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.
It’s DC, and frankly, no other city is close. It was built to be a grand capital.
The fact that San Francisco has 6 votes and DC 2 shows me that this thread has very little credibility. I understand that these polls are opinion, but I cannot apply any type of logic that would support SF being more elegant than DC. DC neighborhoods ooze elegance and gracefulness. Despite the narrative on CD, I find a lot to like about almost every neighborhood I’ve been to in DC as it applies to this thread.
The fact that San Francisco has 6 votes and DC 2 shows me that this thread has very little credibility. I understand that these polls are opinion, but I cannot apply any type of logic that would support SF being more elegant than DC. DC neighborhoods ooze elegance and gracefulness. Despite the narrative on CD, I find a lot to like about almost every neighborhood I’ve been to in DC as it applies to this thread.
I don’t even like DC, but the majority of NE, and a good deal of NE DC are really beautiful. Aside from a handful of brutalist federal buildings, almost everything that a tourist would see in DC is gorgeous.
The fact that San Francisco has 6 votes and DC 2 shows me that this thread has very little credibility. I understand that these polls are opinion, but I cannot apply any type of logic that would support SF being more elegant than DC. DC neighborhoods ooze elegance and gracefulness. Despite the narrative on CD, I find a lot to like about almost every neighborhood I’ve been to in DC as it applies to this thread.
I live in the DC metro and I wouldn't give it the vote. New York, Charleston and Savannah all have a higher percentage of elegant neighborhoods as a proportion of the total city than DC. Yes, DC has Georgetown and Capitol Hill and Dupont Circle and Alexandria Old Town and the King Street Corridor and Logan Circle. But there are also a bunch of areas in between that aren't glamorous.
Downtown and Golden Triangle are somewhat dull, Shaw and U Street are dirty, the Federal Buildings have hideous brutalist behemoths sprinkled throughout that take away from the elegance, and then the fastest growing areas like Columbia Heights, Navy Yard and the Orange Line Corridor from Ballston to Rosslyn, are quite ugly.
Then you have the fancy areas like Forest Hills, Palisades, Chevy Chase, Kalorama, Rosemont, the Auroras and Barnaby Woods which don't have anything unique.
And don't get me started on the ghettoes.
DC has beautiful elegant neighborhoods and absolute stinkers.
I don’t even like DC, but the majority of NE, and a good deal of NE DC are really beautiful. Aside from a handful of brutalist federal buildings, almost everything that a tourist would see in DC is gorgeous.
Not really. I work near Farragut Square and from the National Mall to Dupont Circle is nothing but cookie-cutter corporate buildings of the same height, materials and mass. West End, Golden Triangle, Downtown, Penn Quarter, Federal Triangle, and Mount Vernon Square are all interchangeable. Foggy Bottom is supposedly pretty but all of the historic stock is sporadic and has been largely replaced with interchangeable, cookie cutter highrises.
There's a pretty big gap between the "National Mall Beautiful Area" and the "Neighborhood Beautiful Areas."
The only real way to avoid it is to head north from the Washington Monument where you're passing by the Corcoran, the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, the Renwick Gallery, The White House, Lafayette Square. Then, at best, you only have to walk through 5 minutes of homeless-infested parkland in McPherson Square before you hit Logan Circle. That's the best route to maximize your "beauty" and you still have to cross some ugly spots.
Meanwhile, I can walk the entire length of the DC Diamond at its core and see nothing of beauty: Starting from Bluemont > Orange Line Corridor [Ballston > Virginia Square > Courthouse > Clarendon > Rosslyn] > West End > Foggy Bottom > Golden Triangle > Downtown > Chinatown > Penn Quarter > Noma > Ivy City > Trinidad/Starburst > SE DC
Not really. I work near Farragut Square and from the National Mall to Dupont Circle is nothing but cookie-cutter corporate buildings of the same height, materials and mass. West End, Golden Triangle, Downtown, Penn Quarter, Federal Triangle, and Mount Vernon Square are all interchangeable. Foggy Bottom is supposedly pretty but all of the historic stock is sporadic and has been largely replaced with interchangeable, cookie cutter highrises.
There's a pretty big gap between the "National Mall Beautiful Area" and the "Neighborhood Beautiful Areas."
The only real way to avoid it is to head north from the Washington Monument where you're passing by the Corcoran, the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, the Renwick Gallery, The White House, Lafayette Square. Then, at best, you only have to walk through 5 minutes of homeless-infested parkland in McPherson Square before you hit Logan Circle. That's the best route to maximize your "beauty" and you still have to cross some ugly spots.
Meanwhile, I can walk the entire length of the DC Diamond at its core and see nothing of beauty: Starting from Bluemont > Orange Line Corridor [Ballston > Virginia Square > Courthouse > Clarendon > Rosslyn] > West End > Foggy Bottom > Golden Triangle > Downtown > Chinatown > Penn Quarter > Noma > Ivy City > Trinidad/Starburst > SE DC
OK, I’m going to agree with you that DC‘s office/business neighborhoods are generally unattractive. However, I actually think the Columbia Heights is a pretty attractive neighborhood. The same applies to Trinidad, closer to H street.
I don’t even like DC, but the majority of NE, and a good deal of NE DC are really beautiful. Aside from a handful of brutalist federal buildings, almost everything that a tourist would see in DC is gorgeous.
Agree. Never cared the least for the uber cut-throat nature of DC, but the city itself is incredibly attractive.
There are plenty of other major cities with similarly gorgeous areas, but a much greater proportion of DC neighborhoods have that polished, perfectly-crafted and curated feel than any other city in this poll. The practical reason for that being, unlike Boston, NYC, Chicago, Philly and SF (and likely Charleston, though not as sure of its economic history), DC never was built with a large blue-collar class in mind.
