Amsterdam
1 - 20 of 81 Posts
it was completely rebuilt in XIX century, like the vast majority of capitals in france i would say carcassonne is very preserved
in france i would say carcassonne is very preserved
it was completely rebuilt in XIX century, like the vast majority of capitals
Mais cette reconstruction a été préservé depuis le XIXème siècle !
But this reconstruction is preserved since the XIX century !
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!
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!
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.
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
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.
![]()
It is virtually impossible for any city of 100K+ people to have survived the 19th-20th Centuries almost unscathed.
1 - 20 of 81 Posts
