daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Architecture

Architecture news and discussions on all buildings types and urban spaces
» Classic Architecture | European Classic Architecture and Landscapes | Public Space | Shopping Architecture | Design & Lifestyle | Urban Renewal and Redevelopment



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old June 23rd, 2010, 08:23 AM   #81
bonivison
Registered User
 
bonivison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Beijing
Posts: 772
Likes (Received): 49

Prague Barcelona Paris London Lisbon Rome
bonivison no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old June 23rd, 2010, 07:47 PM   #82
Luli Pop
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,529
Likes (Received): 40

Barcelona really?

Besides it's not a capital, I'd never think it's between the most beautiful of Europe.

I love BCN and it's my favorite city worldwide, but I think many other cities and capital are much nicer.
Luli Pop no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2010, 07:56 PM   #83
Luli Pop
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,529
Likes (Received): 40

1. Paris
2. Paris
3. Prague
4. Prague
5. Rome, Lisbon, Budapest, Tallin, Riga
6. Madrid
7. Stockholm
8. caput
Luli Pop no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2010, 08:23 PM   #84
Castor_Game
Registered User
 
Castor_Game's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Ildefonso, Segovia
Posts: 7,906
Likes (Received): 21824

Quote:
Originally Posted by eallison9 View Post
If you're going that far why not Barcelona (Catalan) or Bilbao (Basque). Starts to be really splitting hairs at some point.
And Seville (Andalusia), Santiago (Galicia), Madrid (Madrid), Toledo (C-LM), Valladolid (CYL), Santander (Cantabria), Oviedo (Asturias), Mérida (Extremadura), Palma (Balearic Islands), Valencia (Valencia), Murcia (Murcia), Logroño (La Rioja), Santa Cruz & Las Palmas (Canary Islands), Zaragoza (Aragón) & Pamplona (Navarre). Ah, the basque capital is Vitoria/Gasteiz

Last edited by Castor_Game; June 23rd, 2010 at 08:27 PM. Reason: Correction
Castor_Game no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2010, 08:45 PM   #85
1772
Registered User
 
1772's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,573
Likes (Received): 1439

STOCKHOLM

Seriously, there isn't any other contender.
1772 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2010, 09:56 AM   #86
Botswana
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 266
Likes (Received): 30

1. Prague - Beautiful. One of the few cities in Europe that wasn't blown to shit in WW2
2. Paris - One of the most beautiful and elegant cities in the world. And one of my favorite cities.
3. Budapest - Amazing architecture.
4. Rome - It's a little dirty, but that adds character to the city. So much art and history. People who say it's overrated have no idea what they're talking about.
5. Vienna - One giant museum. Amazing palaces and squares.
6. Amsterdam - Love the canals, and I love the atmosphere.
7. Lisbon - Very underrated. So beautiful.
8. Tallinn - Also underrated. The old town is very well preserved and very pretty.
9. Bern - Much better than the ****hole known as Zurich. Very beautiful, especially in winter.
10. Stockholm - Gorgeous. Love the setting, and in winter the city looks like a fairy tale.

IMO, the ugliest European capitals

1. Chisinau - Ugliest city in Europe. Just awful. And depressing.
2. Pristina - I like to call it Pisstina. Yuck.
3. Tirana - Whoever designed some of the buildings in this city should be shot.
4. Oslo - Too expensive, and no old buildings. Just ugly boxes.
5. Berlin - An amazing city, which I love very much, but unfortunately the war and communism destroyed any beauty it once had.
6. Bucharest - Very sad that they destroyed the old town to build that ugly palace.
7. Sarajevo - Dirty. It could be beautiful if it were more well maintained.
8. Bratislava - The Slovaks got the bad end of the deal. The Czechs get Prague, and they get Bratislava. Poor Slovakia.
Botswana no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 27th, 2010, 04:37 PM   #87
dj4life
Registered User
 
dj4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: World
Posts: 24,279
Likes (Received): 48596

Stockholm. Been there, seen it and loved it. Now plan to move there.

