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.
Copley is a T stop, and a square. The surrounding neighborhood, though I agree with you, is not Copley. It's Back Bay/Boylston.
There isn't a real comparison here, if we are simply talking about what is known as Copley (the square) vs. what is known as Rittenhouse (the park and neighborhood). They aren't the same thing.
Uhh, Copley was there before the T was.
And yes: it’s a square that is immediately surrounded by shops, restaurants, churches, offices, hotels, and a library. I guess I don’t really understand your point or argument?
Btw, I’ve never gone to the Fairmont for food or drinks. But if you’ve never been to a Fogo de Chao, there’s one in the Westin and I’d recommend checking it out.
At Copley Square, the buildings are the focal point: it's surrounded by several of the most notable architectural landmarks in Boston. At Rittenhouse Square, the square itself is the focal point. As an ensemble - an "outdoor room" - it's far better defined and composed than Copley Square thanks to all those (mostly) residential buildings surrounding it.
As one of Penn's five original squares, Rittenhouse Sq goes back to the founding. It's the most comfortable of the five. No City Beautiful project (Logan) or interstate highway (Franklin) blasting through it. No Victorian monstrosity () plunked down in the middle of it (Center). Washington Sq is pretty nice too. Anyway, Copley Sq has been labeled a square since Back Bay was laid out in the 19th century but until the 1960s Huntington Ave ran right through it leaving two puny triangles. There was a nice, very hard surfaced redo in the '60s that eliminated the Huntington diagonal and put a fountain in. Lots of dissatisfaction with the design led to a redo in the '80s, which is what we have now-- different fountain, some grass, paths more defined. You're right, Copley Sq has always been a showcase for the buildings around it, especially Trinity Church and the library. Originally the museum of fine arts too, also a handsome building at the corner of Huntington and Dartmouth that was torn down in the '50s, leaving a yawning gap for many years now somewhat filled by the banal volumes of the Copley Place air-rights development over the turnpike. And, of course, since '68 the (former) John Hancock skyscraper.
So the two are quite different. At least Copley Square is a legitimate square in a city full of "squares" that have nothing square about them.
Copley Square is largely surrounded by fast casual dining (Chipotle, Dig Inn, etc.). Some of Philadelphia's finest restaurants lie directly on Rittenhouse Square (Barclay Prime, Parc, Rough, Scarpetta, etc.)
I never said Copley has fancier restaurants than Rittenhouse (though Yamato II, Fogo, and Oak aren’t too shabby). Most of the restaurants on Copley are fast food (Wendy’s, Chipotle, Finagle a Bagel, Dig Inn); the nice restaurants are generally a street over on Newbury. I said Cooley has more offerings than Rittenhouse. Now that you’ve brought it up, however, I’ll point out that Copley also has a larger variety of restaurants from a price-standpoint.
For shops, Copley has CVS, GNC, New Balance, H&M, and lots of banks. Definitely a different set of stores than you listed for Rittenhouse. Most fancy shopping is in the Copley Place mall or on Newbury.
Last edited by Boston Shudra; 11-19-2019 at 08:56 AM..
“Small minded and arrogant”!? The irony of this post is insane! What city squares from around the world are you using as a gold standard for this comparison, and why is Rittenhouse more similar to them? Prove your own humility and big-mindedness to me.
Copley has more landmarks, more shops, more restaurants, and it hosts more major events.
not talking about these squares when i made that comment..
But yea many piazzas in Italy or even the random one i went to in Madrid come to mind.
The physical square and the buildings that immediately abut it are not that impressive to the pedestrian experience-objectively, its boloco, santander, chipotle, wendys, a (historic) church, a (historic) library, a hot dog stand and poorly maintained grass. The Hancock is a nice photo op but its just an office building and then theres some fancy hotel too. Thats nice.
Now, further west down Boylston street away from the square is very nice with the restaurants and newbury street as well with the shopping and restaurants. Its in a great location, but the square is not much of a destination so much as a tourist photo-op and bus stop.The prudential center is much ore pleasant and time consuming but doesnt add to the pedestrian experience of the square.
not talking about these squares when i made that comment.
So you posted on the wrong thread?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade
The physical square and the buildings that immediately abut it are not that impressive to the pedestrian experience-objectively, its boloco, santander, chipotle, wendys, a (historic) church, a (historic) library, a hot dog stand and poorly maintained grass. The Hancock is a nice photo op but its just an office building and then theres some fancy hotel too. Thats nice.
Yes, I guess Trinity is just “a church” and the Central Library is just “a library”.
