn't that good. The monotonous corporate architecture makes for a monotonous corporate skyline. I think that Stamforders will wake up eventually, though, and then it will have a good skyline.
 
Hubman said:
Yes, it was supposed to be the tallest standing building in NE and MA.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, it wasn't that it would have been tallest building in New England, It was more about the building height combined with Worcester's elevation. That was sort of what made it the highest, if that makes sense.

I have an image of it, but can't seem to see how you upload an image on here.
and seeing what it would have looked like it, it's a good thing it was never built !
 
Ooops, I just noticed that there is a link on here, with that image .. Sorry!!
 
gregrc75 said:
How about New Bedford?
Click to expand...

That's one of those places that would look better if literally nothing had been built after 1950. Looking at that picture and knowing that the only "tall" buildings are low income housing is kind of a stark reminder that despite all of its assets, it's never going to be the place that it could be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top