# Your Dream City?



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Hauler said:


> Why ... why would anyone do something that evil?


Literally hundreds of cities the world over suffered similar fates. People back then considered that architecture to be ugly so they destroyed most of it. Our tastes are continually changing and now it's 60s and 70s office buildings that are considered ugly. We just haven't developed an appreciation for it yet and haven't learned from our mistakes.

The ironic thing is people today will argue that what we're destroying today *is ugly*, not realizing that 40 years from now people will be pointing the finger at us with the same puzzlement. Some of it isn't very good, but lots is just a victim of people's rush to make everything look current. Sometimes people should just leave things alone.


----------



## hqho1671 (Dec 15, 2012)

I want to live in any small city / big town


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

009 said:


> Rio De Janeiro could have been great if they didn't replace this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wrong as expected. Actually that's Avenida Rio Branco today:









Centro do Rio de Janeiro (downtown in Rio) by vladmir.avellar, on Flickr

From the distance:









It's Rio's CBD core. Most of cities in North America, South Africa and Oceania went through the same process, replacing XIX, early XX century buildings with office towers, or worse, parking lots.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


About the thread, to me London is the ultimate city. I wouldn't mind to live in Mayfair at all.


----------



## Rascar (Mar 13, 2012)

My ideal city would be a tropical port city, population about 2 million, with crumbling and evocative colonial architecture, a thriving arts scene, cheap standard of living, and a liberal attitude towards expatriate tax evasion, substance abuse and experimental sex.


----------



## 009 (Nov 28, 2007)

Rascar said:


> My ideal city would be a tropical port city, population about 2 million, with crumbling and evocative colonial architecture, a thriving arts scene, cheap standard of living, and a liberal attitude towards expatriate tax evasion, substance abuse and experimental sex.


welcome to salvador da bahia amigo


----------



## 009 (Nov 28, 2007)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> Wrong as expected. Actually that's Avenida Rio Branco today:


You clearly failed to understand the point, unlike everyone else.

Beautiful buildings were replaced with ugly boxes, your pic provides good evidence, thanks:cheers:


----------



## 009 (Nov 28, 2007)

hqho1671 said:


> I want to live in any small city / big town


about what size? also tell me some other characteristics


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

No. You chose a residential area of the city which was not even in Downtown. Rio Branco old buildings were replaced as they were located in a prime area of the city, right on the heart of CBD. As I said, this happened everywhere in the world. Ugly boxes or not, they house Rio's financial market, banking, public offices, and therefore, very important to the city's economy.


----------



## 009 (Nov 28, 2007)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> No. You chose a residential area of the city which was not even in Downtown. Rio Branco old buildings were replaced as they were located in a prime area of the city, right on the heart of CBD. As I said, *this happened everywhere in the world*. Ugly boxes or not, they house Rio's financial market, banking, public offices, and therefore, very important to the city's economy.


Look at Paris and La Defense, or Canary Wharf in London. A CBD doesn't have to mean destruction of a city's most beautiful buildings.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

^^
Look at any Downtown in North America, Oceania, South Africa and you'll see the same process. 

Europe actually did worse: they destroyed entire sections of their historical stock to replace them with dull modernist residential units. And WWII is not to blame only: their 1960's urban-planners did this awful job themselves. Just go to the British forum and look these before/after pics.

P.S. Avenida Rio Branco was built on the late XIX century, inspired by the Haussmann's Paris. Needless to say they've destroyed thousands of colonial Portuguese houses to build it.


----------



## KeanoManu (Mar 1, 2012)

It's so sad everytime it happens. Stockholm did it too. 

You're right that Europe may have done worse. So what? Does that mean that it's illegal to use a Brazilian city as example?

Note to 009: Never use anything from Brazil as example if it even remotely can be considered negative. You'll quickly end up in the center of a shit storm the size of an Saharan sand storm by butthurt people, no matter how minor the issue is.

