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.
Phily row-houses. Super cookie cutter to say nothing of atrociously ugly, especially the four centered on. Down the street it's less cookie-cutter.
Trappe, PA. Looks very cookie cutter.
Stuy Town. Projects.
China-Town. I wouldn't call cookie-cutter. Buildings are sufficiently diverse to avoid that.
Montclair, Maplewood. Hard to tell, but does not look cookie-cutter.
Hipster Brooklyn. Cookie-cutter.
LA. Again, can't see much from satelite view, but your stereotypical LA suburban tract is every bit as cookie-cutter as Hipster Brooklyn.
What's your point here, Nybbler? That some urban housing comes in repeating groups as well as some suburban housing? Are you responding to the criticism of suburban subdivisions as "cookie cutter?"
There's nothing wrong with a repeated group of housing. Depending on the style, most people find the repetition visually pleasing. The issue is the scale of the uniformity. Turn the corner from a group of Philadelphia rowhouses and you'll most likely find something different, even if only a different style of rowhouse. You're likely to find some stores within a few blocks. Places that have different building types in close proximity break up the cookie cutter effect. On the ground, you don't seem the same thing for blocks and blocks and blocks, as you might in a large subdivision.
Time also tends to reduce excessive uniformity, as properties get modified in individual ways. So older places generally look less cookie cutter than newer places. The average scale of development has also risen over time, so older places were generally developed in smaller segments.
Stuy town looks the worst. Not only are they cookie cutter but they are ugly as well. Don't know why they have to look like soulless projects. Maybe they were at one time. At least suburban homes have visually appeasing features, and row houses have different colors, designs etc.
Faster growing cities will typically have more repetitive housing since that's the quickest and more profitable way to satisfy residential demand. In more slow growing cities and metros, there's likely more variety and different styles.
1. Yes, pretty much
2. Ditto
3. Ditto
4. Ditto, although I got a shot of Greenwich St. with apts.
5. Not really
6. Not really
7. Yep
8. ? Agree that you can't tell much from that view.
1. Not really. The row houses have a variety of architectural detail, styles and color though the basic structure is similar. While the ones centered aren't the best looking of the block, I wouldn't call them ugly. In fact I really like the houses further along the street (more so in the other direction).
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Kinda, thoughnot every building is the same
5. No
6. No
7. Not really, style changes within the block and to the next block
Stuy town looks the worst. Not only are they cookie cutter but they are ugly as well. Don't know why they have to look like soulless projects. Maybe they were at one time. At least suburban homes have visually appeasing features, and row houses have different colors, designs etc.
Cheap housing for returning veteran's families. And generic brick seemed to be in style back then, though earlier usually apartment had some adornment. In the interior with greenery it doesn't look as bad:
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.
