Ugliest and Most Beautiful Cities?

[NovaKart]

But it's the birthplace of the Jacksons.

 

[mitsho]

I think it has more to do with dirtiness and dullness. Those pictures of Charleroi fit both criteria perfectly. Modern, industrial, brick houses can be quite beautiful when paired with greenery.

Enough trees and some open space can redeem modern brick houses.

Well yeah, nature is good and beautiful, I get that. But still, "Beauty" isn't something we can define, is what I am saying. the Greyness can also be nice. Imagine low hanging clouds, rain and mist and even without greenery, it looks nice to me ;-) Like abandoned railtracks on a middle large "logistics" train station with the city looming dark behind, looks nice. I know of such a place and each summer, the best parties are held there... But of course, you're right, there's enough bushes that've overgrown the stuff, but still....

I guess you're right, greenery would make it look nice, but to some people, it can be nice as well... If you've seen the british tv series misfits, I absolutely love the feel of the "stone jungle" that the series is set in, although it would probably horribly to live there

I suppose it also has to do with the image Charleroi has in Belgium. It has a 30% unemployment rate and a skyrocketing crime rate, with drug and social problems rife throughout the city. The building style Charleroi has is very similar to that of most of Belgium, however, compared to an average Belgian town, Charleroi is of a much darker, greyer tone. The entire city vibrates this feel of poverty and abandonment, which is precisely what makes it so ugly.

I will say, though, that a lot of 60s era architecture is atrocious. I invite you to tour Claremont McKenna College. The buildings are the ugliest on the outside, but the most beautiful on the inside where it was up to the interior designers. The worst buildings on my campus are from that era as well. Especially that blight of a math building. Ugh.

Well that's just subjective liking and disliking. I always make fun of the people who got upset because the "landmark preservation" agency decided to put a building from the 60ies under historical protection. They thought it was ugly with all the concrete and yes, it probably is. Still, it's also a history worth remembering.

 

[JohnRM]

Ottawa, Canada was easily the most beautiful city. Newark, New Jersey was easily the ugliest.

 

[Truronian]

What makes it a city if it lacks suburbs and residential areas?

Its cathedral.

 

[bhsup]

What makes it a city if it lacks suburbs and residential areas?

Being 500+ in population at the time of incorporation. Otherwise, you're just a teenie little village.

 

[Hygro]

I think it has more to do with dirtiness and dullness. Those pictures of Charleroi fit both criteria perfectly. Modern, industrial, brick houses can be quite beautiful when paired with greenery.

or paired with beautiful metal factories

 

[Soufie77]

I didn't think London looked good. It was just so.... Grey and brown.

I do like going to London, and the parks are great, but walking around the streets, its absurdly grey. So grey in fact, I was not surprised when that was the main colour in the Mass Effect 3 trailer.

ugliest - London

Ugliest: London (too colourless)

Although I enjoy the occasional trip to London, the city certainly has it's share of depressing cityscapes, grey, old and worn down. No wonder the people living there need a pub at every street corner...

Maybe if you're describing the outer boroughs in London, such as Camden, Putney, Croydon or Hackney, but even these areas are nowhere near as horrible as the peripheral zones of other cities that compete with London in global city rankings.

When I last visited London, most of Central London looked like this:


Link to video.

 

[Camikaze]

Eh, I think grey pretty much describes most of the centre too. That doesn't mean that every single part of it is grey, and colour does indeed exist, but quite a high proportion is dull; more than in other cities.

Munich is also mostly really bleak.

But I went to Tirana and Pristina last year, and they put all other contenders to shame.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Sevastopol, Odessa. Doneck and Kyjiv on the other hand....

 

[Soufie77]

Eh, I think grey pretty much describes most of the centre too. That doesn't mean that every single part of it is grey, and colour does indeed exist, but quite a high proportion is dull; more than in other cities.

I'm not really convinced by this.

These are the neighborhoods/areas in Central London:

West End
Westminster and Whitehall
Kensington
Belgravia
Knightsbridge
Bloomsbury
Fitzrovia
Covent Garden
Chelsea
Mayfair
Marylebone
St James's
Victoria/Pimlico
Shoreditch
City of London (Financial District)
South Bank

One or two of these areas are gritty, dirty or ugly, but the rest fall into two groups:

(1) Beautiful palatial areas with plenty of green spaces, marble municipal buildings, neoclassical/baroque facades, courtyards and mansions.
(2) Elegant upscale neighborhoods; mixed commercial and residential zones with large stucco townhouses, luxury apartments and amenities.