---

The perfect city is entirely made of closed quarter blocks. Height ranging from 5-20 stories. Somewhere in that jungle there could be a concentrated area where heigher skyscrapers exists.

Apartments-in-a-park, or freestanding apartment buildings, should be completely banned.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

KeanoManu said:


> It's so sad everytime it happens. Stockholm did it too.
> 
> You're right that Europe may have done worse. So what? Does that mean that it's illegal to use a Brazilian city as example?


That's nothing to do with Brazil. The thing is, 009 is targeting the country in every single thread, no matter the subject. He always find a away to bring Brazil into the discussion in the worst light possible. It's texbook trolling and we've already brought this issue to the mods' attention. He's not that bad lately, I must say.




KeanoManu said:


> Note to 009: Never use anything from Brazil as example if it even remotely can be considered negative. You'll quickly end up in the center of a shit storm the size of an Saharan sand storm by butthurt people, no matter how minor the issue is.


I don't understand why forumers insist in this kind of disruptive posting. That's pure trolling.


----------



## 009 (Nov 28, 2007)

KeanoManu said:


> It's so sad everytime it happens. Stockholm did it too.
> 
> You're right that Europe may have done worse. So what? Does that mean that it's illegal to use a Brazilian city as example?
> 
> ...



:lol::lol::lol: I now realize talking about Brazil is off limits, insecurity and nationalism aren't a good combination



I agree with your idea of a perfect city, one with a fluent stream of activity and urbanity. The centres of almost any major European cities with a few minor tweaks are ideal. I think urban planners are finally starting to realize that car dependent sprawling cities, and the box in the middle of a giant lawn type of developments aren't the answer.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

^^
Why don't you try to post something leaving Brazil out of it? It musn't be that hard. 

If you want to keep obsessing with it, try at least to get the pictures right. It's almost like someone confusing Downtown NYC with the Upper West Side.


----------



## 009 (Nov 28, 2007)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> ^^
> Why don't you try to post something leaving Brazil out of it? It musn't be that hard.
> 
> If you want to keep obsessing with it, try at least to get the pictures right. It's almost like someone confusing Downtown NYC with the Upper West Side.


The picture was to show the type of buildings, not which street it was. No need to cry, everyone else understood it except for you


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

No, the picture shows bland residential buildings at Botafogo. Avenida Rio Branco is Downtown, full of office buildings, amongst the most important of the city. Completely different districts, with completely different functions.


----------



## 009 (Nov 28, 2007)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> No, the picture shows bland residential buildings at Botafogo. Avenida Rio Branco is Downtown, full of office buildings, amongst the most important of the city. Completely different districts, with completely different functions.


your pic shows ugly boxes, mine did too 

get over it


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

If you don't understand the distinction between the urban/social function of a CBD full of 30-40 floors office towers and a dense residential neighbourhood, you shouldn't even be in this forum.


----------



## 009 (Nov 28, 2007)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> If you don't understand the distinction between the urban/social function of a CBD full of 30-40 floors office towers and a dense residential neighbourhood, you shouldn't even be in this forum.


It has nothing to do with the function of the buildings, everyone else was smart enough to understand the point. I won't waste my time on you anymore,(don't bother replying) I'd rather talk to intelligent people who aren't just attempting to troll.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

009 said:


> It has nothing to do with the function of the buildings, everyone else was smart enough to understand the point. I won't waste my time on you anymore,(don't bother replying) I'd rather talk to intelligent people who aren't just attempting to troll.


Of course function is everything. For instance, few people would oppose the destruction of a two-floor art-nouveau building Downtown for the building of a 50-floor tower, which would bring thousands of jobs, keeping the whole district alive and thriving. On the other hand, to destroy the same building to make space for a parking lot would be unnaceptable.

But we all see what you're actually doing: you collected pics from unimportant residential buildings far away from Downtown, in the worst angle possible, just to keep going with your insistent Brazilian bashing in every single thread.


