Best urban square: Copley Square vs. Rittenhouse Square (places, cons, difference)
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.
Agreed! Except Post Office Square seems to be surrounded by all office buildings where Rittenhouse is surrounded by all residential buildings and one hotel.
There is also one office building facing the square: 1845 Walnut Street, on the square's north side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RightonWalnut
Rittenhouse has a pretty large tower proposed for it as well. The 525 foot tall Castleway Tower
Both the Castleway Tower and the Philadelphia architectural firm that designed it have fallen by the wayside, but something even taller is rising on that last empty lot facing Rittenhouse Square:
At just one foot shy of 600 feet tall, it will be the tallest residential building in the city. It will also be topped by the city's priciest condominium.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iAMtheVVALRUS
What do you mean “selective” I searched each of the landmarks on Flickr, and picked the most popular photos. I really didn’t have to do much digging at all.
I'd characterize the distinction thusly:
At Copley Square, the buildings are the focal point: it's surrounded by several of the most notable architectural landmarks in Boston.
At Rittenhouse Square, the square itself is the focal point. As an ensemble - an "outdoor room" - it's far better defined and composed than Copley Square thanks to all those (mostly) residential buildings surrounding it. Though many are nice, and several of them distinguished (e.g., the mansions in the 1800 block of Walnut that now house retail stores and the two pre-World War I apartment towers that flank 19th Street at Rittenhouse Square (street) on the south side), none of the buildings currently standing are standouts - but they don't have to be: they're individual notes in a larger symphony, and it's the work as a whole that's the real standout.
Each square, by the way, has an architectural embarrassment that eventually got salvaged.
I.M. Pei's John Hancock Tower on Copley Square initially posed a danger to the lives of anyone passing through the square's south side because its glass panes kept popping out - it seems the architect and builder hadn't anticipated the effect of wind currents on the tower. Eventually, glassmakers produced a stronger glass for the windows, and the building was able to open at last.
The Rittenhouse Hotel was begun by Philadelphia developer Jack Wolgin in the late 1970s. Wolgin was able to finish the building shell but (I believe) ran out of money at that point. For more than 20 years, that building sat empty and brooding over the square. Right around 2000, another developer was finally able to buy the unfinished building and finish it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iAMtheVVALRUS
Yes, let’s go beyond architecture.
In addition to the bi-weekly farmers’ markets, Copley also hosts First Night every year, an event which includes ice sculptures, music performances, a light show, and a parade. It is the finish line of the annual Boston Marathon. It’s hosted a number of free concerts, and just last month it hosted the annual Book Festival.
How many free public events take place in Rittenhouse every year?
The most notable free public events are the art shows that take place at the beginning and end of the summer. The artist-run Rittenhouse Square Fine Art Show, the country's oldest outdoor art show, has been going strong for more than 80 years; the original took place in June, and the September show was added more recently.
This is complemented by a bi-annual craft fair begun in 2012 that takes place in May and October.
And the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society has held a spring flower market in the square for more than 100 years.
There's a weekly farmers' market year-round on Saturdays, plus a Tuesday farmers' market from May until the week before Thanksgiving.
Our surviving alt-weekly used to sponsor a free Wednesday-night concert series in the summer, but that seems to have gone the way of all flesh, probably a victim of the deteriorating fortunes of newspapers in general.
I'd say Rittenhouse Square holds its own with Copley Square as a public event space, even if we do do New Year's on Penn's Landing and July Fourth at the Art Museum (and Penn's Landing). Both Penn's Landing and the Ben Franklin Parkway (where our Boston-qualifier marathon, the 26th running of which takes place this coming weekend, also starts and ends) are larger expanses of open space better suited to accommodating hundreds of thousands of people.
Last edited by MarketStEl; 11-19-2019 at 04:20 AM..
I agree that Copley (while still very nice) is not the premier jewel of Boston, Rittenhouse is the premiere center of Philadelphia and among the top (if not the top) urban square in the country.
It's not the same at all. In Philly, if you say you live on Rittenhouse, that's the premier residential address in town. If you said you lived in Copley, people would think you're living in your cube in the Hancock Tower.
I have a feeling that some Boston posters do not want to admit a defeat for whatever reason.
I have been to both squares many times (also having lived in Philadelphia), I do not at all see how Copley is architecturally in the same league or superior to Rittenhouse.... and as you mentioned, Rittenhouse is much more designed at a pedestrian scale and is one of the few American public spaces that gives off a European flair, especially along 18th Street from Walnut to Spruce.
And that doesn't even get into the greenery, landscaping, dining and general options right on each square, in which Rittenhouse exceeds Copley, and you can live directly on Rittenhouse Square.
I agree that Copley (while still very nice) is not the premier jewel of Boston, Rittenhouse is the premiere center of Philadelphia and among the top (if not the top) urban square in the country.
