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.
Good point. I think it's also a mis-characterization (with a healthy dose of classism) to assume that there's a lack of "quality" to housing meant for the working-class.
For the record, all of these cities were historically very solidly built with quality materials, even it's lowest-income corners (all-brick/stone masonry is very high-end by today's construction standards, which is how pretty much all rowhomes were constructed in all of these cities).
The current condition of housing is certainly debatable in some areas, but I take a bit of umbrage at the suggestion that rowhomes built at a time when craftsmanship really mattered, even when built in more modest or "chock-a-block" form, are lacking in quality, particularly in the era of particle board and vinyl McMansions.
I’m not trying to be classist, what I’m conveying is that there are large swaths of both philly and Baltimore, where row houses are prevalent, that currently look pretty bad. I’m not saying they are lacking in craftsmanship, after all, they were built in a time when appearances mattered more. However, I just tend to think that a larger percentage of row houses in DC for example, tend to be a lot nicer looking and more interesting, compared to the flat faced rowhomes of Philadelphia and Baltimore.
Personally, I may be biased, I think the stock in DC has more curb appeal, for lack of a better term, but that does not suggest that philly row houses lack craftsmanship.
I’m not trying to be classist, what I’m conveying is that there are large swaths of both philly and Baltimore, where row houses are prevalent, that currently look pretty bad. I’m not saying they are lacking in craftsmanship, after all, they were built in a time when appearances mattered more. However, I just tend to think that a larger percentage of row houses in DC for example, tend to be a lot nicer looking and more interesting, compared to the flat faced rowhomes of Philadelphia and Baltimore.
Personally, I may be biased, I think the stock in DC has more curb appeal, for lack of a better term, but that does not suggest that philly row houses lack craftsmanship.
A lot of Philly and Baltimore's row homes were built in mass quantity for the working class. DC's rows, especially in the urban core were built for the upper class.
I’m not trying to be classist, what I’m conveying is that there are large swaths of both philly and Baltimore, where row houses are prevalent, that currently look pretty bad. I’m not saying they are lacking in craftsmanship, after all, they were built in a time when appearances mattered more. However, I just tend to think that a larger percentage of row houses in DC for example, tend to be a lot nicer looking and more interesting, compared to the flat faced rowhomes of Philadelphia and Baltimore.
Personally, I may be biased, I think the stock in DC has more curb appeal, for lack of a better term, but that does not suggest that philly row houses lack craftsmanship.
We can agree to disagree on which city would be better on this thread, but it's a fact that you chose Capitol Hill for DC and a working-class neighborhood for Philly that is quite close to some neighborhoods that were downright no-go zones up until a few years ago.
A lot of Philly and Baltimore's row homes were built in mass quantity for the working class. DC's rows, especially in the urban core were built for the upper class.
True as "The Encyclopedia of the Philadelphia Row-home" notes.
Though now I'm mentioning some other cities where less elaborate and desired re-housing to industrial parts of city core areas today. It still IS "WITH THE THEME OF ROWS" and why some cities have the more architecturally significant rows seem like in greater numbers.
But it could also be said that DC and Boston removed more of their more common row-housing stock as did Cleveland near its core and Saint Louis for the Arch Park in CORE NEIGHBORHODS
I'd say:
- Cleveland's destruction of its major row neighborhoods next to its core. Was not as lucky in re-developments yet?
- St Louis got the iconic Arch but probably was too much old destroyed for the park.
- DC had areas of lessor poorer level rows. As part of downtown today .... has been very successful in re-developments.
- Chicago I understand once had its Streeterville area north of the Chicago river all rows. Now filled with new high-rises to skyscrapers. Not sure why it occurred since it goes back pre-60s even? I don't believe they were all more common rows either. But to see it today ..... a important move in hw the Core then grew.
Philly had no large removal areas of row-housing as renewal. Some blocks you see new town-housing, But might have been industrial of just lost housing for new low-cost new town-housing . But not like a neighborhood was totally decimated for the new in a supposed urban-renewal project hopes. Locals could highlight specific areas if significant in whole neighborhoods leveled for hoped for all new developments.
Boston I understand did remove lessor row-housing in 60s urban renewal downtown and some less liked government buildings got built. That renewal might be seen as a mistake today??
But by the 70s Areas north of Chicago's downtown of the Loop.... was pretty baron. I would loved to have seen it once full of rows? Its New skyscraper over-rail platform development now called Lakeview East (New East Side). It being south of the river gets lumped in with the Loop today to the lakefront. Really nothing there but docks, parking, Rail lines and trucking firms as was the areas north of the river to the lake.
But somehow this proved a successful choice in Chicago urban-renewal even if it was really started before that era in the 60s. Thankfully notorious high-rise hoping projects did not end up there.....
Looked like this 1970s -- recently like these looking both directions. I'd say successful.
Boston I understand did remove lessor row-housing in 60s urban renewal downtown and some less liked government buildings got built. That renewal might be seen as a mistake today??
Boston definitely lost a lot of good neighborhoods to urban renewal, but I think the architecture in the lost neighborhoods (i.e. the West End and New York Streets) was more similar to that of the North End than to the Back Bay, Beacon Hill, and the South End. They weren’t really rowhouse neighborhoods.
I’m not trying to be classist, what I’m conveying is that there are large swaths of both philly and Baltimore, where row houses are prevalent, that currently look pretty bad. I’m not saying they are lacking in craftsmanship, after all, they were built in a time when appearances mattered more. However, I just tend to think that a larger percentage of row houses in DC for example, tend to be a lot nicer looking and more interesting, compared to the flat faced rowhomes of Philadelphia and Baltimore.
