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.
Washington, D.C. > San Francisco > Baltimore > San Jose
Some smaller cities like Alexandria, Virgnia and Annapolis, Maryland have nice historic architecture as well. But I'm not familiar with similar-sized cities in the Bay Area to compare them with.
Yeah for me definitely DC/Baltimore. While I love SF, and thought the architecture was nice, it got boring really quick. The architecture felt like it just kept repeating itself over and over and over again. SF architecture is great but it's rather montonous and not very diverse.
The architecture in D.C. is definitely diverse and find to be more interesting.
Both have a great architecture, I just think SF architecture can be rather montonous.
I disagree, I think SF has an amazingly diverse array of incredible architecture, from the Victorian rowhouses to the Grace Cathedral to the Civic Center to the modern skycrapers in SOMA to the Legion of Honor, to the churches of the Mission. It goes on and on.
If we're just comparing cities proper, I'd take SF over DC. However, the rest of the Bay Area has pretty bland, uninteresting architecture. If we are comparing regions (especially if Baltimore is included), I'd take the DC/Baltimore region.
I disagree, I think SF has an amazingly diverse array of incredible architecture, from the Victorian rowhouses to the Grace Cathedral to the Civic Center to the modern skycrapers in SOMA to the Legion of Honor, to the churches of the Mission. It goes on and on.
If we're just comparing cities proper, I'd take SF over DC. However, the rest of the Bay Area has pretty bland, uninteresting architecture. If we are comparing regions (especially if Baltimore is included), I'd take the DC/Baltimore region.
I guess we can agree to disagree. I found San Francisco's architecture pretty, but I also found it to get boring after a while as it repeats itself over and over again. I am sorry, SF's architecture is not that diverse. If you want cities with diverse architecture it's definitely NYC and Chicago. Cities like San Francisco and Boston, while they have beautiful architecture, their architecture is not diverse.
I guess we can agree to disagree. I found San Francisco's architecture pretty, but I also found it to get boring after a while as it repeats itself over and over again. I am sorry, SF's architecture is not that diverse. If you want cities with diverse architecture it's definitely NYC and Chicago. Cities like San Francisco and Boston, while they have beautiful architecture, their architecture is not diverse.
I feel the same way, the high rise architecture is also lacking and not that interesting. The best thing about SF *is* that it's architecture seems rather seamless though giving it a much different aesthetic, and why many consider the city along with Boston more European
DC to me had better residential architecture than Chicago, and some other pretty impressive massive monuments.
I disagree, I think SF has an amazingly diverse array of incredible architecture, from the Victorian rowhouses to the Grace Cathedral to the Civic Center to the modern skycrapers in SOMA to the Legion of Honor, to the churches of the Mission. It goes on and on.
If we're just comparing cities proper, I'd take SF over DC. However, the rest of the Bay Area has pretty bland, uninteresting architecture. If we are comparing regions (especially if Baltimore is included), I'd take the DC/Baltimore region.
Yes, San Francisco is a bit more diverse(and colorful btw) architectually and SFs residential architecture is wayyy more iconic and identified with the city itself.
I have to go with San Francisco. Love lots of its residential. DC has some very nice older historic architecture but its newer dt office bldgs are horrible.
Yes, San Francisco is a bit more diverse(and colorful btw) architectually and SFs residential architecture is wayyy more iconic and identified with the city itself.
And saying SFs skyscrapers are boring is a HUGE JOKE when compared to the hot mess below:
Are you kidding me?
Y U C K.
Never said DC's highrises were interesting either. I give it to DC b/c of the monuments, white house, lincoln memorial, jefferson memorial, and things of that nature which are iconic, the neighborhoods themselves are pretty even.
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.
