# Europes capital of nasty suburbs?



## Peshu (Jan 12, 2005)

Well Europe has a historical tradition that is possibly impossible to match.But boy did i see some horrible suburbs in the outskirts of many major cities.I.e badly planned,crime,grafitti etc....The type of suburbs of which i have never seen in Canada.So which major capital do you think has more of these ugly suburbs?


----------



## Peshu (Jan 12, 2005)

London and Moscow did it for me.Madrid had some pretty ugly suburbs as well.


----------



## Lostboy (Sep 14, 2002)

Some of the suburbs of Naples aren't too nice either. Mind you in a lot of the big cities were you find your very worst, you also find your very best.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

London has very nice suburbs, its inner city (the borders of the central districts) is the one that needs smartening up imo, especially south London.


----------



## Ewok71 (Jan 27, 2005)

Paris!!!


----------



## Accura4Matalan (Jan 7, 2004)

Léon has awful suburbs, but a great city centre. Same goes for Rouen and London.
Geneva is the only very big European city I've been to where all the suburbs looked presentable.


----------



## Dreamer (Oct 24, 2003)

Im sure there are a few that are dodgy


----------



## Sitback (Nov 1, 2004)

GLASGOW!!!!!!!!


----------



## Peshu (Jan 12, 2005)

Don't get me wrong Europes cities are generally incredible.Be it Paris,Rome,Madrid,London etc.....But many of these have one thing in common.Some very ugly suburbs that have nothing to do with the cities monumental grandeur.I also know that they have some beautiful suburbs on the outskirts as well.


----------



## Guest (Apr 2, 2005)

Most suburbs are rather lush. I think you're referring to out-of-town council estates. Now they really suck. :no:


----------



## PuNjAbI RoHaN (Apr 2, 2005)

west london.....graffittis make it look like astho its some kinda gang area of new york lol


----------



## eXSBass (Oct 9, 2004)

PuNjAbI RoHaN said:


> west london.....graffittis make it look like astho its some kinda gang area of new york lol


I beg your pardon Pujabi paji, tejo ik mint (wait a minute)

We have as bad as gangs, if not far worse gangs than NYC!

Just few of very a very long list:-
- Yardies
- Triads
- Bethnal Green Boys
- Hackney Mafia
- Tamil Tigers
- Chavs
- East London's Finest
- Asian Virus

Et cetra! You see, NYC as well as other cities have thier fair share of crime!


----------



## beta29 (Sep 30, 2004)

EAST-BERLIN:, Graffiti everywhere, vandalism, drug dealers, homeless people, many outlandish people(Russian,Jugoslavian people), cheap to live, commieblocks.... Don't try it in the evening or in the night, I know what I say. Because I live in East-Berlin.
___________
Elagu Eesti


----------



## Joris Goedhart (Jan 20, 2004)

Amsterdam - Bijlmer... Don't need to say more.


----------



## TeKnO_Lx (Oct 19, 2004)

Lisbon has some realy nasty suburbs too


----------



## DoctorZero2 (Mar 2, 2005)

Berlincity said:


> EAST-BERLIN:, Graffiti everywhere, vandalism, drug dealers, homeless people, many outlandish people(Russian,Jugoslavian people), cheap to live, commieblocks.... Don't try it in the evening or in the night, I know what I say. Because I live in East-Berlin.


Eastern Berlin has its share of ugly parts, but it's fairly well kept, ok some spots may be run-down, but it's no big deal, just compare it to 15 years ago. It may feel desolate and the people may not look very invitingly but they are mostly harmless. Just would love to see them learn to use some deodorant from time to time. I dread using buses in the summer, the odours can become almost life-threatening. :dizzy:


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

Paris suburbs are the same, cheaply built commie blocks from the 50's to the 70's to house poor immigrant workers and people made homeless by the war, logically ghettos start to form and violence errupts


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 28, 2004)

Accura_Preston said:


> Geneva is the only very big European city I've been to where all the suburbs looked presentable.


Like this (Cite du Lignon) ?


----------



## Dreamer (Oct 24, 2003)

West London? are you mad, where houses go for £1 mill plus, mmmm yer right


----------



## eomer (Nov 15, 2003)

Paris without doubs


----------



## Peshu (Jan 12, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> Like this (Cite du Lignon) ?



Dude.THat's ugly.


