It's amazing how much scenery can make or break a city. Rio de Janeiro without it's epic mountains would be just another dull developing world skyline, albeit probably still with excellent culture. Then again, Paris has one of the most boring settings imaginable, save for Montmartre, yet is one of the most beautiful cities in the world.
What are your favourite natural settings for cities, and what do you think the scenery adds or takes away? Here are my best urban landscapes, in ascending order.
1. Lisbon: amazing scenery, with the sparkling bay and the castle hill. I think the situation is what makes Lisbon such an awesome city, since tbh its architecture, though aesthetically pleasing, is no different from most of the rest of the mediterrean.
2. San Fransisco: similar to Lisbon in many ways, though the architecture compliments the landscape better what with the skyscrapers and the bridge.
3. Rio: in some ways the grey block shaped buildings help with the city's exotic image, since it can't be confused with an American or European city, but I feel the landscape rather dwarfs teh city itself, apart from the majestic statue of Christ the Redeemer.
4. Hong Kong: couldn't be better, huge skyscrapers complementing the hills perfectly, in a city that might otherwise have been something of a Dubai.
5. Edinburgh: again, architecture matches the setting: the castle makes a fine centrepoint with the Royal Mile running down the spine of the crag, and arthur's seat makes Edinburgh truly unique. It's not my favourite architecture style but it's still beautiful.
6. Venice: my favourite scenic city, for obvious reasons: complements it perfectly.
Honourable mention to magnificent mountain cities, such as Munich, Vancouver, Innsbruck, Grenoble, and Darjeeling. I feel all should be better renowned for their beauty than they are.
What are your favourite natural settings for cities, and what do you think the scenery adds or takes away? Here are my best urban landscapes, in ascending order.
1. Lisbon: amazing scenery, with the sparkling bay and the castle hill. I think the situation is what makes Lisbon such an awesome city, since tbh its architecture, though aesthetically pleasing, is no different from most of the rest of the mediterrean.
2. San Fransisco: similar to Lisbon in many ways, though the architecture compliments the landscape better what with the skyscrapers and the bridge.
3. Rio: in some ways the grey block shaped buildings help with the city's exotic image, since it can't be confused with an American or European city, but I feel the landscape rather dwarfs teh city itself, apart from the majestic statue of Christ the Redeemer.
4. Hong Kong: couldn't be better, huge skyscrapers complementing the hills perfectly, in a city that might otherwise have been something of a Dubai.
5. Edinburgh: again, architecture matches the setting: the castle makes a fine centrepoint with the Royal Mile running down the spine of the crag, and arthur's seat makes Edinburgh truly unique. It's not my favourite architecture style but it's still beautiful.
6. Venice: my favourite scenic city, for obvious reasons: complements it perfectly.
Honourable mention to magnificent mountain cities, such as Munich, Vancouver, Innsbruck, Grenoble, and Darjeeling. I feel all should be better renowned for their beauty than they are.