# The most beautiful big city in the world...



## FAAN (Jun 24, 2011)

Please post your opinion.


----------



## FAAN (Jun 24, 2011)

America 1. Rio or New York 2. Rio or New York 3. Toronto 4. São Paulo 5. Chicago 6. Brasília 7. Florianópolis 8. Atlanta 9. L.A 10. Mexico City


----------



## FAAN (Jun 24, 2011)

1. Tokyo
2. London
3. Paris
4. Hong Kong
5. Rio
6. New York
7. Singapore
8. São Paulo
9. L.A
10. Toronto


----------



## FAAN (Jun 24, 2011)

1. Tokyo - Japan
2. London - United Kingdom
3. Paris - France
4. Hong Kong - Hong Kong
5. Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
6. New York - USA
7. Singapore - Singapore
8. São Paulo - Brazil
9. L.A - USA
10. Dubai - United Arab Emirates


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

01. New York
02. Paris
03. Montreal
04. Sydney
05. Vancouver

06. San Francisco
07. London
08. Barcelona
09. Los Angeles
10. Melbourne


----------



## Wunderknabe (Jun 29, 2010)

Not again.

1. Many
2. Other


----------



## ChiSkyline (Jul 27, 2011)

1. Chicago
2. New York
3. San Diego
4. Las Vegas
5. Shanghai


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

I'm surprised people haven't said places like Nice, Florence, Rome and Venice unless there not big enough


----------



## royal rose1 (Oct 4, 2009)

ChiSkyline said:


> 1. Chicago
> 2. New York
> 3. San Diego
> 4. Las Vegas
> 5. Shanghai


Finally someone says San Diego! I was born there, and I love San Diego so much! It's a city where nature meets urbanity, love that city.


----------



## DiggerD21 (Apr 22, 2004)

Define "Big City".


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

Big city for me is any city over 1m inhabitant not including its metropolitan area.. In that case I'd say...

1. New York
2. Paris
3. Chicago
4. San Diego
5. Montreal


----------



## Maxou2Nantes (May 27, 2008)

1. Paris/New-York
2. San Francisco
3. Rome
4. Londres
5. Hong Kong/Tokyo


----------



## robhood (Aug 6, 2009)

TAIPEI


----------



## royal rose1 (Oct 4, 2009)

-Corey- said:


> Big city for me is any city over 1m inhabitant not including its metropolitan area.. In that case I'd say...
> 
> 1. New York
> 2. Paris
> ...


YESSSSS! Another San Diego mention!


----------



## royal rose1 (Oct 4, 2009)

1. San Francisco (Nature meets urbanity in flawlessness in this great city!)
2. Vancouver
3. San Diego
4. Montreal
5. Rome
6. Boston
7. Seattle


----------



## Sarcasticity (May 21, 2005)

San Francisco
Paris
New York
Rome
London

Montreal
Sydney
Vancouver
Chicago
Buenos Aires


----------



## FAAN (Jun 24, 2011)

DiggerD21 said:


> Define "Big City".


More than 5 million inhabitants in the metropolitan area.


----------



## DiggerD21 (Apr 22, 2004)

Define metropolitan area.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

FAAN said:


> More than 5 million inhabitants in the metropolitan area.


Well if you put it this way...

1. Barcelona (just makes it)
2. London 
3. Paris
4. Rio de Janeiro
5. San Francisco (5m if including the entire Bay Area)

6. St Petersburg
7. New York
8. Hong Kong
9. Madrid


----------



## FAAN (Jun 24, 2011)

DiggerD21 said:


> Define "Big City".





DiggerD21 said:


> Define metropolitan area.


Cities that have a direct influence of the city economically, demographically and socially more developed. Now you understand?


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

royal rose1 said:


> Yes, it's based on her perspective and her opinion, you can't prove an opinion wrong can you? If she says she was treated like a second class citizen, you can't say "no she wasn't."


Ah, so anybody could say that about anywhere and it would be true.

The way you wrote it though it seemed like a general point that 'people' were treated that way.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

There's a thread on here somewhere about an American poster's trip to England, and one of his comments was that English city centres are far bigger in relation to their population than their American counterparts.

Over there you probably need a metro area of 5 million for the centre to feel like a big city. In Europe 500,000 will suffice.


----------



## royal rose1 (Oct 4, 2009)

Jonesy55 said:


> Ah, so anybody could say that about anywhere and it would be true.
> 
> The way you wrote it though it seemed like a general point that 'people' were treated that way.


Not necessarily, but if it's an opinion based topic, then yes, opinion is all that matters, and anyone can't necessarily be wrong.


----------



## royal rose1 (Oct 4, 2009)

Rev Stickleback said:


> There's a thread on here somewhere about an American poster's trip to England, and one of his comments was that English city centres are far bigger in relation to their population than their American counterparts.
> 
> Over there you probably need a metro area of 5 million for the centre to feel like a big city. In Europe 500,000 will suffice.


That's a very subjective remark to make, obviously it depends on what city you're talking about. For instance, San Antonio has a population of 1.3 million in the city, and just over 2 million in the metro, and it sure feels like a big city. Or look at Charlotte, NC, only 1.7 million in the metro, and it definitely feels like a big city.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

royal rose1 said:


> Not necessarily, but if it's an opinion based topic, then yes, opinion is all that matters, and anyone can't necessarily be wrong.


Then next post...



royal rose1 said:


> That's a very subjective remark to make.


----------



## royal rose1 (Oct 4, 2009)

Jonesy55 said:


> Then next post...


Do you have a point you're trying to make? I don't think your post makes any sense.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Think about it....


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

royal rose1 said:


> That's a very subjective remark to make, obviously it depends on what city you're talking about. For instance, San Antonio has a population of 1.3 million in the city, and just over 2 million in the metro, and it sure feels like a big city. Or look at Charlotte, NC, only 1.7 million in the metro, and it definitely feels like a big city.


The point is more about the kind of city this thread is meant to exclude.

There must be hundreds of small world heritage site style cities out there, but this seems to be concerned with just major cities, not all cities.