The Empire State Building is (after all) just “a building”. The Golden Gate is just “a bridge”.
I never said Copley has fancier restaurants than Rittenhouse (though Yamato II, Fogo, and Oak aren’t too shabby). Most of the restaurants on Copley are fast food (Wendy’s, Chipotle, Finagle a Bagel, Dig Inn); the nice restaurants are generally a street over on Newbury. I said Cooley has more offerings than Rittenhouse. Now that you’ve brought it up, however, I’ll point out that Copley also has a larger variety of restaurants from a price-standpoint.
For shops, Copley has CVS, GNC, New Balance, H&M, and lots of banks. Definitely a different set of stores than you listed for Rittenhouse. Most fancy shopping is in the Copley Place mall or on Newbury.
By numbers, Copley Square has more places to eat, but those places largely include Burger King, Wendys, Chipotle, etc...Rittenhouse Square is a premiere dining location.
Expanding outward, yes retail around Copley is certainly better than Rittenhouse, but comparing the squares, it is again insulting that you are using the logic that Copley is a better urban square because it has an abundance of fast food restaurants...
Maybe we are looking at offerings differently...
And feel free to ignore the vast majority of my previous posts or the attached links...
Last edited by cpomp; 11-19-2019 at 10:27 AM..
Reason: edit
And yes: it’s a square that is immediately surrounded by shops, restaurants, churches, offices, hotels, and a library. I guess I don’t really understand your point or argument?
Btw, I’ve never gone to the Fairmont for food or drinks. But if you’ve never been to a Fogo de Chao, there’s one in the Westin and I’d recommend checking it out.
Having lived in both Boston and Philadelphia, I understand cpomp's point.
I refer you to what I wrote upthread: In Copley Square, the buildings are the focal point. The square itself may be the locus of a bunch of events, but people don't just hang out in the square - the buildings upstage it, and most of them don't produce activity that leads nearby residents to simply use the square as a lounge (not to mention that its mostly-hardscaped landscaping also acts as a deterrent to that sort of activity).
In Rittenhouse Square, the square itself is the focal point. The buildings that ring it are the "wallpaper" for a great outdoor living room, and as most of them contain residences or residences over retail, they provide the square with many of its users throughout the day, augmented by workers in nearby office buildings (the West Market Street office canyon is two blocks to the north) and shoppers strolling along Walnut Street, the city's premier shopping street. (Walnut's not as ritzy as Newbury, at least not yet, but it is a strong shopping district.) Copley Square is somewhat detached (psychologically) from the neighborhood that surrounds it - the Back Bay - while Rittenhouse Square lends its name to the neighborhood that surrounds it - the historically ritziest neighborhood in all Philadelphia.
They're really two different animals - Copley Square's analogues are Piccadilly Circus and Times Square (even though it lacks their billboards and entertainment venues), while Rittenhouse's are Washington Square (NYC), Union Square (San Francisco) and Jackson Square (New Orleans' French Quarter). The people here who have argued that the better Boston analogue for Rittenhouse Square is Post Office Square are correct.
Save for the Fairmont (nee Copley Plaza) Hotel, there really isn't much elevated fine dining on Copley Square. As cpomp noted, Rittenhouse Square has Barclay Prime (home of the $100 cheesesteak), Parc, Rouge, Devon Seafood Grill and Lacroix at the Rittenhouse all facing it. Three of the four restaurants on the 18th Street side of the square (Rouge, Devon, Parc) also have sidewalk seating that makes them an extension of the square thanks to the narrowness of 18th Street. (That's another difference: the streets bordering Copley are wide enough that the properties on their other side don't function as extensions of the square itself.) A coffee shop in the one office building, on the north (Walnut Street) side, also has sidewalk seating, and there are two other upscale restaurants just up 18th Street from the square itself, plus a passel of more casual eateries, including an entry from the couple who run one of the country's most acclaimed vegetarian restaurants (in Washington Square West).
And I've already explained why Rittenhouse Square isn't an ideal locus for crowd-magnet events. Those go to the Ben Franklin Parkway and Penn's Landing. The events that take place in Rittenhouse Square, however, are very well attended and fit in with the square's scale and personality. And there are just about as many of them. (By the way, you should stroll through the square at the holidays, when the trees sport globes of lights in many colors.)
The fact that the poll is a tie should indicate that neither square is clearly superior to the other, and their differences explain why. We're really comparing apples and oranges here.
Yes, I guess Trinity is just “a church” and the Central Library is just “a library”.
