SkyscraperCity Forum banner

Favorite Scandinavian city

19K views 45 replies 30 participants last post by  Rufeter 
#1 ·
What is your favorite Scandinavian city?
 
#7 ·
As for individual buildings and street life ('urbanity'), I'd pick Copenhagen any day.
That said, Oslo and Stockholm are both located in beautiful natural settings (in a valley surrounded by high hills close to the water in Oslo, in an archipelago in Stockholm).

You could say the street scape (architecture, street life and the supply of it) is best in Copenhagen and the street view (the urban environment combined with its natural settings) is awesome in Stockholm, especially this time of the year with all the white nights right going on right now. But apart from some landmarks such as the city hall the architecture is not as exciting as Copenhagen, most of the residential quarters in the 19th ct downtown are quite dull IMO.
 
#9 ·
I'm biased of course but I really do love Stockholm. The combination of the natural setting and the buildings in the city center is just perfect.

I'm also very fond of Visby. I hear it's completely dead in winter, but in summer it's great. So historic and a perfect base to explore Gotland from.
 
#14 · (Edited)
No love for Oslo here? It ain't the most pretty but it had a really nice cosy feeling for me when I was there.

Stockholm has a beautiful old town - specifically gamla stan, but has the worst suburbs overall of the cities I have been to in the nordics. The inner city suffered a bit from the push for modernity as evidenced in lower Norrmalm. It also has the least attractive shopping area out of the big three capitals. However, it is the cleanest big city in Scandinavia and has possibly the best natural setting of all three. It also has the best transport network of all three.

Copenhagen I liked the architecture most, even moreso than Stockholm. I also liked the waterfront areas there most of all. Copenhagen had nicer suburbs than Stockholm by a long way. I also loved the bike infrastructure everywhere. I would also say it has the nicest parks of all three big cities. The downside to Copenhagen is that it is the dirtiest city of the three mentioned with a lot more litter than the others. The metro was also surprisingly grubby and the S-tog a graffitied mess. For it's size the public transport was a bit lacking compared to Oslo and Stockholm. That said it would possibly be my pick for favourite due to its vibe and architecture oh and the best shopping streets of all three - they were beautiful and very nice to walk.
 
#21 ·
No love for Oslo here?
I don't think it is particularly surprising as there are some ugly places in the central areas of the city that gives people a very bad first impression and sometimes visitors don't even leave these areas at all, leaving them with a overall bad impression too. And to be fair that the city is more disorganized probably makes it a worse city to visit as a tourist too.
 
#15 ·
I´m probably biassed but my vote goes for Copenhagen as well.

Even when visiting the boroughs of Vesterbro, Nørrebro, Østerbro Christianshavn and Amagerbro (and Frederiksberg for that matter you still get that urban vibe that you don´t get in any other danish town.
Downtown Aarhus is probably the only place that comes close.

I do realise that Nørrebro is not the nicest place to visit atm because of the ongoing gang war but its hopefully a temporary thing.


Oslo is the same as Aarhus, very little to see and do outside of the inner core at least that has been my experience.


Stockholm inner core feels bigger and probably is and if we only did a comparison of the city cores then I would give it to Stockholm instead but Copenhagen just have something more.
 
#16 ·
I love urbanity so just because of that (as i said above) it goes to Copenhagen, along with the vibe of the city which i love.

But i must say that i find Stockholm (atleast the inner city) to be more beautiful city with its surroundings, and the fact that it is built on islands. Also the old town of Stockholm is amazing and if i was a tourist from outside of the nordic region and wanted to see something special i would probably find Stockholms city-core more attractive.
 
#23 ·
Summer, summer summer.

There are white nights in Oslo/Stockholm/Helsinki (and reasonably bright in Copenhagen too). Walk around at midnight in June and it isn't dark outside but a blue tone around you. It really turns you manic if you've not experienced it before and requires dark blinds if you've got to get some sleep. Even if there's no heat when you're there the long day lights alone make it worth to be there honestly.


In winter there are darkness (~6 hrs of day at winter solstice in Oslo/Stockholm/Helsinki, ~7 hrs in Copenhagen) but it isn't so certain to see any snowcapped roofs around Christmas (heat islands and being close to the sea mean higher temperatures than surrounding non-urban landscape. It often snows there and rains in the city). The coldest time of the year are usually in early February and by then after a long period of darkness people are mostly looking towards springtime and warmth to return.


