US versus European Cities

[Colon™]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


So Id think youd see lots of buildings equally as "innovative" in major US cities. Certainly in NY, LA,Chicago, Miami, or Boston. Heck, even in Baltimore. DC tends to be rather on the conservative side I'll admit (though we have some cool museums - the American Indian Museum, for ex) Its been over 20 years since I was in Atlanta.

I didn't say American architecture isn't innovative, or even less innovative, just that specimens of creativity seem to be few and far-in-between in the cities. I suppose that's not the case but where are you hiding all those buildings then? I'd expect to see plenty of novel architecture in areas such a SoHo, Greenwich Village or Dupont Circle but that wasn't the case.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Colon™
BTW, North-European cities similary have suburbs dominated by wooden housing.

Indeed.

I had the displeasure of trying to walk out of Mora (20,000 inhab in the middle of Sweden)... While the houses are nice to look at, they get old really quickly when it takes more than half an hour to find a place that looks actually like the forest.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Colon™
I didn't say American architecture isn't innovative, or even less innovative, just that specimens of creativity seem to be few and far-in-between in the cities. I suppose that's not the case but where are you hiding all those buildings then? I'd expect to see plenty of novel architecture in areas such a SoHo, Greenwich Village or Dupont Circle but that wasn't the case.

No, novel architecture wasn't the goal in DuPont, nor in any other part of Washington that I can think of. Lots of nice buildings, however.

But again, it might be helpful to block Washington out of your mind for this discussion.

[Colon™]

Interesting you say that it wasn't a "goal". Suppose a developer would like to construct a low-rise residence that's architecturally "daring", would the city forbid it simply because it doesn't agree with their vision for Dupont Circle?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Colon™
Interesting you say that it wasn't a "goal". Suppose a developer would like to construct a low-rise residence that's architecturally "daring", would the city forbid it simply because it doesn't agree with their vision for Dupont Circle?

Dupont Circle is a historic district, I think. Did you go over to the area from 17th street to about 13 street, from N street up to U street? I tend to think of that area as having "cooler" new residential (and other) building than most of DC.

Soho is almost all 19th century buildings. Greenwich Village also has hardly anything built after 1980.


Also in the course of googling some other things i hit a "wired" forum on new residential developments in NYC, and I think SOME of those might be the kinds of building youd be interested in. They were not in established areas like lower Manhattan, but "frontiers" like the Brooklyn waterfront.


Here, have fun

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5003

[Colon™]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Dupont Circle is a historic district, I think. Did you go over to the area from 17th street to about 13 street, from N street up to U street? I tend to think of that area as having "cooler" new residential (and other) building than most of DC.

I don't know what streets exactly I went through. I just randomly criss-cross streets.

Soho is almost all 19th century buildings. Greenwich Village also has hardly anything built after 1980.

The history of the neighbourhood I live in is somewhat similar to SoHo. It also contained a lot of warehouses and small-scale industrial activity during the 19th century, and also had an influx of artists, and subsequently yuppies. Yet there has been plenty of new construction in the area. Why hasn't this been the case in SoHo or the Village? Zoning laws again?

Also in the course of googling some other things i hit a "wired" forum on new residential developments in NYC, and I think SOME of those might be the kinds of building youd be interested in. They were not in established areas like lower Manhattan, but "frontiers" like the Brooklyn waterfront.

Here, have fun

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5003

Yeah, some of the designs there that are far more interesting than anything I witnessed in Manhattan.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Colon™


I don't know what streets exactly I went through. I just randomly criss-cross streets.



The history of the neighbourhood I live in is somewhat similar to SoHo. It also contained a lot of warehouses and small-scale industrial activity during the 19th century, and also had an influx of artists, and subsequently yuppies. Yet there has been plenty of new construction in the area. Why hasn't this been the case in SoHo or the Village? Zoning laws again?
.

1. I think both are historic districts.
2. I dont think either had much in the way of land suitable for development left by say, 1985. Zoning prevents hi density in GV, IIUC, and tearing down say an old three story building to make way for medium density is hard to make work economically, even in Manhattan. I just think the combination of zoning, and a real estate market that was probably hotter in the late 1970s and the 1980s than you had in Antwerp, meant there simply wasnt much new built there in the 1990s and beyond.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Well, if tall means 10 stories high, then maybe, but there didn't seem to be many of these in London. What's the tallest building there? 40 stories or something.