The flip side of that coin is it doesn't feel like a very creative/architecturally ambitious city. But it has traditional, super well-preserved historic neighborhoods in spades.
Agree. Never cared the least for the uber cut-throat nature of DC, but the city itself is incredibly attractive.
There are plenty of other major cities with similarly gorgeous areas, but a much greater proportion of DC neighborhoods have that polished, perfectly-crafted and curated feel than any other city on this poll.
That’s similar to how I feel. Chicago is probabaly the only city that outdoes DC in that way, largely because it’s neighborhoods are far larger. Still not sure one singular stretch can touch Astor or Comm Ave in Boston. Chi couples it’s neighborhood “elegance” with one of the most attractive cores in the world.
Well, since the poll does have an "Other" option, and Savannah isn't on this list, I voted "other."
My hometown of Kansas City may be beautiful, and it has many grand houses along its premier boulevard, Ward Parkway, but elegance is an ensemble effect, and a collection of show houses one after the other may be opulent, but it's not terribly elegant.
But even though Philadelphia's wide streets are both commercial thoroughfares, I'd say the narrower thoroughfares of Rittenhouse Square especially, but also Washington Square West and Society Hill, hold their own in the elegance derby with Boston's Back Bay and South End and New York's Brooklyn Heights (I think no other New York City neighborhood even comes close to Brooklyn Heights in elegance, including the avenues bordering Central Park, Gramercy Park and the streets around Washington Square).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
Agree. Never cared the least for the uber cut-throat nature of DC, but the city itself is incredibly attractive.
There are plenty of other major cities with similarly gorgeous areas, but a much greater proportion of DC neighborhoods have that polished, perfectly-crafted and curated feel than any other city in this poll. The practical reason for that being, unlike Boston, NYC, Chicago, Philly and SF (and likely Charleston, though not as sure of its economic history), DC never was built with a large blue-collar class in mind.
The flip side of that coin is it doesn't feel like a very creative/architecturally ambitious city. But it has traditional, super well-preserved historic neighborhoods in spades.
Plant more trees on more Philadelphia working-class rowhouse blocks and the percentage-of-elegance gap between it and Washington grows much smaller. (Contrast Walnut Street, the Garden Court neighborhood or Spruce Street in West Philadelphia with any of the secondary streets west of 52d and tell me trees don't make a difference.) Bury the overhead utility transmission lines - an enormously expensive proposition that won't happen for that reason - on top of planting the trees and the gap disappears. Washington's two-story brick rowhomes may not have been built for working people the way Philadelphia's were, but they're just as modest in character.
But as for creativity and architectural ambition, the cities listed here should be ranked Chicago-New York-Philadelphia - and I think a case can even be made for reversing the position of the second- and third-ranked cities on this list. After all, Chicago gave the world the skeleton-frame high-rise building, and Philadelphia is home to the first International Style skyscraper in the world, an honor Col. Robert McCormick denied Chicago. Philadelphia, as we all have been reminded these past two weeks, is also home of the architect who upended Modernist orthodoxy and sterility by insisting that there was complexity and contradiction in architecture and - with his wife, who gets slighted for her contribution to their joint enterprise - that we could indeed learn from Las Vegas.
Well, since the poll does have an "Other" option, and Savannah isn't on this list, I voted "other."
My hometown of Kansas City may be beautiful, and it has many grand houses along its premier boulevard, Ward Parkway, but elegance is an ensemble effect, and a collection of show houses one after the other may be opulent, but it's not terribly elegant.
But even though Philadelphia's wide streets are both commercial thoroughfares, I'd say the narrower thoroughfares of Rittenhouse Square especially, but also Washington Square West and Society Hill, hold their own in the elegance derby with Boston's Back Bay and South End and New York's Brooklyn Heights (I think no other New York City neighborhood even comes close to Brooklyn Heights in elegance, including the avenues bordering Central Park, Gramercy Park and the streets around Washington Square).
Plant more trees on more Philadelphia working-class rowhouse blocks and the percentage-of-elegance gap between it and Washington grows much smaller. (Contrast Walnut Street, the Garden Court neighborhood or Spruce Street in West Philadelphia with any of the secondary streets west of 52d and tell me trees don't make a difference.) Bury the overhead utility transmission lines - an enormously expensive proposition that won't happen for that reason - on top of planting the trees and the gap disappears. Washington's two-story brick rowhomes may not have been built for working people the way Philadelphia's were, but they're just as modest in character.
But as for creativity and architectural ambition, the cities listed here should be ranked Chicago-New York-Philadelphia - and I think a case can even be made for reversing the position of the second- and third-ranked cities on this list. After all, Chicago gave the world the skeleton-frame high-rise building, and Philadelphia is home to the first International Style skyscraper in the world, an honor Col. Robert McCormick denied Chicago. Philadelphia, as we all have been reminded these past two weeks, is also home of the architect who upended Modernist orthodoxy and sterility by insisting that there was complexity and contradiction in architecture and - with his wife, who gets slighted for her contribution to their joint enterprise - that we could indeed learn from Las Vegas.
As usual ... always great writing and reads you give us. But as for Modernist Architecture, not going to be anyone's favorite. The Architect Mies Van Der Rohe defined Chicago's Modernist examples. Recently in - Curbed Chicago - this article showcased a current Architects condo and choice of living in a 1956 Modernist bland exterior box too. A Mies residential Modernist high-rise on Chicago's lakefront overlooking Lincoln Park, the lake and Chicago's full skyline to die for. I'd take it..... but these buildings exterior (pictures in link) offer nothing to pleasure the eye with really. But location and views exceptional. Never to be obstructed.
But they are far from my favorites. He believed -- Less is more-- and his exteriors were the least.
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.