I have a feeling that some Boston posters do not want to admit a defeat for whatever reason.
I have been to both squares many times (also having lived in Philadelphia), I do not at all see how Copley is architecturally in the same league or superior to Rittenhouse.... and as you mentioned, Rittenhouse is much more designed at a pedestrian scale and is one of the few American public spaces that gives off a European flair, especially along 18th Street from Walnut to Spruce.
And that doesn't even get into the greenery, landscaping, dining and general options right on each square, in which Rittenhouse exceeds Copley, and you can live directly on Rittenhouse Square.
I agree that Copley (while still very nice) is not the premier jewel of Boston, Rittenhouse is the premiere center of Philadelphia and among the top (if not the top) urban square in the country.
Boston posters will never admit defeat even if its painfully obvious. Its embarrassing sometimes because its makes us look small minded and arrogant.
I have a feeling that some Boston posters do not want to admit a defeat for whatever reason.
I have been to both squares many times (also having lived in Philadelphia), I do not at all see how Copley is architecturally in the same league or superior to Rittenhouse.... and as you mentioned, Rittenhouse is much more designed at a pedestrian scale and is one of the few American public spaces that gives off a European flair, especially along 18th Street from Walnut to Spruce.
And that doesn't even get into the greenery, landscaping, dining and general options right on each square, in which Rittenhouse exceeds Copley, and you can live directly on Rittenhouse Square.
I agree that Copley (while still very nice) is not the premier jewel of Boston, Rittenhouse is the premiere center of Philadelphia and among the top (if not the top) urban square in the country.
The poll is a tie. Perhaps you believing Rittenhouse is a tier above and clearly better is a pro Philly bias. There are probably like 6 Boston poster on this site.
Perhaps actually have a different opinion than you.
It's not the same at all. In Philly, if you say you live on Rittenhouse, that's the premier residential address in town. If you said you lived in Copley, people would think you're living in your cube in the Hancock Tower.
This is exactly my thought. Copley is a tiny little patch of green, smack dab in the middle of one of the cities busiest commercial areas. It's not a neighborhood. The architecture that surrounds Copley- hotel, library, and church most notably- are what people associate it with.
To be honest, I only go there for drinks at the Fairmont (btw, if you haven't been there, it's stunning). Outside of that, it's an area I simply walk or drive by to get somewhere else.
Boston posters will never admit defeat even if its painfully obvious. Its embarrassing sometimes because its makes us look small minded and arrogant.
“Small minded and arrogant”!? The irony of this post is insane! What city squares from around the world are you using as a gold standard for this comparison, and why is Rittenhouse more similar to them? Prove your own humility and big-mindedness to me.
Copley has more landmarks, more shops, more restaurants, and it hosts more major events.
Last edited by Boston Shudra; 11-19-2019 at 08:20 AM..
Copley has more landmarks, more shops, more restaurants, and it hosts more major events.
Copley is a T stop, and a square. The surrounding neighborhood, though I agree with you, is not Copley. It's Back Bay/Boylston.
There isn't a real comparison here, if we are simply talking about what is known as Copley (the square) vs. what is known as Rittenhouse (the park and neighborhood). They aren't the same thing.
“Small minded and arrogant”!? What city squares from around the world are you using as a gold standard for this comparison, and why is Rittenhouse more similar to them? Prove your own humility and big-mindedness to me.
Copley has more landmarks, more shops, more restaurants, and it hosts more major events.
That is not true.
Lets look at the amenities directly on each square....
Copley Square is largely surrounded by fast casual dining (Chipotle, Dig Inn, etc.). Some of Philadelphia's finest restaurants lie directly on Rittenhouse Square (Barclay Prime, Parc, Rough, Scarpetta, etc.)
Not to mention the shopping directly on Rittenhouse offers more (Barnes & Noble, Anthropologie, BHLDN, soon to come Equinox gym, and until recently Barneys).
And as another poster stated Rittenhouse has its fair share of farmers markets and art shows throughout the entire year (including the market every weekend).
And I never mentioned the world, but I stand by my statement that Rittenhouse is probably the best urban square in the nation.
Not to deny the positives of Copley, but you have downplayed Rittenhouse in every post and now you claim Copley Square has more restaurants and retail....
And here is a point to think on.... how often do you or people you know hangout in Copley Square or enjoy a nice al fresco meal on the square?? Part of the beauty of Rittenhouse is that its an attraction, true space for leisure and enjoyment, you can lay out, read a book, sip a coffee and enjoy an afternoon on or in the square... Copley is not the same...
Heck Rittenhouse Square has a cultural landscape foundation and group dedicated just for the upkeep and and continued beautification of the square.
Last edited by cpomp; 11-19-2019 at 08:33 AM..
Reason: edit
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.