----------



## plondder (Mar 31, 2005)

Paris has some awful suburbs...but I think those you encounter in Amsterdam and some German cities ( Frankfurt,Düsseldorf,Munich) are scond to none!

By the way,have you ever seen the nice "suburbs" that,for instance,Dallas or Los Angeles have?


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Actually, I think that in many cases, the suburbs appear uglier than they really are because of the contrast of such much better architecture in the central cores of European cities.

Of cause, there really are some ugly suburbs, especially in the East of Europe, and parts of Southern Europe (hell also Scandinavia) and of cause parts of London, but with the exception of a few cities, I don't think they are as bad as they seem, just a complete contrast to the often amazing architecture of the city center.

But this can be seen anywhere. There is little to prepare you for some of the ugly suburbs in Sydney or New York, just as the shocks of Paris and London's versions.


----------



## carfentanyl (May 14, 2003)

I hope he's not comparing the "nicely" created, very lush and almost rural like suburbs of the USA and Canada with housing project neighbourhoods in Europe.


----------



## plondder (Mar 31, 2005)

Justme,isn't there anything worse that what you have surrounding Frankfurt(Höchst etc)?


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

plondder said:


> Justme,isn't there anything worse that what you have surrounding Frankfurt(Höchst etc)?


Höchst, Offenbach etc certainly are not picture postcard suburbs, but they are hardly the worst you could find. They are simply poorly planned, designed and constructed "working mans" suburbs.

I have seen just as bad (although visually totally different) suburbs in Sydney's west, New York, London, Lisbon, Barcelona, Los Angeles, Houston (where I saw an entire suburb next to the city that appeared deserted and in ruins) and in fact, any major city. To be honest, even small cities around the world can have terrible suburbs, whether we are talking Auckland, Adelaide or Mannheim.

Back to Frankfurt's suburbs, you do have the one's mentioned that have some unpleasantness about them, but you also have some really beautiful suburbs as well. Such as Bad Homburg or Oberursel

















































By the way, even though the surrounds of Höchst can be pretty unattractive, it still has a nice core


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Birmingham/West Midlands n the UK has some pretty terrible suburbs and adjoining satelite towns.


----------



## panamared (Feb 25, 2005)

do you want to see ugly suburbs for real come to ny city or go to philadelphia ,or miami , what about chicago,los angeles , or in conneticut hartford , brigeport , new haven etc... usa have de worse suburbs in the world.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

panamared said:


> do you want to see ugly suburbs for real come to ny city or go to philadelphia ,or miami , what about chicago,los angeles , or in conneticut hartford , brigeport , new haven etc... usa have de worse suburbs in the world.


I doubt it, what about Delhi or Palembang or Lagos?


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Paris 100%

I go to Orleans every year...sometimes I visit Paris....and there slums are bad...very bad....Worst Ive seen!


----------



## plondder (Mar 31, 2005)

Justme,Bad Homburg is surely nice.

Frankfurt has also a reputation (even among Germans)for being a "dull grey city" but it is a city that has very nice areas to live in(for instance, where I lived)

Grüsse aus Madrid!


----------



## Aquarius (Aug 3, 2003)

I want to see this nasty parisian suburbs


----------



## pricemazda (Feb 14, 2004)

I have to say Paris. 

But suburbs in London? Please, go to Greenwich, Kingston, Wimbledon, Hampstead, Hendon, Richmond....


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

Some nasty paris suburbs for you
























URL=http://www.imageshack.us]







[/URL]


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

European suburbs look much more worse than NA suburbs IMO.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

plondder said:


> Justme,Bad Homburg is surely nice.
> 
> Frankfurt has also a reputation (even among Germans)for being a "dull grey city" but it is a city that has very nice areas to live in(for instance, where I lived)
> 
> Grüsse aus Madrid!


You are quite right, many of the suburbs are more pleasant to live than the city center which is why so many wealthy people move out - which is incidently common in North America, but not so common in many other cities of Europe, where the wealthy are quite happy (and often the only ones that can afford) to live in the city centers.

