Which city would you declare as the US cultural capital if there is one?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

True, there are some. Not sure I agree with your characterization of "a lot". Bushwick is an apartment neighborhood that happens to have some modest rows. And not one-family rows, like in the UK, Philly or Baltimore. Glendale, yeah, but Glendale is an outlier in a lot of ways. And it doesn't look like a UK or Philly type area.

In the UK, Philly and Baltimore, the row is the dominant housing type. It's rather uncommon in NY, especially one-family rows.

I meant "a lot" to imply that they were not scarce. But yeah, no neighborhood in NYC is thoroughly a row house neighborhood like you'll find in the lower NE Corridor and in much of the UK.

Originally Posted by Crawford

And you're right, Midtown was once rowhouses. But that's almost entirely gone, for a century now, and they were multifamily rows, like you see in a few cases here and there around the United Nations neighborhood, or in Hell's Kitchen.

My friend's mother lived in a house that her family owned in Hell's Kitchen as a child, on what is now Restaurant Row. She lived her adult life in Michigan and had not been back to NYC in decades when she asked me to go find it, so she had no idea what the area turned into. I think her family left as the area was going into decline, but the house is probably worth around $10 million today.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by citywatch

I realize that beauty may be skin deep, & that historic, classically attractive architecture may easily hide a lot of warts.

This is where NYC not being the capital hurts and DC clearly benefits. DC is much more polished than NYC, and the standard for the new construction much higher, albeit not as creative.

NYC has some beautiful architecture, but it has a long history (which is still continuing, unfortunately) of tearing down old for new. I think the skyscrapers are something that Europeans can appreciate because it’s not really a typology common in their neck of the woods. Even though you can find skyscrapers in every major global city these days, there’s still something unique about Midtown Manhattan. Architecturally though, the postmodern stuff isn’t as high-quality as Chicago’s Loop, while the new stuff like Hudson Yards isn’t quite as sophisticated IMO as stuff you see being built in the City of London or even Tokyo.

[Crawford]

Neither the UES nor the UWS have many townhouses, comparatively speaking. Something like 1% of residents live in SFH townhouses. These are both apartment neighborhoods, even for the very wealthiest.

NYC's great rowhouse blocks are in Brooklyn, in neighborhoods like Park Slope, Cobble Hill, Boerum Hill and Fort Greene. In these neighborhoods, the rich are apt to live in townhomes. Brooklyn Heights is more like a Manhattan neighborhood, with too many upscale apartment blocks to truly be a brownstone-dominated neighborhood.

Park Slope-
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6721...8192?entry=ttu

Cobble Hill-
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6853...8192?entry=ttu

Boerum Hill-
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6860...8192?entry=ttu

Fort Greene-
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6878...8192?entry=ttu

[Quixote]

This is NYC at its best and distinguishes it from every other city in the world:

https://goo.gl/maps/B4AHdU7f48PCJy1o6

[citywatch]

^ The highrise history of NYC, while unique to America's cultural capital, somehow affects the picturesque nature of it compared with a lower rise setting of a London or paris, etc.

Originally Posted by Quixote

I know the analog to Belgravia is the UES (Lenox or Carnegie Hill), but the best townhouses are on the UWS… much more ornate.

https://goo.gl/maps/Vnchmqfps8ag3f7T7

That street definitely rivals the Belgravia area in London, but you go just a block to the west & enter the more typical NYC urban street of Columbus Ave. When I go throughout much of belgravia, it remains at a rather picturesque level.

https://goo.gl/maps/KMuCfFGyLNpzbnv88

Originally Posted by Crawford

NYC's great rowhouse blocks are in Brooklyn, in neighborhoods like Park Slope, Cobble Hill, Boerum Hill and Fort Greene. In these neighborhoods, the rich are apt to live in townhomes. Brooklyn Heights is more like a Manhattan neighborhood, with too many upscale apartment blocks to truly be a brownstone-dominated neighborhood.

Park Slope-
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6721...8192?entry=ttu

Cobble Hill-
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6853...8192?entry=ttu

Boerum Hill-
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6860...8192?entry=ttu

Fort Greene-
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6878...8192?entry=ttu

those are very nice streets, but, again, NYC has a different look or feel from other cultural capitals like london or Paris. Not totally sure why that is...the ethos or mindset of ppl in the 'new world' may have played a role, the fact that european cities were prosperous well before America was also must have influenced things, the newbie culture of the US also must have affected the way things turned out. The climate too...I didn't realize that western europe's weather is often a bit less extreme during winter than the East coast's & midwest's winters are.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by citywatch

those are very nice streets, but, again, NYC has a different look or feel from other cultural capitals like london or Paris. Not totally sure why that is...the ethos or mindset of ppl in the 'new world' may have played a role, the fact that european cities were prosperous well before America was also must have influenced things, the newbie culture of the US also must have affected the way things turned out. The climate too...I didn't realize that western europe's weather is often a bit less extreme during winter than the East coast's & midwest's winters are.

