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.
1 London, United Kingdom 6,480,000
2 New York, United States 4,242,000
3 Paris, France 3,330,000
4 Berlin, Germany 2,707,000
5 Chicago, United States 1,717,000
People can go on about how young Chicago is, but it was the 5th largest pre-auto city on Earth.
True, Chicago does have a large pre-auto core, but, like Berlin, was not built with the same pedestrian and transit orientation as the first three cities on the list.
The "best" pre-auto core I've seen is probably Venice, and Venice wasn't that big of a city at the dawn of the auto age, but still kills cities many times larger in the pre-auto era.
The difference of course is that in Chicago Michigan Ave is probably the only street that has that level of pedestrian activity on a regular basis while in Manhattan it is just about every Avenue and a number of large cross streets as well. And most of them sustain it not for one magnificent mile but for 2, 5, even 10 miles (e.g. Broadway).
I agree though, I wouldn't expect anyone from Chicago to go "into shock" upon experiencing Manhattan.
Downtown Chicago is sleepy compared to Manhattan and I think Chicagoans experiencing Manhattan for the 1st time might very well be in shock because they think NY is a lot like Chicago, which it isn't.
This is of course totally true, but I really think when future generations look back at urban development a thousand years from now (assuming we haven't disappeared), the real dividing line between old and new will be the development of the automobile and its effect on cities. It is the ultimate before/after factor in my opinion. And as such, Chicago will eventually be seen as one of the largest "old" cities. Here are the largest cities in 1900 at the dawn of the automobile
1 London, United Kingdom 6,480,000
2 New York, United States 4,242,000
3 Paris, France 3,330,000
4 Berlin, Germany 2,707,000
5 Chicago, United States 1,717,000
People can go on about how young Chicago is, but it was the 5th largest pre-auto city on Earth.
Imagine some cities in China and India may have been larger to at the time
Chicago and Philly were about the same size at that point I believe population wise as well - forget when Chicgo passed philly but feel like was close to this time
NYC, and Northeast Corridor cities, generally have very similar building stock as UK cities. and built around the same timeframe. The average residence in London and NYC is pretty similar in terms of year built.
However, NYC does not have Middle Age and Roman period development which is not similar to London. You're only focused on one period (19th century) but discount the previous periods of development in the UK that predates anything in the Northeast.
Quote:
If you're talking about relative age, you're wrong. Most of the current Edinburgh Castle was built well after Phily was a decent-sized city.
Incorrect, Edinburgh Castle was built around 12th Century under the reign of David I.
However, NYC does not have Middle Age and Roman period development which is not similar to London. You're only focused on one period (19th century) but discount the previous periods of development in the UK that predates anything in the Northeast.
No, I'm focused on all periods of development. When you take all periods of development, the average age of housing is similar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanologist
Incorrect, Edinburgh Castle was built around 12th Century under the reign of David I.
No, not true. Not the current Edinburgh Castle buildings. They date from the 1700's, mostly.
You claimed that Philly could not host Edinburgh Castle, because it's older than Philly. This isn't true. Philly has many buildings as old as Edinburgh Castle.
Most European castle structures, BTW, are not that old. Most were destroyed and rebuilt many times, and the current versions usually date from the 18th or 19th centuries, when they were often rebuilt for residential, rather than defense purposes.
You keep talking about history; we are talking about buildings. I can't believe you are unable to distinguish between these very different concepts.
No, I'm focused on all periods of development. When you take all periods of development, the average age of housing is similar.
No, not true. Not the current Edinburgh Castle buildings. They date from the 1700's, mostly.
You claimed that Philly could not host Edinburgh Castle, because it's older than Philly. This isn't true. Philly has many buildings as old as Edinburgh Castle.
Most European castle structures, BTW, are not that old. Most were destroyed and rebuilt many times, and the current versions usually date from the 18th or 19th centuries, when they were often rebuilt for residential, rather than defense purposes.
You keep talking about history; we are talking about buildings. I can't believe you are unable to distinguish between these very different concepts.
Edinburgh Castle has evolved over time but still have many parts that predates Philly's existence like the Portcullis Gate and Argyle Tower (1571-1584) for example. Keep in mind Edinburgh Castle is just one of many castles. The UK has more castles and other buildings that are even older.
UK architecture is much older that would literally predate Philly or NYC by hundreds of years. Here's a list
No, they're basically the same. The fact that you have to desperately Google to find something older, and that you didn't even get that current castles aren't the original construction, pretty much indicates you have no point, and are flailing around.
We already know when buildings were built. Again median age is not that different. Outliers are irrelevant.
No, they're basically the same. The fact that you have to desperately Google to find something older, and that you didn't even get that current castles aren't the original construction, pretty much indicates you have no point, and are flailing around.
We already know when buildings were built. Again median age is not that different. Outliers are irrelevant.
Wikipedia is a credible source. So far you have not provided any to back up your claim. How is something built during the Middle Ages like in the 10th or 11th century the same as another period? Name one building in Philly that dates back that far? You can't because no such building from the Middle Period even exists let alone the city itself. They're the same age...sure.
Last edited by urbanologist; 02-27-2014 at 10:59 PM..
True, Chicago does have a large pre-auto core, but, like Berlin, was not built with the same pedestrian and transit orientation as the first three cities on the list.
.
Not the same, but it's simply not true that Chicago was not a pedestrian/transit oriented city. Chicago had one of the world's largest streetcar systems at the turn of the century, some 500 miles worth covering almost 100 routes. Here is a map.
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.
