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.
Which do you prefer, newer cities (i.e. cities where most growth was post 1950), or older cities?
Personally, I prefer older cities because I feel they have more character, and a more established culture. I'm curious to hear other people's opinions, and reasons.
I like new. I've only lived in places dominated by new housing. I like the new, modern, clean look of such places. My first exposure to older places was St Louis and Chicago. I really like Chicago but it is odd to me to see housing that doesn't have central heat and air or garbage disposals.
I like places with a small-enough scaled street grid to still be at least somewhat walkable--and so that usually means subdivision/layout from pre-1950. However, I find that it is possible for "historic" places to lose their character. It is common to hear such areas criticized for being "museums."
I like places that are still "funky," so I guess I prefer places that are "old" but not yet "historic."
Los Angeles is a nice middle ground. It started its boom prior to the 1950s and still has a decent amount to show for it while still trucking it post 1950s.
Personally, I prefer the pre 1950s ones, but a few decades from now maybe the post 1950s cities will have filled in quite nicely.
Los Angeles is a nice middle ground. It started its boom prior to the 1950s and still has a decent amount to show for it while still trucking it post 1950s.
Personally, I prefer the pre 1950s ones, but a few decades from now maybe the post 1950s cities will have filled in quite nicely.
Yeah for me it has a lot more to do with when the streets were laid out than anything else. The northern LA basin's streets were almost all laid out prior to WWII, and the areas that date from the early 1900s are the most pleasant to walk/use. Downtown, Hollywood, Manhattan Beach, Venice, all have street grids from before 1920 and so reflect a city with less accommodation of the car. These are some of the nicest areas to walk--and in Manhattan Beach the majority of the buildings are from after 1950 but it still has that early 1900s street grid which really makes the city what it is.
Areas with much larger street grids, with cul-de-sacs, with superblocks with limited pass-through, etc are going to be very hard to "fill in" or introduce mixed uses.
Personally, I prefer older cities because I feel they have more character, and a more established culture. I'm curious to hear other people's opinions, and reasons.
Yes and they were MADE BETTER also!! (I voted for OLDER)
Always loved them row houses. I think newer cities should revamp this idea. Nowadays it's all about mixed use, I get that but cities should throw in some new row houses to add some character to it.
You might change your mind after a series of infrastructure problems associated with older cities (water main breaks, sever collapses, electrical arcing in underground feeders charging lamp poles and blowing manhole covers in the air, etc)
Residents of older cities are always upset with issues like these and think 'something should be done' but when presented with the cost, and the effect on utility bills or taxes always want someone else to pick up the tab.
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.
