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.
Come on now, who doesn't like Brownstones? Of course I like 'em, they're gorgeous! But to act like they're all over nyc is a stretch. How many nabes in the outerboroughs have framed houses with siding on them? Or how about all the new condo buildings that have NO CHARACTER, and I mean NO CHARACTER what-so-ever to them! Those builder's should be shot! Cause those ugly plain brick buildings will be there 100 years from now! Not to mention that almost NONE of the apt buildings have any character.
Sorry, as far as character goes, Chicago wins. Lets not forget how someone renting an apt in Chicago, will probably live on a tree lined street. Or atleast a lot more likely then they would in nyc!
I'm not acting like they're all over New York. I said there was a huge diversity of housing which precludes one type (the rowhouses) from dominating in any way. You're reading something that I haven't written or intended.
Yes, I don't like the new condo buildings or the Feders houses that have replaced some of the older housing stock. However, that doesn't change my appreciation for the beautiful housing that is here. They're beautiful and they do occupy substantial swaths of Manhattan and the outerboroughs. They're obviously there given the number of large historic districts distributed throughout New York City (and in Brooklyn especially, many of these are lushly tree-lined). Actually, it's really not that unlikely to live on a tree-lined city in NYC and it'll probably be even better since the city has had that treeplanting initiative going strong.
I do like how much you appreciate Chicago though, and I'd love to see pictures of Chicago's gorgeous housing full of character on tree-lined streets. However, I don't think I can have much of a debate with you on which one is more notable given that NYC is so much bigger in sheer physical size and I've known about beautiful housing with character in NYC well before I heard anything about Chicago--understandable since on the west coast I was exposed a lot more to things about NYC than I was to things about Chicago.
I'm not acting like they're all over New York. I said there was a huge diversity of housing which precludes one type (the rowhouses) from dominating in any way. You're reading something that I haven't written or intended.
Yes, I don't like the new condo buildings or the Feders houses that have replaced some of the older housing stock. However, that doesn't change my appreciation for the beautiful housing that is here. They're beautiful and they do occupy substantial swaths of Manhattan and the outerboroughs. They're obviously there given the number of large historic districts distributed throughout New York City (and in Brooklyn especially, many of these are lushly tree-lined). Actually, it's really not that unlikely to live on a tree-lined city in NYC and it'll probably be even better since the city has had that treeplanting initiative going strong.
I do like how much you appreciate Chicago though, and I'd love to see pictures of Chicago's gorgeous housing full of character on tree-lined streets. However, I don't think I can have much of a debate with you on which one is more notable given that NYC is so much bigger in sheer physical size and I've known about beautiful housing with character in NYC well before I heard anything about Chicago--understandable since on the west coast I was exposed a lot more to things about NYC than I was to things about Chicago.
I ain't from Chicago, and I ain't from NYC, I'm honestly only posting what I've seen from spending long periods of time in both cities cause of business.
Of course Mannhattan has some great character thru out it. But to me, a lot of it's areas are overrated in terms of character. What do you think about Park Ave? Do you agree with me?
And once you venture into the outer boroughs it drops way off. Brooklyn overall, is the pits! Sure you got nabes like Park Slope, etc, but most of it is crap!
New York subcultures/countercultures, feeble? Have you completely lost your mind?
Fashion scene? Check. Music scene? Check. Elite scene? Check. Glam scene? Check. Hipster scene? Check. Yuppie scene? Bohemian scene? Check. Street scene? I could go on and on...
Nothing tops New York when it comes to "scenes". No place is as cool as New York City. That distinct vibe of New York City is unmatched.
It's pretty feeble. Your people on the crust are really tame compared to those I found in the Bay Area and LA. Yea, you have all these scenes you've checked off but it's boring especially as I'm actually "part" of your fashion/music/hipster/boho/street scene. There are some notable lights who do interesting things, but most people and what they do seem oddly narrow in scope--sometimes it feels as if everyone's reading off of the same primers and part of the primer was to locate themselves in NYC which is astounding given the large geographic spread of these people (the Pacific Northwest, Ohio, and the Mid-Atlantic seem to be the most common area for a lot of the people I've met). How can so many people cite almost the same overlapping milieu of aesthetic influences? It almost feels like there's a canon that's been created.
What I've enjoyed a lot more is actually the times I've spent befriending and documenting immigrant groups (generally French-speaking Africans, some Peruvians, and the old-guard Canto and Taishan speaking Chinese).
Come on now, who doesn't like Brownstones? Of course I like 'em, they're gorgeous! But to act like they're all over nyc is a stretch. How many nabes in the outerboroughs have framed houses with siding on them? Or how about all the new condo buildings that have NO CHARACTER, and I mean NO CHARACTER what-so-ever to them! Those builder's should be shot! Cause those ugly plain brick buildings will be there 100 years from now! Not to mention that almost NONE of the apt buildings have any character.
