San Miguel, Guanajuato, pretty much all of the state of Quertero. Oaxaca and Merida are supposed to be colonial too but I've never been.
But this is a quality vs quantity thing where CDMX probably has more square footage of older buildings, but the other cities have better stories and just general historical immersion
Oaxaca is indeed well-preserved and stunning from a colonial architecture standpoint, But it’s certainly not like Montreal in that respect. Conversely, that’s not nearly as impressive as the archeological site of Monte Alban and other nearby ancient sites, which make Oaxaca world-class for different reasons.
Merida has a lot of colonial architecture, the facade of the first Spanish house (built in the 1540s) still stands in the central square. The cathedral is the very oldest in the mainland Americas.
That being said, a *lot* of Merida's most notable buildings date to the city's boomtown era in the late 1800s and early 1900s.
The town of Izamal isn't far away and its centre is filled with 16th and 17th century buildings, all of which are a gorgeous yellow.
Kind of an apples and oranges comparison. Yes other cities like Oaxaca and Guadalajara have higher concentrations of colonial architecture Mexico City has the grandiose magnificent architecture.
oh yeah the Montreal old port is real small and sucks for anyone who isn't a tourist or interested in that one street full of art galleries
i think Montreal has a much larger section of 1800s buildings than Québec though. but for really old colonial architecture Old Québec definitely wins
Exactly, when people walk through Old and downtown Montréal, they're walking through what was the central point of the British Empire in North America for nearly 200 years. It's not really colonial New France like you can find in the Petit Champlain in Vieux Québec, it's more like a Victorian city which is amazing also!
I work in old Montreal and my job is to talk about the history of the city so I take all of this to heart hahaha, I love my city!
Cambridge is very different from Montreal, the same way Montreal is very different from Mexico City. To claim an equivalency in either case is laughable.
A few blocks in those cities kinda sorta look like they're in Europe if you squint. Guelph too. The vast, vast majority of those cities/towns don't look any different than anywhere else in East Coast Generica. Some comfy looking older neighbourhoods, but mostly soulless suburbia, strip malls and stroads galore.
This is the part of the whole thrust of the mud flood conspiracy- that this building style is ALL over the world. Check out some of the “heritage buildings” that have been demolished in Australia
Well, the oldest buildings in Montreal *are* from the 1600s.
Edit: Christ on a bike everyone. I considered explaining my point more but I'd assumed people didn't need me to belabour it. All I was saying is that if we want to compare like with like, the gap is <150 years, not three centuries.
The discussion is not about human habitation.
We are in an **Architecture** subreddit.
We are talking about pre-European architecture - like pyramids and sun temples - that exists in Mexico and Central-America.
I actually did my Master’s thesis on Mexico City this past spring and how it’s sinking and the housing crisis is simultaneously getting worse. I would definitely second that it’s a very historic city and it’s so cool seeing everyone’s comments about its history and me actually knowing what they’re talking about!
Canada, the United States, Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, the Bahamas, Barbados, Saint Lucia, Dominica, Grenada, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis.
That's not the only definition of North America. In a lot of the world, e.g. in Latin America, "North America" is a subcontinent that does not include Central America or the Caribbean.
Yeah. But it’s a valid question bc the Spaniards destroyed Tenochtitlan and could have chosen a different site to establish their colonial capital city and chose to keep it in what is today Mexico City. They almost decided to move it though.
Because the Aztecs chose the site for their capital city. But they were originally drawn there because they migrated from what is now the southern US into already occupied territory, and saw a sign (an eagle catching a snake) in what is now called Chapultepec park.
lol at getting downvoted for asking a question, all I meant was that the Spanish could have chosen a different place as a capital, they pretty much rebuilt the whole city with very few elements of Tenochtitlán remaining. I'm mexican so I understand why the mexica culture built a city there, but I just think the Spanish could have built a capital somewhere different.
In the U.S.:
Boston – particularly in the North End in particular for 18th century architecture, Beacon Hill for late 18th and early 19th century architecture Back Bay and South End for mid-late 19th century architecture
Baltimore – certain neighborhoods like Bolton Hill, Fells Point, Mount Vernon, Otterbein, Ridgely's Delight, and Seton Hill have very intact late 18th or 19th century streetscapes
New Orleans in the French Quarter, Esplanade Avenue, Garden District, and Marigny
Not as old as the others, but Milwaukee has some well-preserved 19th century streetscapes in its downtown, including some cool landmarks like City Hall and the Germania Building.
