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.
The most boring architecture that I have ever seen in the nation would probably be in Florida. Too many boring stucco houses. Charlotte has a lot of boring architecture as well, except for the areas immediately surrounding the downtown area.
Definitely the Sunbelt cities (Florida, Texas and Arizona mostly) that were largely built out in the 80s and 90s.
I wouldn't be too quick to generalize these places. While there is a lot of stucco, there is also quite a bit of some nice mid-century modern architecture in Phoenix (many homes/businesses have been/going through renovation/refurbishing).
I wouldn't be too quick to generalize these places. While there is a lot of stucco, there is also quite a bit of some nice mid-century modern architecture in Phoenix (many homes/businesses have been/going through renovation/refurbishing).
This. Arizona is not boring at all. Even in Phoenix, there's nice historic neighborhoods in the downtown corridor and Scottsdale has a lot of nice architecture as well as Tucson
Almost every City in South Orange County CA. Endless suburban sprawl, nearly identical snout houses, nearly identical strip malls and scattered low rise rectangular office buildings. If you pass out at a bar in one city and wake up in a different one you have to ask which one you are in because they all look the same, miles and miles of conformity.
If the city is more suburban than urban, then it is, because suburban design was made with no care for any architectural quality. Most sunbelt cities (as mentioned before) have either replaced the good with the bad, or were nothing but small towns before the suburban era, so most buildings are from the architectural era of neglect and boredom.
So many of the buildings in Europe are architecturally historic, valuable, and gorgeous. In contrast, hardly any buildings in, say, California, will be anywhere near as historic or valuable in 500-1,000 years, if our ugly buildings are even preserved for so long. So many of the buildings created today are entirely disposable. Chain stores and cheap suburban housing. Even most of the newer, mixed-use, urban high-rise structures that we are building today lack the character of Europe's buildings.
Your seriously underselling the best of the US cities. Obviously, our cities are much younger, so the percentage of old hand crafted buildings is lowerr, but there are many great ones. San Franscisco, New York, Chicago, Boston- all have beautiful old buildings that can stand up to any in the world. What we also have that can't be said for many European cities is the mix of old and new in or major city centers. I know that becomes a matter of taste, but I happen to like the juxtaposition of the sleek modern with the ornate historic.
Now what I might agree with you on is the in-cohesive Urban Design of our cities, compared to the pre-automobile cities of Europe. We have seemingly fewer strong Urban spaces and a lot of ambiguity between what is "Urban Fabric" and simply object buildings in space. Again, its a function of our time, and in many ways our politics.
Your seriously underselling the best of the US cities. Obviously, our cities are much younger, so the percentage of old hand crafted buildings is lowerr, but there are many great ones. San Franscisco, New York, Chicago, Boston- all have beautiful old buildings that can stand up to any in the world. What we also have that can't be said for many European cities is the mix of old and new in or major city centers. I know that becomes a matter of taste, but I happen to like the juxtaposition of the sleek modern with the ornate historic.
Now what I might agree with you on is the in-cohesive Urban Design of our cities, compared to the pre-automobile cities of Europe. We have seemingly fewer strong Urban spaces and a lot of ambiguity between what is "Urban Fabric" and simply object buildings in space. Again, its a function of our time, and in many ways our politics.
If you actually comprehended my post, you'd realize that I was specifying suburban cities, especially those in the Sun Belt, where miles upon miles of developments amount to nothing more than big box chain stores and cheap-looking, big box housing.
I agree, SF, NYC, Chi, and Boston have wonderful architecture. You can find certain cities throughout the U.S. that have wonderful architecture. But those cities are vastly outnumbered by cities with "disposable" architecture that consume vast portions of land.
Which cities in your opinion in the US have the most boring architecture?
Are you referring to commercial or residential?
There could be big differences from North and South, to East and West. There could also be huge swings from 19th century to 21st century.
From a residential standpoint (and a lot will probably disagree- for the wrong reason), Levittown has too be on of the most boring for residential.
From a commercial standpoint- the cities of the plains have pretty plain architectural- with a few single exceptions in building/structures.
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.
