U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-16-2017, 07:14 AM
 
11,456 posts, read 6,571,690 times
Reputation: 6091

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Borntoolate85 View Post
In terms of raw numbers, NYC may have been the leader in row houses back around the late 1800s before skyscrapers/apartments took over, mostly due to its size. Much of Midtown Manhattan was rowhouses (more of the 4-story variety with street businesses than the more common 2 and 3-story buildings without businesses except at the corner of a block in other cities) back when construction first hit that area, and I consider brownstones a style of rowhouses, just like the more traditional brick found on Italianate, Federal, and Arts & Crafts rowhouses. However,it remains a prominent style in many neighborhoods, from Murray Hill, the UWS/UES (despite lots of high-rises mixed in), parts of the village, Harlem, large swaths of Brooklyn, as well as parts of Queens and The Bronx. Hudson County, NJ also has lots of them as well. IMO NYC is number two in rowhouses after Philly. It is just that many more NYC rowhouses are multi-family compared to single family in other cities. Of course, the percentage of 20+ units will be inflated due to the numerous high-rise buildings.

Washington, DC also had many rowhouses in its Southwest section before urban renewal in the 1960s and some just north of the White House before all those office buildings were built.

Baltimore has a few brownstones, including a few on the south side of Franklin Square Park on W. Fayette St, as well as a few in its Mount Vernon neighborhood. But even that city has lost a lot of them to the wrecking ball in recent years due to, of course, the crumbled infrastructure from urban decay, which urban renewal an obvious reason. I'd still put Philadelphia as number one rowhouse city, due to fewer teardowns from urban decay/removal compared to Baltimore.

As has been mentioned, Indianapolis and Columbus were once rowhouse cities prior to renewal (although with much smaller cores), and Cincinnati, St. Louis, and Pittsburgh were cities that have taken a large beating in rowhouse housing stock. Still, I consider the rowhouse the classic urban housing unit, with the high-rise the modern equivalent and the tenement the classic "Section 8" structure.
For NYC, are you sure you're not confusing tenements (attached, multi family) with rowhouses? These aren't rowhouses

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7203...7i13312!8i6656
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-16-2017, 07:57 AM
 
1,813 posts, read 3,422,024 times
Reputation: 2156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodchucker View Post
Definitely agree with this, your original point. Back Bay and Beacon Hill were built for the wealthy, other areas were not. I just figured you meant the South End and not Southie because it's more row-house dominated.

I loved seeing your examples though, so while we are on the subject of row houses in Boston neighborhoods not necessarily known for row houses:

Fort Hill in Roxbury:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3258...XVbA!2e0?hl=en

Mission Hill:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3339...nWSw!2e0?hl=en

East Cambridge:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3694...kX0w!2e0?hl=en
2-1/2 years later I'm adding to your post-- The Fort Hill houses you show are new-- 1980s--and quite unusual for that reason. A bloodless attempt to be contextual. Here is a more typical Roxbury row, on Moreland Street. There are many of these rows of 6 to 8 houses scattered through Roxbury, Brookline, Cambridge, even though the predominant housing form at the time in those areas was freestanding frame structures. But the freestanding frame houses can contain the street space just as effectively as row houses, as in this three-decker street in Dorchester.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2017, 08:23 AM
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM
706 posts, read 513,054 times
Reputation: 407
Row housing need not be connected; It is what I equate some to "cookie cutter" housing on small lots (>100' wide), and others to "attached" housing. Both can be row housing if built on a street of small, narrow lots (a "row").
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2017, 10:16 AM
 
1,813 posts, read 3,422,024 times
Reputation: 2156
Quote:
Originally Posted by kehkou View Post
Row housing need not be connected; It is what I equate some to "cookie cutter" housing on small lots (>100' wide), and others to "attached" housing. Both can be row housing if built on a street of small, narrow lots (a "row").
Agreed but the spatial containment effect of row housing in east coast cities is lost with contemporary cookie cutter housing when the houses are set back from the sidewalk or when the garage is located closer to the sidewalk than the house itself. And, more significantly, many of the contemporary cookie cutter developments are designed to be accessed by car, so who cares whether the space is contained or not? There are no pedestrians to experience the street space. Spatial experience for the walker is -- I think -- what this thread is evaluating with respect to row houses. Drivers and passengers experience urban space differently. Most of these housing pods in contemporary developments are not part of a walkable street network.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2017, 04:36 PM
 