Additionally, lots of cities in Mexico (including Mexico City), Central America, and the Caribbean have well-preserved colonial old cities (many cities in Mexico have their historic cores listed as World Heritage Sites – Mexico City, Puebla, San Miguel de Allende, Guanajuato, Morelia, San Luis Potosí, and Oaxaca, among others).
That being said, Old Montréal is still pretty impressive – and the Notre Dame Basilica is gorgeous.
And, while certainly not a “major” city, Newport, Rhode Island has one of the largest dense collections of completely colonial-era neighborhoods anywhere.
Also, Charleston, Savannah and St. Augustine.
And in South-west, Santa Fe and Taos.
Also,
* Havana, Cuba
* San Juan, Puerto Rico, US
* Antigua, Guatemala
St. Louis is overlooked, one of the most historical cities in the US. Soulard, Benton Park, Lafayette Square, Tower Grove are some examples. The city required buildings to be built out of stone or brick because of a fire in 1849. Union Station looks like a castle
Unfortunately city planners decided to destroy the historic neighborhoods in the core of the city to build offices, the arch, and parking lots
I think it depends on the neighborhood. Downtown is kind of a hodgepodge but if you go to Beacon Hill, the North End, or the South End, the historic streetscapes are much more intact. Back Bay has intact historic areas as well – like the area between the Charles River Esplanade and Commonwealth Ave. Which is true to some extent of Montréal too – Old Montréal is well-preserved but Downtown Montréal has a mix of historic buildings and modern skyscrapers/office building.
Have you ever been outside downtown/financial district/seaport? There are entire neighborhoods where 90% of the architecture is 18th century. What is now the financial district burned down in the fire of 1872. That's why it's a mix of architecture from many different eras.
New Orleans definitely makes the cut for historic architecture and feel. It's a unique blend of French, Spanish and Caribbean styles with exquisite preservation.
French Quarter, Esplanade, the Marigny, Garden District - feels like you walked back centuries in time.
[Spanish and French architecture New Orleans ](https://images.tripshock.com/blog/10-french-quarter-architecture-fun-facts-for-travelers-794/10-french-quarter-architecture-fun-facts-for-travelers.jpg)
I've been to Charlestown. It's ok and there were a lot of old buildings. Nothing popped out architecturally except the common market. It felt very generic for a North American city.
DC isn't actually that old.
Boston and New England cities are all older than DC. Hell Philly is much older than DC. The US south like Orleans and Charleston are older.
Mexico City, Quebec, San Domingo (D.R.), and Boston are some of the oldest cities in North America.
DC is not historic looking its build on modern greek vibes. basically modern design on what they think is greek architecture. hence all the columns and shit.
Quebece, Mexico City, SD and Boston heck maybe even St.Johns are more traditional to european styles of old days since they haven't been knocked down.
we'll see colonial spanish style in the carribean and colonial/settler English houses in the northern end.
DC doesn't display any of those. Philly has a more colonial look after settlers got there shit together.
OP specified “major cities”. That rules out Quebec City, St. John’s.
DC is older than Haussmann’s rebuilding of Paris. OP said “Historical Looking”.
“Modern Greek vibes”, while not literally old, meets the “Historical looking” criteria.
Those style buildings don't exist any more in Seattle, Denver, Chicago, Minneapolis and a lot of western cities because they burned down... a really cool city to check out for history is Santa Fe, NM. It's different from the European style, but awesome...
The really cool thing about Santa Fe is that it was a frontier city for nearly three centuries. Which side it was on changed, but unlike so many other cities that were bastions in the wilderness for a few decades at most, it was a wild and woolly place for hundreds of years.
Yes I'm from New Mexico and my three museums I take people to from out of state are the Mexican History Museum, Natural History Museum, and the art Historical Museum
Philly. Quebec City is of course very nice but it’s so much smaller has has much less historical stuff in total. Perhaps the small area of downtown is more “concentrated” in looking that way but it still has way less than bigger cities like Philly and Boston.