----------



## FAAN (Jun 24, 2011)

Well, some of the cities that I consider closer to what would be the "city of my dreams", are Sydney, Seattle and Vancouver, I definitely would love to live in these cities.

Sydney


Sydney Harbour Bridge by Sunset by -yury-, on Flickr

Seattle


Seattle - Kerry Park Skyline View by jim914109, on Flickr

Vancouver


The 9 O'Clock Gun, Vancouver by Alexis Birkill Photography, on Flickr

Some other cities if solve some problems also would be nice, just one example:

*Mexico City*, looks incredible for having a mild climate, a nice historic heritage and a awesome natural sorrounding. But has so many challenges ahead:

Less smog:


Smog over Mexico City por hannoflickr, no Flickr

More trees (seems suffocating)!!:


ah, the fresh air by Malingering, on Flickr

Less poverty:









http://www.buzzhunt.co.uk/2011/05/08/looks-like-somebody-lives-here/









http://www.flickr.com/photos/gato-ranch/4277379841/









http://www.flickr.com/photos/andreasnilsson1976/287955203/

Solve the traffic problems:









http://www.panoramio.com/photo/23219038

Less violence









http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/03/mexico-severed-heads_n_3543595.html

^^A city without things like this and some other problems, plus a nice people, good jobs opportunities, good urbanization, would make a city very liveable and even a city of dreams.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

My ideal city - Tokyo with more historical buildings, less motorways, more public services for lower income and homeless in the city, less overhead power lines and a higher domestic birth rate. That would be almost perfect for me.

YURI and 009 - continue this kind of argument via private message please. This thread could be interesting if it doesn't get derailed.


----------



## atmada (Jan 9, 2008)

My dream city: pedestrian friendly, well preserved historical buildings, less outdoor parking lot, more glassy towers, street arts, efficient in land use, mostly powered by renewable energy.


----------



## bolg (Aug 21, 2012)

A booming city less centered on cars and more on public transport. Somewhere in Africa (north of ZA) would be fun to try out.

For retirement: a quiet historic town with good hunting and fishing, somewhere in Germany like Stralsund, Freiburg or Görlitz.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

^ How about Colmar for your retirement?  Gorgeous well preserved historical town, better food, great region, and Strasbourg, Mulhouse, Basel, Freibourg, Zurich, Stuttgart etc in proximity. 

My dream city is maybe Amsterdam, shame I don't know the language and it sounds tough to learn.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

Not a city, but I find *Higienópolis*, an upmarket central district of São Paulo, almost perfect. It's São Paulo's Jewish district, quite big, comprising about 50 blocks, completely taken by 15-20 floors highrises. The streets are narrow, covered by a dense canopy of massive trees. And right in the middle of it, there's this huge shopping mall (305 stores, 6 cinemas), so not-intrusive that you barely notice it from the street. 

Google Street View:

https://maps.google.com.br/maps?q=h...S4_Ha1sUfEunf6nKEZWrhg&cbp=12,301.35,,0,-8.77

https://maps.google.com.br/maps?q=h...d=OWFIz4mB8S66fcDF54To1w&cbp=12,67.08,,0,-6.4

https://maps.google.com.br/maps?q=h...=wfg_So62_35AcxkrpbNnrQ&cbp=12,193.89,,0,1.55

https://maps.google.com.br/maps?q=h...=hUEM0UpGShGcfib7R-vjhA&cbp=12,196.95,,0,0.37

https://maps.google.com.br/maps?q=h...qGuJOg61myMm8acJ0NEARQ&cbp=12,316.56,,0,-3.65


----------



## KeanoManu (Mar 1, 2012)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> Not a city, but I find *Higienópolis*, an upmarket central district of São Paulo, almost perfect. It's São Paulo's Jewish district, quite big, comprising about 50 blocks, completely taken by 15-20 floors highrises. The streets are narrow, covered by a dense canopy of massive trees. And right in the middle of it, there's this huge shopping mall (305 stores, 6 cinemas), so not-intrusive that you barely notice it from the street.
> 
> Google Street View:
> 
> ...


