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.
This is exactly my thought. Copley is a tiny little patch of green, smack dab in the middle of one of the cities busiest commercial areas. It's not a neighborhood. The architecture that surrounds Copley- hotel, library, and church most notably- are what people associate it with.
To be honest, I only go there for drinks at the Fairmont (btw, if you haven't been there, it's stunning). Outside of that, it's an area I simply walk or drive by to get somewhere else.
As I wrote up thread, I was spending 3 nights per week in a tower a block west of Rittenhouse a couple of years ago. It’s a residential neighborhood with restaurants and some amount of shopping. The Starbucks where they booted out the two black guys in hoodies is near there. It’s an upscale oasis in Center City. Boston really doesn’t have a green space surrounded by upscale residential and commercial like that. The vibe is more like Newbury Street or the South End but without the green space.
The remarkable thing about the Rittenhouse neighborhood is how inexpensive the housing is by Northeast Corridor standards. In the tower I was in, you can buy a 2/2 1100 sf condo for $550k. Big condo fee but you couldn’t touch anything comparable in Boston for $1 million. If someone held a gun to my head and said I had to work at the Comcast Death Star for 5 years, that’s a nice place to live.
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.
No - in terms of architecturally significant buildings, Copley Square has it over Rittenhouse Square hands down.
But in this case, Rittenhouse is proof of the value of buildings that "fade into the background," so to speak. Too many prima donnas on one stage tends to ruin the ballet.
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.
....insulting that you are using the logic that Copley is a better urban square because it has an abundance of fast food restaurants...
Yes, I think we’ve found a good “agree to disagree” point.
Plenty of my favorite urban squares around the world (e.g. Piccadilly, Alexanderplatz, Placa de Catalunya) have tons of big fast food chains.
Quote:
And feel free to ignore the vast majority of my previous posts or the attached links...
Unless I missed any, the links you posted were about the park, which I agreed (in my first post since the thread was revived) was better than the green space on Copley.
If I don’t reply to something, it likely means I don’t disagree with it. Rittenhouse has a great park. The farmers markets, craft fairs, art fair, and flower market all sound great. I can appreciate the “wrap around” / “outdoor room” effect even if I dislike most of the buildings individually.
None of that changes the fact that Copley has better buildings, hosts bigger events, and has more varied food options. Shopping is a bit of a toss up (do you need a wedding dress or an aspirin?).
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpomp
Wow, you are really trying hard on this one.... Let the Boston bias take the back burner for a minute...
Trinity Church and the Central Library might not be as big a deal as the Empire State and Golden Gate, but they are two of Boston’s biggest landmarks and are often mentioned as some of the country’s most significant historic landmarks. The poster I was responding to was clearly trying to belittle them.
Last edited by Boston Shudra; 11-19-2019 at 11:12 AM..
No - in terms of architecturally significant buildings, Copley Square has it over Rittenhouse Square hands down.
But in this case, Rittenhouse is proof of the value of buildings that "fade into the background," so to speak. Too many prima donnas on one stage tends to ruin the ballet.
People are saying Boston posters can’t admit when they’re beat when Philly posters are arguing “actually Rittenhouse has better architecture because it’s uninteresting”
People are saying Boston posters can’t admit when they’re beat when Philly posters are arguing “actually Rittenhouse has better architecture because it’s uninteresting”
No, I'm not saying that Rittenhouse's architecture is better because it's uninteresting.
I'm saying that the uninteresting architecture is what makes the square better.
Do you get the concept of an "outdoor living room"?
I've been in living rooms where the wallpaper demands your attention, but usually, the wallpaper is background decoration that makes the living room shine.
And not all the architecture is uninteresting: most of the pre-Great Depression buildings that ring the square are very attractive. The 1950s high-rises are bland, though, and 1845 Walnut is typical 1970s Corporate Modern. The Rittenhouse is interesting only because of its serrated edges.
But no one building on the square, not even the Dorchester or 10 Rittenhouse, rises to the ranks of a top-flight building to which attention must be paid, whereas Copley Square has these on three sides. But because you're paying the buildings the attention they deserve, the square becomes an afterthought.
Why are we comparing this square. Rittenhouse is not Philadelphia's square. It doesnt win here, and it looks like Post Office Square in Boston?
Like yourecomparing one of Boston's best square to an average square in Philly. Ive been to Philly and know there are better squares that can better compete with Copley Square.
Although, if Copley Place Tower ever gets built and the square actually has an interesting concept to it's park.. it would be a hell of a lot better.
But in this case, Rittenhouse is proof of the value of buildings that "fade into the background," so to speak. Too many prima donnas on one stage tends to ruin the ballet.
Not to mention, Rittenhouse Square itself is simply a better urban space than Copley Square is. It's larger, better landscaped, and an overall more pleasant escape from the surrounding cityscape.
City vs. City as a whole, my vote is for Boston. But I'm really having a tough time seeing how Copley is somehow superior to Rittenhouse. I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison to begin with, but it's clear to me that Rittenhouse is the better spot and Copley folks are really reaching to make their case.
People are saying Boston posters can’t admit when they’re beat when Philly posters are arguing “actually Rittenhouse has better architecture because it’s uninteresting”
That's not at all what's being argued, though. The architecture around Rittenhouse is still very objectively interesting, even if it's being dismissed by some Bostonians.
If a building isn't considered a "landmark," is it automatically "disinteresting?" Those are some incredibly high and absurd standards. The built environment makes Rittenhouse just as much as the park itself; there's no doubt about that.
That's not at all what's being argued, though. The architecture around Rittenhouse is still very objectively interesting, even if it's being dismissed by some Bostonians.
If a building isn't considered a "landmark," is it automatically "disinteresting?" Those are some incredibly high and absurd standards. The built environment makes Rittenhouse just as much as the park itself; there's no doubt about that.
Saying the buildings blend into the background in Rittenhouse is basically admitting the architecture is less interesting than Copley.
IMO arguing Rittenhouse has better architecture is like arguing Copley has a better park.
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.
