What does New York lack despite its size that other Acela metros have? (beautiful, state)
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.
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.
You guys are making it sound like 50% of the buildings in certain sections of these cities were built circa 1776 when that figure is closer to 1%. Paul Revere did not ride through Back Bay because it didn't even exist during his time. Nor did 99% of the structures that are currently in the North End. Beacon Hill wasn't built up until the early 1800s.
I'm sure that structures built before 1800 account for a very small percentage of all the structures in this city, especially when one considers that most of its 135 square miles were developed after that year.
But citing a list of 10 Philadelphia buildings built before 1800 and located all over the city isn't really a refutation of the point some of us are making. Charleston and Savannah get the visitors they do because they have preserved much of their antebellum ambience, regardless of the actual age of all the structures in their respective historic districts. New York has pretty much obliterated what remained of its Revolutionary-era look and feel, while, by contrast, Philadelphia reclaimed some of its through (oddly enough) a 1960s urban renewal project. (I have mixed feelings about the Society Hill urban renewal project, and Jane Jacobs criticized it for its excessive separation of uses that turned the neighborhood into a suburb in the city atmospherically. But even with all that, there's a reason it put Ed Bacon on the cover of Time in 1966, and that block of Delancey Street I posted a Street View of above is one of the reasons why. (You will note if you look at that block closely that one of the houses on it clearly postdates 1960, for instance, but the overall feel of the whole is pre-1800.)
And let's not discount the role "street furniture" plays in maintaining the fiction. The decision by the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority to line Society Hill's streets with modern versions of the Franklin light also helped with reviving that late-18th-century feel.
I'm sure that structures built before 1800 account for a very small percentage of all the structures in this city, especially when one considers that most of its 135 square miles were developed after that year.
But citing a list of 10 Philadelphia buildings built before 1800 and located all over the city isn't really a refutation of the point some of us are making. Charleston and Savannah get the visitors they do because they have preserved much of their antebellum ambience, regardless of the actual age of all the structures in their respective historic districts. New York has pretty much obliterated what remained of its Revolutionary-era look and feel, while, by contrast, Philadelphia reclaimed some of its through (oddly enough) a 1960s urban renewal project. (I have mixed feelings about the Society Hill urban renewal project, and Jane Jacobs criticized it for its excessive separation of uses that turned the neighborhood into a suburb in the city atmospherically. But even with all that, there's a reason it put Ed Bacon on the cover of Time in 1966, and that block of Delancey Street I posted a Street View of above is one of the reasons why. (You will note if you look at that block closely that one of the houses on it clearly postdates 1960, for instance, but the overall feel of the whole is pre-1800.)
And let's not discount the role "street furniture" plays in maintaining the fiction. The decision by the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority to line Society Hill's streets with modern versions of the Franklin light also helped with reviving that late-18th-century feel.
I think the argument was New York doesn’t have any colonial neighborhoods left. Which is true. But it’s also true of basically every city over 100,000.
Philly, Boston, Baltimore have neighborhoods with colonial era buildings in them. (Largely like Churches or whatnot) almost nobody lives in like a colonial era townhome or is the predominant era the colonial one. It’s almost all Federal at best. In actually almost all Victorian. (1837-1901) for historic neighborhoods.
Even Society hill some of the landmark buildings like the Baptist church or Merchants exchange building were built in the mid-19th century not in the 1760s.
Society Hill’s last remaining mansion (Physick House) was built in 1786, after the end of the war.
I think the argument was New York doesn’t have any colonial neighborhoods left. Which is true. But it’s also true of basically every city over 100,000.
Philly, Boston, Baltimore have neighborhoods with colonial era buildings in them. (Largely like Churches or whatnot) almost nobody lives in like a colonial era townhome or is the predominant era the colonial one. It’s almost all Federal at best. In actually almost all Victorian. (1837-1901) for historic neighborhoods.
Even Society hill some of the landmark buildings like the Baptist church or Merchants exchange building were built in the mid-19th century not in the 1760s.