To be honest, that's almost the worst type of urban planning. Everything is too private. The buildings are far from the road and surrounded by empty spaces and fences. It's some sort of urban "apartment-in-a-park". That's exactly why I usually don't like the look of South American cities (Buenos Aires seems to be an exception to this).

Sure, there are much people in the area, but the area itself is not appealing. They should demolish the fences and construct proper city-blocks all the way out to the street.

And before you complain about some anti-Brazilism or whatever. This seem to be the trend all over the world, and have been for quite some time. I hate 90% of all construction that has taken place in Sweden for the last 60 years. Fortunately, we have some great cores from before that time.

Height is not everything. When I was in Downtown Houston it felt much less urban than random European mid-sized city. Even though it were skyscrapers and a city of several million people. Problem was that the skyscrapers were confined to just a few blocks and then it were open spaces everywhere. It's much better (in my opinion) to build medium height but denser and for a larger area. Like the centers of most European cities or some of the larger cities in Northeastern United States. Unfortunately even those places has stopped to build like that and instead nowadays go with either outright suburban or the type of development visible in Higienopolis.

Maybe the trend is slowly starting to change though. Los Angeles, the mother of car-centered suburbia, seem to be getting much, much more urban and denser in a rapid pace. Even the previously mentioned Houston seem to have plenty of on-going projects aimed at making the city more like a city and less suburban.

But of course, everyone have a different opinion. However, it is a discussion forum so...


----------



## Brazilian001 (Apr 22, 2012)

KeanoManu said:


> To be honest, that's almost the worst type of urban planning. Everything is too private. The buildings are far from the road and surrounded by empty spaces and fences. It's some sort of urban "apartment-in-a-park". That's exactly why I usually don't like the look of South American cities (Buenos Aires seems to be an exception to this).


I also don't really like this kind of urban planning. Here are some examples in Rio that flee this "apartment-in-a-park" pattern.

https://maps.google.com/?ll=-22.96518,-43.174853&spn=0.006233,0.009645&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=-22.965223,-43.176729&panoid=FwzlU5cjbawQ9fNOinb_uA&cbp=12,13.93,,0,-1.41

https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=pt-BR&ll=-22.983701,-43.218863&spn=0.003116,0.004823&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=-22.983691,-43.218731&panoid=U4Lp-UV-L5VswIiiLS_uJg&cbp=12,235.55,,0,0.8

https://maps.google.com/?ll=-22.984348,-43.201364&spn=0.003116,0.004823&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=-22.984339,-43.202564&panoid=cgj6UaUBgtezggl1-ParYw&cbp=12,105.14,,0,0.37

https://maps.google.com/?ll=-22.984452,-43.199739&spn=0.003116,0.004823&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=-22.984442,-43.200907&panoid=5bL3vwb3UpndiMjCQ9bC5A&cbp=12,98.26,,0,2


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

KeanoManu said:


> To be honest, that's almost the worst type of urban planning. Everything is too private. The buildings are far from the road and surrounded by empty spaces and fences. It's some sort of urban "apartment-in-a-park". That's exactly why I usually don't like the look of South American cities (Buenos Aires seems to be an exception to this).


Apartment-in-a-park?!?!?! Are you sure you checked it right? The neighbourhood is hyper-dense (over 20,000 inh./km²). Unless you're calling two-three meters of garden in front of the buildings "park". You can't get any denser than that, unless you're talking Hong Kong here.




KeanoManu said:


> Sure, there are much people in the area, but the area itself is not appealing. They should demolish the fences and construct proper city-blocks all the way out to the street.


What about London black fences? Should they get rid of them as well? I mean, they don't change a bit the walkability of Higienópolis, which is for me one of its most desirable features. 