Location: BMORE!
7,739 posts, read 6,134,571 times
Reputation: 3582
Quote:
Originally Posted by kehkou View Post
Row housing need not be connected; It is what I equate some to "cookie cutter" housing on small lots (>100' wide), and others to "attached" housing. Both can be row housing if built on a street of small, narrow lots (a "row").
Rowhouses that aren't connected aren't rowhouses.

row house
ˈrō ˌhous/
nounNorth American

noun: rowhouse
  1. any of a row of houses joined by common sidewalls.



Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2017, 05:33 PM
 
Location: Coastal Connecticut
15,371 posts, read 19,129,713 times
Reputation: 3594
Parts of New Haven near Wooster Square, East Rock, and other pockets have very charming row houses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2017, 08:19 PM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,483 posts, read 10,460,458 times
Reputation: 5397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Havey View Post
Why hasn't anyone mentioned Wilmington, Delaware yet? That place was absolutely a row house city. It was perfect!
Because it is part of the Philly area. Like Camden, Chester, and Trenton which are all small rowhouse cities in close proximity to Philly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2017, 09:28 PM
 
3,215 posts, read 1,543,956 times
Reputation: 2332
Quote:
Originally Posted by kehkou View Post
Row housing need not be connected; It is what I equate some to "cookie cutter" housing on small lots (>100' wide), and others to "attached" housing. Both can be row housing if built on a street of small, narrow lots (a "row").
100' wide lots? what city is this? Where its row-housing with this width lot? Must be connected Ranch homes.

Most denser cities have the wider part of the hones as their depth .... not with in front. Typical Philly connected TRUE Rows can be 12-15 feet wide most times and the A whole block is solid connected homes (some blocks may have lost housing in them) like a WALL effect.

Then there are double or duplex homes. Two half or homes connected and then a gap.... usually a entryway or more. They can go the length of the block. To me they still are a FORM OF ROW. But I was told .... technically even they are NOT to be called row-housing.

A city like Chicago has a low % of attached housing. So stats show it as low compared to the East for sure.... But in your standard? If close-knit and a standard distance from sidewalks and streets..... then they are ALL ROW-HOMES TOO. But Chicago IS NOT labeled a Row-home city by far.

You using a 100' width is reversed ..... in a urban city's to the depth of homes. Chicago's stand lot size is 25' wide X 125' deep. That maintains close-knit from fronts and backs with a 4X's that in dept to its back standard alleyways.

No one calls its unattached BUT STANDARD FRONTAGE as was its style..... row-housing. Not its Worker-cottage unattached housing or its 2-3 flats or its bungalow-belt.

* First picture-chart shows row-housing in lighter-blue per city. Philly is #1 in rows....
None of these common housing forms of Chicago (different eras) ---> EVER get labeled row-homes (though if attached they would).

Last edited by DavePa; 05-01-2018 at 07:23 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2017, 09:55 PM
 
Location: Chicago
23 posts, read 12,727 times
Reputation: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
Because it is part of the Philly area. Like Camden, Chester, and Trenton which are all small rowhouse cities in close proximity to Philly.
It's much farther away from Philly than Camden, it's like 20 miles away. Anyway if that city is too close then Albany, New York is another big row city. Not sure if anyone brought up Albany yet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2017, 07:34 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,414 posts, read 11,913,851 times
Reputation: 10533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stylo View Post
Parts of New Haven near Wooster Square, East Rock, and other pockets have very charming row houses.
Yeah, New Haven has by far the most rowhouses left in Connecticut. There are some isolated rows in Bridgeport and Hartford as well, but nothing substantial.

My understanding is that all of the cities had fairly substantial rowhouse stock within their downtown areas at one time - less than say Pennsylvania cities, since the move to detached wood housing took place by the 1870s, but still substantial stock. Urban renewal wiped out most of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top