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)
 
Old 12-04-2017, 10:38 AM
 
Location: Downtown & Brooklyn!
2,123 posts, read 1,312,643 times
Reputation: 1831

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Treasurevalley92 View Post
I guess I wasn't making a distinction between single family homes and detached single family homes. To me there is a big difference between living in a walk up apartment and owning a brown stone, but I'm sure to lots of people there is no big difference.

Anyway, again, NYC isn't a great example to compare most places to, it's too unique.
Over 90% + of those brownstones in NYC are not single homes but typically around 3 or more separate apartment units. Itís very rare for somebody to own an entire brownstone unless they are extremely wealthy

But yeah I guess the other major Northern cities make less extreme examples.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-04-2017, 11:59 AM
 
Location: Downtown Phoenix, AZ
18,927 posts, read 6,889,772 times
Reputation: 5856
Quote:
Originally Posted by That_One_Guy View Post
Over 90% + of those brownstones in NYC are not single homes but typically around 3 or more separate apartment units. Itís very rare for somebody to own an entire brownstone unless they are extremely wealthy

But yeah I guess the other major Northern cities make less extreme examples.
I remember in the movie Panic Room that Jodie Foster bought a whole brownstone on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, but then again, her character had just divorced the CEO of a big pharmaceutical company
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2017, 12:51 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,441 posts, read 11,944,656 times
Reputation: 10547
It's not so much that no one liked year-round warm climates in the 19th century. It's that in large portions of the South malaria and yellow fever were still a very real concern. Since they were mosquito-born diseases, it was often a worse issue in urban areas, with any stagnant water potentially a breeding ground for deadly diseases. It wasn't that bad for native-born white people (who usually got sick in childhood, then recovered) and blacks were usually resistant or immune. But new immigrants to the South could be laid up for months recovering, even provided they didn't get one of the deadlier variants. As a result, it just wasn't cost-effective to build up the South like it was the Northeast/Midwest.

Thus if you look at a list of say the largest cities in 1900, you'll note how few of them tended to be in the South. The only southern cities at that time with more than 50,000 people were New Orleans, Louisville, Memphis, Atlanta, Richmond, Nashville, Charleston, Savannah, and San Antonio. Most of these cities have a reputation as being unusually "urban" (at least in the core) compared to the average southern city.

The small urban footprint of southern cities in the 19th century meant that it was very easy for the natural expansion of the central business district and other "urban renewal" projects to essentially wipe out the historic residential core. Memphis, for example, was the third-largest southern city in 1900, but basically none of the 19th century core remains. The closest thing is Central Gardens, which is mostly early 20th century. In general in a lot of southern metros, the closest in urban neighborhoods are often remnants of the "streetcar suburb" era. It probably didn't help that the urban vernacular in much of the south (wood shotgun houses) were often not built to last, and deteriorated very quickly if left vacant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2017, 12:58 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,441 posts, read 11,944,656 times
Reputation: 10547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simpsonvilllian View Post
Walkscore is based partially based on mass transit so there is going to be a bias for more populated and more dense big cities with more mass transit due to the bad traffic situation.

I don't think that has anything to do with walkability though and I think southern cities are generally more compact in downtown areas with the attractions,amenities closer together.
I think you misunderstand walkability.

A walkable downtown in terms of walkscore isn't really good for anyone save those who either live in the downtown or live within a 5-15 minute walk. If there is a walkable CBD in your city, but you need to get into a car to go there and walk around, you do not live in a walkable neighborhood.

A walkable city is walkable because there are dozens of different neighborhoods, all of which have different local business districts you can walk to. In contrast, a city with one intensely built CBD but with the rest of the land area more or less suburbia only has one high walkscore area, hence it's not walkable overall.

Now, Walkscore does have its limitations. The algorithm just measures how close you are to amenities - it does nothing to take into account things like sidewalk conditions, crosswalks, etc. This is why I think that cities like Los Angeles and Miami (which have lots of amenities densely packed, but not the best built environment for walking) tend to be scored a bit too highly on Walkscore. But if a neighborhood has a low walkscore, you're basically precluded from getting to amenities without using a car and/or transit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2017, 01:03 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
296 posts, read 138,610 times
Reputation: 480
Probably because the generations before us weren’t lazy, weak and coddled like we are today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2017, 04:05 PM
 
613 posts, read 509,036 times
Reputation: 715
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
It's not so much that no one liked year-round warm climates in the 19th century. It's that in large portions of the South malaria and yellow fever were still a very real concern. Since they were mosquito-born diseases, it was often a worse issue in urban areas, with any stagnant water potentially a breeding ground for deadly diseases. It wasn't that bad for native-born white people (who usually got sick in childhood, then recovered) and blacks were usually resistant or immune. But new immigrants to the South could be laid up for months recovering, even provided they didn't get one of the deadlier variants. As a result, it just wasn't cost-effective to build up the South like it was the Northeast/Midwest.

Thus if you look at a list of say the largest cities in 1900, you'll note how few of them tended to be in the South. The only southern cities at that time with more than 50,000 people were New Orleans, Louisville, Memphis, Atlanta, Richmond, Nashville, Charleston, Savannah, and San Antonio. Most of these cities have a reputation as being unusually "urban" (at least in the core) compared to the average southern city.

The small urban footprint of southern cities in the 19th century meant that it was very easy for the natural expansion of the central business district and other "urban renewal" projects to essentially wipe out the historic residential core. Memphis, for example, was the third-largest southern city in 1900, but basically none of the 19th century core remains. The closest thing is Central Gardens, which is mostly early 20th century. In general in a lot of southern metros, the closest in urban neighborhoods are often remnants of the "streetcar suburb" era. It probably didn't help that the urban vernacular in much of the south (wood shotgun houses) were often not built to last, and deteriorated very quickly if left vacant.
best answer
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2017, 07:00 AM
 
Location: "The Dirty Irv" Irving, TX
2,817 posts, read 1,311,309 times
Reputation: 3211
Quote:
Originally Posted by That_One_Guy View Post
Over 90% + of those brownstones in NYC are not single homes but typically around 3 or more separate apartment units. Itís very rare for somebody to own an entire brownstone unless they are extremely wealthy

But yeah I guess the other major Northern cities make less extreme examples.
Oh, I assumed a majority of them were still single family, was that ever the case?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2017, 08:06 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,441 posts, read 11,944,656 times
Reputation: 10547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treasurevalley92 View Post
Oh, I assumed a majority of them were still single family, was that ever the case?
Brownstones were typically built as two-family buildings, with the basement/first story one unit, and the second/third story a second unit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2017, 09:56 AM
 
Location: Downtown & Brooklyn!
2,123 posts, read 1,312,643 times
Reputation: 1831
But these days it seems more common for each floor to be an individual unit, sometimes even having the basement as it’s own unit without any windows. I’ve even seen a few that had more than one unit on one floor, divided into 2 small studios.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2017, 12:20 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis, MN
6,066 posts, read 3,395,846 times
Reputation: 7710
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
New Orleans is a very easy city to love. Just made some oysters rockefeller the other day--it was wonderful.
New Orleans is the type of city no one really hates, similar to Honolulu (and the state of Hawaii in general) I would never live there, too hot and humid for me, vulnerable to flooding and hurricanes and too much crime and poverty but its a great city to visit or to be from (I'm not from there, but I have friends who are) and has great architecture, food and culture.
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