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.
Williamsburg may have "character," but I don't find that gritty, industrial look charming in the least. It's not a place where I'm going to walk around admiring buildings.
And just because architecture isn't quite as ornate, that doesn't make it "plain." Not to mention the Philly examples I've posted have very well-defined detail and character that you definitely couldn't find in any other city; it's very uniquely "Philly" and provides a distinct sense of place. But I suppose it's a matter of perspective and depends entirely on your basis of comparison.
If anything, while the Brooklyn street views you've posted are conventionally "prettier," to me they're actually not as interesting, given that the architecture is much more monolithic in appearance. It's like being around a bunch of the same, blonde, plastic Hollywood models.
Even though places like Williamsburg and South Philly don't have the more monolithic, exclusivlely ornate vibe, they're much more eclectic and encourage exploration, if only due to the fact that each individual, finely-grained parcel is not exactly the same as its neighbor. It's "feels" much more diverse, less predictable and therefore extremely immersive as a pedestrian.
But alas, like yours, this is but one person's opinion, too. Interesting how everyone can view the same exact environment differently.
If anything, while the Brooklyn street views you've posted are conventionally "prettier," to me they're actually not as interesting, given that the architecture is much more monolithic in appearance. It's like being around a bunch of the same, blonde, plastic Hollywood models.
So I take it you find Williamsburg and South Philly to be a more immersive pedestrian experience than Paris, which is very monolithic in appearance.
So I take it you find Williamsburg and South Philly to be a more immersive pedestrian experience than Paris, which is very monolithic in appearance.
Paris, and European cities more generally, are fundamentally different due to being much better at integrating a mix of uses in residential areas, so even if the architecture is relatively monolithic (although of course pretty), the narrow streetscapes and density of different storefronts/cafes contribute incredible vibrancy.
So, no, I don't find much of Park Slope/Dupont to be analogous to any part of Paris for that reason.
Paris, and European cities more generally, are fundamentally different due to being much better at integrating a mix of uses in residential areas, so even if the architecture is relatively monolithic (although of course pretty), the narrow streetscapes and density of different storefronts/cafes contribute incredible vibrancy.
So, no, I don't find much of Park Slope/Dupont to be analogous to any part of Paris for that reason.
I knew this would be the response. The discussion so far has been about built form, but you're sort of pivoting away from that and steering the conversation in a different direction. Vibrancy, or the lack thereof, has nothing to do with architecture. Remember that I was responding to this assertion:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
If anything, while the Brooklyn street views you've posted are conventionally "prettier," to me they're actually not as interesting, given that the architecture is much more monolithic in appearance. It's like being around a bunch of the same, blonde, plastic Hollywood models.
The idea was never that Ft. Greene was analogous to Paris. The point was that the built environment doesn't offer much variety from an architectural standpoint. I'm not sure why Haussman's Paris would be any less interesting from an architectural point of view considering it's even rows of 5-6 story buildings that are nearly identical over a span of several square miles. Even if these areas have storefronts, the streetscape is largely monotonous.
So again, do you find South Philly to have more interesting architecture than Paris because it's not as monolithic?
Last edited by BajanYankee; 07-10-2019 at 12:08 PM..
For the record, places like Dupont Circle and Ft. Greene/Clinton Hill aren't any more or less monolithic than South Philly or Williamsburg. They all have a variety of different styles of architecture. It's just that the former has more stately homes that were built for wealthier inhabitants, which IMO are more attractive, while the latter were largely gritty, industrial areas with more "downscale" housing historically.
For the record, places like Dupont Circle and Ft. Greene/Clinton Hill aren't any more or less monolithic than South Philly or Williamsburg. They all have a variety of different styles of architecture. It's just that the former has more stately homes that were built for wealthier inhabitants, which IMO are more attractive, while the latter were largely gritty, industrial areas with more "downscale" housing historically.
I'll try to focus my end of the discussion again. I'm in near agreement with you on everything you say, except my only points are that:
1) There are many examples of rowhomes in Philly built for the wealthy/middle-class outside of Center City. In addition, many rowhomes envisioned for the "working class" can and
are "upscaled" via rehab. Although admittedly this refers to things like interior finishes, it's interesting how they can be reimagined for a completely new, upwardly-mobile urban audience.
