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.
"Now think of the U.S. A city like Boston will never be visually mistaken for a Miami or a Chicago or a San Francisco or a Las Vegas. In fact, the U.S.'s major cities have extreme architectural and visual diversity."
Yeah, right. Very "extreme" as it has been demonstrated here.
(That's where it all started.)
Ok I didn’t read the whole thread, and extreme differences, yeah that’s a stretch, but compared to most countries, the US is above average when it comes to the diversity of styles used, there isn’t really one regional style that stands out as “American” there are several that come to mind, at least for me anyway.
I understand that you have been trained to use a lot of fancy words and how to use them *quite succinctly,* but the ability to discern is still not there, sorry. No matter how many times you are trying to "spell" anything.
Big boxes are big boxes, even if sometimes they have admixture of "colonial architecture."
You can't level a single argument against American cities. It's sad to see.
Ok I didn’t read the whole thread, and extreme differences, yeah that’s a stretch, but compared to most countries, the US is above average when it comes to the diversity of styles used, there isn’t really one regional style that stands out as “American” there are several that come to mind, at least for me anyway.
"Extreme differences" would be justified in explaining the large gap between, for example, French and Spanish colonial styles, ancient Adobe-style buildings in the southwest, and modernist/art deco/bauhaus skyscrapers, sometimes, as a mix. That is "extreme differences".
Compare New Orleans or Charleston or Santa Fe or even Las Vegas to any of those cities you linked.
You picked a lot of beautiful images of the largest American cities, but they aren't what I'd use to display dynamic differences in architecture. That picture of Chicago is just disgraceful, you should've got a shot of the riverside architecture
American suburban architecture does differ from region to region, at least when it comes to residential architecture. Commercial areas perhaps not as much.
But suburban neighborhoods outside of San Diego, New Orleans, Charlotte, and Baltimore do look quite different from one another.
American suburban architecture is 10x better than anything Europe has for residential suburban housing.
Of course, not every suburb in America is gorgeous, many are ugly and same-y, but the US has a lot of pre-war and post-war suburbs full of gorgeous residential architecture, with quaint main-streets to boot, and American architects like Frank Lloyd Wright and Frank Gehry got their fame designing single-family suburban homes.
Europe hardly has anything to match that in the contemporary era. European suburbs and city-outskirts look dead ugly. That's one comparison that I know America absolutely trounces Europe on, for the most part. Europe seems to treat those more modern, outlying suburban areas as utilities. Just crappy "communist-style" tower block housing and boxy, drab attached homes everywhere.
Don't be sad, learn how to comprehend simple things)))
Did you not see the other poster's links to French cities? Most French cities are built just like that, the exceptions are much fewer and farther between in France.
You lampooning American buildings as "looking like boxes" is childish. It's an unintelligent observation and not at all a disputation of the architectural diversity of American cities. Again.
Did you not see the other poster's links to French cities? Most French cities are built just like that, the exceptions are much fewer and farther between in France.
You lampooning American buildings as "looking like boxes" is childish. It's an unintelligent observation and not at all a disputation of the architectural diversity of American cities. Again.
Let me explain to you what "architectural diversity" is;
Once you will learn this, you might proceed to the next level of comprehending why European cities ( their architecture) is far more diverse than... well.. big tall boxes.
Once you will learn this, you might proceed to the next level of comprehending why European cities ( their architecture) is far more diverse than... well.. big tall boxes.
Good night.
You sound like an impotent child. The US has buildings in all of those styles as revival movements.
Whereas Europe doesn't have a lot of skyscrapers in any distinct styles.
You're nitpicking American cities based off of skyline appearances and grid layout. It's idiotic.
You sound like an impotent child. The US has buildings in all of those styles as revival movements.
Whereas Europe doesn't have a lot of skyscrapers in any distinct styles.
You're nitpicking American cities based off of skyline appearances and grid layout. It's idiotic.
I’m glad that Europe has protected its heritage and its buildings hasn’t been replaced by horrible skyscrapers. Those thin tall buildings under construction in nyc are really hideous. Paris for instance has strict limitations, hence the construction of the Montparnasse tower caused controversial and didn’t like Parisians at all. Generic buildings like that are all over american 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.
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.