The Empire State Building is (after all) just “a building”. The Golden Gate is just “a bridge”.
No I didn’t post in the wrong thread, it’s just any debate about Boston’s ____ verse someone else’s _____. No matter how obvious Boston is less than in the equation there’s like a good number of Boston people that -without fail- come with some irrational or impractical argument talking about how Boston’s version is better when it’s not and it’s embarrassing to me and definitely irritating to others.
Yes trinity is just a church and yes the library is just a library. Just because they’re the oldest or whatever it doesn’t really matter or make a difference to 9/10 people. And the age of two or three buildings doesn’t really enhance the square, especially if they’re not awe inspiring.
Having lived in both Boston and Philadelphia, I understand cpomp's point.
I refer you to what I wrote upthread: In Copley Square, the buildings are the focal point. The square itself may be the locus of a bunch of events, but people don't just hang out in the square - the buildings upstage it, and most of them don't produce activity that leads nearby residents to simply use the square as a lounge (not to mention that its mostly-hardscaped landscaping also acts as a deterrent to that sort of activity).
In Rittenhouse Square, the square itself is the focal point. The buildings that ring it are the "wallpaper" for a great outdoor living room, and as most of them contain residences or residences over retail, they provide the square with many of its users throughout the day, augmented by workers in nearby office buildings (the West Market Street office canyon is two blocks to the north) and shoppers strolling along Walnut Street, the city's premier shopping street. (Walnut's not as ritzy as Newbury, at least not yet, but it is a strong shopping district.) Copley Square is somewhat detached (psychologically) from the neighborhood that surrounds it - the Back Bay - while Rittenhouse Square lends its name to the neighborhood that surrounds it - the historically ritziest neighborhood in all Philadelphia.
They're really two different animals - Copley Square's analogues are Piccadilly Circus and Times Square (even though it lacks their billboards and entertainment venues), while Rittenhouse's are Washington Square (NYC), Union Square (San Francisco) and Jackson Square (New Orleans' French Quarter). The people here who have argued that the better Boston analogue for Rittenhouse Square is Post Office Square are correct.
Save for the Fairmont (nee Copley Plaza) Hotel, there really isn't much elevated fine dining on Copley Square. As cpomp noted, Rittenhouse Square has Barclay Prime (home of the $100 cheesesteak), Parc, Rouge, Devon Seafood Grill and Lacroix at the Rittenhouse all facing it. Three of the four restaurants on the 18th Street side of the square (Rouge, Devon, Parc) also have sidewalk seating that makes them an extension of the square thanks to the narrowness of 18th Street. (That's another difference: the streets bordering Copley are wide enough that the properties on their other side don't function as extensions of the square itself.) A coffee shop in the one office building, on the north (Walnut Street) side, also has sidewalk seating, and there are two other upscale restaurants just up 18th Street from the square itself, plus a passel of more casual eateries, including an entry from the couple who run one of the country's most acclaimed vegetarian restaurants (in Washington Square West).
And I've already explained why Rittenhouse Square isn't an ideal locus for crowd-magnet events. Those go to the Ben Franklin Parkway and Penn's Landing. The events that take place in Rittenhouse Square, however, are very well attended and fit in with the square's scale and personality. And there are just about as many of them. (By the way, you should stroll through the square at the holidays, when the trees sport globes of lights in many colors.)
The fact that the poll is a tie should indicate that neither square is clearly superior to the other, and their differences explain why. We're really comparing apples and oranges here.
but Cpomp is also saying Rittenhouse has an advantage in buildings as well, when Copley has 3 Boston Landmarks. Copley has far better architecture like Rittenhouse's actual park is significantly better.
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.
) plunked down in the middle of it (Center). Washington Sq is pretty nice too. Anyway, Copley Sq has been labeled a square since Back Bay was laid out in the 19th century but until the 1960s Huntington Ave ran right through it leaving two puny triangles. There was a nice, very hard surfaced redo in the '60s that eliminated the Huntington diagonal and put a fountain in. Lots of dissatisfaction with the design led to a redo in the '80s, which is what we have now-- different fountain, some grass, paths more defined. You're right, Copley Sq has always been a showcase for the buildings around it, especially Trinity Church and the library. Originally the museum of fine arts too, also a handsome building at the corner of Huntington and Dartmouth that was torn down in the '50s, leaving a yawning gap for many years now somewhat filled by the banal volumes of the Copley Place air-rights development over the turnpike. And, of course, since '68 the (former) John Hancock skyscraper. 