Sorry, as far as character goes, Chicago wins. Lets not forget how someone renting an apt in Chicago, will probably live on a tree lined street. Or atleast a lot more likely then they would in nyc!
I would actually be interested in what outer borough neighborhoods you been in because to me the older houses are pretty good compared to other cities. One thing I noticed is that many NYC houses have a small setback, even in extremely dense Brooklyn. In other older cities, the houses are often right up to the sidewalk. Also, I outright disagree with you about the framed houses, I like them, especially Victorians, Queen Annes and Dutch Colonials.
But I do AGREE with you about SOME of the new condo buildings. At least the pinkish brick two to three family ones they have building for several decades now. No traditional New York stoop, no front garden (its a concrete "parking pad"), no traditional architecture, almost no roof line. Some of them are not too bad and look better than others, but some are simply cheap looking.
I would actually be interested in what outer borough neighborhoods you been in because to me the older houses are pretty good compared to other cities. One thing I noticed is that many NYC houses have a small setback, even in extremely dense Brooklyn. In other older cities, the houses are often right up to the sidewalk. Also, I outright disagree with you about the framed houses, I like them, especially Victorians, Queen Annes and Dutch Colonials.
But I do AGREE with you about SOME of the new condo buildings. At least the pinkish brick two to three family ones they have building for several decades now. No traditional New York stoop, no front garden (its a concrete "parking pad"), no traditional architecture, almost no roof line. Some of them are not too bad and look better than others, but some are simply cheap looking.
I can't name them all, a lot of Brooklyn and Queens. Victorians? Come on now, who would say they're ugly? I couldn't even tell you the style of most the house's I seen. A lot of them look like shot-gun type housing if you ask me. Sorta how the "new" Fedder condo's look. Like they went with the absolute cheapest design and lay out that they could do, by the cheapest architect that they could get to design it!
NYC has a lot offer, but easy on the eyes it ain't, not even close!
Your friend is right about Mannhattan. Most Ny'ers who don't work there, don't venture into it much. As far as the entire nyc goes, at a certain age, I think it's overrated completely! It's a blast when your in your 20's, but 40's? Who cares if you can stumble out of a bar at 4 or 5 or 6 AM, or eat sushi at that hour when you're in your 40's. Get my point? Most NY'ers (who ain't kids), go to bed and get up like anyone else their age from around the country.
That's kind of what he said. Unless they have money, most New Yorkers don't party in Manhattan.
I'm telling you as someone who has traveled the world. New York architecture (both high and low-rise) topples anything Chicago has to offer. Oh, you silly thing, you......
I'm telling you as someone who's studied architecture, Chicago is just as well known and influential as New York. You REALLY don't want to get into an argument with me about architecture. I know what I'm talking about.
Richmond... combination of Class IV whitewater rapids, excellent mountain bike trials, rock climbing, and Civil War history. That's only naming the things most cities can't offer.
I ain't from Chicago, and I ain't from NYC, I'm honestly only posting what I've seen from spending long periods of time in both cities cause of business.
Of course Mannhattan has some great character thru out it. But to me, a lot of it's areas are overrated in terms of character. What do you think about Park Ave? Do you agree with me?
And once you venture into the outer boroughs it drops way off. Brooklyn overall, is the pits! Sure you got nabes like Park Slope, etc, but most of it is crap!
Well, I've lived in NYC for about two years and had the fortune of making friends with a lot of long-timers who have been there for a while. What part of Park Avenue are you referring to? Either way, I don't mind the commercial skyscrapers in Midtown nor do I mind the apartment buildings in the UES. The UES does have a lot of buildings that are pretty bland, but interspersed are a lot of beautiful, though not all that ornate, older ones. Central Park East is close by and has a lot of architecture I consider gorgeous. So yes, I agree there are bland buildings there, but I wouldn't say it's true of the area in general.
The outerboroughs being crap is way off the mark for me, especially Brooklyn. The projects aren't too pretty, the Feders houses are a shame, the new condos on the Williamsburg waterfront are hideously boring, and unless you really like the gritty industrial look, Bushwick isn't much to look at either. However, the beautiful parts of Brooklyn are far from just Park Slope. Dyker Heights and parts of its adjacent neighborhoods are gorgeous. Windsor Terrace is wonderful. Brooklyn Heights outside of some of that complex of hulking condominium highrises are beautiful. Bed-Stuy has rows upon rows of beautiful brownstones (made famous by Spike Lee) and many of the neighborhoods to the West of Bed-Stuy also have the same. The only really ugly parts I've seen are up north and east in Brooklyn though even there you'll see some nice things spread out.
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.
Especially to those who worry about "scenes"........