Frankfurt does have a dull reputation, and to be frank, it deserves it. It lost most of it's history during the war, and replaced 95% of the buildings with incredibly dull and ugly 1950's monstrosities. It gives the impression that it is a modern city because of the handful of skyscrapers which is quite unique to European cities, but in reality these are so few compared to the mostly unadventurous modern architecture to be found in most of the city. 

Let's just say that cities like Valencia and Barcelona may not have the skyscrapers but appear far more modern and cutting edge than Frankfurt - and they also have the stunning historical architecture as well.

Frankfurt had the chance to turn this city into a showcase of modern architecture. It did well by building the skyscrapers, but in reality, this city is technically on par with most "new world" cities due to the lack of history. In fact, many new world cities, even far younger ones have far more historical buildings than Frankfurt. Even Los Angeles or Sydney has grander historical buildings than Frankfurt, yet they still appear far more modern as well.

Frankfurt is simply stuck in some kind of void. It has neither modern nor historical of any great merit, which is why it is considered so dull and bleak by most Germans.

And most locals as well, as it is quite the trend to move out of the city as soon as one can afford it.


----------



## beta29 (Sep 30, 2004)

Nothing new, just this buildings you can find in Berlin too.
I think in Berlin it is more worse isn't it? 
___________
Elagu eesti


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

LtBk said:


> European suburbs look much more worse than NA suburbs IMO.


I suppose it's a matter of opinion, but personally I don't agree. There have been posts of some stunning suburbs in Paris by one of the French forumers here, as well as some bad examples like the ones above. But if you look at the ones above, the only thing terrible in most of them are ugly cheap apartment blocks which can be found anywhere in the world. If you look around many of them, they also seem to have quite a lot of area's with houses, and from my memory, those are usually quite beautiful old terraced homes.

America is not without some pretty nasty suburbs as well.


----------



## Silver7 (Jan 23, 2005)

Wha? I thought this was about Europe's ugly suburbs?


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

pricemazda said:


> But suburbs in London? Please, go to Greenwich, Kingston, Wimbledon, Hampstead, Hendon, Richmond....


Yeah, London has some very nice suburbs but don't pretend everywhere is like Richmond or Wimbledon, there are some really crap places in outer London too.

Example


----------



## pricemazda (Feb 14, 2004)

But most ugly bits of London are in the inner city, the outer city tends to much much nicer.

Hell even where I used to live in Brentford was really nice for christ sake.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

pricemazda said:


> But most ugly bits of London are in the inner city, the outer city tends to much much nicer.
> 
> Hell even where I used to live in Brentford was really nice for christ sake.


Feltham is a shithole, I would say that generally the ugly bits are the inner suburbs rather than the outer suburbs. When I think of the Inner city I think of The City, Westminster, Kensington & Chelsea plus small parts of surrounding boroughs.

Boroughs like Newham and Brent are inner suburbia imo.


----------



## edubejar (Mar 16, 2003)

LtBk said:


> European suburbs look much more worse than NA suburbs IMO.


Yes, that's true, generally speaking. However, suburbs in Europe are NOT the same thing as suburbs in North America. In fact, a European suburb is more equivalent to an American inner-city, and a European city-centre is more like an American suburb...why?...well because many European suburbs (this doesn't seem to be very much the case in Great Britain and other northern countries) have housing that is less expensive compared to the city-centre. The housing in the city-centre is more in demand or desirable, because it is in proximity to all the central shops, nightlife, restaurants, office/management jobs (in comparison to the factory/working class jobs in the suburbs), monuments, grand urban works/landscaping/parks, prestigeous and/or historical neighborhoods that allow for pleasant/charming urban walks, etc. 

In the European suburbs, after WWII, a huge number of commieblocks, cheap and with little need for an architect's unique floor plan or design of any kind, were built to house the flux of immigrants and working class citizens that would not have afforded, much less, fit in the city centres. Well, perhaps this doesn't quite pertain as much to countries like Spain and Portugal who didn't receive anywhere as many immigrants as say the UK, France, Germany or the Netherlands in the 60s, 70s and 80s...but cheap housing was built nonetheless in those countries, for its working class citizens, even if they were not immigrants. And since European city-centres, not all, but many, have strict esthetic and preservation policies, factories, as early as the industrial era, were built outside the city-centre...in what is now the suburbs. Many of the commieblocks built there later were ideally near these factories, where a lot of the working class citizens worked. And many of the offices and headquarters of those factories (like a car or tire factory) were/are in the city, where incidently, many of the higher paying jobs are, and office workers often live in proximity to their homes too.

