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.
Extending this to the broader region, interestingly, suburban Philly actually comes off as much more naturally-oriented than suburban DC. Both have the pleasant, lush "Piedmont feel" for sure, but the Philly suburbs are tops for permanently preserved open spaces, river towns, stricter conservation/zoning practices, active farmland, and numerous public gardens--all within a major metropolitan area. Suburban DC feels much more "paved over" by comparison.
Agree with this. Philly definitely has the more bucolic suburbs.
I don't think anyone has mentioned the views coming into the city on 76. You take it for granted living there but it's truly a great drive.
DC has a decisive advantage within the city limits. Tree cover is part of it. The higher quality housing stock and less visible blight is another part of it.
Natural scenery, DC. But scenery if you include skylines? Philly no question. I feel like a lot of people forget DC doesn't have a skyline at all. I guess though that only matters if you do care about skylines. All subjective
I enjoy skylines but foliage matters more to me. You don't always get a view of a skyline but in many cities you can get nice views of trees and landscapes from various parts of the city.
Not to derail this thread but Miami Dade County is mostly the Everglades. No way does L.A or San Francisco have more tree coverage than the actual city of Miami.
The actual city of Miami still doesn't have many trees. Here's an example of a typical area in Miami (near my old stomping grounds as well) https://www.google.com/maps/@25.7743...7i16384!8i8192 Not very leafy now, is it?
I think that in my experience, DC has the better natural scenery within and on the periphery of the urban core by a good margin. I also think the Potomac is generally more attractive in/just outside of the city than either the Schuylkill or Delaware. I realize the subjectivity of that, though.
I'd call the built environment to be a tossup. I think DC's age and the planning that went into the city have resulted in an excellent combination of gorgeous residential architecture along perfectly leafy boulevards and streets. Cherry Blossom season is like nothing else in the U.S. That said, my preference is for Philadelphia's historic housing stock and collection of tight alleyways and narrow streets (though it's no slouch on the leafy/grand boulevards front either).
The skylines are actually tricky in my opinion. Largely because I think skylines as a measure of what makes a city great are dumb. But also because I actually think I give this category to DC. Of course if your definition of "good skyline" is simply taller=better, then Philadelphia wins without a doubt. But I think that the DC Mall skyline if far more iconic than just about any American city's skyline. The token shot of DC with the Lincoln Memorial in the foreground, the Monument in the middle, and the Capitol dome in the background is instantly recognizable around the world. Far more so than the Philadelphia skyline which, while absolutely beautiful (and one of the best in the country IMHO), is still largely just a cluster of steel and glass skyscrapers. To anyone other than the skyline enthusiasts among us, the DC skyline is more recognizable. Even if it's not massive. It's similar to the token shots of Paris with the Eiffel Tower soaring above the tight clusters of iconic Haussmann-style apartments. It's far more recognizable to the average person than the skyline of nearby La Defense which is more typical of a modern major city downtown area - of which there are many around the world. But yeah, if you think taller is better, it's Philly.
Suburbs are without a doubt Philadelphia. I think Philly has some of the most picturesque suburbs in the country. DC has some great ones too, but nowhere near the same quantity as Philadelphia, and DC is made up of a lot more sprawling, modern suburbia.
For the sake of not sitting on the fence, I give the overall edge to DC.
DC has a decisive advantage within the city limits. Tree cover is part of it. The higher quality housing stock and less visible blight is another part of it.
I think that's fair, overall, when speaking of both cities in their entirety. I've long thought that Philly could take many notes from DC on promoting more residential historic restoration. It can be easy to forget how gorgeous so much more of the city once was prior to deindustrialization.
Not that Philly doesn't have plenty of restoration/preservation, but there are so many more Philly neighborhoods that, with not too much imagination (nor money, relatively speaking), could be absolutely stunning again with brick repointing, removing "bastardizing" elements like aluminum siding, cornice restoration and a pop of color on the door and/or shudders. So many homes also have absolutely beautiful decorative elements that have been completely concealed by added siding over time. Not quite as ornate, generally, as DC given the different time periods, but still solid masonry with very interesting detail. This is in addition to the obvious need for more greenery and underground powerlines.
A lot of this is occurring more organically via gentrification, but absolutely it's still work in progress given Philly's much more massive historic housing stock (but which can also be attributed to Philly's affordability as a vibrant, walkable bona fide urban hub).
I think that's fair, overall, when speaking of both cities in their entirety. I've long thought that Philly could take many notes from DC on promoting more residential historic restoration. It can be easy to forget that how gorgeous so much more of the city once was prior to deindustrialization.
Not that Philly doesn't have plenty of restoration/preservation, but there are so many more Philly neighborhoods that, with not too much imagination (nor money, relatively speaking), could be absolutely stunning with brick repointing, removing "bastardizing" elements like aluminum siding, cornice restoration and a pop of color on the door and/or shudders. So many homes also have absolutely beautiful decorative elements that have been completely concealed by added siding over time. Not quite as ornate, generally, as DC given the different time periods, but still solid masonry with very interesting detail. This is in addition to the obvious need for more greenery and underground powerlines.