KeanoManu said:


> And before you complain about some anti-Brazilism or whatever. This seem to be the trend all over the world, and have been for quite some time. I hate 90% of all construction that has taken place in Sweden for the last 60 years. Fortunately, we have some great cores from before that time.


Most of Higienópolis buildings are from the 1960-1970's. They're bland. But to me, that changes nothing: a hyper-dense neighbourhood, full of trees with a massive non-intrusive shopping mall in the heart of it. That makes it almost perfect. 




KeanoManu said:


> Height is not everything. When I was in Downtown Houston it felt much less urban than random European mid-sized city. Even though it were skyscrapers and a city of several million people. Problem was that the skyscrapers were confined to just a few blocks and then it were open spaces everywhere. It's much better (in my opinion) to build medium height but denser and for a larger area. Like the centers of most European cities or some of the larger cities in Northeastern United States. Unfortunately even those places has stopped to build like that and instead nowadays go with either outright suburban or the type of development visible in Higienopolis.


Downtown Houston has nothing to do with Higienópolis. It's full of wide streets, parking lots and lacks of trees and pedestrian-activity. Completely different places.




KeanoManu said:


> Maybe the trend is slowly starting to change though. Los Angeles, the mother of car-centered suburbia, seem to be getting much, much more urban and denser in a rapid pace. Even the previously mentioned Houston seem to have plenty of on-going projects aimed at making the city more like a city and less suburban.


I guess we'll have to wait decades (or centuries) before Los Angeles to get a neighbourhood as dense and pedestrian-friendly as Higienópolis.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

An aerial view of São Paulo's expanded-centre with Higienópolis circled in red:



Clearly someone has a very weird definition of apartment-in-a-park.


----------



## KeanoManu (Mar 1, 2012)

As I said: Height isn't everything. The areas you showed of Higienopolis were really bad at street level. The area may have a high population density but the buildings are still private with low interaction with the street.

I didn't call them apartment-in-a-park neither. I said that they are some sort of urban version of that horrendous development type. Which is exactly my whole point.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

^^
Well, it's an upmarket mostly residential neighbourhood. Of course buildings wouldn't be open for everybody. As if pass-byers on Knightsbridge or Upper East Side could interact with the residential buildings there.

The point is, the neighbourhood is alive, full of people on the streets and you can do everything on foot, be for shopping for clothing or go to a nice restaurant or enjoy a movie or attending a college. That has NOTHING to do with the apartment-in-a-park concept.

It's exactly what every urbanist would expect from a well-functioning neighbourhood.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> Not a city, but I find *Higienópolis*, an upmarket central district of São Paulo, almost perfect. It's São Paulo's Jewish district, quite big, comprising about 50 blocks, completely taken by 15-20 floors highrises. The streets are narrow, covered by a dense canopy of massive trees. And right in the middle of it, there's this huge shopping mall (305 stores, 6 cinemas), so not-intrusive that you barely notice it from the street.
> 
> Google Street View:
> 
> ...


I like this, it's tight, friendly, well-kept. There are areas of communist Bucharest which have the same urbanism but the result is so, so dreadful. But I think it's a mistake to post it in an "ideal city" thread and I'm not surprised by the reactions - especially as the fact that it's a residential area is not completely clear because you said it's central.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

^^
I mentioned Higienópolis as it's a kind of urban environment I like, which is exactly the question the thread posed. And as I said, it's not only one thing or two, but the whole package: density, trees, walkability, narrow-streets, retail, central location and the fact you can have almost everything you might need in a three block radius.


----------



## 009 (Nov 28, 2007)

brazilian001 said:


> I also don't really like this kind of urban planning. Here are some examples in Rio that flee this "apartment-in-a-park" pattern.
> 
> https://maps.google.com/?ll=-22.96518,-43.174853&spn=0.006233,0.009645&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=-22.965223,-43.176729&panoid=FwzlU5cjbawQ9fNOinb_uA&cbp=12,13.93,,0,-1.41
> 
> ...