In the US, the opposite occured. We all know that in most North American cities, middle-class fled to the suburbs. That's where you find the nice, bigger, beautiful homes...in huge contrast to the inner-city neighborhoods and housing. This fleeing has happened too in some European cities, mainly like Great Britain and Scandinavian countries, but in France and Germany too, but even much less. In French suburbs for instance, you can find some VERY nice suburbs, consisting of individual houses, with charming little gardens, within walking distance to the suburb's city centre (each suburbs is essentially its own town, except it is contiguous (attached) to the others). But within a mile you'll come across a different type of French suburb..."la cité"...which basically means the "projects", hard-core ghetto, like an American inner-city ghetto. But generally speaking, most and the worse "projects" of Pars are in the North suburbs and in many East suburbs. In the West and some South suburbs, you have the nicer suburbs, with charming houses and prestigeous appartments, just like if you were in Paris, or better. I'm sure, it's similar in other European suburbs...some look so bad like the Parisian suburb (la Courneuve...which is the Compton or the South Bronx of Paris...the worse of the worse...where French police rarely go in). But NOT all suburbs in Paris or other European cities are like that.

And like someone else said earlier and illustrated, to be honest, most European suburbs (even the ones with projects) are descent compared to most American inner-city neighborhoods, which are often blight to the max, and partly and sadly abondonned. Many European suburbs do form a big contrast to their central-city counterparts that we all know as beautiful and well preserved, grand or charming. 

But yes, I agree...SOME European suburbs are very ugly, but there is no direct equivalent to them in most American cities west of the Appalachians.


----------



## Joshapd (May 21, 2004)

Worst suburbs are in Paris, Berlin, London and Amsterdam imo....


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

I've heard Paris has some really nasty suburbs.


----------



## Monkey (Oct 1, 2002)

All of these cities have beautiful wealthy suburbs as well as miserable run down ghetto-ish ones - especially in the inner cities. It's no use pretending that all London suburbs are as miserable as Hackney nor as beautiful as Hampstead. There are the extremes of glamour and misery and every blander shade between.


----------



## Tubeman (Sep 12, 2002)

pricemazda said:


> But most ugly bits of London are in the inner city, the outer city tends to much much nicer.
> 
> Hell even where I used to live in Brentford was really nice for christ sake.


LOL I grew up there. The entire town's a shitehole except for about 2 streets, although since I left there's been a lot of yuppieflats going up. When I was a kid Brentford was just huge housing estates (Haverfield, Brentford Towers, Brent Lea, Syon) and deserted factories... The only 2 decent streets are The Butts and Mafeking Avenue. Its probably all changed though.

I think London has three fairly well-demarcated "rings"...

1 = Pre-Victorian; the extent of London by about 1850, basically the City & West End. Knightsbridge, Kensington, Mayfair, Soho, Belgravia, Bloomsbury. Commercial and top-end residential.

2 = Victorian; the areas built upon in the Victorian era, surrounds the above in a ring. Characteristically small terraced homes that have since been replaced by Post-WWII Council estates due to bombing and slum clearance in many cases. Generally poor, Working Class and with a high immigrant population... Newham, Hackney, Peckham, Brixton, Shepherds Bush, Willesden etc. Just beyond are some Edwardian areas which are much better housing-wise such as Ealing, but I wouldn't class the Edwardian Housing as being a whole separate ring around London as the period was only 15-odd years.

3 = Inter-War... The closest we have to Suburbs. Characterised by 1920's & 30's semi-detatched homes, low-density, several very large LCC estates such as Becontree and St Helier. People generally better-off than in the Victorian ring, but worse off than those in the pre-victorian core.










Personally I think London's suburbs, the 1930's semis and LCC estates, are ugly as sin simply through their repetition. They aren't unpleasant for the residents with lots of green spaces and low density, but they are a waste of land and boring. I can see what the planners were trying to achieve though, the people moving out from Victorian Slums to the new LCC estates and suburbs of semis must have been overjoyed.