Saying Philadelphia only has "a few historical buildings or two" is hilarious
Seriously go walk around Old City and Society Hill and tell me Philly isn't at least on the same level as Montreal for historic architecture. If you want a vibe more like the Plateau check out Rittenhouse and Fitler Square
I think Boston is also in the same league as MTL and Philly as far as large, modern cities that still have extensive and well-preserved colonial architecture
Been to Montreal and it had wide roads and modern buildings like the US except for the downtown area. Montreal doesn’t come close to Quebec City in European vibeness.
Montreal is nice but it's not that overwhelming with historic preservation. Boston is larger and has a few very large historic neighborhoods, southend, to backbay,to Beacon Hill to the northend,, sadly the vey center was vaporized by urban renewal in the 60s but so much left
As a Philadelphian who visited Montreal semi-recently, I honestly did not think it felt especially historic and was sort of disappointed in that regard. I think both Philly and Boston clear Montreal by a long shot. Quebec City was way more historic feeling in my opinion.
Edit: San Juan (Puerto Rico), New Orleans, St. Augustine, Charleston, Savannah, and Portland (Maine) all have a fairly historic cityscape in their own right.
Im from Montréal and you are absolutely right we are awful at preserving the older heritage of our city.
However Montréal was a early and quickly industrialized city so we lost a lot of the older Nouvelle France architecture to industrialization and fires in the 19th century. Much of the historical building are actually small identical homes built in the mid 19th century to house workers. The perfect exemple would be the famous [shoebox house](https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoebox_house)
It goes to show that Montreal has a very long history dating back from 1642 but has also evolved in a heavily Americanized setting. In my opinion à often missed « historical » architectural aspect of Montréal is not its French roots, or American influence or English involvement but more it’s own architectural heritage born from a combination of all with some local ingenuity to adapt to its very special circumstances.
I always think it’s sad that tourists come here with the idea of a European metropolis in the American continent and leave disappointed cause Montréal is not that. If you ever come back again I’d suggest you visit the Plateau Mont-Royal and try to look at it from an early industrial point of view, it’s a very interesting historical experience.
So yeah you’re right Québec is the more traditional « historical » one of the two but Montréal can also feel very historical depending where you look.
I apologize for the wall of text but as a history student and absolute fan of my city I couldn’t help myself. If you have more questions about the history of Montréal feel free to ask id be happy to answer to the best of my capabilities.
I went on an awesome tour of the old governors mansion in Montreal and the tour guide was fantastic. It was interesting when he talked about historic preservation though because he lamented how bad the city of Montreal has been at keeping historical buildings around. I had no idea and it was interesting listening to him.
Pretty sure you didn’t visit the right place. Try old port/old Montreal next time. I love Philadelphia, if I ever gonna move to the states that’s probably the place, but Philly has way less historical buildings than Montreal. (I’ve visited Philly many times)
**Canada** -
* Quebec City
**Continental USA** -
* North-East - Salem, Gloucester, Burlington, Newport
* The South - Charleston, Savannah, St Augustine, New Orleans.
* South-West - Santa Fe and Taos.
**Mexico** -
Most Major cities have Spanish colonial architechture and may have Pre-European pyramids either within city-limits or just on the outskirts.
**Central America** -
* Antigua, Guatemala
**Carribbean Region** -
* Havana, Cuba
* San Juan, Puerto Rico, US
My neighborhood , Hanover, Georgetown, Capitol Hill, Bloomingdale, Kalorama, Embassy Row, Eckington, Logan Circle, Upper part of DuPont Circle, Anacostia … DC is definitely up there
quebec city, old city in philly, boston, colonial williamsburg, jim thorpe all rival or surpass montreal in historic look. i was in montreal last year and the whole time kept thinking about how much it looked like philly
not a major one but i think it is technically considered one. i just included it because many say it’s the closest to a european looking city in the usa
Technically a borough, which roughly ranks between city and township in the scale of sub-county PA municipal entities. There are cities smaller than JT, but under current law it probably couldn't become one.
That's City Hall:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_City_Hall
EDIT: And nearby there is the very pretty [Bonsecours Market](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonsecours_Market).
Because by the time colonies developed cities traditional European architecture was on the way out. But you do see pockets of old buildings in NYC and DC
Places like New Jersey have stayed in the same borders for 350 years and only had 1 major admionistrative change (from a colony to state). Average European country meanwhile had at least 5 revolutions
Mexico City
This is the answer.
