Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin
DC is also a grand, planned city for sure, but based on an older model of that. It's narrow rowhouses, minor/non-existent setbacks, and narrow residential streets are of a clearly first-wave east coast urban typology (even if the city is actually a lot newer than its neighbours).
And Philadelphia is probably the most fine-grained city in America, a few early-20th city beautiful gestures aside (Ben Franklin Pkwy is really the only one I can even think of). This is just about the antithesis of Midwestern gigantism.
|
Yeah, I'm obviously aware of how the layouts/built density of cities like DC and Philly differ from many of those in the Midwest. It was more just just the "Midwestern monumentalism" term that I didn't quite get... (and still don't)... that I was wondering about. Explanations have ranged from "oversized, neoclassical architecture" to "Gilded Age" to "City Beautiful movement" to full descriptions of city layouts. If it just means that Midwestern cities are flatter, more spread out, with wider streets, and more grass, then ok... but that doesn't seem to be too monumental. Otherwise, I think you'll find that non-Midwestern cities also have neoclassical and art deco architecture, plazas, statues/monuments, boulevards, massive public works structures, etc. in spades.
And while Philadelphia is certainly one of the "most fine-grained" cities in the US, that is a most apt description for its core. Philadelphia had the first World's Fair (the Centennial Exhibition in 1876... well before Midwestern locales) and established Fairmount Park... which has all the "monumentalism", neoclassicism, broad tree-lined boulevards, arches, statues, gates, gardens, mansions, pillars, fountains, etc. that you could possibly desire.
See, I just don't really get how St. Louis (its core is quite densely built) might exhibit this monumentalism, yet Philly or Pittsburgh somehow do not?