The American and European definition of a major city is typically somewhat different. While it's perhaps right that cities whose charms mainly surround a pretty central square aren't in, is it right that somewhere like Amsterdam gets overlooked?


----------



## royal rose1 (Oct 4, 2009)

Jonesy55 said:


> Think about it....


Perhaps you took my second post out of context, but even in my second post I was giving my opinion, and I wasn't saying he was wrong, I was just saying how I felt. You make no sense jonesy.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

Rev Stickleback said:


> There's a thread on here somewhere about an American poster's trip to England, _*and one of his comments was that English city centres are far bigger in relation to their population than their American counterparts*_.
> 
> Over there you probably need a metro area of 5 million for the centre to feel like a big city. In Europe 500,000 will suffice.


If you mean they *feel* bigger then you are absolutely right. That is because English (and other European) cities tend to be more dense and vibrant throughout their urban core. 

Take even a city like Boston, metro population 4 million. It is one of the most outstanding cities in America with a comparatively large and dense urban core. However, in terms of the big city feel that you experience when you are there, I would say it feels more like Copenhagen or Munich, cities that are 1/3 to 1/2 of its metro population. 

I have concluded that, in comparing US and European cities, American cities feel about as large as their populations in the city proper and inner suburbs. But certainly not as large as their entire metro populations. Boston's population, together with Cambridge and adjacent "urban" suburbs, is about 1 to 1.5 million. That's what it feels like. It certainly does not feel like a 4 million metropolis (e.g., Barcelona, Berlin, Milan). The moral of the story is that suburban sprawl rarely contributes to the dynamism of the urban core or big city feel. It just adds more sprawl.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

royal rose1 said:


> That's a very subjective remark to make, obviously it depends on what city you're talking about. For instance, San Antonio has a population of 1.3 million in the city, and just over 2 million in the metro, and it sure feels like a big city. Or look at Charlotte, NC, only 1.7 million in the metro, and it definitely feels like a big city.


 
Charlotte feels big?? Its CBD is about 8 by 9 blocks. And as soon as you are out of the CBD you are basically in suburbia. I think you are making the mistake of confusing a few shiny skyscrapers and multi-lane freeways for a big city feel. I am not saying those are completely irrelevant, but that's not what most people in the world have in mind when they think of a big city.


----------



## Evil78 (Mar 16, 2009)

Fitzrovian said:


> *Charlotte feels big??* Its CBD is about 8 by 9 blocks. And as soon as you are out of the CBD you are basically in suburbia. I think you are making the mistake of confusing a few shiny skyscrapers and multi-lane freeways for a big city feel. I am not saying those are completely irrelevant, but that's not what most people in the world have in mind when they think of a big city.


*+1*

Most of US cities (except, of course NY, CH) don't feel like big cities, because most of them have a small downtown with a few skyscrapers, and that's about it... The rest of it's residential area cannot be considered as a city, but more like a big village. 
For me a big city is Istanbul, Athens, Moscow, London or other similar ones, where you need at least 2 weeks just to explore the major sights, where you go 1 hour with the metro, and still find yourself in a busy area of the city center. The sheer size of these cities (spread on a bigger area, because the average height of buildings is around 6-10 floors) is what gives you this feeling, plus the rush and the traffic...


----------



## royal rose1 (Oct 4, 2009)

Evil78 said:


> *+1*
> 
> Most of US cities (except, of course NY, CH) don't feel like big cities, because most of them have a small downtown with a few skyscrapers, and that's about it... The rest of it's residential area cannot be considered as a city, but more like a big village.
> For me a big city is Istanbul, Athens, Moscow, London or other similar ones, where you need at least 2 weeks just to explore the major sights, where you go 1 hour with the metro, and still find yourself in a busy area of the city center. The sheer size of these cities (spread on a bigger area, because the average height of buildings is around 6-10 floors) is what gives you this feeling, plus the rush and the traffic...


You guys are really out to get American cities haha. While I agree with you guys in GENERAL, I do feel there are many exceptions. I think cities like Oklahoma City, Cincinatti, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, etc epitomize what you're talking about. 

But cities like San Antonio, Portland, New York, Austin, Washington DC, etc. feel accurately sized.


----------



## royal rose1 (Oct 4, 2009)

Fitzrovian said:


> Charlotte feels big?? Its CBD is about 8 by 9 blocks. And as soon as you are out of the CBD you are basically in suburbia. I think you are making the mistake of confusing a few shiny skyscrapers and multi-lane freeways for a big city feel. I am not saying those are completely irrelevant, but that's not what most people in the world have in mind when they think of a big city.


I feel like what makes a big city has a lot to do with the amenities it offers, for instance, Charlotte has an NBA team, an NFL team, an Imax theater, many fortune 500 companies headquartered in its downtown, it's recently built some large condo buildings, it's got a NASCAR racetrack, and more! Indeed, Charlotte epitomizes suburbia, but downtown feels very large.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

royal rose1 said:


> You guys are really out to get American cities haha. While I agree with you guys in GENERAL, I do feel there are many exceptions. I think cities like Oklahoma City, Cincinatti, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, etc epitomize what you're talking about.
> 
> But cities like San Antonio, Portland, New York, Austin, Washington DC, etc. feel accurately sized.


The only one that is "accurately sized" of those you listed is New York. None of the others are unless, as I said, you are sizing them up relative to their population within city limits (and inner suburbs), NOT metro populations.

DC's metro population according to Wiki is 5.6 million. That is the same as Madrid. Do you really think it feels as large as Madrid?


----------



## Evil78 (Mar 16, 2009)

royal rose1 said:


> You guys are really out to get American cities haha. While I agree with you guys in GENERAL, I do feel there are many exceptions. I think cities like Oklahoma City, Cincinatti, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, etc epitomize what you're talking about.
> 
> But cities like San Antonio, Portland, New York, Austin, Washington DC, etc. feel accurately sized.