Meanwhile in Hong Kong, I was thinking about renting a place in complex with five buildings, each 66 stories high. Ended up not renting there and got a place in an old building on the 25th floor.

We have extensive conservation areas, strategic views and a list of ancient monuments and historic buildings in London.

There is that major difference between Hong Kong and London, that London has been around as a city since Roman times, and thus has plenty that's worth preserving and admiring of ancient lineage and was also able to decant its burgeoning population into commuter villages in Victorian/Edwardian times, avoiding the concentration of ungainly tall buildings that one finds in other cities.

Unfortunately, then along came Margaret Thatcher with her lack of historical knowledge (and anything approaching an aesthetic) which produced an undistinguished area of high rise residential and office development in Docklands by bypassing the usual requirements with regards to planning law (think of it as the U.K.'s equivalent to the economic zones in China).

There are some truly grotesque 'get rich quick' developments in London's Docklands whose only saving grace is that they are so banal or ugly that noone will ever want to preserve them (not even the likes of the 20th Century Society).


I speak not as some fuddy-duddy lover of quaint architecture, but as a lover of modernism and innovation and more importantly, built communities and good street design.

[Fake Boris]

I find life in North American cities to be completely depressing... it was a shock to see Montreal again, five times larger than Bordeaux, with a centre not even as lively.

[GePap]

Suburbs should not be counted when talking about City living. BY definition, suburbs lie outside the city, that is the point of suburbs. Many may fall within the Metropolitan areas, and some even within City limits for those vast cities like Phoenix, but a suburb is hardly an example of urban living, which is what the point of the original article was.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


You evidently have never been out of your own country - US drivers are some of the worst I've had the mispleasure of experiencing in a developed country...

In America there is this weird phenomenon that I've never encountered anywhere else where people constantly seem to use the fast lane as just another lane where they can drive at the same speed as the cars in the slow lane - especially in parallel to each other, probably cos everyone has their cars set to 55 on cruise control!

That is just the biggest bugbear in a whole list of frustrations on American roads!

US roads are though, as long as you don't have to share them with the above mentioned US drivers.

As for cities, European ones are far better IMO. Except maybe French ones where you have to dodge the dog**** on the pavements - or even indoors! My g/f let her guard down last week when she assumed she was safe walking around inside a tourist office...

But apart from that, European cities win hands down on public transport, history, lifestyle etc. The only major downside is probably expense compared to the US, but that depends on which country you're visiting.

Probably the biggest thing to blight US cities apart from generally crap public transport is their homogeneity - you can literally go across the country and the cities are same, same, same...

Having said that, I did particularly like the strong individual characters of Boston and New Orleans.

1.8/10

[Arrian]

Typical MOBIUS post, although I do share his frustration with idiots who don't understand that the left lane is a passing lane. Everyone setting cruise control at 55, though, Yeah, right! I drove home from VT yesterday and probably averaged 75 mph, along with pretty much everyone else in the center & left lanes.

Having driven in NZ recently, I feel comfortable claiming that every country has its idiot drivers. Passing uphill around a curve with oncoming traffic? Sure, why not? Sounds like a GREAT idea!

-Arrian

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GePap
Suburbs should not be counted when talking about City living. BY definition, suburbs lie outside the city, that is the point of suburbs. Many may fall within the Metropolitan areas, and some even within City limits for those vast cities like Phoenix, but a suburb is hardly an example of urban living, which is what the point of the original article was.

Suburbs = where urban people live. The Suburbians don't have a village lifestyle, but a city lifestyle (they work in the city, they shop in the city, they get their entertainment from the city etc).

Ergo, urban sprawl is an important aspect of comparing US vs European cities.

[atawa]

Originally posted by Colon™
BTW, North-European cities similary have suburbs dominated by wooden housing.

Hmm, our suburbs are made out of concrete and bricks, maybe with a wooden layer on top to make it look good but thats about it.

Witch northern european cities are you talking about??

[atawa]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Suburbs = where urban people live. The Suburbians don't have a village lifestyle, but a city lifestyle (they work in the city, they shop in the city, they get their entertainment from the city etc).

I always thought they moved out of the city to get away from the urban lifestyle