I have a friend who lives exactly where your first link is


----------



## Brazilian001 (Apr 22, 2012)

009 said:


> I have a friend who lives exactly where your first link is


What a coincidence!


----------



## 009 (Nov 28, 2007)

KeanoManu said:


> To be honest, that's almost the worst type of urban planning


Agreed, you couldn't pay me enough to live somewhere like that :lol:


----------



## nick.english.dept (Jul 13, 2012)

That is absolutely tragic what man does to his environment. And of course the politicians that agree to building tasteless high rise boxes! Imagine living in a city that looked like this in comparison to the city below. Heck, even a child with building blocks can design and build a better looking city. But in the name of progress shall I say....the destruction of cities is something that is familiar the world over. After seeing pictures such as these below I have often wished that Elisha Otis had never invented the damn elevator! hno:


009 said:


> Rio De Janeiro could have been great if they didn't replace this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## FAAN (Jun 24, 2011)

^^Do you know how those areas look like at street level? I doubt :|

1st pic:














































2nd pic:





































I don't know if it's the most perfect thing, but is definitely pretty livable.


----------



## 009 (Nov 28, 2007)

FAAN said:


> ^^Do you know how those areas look like at street level? I doubt :|
> 
> 1st pic:
> 
> ...


 That doesn't look very livable at all. I see no activity whatsoever, or any mixed use developments where those boring, sterile 80s style ugly apartment blocks are


----------



## FAAN (Jun 24, 2011)

Oh no, here you are again. Only one data for you.

HDI

1st pic: 0,952
2nd pic: 0,962

BTW, the first neighborhood isn't residential, and the second is one of the most expensive of Latin America, many people would like to live there.


----------



## Brazilian001 (Apr 22, 2012)

FAAN said:


> Oh no, here you are again. Only one data for you.


I just don't understand, why doesn't he move on? What an obsession!



FAAN said:


> and the second is one of the most expensive of Latin America, many people would like to live there.


You're so right FAAN, what a pleasant and livable neighborhood Ipanema is! These particular spots in the streets you chose are mostly residential, but just some meters away there are a lot of restaurants, shops, bars etc, apart from the beach.


----------



## null (Dec 11, 2002)

This pic is just incredible!!!


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

^^ Where exactly is it? It looks a little like Athens!


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

I believe it is the outskirts of Mexico city.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

My dream city would start with a historical core at the center of the city. Here you have nice old buildings and a more traditional and "chaotic" pattern of very narrow streets. That area, which is maybe 2km² big and houses 50,000 people and many small and traditional shops is surrounded by a band of parks and a ring road where once the city walls were.

A bit more outward would be the areas with Victorian/Gründerzeit/Haussmannian buildings with their boulevards similar to Paris. Where once industrial areas were, there are now skyscraper clusters. After this there comes a second beltway. 

Surrounding these areas is the modern city. I imagine it like Tokyo. A sea of midrises criss-crossed by these fancy urban motorways and skyscraper clusters at every major subway station.


----------



## whisperingbudding (Nov 19, 2013)

i would love to visit newyork city!!


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

A city that I find almost perfect is *Pittsburgh* (at least from the aesthetics as I don't know how it works from the dweller perspective). The very compact skyline, the rivers, the bridges, the hills, the old and unique architecture, it's unreal.


----------



## Sniper (Jan 28, 2003)

I think in the future the Earth could have only 50-100 giant cities (with 100mi population each one) in cilmate/geological stable regions.

Gargantuan residential skyscrapers luxury condos (200+ floors) will pop everywhere, with giant parks between them.

The most used transport system obviously will be elevators in buildings, followed by trains/trams connecting everywhere, door-to-door. No more traffic jams. Personal cars won't exist, but collective cars would be readily available if someone wants to go shopping or dinner. By the way, a network of automatic freight will be available.

