Best preserved European city

[CigarSmoke]

Which European city would you say has the best preserved architecture with the least modern buildings?

[World 2 World]

Amsterdam

[tikiturf]

Originally Posted by CigarSmoke

Which European city would you say has the best preserved architecture with the least modern buildings?

Do you mean big city or any size of city? Because every big city has a lot of modern buildings.

[Fab87]

Plenty of cities in Italy. Venice and Siena above all. If you mean big cities (above 500k inh.), well Rome then.

[krnboy1009]

Stockholm?

[UnHavrais]

Bah Paris ! Pas de tours, pas de grands ensembles, tout en restant une grande capitale !

Bah Paris! No towers, no complexes, while remaining a big capital!

[tommolo]

it was completely rebuilt in XIX century, like the vast majority of capitals in france i would say carcassonne is very preserved

[UnHavrais]

Originally Posted by tommolo

it was completely rebuilt in XIX century, like the vast majority of capitals in france i would say carcassonne is very preserved

Mais cette reconstruction a été préservé depuis le XIXème siècle !


But this reconstruction is preserved since the XIX century !

[the spliff fairy]

1. In terms of sheer amount of old buildings, Paris.

2. In terms of preservation (as in you key in the age of the buildings as a factor, with the amount), medieval Prague? Venice?

3. In terms of how preserved they are, Prague - as many of Venice's old buildings are in a state of disrepair.

[tommolo]

ok if we want to talk about opinions, let's talk.

But if we want to talk about scientifical datas, they are completely accessible to everyone and Rome is by far the best preserved ancient city in the world with both number of buildings previous XVIII century (they are 50 thousands buildings more or less), their artistical value and the antiquity of buildings.

Some data: rome has an historical center of 70 square km, of which 15 square km are still enclosed in ancient roman walls and are UNESCO world heritage site with 5 criterias out of 6, that is to say by every criteria.

Bigger than rome it would be the historical city center of naples, with 17 square km listed as UNESCO world heritage site, but it is listed just with 2 criterias out of 5, compared to the 5/6 criterias of rome.

Other 5/6 criterias UNESCO world heritage sites in europe are smaller like Florence, with an UNESCO world heritage area of 5,05 square km. By terms of criterias, fairly wins Venice with 6/6 criteria, the very only in the world, and with an UNESCO world heritage site area of 5,16 square km. Siena and Prague only have 3/5 criterias, just to compare, and paris 3 criterias with 3,65 square km of UNESCO world heritage area listed.

This is to bring here some objective and scientifical data, but now there is room for opinions, that is to say, which one according to our taste is better preserved

Bye!

[Fab87]

One interesting question could be: what does preserved mean?

History erased some buildings and replaced them with other buildings. Cities do evolve as a consequence. Rome and Paris changed a lot trhoughout the centuries.

Furthermore, sometimes renovations ruin the original monument/building.The fact that some buildings don't have a fresh coat of paint on them doesn't mean automatically that Venice is "bad preserved", for istance.

And of course the age of monuments play a role. It is quite difficult to preserve a city like Rome. Nevertheless, data show that Rome is the city with the widest amount of old buildings from every century.

[tommolo]

Yes, that is an our age's problems: mcdonaldization made people has some problematic tastes, disregarding the historical values of actual ancient buildings: venice is beautiful also because of that! We should really improve our aesthetical taste if we want the world to move on and produce better aesthetical results. If you want clean and polite things, go to disneyland. If you want ancient things to learn something really, go to the ruined buildings.

[Mr Bricks]

Originally Posted by krnboy1009

Stockholm?

Not really.

[Fab87]

Originally Posted by tommolo

Yes, that is an our age's problems: mcdonaldization made people has some problematic tastes, disregarding the historical values of actual ancient buildings: venice is beautiful also because of that! We should really improve our aesthetical taste if we want the world to move on and produce better aesthetical results. If you want clean and polite things...

That's also the german-scandinavian taste. the fact is that in Venice the original colour of buildings is itself unique and worth preserving, even if it looks faded. These monuments are to be handled carefully.. They are studied and monitored by experts from universities.
Plus, if you look at a painting of Canaletto, the buildings would look exactly the same as now, old and decadent. And the same goes for other cities in other countries. Buildings don't look fresh and clean, sorry. If we want them this way now, are we preserving them, or are we adapting them to our current taste?

[tommolo]

yes, I respect and like very much northern taste, don't get me wrong...but a thing is when you go and see nothern town with their pretty colours and so on, another thing is when you go to venice and enjoy the beauty of the gritty past of times...they are just different kinds of beauty...in this period of course a temporary fashon tends to prefer the first choice, but we will not adapt our aesthetical values to a temporary fashon

[Botswana]

Prague, Vienna, St. Petersburg, Rome, Florence, Venice, Graz, Salzburg, Amsterdam, Paris, Granada, Lisbon, Bruges

Worst preserved:
Berlin, Kiev, Bucharest, Athens, Frankfurt, Dusseldorf, Rotterdam, Oslo, Milan

[Zabonz]

If you count smaller cities, it could be Dubrovnik, Croatia

[lebleuet]

Paris and Rome, without any doubt.

[DBadger]

Bath, England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath,_Somerset

[vittorio tauber]

Lucca within the walls is another arguable city.

It is virtually impossible for any city of 100K+ people to have survived the 19th-20th Centuries almost unscathed.