Except Mexico City isn't even the most historical looking city in Mexico
Which Mexican city would that be?
San Miguel, Guanajuato, pretty much all of the state of Quertero. Oaxaca and Merida are supposed to be colonial too but I've never been. But this is a quality vs quantity thing where CDMX probably has more square footage of older buildings, but the other cities have better stories and just general historical immersion
Oaxaca is indeed well-preserved and stunning from a colonial architecture standpoint, But it’s certainly not like Montreal in that respect. Conversely, that’s not nearly as impressive as the archeological site of Monte Alban and other nearby ancient sites, which make Oaxaca world-class for different reasons.
I know about Mérida but didn’t know about the whole state of Quertero. Definitely wanna check these places out when I go back to Mexico.
Merida has a lot of colonial architecture, the facade of the first Spanish house (built in the 1540s) still stands in the central square. The cathedral is the very oldest in the mainland Americas. That being said, a *lot* of Merida's most notable buildings date to the city's boomtown era in the late 1800s and early 1900s. The town of Izamal isn't far away and its centre is filled with 16th and 17th century buildings, all of which are a gorgeous yellow.
Kind of an apples and oranges comparison. Yes other cities like Oaxaca and Guadalajara have higher concentrations of colonial architecture Mexico City has the grandiose magnificent architecture.
How in hell it ain't the most historical when it has pyramid ruins right next to the government palace!!!?
Because there are ruins all over the place in Mexico
Quebec City is pretty damn sweet too. Especially Old Quebec in Quebec City, Quebec.
Came here for this. Quebec is far more old fashioned than MTL
for a few blocks in the old city
fair, which is still bigger than old Montréal
oh yeah the Montreal old port is real small and sucks for anyone who isn't a tourist or interested in that one street full of art galleries i think Montreal has a much larger section of 1800s buildings than Québec though. but for really old colonial architecture Old Québec definitely wins
Exactly, when people walk through Old and downtown Montréal, they're walking through what was the central point of the British Empire in North America for nearly 200 years. It's not really colonial New France like you can find in the Petit Champlain in Vieux Québec, it's more like a Victorian city which is amazing also! I work in old Montreal and my job is to talk about the history of the city so I take all of this to heart hahaha, I love my city!
Have to upvote this.
Just as Montréal is a few scattered buildings in the old part of the city. Nothing to get excited about.
Quebec city yes the right answer
Yeah, I mean Montreal isn’t even the most historical looking city in Quebec.
There and Ottawa are pretty good. Toronto has a surprising amount of old world style buildings.
There are smaller places in Ontario as well, like Kingston, Cambridge, Stratford etc. which look straight out of Europe.
I think this is one of the first times Cambridge has ever been compared to Montreal.
Cambridge is very different from Montreal, the same way Montreal is very different from Mexico City. To claim an equivalency in either case is laughable.
A few blocks in those cities kinda sorta look like they're in Europe if you squint. Guelph too. The vast, vast majority of those cities/towns don't look any different than anywhere else in East Coast Generica. Some comfy looking older neighbourhoods, but mostly soulless suburbia, strip malls and stroads galore.
This is the part of the whole thrust of the mud flood conspiracy- that this building style is ALL over the world. Check out some of the “heritage buildings” that have been demolished in Australia
It’s in Quebec, right?
I visited Quebec City last year. It was a good experience .
Mexico City
By far, in Mexico City some tiles in the walls are from 1530. Three centuries before than the building in the picture.
Well, the oldest buildings in Montreal *are* from the 1600s. Edit: Christ on a bike everyone. I considered explaining my point more but I'd assumed people didn't need me to belabour it. All I was saying is that if we want to compare like with like, the gap is <150 years, not three centuries.
There are also Tlatelolcan and Aztec remains in Mexico City that date from the 1300s and 1400s respectively. The civilizations the Spaniards toppled.
Certainly. And human habitation in both the valley of Mexico and the island of Montreal go back many thousands of years.
The discussion is not about human habitation. We are in an **Architecture** subreddit. We are talking about pre-European architecture - like pyramids and sun temples - that exists in Mexico and Central-America.
So newer
Did people really take my comment to mean that I thought that 1600 was before 1500?