Around ten airports will surrond each city, with direct flights to other cities. ET3/hyperloop technology will eventually eliminate the need to fly.

Energy wouldn't be a problem (thanks to geothermal energy and H-fusion), hence dense vertical farming will be a fact. Goodbye to rural and urban separation, everything will be produced locally. And nature will claim its taken areas used for agriculture.

Also, thanks to increasing automation and 3D printing, every city will have a complete and clean industrial zone. The goal is to create totally sustainable cities (growing its own food and producing everything needed). Raw materials will be transported to the cities, and only a few finished products will be traded globally.

Besides, recycling and environment protection will have a much greater space in the economy. Near 100% of disposed stuff shall be recycled, thanks to new materials.


----------



## Reality7 (Jul 13, 2013)

That is one of the most disgusting destruction's of grand neo classical architecture I have seen anywhere. Absolutely appalling.





009 said:


> Rio De Janeiro could have been great if they didn't replace this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## FAAN (Jun 24, 2011)

Oh Gosh, how many times we will need to say that those pictures aren't in the same place? :cripes:


----------



## 009 (Nov 28, 2007)

Here is the same avenue today

Av. Rio Branco - Rio de Janeiro by nlimonge, on Flickr


----------



## FAAN (Jun 24, 2011)

Yes! 

Today is one of the most beautiful avenues of Downtown Rio (one of the largest CDB of Latin America), a vibrant area, with a incredible mix of pedestrian friendly areas, modern buildings, old buildings, cultural activities, restaurants, museums, parks, squares, stores, etc :cheers:

Some pics of Rio Branco Avenue:


----------



## Reality7 (Jul 13, 2013)

I have been down this street a few times a couple of times on foot and more times taking the bus from Galeao airport to Dumont. I would never use the word *beautiful * to describe it. It is certainly not a very pleasant street, very noisy and abrasive to the senses. Ugly. Compared to what was there before, it is an absolute disaster even if they saved a handful of the old buildings out of the 100s they pulled down. I simply never knew what had be destroyed there before 009 posted that incredible picture, which I am grateful for.

Rio was simply an exceptional city back then. Truly a competitor to Buenos Aries. Extremely sad what they did to this street.


----------



## FAAN (Jun 24, 2011)

The pics "speak" for themselves and *trolls* should not be fed.

Google Street View is available to everyone who want to see:

https://maps.google.com.br/maps?q=A...hnear=Av.+Rio+Branco,+Rio+de+Janeiro&t=m&z=17


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Please everyone, can we treat dissenting views as such. It is unproductive to call each other trolls if we hold different views. Aesthetics and beauty are such subjective terms in general and as such it is unsurprising that what is beautiful to one, is not to another. I find Tokyo beautiful in its own way, yet many do not care for the architecture and "organised chaos" that is a Japanese city. Equally, not everyone cares for the clinical beauty of Scandinavian cities, which I also enjoy. 

Variety is the spice of life and all.


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

What are so "clinical" about Scandinavian cities in general? Both Copenhagen and especially Oslo are actually rather gritty. Same goes for many other cities in the region.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Galro said:


> What are so "clinical" about Scandinavian cities in general? Both Copenhagen and especially Oslo are actually rather gritty. Same goes for many other cities in the region.


Okay, my bad, perhaps I should say Swedish cities given most of them are a bit clinical and dull to the outsider (at least compared to more colourful places I've visited). 

I was just making a point (as moderator in this case) that we should keep a better tone in the thread in a friendly manner.


----------



## QuantumX (Mar 19, 2008)

I can't really say that I have a dream city, but in Hong Kong, I like the way the skyline and the topography of the city come together. It has the kind of juxtaposition of mountains and skyscrapers that I really like. 



JuanPaulo said:


> Kowloon Peninsula, Hong Kong by williamchu, on Flickr


----------



## 009 (Nov 28, 2007)

Hong Kong is truly a fascinating city


----------

