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.
I'm talking about cities outside the New York MSA. Other than tall buildings, I don't really see a lot of similarities in architecture between Chicago and New York City.
Have you ever been to Cleveland or Cincinnati or Pittsburgh? Some fine architecture in those cities. The only difference is that New York and chicago have taller skyscrapers and more of them.
Chicago, Jersey City, Hoboken ( all these have a lot of their land area covered by tall highrise buildings like NYC) and 2 of those cities area outside of NYC and have neighborhoods that are very similar in looks to NYC neighborhoods. I would say Boston and Philly would be after those cities in architecture similar to NYC.
No, Philly is the closest in architecture to NYC.
You realize Jersey City and Hoboken are NYC, right? They're right across the river, and basically an urban extension of the city.
Chicago has a totally different architectural vernacular that is not particularly similar to that of NYC or Philly. Chicago has alleys, wider streets, was built later, different architectural styles and the like. Not similar to East Coast cities.
Have you ever been to Cleveland or Cincinnati or Pittsburgh? Some fine architecture in those cities. The only difference is that New York and Chicago have taller skyscrapers and more of them.
Cities like Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh do have great architecture but I wouldn't say their architecture is the most similar to New York City. I think Philadelphia would come to closest to that than any other major city.
1. NYC
2. Chicago
3. Philly
4. SF
5. Boston
6. DC
7. LA
8. Baltimore
9. Cincinnati
10. St Louis/ New Orleans
This is the order of most urban when excluding their respective downtown areas (the op's criteria) and this is based on a metric of a combination of urban layout, structural density, population density and the size of the high population density areas.
If the bold is your criteria, then how are Philly and SF ahead of this.....
Picture is from a PUBLIC NEWS source. Similar picture share regulations as Wikipedia (as in with due credit, is acceptable (I believe) to post): note to moderators.
New Yorkers have to show Washingtonians how to build a city like that.
Last edited by JMT; 02-18-2014 at 04:16 PM..
Reason: Please follow the rules for posting images.
If the bold is your criteria, then how are Philly and SF ahead of this.....
Imo, it's hard to beat Boston in terms of "urban layout" and "density"
I think it's fair to say that Boston, SF and Philly all have extremely comparable urbanity. If you want to split hairs, Boston and SF have higher "peak density" areas. However, Philly's strong point is more consistent relatively high density throughout the city. In other words, SF and Boston have more high-rise/mid-rise density, but Philly's widespread rowhome urban fabric is more urban than single-family detached/triple-decker homes in SF and Boston's -- which comprise a pretty significant share of each city.
Philly's consistently narrow streets also give it a more urban vibe.
If the bold is your criteria, then how are Philly and SF ahead of this.....
Imo, it's hard to beat Boston in terms of "urban layout" and "density"
Because the areas of Boston that are that built-up are tiny compared to Philly and small compared to SF. After living in Boston for a few years there is no way it is as urban as SF. It does have better transit though. And cool pics love the look of Boston.
Last edited by munchitup; 02-17-2014 at 07:30 PM..
I think it's fair to say that Boston, SF and Philly all have extremely comparable urbanity. If you want to split hairs, Boston and SF have higher "peak density" areas. However, Philly's strong point is more consistent relatively high density throughout the city. In other words, SF and Boston have more high-rise/mid-rise density, but Philly's widespread rowhome urban fabric is more urban than single-family detached/triple-decker homes in SF and Boston's -- which comprise a pretty significant share of each city.
Philly's consistently narrow streets also give it a more urban vibe.
Picture is from a PUBLIC NEWS source. Similar picture share regulations as Wikipedia (as in with due credit, is acceptable (I believe) to post): note to moderators.
New Yorkers have to show Washingtonians how to build a city like that.
Wow. NYC is bananas.
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.
