Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pittsburgh. Since Carnegie invented the steel skeleton and US Steel / American Bridge Company designed most major US bridges, Pittsburgh has every era of bridge and skyscraper in a very small area. Its like a small museum of urban american architecture.
NYC has been mentioned in almost every post. NYC is tops in many, many accolades given to US cities, but I've never really thought of it as a city having a lot of great architecture (or at least not among "the best"). Perhaps I'm bias as I tend to focus more on residential architecture and that's not what NYC focuses on really.
I completely agree with this... but that's why I've been asking just what "best" means.
If you mean "overall quality" of the everyday architecture then NYC has the "best" architecture just because there is so little in the way of abominations and eyesores. However, there's also less truly "great" architecture pound-for-pound than smaller cities that have been home to influential movements in architecture (Chicago and LA).
LA has atrocious everyday architecture (especially on its commercial boulevards), but it can be argued that it is also home to more standout architectural works than any other US city.
I'm pretty sure "best" here refers to the everyday architecture.
Kind of, I mean everything as a whole, LA has some cheesy stuff like Ghery's concert hall, but new york has both architecturally stunning grand buildings, and architecturally stunning everyday architecture.
Yes, NYC's brownstones are beautiful and known around the world.... but what portion NYC's residential buildings are actually brownstones? Maybe what, 5%? Probably less than that. When you look at cities like Buffalo, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, SF...the majority of the single family homes in those cities are either victorian, craftsman, tudor, or another unique and architecturally significant style. As someone else just said, pound for pound, these cities have a deeper and more noticeable sense of architecture than NYC overall. Not saying NYC is bland at all....just that it's significance is over-stated IMO.
You really not gonna call Philly, and Boston colonial. There more colonial them them 3 cities... Lol
Wasn't "old colonial cities" just a reference to Philly and Boston? They weren't saying NY, Chicago, and SF were colonial cities, hence the word and...
Wasn't "old colonial cities" just a reference to Philly and Boston? They weren't saying NY, Chicago, and SF were colonial cities, hence the word and...
Thank you!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