I'm not out to get anything...:nuts:
In fact, NY is in my top3, right after Paris and before London. :cheers:


----------



## Evil78 (Mar 16, 2009)

Fitzrovian said:


> The only one that is "accurately sized" of those you listed is New York. None of the others do unless, as I said, you are sizing them up relative to their population within city limits (and inner suburbs), NOT metro populations.
> 
> DC's metro population according to Wiki is 5.6 million. That is the same as Madrid. Do you really think it feels as large as Madrid?


Bull... Even my home city, Bucharest (pop.2mil) feels 5 times bigger than DC. (and it probably is too)


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

royal rose1 said:


> I feel like what makes a big city has a lot to do with the amenities it offers, for instance, Charlotte has an NBA team, an NFL team, an Imax theater, many fortune 500 companies headquartered in its downtown, it's recently built some large condo buildings, it's got a NASCAR racetrack, and more! Indeed, Charlotte epitomizes suburbia, but downtown feels very large.


Okay I can see what you are saying here, but that's not what we are talking about. Having a NASCAR racetrack does not contribute to the big city feel that you experience on the ground.

And I don't know how you could have concluded that Charlotte's downtown feels "very large". As I said it's about 8 by 9 blocks in area, has very little residential, and is basically a 9 to 5 business district. Go there at 8 pm on a weekday night and tell me if you feel like you are in a large city or in an empty office park.


----------



## Evil78 (Mar 16, 2009)

^^^^
What's all this discussion about Charlotte? :nuts::nuts:
Does really somebody on this thread thinks that this is *the most beautiful* *in the world*??? By any standards or in any category?(big city, small city, village, commune, whatever..)


----------



## Bronxwood (Feb 7, 2010)

royal rose1 said:


> You guys are really out to get American cities haha. While I agree with you guys in GENERAL, I do feel there are many exceptions. I think cities like Oklahoma City, Cincinatti, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, etc epitomize what you're talking about.
> 
> But cities like San Antonio, Portland, New York, Austin, Washington DC, etc. feel accurately sized.


You're putting San Antonio in the same league as those cities that feel accurately sized yet you put Cincinnati in the same league as Oklahoma and Jacksonville!? Both Cinci and San Antonio have similar sized metro areas of 2 million. Cinci has dense neighborhoods well beyond it's downtown that have a distinctly urban "big city" feel. San Antonio outside downtown is all suburbia for the most part. Out of the two, how is it more accurately sized? :nuts:


----------



## royal rose1 (Oct 4, 2009)

Evil78 said:


> ^^^^
> What's all this discussion about Charlotte? :nuts::nuts:
> Does really somebody on this thread thinks that this is *the most beautiful* *in the world*??? By any standards or in any category?(big city, small city, village, commune, whatever..)


Sir, if you read a few posts up you'd understand, it takes about 30 seconds to get to the topic we're discussing


----------



## royal rose1 (Oct 4, 2009)

Bronxwood said:


> You're putting San Antonio in the same league as those cities that feel accurately sized yet you put Cincinnati in the same league as Oklahoma and Jacksonville!? Both Cinci and San Antonio have similar sized metro areas of 2 million. Cinci has dense neighborhoods well beyond it's downtown that have a distinctly urban "big city" feel. San Antonio outside downtown is all suburbia for the most part. Out of the two, how is it more accurately sized? :nuts:


Most of the San Antonio Metro area lives within the city limits, well over 50 percent. 

Cincinnati has 300,000 within it's city limits and 2.13 million in the metro, meaning 13.94% of people live within the city limits! 

et:


----------



## BringMe (May 7, 2011)

1- Amsterdam
2- Paris
3- Milan
4- Buenos Aires
5- Rio
6- Copenhague


----------



## Harry_Harry (Jan 2, 2009)

royal rose1 said:


> Perhaps you took my second post out of context, but even in my second post I was giving my opinion, and I wasn't saying he was wrong, I was just saying how I felt. You make no sense jonesy.


Jonesy makes sense to me and you don't. How about that?


----------



## Bronxwood (Feb 7, 2010)

royal rose1 said:


> Most of the San Antonio Metro area lives within the city limits, well over 50 percent.
> 
> Cincinnati has 300,000 within it's city limits and 2.13 million in the metro, meaning 13.94% of people live within the city limits!
> 
> et:


San Antonio city limits are 412.1 sq mi (1,067.3 km2), that's more land area than NYCs city limits. San Antonio is therefore larger than Chicago or larger than Cinci, Cleveland, Seattle, Pittsburgh _and_ Boston combined! :nuts: Of course it's bound to have half of it's metro area population when its city limits are that huge. We can do the same for Cinci and watch how it's population balloons to over 2 million people. That's my problem with all the sunbelt cities and their overblown city limits, they give a false impression of the cities true size. 

Cinci has historically always been a crowded overpopulated city especially in her heydays. Today we see that past in the built up environment which includes tenements and rowhomes. San Antonio is a beautiful city but it definitely feels and looks smaller than cinci. Outside downtown the built environment goes down dramatically from downtown to single family homes and it stays that way throughout.


----------



## cornel001 (Dec 17, 2008)

Relax people. None of the villages you are speaking about, compares to Coruscant!


----------



## annman (Aug 9, 2007)

*What About Cape Town (South Africa's second largest city)?*

*Africa's southernmost city; city/metro pop. 3.5million*









View of City from Table Mountain
_Taken myself_









View of City Centre towards the Du Toitskloof Mountains beyond
_myself_









Seaside suburb of Camps Bay at sunset
_myself_









World Cup crowds on the Fan Walk
_myself_









Sunset over city from the northern suburbs
_myself_









Iconic view from Table View towards Table Mountain and downtown (CBD)
_myself_

Local area reference: Cape Town's famed Winelands in the winter...


----------



## annman (Aug 9, 2007)

^^ Oops, just saw hidden in the thread, that FAAN, thread creator, put the definition of "Big City" on a population of 5million. Thus my above post is irrelevant (as Cape Town is only 3.5million), as well as nominations for places like Vancouver, Barcelona and San Diego.