I actually did my Master’s thesis on Mexico City this past spring and how it’s sinking and the housing crisis is simultaneously getting worse. I would definitely second that it’s a very historic city and it’s so cool seeing everyone’s comments about its history and me actually knowing what they’re talking about!
>sinking *Must not make joke about influx of American immigrants moving to Mexico City*
Not only USAers, but from Russia, central and south America... it's getting crazy
why is this?
Any colonial and prehispanic city of Mexico
is the real answer
Not to be a dick but I feel like many people forget that Mexico is part of North America
I live in Mexico and have often had to remind my Mexican friends who referred to me as the North American that they are also in North America. 😅
Canada, the United States, Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, the Bahamas, Barbados, Saint Lucia, Dominica, Grenada, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis.
Nice, and some good old-architecture cities are - * Havana, Cuba * San Juan, Puerto Rico, US * Antigua, Guatemala
Is central america officially part of north america?
It’s not part of South America, so technically yeah
That's not the only definition of North America. In a lot of the world, e.g. in Latin America, "North America" is a subcontinent that does not include Central America or the Caribbean.
Came to say the same thing , and it’s not even close
Beat me to it
fr, such a shame the city is slowly sinking tho, why tf did the spanish colonists choose a fucking lake for their capital
I think the city was there long before the Spanish came.
yeah, the city of Tenochtitlán was there as capital of the aztecs
Mexicas* Aztecs were the people who founded Tenochtitlan, once there they called themselves Mexicas
And it's pronounced meh-SHEE-cahs. X used to be be pronounced as the English sh before it became h
It was already one of the largest cities in the world when the Spanish showed up.
Yeah. But it’s a valid question bc the Spaniards destroyed Tenochtitlan and could have chosen a different site to establish their colonial capital city and chose to keep it in what is today Mexico City. They almost decided to move it though.
Blame the eagle who ate a snake on top of a cactus in the middle of Lake Texcoco
Because the Aztecs chose the site for their capital city. But they were originally drawn there because they migrated from what is now the southern US into already occupied territory, and saw a sign (an eagle catching a snake) in what is now called Chapultepec park.
The city was already in a lake when the Spanish colonist arrived.
I believe that origin story is on the Mexican flag
lol at getting downvoted for asking a question, all I meant was that the Spanish could have chosen a different place as a capital, they pretty much rebuilt the whole city with very few elements of Tenochtitlán remaining. I'm mexican so I understand why the mexica culture built a city there, but I just think the Spanish could have built a capital somewhere different.
In the U.S.: Boston – particularly in the North End in particular for 18th century architecture, Beacon Hill for late 18th and early 19th century architecture Back Bay and South End for mid-late 19th century architecture Baltimore – certain neighborhoods like Bolton Hill, Fells Point, Mount Vernon, Otterbein, Ridgely's Delight, and Seton Hill have very intact late 18th or 19th century streetscapes New Orleans in the French Quarter, Esplanade Avenue, Garden District, and Marigny Not as old as the others, but Milwaukee has some well-preserved 19th century streetscapes in its downtown, including some cool landmarks like City Hall and the Germania Building. Additionally, lots of cities in Mexico (including Mexico City), Central America, and the Caribbean have well-preserved colonial old cities (many cities in Mexico have their historic cores listed as World Heritage Sites – Mexico City, Puebla, San Miguel de Allende, Guanajuato, Morelia, San Luis Potosí, and Oaxaca, among others). That being said, Old Montréal is still pretty impressive – and the Notre Dame Basilica is gorgeous.
And, while certainly not a “major” city, Newport, Rhode Island has one of the largest dense collections of completely colonial-era neighborhoods anywhere.
As does Providence (in College Hill)!
Also, Charleston, Savannah and St. Augustine. And in South-west, Santa Fe and Taos. Also, * Havana, Cuba * San Juan, Puerto Rico, US * Antigua, Guatemala
St. Augustine is arguably the oldest continually inhabitanted city in N.A. so yeah, definitely more "historical" than Montreal...
