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.
I didn't read NOLA's post as exhibiting the type of mentality you claim. Instead, I think s/he was just detecting some hyperbole:
I don't think it's hyperbole. Find something like this anywhere else. I dare you.
Or this.
Or this
Or this
or this
or this
or this
or this.
Good luck. And if you somehow find strikingly similar architecture with a similar history, I'll go digging for some more prime examples. It took me a grand total of 10 minutes to find all this, there's definitely more.
I'll agree with everyone who isn't NOLA - Detroit has amazing and often unique architecture. Some people who grew up in the Midwest and "moved on" will not admit that there are some great urban centers, nature, or any sorts of features. That's NOLA to a "T."
Regarding Detroit (a city I've lived in before) I agree it has some amazing architecture remaining in and around Downtown and Midtown. The main issue with calling it an "attractive" urban core, however, is the old urban neighborhoods which surrounded Downtown were largely obliterated through a combination of urban renewal, spread of industrial zones, and more recent neglect/blight. IMHO Corktown is the only really urban feeling residential neighborhood remaining. There are some nice looking streetcar suburbs within city limits still, but even if you consider them urban, they certainly aren't urban core.
I'll agree with everyone who isn't NOLA - Detroit has amazing and often unique architecture. Some people who grew up in the Midwest and "moved on" will not admit that there are some great urban centers, nature, or any sorts of features. That's NOLA to a "T."
I don't know of any "amazing and unique" architecture in Detroit, and given that everyone who has claimed this is a local homer, I think it's fair to say it isn't true. Venice or Florence has "amazing and unique" architecture.
Detroit, MI was the Houston of its day, and 99% of the structures were built to accommodate the boom.
I'll agree with everyone who isn't NOLA - Detroit has amazing and often unique architecture. Some people who grew up in the Midwest and "moved on" will not admit that there are some great urban centers, nature, or any sorts of features. That's NOLA to a "T."
Agreed.
OuttaTheLouBurbs: you beat me to those pictures.
Quote:
Regarding Detroit (a city I've lived in before) I agree it has some amazing architecture remaining in and around Downtown and Midtown. The main issue with calling it an "attractive" urban core, however, is the old urban neighborhoods which surrounded Downtown were largely obliterated through a combination of urban renewal, spread of industrial zones, and more recent neglect/blight. IMHO Corktown is the only really urban feeling residential neighborhood remaining. There are some nice looking streetcar suburbs within city limits still, but even if you consider them urban, they certainly aren't urban core.
If you aren't considering Midtown a residential neighborhood then I agree. Southwest Detroit comes pretty close to downtown also but I guess it's not really close enough to be considered the core.
Detroit certainly does have some cool (namely) art deco architecture, but OuttaTheLouBurbs I assume you've driven around St. Louis yes? It doesn't fit the thread requirement, but still...
I don't know of any "amazing and unique" architecture in Detroit, and given that everyone who has claimed this is a local homer, I think it's fair to say it isn't true. Venice or Florence has "amazing and unique" architecture.
Detroit, MI was the Houston of its day, and 99% of the structures were built to accommodate the boom.
But Venice looks just like any other old European city. What's so unique about it?
I don't know of any "amazing and unique" architecture in Detroit, and given that everyone who has claimed this is a local homer, I think it's fair to say it isn't true. Venice or Florence has "amazing and unique" architecture.
Detroit, MI was the Houston of its day, and 99% of the structures were built to accommodate the boom.
So under this standard, then the premise of this thread is invalid. There are no cores in this country that are architecturally attractive. They are not Venice. Thank god Detroit was the Houston of its day, because they sh** they built back then was WAY more interesting than the glass boxes and hideous brutalist structures they have built since.
The collection of gothic skyscrapers in Detroit are unique, and beautiful. Back then they built buildings to showcase wealth and grandeur, not a detail was spared. Nowhere was that more evident than the opulent buildings built in Detroit. Nowadays it's all about height. No offense to my OKC brethren, but when I drive through the city and see the hulking Devon tower standing next to the rest of the skyline, it feels as if Oklahoma is overcompensating for various appendages of inadequate size. But that's the mindset and the attention to detail is gone. But what is attractive is opinion based and not quantifiable. NOLA is certainly entitled to his opinion, apparently we are also entitled to NOLAs opinion.
I think some smaller Midwest cities that have fallen on hard times would fit best. places like Rockford Illins come to mind. That town has tons of potential if it could ever turn it's economy around..very good urban bones much of it built by Swedes. Not sure if I'd call it blighted though, but certainly in need of investment and infill.
The well preserved city hall is quite nice for a city of its size
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.