----------



## mobus (Jan 24, 2012)

I have been to every world city, in the world, and I personally think that New York, Sydney, Montreal and London are some of the most beautiful. For now, I'll say Sydney:


----------



## royal rose1 (Oct 4, 2009)

IF we can include San Diego, despite it's 3 million metro, I'd place it well up there. 




























SEALS!!!!!!!!!






















And the perfectly blue water!


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

I'd put Sydney near the top due to the bays, peninsulas, beaches, greenery, and density. Can't speak for inland. The lack of major mountains might put it below others for those not overlooking water. 

Charlotte and San Antonio don't look, feel, or act big for their sizes. They're both extremely spread out, with some highlights in their downtowns (like SA's outstanding river walk) but only a fraction of the downtown density or city density of a typical Euro city. The average 50,000 person town in the UK for example is more urban at the center in many ways, including housing, retail, transit, and pedestrian count.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

They do have the Blue Mountains just west of the Sydney urban area, not far at all from the western suburbs.










http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Mountains_(New_South_Wales)


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Nice looking, but I meant places you could see from the city. Ideally, places that would dominate the horizon.


----------



## tk780 (Jun 21, 2007)

Fitzrovian said:


> If you mean they *feel* bigger then you are absolutely right. That is because English (and other European) cities tend to be more dense and vibrant throughout their urban core.
> 
> Take even a city like Boston, metro population 4 million. It is one of the most outstanding cities in America with a comparatively large and dense urban core. However, in terms of the big city feel that you experience when you are there, I would say it feels more like Copenhagen or Munich, cities that are 1/3 to 1/2 of its metro population.
> 
> I have concluded that, in comparing US and European cities, American cities feel about as large as their populations in the city proper and inner suburbs. But certainly not as large as their entire metro populations. Boston's population, together with Cambridge and adjacent "urban" suburbs, is about 1 to 1.5 million. That's what it feels like. It certainly does not feel like a 4 million metropolis (e.g., Barcelona, Berlin, Milan). The moral of the story is that suburban sprawl rarely contributes to the dynamism of the urban core or big city feel. It just adds more sprawl.


North Americans and Australians seem to have an inherently different idea of what makes a city feel "big" than Europeans. I often hear people from places like San Diego, Atlanta or Indianapolis use terms like "town" "small" or "quaint" with reference to Amsterdam, Cologne or Vienna, when those cities IMO feel bigger than all but a handful of American cities.


----------



## mitasis (Feb 21, 2007)

In my opinion from the cities i've visited until now the answer is easy as for a megacity:

ISTANBUL and NEW YORK CITY!!!


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

tk780 said:


> North Americans and Australians seem to have an inherently different idea of what makes a city feel "big" than Europeans. I often hear people from places like San Diego, Atlanta or Indianapolis use terms like "town" "small" or "quaint" with reference to Amsterdam, Cologne or Vienna, when those cities IMO feel bigger than all but a handful of American cities.


I think it is about urban scale, the footprint and density of the urban core, and how busy it is in terms of human and car traffic.

I can not agree with you about Amsterdam. While it's a world class city with world class amenities, by virtue of its urban scale (and the fact that it's not very crowded even in the center) it does indeed feel fairly small and quaint. You are right though about Vienna and (to a lesser extent) Cologne. They feel quite large.

But like you said, it really is about your perceptions and how you look at things. You can drive through Houston for over an hour on a multilane freeway and have heavy traffic and see nothing but suburban developments. That makes it feel big in its own way. But when you get off the freeway at any one spot you feel like you are out in the sticks with not much around you except for single family homes and occasional strip malls.


----------



## everlastinglove-x (Jan 18, 2009)

Sydney, it has that world city feel, it's beautiful and it's situated in the most perfect place.


----------



## RobertWalpole (Mar 16, 2010)

Paris
Vienna
London
Rome
Madrid
Barcelona
NY
Boston
SF


----------



## FAAN (Jun 24, 2011)

annman said:


> ^^ Oops, just saw hidden in the thread, that FAAN, thread creator, put the definition of "Big City" on a population of 5million. Thus my above post is irrelevant (as Cape Town is only 3.5million), as well as nominations for places like Vancouver, Barcelona and San Diego.


They are also large cities it is important that you posted your opinion.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Beijing

Historic









futuristic










traditional









contemporary










urban









natural










noisy









silent









eerie









glittering









spirited


----------



## hseugut (May 24, 2011)

*Sit down, relax ... Magique !*

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xe4nih_paris-vu-du-ciel-de-yann-arthus-ber_news?start=7#from=embed


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

hseugut said:


> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xe4nih_paris-vu-du-ciel-de-yann-arthus-ber_news?start=7#from=embed


Beautiful views! I agree.


----------



## IrishMan2010 (Aug 16, 2010)

hseugut said:


> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xe4nih_paris-vu-du-ciel-de-yann-arthus-ber_news?start=7#from=embed


I have never been temped or allured to go to Paris for some reason, but it looks absolutely beautiful, so I think I might have to pay a visit soon!


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

mobus said:


> I have been to every world city, in the world, and I personally think that New York, Sydney, Montreal and London are some of the most beautiful.


I've not been to Sydney, but I agree 100% about your other 3 choices. Judging from photos, Sydney looks to be a good choice as well.


----------



## ilivebacolod (Aug 24, 2008)

Apex101 said:


> makati skyline by To2Camba, on Flickr


Metro Manila, Philippines


----------



## Dralcoffin (Feb 27, 2010)

Hong Kong
Seattle
Budapest
San Francisco
Paris
Cape Town
Sydney

The cities I personally find most visually attractive are vast, dense knots of urbanity like Chicago, New York, Moscow, etc. but I would not call them beautiful.


----------



## alekssa1 (Jan 29, 2009)

FAAN said:


> More than 5 million inhabitants in the metropolitan area.


According to this definition given by thread's author, I'd say the most beautiful big city is Paris
Other beautiful big cities are Buenos Aires, Hong Kong, New York, St. Petersburg and Sydney


----------



## haikiller11 (Aug 11, 2009)

Paris ftw!!