Last edited by dj4life; June 27th, 2010 at 04:57 PM.
dj4life no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2010, 11:16 AM   #88
skysurfer26
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 341
Likes (Received): 1

Praga, Breslau, Danzig, Amsterdam, Barcelona, Roma
skysurfer26 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2010, 01:59 PM   #89
dexter26
BANNED
 
dexter26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 1,039
Likes (Received): 611

Quote:
Originally Posted by Botswana View Post
4. Oslo - Too expensive, and no old buildings. Just ugly boxes.
First of all let me say I'm not angry because you say that .
It's not so surprising and OK to me (I don't care).

However I don't agree. YES, Stockholm, Paris, London, Prague is more beautiful and YES, they have more historic buildings.

But first of all, I can't remember any capital with a location like Oslo (at the head/end of a fjord and surrounded by hills), secondly it's wrong we don't have any old buildings. We have the Akershus fortress which was started sometime in the 1300s (that's 700 years), we have the old city hall which was built in the last half of the 1600s, and of course some more.

I'd like to say also that why must one always compare cities? I wouldn't compare Pittsburgh, USA, with London/Paris/Prague either, as it's like two different worlds almost, the same could be said for Oslo. It's ALWAYS going to lose compared to historical cities with a big historical centre, so maybe a thought is to judge Oslo on its own premises instead of comparing? I think it's unfair to judge when Norway before the second world war was more or less always among the poor and less developed nations of western Europe. We started "blooming" and becoming rich in the 1970s. A consequence of this late bloom (where Sweden/Stockholm bloomed in the 1600s to 1800s) is what you see in Oslo today, a historical center that is not comparable to other European capitals. *But* it has a reason, actually!

I'm of almost the opposite opinion of yours, although I recognize that Oslo can't be compared with the great cities of Europe, I still think it's underrated anyway. Also if you know where to go etcetera, Oslo has a much more "happening" nitelife than most people think. Last but not least I believe Helsinki and Oslo are the two capitals of the Nordic with the most sun, on average.

Last edited by dexter26; June 28th, 2010 at 02:07 PM.
dexter26 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2010, 02:11 PM   #90
dj4life
Registered User
 
dj4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: World
Posts: 24,279
Likes (Received): 48596

Vilnius is hilly aswell, but, yes, there's no fjord near it.
Oslo is beautiful, too, however it lacks of an old town.

Last edited by dj4life; June 28th, 2010 at 02:41 PM.
dj4life no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2010, 02:54 PM   #91
dexter26
BANNED
 
dexter26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 1,039
Likes (Received): 611

Yeah, but I'm really sorry it's not to offend, but Vilnius can in no way be compared to Oslo.

We have our small "CBD" in the middle of the busiest parts of the city, right next to the central train station and the railway square. Vilnius "CBD" area looks like it's almost deserted in comparison. But your old town is way better than anything Oslos got, that I'll admit.

The thing is that Norway until sometime in the 1990s, was one of Europes most urban-hating countries. This is in my opinion one of the biggest reasons why Oslo is pretty unimpressive to many people. We never actually put the most resources into making our biggest city great, because of the hostility towards big cities in Norway. For instance, everyone and I mean EVERYONE was supposed to get out of Oslo in both winter and summer in the old times. Skiing in the winter, other travels in summer. It was seen as being almost a "loser" to spend your summer in the "grey, exhaust-filled streets of that ugly big city." Consequently, most people even hated Oslo and any big city in general. THIS is why Oslo for the longest times was never invested in, and was never something Norway was proud of.

I'll cut it short here, but the point is, Norway is the "otherworld country" or something like that, we are sort of not like the rest of the world. Where other European countries put the most effort and money into their capitals, Norways pride was in its nature and rural areas, and most people almost hated, or disliked, Oslo and often even the other bigger cities.

When people come here and compare Oslo to other BIG European capitals, I'm sorry but I almost get provoked by it. You know nothing of why things are like this, and yet you dare compare it to Paris which had the most money spent on it for hundreds of years, in France? There's just no comparison and it's honestly almost laughable to make such comparisons.

