you can see trash in the new York one heh

^ I honestly didn't look at the city and knew instantly which one was which mainly because of Philly's federal style.

That being said, yeah they're basically the same but New York doesn't seem to have any original thirteen colony stuff left and obviously has wider streets.

Not as much survived in NYC from the colonial era - compared to Philly and Boston - because the city tore down a lot to grow, but the buildings are not entirely gone. For instance:

George Washington frequented this bar/restaurant:
https://goo.gl/maps/FVA7dLFV9euGp4sx9
The buildings on the left: https://goo.gl/maps/eGe196eCSpXUHm5x5

There are other examples through lower Manhattan, and also in upper Manhattan. There are also a few buildings still standing in Brooklyn.

Oldest bldg in NYC dates to 1652; in Philly, oldest building dates to 1689. In any case, neither city has a huge amount of pre-Revolutionary building stock, and both are dominated by early 20th century architecture.

But Philly has the tiny rowhouse alleys around Society Hill. NYC lacks this. Some of the mews in Brooklyn and the West Village come closest, but still have a slightly different feel.

Philly has this, which is just terrific:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/20...!4d-75.1598846

Brooklyn Mews streets are often gated, so you don't have the public access:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/1+...1!4d-73.998344

Those Philadelphia streets are some of the best urbanity in the world IMHO.

^^^ That is beautiful!

I picked out basically the most charming block in the city, but yeah, Philly has some fantastic blocks. It's criminally underrated from an urbanist perspective.

Strictly in terms of street level feel, don't see how you can rank it worse than 2nd in North America.

Thems fighting words! My biased homerism demands I ask you: does the aggregate best of Philly top the aggregate best of Boston? Beacon Hill, North End, Bay Village, South End? I’ll leave out Back Bay as the streets are a bit too wide.

I’m honestly asking, I’m not sure of the answer.

I actually paused and thought to add a nod to Boston in my post. Personally, those tiny streets in Philadelphia with a tree canopy edge out the competition for me. However, Boston is insanely beautiful too but it seems like at least in the North End there is a lack of trees? Maybe I am google mapping the wrong areas? Don't get me wrong, I would live in the North End in a second(but couldn't afford it). It's such a nice change from what we find in most American cities.

Looking alike and patterns of development are entirely different things.

I'm always amazed at how many people on here are "experts", yet have quite obviously never studied urban development in a formal setting. Because if one had, one of the first courses one would take would be something dealing with comparative urban geography and development patterns... and Philadelphia and New York are literal textbook examples of two American cities which grew at the same general time, yet exhibit significantly different patterns of development.

^ This, this, and this.

there was just like 9 posts of people stating and demonstrating the opposite.

Your point?

Houston or Los Angeles? https://goo.gl/maps/2UWcTDLSe26GYKjr9

Houston or Los Angeles? https://goo.gl/maps/Xai3Z1r1hL7PYB7M6

San Francisco or San Antonio? https://goo.gl/maps/F2tDHq3iKRQFzUc78

San Francisco or San Antonio? https://goo.gl/maps/mswrPUCsFo4TmjaAA

And I can show you parts of Milwaukee that resemble Chicago, parts of Kansas City that resemble Indianapolis, parts of Dallas that resemble Atlanta, etc.

Does that necessarily mean they all maintain the same built form? Not at all.

What "patterns of development"? Again, neither city has much remaining from the colonial era, so it doesn't really matter what was going on then. Both have current "patterns of development" from the same era.

Cologne was the most important Roman city north of the Alps, but it's almost entirely a post WW2 city today. What does it matter if there used to be other stuff 2000 years ago?

I'd say yes, slightly. Boston has excellent urbanism too, of course, but a bit less volume, and I think the top tier (say Beacon Hill) is a tad less charming than the best of Society Hill. But this is all subjective, of course.

Wow that would have been nice.

Bay Village:
https://goo.gl/maps/5y4eEW1XuYewPhG18

https://goo.gl/maps/LoD1TMmjRmpqsDrh9

Not too many people know of it. Little pocket within the city.

Cool cities can’t be compared then.

Don't strain yourself moving those goal posts:

I just pointed out to you the absurdity of your statement. Of course they are different cities, but they share some aesthetic qualities - in places - that don't exist in most other cities.

Can you elaborate? I'd honestly like to know.