----------



## henrique42 (Dec 5, 2011)

I must say that in my country Rio is beautiful( nature etc, not architecture), but if I forget for just a moment my nationalist feelings (unlike some over here), ofcourse i can't deny that pratically all the most beautiful cities are in Europe.


----------



## NordikNerd (Feb 5, 2011)




----------



## Enzo (May 3, 2008)

The most beautiful city in the world... 
Let me see... That's a tough one...
Well, I guess I have to say...
Paris!


----------



## Evil78 (Mar 16, 2009)

henrique42 said:


> I must say that in my country Rio is beautiful( nature etc, not architecture), but if I forget for just a moment my nationalist feelings (unlike some over here), ofcourse i can't deny that pratically all the most beautiful cities are in Europe.


Finally , someone read the title of the thread (and the word _beautiful_). Paris, London, Rome, Vienna, Budapest, Prague, Lisbon...Unique! :cheers:


----------



## Axelferis (Jan 18, 2008)

Paris for me the most beautiful and unbeatable.

Notice the geometry of certain places. No doubt is allowed

[dailymotion]xe4nih[/dailymotion]


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

Evil78 said:


> Finally , someone read the title of the thread (and the word _beautiful_). Paris, London, Rome, Vienna, Budapest, Prague, Lisbon...Unique! :cheers:


I don't get what you are trying to say. Are you saying that "beautiful" means only architecture? So scenery does not count? Sydney, Rio, Capetown, Vancouver... none of them are "beautiful" in your book?

Are you also saying that cities that excel in modern architecture more than classic can not be beautiful?

What an absurdity.


----------



## Axelferis (Jan 18, 2008)

te truth is that the major of most beautiful cities in the world are located in Europe.
it's like that!

We have a heritage that the others don't have.


----------



## Blackpool88 (Nov 15, 2007)

Fitzrovian said:


> I don't get what you are trying to say. Are you saying that "beautiful" means only architecture? So scenery does not count? Sydney, Rio, Capetown, Vancouver... none of them are "beautiful" in your book?
> 
> Are you also saying that cities that excel in modern architecture more than classic can not be beautiful?
> 
> What an absurdity.


Maybe in terms of built up 'cities' it is more a question of urban beauty in terms of architecture more that physical location. If you have a combination of the two then you are on to a winner. New York, London and Paris for example have rivers which add to the beauty, but also amazing urban form which I believe this thread is focusing on.

By the way, for my money I think Paris is hugely more beautiful than London. That's not to say I think it is better overall, but in terms of beauty, certainly Paris.


----------



## SO143 (Feb 11, 2011)

Blackpool88 said:


> By the way, for my money I think Paris is hugely more beautiful than London. That's not to say I think it is better overall, but in terms of beauty, certainly Paris.


i agree, paris gives you a feeling and atmosphere which is more like a european with all these amazing classical architecture, white houses, nice parks and very organized big streets etc. but london is more modern, diverse, colourful, bustling and exciting than paris. don't get me wrong, paris is indeed a very romantic and beautiful place but it can be a boring big town as well especially for teenagers and young people.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

As with Paris, the city's urban planners did well in preserving the classical feel of it's city centre with less high-rise etc. Most high rise are built in the suburban part or outside the ring road.


----------



## henrique42 (Dec 5, 2011)

''I don't get what you are trying to say. Are you saying that "beautiful" means only architecture? So scenery does not count? Sydney, Rio, Capetown, Vancouver... none of them are "beautiful" in your book?

Are you also saying that cities that excel in modern architecture more than classic can not be beautiful?

What an absurdity.''

-----------

scenery helps, but in general it only looks nice on fotos from a distance. beauty is something you find in buildings, streets, squares, riverbanks etc, something you feel as a visitor. don't tell me you find one of those cities you mentioned beautiful, while you are walking downtown for example. rio is beautiful from above, but the moment you enter the city, it's over. can you show me a beautiful street in sydney, or vancouver? 
and by the way, modern architecture you can find also in paris, frankfurt , london, moscow, or whatever big european city, but nobody talks about it, because it simply doesn't appeal. never heard of someone who visited vancouver or capetown ''because it is so beautiful''


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

...


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

Everybody has another taste, that's why there is no city who fits to everybody when talking about beauty or other things like that.

There only exist cities who most of people will found beautiful. Perhaps some opinion studies already have been made about it? It would be interesting knowing the results.

Personnaly i could not say which big city is the most beautiful one. But it won't be a surprise for me if Paris would win because it is a really beautiful city (only talking about the "view").

Now, if i had to choose beetween going to live in Paris or Barcelona i would not hesitate a second, despite i don't speak spanish: i would choose BCN, since it is much more like cities i like: not too big, having everything, great architecture, the sea and hills!

7 Years ago i had the oportunity of going to Paris (moving to my wife), but i prefered staying here, since i would not want to live in Paris. I like it for weekends as a tourist but not for living (despite i am half-french). Bute since we are only talking about the beauty and not for living i perhaps would choose Paris right before Barcelona. But my number one talking about beauty would be Vienna (despite it "only" has 2 Mio).

NYC perhaps would have the most beautiful skyline? Viewing it from Brooklyn Heights is abosolutely amazing! But as a whole i prefer Paris, Vienna, Barcelona or San Francisco (just my taste)


----------



## Axelferis (Jan 18, 2008)

Evil78 said:


> I will stop here, otherwise i will find myself trying to convince somebody that the Venetian Resort-Hotel-Casino in Las Vegas is *NOT* more beautiful than Venice itself. :nuts:


:rofl:


----------



## Sacré Coeur (Jan 6, 2008)

Fitzrovian said:


> Well you really don't sound like someone I should be arguing with because you are extremely biased. But your first statement was that Barcelona was a "little town" compared to Paris. Why is that? Because Paris has a lot more people in its banlieues?


