# Best preserved European city



## CigarSmoke (Apr 24, 2012)

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


----------



## World 2 World (Nov 3, 2006)

Amsterdam


----------



## tikiturf (May 20, 2011)

CigarSmoke said:


> 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 (Jul 16, 2008)

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


----------



## krnboy1009 (Aug 9, 2011)

Stockholm?


----------



## UnHavrais (Sep 19, 2010)

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 (Mar 25, 2008)

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


----------



## UnHavrais (Sep 19, 2010)

tommolo said:


> 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 (Oct 21, 2002)

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 (Mar 25, 2008)

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 (Jul 16, 2008)

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 (Mar 25, 2008)

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 (May 6, 2005)

krnboy1009 said:


> Stockholm?


Not really.


----------



## Fab87 (Jul 16, 2008)

tommolo said:


> 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 (Mar 25, 2008)

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 (Aug 29, 2009)

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 (Feb 5, 2007)

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


----------



## lebleuet (Feb 22, 2011)

Paris and Rome, without any doubt.


----------



## DBadger (Mar 27, 2012)

Bath, England.

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


----------



## vittorio tauber (Jul 30, 2008)

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.


----------



## tommolo (Mar 25, 2008)

^^ that's the difference between 5 criterias and 6 criterias...the missing criteria for Rome is the sourronding area, that has grew in XX century as in other metropolis. Even considering that fact, Rome's density and volume of historical buildings is unmatched in the world: more than 41 thousands historical buildings pre-XIX century inside the UNESCO area, thousands of XIX-early XX century classical buildings, other 10 thousand rural historical buildings, comprising 11 castles, more than 500 ancient churches, thousands of Palaces and Villas, a 14 km-long ancient roman walls, the medieval walls enclosing vatican city, acquaeducts, other 25 thousands archaelogical monumental sites and millions of paintings, statues and artistical goods...but on the other side you have a city that has exactly remained like that for centuries, without almost any intervention at all and sourronded from a Lagoon of 5000 square km  Venice is a jewel without a doubt and it is the least "touched" of european cities, as Unesco and scietifical literature certified


----------



## italiano_pellicano (Feb 22, 2010)

for sure is in italy


----------



## skymantle (Jul 17, 2010)

tommolo said:


> ^^ happy stereotype day everyone!
> You don't know what you are talking about...see this whole thread, then you get a vague idea of how big the historical center of naples is...
> 
> http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1506400


 Naples is one of the most historic cities in Europe and the world no doubt, potentially very beautiful with much of its built heritage still intact. However, in the commonly accepted view of the word 'preservation', it is not very well-preserved because it is so run-down. It has many socio-economic problems and this is reflected in the poor state of preservation of the urban fabric, quite evident with crumbling edifices, rampant graffiti, poorly maintained infrastructure and wate-management (which severely affects the urban environment) etc etc. and according to northern Italians, this unfortunately is due to the systemic corruption, non-law-abiding and generally careless mentality of Neapolitans and southern Italains in general, although I personally don't like to generalise, even if there is some truth in that claim.


----------



## tommolo (Mar 25, 2008)

It may be in this specific (and temporal) conjunction not so well kept or maintained, but its heritage is really intact in an extraordinary degree...I don't wanna say naples is perfect, but sometimes very soon you'll be amazed by this city, really...give it a go, c'mon! 

And I am northern italian withouth any southern family roots, but I really think this city is sooo underrated, it has so much to give to us all...until XIX it was a huge metropolis, it gave us some of the finest food and some of the finest operas and poetries...please stand up for naples, I beg you as a personal favour, the city do needs it and we all will be paid back in having this gorgeous city back in the Alpha city club! 
Here's my public plea to you all to try to consider the city in a different way, to see it as a fully legitimate member of this club of best preserved cities of europe. It is a small sign, but an important one.

And I don't like the differentiations between northern italians and southern italians, we're one, north south, east west, problems begins when we think that we're better just because we have different coordinates. The only coordinates that counts are temporal coordinates, the coordinates of Change, of a time that can only go forward.
We as a country are one, please criticise us or love us, but criticise us or love us as one.

simul stabimus, simul cadimus.

Sorry for the rant, mates, Cicero's spirit possessed me!


