Nice pictures so far! I also went in and looked at a few pages in your link. Some of those dessert pics had me salivating. I like the aerial shots too. Got them in any larger sizes? (especially the one with the full skyline)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicman215
No, I didn't say Boston is bad but from the aerials and skyline pics it doesn't give you a major city vibe. For what's a top 10 urban area you'd expect more density and high-rises. The skyline looks like a mid-sized city and street level views look like a quaint town.
|
Let me preface this by saying I believe Philadelphia has a better skyline than Boston, due to the top-level firepower. However, here's some stats where Boston wins, using built and U/C:
500'+
Boston 23
Philadelphia 16
150m+
Boston 26
Philadelphia 18
400'+
Boston 39 (+1 U/C in Cambridge)
Philadelphia 33
100m+
Boston 67 (+3 in Cambridge and Everett)
Philadelphia 62 (+1 in Camden NJ)
300'+
Boston 85 (+6 in Cambridge, Everett, and Somerville)
Philadelphia 82 (+1 in Camden)
Boston cannot compete with Philadelphia's tallest buildings, but in a direct comparison it starts winning right at the 10th building, and then wins every match-up down the line from there.
Boston is a little more spread out with a bit bigger combined downtown/high spine footprint, while Philadelphia's Center City is absolutely as in-your-face as it gets. Philly has both the top level firepower, and the top level old-school towers. Boston has a larger and more spread out mass of big buildings overall, but less stand-out buildings, both modern and historic, due to NIMBY politics and lower height limits. (plus the airport)
Boston's immediate inner residential rowhouse neighborhoods (North End, Beacon Hill, Back Bay, South End) annihilate Philadelphia's offerings, which themselves are great, just not on par. From there it's miles of mostly triple deckers (better ones in Cambridge/Somerville) interspersed with rowhouses vs miles of 2-3 story rowhouses for Philly. Of course, the triple deckers average about 3.5-4 stories, so are taller but with a bit of permeability. They still make fine walking neighborhoods, and feel even more urban because you can see the next rows (and next ones) of houses looking down people's driveways. It's all very colorful and vibrant, built like a maze surrounding many urban nodes. There are also more hilly neighborhoods where the houses tower over the street, and it's easier to recognize how densely packed in they are, street after street after street. The densest city in all of New England (Somerville) is mostly built in this vernacular.
Boston also has better park systems, 43 miles of harborwalk in Boston proper, a better utilized river, and really just more interesting topography overall. It's easier to get lost, and winding streets create a feeling of enclosure that's missing in a grid. I love Philadelphia but I believe Boston's motley collection of urban neighborhoods (including inner suburbs) has more to offer in terms of a total urban experience.