Oslo is a special case as it's the remote country Norway's capital, and internally in Norway, Oslo is more than three times bigger than the second biggest town in Norway, Bergen. So internally in Norway, Oslo almost IS New York or something like that, believe it or not. In an international sense, Oslo is little more than a village, though. But my point in mentioning that is that Oslo should rather sort of be compared internally, within Norway, and not internationally. Because there's just something unique and almost weird about Oslo, especially when you know a lot of the history and the details of the city, and have lived here for many years.

You discover that there's something about Oslo that makes it unique. But a tourist very well might never see this. Oslo seems to not be the greatest TOURIST city. But if you've lived here a good while it almost has some magical and very strange qualities at times. Both good and bad.
dexter26 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2010, 07:47 PM   #92
Botswana
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 266
Likes (Received): 30

I didn't mind Oslo as a city, but I just found it to be rather bland and boring. and quite ugly. I loved Bergen and Alesund though. But Oslo is probably the least impressive Western European capital city.

Bergen is probably the most beautiful city in Norway.
Botswana no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2010, 08:48 PM   #93
dexter26
BANNED
 
dexter26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 1,039
Likes (Received): 611

Quote:
Originally Posted by Botswana View Post
I didn't mind Oslo as a city, but I just found it to be rather bland and boring. and quite ugly. I loved Bergen and Alesund though. But Oslo is probably the least impressive Western European capital city.
No problem but I see this opinion all the time, from all sorts of people including Norwegians, and I suspect none of you spent long enough time here to really get to know the city. Some of what's interesting to see is actually not in the city center.

With that said, yes we don't mostly have "the most impressive" of anything, that's true. But I happen to like the way Oslo is being developed, while for instance Stockholm, which builds large square "boxes" because they're afraid of heights in their city (NIMBY), is not appealing to me. I like the way Oslo is developed in a seemingly random and "step by step" way without the large masterplans.
dexter26 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2010, 08:52 PM   #94
dj4life
Registered User
 
dj4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: World
Posts: 24,279
Likes (Received): 48596

Quote:
Originally Posted by dexter26 View Post
Yeah, but I'm really sorry it's not to offend, but Vilnius can in no way be compared to Oslo.

We have our small "CBD" in the middle of the busiest parts of the city, right next to the central train station and the railway square. Vilnius "CBD" area looks like it's almost deserted in comparison. But your old town is way better than anything Oslos got, that I'll admit.

The thing is that Norway until sometime in the 1990s, was one of Europes most urban-hating countries. This is in my opinion one of the biggest reasons why Oslo is pretty unimpressive to many people. We never actually put the most resources into making our biggest city great, because of the hostility towards big cities in Norway. For instance, everyone and I mean EVERYONE was supposed to get out of Oslo in both winter and summer in the old times. Skiing in the winter, other travels in summer. It was seen as being almost a "loser" to spend your summer in the "grey, exhaust-filled streets of that ugly big city." Consequently, most people even hated Oslo and any big city in general. THIS is why Oslo for the longest times was never invested in, and was never something Norway was proud of.

I'll cut it short here, but the point is, Norway is the "otherworld country" or something like that, we are sort of not like the rest of the world. Where other European countries put the most effort and money into their capitals, Norways pride was in its nature and rural areas, and most people almost hated, or disliked, Oslo and often even the other bigger cities.

When people come here and compare Oslo to other BIG European capitals, I'm sorry but I almost get provoked by it. You know nothing of why things are like this, and yet you dare compare it to Paris which had the most money spent on it for hundreds of years, in France? There's just no comparison and it's honestly almost laughable to make such comparisons.

Oslo is a special case as it's the remote country Norway's capital, and internally in Norway, Oslo is more than three times bigger than the second biggest town in Norway, Bergen. So internally in Norway, Oslo almost IS New York or something like that, believe it or not. In an international sense, Oslo is little more than a village, though. But my point in mentioning that is that Oslo should rather sort of be compared internally, within Norway, and not internationally. Because there's just something unique and almost weird about Oslo, especially when you know a lot of the history and the details of the city, and have lived here for many years.