Like Versailles, Saint Germain en Laye, Enghien Les Bains, Sceaux, Saint Maur les Fossés, Neuilly-sur-Seine, Saint-Denis, Montmorency, Vincennes, Saint-Cloud, La Défense, Cergy, Pontoise, Brie Comte Robert, Noisiel, Montreuil, Les Lilas, Le Pré-Saint-Gervais, Nogent-sur-Marne, Vaux-le-Vicomte, Le Raincy, Pantin, Fontainebleau, Saint-Ouen, Charenton le Pont...



Fitzrovian said:


> Did you know that Barcelona in fact has the densest urban core in Europe? Over 30,000/sq km in its central 30 sq km. Paris ain't got nothing like that. Even at 100 sq km their densities are pretty comparable.
> 
> Try better.


Density in central Paris : more than 25000/sq km in 87 sq km. Some area are around 100000/sq km in the 11th arrondissement.

What about Barcelona?


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

For me Barcelona is easily the greatest city in Europe ; its beautiful, its well planned, its location is stunning, its modern architecture is sexy, its lifestyle is exciting, its climate is great. Paris is beautiful, but it does not offer as attractive and affordable lifestyle as Barcelona.

Europe is lucky to be full of beautiful cities, indeed it is, perhaps, the only place in the World where city means beauty and elegance instead of a concrete jungle and forest of ugly skyscrapers. In aesthetic (and not only) terms very few places come close to the likes of Stockholm, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Munich, Paris, Barcelona, Budapest, Rome etc.


----------



## lebleuet (Feb 22, 2011)

> For me Barcelona is easily the greatest city in Europe
> ; its beautiful, its well planned, its location is stunning, its modern architecture is sexy, its lifestyle is exciting, its climate is great. Paris is beautiful, but it does not offer as attractive and affordable lifestyle as Barcelona.


You already exposed your point of view. I think we've all understood that Barcelona is your favorite city, but try to contribute to the discussion instead of trolling or answer to the trolls.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

I just did - explained that, for me, Barcelona is better and why.

:dunno:


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

Sacré Coeur said:


> Like Versailles, Saint Germain en Laye, Enghien Les Bains, Sceaux, Saint Maur les Fossés, Neuilly-sur-Seine, Saint-Denis, Montmorency, Vincennes, Saint-Cloud, La Défense, Cergy, Pontoise, Brie Comte Robert, Noisiel, Montreuil, Les Lilas, Le Pré-Saint-Gervais, Nogent-sur-Marne, Vaux-le-Vicomte, Le Raincy, Pantin, Fontainebleau, Saint-Ouen, Charenton le Pont...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I just told you about Barcelona in my prior post. Did you read it??

Studies have been made of the most hyperdense areas in Europe. Barcelona comes out on top. It has close to 34,000/sq km in the central 38 sq km. Paris ain't got nothing like that. 90% of Barcelona's population - almost 1.5 million - live in the central 52 sq km. That's 28,500 per sq km. Higher than any comparable area in Paris.

And, no, the 11th arrondissement does NOT have 100,000 per sq km. It has 100,000 per sq MILE. That's equivalent to* 40,000* per sq KM. Big difference. Barcelona has a number of neighborhoods that are 50,000 per sq km.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcelona#Population_density


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

El_Greco said:


> For me Barcelona is easily the greatest city in Europe ; its beautiful, its well planned, its location is stunning, its modern architecture is sexy, its lifestyle is exciting, its climate is great. Paris is beautiful, but it does not offer as attractive and affordable lifestyle as Barcelona.
> 
> Europe is lucky to be full of beautiful cities, indeed it is, perhaps, the only place in the World where city means beauty and elegance instead of a concrete jungle and forest of ugly skyscrapers. In aesthetic (and not only) terms very few places come close to the likes of Stockholm, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Munich, Paris, Barcelona, Budapest, Rome etc.


Well stated, mate. There seems to be a lot of French arrogance around here towards Barcelona when in fact Barcelona offers the kind of urban package that is virtually unmatched anywhere in the world. And while it is neither a capital nor the largest city, the density, beauty and excitement of its urban core can match pound for pound any city in the world. So get off your high horse people.


----------



## SO143 (Feb 11, 2011)

*New York City, United States of America *

_








http://www.pbase.com/rfcd100/image/106254958/original.jpg









http://www.pbase.com/rfcd100/image/56405425/original.jpg_


----------



## NordikNerd (Feb 5, 2011)

The number of tourists visiting Paris is the highest in the world.

Most-visited cities by international tourist arrivals

No 1: 15.2 million is Paris. They visit Paris because they think it is a beautiful city. 

The historic buildings, the Seine, the avenues, the elegant people.

The city of Paris has class.

London is interesting but not beautiful, buildings of bricks and limestone.

Londoners are not that well dressed as the parisians.

New York looks great from a distance, but post some street views of a beautiful place.

Some places as the Washington Square, Dakota building, Central park, Upper east side could be considered pleasant and impressive but not beautiful.


----------



## henrique42 (Dec 5, 2011)

''There seems to be a lot of French arrogance around here''

:lol:

that explains it....as I said, probably he's emptying bottles of french wine on the streets

:lol:

by the way; I love those pictures of cities, from a distance, and with all the lights on/ twilight....that kind of pictures make even the favelas in my country look pitoresque and charming


----------



## SO143 (Feb 11, 2011)

NordikNerd said:


> The number of tourists visiting Paris is the highest in the world.


not really. it depends on the source you read and how the numbers are calculated. but some report  said paris receives more international visitors etc. 



> Most-visited cities by international tourist arrivals
> 
> No 1: *15.2 million* is Paris. They visit Paris because they think it is a beautiful city.


London attracts 27 million overnight-stay visitors every year.



> The historic buildings, the Seine, the avenues, *the elegant people*.


i mean come on, although i like paris so much i would have a problem with this kind of comment, it's rather an exaggeration though and please remember beauty is in the eye of the beholder. 



> The city of Paris has class.


did you mean the city of paris has more beautiful classical architecture or something? what do you mean by class?



