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.
No way man. People outside of Boston don't even adventure into neighborhoods that have the triple deckers. There is no association with them, at all.
I mean, by that logic no city is distinguishable. I think the OP is assuming a baseline knowledge of the city and it’s general appearance.
If you know nothing about New Orleans, then you wouldn’t recognize it at street level no matter how famous its streets and neighborhoods may be to the rest of us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago_Person
Those Boston 3 flats will look normal anywhere in the New England area.
I know what you're saying. Boston is the answer because no other city has triple decker neighborhoods. I get it.
So to you, and others familiar with Boston, it's a valid answer.
My point is that, to most, it's not. That's all. So, I perceive the original question to be targeted towards the masses. Probably why Boston wasn't even in the poll.
The original poster is from the California And very very interested in the Bay Area so I assume that’s why -he knows nothing about Boston. But also San Francisco wasn’t included in the original poll.
I can say the same thing about Chicago and its 3 flats.
But guess what? You can drop some 3 flats in st louis or Milwaukee and it wouldn't look out of place.
Those Boston 3 flats will look normal anywhere in the New England area.
They’re not even three flats and they’re very different than Chicago’s.. they’re never brick. The brick 3 flats in Chicago can be found in Hartford CT and many other places. They’re just most common in Chicago. The wooden nature of triple deckers make them unique for apartment buildings.
Whereas Vermont and Connecticut barely have triple deckers. Streetview New Haven. You’ll be hard pressed to find a triple decker. We’re also discussing unique MAJOR cities. There are no other major cities in New England
People are in here saying DC! Which is largely garden style apartments and row houses that you see all over the mid-Atlantic nothing literally unique about DCs streets cape other than a height limit and the National monuments ...or LA which looks like a ton of places in SoCal.. and someone just said Las Vegas which looks nearly identical to Phoenix
but even that argument is flawed because just because I could hypothetically place a building elsewhere doesn’t mean anything (that’s just another tactic to avoid REALITY)
If we’re talking about media/tourist spots or actual lived reality Matters, a lot.
New Orleans: The shotgun houses as well as the mansions
New York: The brownstone neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Manhattan
San Francisco: The many Victorians
Obviously this is in the older traditional neighborhoods, not the CBDs or newer areas of these cities. Most reasonably educated people would recognize typical streets in neighborhoods in these cities, either through visits or movie and media depictions.
-Triple Deckers
-****ed up weird squirmy roads
-Posh Brownstones, hands down the most distinguishable/eligant brownstones in the country can be found in Beacon Hill or Back Bay.
-Greenery/European Like
I mean, by that logic no city is distinguishable. I think the OP is assuming a baseline knowledge of the city and it’s general appearance.
If you know nothing about New Orleans, then you wouldn’t recognize it at street level no matter how famous its streets and neighborhoods may be to the rest of us.
You don't know what the OP is assuming, nor do I.
What I would wager is that, San Francisco architecture, colors, and topography is a hell of a lot easier to identify to the naked eye, at street level, than a triple decker neighborhood in Boston.
"What's easier to identify in a picture, San Francisco Victorians (the most prevalent residential variety in SF), or Boston Triple Deckers (the most prevalent residential variety in Boston)?"
"What's easier to identify in a picture, San Francisco Victorians (the most prevalent residential variety in SF), or Boston Triple Deckers (the most prevalent residential variety in Boston)?"
I bet SF wins handedly.
Anyone who knows both cities wouldn’t have a harder time with either.
What I would wager is that, San Francisco architecture, colors, and topography is a hell of a lot easier to identify to the naked eye, at street level, than a triple decker neighborhood in Boston.
"What's easier to identify in a picture, San Francisco Victorians (the most prevalent residential variety in SF), or Boston Triple Deckers (the most prevalent residential variety in Boston)?"
I bet SF wins handedly.
Your naming a well known nation wide architectural style (Victorians) compared to a regionally specific housing type (triple decker) not even comparable. By definition a triple decker is much more identifiable
If not Boston where would someone think they’re looking?
Last edited by BostonBornMassMade; 03-27-2020 at 08:30 PM..
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.
