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.
You can find suburbs across each city in tit for tat for hundreds of posts, but Boston does not have that ^^ whereas Chicago does.
I would say Chicago is America's most elegant city, Boston is in the running too as is maybe DC. NYC/Manhattan is too grimy/dirty despite the architecture to do well here for me.
San Francisco is not elegant. The architecture, density, and streetscape is just too chaotic.
You can find suburbs across each city in tit for tat for hundreds of posts, but Boston does not have that ^^ whereas Chicago does.
I would say Chicago is America's most elegant city, Boston is in the running too as is maybe DC. NYC/Manhattan is too grimy/dirty despite the architecture to do well here for me.
San Francisco is not elegant. The architecture, density, and streetscape is just too chaotic.
None of the neighborhoods depicted in the Boston photos are "suburbs." They are all in the heart of the city. Two of them sit on land created by filling in back bays - which is where "Back Bay" gets its name from.
And while those are impressive skyscrapers, I don't consider any downtown office-building canyon "elegant." Impressive, definitely; elegant, no, for elegance is more restrained than any skyscraper can be, not even PSFS.
As for Boston lacking impressive skyscraper districts: True, there aren't as many tall buildings clustered together in Boston as in Chicago, and Boston's two tallest sit in splendid isolation in the low-rise Back Bay. And that is that windswept plaza that they created by razing the old red-light district in order to make New City Hall more foreboding. But I'd say this district is as "elegant" than that stretch of North Michigan Avenue you posted:
I'm from Boston. I've only been to Chicago once so I don't know street names and stuff I just know the impression I got was of a grand city with a simple, sturdy building. I don't think of ornate buildings as being elegant to me that means an effortless aesthetic
I'll have some street views from Center City Philadelphia for purposes of comparison later.
Post Office Square would be even more elegant if they hadn’t torn down its namesake, a beautiful building with a similar architecture to Philly’s City Hall.
I always say Chicago has a "Elegance" in choosing one of the best street-grids in the country with standard set-backs for green-frontage with many soaring trees, standard sidewalks and curbing and having its power-line poles run thru its standard alleys. Add its gilded-age neighborhoods and they show very well. Even its Workers Cottage-homes have a elegance though subdued and its bungalow-belt uniform homes with frontage that took on a front-lawn look in the 20s 30s but still on standard city lots. Just the homes footprint was not as deep. Then the 40s thru 60s versions.
The mocking of "Space_League's" street-view choices still was uncalled for. Sometimes a street-view saves a bit different view then you originally wanted too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Space_League
I'm from Boston. I've only been to Chicago once so I don't know street names and stuff I just know the impression I got was of a grand city with a simple, sturdy building. I don't think of ornate buildings as being elegant to me that means an effortless aesthetic
First Impressions are important. Some still stick with me in previous visits. Some give you more desire to visit again.... some less so. It proves why Chicago's tourism has risen so and why traveler's magazines voting subscribers and links of traveling sights on sights to visit by visitor feedbacks .... also give Chicago great reviews.
The city's bit more attention to details ..... also shows, especially in its core. Clean sidewalks and streets with even flowers again add extra too. As grittiness and lacking green can lessen it.
Architecture alone can have elegance. But "presentation" also helps much in recognition value. Chicago does well in a "urban" example thru various kinds of neighborhoods too. If you are use to seeing row-housing as urban ..... it is refreshing to note Chicago with much much less row-housing replicated. Is still urban in a better presentation overall.
Some cities have their own look. That I can generally tell what city street-view is showing if not knowing. For some major cities.
I always say Chicago has a "Elegance" in choosing one of the best street-grids in the country with standard set-backs for green-frontage with many soaring trees, standard sidewalks and curbing and having its power-line poles run thru its standard alleys. Add its gilded-age neighborhoods and they show very well. Even its Workers Cottage-homes have a elegance though subdued and its bungalow-belt uniform homes with frontage that took on a front-lawn look in the 20s 30s but still on standard city lots. Just the homes footprint was not as deep. Then the 40s thru 60s versions.
The mocking of "Space_League's" street-view choices still was uncalled for. Sometimes a street-view saves a bit different view then you originally wanted too.
First Impressions are important. Some still stick with me in previous visits. Some give you more desire to visit again.... some less so. It proves why Chicago's tourism has risen so and why traveler's magazines voting subscribers and links of traveling sights on sights to visit by visitor feedbacks .... also give Chicago great reviews.
The city's bit more attention to details ..... also shows, especially in its core. Clean sidewalks and streets with even flowers again add extra too. As grittiness and lacking green can lessen it.
Architecture alone can have elegance. But "presentation" also helps much in recognition value. Chicago does well in a "urban" example thru various kinds of neighborhoods too. If you are use to seeing row-housing as urban ..... it is refreshing to note Chicago with much much less row-housing replicated. Is still urban in a better presentation overall.
Some cities have their own look. That I can generally tell what city street-view is showing if not knowing. For some major cities.
I think for a big city and the big city elegance, Chicago offers the most elegance. The River Walk and Gold Coast are gorgeous areas.
Old world elegance I think Boston and Philadelphia offer the best due to the handsome colonial era homes grand old government and bank structures and cobblestone streets.
New York of course offers elegance on its streets, but the constant crowds and chaos can change that view a bit. And a lot people forget that parts of Chicago would look much more like the East Village or Hell Kitchen in New York if they didn't burn down in 1871.
I just got back from Copenhagen and that city is a perfect example of old world elegance.
There are two big differences between Society and Beacon Hills..
And here I thought that the major difference between the two neighborhoods was that Society Hill has white shutters and Beacon Hill has black shutters.
Irvine, California. Meticulously planned, well-maintained, lushly landscaped, clean, wide boulevards, and compact, charming, upscale neighborhoods themed after French, Spanish, and Italian architecture. Streets lined with Italian cypress, olive trees, and live oaks, with French chateaus and Tuscan villas, along coastal hills in a Mediterranean climate--very classy, very elegant. Oh, and don't forget the brand new porsches, mercedes, lexuses, and maseratis galore plying the streets! If a Maserati isn't elegant, I don't know what is.
And here I thought that the major difference between the two neighborhoods was that Society Hill has white shutters and Beacon Hill has black shutters.
Philly's Society Hill is the critical snapshot of American History. but, sadly its expanse is surprisingly small.... You have to cross through a lot of grittiness before you get to the vast expanse of its under-appreciated Fairmount Park terminating near its lesser known Chamounix horse stables.... and eventually opening into another ribbon with the golf course and expanse of Wissahickon Park.
Philly is swapping some of its old gritty blocks off each side of central Market Street for skyscrapers. It's good and very good, busy and less elegant. But big and bold.
Boston is multiple snapshots of American History with Beacon Hill, Charles River Esplanade, The North End & Charlestown Naval Yard.... South End, Back Bay, Fens & Emerald Necklace extending to Stony Brook and the West Roxbury Charles River basin in one direction and Brookline Village & Chestnut Hill in the other is a vast expanse of elegance.
Sadly for Boston; urban renewal in the West End was rewritten with several superblocks and brutalist monoliths, that need to be written over again. Boston is also filling in with big mid-rise infill.... and about 4 score highrises going up in its Downtown and Back Bay core.
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.