2) Rowhomes don't necessarily have to be "stately" to be considered attractive; more impressive sure, but some of the most attractive rowhomes (as considered by many) actually are quite simple but elegant in appearance (see Society Hill or Beacon Hill, or much of Georgetown) due to nice proportions and being in fantastic condition for their age. In other words, "attractive" can come in different forms.
There are many examples of rowhomes in Philly built for the wealthy/middle-class outside of Center City.
I didn't say there was no housing built for the wealthy outside of Center City. In Strawberry Mansion, for example, the signs of a once-guilded past are still evident.
One major problem Philly has, as you noted, is that a lot of this type of housing has been lost to demolition. The other issue, as I see it, is that a lot of the housing was relatively inexpensive workforce housing and was never intended to be fashionable. And while gentrification has certainly helped to improve the appearance of many of these homes, there's simply no way they are going to ever be as attractive (IMHO) as rehabilitated Victorian rowhomes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
2) Rowhomes don't necessarily have to be "stately" to be considered attractive; more impressive sure, but some of the most attractive rowhomes (as considered by many) actually are quite simple but elegant in appearance (see Society Hill or Beacon Hill, or much of Georgetown) due to nice proportions and being in fantastic condition for their age. In other words, "attractive" can come in different forms.
Agreed. FWIW I don't think every rowhouse needs to look like a classic Brooklyn brownstone to be attractive. I've just always thought that DC has among the nicest housing stock of all East Coast cities. Even the housing stock EOTR is not bad at all compared to a lot of the tackier-looking housing in other cities.
And yeah, I gotta give this to Washington too on the same grounds. The one part of Philadelphia that I would say is an exception to this largely tree-free rule is our Northwest, especially the neighborhoods above the Wissahickon Valley. That's also the part of the city that's on the Piedmont side of the fall line. Coincidence?
One apparent problem Philly has compared to other older, dense walking cities like DC and, especially, Chicago, is its lack of elimination of overhead power lines. And it's pretty obvious that a street thick with utility lines is not conducive to trees. Just a few blocks down 4th Street from your article's photo of an area lush with trees and historic row houses, you have this:
Yes, the dense old architecture and close-on sidewalk presence makes for urban eye candy very unique to this interesting old city, but of course it's lacking the advantages you note of a stronger street-arbor presence. And yes Philly has a lot of narrow streets which makes this tough, but it also has a lot of alleys, a great place to put them, too. Of course Chicago which, though old by American standards, is considerably younger than Philly, practically invented the American alleyway for practical uses such as power lines and even elevated rapid transit lines going back to the late 19th Century when the city really boomed after the Great Fire of 1871. It would be a lot to instantly convert Philly into Chicago where street utility lines are all but invisible on major and secondary streets (where trees are abundant, esp long North Side side streets), but as Confucius apparently once noted: the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step ... or something to that effect.
One apparent problem Philly has compared to other older, dense walking cities like DC and, especially, Chicago, is its lack of elimination of overhead power lines. And it's pretty obvious that a street thick with utility lines is not conducive to trees. Just a few blocks down 4th Street from your article's photo of an area lush with trees and historic row houses, you have this:
Yes, the dense old architecture and close-on sidewalk presence makes for urban eye candy very unique to this interesting old city, but of course it's lacking the advantages you note of a stronger street-arbor presence. And yes Philly has a lot of narrow streets which makes this tough, but it also has a lot of alleys, a great place to put them, too. Of course Chicago which, though old by American standards, is considerably younger than Philly, practically invented the American alleyway for practical uses such as power lines and even elevated rapid transit lines going back to the late 19th Century when the city really boomed after the Great Fire of 1871. It would be a lot to instantly convert Philly into Chicago where street utility lines are all but invisible on major and secondary streets (where trees are abundant, esp long North Side side streets), but as Confucius apparently once noted: the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step ... or something to that effect.
I've brought up the subject of Philly's pervasive overhead utility lines - in none of our East Coast peer cities does one find so many streets with them, and that probably is a contributor to our relative treelessness - in conversations with others, though not in a form for public consumption.
I even said to someone once that I wanted to launch a "We will bury them" campaign for the overhead wires. Then that someone told me that the cost of burying them would run about $1 million per block. That shut me up.
It’s a tough comparison. For classic, urban beauty I would definitely choose Philly. The historic colonial fabric of the city mixed with the classic northeast big city urban look, gives Philly great scenery all around. However, the monuments and views of DC also create some great scenery. I give the slight nod to Philly, but it is close.
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.