Personally my favourite urban environment in London is the Georgian terraces built in the first half of the 19th century. I think they are on the most human scale and are well laid-out:


----------



## Skopie (Jan 17, 2005)

Even some of the roughest European suburbs could still look okay if it wasn't for the 60's commie blocks. Demolish all those and they begin to look presentable, thankfully in Britain they're starting to be demolished.

A little off topic, but I've always wondered wether American suburbs have town centres like British ones do?


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

Skopie said:


> Even some of the roughest European suburbs could still look okay if it wasn't for the 60's commie blocks. Demolish all those and they begin to look presentable, thankfully in Britain they're starting to be demolished.
> 
> A little off topic, but I've always wondered wether American suburbs have town centres like British ones do?


Only 2% or so suburbs have town centers.


----------



## Shawn (Nov 12, 2002)

Nearly every suburb in New England has a town center; the Common is a fundamental part of almost every town and village in Mass, New Hampshire, CT, etc. Town centers are also quite common in New York, particularly Upstate (around Albany, for example). However, outside of New England and New York, very few places have town centers.


----------



## elliott (Sep 23, 2002)

These are a few pics from the Suburbs where i live in 'Low Fell' Gateshead, North East England, No's 2 and 12 are pics of the centre with shops, restaurants, bars, banks etc


----------



## Skopie (Jan 17, 2005)

Can't imagine how a large suburb can function without it's own commercial area.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

Skopie said:


> Can't imagine how a large suburb can function without it's own commercial area.


Over 90% of American suburbs depend on malls, strip malls, and office parks to survive. Sad but true.


----------



## Madman (Dec 29, 2003)

Paris. Some of the suburbs(esp in North) are shockingly deprived and rundown, a real eye opener after leaving the beautiful city centre.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Shawn said:


> Nearly every suburb in New England has a town center; the Common is a fundamental part of almost every town and village in Mass, New Hampshire, CT, etc. Town centers are also quite common in New York, particularly Upstate (around Albany, for example). However, outside of New England and New York, very few places have town centers.


Pretty much have town centers all over here in Germany in the suburbs as well. In fact, so do the suburbs in Australia & New Zealand.


----------



## eduardo101 (Apr 10, 2005)

Yes,like Bad Homburg(which you previously mentioned) does


----------



## snot (May 12, 2004)

edubejar said:


> Yes, that's true, generally speaking. However, suburbs in Europe are NOT the same thing as suburbs in North America. In fact, a European suburb is more equivalent to an American inner-city, and a European city-centre is more like an American suburb...why?...well because many European suburbs (this doesn't seem to be very much the case in Great Britain and other northern countries) have housing that is less expensive compared to the city-centre. The housing in the city-centre is more in demand or desirable, because it is in proximity to all the central shops, nightlife, restaurants, office/management jobs (in comparison to the factory/working class jobs in the suburbs), monuments, grand urban works/landscaping/parks, prestigeous and/or historical neighborhoods that allow for pleasant/charming urban walks, etc.
> 
> In the European suburbs, after WWII, a huge number of commieblocks, cheap and with little need for an architect's unique floor plan or design of any kind, were built to house the flux of immigrants and working class citizens that would not have afforded, much less, fit in the city centres. Well, perhaps this doesn't quite pertain as much to countries like Spain and Portugal who didn't receive anywhere as many immigrants as say the UK, France, Germany or the Netherlands in the 60s, 70s and 80s...but cheap housing was built nonetheless in those countries, for its working class citizens, even if they were not immigrants. And since European city-centres, not all, but many, have strict esthetic and preservation policies, factories, as early as the industrial era, were built outside the city-centre...in what is now the suburbs. Many of the commieblocks built there later were ideally near these factories, where a lot of the working class citizens worked. And many of the offices and headquarters of those factories (like a car or tire factory) were/are in the city, where incidently, many of the higher paying jobs are, and office workers often live in proximity to their homes too.
> 
> ...


