Ladies Mile
Active Member
if new york wouldn't crack your top 50, then your list is designed to make you appear interesting and idiosyncratic -- and not to be, you know, accurate.
Chicago, Boston, LA, Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, St. Louis, Kansas City, Pittsburgh and Minneapolis all have far better original stuff (Prairie school, etc.); Charleston, Providence, Portland (ME), Newport, Savannah, Richmond, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Albany, Portsmouth, Annapolis, Baltimore, Frederick, Cincinnati and Louisville all have better and far more original old stuff; Miami is more colorful, Washington has better parks and museums, San Francisco is better-sited, Portland and Seattle are more progressive and user-friendly, and places like Santa Fe, Tuscon, Asheville, Tulsa, San Antonio, Madison, New Haven, Wheeling, St. Augustine, Lexington, Denver, Des Moines, Santa Barbara, San Diego, Beauport, Dover, Oakland, Tacoma and St. Paul have done better at maintaining their local quirks, character, climate and identities.
I suppose New York is marginally more creative than Houston, architecturally. But anything here of note not the Empire State Building and its plethora of hulking peers was either designed by a German; and Chicago native; or someone who went to Paris for training and probably should have stayed.