Well NYC isn't the national capital, nor even the state capital for that matter, so it's missing all of the national landmarks, head of state residences, grand government buildings, castles, palaces, etc.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Quixote

This is where NYC not being the capital hurts and DC clearly benefits. DC is much more polished than NYC, and the standard for the new construction much higher, albeit not as creative.

I don't agree with this. I think, for the most part, DC's infill is fairly basic and cookie cutter. The National Mall, monuments, and Capitol are pretty grand and polished, but I wouldn't say the rest of the city is more polished than NYC. In fact, there are some pretty raggedy, almost country looking neighborhoods in DC still. This area could pass for some lower tier neighborhood in Ohio. Same with this area.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by citywatch

That street definitely rivals the Belgravia area in London, but you go just a block to the west & enter the more typical NYC urban street of Columbus Ave. When I go throughout much of belgravia, it remains at a rather picturesque level.

https://goo.gl/maps/KMuCfFGyLNpzbnv88

Well, yeah, it’s Manhattan. The point is that whether these are SFH townhouses or multi-unit flats, the architecture is generally more ornate.

Belgravia and environs were master-planned, so there is more of a sense of “order” that gives off a grandiose aura.

those are very nice streets, but, again, NYC has a different look or feel from other cultural capitals like london or Paris. Not totally sure why that is...the ethos or mindset of ppl in the 'new world' may have played a role, the fact that european cities were prosperous well before America was also must have influenced things, the newbie culture of the US also must have affected the way things turned out. The climate too...I didn't realize that western europe's weather is often a bit less extreme during winter than the East coast's & midwest's winters are.

I think all of those streets except the Fort Greene one are more attractive than London’s rowhouse nabes.

NYC does have more of an “unkempt” look that matches the fast-paced, “IDGAF” temperament of the city. It’s grand, but not monumental like Paris (or DC). And it’s nouveau-riche, with no aristocracy or class structure like London.

It doesn’t have the legacy of being the capital of a colonial empire that dates back several centuries, but rather that of a city built by immigrants that rose to global prominence only a century ago. I mean, the Empire State and Chrysler Buildings aren’t even 100 years old yet.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by edale

I don't agree with this. I think, for the most part, DC's infill is fairly basic and cookie cutter. The National Mall, monuments, and Capitol are pretty grand and polished, but I wouldn't say the rest of the city is more polished than NYC. In fact, there are some pretty raggedy, almost country looking neighborhoods in DC still. This area could pass for some lower tier neighborhood in Ohio. Same with this area.

Brooklyn (Downtown and Gowanus) are getting some really nice developments. But the stuff along the East River in Hunters Point and Greenpoint are kind of cheap-looking. I would expect something more along the lines of a Battery Park City. Even the Riverside South buildings look better.

The Central Park Tower, the city’s second tallest, is a great example of how “watered down” NY’s architectural standard is… prime location but still a basic glass box. It makes an impact on the skyline based on its height and nothing else. For that location, you’d expect something like 53W53 or 56 Leonard.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by edale

I don't agree with this. I think, for the most part, DC's infill is fairly basic and cookie cutter. The National Mall, monuments, and Capitol are pretty grand and polished, but I wouldn't say the rest of the city is more polished than NYC. In fact, there are some pretty raggedy, almost country looking neighborhoods in DC still. This area could pass for some lower tier neighborhood in Ohio. Same with this area.

Agreed. Even the new infill construction in DC is the generic boxy style that you can find in all parts of the country (NYC included).

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Agreed. Even the new infill construction in DC is the generic boxy style that you can find in all parts of the country (NYC included).

not everywhere - there are some strikingly nice developments in dc that ohio cities and nyc should be taking notes on, ie.,:

[iheartthed]

^It looks so polished lol

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by edale

I don't agree with this. I think, for the most part, DC's infill is fairly basic and cookie cutter. The National Mall, monuments, and Capitol are pretty grand and polished, but I wouldn't say the rest of the city is more polished than NYC. In fact, there are some pretty raggedy, almost country looking neighborhoods in DC still. This area could pass for some lower tier neighborhood in Ohio. Same with this area.

Yeah, I'm not getting this either.

I think most will agree that DC doesn't have the gritty, postindustrial feel you get in parts of NYC, LA, Paris, Brussels, Berlin. And it has a grand monumental core, like you get in Vienna and Budapest. But DC isn't very grand outside the core, and in many ways still feels smaller than Baltimore (which it was, historically). And most of the new stuff could be in Columbus or Indianapolis. DC is full of urban, transit oriented growth, but extremely bland and generic.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Quixote

NYC does have more of an “unkempt” look that matches the fast-paced, “IDGAF” temperament of the city. It’s grand, but not monumental like Paris (or DC). And it’s nouveau-riche, with no aristocracy or class structure like London.

