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.
not to mention Philly was geographically cohesive, while Boston was almost a bunch of disconnected peninsulas, with Boston, Charlestown and Dorchester heights being all basically independent of each other, while Philly was all put together geographically
Which is part of the reason that I am skeptical that so many survived in Philadelphia. Theoretically the more isolated the area is from a major developing city, the more likely the small colonial era buildings would survive the bulldozer. This is certainly the case in New York City (most surviving colonial buildings are in the outer boroughs) and also that many of our most historic towns and cities are small cities where development pressures are less intense.
However, Kidphilly makes some good points. It is possible because Philadelphia was larger in area (in the 1800s) and not landlocked in the way that New York (Manhattan) and Boston, that she was able to spread out and more of the older buildings survived.
I am not sure because I have yet to find a list of colonial and early American buildings in the United States or even in just one state. The lists for New York are usually missing buildings, I suspect this is the same in other areas. Here on Long Island for instance, I keep finding another historic house here or there because there is no complete listing.
Which is part of the reason that I am skeptical that so many survived in Philadelphia. Theoretically the more isolated the area is from a major developing city, the more likely the small colonial era buildings would survive the bulldozer. This is certainly the case in New York City (most surviving colonial buildings are in the outer boroughs) and also that many of our most historic towns and cities are small cities where development pressures are less intense.
However, Kidphilly makes some good points. It is possible because Philadelphia was larger in area (in the 1800s) and not landlocked in the way that New York (Manhattan) and Boston, that she was able to spread out and more of the older buildings survived.
I am not sure because I have yet to find a list of colonial and early American buildings in the United States or even in just one state. The lists for New York are usually missing buildings, I suspect this is the same in other areas. Here on Long Island for instance, I keep finding another historic house here or there because there is no complete listing.
Well it's the largest collection, So for example Charlestown, Dorchester Heights, North End and Beacon Hill would count as separate clusters, so even if cumulatively there are more buildings they are more widely scattered so no one place is larger than Society Hill.
If you have any proof of that I would love to see it. Plus a listing of actual numbers.
I read somewhere that Colonial Williamsburgh has about 80 or so original colonial buildings while Schenectady and Kingston in Upstate New York have about 40 each. Or is that just in their stockade districts? I don't remember. There are probably other cities with large concentrations of colonial buildings.
Anyway, if you going to mention Boston and Philadelphia, you should also mention the city between them, which has more historic landmarks then any other. New York has entire neighborhoods with hundreds of buildings that were built in the late 1800s and earlier.
What year range are you considering "Colonial"? Pre-1780?
What year range are you considering "Colonial"? Pre-1780?
There is no hard rule. I have seen people go up to 1815 because of the War of 1812 aka The Second American Revolution. Many of the leaders at the time had been born as British colonists.
People go on and on about Charleston and Savannah. I think they are gems, but coming from Philly I was not as awed. Philly literally blows them away in a British Colonial feeling sort of way.
People go on and on about Charleston and Savannah. I think they are gems, but coming from Philly I was not as awed. Philly literally blows them away in a British Colonial feeling sort of way.
Charleston and Savannah and are more than just some British colonial architecture, just like new orleans. You have palms. citru,s amazing classical influences architecture. You need tot visit historic Charleston, there is nothing like it in the states
And many recreations of colonial buildings on their original plots. There are also other colonial and early 1800s buildings in the surrounding areas.
What makes Colonial Williamsburg so unique is that modern things like automobiles and telephone wires have been removed, so you can get a closer experience to what life was like back then. It is amazing how wide the roads look and how open everything is when you do not cars parked all over the place.
I love Colonial Williamsburg! And I also like the modern town of Williamsburg as well. It too has lots of historic buildings that are still intact or rebuilt. I'd love to live in that area but wow, it's so expensive!
I love Yorktown too. What a view - and so much history. And it is completely open to the public. People really do live there.
One thing that blew my mind was the house and property in Yorktown where Cornwallis surrendered. It's a national park and is completely free to wander around in and on. The house is empty but intact and there's one park ranger that hangs around downstairs but visitors are free to roam as they wish. It is a beautiful but sad place.
I'm going to have to disagree when you take into account all of these other historical cities across the country. San Antonio is probably the most well preserved historic city in Texas though.
San Antonio is a big city so you can't compare it to the smaller historic towns that have a more cohesive historic appearance. It is more of mixture of old and new so it doesn't have that total historic feel throughout its urban core but it definitely has a long list of historic districts and landmarks that rivals cities like New Orleans. San Antonio is good at preserving its historic structures. The city has 26 historic districts and two of them are listed on UNESCO'S World Heritage Site, Alamo Plaza and the Mission historic district. San Antonio also claims the oldest Cathedral in the U.S. at Plaza De Las Iselas and the second oldest municipal park(San Pedro Park) in the U.S.
People go on and on about Charleston and Savannah. I think they are gems, but coming from Philly I was not as awed. Philly literally blows them away in a British Colonial feeling sort of way.
That's because there's a lot more to both cities than just architecture.
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.
