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 pretty sure he was referring to the fact that beautiful row homes are a dime a dozen in Euro cities, not American. And yes, they'd mop the floor with us haha.
Amsterdam and London alone would destroy all American cities combined in terms of beautiful row homes.
amsterdam and london are great cities with nice rowhomes...but have you been to/seen Prague??? just search old town square.
I've seen some of the federal-style rowhomes in Greenwich Village, but overall these gems are hard to come by in NYC.
My favorites have to be Boston, Philadelphia, DC (Georgetown), and San Francisco.
Walking through Beacon Hill and the Back Bay in Boston is arguably the closest thing in the US to walking through a European city. The architecture is simply beautiful. Even better on a snowy day or evening around Christmastime.
I love Philadelphia's well-preserved federal and colonial rowhouses. The historic homes in DC (Georgetown) are perhaps even better because they're so colorful.
While my primary passion is for colonial and federal architecture, there's something to be said for the rainbows of Victorians in San Francisco. It's an architecturally beautiful and very unique city.
I'm pretty sure he was referring to the fact that beautiful row homes are a dime a dozen in Euro cities, not American. And yes, they'd mop the floor with us haha.
Amsterdam and London alone would destroy all American cities combined in terms of beautiful row homes.
Actually I'm not so sure about London. I spent three days there and although London is one of the world's great cities, I got the impression that Boston is better preserved than London. The damage left by the fire bombing and V1/2 rockets of WW2 was rather obvious in LON in the lack of continuity of historic neighborhoods. I spent most of my time in and around Westminster with a foray to Portobello, a ghetto romp to South London, the Ripper tour and some southern burbs.
I'm sure I missed a lot, but the cheap replacements for the places where the bombs fell were quite noticeable. Seems kinda unfair that the people who had the fortitude to stand up to Hitler paid the price while those that surrendered (Paris) went undamaged.
Actually I'm not so sure about London. I spent three days there and although London is one of the world's great cities, I got the impression that Boston is better preserved than London. The damage left by the fire bombing and V1/2 rockets of WW2 was rather obvious in LON in the lack of continuity of historic neighborhoods. I spent most of my time in and around Westminster with a foray to Portobello, a ghetto romp to South London, the Ripper tour and some southern burbs.
I'm sure I missed a lot, but the cheap replacements for the places where the bombs fell were quite noticeable. Seems kinda unfair that the people who had the fortitude to stand up to Hitler paid the price while those that surrendered (Paris) went undamaged.
Boston may have never been bombed, but I'd hardly call the downtown "well preserved." First there was the Great Fire of 1872, then all the terrible Urban Renewal projects in the 50s and 60s that demolished entire neighborhoods. Here's an interesting thread on the topic.
Granted, Boston does have some tremendously well-preserved neighborhoods. But so does London. As far as 19th century rowhouses are concerned, try Kensington or Chelsea. Those make the Back Bay look tiny in comparison.
And as far as history is concerned, France is such a centralized nation that when Paris was captured in WWII, there was no hope for the rest of the country. If the French lacked anything, it was preparation and good strategy, not fortitude. I guess those Belgians and Poles were all weaklings too, eh?
Actually I'm not so sure about London. I spent three days there and although London is one of the world's great cities, I got the impression that Boston is better preserved than London. The damage left by the fire bombing and V1/2 rockets of WW2 was rather obvious in LON in the lack of continuity of historic neighborhoods. I spent most of my time in and around Westminster with a foray to Portobello, a ghetto romp to South London, the Ripper tour and some southern burbs.
I'm sure I missed a lot, but the cheap replacements for the places where the bombs fell were quite noticeable. Seems kinda unfair that the people who had the fortitude to stand up to Hitler paid the price while those that surrendered (Paris) went undamaged.
Neighborhoods like Kensington are beautifully preserved and possess some of the most beautiful architecture on the planet.
Based on the pictures, SF's is the most beautiful.
based on your opinion, i'm not reALLY feelin the fashion.
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.
Seems kinda unfair that the people who had the fortitude to stand up to Hitler paid the price while those that surrendered (Paris) went undamaged. 
