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 first picture of old Boston looks like it could be a old European city - if you had said it was I would have believed you.
The second picture of the elevatored looks like old Brooklyn or Chicago.
Pictures three to seven look like they might be old New York. In addition the sixth picture (the old house that had seen better days) could be any city in England.
Although you might disagee with me - I believe Boston was better before it started building modern skyscrappers. Its like they decide to tear down alot of their older buildings but then went only halfway and built a relatively small skyline. Its a decent skyline but still not what expect for such a quality city.
Unfortunately most of those older buildings were destroyed during the period of "urban renewal" which happened during the 1950s. The Central Artery (now underground thanks to the Big Dig), Government Center and the new West End of Boston destroyed many of the most beautiful areas of Boston. City officials said that the area looked too much like medieval Paris and that it "bred crime".
This is how Government Center/Scollay Square looked and how it now looks. It's a damn shame.
The first picture of old Boston looks like it could be a old European city - if you had said it was I would have believed you.
The second picture of the elevatored looks like old Brooklyn or Chicago.
Pictures three to seven look like they might be old New York. In addition the sixth picture (the old house that had seen better days) could be any city in England.
Although you might disagee with me - I believe Boston was better before it started building modern skyscrappers. Its like they decide to tear down alot of their older buildings but then went only halfway and built a relatively small skyline. Its a decent skyline but still not what expect for such a quality city.
What would have been really nice would be for Boston to have its CBD and skyscrapers outside the city core where one of the nearby suburbs are today--much like La Defense and Paris.
It seems tragic to destroy the hearts of cities in order to build up another one that will probably be torn down in turn when all around there are parcels being used for forgettable suburban development.
Unfortunately most of those older buildings were destroyed during the period of "urban renewal" which happened during the 1950s. The Central Artery (now underground thanks to the Big Dig), Government Center and the new West End of Boston destroyed many of the most beautiful areas of Boston. City officials said that the area looked too much like medieval Paris and that it "bred crime".
This is how Government Center/Scollay Square looked and how it now looks. It's a damn shame.
Then:
Now:
Omg! I am crying my eyes out! In your first photo behind the "Turkish Trophies" sign looks like an entire row of colonial or early American rowhouses. And they tore them down to built a concrete field? Ashame --- maybe they were rundown back then but they could have been restored and would be a great place to live now. Ashame, at least Faeunil Hall is still there.
I voted New York City. I feel that Chicago has a better skyline and is more pleasing to the eye than NYC from afar, however, when you examine New York on an individual building basis (which is how I think architecture should be judged), no American city rivals it. No other city represents Beaux Arts and Art Deco as well as NYC. As I just mentioned in another thread, these are my two favorite types of architecture.
It's strange. I hate how Manhattan looks from an aerial view. It appears to be a jungle of ugly and boring brown/gray buildings. But from street view where you can really pick out the ornate details of many of its buildings, it's spectacular.
Agreed. The ornates look like missed pieces on the roof of skyscrapers from airview, and they give the building a somewhat crumbled look, but if you examine them carefully, they are actually charming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago14
I voted New York City. I feel that Chicago has a better skyline and is more pleasing to the eye than NYC from afar, however, when you examine New York on an individual building basis (which is how I think architecture should be judged), no American city rivals it. No other city represents Beaux Arts and Art Deco as well as NYC. As I just mentioned in another thread, these are my two favorite types of architecture.
It's strange. I hate how Manhattan looks from an aerial view. It appears to be a jungle of ugly and boring brown/gray buildings. But from street view where you can really pick out the ornate details of many of its buildings, it's spectacular.
^^ I think NYC has better neighborhood architecture. I think Chicago has a better skyline. I gave Chicago the edge in the architectural department because its styles are more original. A lot of the architecture in NYC is borrowed from Europe.
To great examples of great architectural cities though.
I don't really care for all that old gotham type. I don't see all the rave about it.
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.