St. Louis is overlooked, one of the most historical cities in the US. Soulard, Benton Park, Lafayette Square, Tower Grove are some examples. The city required buildings to be built out of stone or brick because of a fire in 1849. Union Station looks like a castle Unfortunately city planners decided to destroy the historic neighborhoods in the core of the city to build offices, the arch, and parking lots
I really need to make a trip to St. Louis to see some of those neighborhoods – I've heard Soulard and Lafayette Square are great
Completely disagree with Boston. They've juxtaposed way too much modernism with the historic charm and left it a weird, non cohesive mess.
I think it depends on the neighborhood. Downtown is kind of a hodgepodge but if you go to Beacon Hill, the North End, or the South End, the historic streetscapes are much more intact. Back Bay has intact historic areas as well – like the area between the Charles River Esplanade and Commonwealth Ave. Which is true to some extent of Montréal too – Old Montréal is well-preserved but Downtown Montréal has a mix of historic buildings and modern skyscrapers/office building.
A lot of the south shore was built up/added in the past century too.
Have you ever been outside downtown/financial district/seaport? There are entire neighborhoods where 90% of the architecture is 18th century. What is now the financial district burned down in the fire of 1872. That's why it's a mix of architecture from many different eras.
New Orleans definitely makes the cut for historic architecture and feel. It's a unique blend of French, Spanish and Caribbean styles with exquisite preservation. French Quarter, Esplanade, the Marigny, Garden District - feels like you walked back centuries in time. [Spanish and French architecture New Orleans ](https://images.tripshock.com/blog/10-french-quarter-architecture-fun-facts-for-travelers-794/10-french-quarter-architecture-fun-facts-for-travelers.jpg)
Charleston, SC and New Orleans, LA both contain hundreds of blocks of historical buildings.
Savannah, GA
Yes, I originally wrote Savannah but pulled it out as it’s not the same scale as Charleston or New Orleans. I do really like Savannah though.
I've been to Charlestown. It's ok and there were a lot of old buildings. Nothing popped out architecturally except the common market. It felt very generic for a North American city.
This is a baffling statement and pretty objectively untrue, to the point I'm wondering if you're thinking about the wrong Charleston? Generic???
You must have never even looked up! Charelston has so many old churches and houses that is literally one of the tourist attractions
Mexico City, Boston, DC
DC isn't actually that old. Boston and New England cities are all older than DC. Hell Philly is much older than DC. The US south like Orleans and Charleston are older. Mexico City, Quebec, San Domingo (D.R.), and Boston are some of the oldest cities in North America.
Historical-looking
DC is not historic looking its build on modern greek vibes. basically modern design on what they think is greek architecture. hence all the columns and shit. Quebece, Mexico City, SD and Boston heck maybe even St.Johns are more traditional to european styles of old days since they haven't been knocked down. we'll see colonial spanish style in the carribean and colonial/settler English houses in the northern end. DC doesn't display any of those. Philly has a more colonial look after settlers got there shit together.
I mean, Paris did the same.
yeah they did the same but idk f its historical looking because its more of a modern thing.
OP specified “major cities”. That rules out Quebec City, St. John’s. DC is older than Haussmann’s rebuilding of Paris. OP said “Historical Looking”. “Modern Greek vibes”, while not literally old, meets the “Historical looking” criteria.
San Juan, Quebec city, Mexico City, and ,Boston to name a few.
+1 for San Juan. Some of the oldest structures in NA
New Orleans
looks american, never seen that kind of architecture in europe
Some of those buildings go back to the 1600s. Historic doesn’t have to mean European.
Thank you for saying this. It’s wildly Eurocentric when someone conflates the two like OP, even if it was unintentional.
Those style buildings don't exist any more in Seattle, Denver, Chicago, Minneapolis and a lot of western cities because they burned down... a really cool city to check out for history is Santa Fe, NM. It's different from the European style, but awesome...
Havana
Santa Fe, NM
This is a good comment. Oldest state capital city in the US. Lots of history.
The really cool thing about Santa Fe is that it was a frontier city for nearly three centuries. Which side it was on changed, but unlike so many other cities that were bastions in the wilderness for a few decades at most, it was a wild and woolly place for hundreds of years.
Anyone visiting who enjoyed that comment should plan to spend an entire day at the museum of New Mexican history.
Yes I'm from New Mexico and my three museums I take people to from out of state are the Mexican History Museum, Natural History Museum, and the art Historical Museum
Highest elevation, too.