.....
Personally, I may be biased, I think the stock in DC has more curb appeal, for lack of a better term, but that does not suggest that philly row houses lack craftsmanship.
That's completely fair, and I'll apologize off the bat for being a bit harsh with the "classist" label. I think what my soapbox spiel was trying to get across is that Philly's rowhome neighborhoods, outside of the Center City/University City core, are generally and unjustly underappreciated (I can't help but think there's a huge societal bias against economically underprivileged urban areas, where many neighborhoods are incredibly undervalued, but that's a whole other thread).
That being said, I think it's fair to say there's just a lot of subjectivity to this conversation. I'll even readily admit that average rowhome street in DC does have more obvious charm and curb appeal than the average rowhome street in Philly due to a number of factors, but I'd personally stop short of calling the DC example more interesting. And for me, charm and curb appeal aren't really dependent on ornate vs. simple architecture, but presentation (see the relative simplicity in the architecture of, say, Beacon Hill, Society Hill or Georgetown--all extremely charming areas because of their presentation).
As I noted before, because Philly is so layered and has gone through many eras of redevelopment/revamping, there's a huge amount of individuality between abutting rowhome properties on most streets--and to me, that provides incredible street-level interest and personality. Even if a given rowhome neighborhood is not as often architecturally ornate as one may find on average in, say, Boston or DC, the variation and individuality in Philly is what makes it so intriguing.
And that doesn't even begin to address the fact that a ton of Philly rowhomes have been layered (very unfortunately) with siding veneer in a trend starting decades ago, which conceals so many fascinating details. This isn't immediately apparent until seeing such rowhomes up-close in person. Thankfully, there are many more developers these days with a thoughtful restoration mindset.
A lot of Philly and Baltimore's row homes were built in mass quantity for the working class. DC's rows, especially in the urban core were built for the upper class.
You're actually on to something. Neighborhoods like Mount Vernon, Bolton Hill, Station North has rowhouses build for the upper class during that era (You'll notice in those neighborhoods, the largest houses were the houses on the ends of the block). Those were the mansions of their time. I assume its the same in DC, Philly, NYC, and Boston.
You're right thought, most of the rowhouses here were for the working class.
Also, I have a quick side question. Are multi family 5+ story tenement style apartment buildings that you can find in parts of Philly and most of NYC considered rowhouses, albeit a special type of rowhouse?
No. A building built to house more than one family, even if it resembles nearby single-family residences in appearance, is not a rowhouse. A rowhouse was built to house one family, even if it may have been carved up into multiple units later.
It's usually possible to tell rowhouses from tenements, "French flats" or other apartment houses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431
We can agree to disagree on which city would be better on this thread, but it's a fact that you chose Capitol Hill for DC and a working-class neighborhood for Philly that is quite close to some neighborhoods that were downright no-go zones up until a few years ago.
But here's something else I'd like to take pains to point out:
The block of Mifflin Street in Point Breeze DC4ever chose as his Philadelphia sample is in pretty good shape - better than some other unrenewed Point Breeze blocks I've seen, and light-years ahead of the bombed-out-looking, gap-toothed blocks you find in many North Central Philadelphia neighborhoods (like the Strawberry Mansion block I used as one example).
I noticed shortly after moving here in 1983 that in some of the city's disinvested neighborhoods, you could walk down one block that looked neat as a pin, then cross a main street and enter a block that looked like Dresden after World War II. You can still find this phenomenon in neighborhoods all over the city, including the one I call home now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavePa
Philly had no large removal areas of row-housing as renewal. Some blocks you see new town-housing, But might have been industrial of just lost housing for new low-cost new town-housing . But not like a neighborhood was totally decimated for the new in a supposed urban-renewal project hopes. Locals could highlight specific areas if significant in whole neighborhoods leveled for hoped for all new developments.
Boston I understand did remove lessor row-housing in 60s urban renewal downtown and some less liked government buildings got built. That renewal might be seen as a mistake today??
The replacement of Boston's West End with the Charles River Park plinths was lamented even when I landed in Boston in 1976: a segment of the overview portrait multimedia show "Where's Boston?" included the voice of (I assume) a former West Ender lamenting the replacement of the old buildings with new apartments, "and who can afford them?" Charles River Park is unusual in being a high-rise urban-renewal project for the well-to-do, which probably explains why it hasn't been detonated.
The thing that landed legendary Philadelphia city planner Ed Bacon on the cover of Time in 1966 was the Society Hill urban renewal project; in contrast to the wholesale demolition that took place in other cities, the Society Hill project surgically removed the most derelict buildings and inserted new ones that were comaptible with the existing neighborhood scale. (The irony is, Bacon appeared on that Time cover with the one exception to this rule in the background: Society Hill Towers, I.M. Pei's trio of luxury high-rises that replaced a good chunk of the old Dock Street wholesale produce market.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
And that doesn't even begin to address the fact that a ton of Philly rowhomes have been layered (very unfortunately) with siding veneer in a trend starting decades ago, which conceals so many fascinating details. This isn't immediately apparent until seeing such rowhomes up-close in person. Thankfully, there are many more developers these days with a thoughtful restoration mindset.
Like many on that Mifflin Street block.
I refer to this process as "vinylcide."
You would appreciate the way Rachel Street revives these old rowhouses that had been suffocated in this fashion.
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.