> London is interesting but not beautiful, buildings of bricks and limestone.


i find the french neoclassical architecture more appealing for eg Montmartre. Basilique du Sacré-Cœur  and Notre Dame de Paris which are my favourite ones and i prefer tham over St Paul's Cathedral in london. but bare in mind that london is more bustling, alive, colourful and modern, it also offers more in terms of diversity and nightlife etc. 



> Londoners are not that well dressed as the parisians.


this is just so subjective and i'd say it's based on your personal preference as well. for eg, i prefer new york fashion scene over paris and london (but nowadays most young people in london dress like the ones in new york) 



*360' Virtual Tour of London*


----------



## tikiturf (May 20, 2011)

Fitzrovian said:


> There seems to be a lot of French arrogance around here


Most of the people you are arguing with are not French. 



NordikNerd said:


> No 1: 15.2 million is Paris


It's just the number of people going to Disneyland Paris.

My opinion on the most beautiful big city in the world is Paris (you probably know why:colgate


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

NordikNerd said:


> The number of tourists visiting Paris is the highest in the world.
> 
> Most-visited cities by international tourist arrivals
> 
> No 1: 15.2 million is Paris. They visit Paris because they think it is a beautiful city.


London and Paris are pretty much neck in neck when it comes to international tourists.

But keep in mind that looking at international arrivals only is misleading. Most tourists coming to Paris and London fall under "international" because these cities are in Europe and surrounded by many different countries. On the other hand most tourists coming to NYC, for example, fall under "domestic" since we have no other countries nearby (except for Canada which has a small population).



NordikNerd said:


> The historic buildings, the Seine, the avenues, the elegant people.
> 
> The city of Paris has class.
> 
> _*London is interesting but not beautiful,*_ buildings of bricks and limestone.


Please tell me you are kidding. If not, go to London again and walk around Regent Street, Mayfair, St James', Belgravia, the City and Southbank and then report back to us.


----------



## SO143 (Feb 11, 2011)

Fitzrovian said:


> London and Paris are pretty much neck in neck when it comes to international tourists.
> 
> But keep in mind that looking at international arrivals only is misleading. Most tourists coming to Paris and London fall under "international" because *these cities are in Europe and surrounded by many different countries.* On the other hand *most tourists coming to NYC, for example, fall under "domestic"* since we have no other countries nearby (except for Canada which has a small population).
> 
> Please tell me you are kidding. If not, go to London again and walk around Regent Street, Mayfair, St James', Belgravia, South Kensington, the City and Southbank, Oxford Street, City of Westminister, Kensington , Green Park etc and then report back to us.


+1 :applause:


----------



## tikiturf (May 20, 2011)

SO143 said:


> London attracts 27 million overnight-stay visitors every year.


It's around 40 million for Paris.


----------



## SO143 (Feb 11, 2011)

tikiturf said:


> It's around 40 million for Paris.


any reliable source in order to backup your statement? not an attempt to establish city vs city thing but if i have to be honest i'd say london beats paris in many aspects and like i said before the neoclassical architecture of paris may be boring too especially for the young people who are not really into history and heritage. i am aware of the beauty of paris and i like the fact that it's streets are well planned as well but paris is a bit filthy and paris metro is perhaps the worst i've ever experienced though, this amazing city still needs a lot of improvements in many areas imo.










^ but london will overtake paris this year, mark my words


----------



## Orionol (Feb 13, 2009)

Of London and Paris.... *London *is the most beautiful big city.

I've been in both Paris and London, and i feel like London is more a place to be. Although Paris is also beautiful, but London takes the place according to me. :cheers:


----------



## Sacré Coeur (Jan 6, 2008)

Fitzrovian said:


> I just told you about Barcelona in my prior post. Did you read it??
> 
> Studies have been made of the most hyperdense areas in Europe. Barcelona comes out on top. It has close to 34,000/sq km in the central 38 sq km. Paris ain't got nothing like that. 90% of Barcelona's population - almost 1.5 million - live in the central 52 sq km. That's 28,500 per sq km. Higher than any comparable area in Paris.
> 
> ...


I said in my previous post that *part of 11th arrondissements* are close to 100000 inhabitants per sq. km not the whole arrondissement... Did you read it?? 

In an other thread, it has been shown that the densest sq km in Europe is the 11th arrondissement of Paris, followed by the Eixample in Barcelona, and the district of Chamberí in Madrid.

And I'm pretty sure that the result will be the same for an area of 100 sq km...

PS I've just read the wiki link you post. It's written that 1 628 090 people live in the 102.2 sq km sized municipality. In Paris, more than 2.2 million people live in 105 sq km (and this includes the 2 bois de Boulogne and Vincennes which represent more than 18 sq. km.). So 100 sq km are much denser in Paris than in Barcelona.

Moreover, please read this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Districts_of_Barcelona

It shows that there is only one district (Eixample) which has an average density over 30000 inh. per sq. km and its area is 7.5 sq. km... So there is no way than the densest 38 sq. km of Barcelona is 34000 inh. per sq. km.

But let's go back to the topic.


----------



## tpe (Aug 10, 2005)

What is all this talk of # of tourists, density, etc.? These don't necessarily make a city beautiful. Popular taste is anyway (by nature) rather corrupt.

Talk about aesthetics and how you define "beauty". 

For me personally, the beauty that attracts me is beauty that is man-made. This is not to say that nature and setting count for nothing. But it is all a matter of taste and preference.

And someone made a distinction between *interesting* and *beautiful*. This is indeed a good distinction to make, and something that I can totally sympathize with.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

Sacré Coeur said:


> I said in my previous post that *part of 11th arrondissements* are close to 100000 inhabitants per sq. km not the whole arrondissement... Did you read it??
> 
> In an other thread, it has been shown that the densest sq km in Europe is the 11th arrondissement of Paris, followed by the Eixample in Barcelona, and the district of Chamberí in Madrid.


The densest ONE sq km! Wow!! And what is that supposed to indicate? Should we look at the densest 100 sq meters next? Come on, mate.

You have to look at an area that is large enough to be representative of the scale and density that one experiences when he is on the ground.



