>>2935201>>2935266Don't give up opposed to as
>>2935235 suggested.
Looking at your shot there are two triggers. First it doesn't look very natural or as pleasing as a night scene does to the eye. Second there's a lot of noise which makes /p/eople take a look at your questionable exif data.
In a perspective with both bright and dark parts, cameras are more limited than humans to see a wide range of such lighting conditions. Since your scene exceeds the so called dynamic range of your camera, the camera brings in contrast and renders white where you've still seen a blue sky or yellow sun.
Traditionally a photographer decides to correct expose his subject and tries to keep distracting lights and shadows out of the perspective. Since you are shooting dusk or night, as an aggravating factor, it feels unnatural to have a bright sky. Experienced photographers would go for a silhouette of the landscape in front of a well saturated sky, therefore underexpose the landscape and focus the exposure on the sky. The city lights will still be visible.
Let's concern the image noise aka high iso speed aka closed aperture. I assume you've chosen to close your aperture either to get the whole scene in focus or to render the light sources in stars.
In the first case, your effective focus range (regarding your sensor size) will still reach from foreground to background with approx. f/2.8-f/4. You'll only need Apertures 11, 13, 16, 19, 22.. to get very very close and far things together in focal range.
In the second case, although there are filters to get the star effects even with open apertures, what does prevent you from a long time exposure having the camera mounted to tripod or put it e.g. to ground? If there's little light available, increasing iso speed to such high numbers should be your last alternative. Take iso 1600, 3200 and 6400 as reasonable highest values. The higher the iso number the more present are noise patterns and the less capable is your camera in dynamic range
