Thanks for your comments.
> I could literally and figuratively step into the scene, but only to find myself slipping off on a slippery downhill slope as I find the image's horizon to be a tad kiltered to the right (second viewpoint).
> I 'm not particulaly bothered by the barges but not sure the need for an artificial foreground when a nice pano with a much narrower foreground would work quite well.
The second image doesn’t have an artificial foreground. My apology for an OCD moment, but you have used “particulaly” which is spelled “particularly” if I understand the word you are using.
> I am also bothered by the sharpness of the full moon because I know full well on a night shot like this, you can't have both. I think it takes away more than it adds.
Interesting comment. In the original image there is a pronounced halo around the moon. I think that reducing the image from what PS says is about 70” wide in the original down to about 5” or so in the jpg may have something to do with the edginess of the moon and likely elsewhere.
> I think it is certainly worth another visit and perhaps a stitched pano or a little tighter crop would give you a stunning image of a city skyline at night.
FWIW the first image is a stitch of 7 images, iirc, and the 2nd is a stitch of 13 images.
While I’ve been doing mostly stitches for the last 4 years, I like to try different techniques. It’s an opportunity to learn and doing the same thing over and over gets boring.