Few cities have such restoration potential, including some of the most blighted and impoverished neighborhoods sections of Philadelphia, like Fairhill: https://goo.gl/maps/1GEob8gUqBc4AFFj6
A lot of this is occurring more organically via gentrification, but absolutely it's still work in progress given Philly's much more massive historic housing stock (but which can also be attributed to Philly's affordability as a vibrant, walkable bona fide urban hub).
The different time periods not only contribute to the differences, but also the people those homes were built for. Much of the surviving housing stock in Philadelphia was built for factory workers of meager means and it shows. DC, never having the industrial base Philly did, doesn't have nearly as much of this type of housing. Most of its housing stock was built for either the wealthy or upper middle class civil servants.
My knock on Philly as it relates to the built environment is that the iconic look of a Spruce or Walnut Street is confined to a very small area whereas the iconic Columbia Heights-style rowhome can be found over a much larger area of DC.
Agree with this. Philly definitely has the more bucolic suburbs.
I don't think anyone has mentioned the views coming into the city on 76. You take it for granted living there but it's truly a great drive.
DC has a decisive advantage within the city limits. Tree cover is part of it. The higher quality housing stock and less visible blight is another part of it.
You know I really do not like throwing shade at houses, many of which are still in pretty good condition after a century of use, that housed Phila's working class population who helped create the wealth of this country.
The different time periods not only contribute to the differences, but also the people those homes were built for. Much of the surviving housing stock in Philadelphia was built for factory workers of meager means and it shows. DC, never having the industrial base Philly did, doesn't have nearly as much of this type of housing. Most of its housing stock was built for either the wealthy or upper middle class civil servants.
My knock on Philly as it relates to the built environment is that the iconic look of a Spruce or Walnut Street is confined to a very small area whereas the iconic Adams-Morgan style rowhome can be found over a much larger area of DC.
This is true, although DC is very unique in that regard. No other city was built literally without any regard for "workforce" or "industrial housing" in mind. Every other major city has a housing stock that is much less "bougie" than DC, overall, by comparison, including prosperous Boston, New York and SF.
But, as I alluded to above, the lack of a greater proportion of "bougie" historic housing doesn't mean that Philly's "workforce" housing has no value whatsoever. On the contrary, it's built precisely with the density in mind to keep the city affordable and ownership-accessible to people of the middle class (which is true to this day). And there's still loads of historic charm (when properly preserved).
Historic urban neighborhoods don't have to look like Dupont, Adams Morgan or Rittenhouse to be considered "desirable." And I believe you might be overstating the case for DC, too.
Point-in-case, Eckington in DC looks very similar to what many currently "working class" Philadelphia neighborhoods would look like if they were restored in fashion described in my prior post: https://goo.gl/maps/o3Zy7EphDNuzDCSGA
Eckington is very attractive and nicely preserved, but certainly not super-ornate or "bougie" in appearance. Yet median prices have reached a very upper-middle class level of 600-700K.
But, as I alluded to above, the lack of a greater proportion of "bougie" historic housing doesn't mean that Philly's "workforce" housing has no value whatsoever. On the contrary, it's built precisely with the density in mind to keep the city affordable and ownership-accessible to people of the middle class (which is true to this day). And there's still loads of historic charm (when properly preserved).
I didn't say it has no value whatsoever. I just said the houses are generally of higher quality since they were built for different markets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
Eckington is very attractive and nicely preserved, but certainly not super-ornate in appearance. Yet median prices have reached a very upper-middle class level of 600-700K.
That's actually the more "downscale" section of Eckington just north of McKinley Tech. Even then, those houses were nicer than comparable houses in South or West Philly, and I'm saying this as someone with very vivid memories of both cities during the 80s and 90s. IMO DC always had a more attractive housing stock than Philly even back when the city was bordering the 600 mark in homicides.
I actually think Baltimore has a nicer housing stock than both, but that's a different discussion.
This is true, although DC is very unique in that regard. No other city was built literally without any regard for "workforce" or "industrial housing" in mind. Every other major city has a housing stock that is much less "bougie" than DC, overall, by comparison, including prosperous Boston, New York and SF.
But, as I alluded to above, the lack of a greater proportion of "bougie" historic housing doesn't mean that Philly's "workforce" housing has no value whatsoever. On the contrary, it's built precisely with the density in mind to keep the city affordable and ownership-accessible to people of the middle class (which is true to this day). And there's still loads of historic charm (when properly preserved).
Historic urban neighborhoods don't have to look like Dupont, Adams Morgan or Rittenhouse to be considered "desirable." And I believe you might be overstating the case for DC, too.
Point-in-case, Eckington in DC looks very similar to what many currently "working class" Philadelphia neighborhoods would look like if they were restored in fashion described in my prior post: https://goo.gl/maps/o3Zy7EphDNuzDCSGA
Eckington is very attractive and nicely preserved, but certainly not super-ornate or "bougie" in appearance. Yet median prices have reached a very upper-middle class level of 600-700K.
I will say this, despite DC's lack of industry relative to most major cities in this country, DC has always has a large underclass that dwelled in many "undesirable" neighborhoods throughout the city. However, I think a reason for why the city's housing stock could be described as a bit more bougie than most is because as the nation's capital, builders might have been more keen to build housing that was befitting of the country's capital city, rather than housing that was more befitting of an industrial giant like Philadelphia.
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.
