Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45
No, that was obvious. My point was about whether we should "penalize" the nicer parts by not ignoring the average. I'm on the fence about this.
Say the walled old core (the part of Quebec City that's an UNESCO World Heritage Site) got magically teleported to the middle of cultivated fields, the way you often see with medieval villages in France or Germany (urban perimeter hasn't changed in 1000 years, zero sprawl), then yeah, obviously, that's a top contender for a super well preserved functional small town.
If you gathered all the buildings in Queens NY that are from the 1700s and early 1800s and put them together in the middle of nowhere in NY State, you'd create a little village that would certainly rival Woodstock VT, but since they're diluted, it doesn't really count, right? That's the point I'm trying to make.
|
I can definitely see your point, though the difference is that in (old) Quebec City they're all bunched together in a continguous, homogenous district right now - even if the rest of the city is more modern and not exactly charming.
Whereas in Queens the older buildings are all over the place interspersed with a whole bunch of other styles of buildings.
There is no comparable historico-architectural "feel" there.