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.
In terms of evolution of development as to where it is today I would nominate Houston since it lacks the typical concentric plan of the vast majority of large US cities. LA would be my second option.
DC suits my taste well. I love the Georgian architecture and row houses, and I think a lot of skyscrapers are eyesores (The AT&T Building in Nashville, Buffalo City Hall, 900 N. Michigan Ave. in Chicago, and the Prudential Tower in Boston). Though there are plenty of great skyscrapers (The US Bank Tower in Los Angeles, The Wells Fargo Center and the Capella Tower in Minneapolis, and the Trump Tower and John Hancock Building in Chicago), I'd rather have none than risk something ugly.
It's not on the list, but I'd say Minneapolis. The older architecture is not very energy efficient, which is important if you're living in a place so cold.
What? No. Minneapolis is far from the most deserving candidate for a rebuild. We're still suffering the devastating effects of 1950s-60s urban renewal. I absolutely, completely disagree with just about everything you've said here. Razing the very small amount of historic Mpls architecture that's left?! Preposterous and inexcusable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawn.Davenport
The highways were also poorly thought out, completely cutting off North Minneapolis from the rest of the city. They are expanding their light rail service, which is great, but of course there are problems and snags given that the city wasn't built with pubic transportation in mind.
Yep, the freeways really did do a number on the urban fabric of the Twin Cities. North Minneapolis is cut off from the rest of the city, AND it's cut off from the river (despite having many miles of what should be prime riverfront). That being said, Minneapolis and Saint Paul were built with public transportation in mind — we used to have one of the largest and most extensive streetcar networks in North America! That was the only way one could get around in the Twin Cities before the automobile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawn.Davenport
I would also tear down the K-Mart on Lake Street (anyone from MPLS knows exactly what I'm talking about).
"Hey, I know...let's tear out an entire one-block segment of a major street...AND PUT A K-MART THERE."
DC suits my taste well. I love the Georgian architecture and row houses, and I think a lot of skyscrapers are eyesores (The AT&T Building in Nashville, Buffalo City Hall, 900 N. Michigan Ave. in Chicago, and the Prudential Tower in Boston). Though there are plenty of great skyscrapers (The US Bank Tower in Los Angeles, The Wells Fargo Center and the Capella Tower in Minneapolis, and the Trump Tower and John Hancock Building in Chicago), I'd rather have none than risk something ugly.
I wouldn't want to wipe a whole city slate clean for any city in America. I'd rather fill in the blank squares, which that alone gives plenty of work to do for most of our cities.
I was looking for a thread based on this sort of thing. I have had some thoughts about retro fitting an older city.
As I am generally supportive of historical preservation, I would start with an inventory of the city's assets.
Definitely one of those generic sun-belt cities (aka suburbs with some office towers plopped in the middle).
There seems to be no walkable major cities with warm climates....new orleans and maybe charleston are the only exceptions but they are more in the category of mid-size cities.
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.