Society Hill’s last remaining mansion (Physick House) was built in 1786, after the end of the war.
Exactly.
It's not so much that these places are chock full of old, historic buildings dating back to the colonial period but more that these places feel historic for a variety of reasons. Part of it is that some places really lean into that history and play it up with historical markers, cobble stone streets (laid in the 20th Century), candle lit windows, Betsy Ross flags, gas-fueled lamps and guided history tours by ladies dressed like Molly Pitcher. But yeah, you're walking around in a neighborhood looking at buildings constructed during the Federal/Victorian era.
It's not so much that these places are chock full of old, historic buildings dating back to the colonial period but more that these places feel historic for a variety of reasons. Part of it is that some places really lean into that history and play it up with historical markers, cobble stone streets (laid in the 20th Century), candle lit windows, Betsy Ross flags, gas-fueled lamps and guided history tours by ladies dressed like Molly Pitcher. But yeah, you're walking around in a neighborhood looking at buildings constructed during the Federal/Victorian era.
To be fair, Federal/Victorian era still puts good chunks of their historic neighborhoods in the 150-200 year old range which by US standards is very much old.
It's not so much that these places are chock full of old, historic buildings dating back to the colonial period but more that these places feel historic for a variety of reasons. Part of it is that some places really lean into that history and play it up with historical markers, cobble stone streets (laid in the 20th Century), candle lit windows, Betsy Ross flags, gas-fueled lamps and guided history tours by ladies dressed like Molly Pitcher. But yeah, you're walking around in a neighborhood looking at buildings constructed during the Federal/Victorian era.
Or even later, in the case of Society Hill, which I've already pointed out was actually the product of a 1960s urban renewal project.
Boston's Beacon Hill, OTOH, didn't have to be urban-renewed. Even if most of the buildings on it date to the period between the Constitutional Convention and the Civil War (or later in the 19th century), it still has a Colonial ambience. And again, the street furniture plays a role, as the streets of Beacon Hill are lined with gas lamps of a Colonial design* (this Street View contains no buildings predating 1800, for instance, and the oldest building on this block is the one I've centered: the 1835 African Meeting House, home to the city's Museum of African-American History). Most are also quite narrow, like these two are, which also helps.
*A little street-lamp geekery: The street lamp invented by Benjamin Franklin was an innovative design that allowed the lamplighter to access the wick from below, making the task of lamp-lighting easier. I don't know whether the design was adopted in any city other than Philadelphia, and it does give Society Hill a very distinctive appearance; its civic association even has a Franklin light in its logo.
To be fair, Federal/Victorian era still puts good chunks of their historic neighborhoods in the 150-200 year old range which by US standards is very much old.
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.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,988,805 times
Reputation: 7328
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
The only eastern city that has a true collection of preserved pre-Revolutionary building/housing stock is Charleston, SC. What you see there is probably closest to what a Revolutionary era city looked like.
Not really, it's mostly fake. A good chunk of the city was burned down by General Sherman and a lot of that was rebuilt over years. Now Savannah is chock full of it because they had the good sense to surrender and give the Federals whatever they wanted in exchange for not burning down the city.
Not really, it's mostly fake. A good chunk of the city was burned down by General Sherman and a lot of that was rebuilt over years. Now Savannah is chock full of it because they had the good sense to surrender and give the Federals whatever they wanted in exchange for not burning down the city.
That's incorrect.
Quote:
Rosen, the author of “Confederate Charleston,” says that if Sherman had decided to make an example of Charleston - as many of his troops wanted to do - he could have come in and burned the defenseless city to the ground.
It would be a very different city today had that happened.
But Sherman spared Charleston. Some later speculated Sherman had a soft spot in his heart for the city. He spent four years here in the 1840s, stationed at Fort Moultrie, and by most accounts enjoyed his time. Some said he had a girlfriend here, and that’s why he spared us the torch. As usual, it was all about Charleston.
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.