There aren't many other cities in the world that have such a large proportion of their central zones specialized in this way.

The problem is that Central London neighborhoods are very exclusive, so they are rarely experienced by people outside of certain socio-economic brackets. I suspect this is one cause of London being misperceived as "ugly".

 

[Kyriakos]

^Some areas of London are great. Particularly around the two major parks (Hyde and that other one reserved as the periphery for the Royal leaches).

Keep in mind that much of London was obliterated in the WW2 bombardment. So many regions have mostly modern buildings, which often look ugly. And then you have anything below the Thames (and a bit away from Waterloo station) which in reality is in sub-sahara.

 

[Soufie77]

^Some areas of London are great. Particularly around the two major parks (Hyde and that other one reserved as the periphery for the Royal leaches).

Keep in mind that much of London was obliterated in the WW2 bombardment. So many regions have mostly modern buildings, which often look ugly. And then you have anything below the Thames (and a bit away from Waterloo station) which in reality is in sub-sahara.

Those "some areas" in London (the grand or manicured/upscale neighborhoods taken altogether) cover approximately the same geographic area as Manhattan!

I think people often fail to understand just how much of Central London is set aside as a gated community for the rich elite.

 

[Antilogic]

The "congestion tax" really nails that point home.

I didn't like London or Paris because the air was so dirty my snot was changing colors. Seriously, I thought I had a medical problem the first time I blew my nose in Europe. There was a lot to do, though, and good mass transit, so there are some redeeming factors.

Basel, Lucerne, and the other Swiss cities I visited--now those were nice places.

 

[Kyriakos]

Switzerland obviously looks that way due to not being in wars for aeons. Sweden apparently is a bit like that (what now is the country of Sweden; Stockholm surely was the cleanest and most museum-like city i ever visited).

 

[Antilogic]

It definitely helps. I've never been up to Scandinavia to compare, though.

 

[Fat Fingers]

Most of these were taken in Central London in early Spring, except the one of Aldwych.

Pretty indefensible nowadays to claim London is "ugly". Maybe back in 2010 when many of these complaints above were posted, London hadn't been streetscaped, and there was a bigger trash problem. Nowadays, with the city booming and developing at a frightening pace, it's probably the greatest open air theme park in the world for adults.

 

[Kyriakos]

I recognise most of the above areas, but they are (as was said) in the epicenter of London, and you would not expect Oxford--->Piccadilly circus or similar places to look ugly. Neither the (Kensington? near the Natural history museum?) apartments. Nothing in the pics above seems to be below the Thames, and (i think) not even outside of the 2nd zone (although one might be from northern London, where there is an artist-sector and so on).

Of course London still has a large area which looks amazing. It just is not really much of the overall city, which is huge.

 

[Fat Fingers]

I recognise most of the above areas, but they are (as was said) in the epicenter of London, and you would not expect Oxford--->Piccadilly circus or similar places to look ugly. Neither the (Kensington? near the Natural history museum?) apartments. Nothing in the pics above seems to be below the Thames, and (i think) not even outside of the 2nd zone (although one might be from northern London, where there is an artist-sector and so on).

Of course London still has a large area which looks amazing. It just is not really much of the overall city, which is huge.

When people talk about the beauty of Paris or the buzz of New York, they're clearly not talking about Les Banlieues or Staten Island. Why should we perceive London any differently?

When people talk about the sophistication and dynamism of London, they clearly mean central London, where the financial services, entertainment and fashion industries, foreign direct investment initiatives, luxury real estate, centers of commerce, tech/media/telecommunications infrastructure and highly specialized workforce are concentrated.

And it's not as if central London is tiny -- it represents a greater proportion of London's metro area than Manhattan compared to the NY metro region, or the 1st to 11th Arondissements compared to the rest of the Paris metro area.

I edited in this map to show what parts of London the pictures above represent (the solid green areas).

 

[Hygro]

Props for editing that map like that.

 

[Domen]

Sandomierz counts among beautiful small towns (25 thousand inhabitants):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandomierz

Some photos and a video:

Spoiler :

Link to video.

















House in which Jan Długosz lived:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Długosz