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.
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,279,693 times
Reputation: 1483
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
Not true. Philly's post-1900 development is overwhelmingly not rowhouses, same as everywhere else. I would guess 90%+ of housing in the Philly metro constructed during the 20th century is something other than rowhouses.
Chicago does have post-1900 rowhouses, but as everywhere else, they aren't the predominant 20th century housing typology. So if you want to argue that Philly was 5% 20th century rowhouses, and Chicago was 2%, then ok, I guess, but I don't see this as some enormous difference.
NOLA as usual someone..... usually a few.... say you are wrong. Philly is at least 60% clearly Row Homes.
People looking for an urban environment are generally paying a premium for a more urban feel. Part of the reason a SoHo is so expensive is because there's almost nothing like it in the U.S. Obviously someone not looking for an urban environment isn't going to value narrow streets and tight, dense blocks, with greenery restricted to parks.
True but SoHo is exceptional with its location and style. The North End in Bostondoesn't command quite as much premium for its urban environment. Once you get to medium density, some might prefer within similar densities but more greenery. Brownstone blocks are generally considered more desirable with street trees, though there's not much other greenery. Nearby Carroll Gardens in Brooklyn has a similar style but with a setback with some greenery in between. Some like the combination, others find it detracts from the urban environment. I think that's what the OP is saying: he likes that Chicago is similar in density to Philadelphia but generally looks greener and more open. Outside Center City, the more monotonous rowhouses without any greenery on the street do look drab to many.
I'm personally a fan of this Boston street:
Very different from narrow Philadelphia streets of that era.
I think that's what the OP is saying: he likes that Chicago is similar in density to Philadelphia but generally looks greener and more open. Outside Center City, the more monotonous rowhouses without any greenery on the street do look drab to many.
I think, in Philadelphia's case, that is partially a function of the city's outer rowhome neighborhoods not always being in the best state-of-repair, but I'd agree that greenery adds a really attractive natural balance to very dense urban setting.
Thankfully, Philly has an ambitious effort in place (like many cities) to grow its urban tree canopy, particularly in areas that need it most--although it will take some number of years to mature.
I don't care for row-houses myself. I strongly prefer a freestanding home that doesn't share walls.
A row-house just isn't "Homie" to me. When I see the pictures, I just think of off-campus College rental properties.
It's all the drawbacks of a freestanding home with none of the advantages.
well yes and no - Problem with rowhomes to me is less the connection - most have brick barrier walls and actually sound proof fairly well and can reduce heating and cooling costs.
Now the layout is or can be challenging, esp if narrower than 16 feet (even 16 makes for long narrower spaces so wider is even better, or end unit with more windows) - the design lacks options. Also many are older and may not have storage or large bathrooms - not always the case as many are re-done (many not)
I live in one in South Philly just outside the CC border. Its a great street and quiet - My layout works and have nearly 2800 sq feet, outdoor space, and parking. Good neighbors etc. What is best for me is the access. Can walk to everything so fits the lifestyle I like and city life. I have lived in urban, rural, and suburban. Suburban works least well for me. While having an acre and 3500 sq feet was nice - I had to drive everywhere and still had congested roads and long commutes. Rural was great also - open space quiet.
I actually find many rowhomes very homie - my place is homier than my prior mcmansion honestly - but that will vary like every other housing stock.
Now a rowhouse isnt perfect or even optimal but given where I want to live in Philly it is the best option on many fronts. rowhouses in an area I don't want to live are no more desirable than a trailer home in a trailer park to me. Like most things in real estate its all about location, location, location
I don't care for row-houses myself. I strongly prefer a freestanding home that doesn't share walls.
A row-house just isn't "Homie" to me. When I see the pictures, I just think of off-campus College rental properties.
It's all the drawbacks of a freestanding home with none of the advantages.
What are these claimed "drawbacks"?
To me, I see advantages. It's a more urban, pedestrian and transit friendly design, allowing people to live in single family homes yet in an urban neighborhood. It provides European-style development, with all the advantages.
Obviously if you prefer detached single family homes, they are the predominant housing style in every U.S. metro area, so you will never move somewhere, not even Philly or NYC, where you won't find tons and tons of single family detached homes in the metro area.
But I don't get why people criticize rowhomes, given they're so rare in the U.S. context. Probably they're somewhere that doesn't have any, so are jealous.
To me, I see advantages. It's a more urban, pedestrian and transit friendly design, allowing people to live in single family homes yet in an urban neighborhood. It provides European-style development, with all the advantages.
Obviously if you prefer detached single family homes, they are the predominant housing style in every U.S. metro area, so you will never move somewhere, not even Philly or NYC, where you won't find tons and tons of single family detached homes in the metro area.
Agree. I think it's a uniquely American mindset to want to live as far away from your neighbors and have as much privacy as possible, and to that end, that mindset does not comport with city living in general--so I honestly don't see much of a practical difference between a single-family detached home on a postage stamp lot in Chicago versus an attached rowhome. If someone truly prioritizes more green space and privacy, they'd mostly desire a home in a gated community in a distant exurb with a 1-acre lot. Hence, if I'm living in a city, I'd much rather reap the benefits of a truly urban neighborhood--not a semi-suburb.
Also, you're absolutely right that rowhome model is extremely desirable for a family seeking convenient, walkable access to amenities while also providing an intimate human-scaled neighborhood. This is particularly true in a city like Philly that has extremely strict height rules in place outside of the business district. Especially as these neighborhoods also tend to be narrow, one-way streets, these areas are often much quieter than one would expect, due to the lack of a steady stream of cars.
To the point about an area feeling "homey" that is extremely subjective and based upon one's own individual preferences and life experiences.
These are TOWNHOUSES AND HALF-DOUBLES. I was corrected half-doubles are not Row homes.... These are Not the typical mid- 20th century and before.... typical Row homes in Philly of 60% at least.... the typical blocks of solid rows... many on alley size streets. You can continually find around Philly. Just try clicking on Google 360°s and you keep finding Tight solid Rows..... on the fringe parts of the city more and more green frontage came in too.
This is a typical example of Philly Rows some in poor area and alley size street and better shape and not quite a alley size street.
Both Non-Colonial examples......
Tight common example ....poor area but tightness typical of a lot in Philly⤵
I'm still confused why you continue to post images of Philly rowhomes in ONLY rough areas. It's fine if you want to do that but at at least post images of rows in nice areas of Philly. To show both the good and the bad. How bad they can look in rundown or rough areas and how good they can look in nice areas.
Idk if you have an agenda and you're purposely cherry picking or what.
I'm still confused why you continue to post images of Philly rowhomes in ONLY rough areas. It's fine if you want to do that but at at least post images of rows in nice areas of Philly. To show both the good and the bad. How bad they can look in rundown or rough areas and how good they can look in nice areas.
Yes. I don't quite understand the logic either. Again, a nice neighborhood looks nice and desirable if homes are kept-up and the public areas (e.g., roads, sidewalks, etc) are in a good state-of-repair.
Random street view images do nothing for a general discussion of attached v. detached single family homes.
Let's not act like a large portion of Philly isn't rundown rowhouses. You would also be cherrypicking if you only chose to show rowhouses in the inner 4 square miles of Philly. There's a reason a lot of people here have said Philly is boring outside of it's inner 10 square miles or so.
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.