You discover that there's something about Oslo that makes it unique. But a tourist very well might never see this. Oslo seems to not be the greatest TOURIST city. But if you've lived here a good while it almost has some magical and very strange qualities at times. Both good and bad.
I agree with you, Dexter26. Vilnius is nowhere as clean (well, it is, but less) and beautiful as Oslo is, however there still are some similarities, i.e. the town population (excluding Oslo metro pop.) and hilly landscape. The only advantage of Vilnius is that it has a big old town.
Oslo is beautiful and modern. Even if it doesn't have a big old town, there is a spectacular nature that surrounds the city and makes you like it even more.
If only Vilnius was like Oslo.. heh, we can only dream cheers from Klaipėda
dj4life no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2010, 08:58 PM   #95
dj4life
Registered User
 
dj4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: World
Posts: 24,279
Likes (Received): 48596

Quote:
Originally Posted by dexter26 View Post
No problem but I see this opinion all the time, from all sorts of people including Norwegians, and I suspect none of you spent long enough time here to really get to know the city. Some of what's interesting to see is actually not in the city center.

With that said, yes we don't mostly have "the most impressive" of anything, that's true. But I happen to like the way Oslo is being developed, while for instance Stockholm, which builds large square "boxes" because they're afraid of heights in their city (NIMBY), is not appealing to me. I like the way Oslo is developed in a seemingly random and "step by step" way without the large masterplans.
Well, yes, Oslo tries to develop a skyline, while Stockholm tends to modernise in a unique way. However, i wouldn't be so harsh and write that there are only boxes there as they build some nice scrapers (even taller than in Oslo) in Kista and some other places.
dj4life no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2010, 09:11 PM   #96
Škyliner ↔
Registered User
 
Škyliner ↔'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Nam Định - Vancity
Posts: 343
Likes (Received): 1

Paris
Škyliner ↔ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2010, 12:18 AM   #97
Haddington
Registered User
 
Haddington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 109
Likes (Received): 4

I think Edinburgh is worthy of a place in the top ten.
Haddington no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2010, 05:05 AM   #98
dexter26
BANNED
 
dexter26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 1,039
Likes (Received): 611

Quote:
Originally Posted by dj4life View Post
Well, yes, Oslo tries to develop a skyline, while Stockholm tends to modernise in a unique way. However, i wouldn't be so harsh and write that there are only boxes there as they build some nice scrapers (even taller than in Oslo) in Kista and some other places.
Okay maybe a bit harsh but i don't know how to explain it. Oslo is just unique in its own little "messy" way of city-planning, usually without such a strict masterplan, and lacking in things such as "grand avenues," esplanadas, etc., but personally I like it. Though I do realize a lot of the city is fairly ordinary and boring too, nothing too revolutionary. I won't deny that.

But it is fresh, it is (usually) clean, and life is for most people quite good... But anyway, back to topic.

Most beautiful European capital?
Yeah I guess Prague and Paris are quite good contenders, can't really imagine who can compete with them. Though I'm not really among the Paris or France lovers (too much). But can't deny the city has a lot of beauty.
dexter26 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2010, 05:05 AM   #99
artoor
Registered User
 
artoor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Warszawa/Jabłonna
Posts: 869
Likes (Received): 51

Praque is great and beats all to dust but Rome.
Rome is a superweight competitor with over 2 thousand years
history of classy architecture. No other city in Europe can match it.
Then Paris, Vienna, Madrid, Lisbon and Budapest.
The rest is of lower league.

Last edited by artoor; July 2nd, 2010 at 05:14 AM.
artoor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2010, 05:17 AM   #100
miami305
Registered User
 
miami305's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Today: Miami, Florida..moving back to Europe (Paris) in the future.
Posts: 1,503
Likes (Received): 988

Paris, France then Rome, Italy and I would have to add Madrid, Spain as well.
miami305 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium