# Top 10 Ugliest Cities in the World



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

^^ It's not just American-Bashing because if you didn't realize other cities from latin-America, the middle East, Africa and Eastern Europe have also been "bashed", but you don't care since you are so inflated in your nationalist ego.

This idiotic list is just bashing, not "American-bashing".


----------



## Motul (Nov 8, 2003)

Honestly, all 10 cities should be African "city slums"... Lagos, Brazzavile, Dar es Salaam, also Port Au Prince in Haiti, just to name a few.

Those cities mentioned in the list are ACTUAL cities, and not just huge slums..


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

^^ Sad that you (Motul) reproduce with Africans the colonial complex some Americans or Europeans have towards you (South-Americans) ...


----------



## Motul (Nov 8, 2003)

I think it's way closer to reality to think this way about African cities than about south American cities, regardless of European or "developed" mentality. Anyone with an ounce of general culture would concur.

Numbers are all. Simply comparing GDP per capita and poverty rates of south American cities vs African cities and you really have a world of a difference (larger than the difference that separates european cities from south American cities).. The only country that boasts cities comparable to the big cities in south America is South Africa, albeit with even worse social issues.

I'm not saying any lies, it's just incredible to me that 4 latin American cities are included in that list when they honestly have no business there.


----------



## koolio (Jan 5, 2008)

eklips said:


> ^^ Sad that you (Motul) reproduce with Africans the colonial complex some Americans or Europeans have towards you (South-Americans) ...


Agreed. This is unfortunately quite a common phenomenon. For example, in India, Africa is looked down upon even though some places in India have poverty rivaling that of Sub-Saharan Africa.


----------



## koolio (Jan 5, 2008)

Motul said:


> I think it's way closer to reality to think this way about African cities than south American cities, regardless of European or "developed" mentality.
> 
> Numbers are all. Simply comparing GDP per capita and poverty rates or south American cities vs African cities and you really have a world of a difference (larger than the difference that separates european cities from south American cities).. The only country that boasts cities comparable to the big cities in south America is South Africa, albeit with even worse social issues.
> 
> I'm not saying any lies, it's just incredible to me that 4 latin American cities are included in that list when they honestly have no business there.


This list was about aesthetic looks, not GDP per capita. It is sad that you automatically associate low GDP with ugliness, sight un-seen. Not to mention that even going by GDP per capita, countries like Libya are actually richer than most of South America, yet I still saw someone mention Tripoli in this list simply because it is in Africa.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

eklips said:


> ^^ It's not just American-Bashing because if you didn't realize other cities from latin-America, the middle East, Africa and Eastern Europe have also been "bashed", but you don't care since you are so inflated in your nationalist ego.
> 
> This idiotic list is just bashing, not "American-bashing".


I wouldn't call this list any kind of bashing. Just idiotic. And the fact that they included those particular 3 American cities is merely a testament to that. Even a city like Houston has some visually redeeming qualities. There are hundreds of cities in the world that have none.


----------



## Motul (Nov 8, 2003)

Only 2 or 3 African countries have higher GDPs per capita than the average south American country.

And yes it's important because this goes hand in hand with infrastructure, a country/city with higher GDP will obviously have better infrastructure and will hence be better looking than cities made up primarily by squatters on one side and gated communities on the other where the affluent few live. That's the reality in cities like Lagos and many other African mega cities.

Sao Paulo, Caracas, and Mexico City all have GDP per capita higher than $12,000 and a vibrant middle class (practically inexistent in Africa).


----------



## musiccity (Jan 5, 2011)

eklips said:


> ^^ It's not just American-Bashing because if you didn't realize other cities from latin-America, the middle East, Africa and Eastern Europe have also been "bashed", but you don't care since you are so inflated in your nationalist ego.
> 
> This idiotic list is just bashing, not "American-bashing".


This post is from a European, in particular a frenchmen.. how surprising.


Of course a Western European would love this list, it bashes American cities while no Western European cities made the cut.


I wonder where the person who wrote this article is from?


----------



## Fern (Dec 3, 2004)

musiccity said:


> Of course a Western European would love this list, it bashes American cities while no Western European cities made the cut.


If you'd visited Western Europe you wouldn't be writing that.. Definitely the most beautiful cities you'll ever have the pleasure of visiting! Canadian and Australian cities seem quite nice as well. As for the US you have San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, NYC and so forth on the most beautiful list.. so there's nothing to be ashamed of..


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

musiccity said:


> Where are the Western European/Canadian/Australian cities?
> 
> 
> hmm...


usually topping the liveability lists...


----------



## royal rose1 (Oct 4, 2009)

eklips said:


> ^^ It's not just American-Bashing because if you didn't realize other cities from latin-America, the middle East, Africa and Eastern Europe have also been "bashed", *but you don't care since you are so inflated in your nationalist ego.*
> 
> This idiotic list is just bashing, not "American-bashing".


How about you stop name calling! You French and Western Europeans in general are so pretentious.


----------



## royal rose1 (Oct 4, 2009)

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> usually topping the liveability lists...


That's irrelevant when it comes to "ugliness"


----------



## koolio (Jan 5, 2008)

I don't think the list is some sort of joint anti-American propaganda created by a conglomerate of Canada/European/Australian/Russian bloggers. I don't know about Western Europe but what Canadian city would be fit to be called amongst the ugliest cities in the world? Vancouver? Montreal? Toronto? Same with Australia. What major city can be considered ugly? Sydney? Melbourne? There are definitely some ugly small towns here but those might be too small to be considered. 

It is, however, a very weird list. Probably little to no research done and they just put together every American city that is considered extremely run-down by American standard onto the top 10 without giving it much thought.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

koolio said:


> I don't think the list is some sort of joint anti-American propaganda created by a conglomerate of Canada/European/Australian/Russian bloggers. I don't know about Western Europe but what Canadian city would be fit to be called amongst the ugliest cities in the world? Vancouver? Montreal? Toronto? Same with Australia. What major city can be considered ugly? Sydney? Melbourne? There are definitely some ugly small towns here but those might be too small to be considered.
> 
> It is, however, a very weird list. Probably little to no research done and they just put together every American city that is considered extremely run-down by American standard onto the top 10 without giving it much thought.


Lol... So you think that Winnipeg or Edmonton or Hamilton are more beautiful (or less ugly) than Los Angeles? Funny guy.


----------



## koolio (Jan 5, 2008)

Fitzrovian said:


> Lol... So you think that Winnipeg or Edmonton or Hamilton are more beautiful (or less ugly) than Los Angeles? Funny guy.


Winnipeg, Edmonton or Hamilton are major cities?


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

koolio said:


> Winnipeg, Edmonton or Hamilton are major cities?


What are they, according to you, small towns then? What is this a list of 5m+ metro areas only? Then what the heck is that city in Moldova doing on that list?


----------



## master-chivas (Oct 31, 2011)

LOL this thread died from the first post... it's actually a zombie doing no good at all


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

royal rose1 said:


> That's irrelevant when it comes to "ugliness"


then feel free to name some of our ugly major cities.


----------



## musiccity (Jan 5, 2011)

This forum really needs to be moderated better, this is basically the American bash forum.

Probably half or more of the threads here outright bash the US and I never see threads getting closed.


----------



## koolio (Jan 5, 2008)

Fitzrovian said:


> What are they, according to you, small towns then? What is this a list of 5m+ metro areas only? Then what the heck is that city in Moldova doing on that list?


I don't know. Did I create the list? But quite obviously most of the cities listed in that top 10 are major urban centres, not sub 1m pop areas. If they were including cities of all sizes, I'm sure the US would still have more places that can be considered ugly compared to Canada and Western Europe (if the definition of ugly is car dependent, grid based urban centres, which is what that list seems to imply).


----------



## royal rose1 (Oct 4, 2009)

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> then feel free to name some of our ugly major cities.


Well, since you have 1 and a half major cities it might be hard haha. But Canberra isn't beautiful, Darwin is about the same as LA if you want to consider it a major city, and the same goes for Adelaide. 

My point is LA isn't ugly by any means, why's it on the list?


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> then feel free to name some of our ugly major cities.


What is your definition of "major"? It seems our Canadian friend over here thinks that no city smaller than 5m should even be considered for this list. That means that none of your cities even qualify for consideration. That's a bit of an unfair criteria then, don't you think?


----------



## koolio (Jan 5, 2008)

musiccity said:


> This forum really needs to be moderated better, this is basically the American bash forum.
> 
> Probably half or more of the threads here outright bash the US and I never see threads getting closed.


No one is bashing the US. It just so happens that America is amongst the biggest countries in the world, hence it will naturally have more of everything (including ugliness) just like it also has a lot of beautiful cities (like San Fran, Boston, Charleston, Honolulu, Seattle etc). I think some American and expats of other countries based in the US need to grow a thicker skin. 

Not to mention that everyone agrees that the list is stupid ... but some people won't be satisfied until the list is equally as stupid to every country :nuts:


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

koolio said:


> I don't know. Did I create the list? But quite obviously most of the cities listed in that top 10 are major urban centres, not sub 1m pop areas. If they were including cities of all sizes, I'm sure the US would still have more places that can be considered ugly compared to Canada and Western Europe (if the definition of ugly is car dependent, grid based urban centres, which is what that list seems to imply).


First of all car dependency has zero to do with ugliness. Can we please agree on that? What is this imbecilic obsession with car dependency no matter what topic is being discussed. Anyone who thinks that LA, taken as a whole, is "ugly" is either blind or stupid.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Fitzrovian said:


> Spot on. Los Angeles ugly? Yes, it is not the most pedestrian friendly place. So what? It's got some of the most stunning urban scenery in the world -- mountains, ocean and lots of nice architecture. This list is BS.


Agree. The fact it is one of the most favorable major cities to visit and live. 

The author like to criticize LA due to its *image* of a car centric city. But compared to other US cities there are lots of places in the city worth exploring on foot. 

Plus there is also the problem of public transportation but it is organized in many ways.


----------



## megacity30 (Oct 8, 2011)

*Kwong, give objective data- otherwise, this thread is laughable prejudice*

Before making such highly biased statements as that made by the ucity guides.com website, this website and the creator of this thread should have provided at least a couple of objective points.

What is beautiful to you, Kwong, or this website, may be quite unattractive and ugly to many other people. What is "ugly".
Give me the name of *any *city in the world, and I can guarantee there are rundown neighborhoods and pollution. Architecture, urban morphology of cities, infrastructure of neighborhoods and market areas are influenced by culture and local aesthetics. 

Only five of the ten cities named in this post (and the website) have a picture. What happened to the other five- couldn't they find an ugly picture?!!

I don't live in any one of the cities mentioned by you, but when I saw the pictures posted, they made me laugh hard... really?? Those are ugly pics!! 
The Sao Paulo photo has been smudged out- why? Too modern and huge?


Travel more... 
To make this a meaningful thread, please do better than the website you've linked to. :bash:

Give something, anything, to make it more objective.

By the way, where do you live, Kwong?



kwong said:


> 1 |
> http://www.ucityguides.com/cities/10-ugliest-cities-in-the-world.html


----------



## Bronxwood (Feb 7, 2010)

I could not disagree enough! Mexico City has nothing to see? How absurd, it's almost comical! It has fabulous historic center with buildings dating as far back as 1500's. There are Aztec pyramids, the Xochimilco canals, an actual castle with stunning views, beautiful neighborhoods with stunning colonial, baroque and art deco architecture (condesa, roma, coyoacan and san angel).

If anything Sao Paulo should be number 2. That I can at least believe to be a seriously ugly city with practically nothing to offer besides maybe shopping and dinning. No historic core, no architecturally significant neighborhoods or areas, no sense of history; bland. Yet somehow it's less mediocre than Mexico City, a true world class city that offers so many things to do. I call bullshit.


----------



## kam4rade (Dec 6, 2007)

Mexico City one of the ugliest? You must be kidding, take a look arround MXSCRAPERS!!!


----------



## Motul (Nov 8, 2003)

There are way better pictures than those.. But yeah.


----------



## Turbosnail (Dec 8, 2004)

This all subjective. There's no correct list for ugliness and it doesn't mean a city is necessarily uninteresting.


----------



## Orange Alert! (Jul 12, 2010)

royal rose1 said:


> How about you stop name calling! You French and Western Europeans in general are so pretentious.


The irony of this post is incredible.


----------



## kwong (Aug 16, 2011)

I don't see the point of knowing where I live in...




megacity30 said:


> Before making such highly biased statements as that made by the ucity guides.com website, this website and the creator of this thread should have provided at least a couple of objective points.
> 
> What is beautiful to you, Kwong, or this website, may be quite unattractive and ugly to many other people. What is "ugly".
> Give me the name of *any *city in the world, and I can guarantee there are rundown neighborhoods and pollution. Architecture, urban morphology of cities, infrastructure of neighborhoods and market areas are influenced by culture and local aesthetics.
> ...


----------



## kwong (Aug 16, 2011)

koolio said:


> This list was about aesthetic looks, not GDP per capita. It is sad that you automatically associate low GDP with ugliness, sight un-seen. Not to mention that even going by GDP per capita, countries like Libya are actually richer than most of South America, yet I still saw someone mention Tripoli in this list simply because it is in Africa.


couldn't agree more


----------



## kwong (Aug 16, 2011)

eklips said:


> ^^ Sad that you (Motul) reproduce with Africans the colonial complex some Americans or Europeans have towards you (South-Americans) ...


+10000000000000


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre (Aug 3, 2003)

This thread is way too funny to be serious. Nearly all of the posts made me smirk.


----------



## Gobbo (Jul 26, 2007)

I think that putting Los Angeles and Mexico City on this list is probably a little wrong. Not that they are very beautiful cities, but probably they are not so bad either. But both have too much crime, that´s true. Mexico City still has some nice historical building and Los Angeles, despite of evident social problems, still have some nice areas, at least that´s my impression.

I was in Tunis in Tunesia in 1982. Yes many many years ago, I know. But Tunis is by far the most ugly city I have ever visited. Poverty everywhere, and begging kids and women everywhere...but okay, it´s 30 years ago, maybe it´s better today.

But I am sure that you will find a lot of cities in Africa, in the Middle Eeast or also in Eeastern Europe or in China that are much more ugly than the cities on this list....


----------



## Federicoft (Sep 26, 2005)

musiccity said:


> This post is from a European, in particular a frenchmen.. how surprising.
> 
> 
> Of course a Western European would love this list, it bashes American cities while no Western European cities made the cut.
> ...


Spot on, it has to be socialist european propaganda against the mighty US!


----------



## Disturbing Reality (Mar 28, 2011)

eklips said:


> ^^ It's not just American-Bashing because if you didn't realize other cities from latin-America, the middle East, Africa and Eastern Europe have also been "bashed", but you don't care since you are so inflated in your nationalist ego.
> 
> This idiotic list is just bashing, not "American-bashing".


if you didn't realize it yet, this list is truly anti-american propaganda sugar-coated with other beautiful cities from other continents.. hno:

i mean, c'mon, i'd rather live in about 8 out of 10 cities in that list than in countless other cities out there!hno:


----------



## Disturbing Reality (Mar 28, 2011)

koolio said:


> This list was about aesthetic looks, not GDP per capita. It is sad that you automatically associate low GDP with ugliness, sight un-seen. Not to mention that even going by GDP per capita, countries like Libya are actually richer than most of South America, *yet I still saw someone mention Tripoli in this list simply because it is in Africa.*


i did mention tripoli.. but not because of its GDP or economic standing, but because it is a physically unattractive war-torn dangerous city right now! it might not be the ugliest for a lot of people, but c'mon, there's no way that it's prettier than LA or Mexico City! and i didn't mention it just because it is in africa.. i did mention only two cities, and both are physically unattractive war-torn cities! and i'm not making another list, i am just citing examples of cities UGLIER than LA, Mexico, Sao Paulo, that many wouldn't even consider in their list of top ten ugliest!


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

musiccity said:


> This post is from a European, in particular a frenchmen.. how surprising.
> 
> 
> Of course a Western European would love this list, it bashes American cities while no Western European cities made the cut.
> ...


Yes, I must be a communist muslim frenchman who hates freedom!




Motul said:


> Only 2 or 3 African countries have higher GDPs per capita than the average south American country.
> 
> And yes it's important because this goes hand in hand with infrastructure, a country/city with higher GDP will obviously have better infrastructure and will hence be better looking than cities made up primarily by squatters on one side and gated communities on the other where the affluent few live. That's the reality in cities like Lagos and many other African mega cities.
> 
> Sao Paulo, Caracas, and Mexico City all have GDP per capita higher than $12,000 and a vibrant middle class (practically inexistent in Africa).



^^ This list is not about the value of 'production' in a given country (GDP) but the aesthetic value of cities. Your idea that 'richer' somehow means 'better' is also a testament of how you are reproducing the colonial complexes some people have towards you. 

Your argument about inequality is also not valid since latin-America is the most unequal region in the world and inequality is actually a frequently used argument by Europeans and Americans to look down on the region. Hey I remember in my geography books in school as a kid that world inequalities were illustrated by that famous photo of the Heliopolis favela in Sao Paulo next to luxurious buildings. 

Anyways, wealth is not necessarily correlated with aesthetic qualities. For example I actually find most latin-American cities (including their slums) most aesthetically pleasing than lots of wealthier ones in post-soviet central or eastern Europe. I also am not a fan of the small US towns at all, even if they might be wealthy.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

eklips said:


> I also am not a fan of the small US towns at all, even if they might be wealthy.


You don't say! I am shocked to hear that.


----------



## Ribarca (Jan 28, 2005)

What a nonsense list. Mexico City has a lot more heritage than most metropolises in the world.

All large cities have more ugly parts than beautiful parts even the worshipped European cities. I was shocked the first time I arrived in London in City airport. But all large cities have wastelands. Some just hide them better than others.


----------



## briker (Aug 21, 2008)

Houston & Los Angeles, REALLY? :lol:


----------



## Motul (Nov 8, 2003)

eklips said:


> Yes, I must be a communist muslim frenchman who hates freedom!
> 
> ^^ This list is not about the value of 'production' in a given country (GDP) but the aesthetic value of cities. Your idea that 'richer' somehow means 'better' is also a testament of how you are reproducing the colonial complexes some people have towards you.
> 
> ...




Although it's true that that Latin America unequal, this is rapidly improving with millions of people entering middle class every year.

Even so, these cities already have a solid middle class, the fact that they are unequal in wealth distribution doesn't change that, it simply means there's an extremely affluent few and a (non extremely) poor segment of society as well. Like I already said, there's also a majority middle class in most cases.

There's parks and meeting spots where people from all segments of society meet, there's subway systems everyone uses, etc.. Unlike some cities in other places of the world that might not be considered so unequal simply because 95% of the population is miserable. :crazy:

When I mentioned wealth relating it to aesthetic qualities I was referring to infrastructure. A city with proper infrastructure will be more appealing than a city without it. This is why this top 10 should be comprised of MOSTLY African and South Asian cities.


----------



## Gobbo (Jul 26, 2007)

briker said:


> Houston & Los Angeles, REALLY? :lol:


I would say no...

