What does New York lack despite its size that other Acela metros have?
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.
Also, part of the reason Sherman spared Charleston is that his actual target was the capital of South Carolina, Columbia. When Sherman left Savannah (the famous Christmas present for President Lincoln) he split his army into wings, one corps on the left pretended to be going to Augusta, Georgia and the other corps on the right pretended to be moving along the coast to Charleston. This caused the Confederates under Beauregard to try to defend both places, making Columbia, the actual real target in the center much easier to take.
As historic as the Bos-Wash corridor cities are, they all have very few remaining pre 18th century structures. Charleston is probably the closest city you can go to that has significant colonial architecture.
It’s really the mid-late 19th century stuff that makes or breaks the “historic” feeling of cities.
If you go to Boston, say the North End, sadly you will not find a complete colonial neighborhood like someone suggested a page or two ago. What you will find is a few surviving buildings (notably the Paul Revere House https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Revere_House ). The North End, while very historic is mostly populated by buildings after 1776.
What does survive the most in Boston is the street grid, the parks (notably the Boston Commons), the colonial cemeteries and some "public buildings" which include churches and the old statehouse. Cemeteries, a few parks and the churches survive more often because the public maintained them.
This is probably the case for most of the big and mid sized cities in the East.
If you go to Boston, say the North End, sadly you will not find a complete colonial neighborhood like someone suggested a page or two ago. What you will find is a few surviving buildings (notably the Paul Revere House https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Revere_House ). The North End, while very historic is mostly populated by buildings after 1776.
What does survive the most in Boston is the street grid, the parks (notably the Boston Commons), the colonial cemeteries and some "public buildings" which include churches and the old statehouse. Cemeteries, a few parks and the churches survive more often because the public maintained them.
This is probably the case for most of the big and mid sized cities in the East.
That’s also true of Europe. Central Paris is 1874-1885 typically. Pretty much directly in line with say Back Bay with some older public buildings like Churches and palaces.
You’d struggle to find any major city in the world with a remotely intact pre-1776 neighborhood.
If you go to Boston, say the North End, sadly you will not find a complete colonial neighborhood like someone suggested a page or two ago. What you will find is a few surviving buildings (notably the Paul Revere House https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Revere_House ). The North End, while very historic is mostly populated by buildings after 1776.
What does survive the most in Boston is the street grid, the parks (notably the Boston Commons), the colonial cemeteries and some "public buildings" which include churches and the old statehouse. Cemeteries, a few parks and the churches survive more often because the public maintained them.
This is probably the case for most of the big and mid sized cities in the East.
No different than Baltimore or Philly. The oldest surviving home in Baltimore is the Robert Long House in Fells Point built cira. 1765
That's true. But we were disputing a very specific claim--that other cities have preserved large swaths of their colonial era building stock. That's simply not true. If the standard for "old" is 150-200 years old, then the Brooklyn Heights Historic District would definitely make the cut. It just lacks Betsy Ross flags, fake cannons and other historical accoutrements.
It doesn't need the Colonial frou-frou.
Brooklyn Heights is IMO the most elegant neighborhood in all New York, and maybe it's a good thing that Robert Moses pulled a fast one on the Columbia Heights homeowners after they got him to put his freeway on the bluff rather than run it through the neighborhood, because IMO the Brooklyn Heights Promenade (which I've strolled myself) is a civic jewel.
The neighborhood may also be old enough to have, or have had, buildings in the colonial style. Even Federal buildings in it are overshadowed by later ones now. Who cares? Brooklyn Heights is beautiful because of the mix of buildings, streetscapes and civic assets it has.
And after putting up that Street View of Beacon Hill, it should also be clear that most of what's on it postdates not only the Colonial but also the Federal period.
And that brings us back to "The Society's Hill." (The neighborhood gets its name from the London-based Society of Free Traders, which owned the land overlooking Dock Creek, where Philadelphia's 18th-century port was located. Today's Dock Street follows the creek's path.) I guess you could say that the urban renewal project turned it into an urban Colonial Williamsburg, but I don't think we can deny that it has more of an 18th-century look and feel than any neighborhood in its East Coast peers.
Which was the point originally made: there's nothing like that in New York.
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.