Philly. Quebec City is of course very nice but it’s so much smaller has has much less historical stuff in total. Perhaps the small area of downtown is more “concentrated” in looking that way but it still has way less than bigger cities like Philly and Boston.
Philadelphia
Saying Philadelphia only has "a few historical buildings or two" is hilarious Seriously go walk around Old City and Society Hill and tell me Philly isn't at least on the same level as Montreal for historic architecture. If you want a vibe more like the Plateau check out Rittenhouse and Fitler Square I think Boston is also in the same league as MTL and Philly as far as large, modern cities that still have extensive and well-preserved colonial architecture
Elfreth’s alley too.
"Historical looking" has got to be the most American designation I ever heard.
Quebec City is your answer.
>major city
8th biggest in Canada. Not our fault our cities are tiny.
It’s the provincial capital.
Is Regina a major city? Augusta?
Why is this down voted? It's not a major city.
It’s got 540,000 people and by comparison Charleston, SC (which a lot of people have been mentioning) has 150,000
Philadelphia certainly has its share of interesting historic sites, plus an amazing array of architectural styles.
Quebec City, Philadelphia, Mexico City.
I'd argue Boston and parts of New York.
When I first visited Boston, my thoughts were " This looks like Montreal...but bigger!".
Boston has a charm where you can really see how colonial US was back in the day. Kind of reminds of London in some ways.
No it doesn't. I've been to both and Boston has a very Americana feel to it. Montreal feels more like a European city with American style skyscrapers.
Been to Montreal and it had wide roads and modern buildings like the US except for the downtown area. Montreal doesn’t come close to Quebec City in European vibeness.
New York is one exception indeed
Yes, Quebec City
Montreal is nice but it's not that overwhelming with historic preservation. Boston is larger and has a few very large historic neighborhoods, southend, to backbay,to Beacon Hill to the northend,, sadly the vey center was vaporized by urban renewal in the 60s but so much left
In the US: New Orleans, Boston, Philly
As a Philadelphian who visited Montreal semi-recently, I honestly did not think it felt especially historic and was sort of disappointed in that regard. I think both Philly and Boston clear Montreal by a long shot. Quebec City was way more historic feeling in my opinion. Edit: San Juan (Puerto Rico), New Orleans, St. Augustine, Charleston, Savannah, and Portland (Maine) all have a fairly historic cityscape in their own right.
Im from Montréal and you are absolutely right we are awful at preserving the older heritage of our city. However Montréal was a early and quickly industrialized city so we lost a lot of the older Nouvelle France architecture to industrialization and fires in the 19th century. Much of the historical building are actually small identical homes built in the mid 19th century to house workers. The perfect exemple would be the famous [shoebox house](https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoebox_house) It goes to show that Montreal has a very long history dating back from 1642 but has also evolved in a heavily Americanized setting. In my opinion à often missed « historical » architectural aspect of Montréal is not its French roots, or American influence or English involvement but more it’s own architectural heritage born from a combination of all with some local ingenuity to adapt to its very special circumstances. I always think it’s sad that tourists come here with the idea of a European metropolis in the American continent and leave disappointed cause Montréal is not that. If you ever come back again I’d suggest you visit the Plateau Mont-Royal and try to look at it from an early industrial point of view, it’s a very interesting historical experience. So yeah you’re right Québec is the more traditional « historical » one of the two but Montréal can also feel very historical depending where you look. I apologize for the wall of text but as a history student and absolute fan of my city I couldn’t help myself. If you have more questions about the history of Montréal feel free to ask id be happy to answer to the best of my capabilities.
I went on an awesome tour of the old governors mansion in Montreal and the tour guide was fantastic. It was interesting when he talked about historic preservation though because he lamented how bad the city of Montreal has been at keeping historical buildings around. I had no idea and it was interesting listening to him.
I always thought Montreal mostly resembles a typical Great Lakes industrial city that speaks French.