You're right but in Europe there are also typical middle class suburbs. It also depends from city to city. In Belgium for example the city centers are very mixed and the rest of the inner city is quit poor. Arround the city's are more green and middle class or high class suburbs. Antwerp and Brussels have nice suburbs with big houses and both have big parts of rich en very green suburbs with huge houses. 
In Europe their are also al lot of suburbs spread out in the countryside. Mostly habited by middle clas and nicer than American suburbs because their 
are on a smaller scale.
Most Paris ugly suburbs are in the inner suburbs arround Paris. technically it are more city boroughs than suburbs. The north-eastern suburbs are bad but the south-western suburbs are rich nice and very green. 
In General outher suburbs in Europe are a bit like American. Inner city's are very mixed and inner suburbs are mainly not that good but can be quit rich to.
And of course industrial areas are poorer than greener sides of urban areas.


----------



## ranny fash (Apr 24, 2005)

nottingham, where i live, has very few "nice" suburbs. maybe this is to be expected, as traditionally it is a very working class city, which was built on industry, primarily coal mining and manufacturing.

the city centre is obviously the transport, cultural, social hub of the city, and the oldest part. there is a good mix of old buildings here, and new high density developments, which are mainly for shopping and other commercial interests, although now there is a trend where residential developments are taking place, due to the current high demand for city centre living. its actually looking really nice in town at the moment.

then, with the high demand for workers housing that came with the industrial revolution, the areas immediately surrounding the centre were built up to house these workers, and heavy industry. the housing here consisted of extremely dense ( and often poorly built) terraced housing, often 3 or 4 storeys high. this covered massive areas surrounding the city centre, and is what is now known as the inner city. however, after the war, when large areas were destroyed, massive rebuilding programs took place from the late 40s through to the 80s. 

this was the same (pretty much) as in any other uk city, involving demolition of large areas of terraced streets and back to backs, and their replacement with huge tower block estates, and high density modern terrace complexes (much like the american "projects"). these were supposed to improve the quality of life for the residents by having a kind of "urban village" feel. the reality is that they bred astronomical crime rates and poverty, probably because of their density, poor design and build quality. some of these areas have become ghettos, where complex networks of alleys and dark, decaying buildings seem designed to encourage criminal activity.
some inner city areas (such as lenton, and forest fields) have actually become quite trendy, attracting residents because of their young, multicultural demographics, bustling main thorughfares, and busy nightlife. i like the areas where u can see streets which contain old terraces mixed with newer estates - the diversity of the buildings in the inner city reflects the high cultural and ethnic diversity of the residents.

outside of the inner city, most of the suburban areas are actually seperate industrial towns that have been slowly swallowed up by nottinghams sprawl. i live in one of these areas, and they generally contain an even mix of working/ middle class, with their own town centres. the housing here is usually a mixture of terraces, and suburban semi-detached homes built in the 20s, 30s and 40's, although there are small areas with more expensive housing. these areas also tend to contain a lot of industry, be it old factories, or modern industrial estates. the area where i live, chilwell, is half suburban peacefulness, and half council estate, and i like that.

filling the gaps between these areas are huge outer city estates, which consist of low/medium density suburban style semis or modern terraces. these areas (broxtowe estate, strelley, bestwood) dont appear too bad, but they are absolute shitholes, with very low incomes and teenage mothers with 12 kids. nothing personal against the people, but anyone who denies that cinderhill or clifton is a massive shithole seriously needs psychological help.

there are "nicer" suburbs such as west bridgford and wollaton also filling these gaps, but not many. personally i prefer the more mixed areas, i just find them more interesting, and the people are nicer and less stereotypical (every voting constituency around here voted elected labour, apart from rushcliffe, which contains west bridgford. they voted conservative). 

anyone from the uk reading this will probably relate what ive just said directly to their city, as most are likely to be reasonably similar, although i would expect that most have more "nice" suburbs than nottingham. im sure many from europe and america will find similarities to their cities, too.


----------



## malec (Apr 17, 2005)

Oh yeah. Didn't Paris do that "La Defense" thing where they housed all the immigrants and stuff and all those places turned into those nasty suburbs you see now?


----------



## rocky (Apr 20, 2005)

i know that paris suburbs are really bad. thats why im getting angry when they say that paris is the most beautiful city in the world. because you cant judge a city only by its center.
hopefully i dont live in a shitty suburb because im in Old part of a new planned town built after the 70s and theire is not many ugly blocks here


----------