Spring is a rather drawn out affair (day light returns and increase for each passing day but it takes time for nature to get into full bloom, usually into mid-May. It's often not very warm most of the time either), autumns are insecure and volatile (so far it's been rainy and quite windy but not that cold, other years it can be everything from Indian summers to early snowfall and cold).
 
#26 ·
You can expect people to be on vacation from midsummer (the days around June 20-24 ) to early August. Many smaller shops and restaurants close for the period so it's worth to check up individual places if interest. From early August on many will return and in mid-late August schools start their new year.


Many leave the city for a cottage/vacation somewhere else. It doesn't affect the downtowns and touristic sites as much as the usual suburb and university cities though. Many will take a day into the city for a stroll etc. when not being outside of the metro area.


Mid May-mid September should be the best time for a visit in general (most day ligth hours and warmest weather ). Days above 30°C happen but seldom last more than a few days in a row though heat islands etc. have their local influence. Weather is unpredictable and moody like the rest of Northern Europe in general.


(One reason to obsess about day light is due to the fact there are no other great cities located above 59°-60° lat. The Nordic capitals and St Petersburg take the prize when it comes to million cities located as far to the north as possible on the globe ).
 
#28 · (Edited)
I love cities where raw nature is threaded between urbanity. It's such a beautiful, healthy and invigorating balance that very few cities strike. Stockholm is a great example because it's natural setting is so strong - rocks, outcrops, hills and pine forest. It's one of the few places I've been where human needs for nature and city can be met in one place.

- (tiny picture but and street-view landing will show you what I mean)

Bergen is stunning for similar reasons. Copenhagen is a fantastic city but it's built in a far less interesting natural setting, so nature is a lot less visible.
 
#29 ·
^^ The only downside to the mix is that you end up with quite long distances between places. It can take a long time to get around Stockholm given its geography despite an extensive (and pretty good) public transport system. They overbuilt motorways here and it makes the car generally a LOT faster than public transport. What takes 10 minutes to drive in the morning takes almost 45 minutes by public transport due to the inefficient way in which the city has been planned outside the older core.
 
#31 · (Edited)
For the moment, I only saw Stockholm last August, and the closest geographically located city I visited is Hamburg.
Stockholm surprised me, both in positive and negative.
In the positive: fantastic nature, anywhere with public transport you are never more than 20 minutes from a forest, subway itself is a great tourist attraction with its architecture and its artwork.
The level of the shops is very high (unfortunately also prices, especially for food, books and sportswear, on the contrary the best city in Europe to buy discs, surprisingly cheaper than in London, Paris or Berlin and with great assortment).
Great museums, places like Skansen and the cemetery in the woods (Skogskyrkogården) have been models for similar places in other countries.
In the negative: except for the subway, Gamla Stan and the elegant Vasastan, both Norrmalm and peripheral neighborhoods are surprisingly anonymous from the architectural point of view.
Also I did not expect so many shopping malls, and so few single-family houses.
In Hamburg there are many more single-family houses and they are much more beautiful, large and stylish, it is a much more residential city than Stockholm.
Another big difference between the two cities is public transport, as Hamburg is far more extensive than Stockholm, but they are almost the same as subway Kms and Hamburg completely eliminated trams in 1978 (Stockholm reduced them in 1967), so the subway network is inadequate and travel times higher than Stockholm. And there are many more graffiti and tags in Hamburg than in Stockholm.
The Hamburg cemetery (Ohlsdorf) is the largest in Europe and deserves UNESCO's recognition at least as much as Stockholm's Skogskyrkogården.
I hope to visit Helsinki next year, especially for the presence of two national parks near the city and Euro as a national currency, Copenhagen is more expensive, Oslo even more than Copenhagen and Bergen is too rainy.
 
#32 ·
Also I did not expect so many shopping malls, and so few single-family houses.
In Hamburg there are many more single-family houses and they are much more beautiful, large and stylish, it is a much more residential city than Stockholm.
Which residential neighborhoods did you visit? Stockholm is actually quite residential and sprawly. The really nice neighborhoods are primarily in the north-eastern suburbs.

It is true though that single family homes in cities were a marginal phenomenon until the 1960's, and middle class architecture is pretty humble in Sweden. It all goes back to the "egna hem"-movement of the 1920's and 30's in which working class and lower-middle class families got state backed loans to build small single family homes on land rented from the city. This set a precedent of simple, utilitarian architecture.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top