----------



## skymantle (Jul 17, 2010)

^^ Uhm, please don't take any criticism personally, and yes I do luv Napoli. A great historic city with much character and beauty. Neapolitan people, their food, music, culture etc is prolific too. I feel an affinity to Neapolitan culture and people as many of my friends trace their ancestry to the region. 

What I have stated stems from my own visit there as well as what other Italians often point out, and as much as you'd like to consider Italy as 'one and non-divisable', there does exist a palpable divide (economic, social, mind-set) between the north and south of Italy, perpetuated by Italians themselves. This is very real, and anyone who knows a modicum about Italy's 'condition' would be aware of that divide.


----------



## tommolo (Mar 25, 2008)

of course there is, and it saddens me a lot...but do not let the circumstances ruin the opinion you have of this most vibrant city. Those problems started in the last century or so, and so they are very recent in a 3000 years old cultural humus, and they will be soon to be resolved, I'm sure! 
Naples is the best preserved city because it is the very only city that remained like cities were in XIX-XVIII century...it is an historical testify of the very only city that can tell us something about how to live in those eras would have seemed like, including some of the problems of those times...
I like that city, and I find its grittiness, its unpolished beauty and its truthness as a value that more maked up cities can only dream to achieve...
Considered sub specie aeternitatis, Naples would clearly fit in here (now why am I countinuously talking in latin?? Better go to sleep!  )


----------



## Victor.besa (Jan 8, 2011)

Do not get me wrong tommolo i think Napoli is a beatiful city, although i think it is not as preserved as other city´s that have been to, such as toledo in Spain or Bruges. And let me tell you a real funny story, I got hit by a carabinieri police car, and the two carabinieri got very angry to me when it was their fault (the hit me when i was crossing in the middle of the street) and they wanted to arrest me with NO REASON!!!! Sorry i would not say that is safe. I´m mexican we hove some (a lot probably) problems ourselfs but i did not feel safe in Naples.

Changing the subject i also notice that firenze´s buildings were in a good state, the floor is horribly conservated.

If you come to México, San miguel de allende is a well preserved mexican city


----------



## tommolo (Mar 25, 2008)

I'm sorry for what happened to you in Naples, I'm sure that sometimes very soon will regain its natural place in the top 5 cities in the world in terms of beauty and attractiveness, a result that now might be seen as very hard to achieve, but that the city has held for the vast majority of its history and until XIX century, and that I think I've demonstrated the city fully deserves in terms of architectural, historical, archeological and artistical heritage.

That said, will be merry not just for our little country but for europe and may I say for the whole world the day in which we all will take conscience and may fully appreciate the beauty of the city of naples! 

p.d.: what do you mean with Florence's streets are horrible? I don't think so...The Firenze's street are still the same they were in middle ages, so they are obviously a little bit "damaged"...but that's the price for having a 6 centuries old street 

Gracias por tus consejos, me encantaria visitar Mexico, a ver si algun dia tarde o temprano lograre visitarlo! Gracias amigo!


----------



## ledeled (Jan 15, 2008)

Eddard Stark said:


> San Petersburg has been totally built in 18-19 century, I would not consider it that old and original. Besides it has been bombed and rebuilt after II WW
> 
> Paris survived unscathed (almost) the IIWW but itself has been completely rebuilt in 19th century...I don't think an industrial-age building has the same value of a medieval one. Paris is extremely beautiful but not - in its urban fabric - extremely old
> 
> they are these two I think among the worst examples you could make


What an ignorance - St. Petersburg was not destroyed during WWII - and it is one of the most well preserved historical cities of the world (yes - of XVIII-XIX centuries, wonderful period) with historical center substantially larger than that of Rome.


----------



## ledeled (Jan 15, 2008)

Eddard Stark said:


> I don't think an industrial-age building has the same value of a medieval one.


What sort of value? Artistic / aesthetical value has nothing to do with age; Material value - also has nothing to do with age; historical value is based on the role that a particular building has played in history and with the events associated with that building - once again it is not related to age solely.

And that is precisely why St. Petersburg while not as old as some other places still has great historical value - in 3 centuries it saw more than many other cities saw in millenia.


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Jan 13, 2012)

Many Transylvanian cities are well preserved because they're perched on hillsides, away from highways and demolition crews. Many medieval buildings have inhabitants today, and, besides a few new coats of paint, parts of the cities are entirely unchanged from 500 years ago.

Sighisoara

















Brasov:









Sibiu








And there are many more...


