Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Frame cities versus brick cities

  1. #1
    Cyburbia Administrator Dan's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 1996
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    14,529
    Blog entries
    3

    Frame cities versus brick cities

    You'll know what I mean after you see the following list.

    Frame cities

    Kansas City
    Buffalo
    Cleveland
    Detroit
    Atlanta
    Indianapolis
    San Francisco

    Brick cities

    Chicago
    St. Louis
    Denver
    Houston (suburbs)
    Dallas (suburbs)
    Toronto
    London
    Growth for growth's sake is the ideology of the cancer cell. -- Edward Abbey

  2. #2

    Registered
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Solano County, California
    Posts
    6,468

    frame versus brick

    What;s weird about Indianapolis is that during the 60s, they went through a brick rancher phase. Knoxville, tennessee is like that too: older frame houses with a belt of 60s brick ranch housing.

    Overall, I prefer brick cities and, believe it or not, stucco ones (California). To me, frame cities look shabby very quickly. Seattle is a perfect example. Brick and stucco seems to hold up to the weather better.

    My home town, Fort Wayne, Indiana, is definitely a wooden (or vinyl/hardee plank/ faux veneer today) city.

  3. #3

    Registered
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Solano County, California
    Posts
    6,468

    also

    And, San Francisco is not really a frame city. Much of the building stock is sided with stucco. Brick is uncommon because of the seismic considerations.

+ Reply to thread

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 13
    Last post: 23 Sep 2010, 8:06 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last post: 22 Mar 2010, 6:10 PM
  3. Portland versus Twin Cities
    Design, Space, and Place
    Replies: 8
    Last post: 09 Dec 2008, 5:36 PM
  4. Replies: 11
    Last post: 04 Oct 2004, 10:17 AM
  5. Replies: 15
    Last post: 05 Apr 2004, 3:45 AM