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.
Architecturally & cityscape, Chicago makes the best case, and the lakefront is hard to beat. One could also argue Manhattan, DC and parts of Boston, Philadelphia, SF. They all have some elegant neighborhoods.
Ranking an elegant populous seems silly this day in age.
What is your definition of elegant and how does that translate to a city?
Many cities offer areas that have abundant fine dining, high end cultural institutions and beautiful neighborhoods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjbradleynyc
Parts of these cities:
San Francisco
New York City
Chicago
Washington, DC
Boston
New Orleans
Savannah
Charleston, SC
Honolulu
Smaller cities:
St Augustine, FL
Santa Barbara, CA
Sedona, AZ
I would add Philadelphia to the big city list. Based on your definition of elegant, Center City would quality, the respected cultural institutions alone should warrant a spot.
To add, I am not suggesting that Philadelphia is more or less elegant than the others, just that it belongs in the group, especially if New Orleans is there.
To me, Philly does not convey anything elegant, it is just mainly gritty in appearance. The only ones that convey elegance in their architecture and setup are SF, Chicago, Washington, and Boston. Maybe the UES of NY. New Orleans, although gritty in its own way, has a charm that could be viewed as elegant.
Ah, a new user who thinks poorly of Philadelphia... groundbreaking...
Not that I feel like arguing with someone with an agenda, but I'll take the bait for a post... Read the response I quoted... That poster mentioned a presence of fine dining, high-end cultural institutions, and beautiful neighborhoods. Philadelphia has all of those, and is a national standout for cultural institutions and highly regarded for handsome historic architecture. I am not suggesting Philadelphia is more elegant than other cities in the group, but it certainly belongs based on THE DEFINTION OF THAT POSTERS RESPONSE.
To me, Philly does not convey anything elegant, it is just mainly gritty in appearance. The only ones that convey elegance in their architecture and setup are SF, Chicago, Washington, and Boston. Maybe the UES of NY. New Orleans, although gritty in its own way, has a charm that could be viewed as elegant.
Philadelphia has its neighborhoods that most certainly look and feel elegant.
Just curious if high-rise neighborhoods can be considered elegant? Almost all of these mentions are of low-rise residential neighborhoods. For sure, places like Brooklyn Heights, Chicago's Gold Coast, Boston's Back Bay, San Francisco's Presidio Heights, historic district of Charleston, and the like would be considered elegant by most people's definition. They're mostly old, architecturally interesting, and their low-rise historic buildings give these places their dominant feel of elegance, despite a few high rises in some of them.
But don't some mostly high-rise neighborhoods fit the bill as well? Someone has mentioned Lakeshore Drive in Chicago (part of which borders the Gold Coast). Any others? Maybe the Miami/Miami Beach waterfront high-rises? Parts of Wilshire Drive in LA? Buckhead in Atlanta?
Or do we just automatically assume that "elegance" has to mean "old"?
When I think elegant, I think Paris, Barcelona, Venice… They aren’t cities dominated by skyscrapers like Chicago and the Northeastern US. Those seem more masculine which isn’t elegant. To me, the only elegant major city is San Francisco.
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.