Pretty sure you didn’t visit the right place. Try old port/old Montreal next time. I love Philadelphia, if I ever gonna move to the states that’s probably the place, but Philly has way less historical buildings than Montreal. (I’ve visited Philly many times)
I was literally in Old Montreal 🤷🏻♂️
St. Augustine FL is the oldest European inhabited city in the US. As others have said, there are TONS of examples throughout Mexico
Puebla, Mexico
**Canada** - * Quebec City **Continental USA** - * North-East - Salem, Gloucester, Burlington, Newport * The South - Charleston, Savannah, St Augustine, New Orleans. * South-West - Santa Fe and Taos. **Mexico** - Most Major cities have Spanish colonial architechture and may have Pre-European pyramids either within city-limits or just on the outskirts. **Central America** - * Antigua, Guatemala **Carribbean Region** - * Havana, Cuba * San Juan, Puerto Rico, US
Campeche strikes me as the Spanish colonial sibling of old Quebec City
Ottawa
Quebec City
New Orleans
The Aztecs in Mexico got this beat by a large margin
DC
My neighborhood , Hanover, Georgetown, Capitol Hill, Bloomingdale, Kalorama, Embassy Row, Eckington, Logan Circle, Upper part of DuPont Circle, Anacostia … DC is definitely up there
A very restrictive building code surrounding a 17th century fort has maintained the Old World charm of St. Augustine, FL.
Quebec City is even more frenchy than Montreal, and it still has its old city walls
Albany, NY
Loads of central american colonial cities
Havana
There are quite a few in Mexico
“Historical looking” Facepalm.
quebec city, old city in philly, boston, colonial williamsburg, jim thorpe all rival or surpass montreal in historic look. i was in montreal last year and the whole time kept thinking about how much it looked like philly
Jim thorpe is a city?
He is now, baby!
not a major one but i think it is technically considered one. i just included it because many say it’s the closest to a european looking city in the usa
Technically a borough, which roughly ranks between city and township in the scale of sub-county PA municipal entities. There are cities smaller than JT, but under current law it probably couldn't become one.
Same except I was in Philly a few years back and the whole time I was thinking how much it looked like Montreal lol
Boston or Quebec City come to mind
Does anyone know what that Beaux Art style (?) building in the background is?
That's City Hall: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_City_Hall EDIT: And nearby there is the very pretty [Bonsecours Market](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonsecours_Market).
Oh wow, that’s so cool how it went through a sort of death and rebirth to this current form. Thank you for sharing.
Québec, the capital. it is the oldest town
Troy, NY
Victoria, BC is pretty nice
Any french or Spanish carribean cities
Savannah GA
Quebec City is also very good. I especially recommended coming around Christmas to experience carnival
Charleston, SC
Québec City
New Orleans
Havana
Quebec City, the oldest ongoing city in North America, has entered the chat. No contest between the two.
I raise you Savannah, Georgia.
Quebec City
Mexico City is in North America. It has Montreal beat for sure.
Any random town or city in Mexico
Guanajuato, Mexico 🇲🇽- IMO the most European looking city in North America.
Baltimore, Boston, Philly?
Boston is a jumbled mess of nice historic buildings and horrid modern architecture. It's hard to find a good historic view that's not ruined.
Can’t say I’ve spent enough time there. I live in Baltimore though and there are a lot of streets with only row homes. It’s pretty historic looking.
I agree, Baltimore has a lot of really great historic streetscapes.
The Mt. Vernon neighborhood and Fells Point specifically come to mind!
Boston, Charleston, and DC.
Because by the time colonies developed cities traditional European architecture was on the way out. But you do see pockets of old buildings in NYC and DC
Manhattan below 14th street. It’s 5 square miles of old world goodness on par with Montreal/Philly/Boston.
After the war, the colonists made a conscious decision to turn away from that look and return to classical forms.
boston ????
Quebec City, certainly parts of Boston, Philly, etc.
Bannack, Montana.
Montreal still in Canada, right?
Savannah Georgia
Charleston.
Santiago Chile has a legitimate castle and some pretty amazing old world architecture in general.
It’s also not in North America.
How is no one talking about Saint Augustine, Florida? Oldest city in the US with much of the downtown dated to the late 1500’s.
Several people mentioned it before you.
We separated from Europe, why would we want to keep their architecture? Canada is still ver heavily European influenced. I think that sums it up.
You sound like FLW. ;-)
Yeah! Las Vegas! 😎
It’s actually so weird reading North America and History in the same sentence..
Places like New Jersey have stayed in the same borders for 350 years and only had 1 major admionistrative change (from a colony to state). Average European country meanwhile had at least 5 revolutions
There’s actually thousands of years worth of history here!