It doesn’t have the legacy of being the capital of a colonial empire that dates back several centuries, but rather that of a city built by immigrants that rose to global prominence only a century ago. I mean, the Empire State and Chrysler Buildings aren’t even 100 years old yet.

Some of that idgaf can be seen in how much graffiti is all over the place there. Most cities, including the ones in euope, have the same thing too, but it's way more commonplace in NYC. But it's not as prevalent today as it was apparently over 40 yrs ago when NYC's subway cars were tagged from front to back.

As for the grand vs monumental, although I understand what you're referring to, my main issue is just how 'charming' a city is or isn't, whether it's a cultural capital or a small berg. Something about cities in the US, from the east to the west, doesn't do charming very well or at all. But that's been true for over 150 yrs too. So I'd be the last to say that what I'm placing an emphasis on in the long run will necessarily either help or hurt a city or country.

Again, a city like SF has long been seen as somewhat charming, while LA has been just the opposite of that. Yet the way such places evolve can defy conventional wisdom. Similarly, look at how NYC has progressed since the late 1800s compared with london, paris, Madrid, etc. BTW, NYC had more old bronx type slums over 40 yrs ago than it has today. So in certain ways it's better off in the 2020s than it was in the 1950s, 1970s, 1990s.

[Docere]

London is very much a polycentric city.

If the border of the metropolis is well defined, its internal structure is immensely complicated and defies description. Indeed, London’s defining characteristic is an absence of overall form. It is physically a polycentric city, with many core districts and no clear hierarchy among them. London has at least two (and sometimes many more) of everything: cities, mayors, dioceses, cathedrals, chambers of commerce, police forces, opera houses, orchestras, and universities...The City of London was unique among Europe’s capital cities in retaining its medieval boundaries. Westminster and other suburbs were left to develop their own administrative structures—a pattern replicated a hundred times over as London exploded in size, becoming the prototype of the modern metropolis.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Lon...er-of-the-city

[Docere]

There was no mayor of London until 2000.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Agreed. Even the new infill construction in DC is the generic boxy style that you can find in all parts of the country (NYC included).

NY has a lot of those utilitarian brown and gray brick tenement-style buildings from the 60s and ugly post-modern residential skyscrapers built in the 70s-90s on the UES. DC would not have allowed such bad design in prime areas. Paris does have its fair share of post-modern ugliness, but they're not in the wealthy areas.

NY's modern stuff isn't as cosmopolitan as London's (there are lots of exceptions though):

https://goo.gl/maps/ECVRN13khSn52Y55A

https://goo.gl/maps/w35ZhQ6eRsZoRcap9

https://goo.gl/maps/zYnPS3WbUceaCP3F6

Even these two skyscrapers, although boxy, have a higher-quality curtain wall:

https://goo.gl/maps/Z7MgGDbzzePHW15q9

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by citywatch

As for the grand vs monumental, although I understand what you're referring to, my main issue is just how 'charming' a city is or isn't, whether it's a cultural capital or a small berg. Something about cities in the US, from the east to the west, doesn't do charming very well or at all. But that's been true for over 150 yrs too. So I'd be the last to say that what I'm placing an emphasis on in the long run will necessarily either help or hurt a city or country.

I do understand what you're getting at when you speak of "charm."

A lot of Downtown Manhattan (south of 14th Street) and most of the UWS are charming, but most people think of Midtown (especially Times Square) when they think NYC.

I do think big buildings (i.e. skyscrapers) detract from American cities' charm vis-a-vis Europe. It's not just scale but also mundane elements that you aren't really conscious of like London's offset-stone-paved sidewalks, wrought-iron fences, little pocket parks, street lights and lamp posts, etc.

In NA, I think Boston has the most all-around "charm." Between Downtown, Back Bay, Beacon Hill, North End, and South End, it feels quite a bit like a British Isles city, like some combination of London, Dublin, and Edinburgh.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Docere

London is very much a polycentric city.

Eh. The multiple nodes that are scattered across Greater London are essentially urban railroad suburbs with busy commercial districts around stations.

London is incredibly centralized for a city of its size and stature. Almost all of its world-famous attractions, landmarks, museums, academic institutions, government buildings, and sports and entertainment venues are confined to an area much smaller than Manhattan as well as accessible by rapid transit (London Underground and Overground) rather than commuter rail. The new Elizabeth Line now provides a one-seat ride that transports you from Heathrow to the heart of Central London, the City of London, and Canary Wharf.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Quixote

NY has a lot of those utilitarian brown and gray brick tenement-style buildings from the 60s and ugly post-modern residential skyscrapers built in the 70s-90s on the UES. DC would not have allowed such bad design in prime areas. Paris does have its fair share of post-modern ugliness, but they're not in the wealthy areas.

What are you referring to as a tenement building? Want to make sure we're on the same page here. NYC tenements are all from the 19th century and very early 20th.