----------



## Victor.besa (Jan 8, 2011)

WOW!!!! where is that


----------



## Copperknickers (May 15, 2011)

Obviously suburbs don't stop a city from being preserved, if the centre is the same as it used to be. 

Paris would be a candidate, except I don't remember seeing a 300m high iron tower dominating its skyline in most mediaeval pictures, nor a large mechano box sitting in the middle of it. 

Venice is very well preserved, apart from a few modern infrastructure buildings it is pretty much the same as it was 500 years ago. Indeed, the lack of cars puts it pretty much above any other city in the world, except a few other Italian and Romanian ones. 

Edinburgh? Really? First of all they built the old town on top of the actual medieval settlement, it's pretty much the only place in Scotland where there is no real medieval structure there. Secondly, that hideous parliament building at the bottom of the royal mile relegates it. I mentioned the Eiffel tower before, but even that is just a small shack in comparison.


----------



## Gabovzla (Feb 29, 2012)

ThatOneGuy said:


> Many Transylvanian cities are well preserved because they're perched on hillsides, away from highways and demolition crews. Many medieval buildings have inhabitants today, and, besides a few new coats of paint, parts of the cities are entirely unchanged from 500 years ago.
> 
> Sighisoara
> 
> ...


Great pics!


----------



## vittorio tauber (Jul 30, 2008)

tikiturf said:


> Nice comparison, London and Paris are world cities and have a big metropolitan area (more than 12 million) and you compare them with Naples, which has a metropolitan area of 3 million people ?? :nuts: If you compare it to a city with the same size that would probably be fair.


So what? Those cities' numbers differ from Naples(4mil. People) but not in a scale of say tenfold or more, so a comparison makes a sense.


> There are no ghettos in London or Paris metropolitan areas, get the definition of this word, and btw "banlieues" just means "suburbs" in French so if I understand you, every suburbs of Paris are dangerous.....


No you don't.

I don't need to get any definiton. if you were less pointlessly arrogant you would probably catch the use of those words in the context and regardless french may look like quite a recessive language people abroad do know what banlieue means, of course an average smart guy understands "those kind of banlieues" - and please waste less stupid smileys, that won't make you more convincing.

Anyway - If you think Paris Or London metropolitan areas are safer than Naples' one, notwithstanding mafia, you can post the source. Is that so hurting to you to read the opposite? I can't help it.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Those pics are from Romania - I loved my trip to Sighisoara, real fairy tale country of ancient woods and mountains all around.

My nominee would be Siena - no cars allowed. Venice too for obvious reasons - in terms of preservation, not having modern roads and vehicles counts for ALOT imo.


























Th famous Palio, hundreds of years pf tradition in one dangerous race


----------



## CHLayson (May 29, 2012)

rome.


----------



## thecap73 (Feb 26, 2011)

ledeled said:


> What an ignorance - St. Petersburg was not destroyed during WWII - and it is one of the most well preserved historical cities of the world (yes - of XVIII-XIX centuries, wonderful period) with historical center substantially larger than that of Rome.


Quite an aggressive way to support an extremely wrong information."leningrad" was largely destroyed by the germans during "the siege of leningrad"or "leningrad blockade", that lasted from 8th of september 1941 to 27th of jan 1944.Wikipedia refers to it as one of the longest and most destructive sieges in history.
Better know the subject of the conversation before exposing oneself so much,don't you agree?


----------



## VitMos (Sep 17, 2011)

thecap73 said:


> Quite an aggressive way to support an extremely wrong information."leningrad" was largely destroyed by the germans during "the siege of leningrad"or "leningrad blockade", that lasted from 8th of september 1941 to 27th of jan 1944.Wikipedia refers to it as one of the longest and most destructive sieges in history.
> Better know the subject of the conversation before exposing oneself so much,don't you agree?


destructions were only on city suburbs, but all historical buildings and palaces were restored.


----------



## alekssa1 (Jan 29, 2009)

thecap73 said:


> Quite an aggressive way to support an extremely wrong information."leningrad" was largely destroyed by the germans during "the siege of leningrad"or "leningrad blockade", that lasted from 8th of september 1941 to 27th of jan 1944.Wikipedia refers to it as one of the longest and most destructive sieges in history.
> Better know the subject of the conversation before exposing oneself so much,don't you agree?


LOL, I guess it is you whose information is an extremely wrong. Sorry. And VitMos says right about suburban palaces that were damaged but restored


----------