Of course there are a lot of more beautiful cities, also in the USA. But saying that Houston and LA are ugly is a little exaggerated in my opinion.


----------



## Motul (Nov 8, 2003)

*Mexico City:*





























*Guatemala City:*











*Caracas:*











*Sao Paulo:*


----------



## Indeleble (Feb 21, 2009)

:|


----------



## L3CK33R (Oct 9, 2011)

why isn't Athens,Greece in this thread?


----------



## KOTIKKEAN (Apr 21, 2011)

To be honest, most of the post-Soviet cities are really ugly. They built up with komibloks. But there are even more ugly cities ... in Pakistan, Egypt, India, Africa... On their background post-Soviet cities seem not to be so terrible:lol:

http://tema.ru/travel/pakistan-3/
http://tema.ru/travel/pakistan-2/
http://tema.ru/travel/ethiopia-2/
http://tema.ru/travel/bangladesh-1/

and many other...:sad2:

Sure it was foolishly to write that Mexico city, LA, Houston or Sao Paulo are ugly cities.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

L3CK33R said:


> why isn't Athens,Greece in this thread?


I think the thing with athens is that the ugliness is rather overshadowed by the fact that you can see a stunning ancient relic from so many quarters, and the hills surrounding the city add a certain drama too.

The later buildings though...what a mess. Istanbul is very similar.


For ugly, UK cities on the whole buck the trend for European cities being attractive. Most don't even have an attractive historic centre.


----------



## CarltonHill (Dec 11, 2011)

Dhaka is uglier than LA, Detroit, Mexico City and most of the top10.

--wrong list.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

Rev Stickleback said:


> I think the thing with athens is that the ugliness is rather overshadowed by the fact that you can see a stunning ancient relic from so many quarters, and the hills surrounding the city add a certain drama too.
> 
> The later buildings though...what a mess. Istanbul is very similar.
> 
> ...


Good point. If we are talking about "ugly" shouldn't places like Coventry and Middlesbrough lead the pack?


----------



## Jundiaiense da Silva (Aug 14, 2008)

Sao Paulo, what an ugly place!










Anyway, not kidding, I also loved the ugliness of Ammann










Really, I like it. It's a kind of homogeneous diversity.

PS.: This 'fight' among U.S. and europeans is simply laughable :lol:


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Fitzrovian said:


> Good point. If we are talking about "ugly" shouldn't places like Coventry and Middlesbrough lead the pack?


Or Cumbernauld.


----------



## koolio (Jan 5, 2008)

After looking over that list again, I agree that Mexico City was placed there unfairly. There are plenty of large cities within Mexico that are just plain ugly. For example, if car dependency and blandness of the urban form is an issue, then certainly Monterrey would fit the bill, much like Houston and the likes. Although I do love the city, there is no denying that it is fairly bland with little to no historical architecture.


----------



## FuMan (Nov 26, 2011)

I don't think Athens deserves to be on the list. Something about it is quite nice to me (aside from the ancient monuments).


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

koolio said:


> After looking over that list again, I agree that Mexico City was placed there unfairly. There are plenty of large cities within Mexico that are just plain ugly. For example, if car dependency and blandness of the urban form is an issue, then certainly Monterrey would fit the bill, much like Houston and the likes. Although I do love the city, there is no denying that it is fairly bland with little to no historical architecture.


 
Las Vegas also has "little to no historical architecture". Is it ugly too?

Who anointed historical architecture (good!) and car dependency (bad!) as the sole barometers of what makes a city beautiful or ugly?


----------



## Skyprince (May 2, 2006)

among all major cities I've visited, Cairo is the worst-looking city I've seen, full of decaying and very poorly-maintained office buildings & apartments.


----------



## koolio (Jan 5, 2008)

Fitzrovian said:


> Las Vegas also has "little to no historical architecture". Is it ugly too?
> 
> Who anointed historical architecture (good!) and car dependency (bad!) as the sole barometers of what makes a city beautiful or ugly?


Yes and yes.


----------