Sacré Coeur said:


> And I'm pretty sure that the result will be the same for an area of 100 sq km...
> 
> PS I've just read the wiki link you post. It's written that 1 628 090 people live in the 102.2 sq km sized municipality. In Paris, more than 2.2 million people live in 105 sq km (and this includes the 2 bois de Boulogne and Vincennes which represent more than 18 sq. km.). So 100 sq km are much denser in Paris than in Barcelona.
> 
> ...


Some of the districts in Barcelona have vast hills and industrial zones away from the city center, so you can't make a definitive conclusion by looking district by district. 

You saw the density figures in the Wiki article on Barcelona. I don't think they are lying. Also see the link below. Older data, but largely along the same lines. Barcelona has the densest urban core in Europe.

http://www.demographia.com/db-hyperdense.htm

You are right that at 100 sq km Paris is more dense (though not by much). But Paris proper does not have large parks or hills, so the density is much more evenly distributed than Barcelona.

Bottom line is that at the center of the urban core, Barcelona is just as dense and just as dynamic as Paris (if not more so). So there are no grounds whatsoever to claim these two cities can not even be compared.


----------



## lebleuet (Feb 22, 2011)

> Barcelona is just as dense and just as dynamic as Paris (if not more so)



Stop trolling. And please don't compare the capital of a spanish region with that of a country having the 5th largest economy in the world and also the largest business district in Europe which has many high rise skyscrapers planned/in construction.

I don't have anything against Barcelona. But just stop.


----------



## intensivecarebear (Feb 2, 2006)

I'm surprised more people haven't mentioned Istanbul:dunno:


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

lebleuet said:


> Stop trolling. And please don't compare the capital of a spanish region with that of a country having the 5th largest economy in the world and also the largest business district in Europe which has many high rise skyscrapers planned/in construction.
> 
> I don't have anything against Barcelona. But just stop.


Many skyscrapers... Wow, I am really impressed. You know who else got a lot of skyscrapers? Houston, Toronto, Singapore. Chicago has got about 3 times the number of skyscrapers in Paris (including your fancy business district). I guess Paris is a "little town" compared to all of them, hah?

And, yes, in certain aspects Paris and Barcelona are not comparable. But when it comes to density, vibrance, atmosphere and most importantly (for this thread) aesthetics in their city centers, they are ABSOLUTELY comparable. And in some ways I would give the edge to Barcelona. And I have been to both at least 5 times. You are the one trolling here.


----------



## NordikNerd (Feb 5, 2011)

Fitzrovian said:


> Please tell me you are kidding. If not, go to London again and walk around Regent Street, Mayfair, St James', Belgravia, the City and Southbank and then report back to us.


I arrived in London with the eurostar July 4th last year, spent 5 hours walking around, actually I walked on Regent street from the Athenaeum ...



to Picadilly Circus



I think London is pleasant, but it lacks the magnificent palaces of Paris and the intense continental atmospheare. 

Uploaded with ImageShack.us



London architecture consists of limestone and bricks, it's moderate and a bit pale just like this english girl.^^


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

intensivecarebear said:


> I'm surprised more people haven't mentioned Istanbul:dunno:


Good point.



lebleuet said:


> Stop trolling. And please don't compare the capital of a spanish region with that of a country having the 5th largest economy in the world and also the largest business district in Europe which has many high rise skyscrapers planned/in construction.
> 
> I don't have anything against Barcelona. But just stop.


What is your problem? No ones saying Paris is ugly or shit or whatever, quite the opposite - it is beautiful, vibrant and has fantastic architecture (both new and old). No ones denying its an important city either. However Paris does not have the laid-back, care-free lifestyle of Barcelona (and indeed Mediterranean coast), nor does it have the weather, and of course, just like London, it is unaffordable for most. This is why Id never choose to live there and this is why I put Barcelona above Paris.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

NordikNerd said:


> I arrived in London with the eurostar July 4th last year, spent 5 hours walking around, actually I walked on Regent street from the Athenaeum ...
> 
> I think London is pleasant, but it lacks the magnificent palaces of Paris and the intense continental atmospheare.
> 
> London architecture consists of limestone and bricks, it's moderate and a bit pale just like this english girl.^^


Wow you are hilarious NordikNerd. First of all, I am totally not getting your repeated references to "limestone and brick". Is that supposed to be bad or something? I find London's architecture every bit as grand as in Paris and also far more varied. Did you walk along the Southbank from Westminster to Tower Bridge? The quality and variety of the urban environment that you will see will be far superior than along the Seine. That's just my opinion.

And how do you know this girl is English? Lol... Your opinion on women in London is grossly outdated, mate. I spent 6 months in London last year, and there are hot girls EVERYWHERE. And i am from New York! It wasnt as good in London 15 - 20 years ago. But it has become much more cosmopolitan and international in the last decade, and it's reflected in the quality of women you see, which is nowadays quite superb.


----------



## tikiturf (May 20, 2011)

SO143 said:


> but london will overtake paris this year, mark my words


Yeah, thanks to Olympic games.


----------



## hseugut (May 24, 2011)

This thread is slippery  All cities are great. 

Paris belongs to everyone even londoners and Barcelona fans


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

El_Greco said:


> Good point.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your problem? No ones saying Paris is ugly or shit or whatever, quite the opposite - it is beautiful, vibrant and has fantastic architecture (both new and old). No ones denying its an important city either. However Paris does not have the laid-back, care-free lifestyle of Barcelona (and indeed Mediterranean coast), nor does it have the weather, and of course, just like London, it is unaffordable for most. This is why Id never choose to live there and this is why I put Barcelona above Paris.


El Greco is correct. Nobody is trying to diminish Paris. It is a magnificent city. Paris and London are indisputedly the two dominant cities in Europe, in terms of size and global prominence.

However, if we are talking about urban matters like density, vibrance, quality of infrastructure, architecture, etc. then I would argue that you have to include both Barcelona and Madrid in the conversation as well. Of course, they are quite a bit smaller than London and Paris, but i think they are all basically in the same tier in terms of the "big city" atmosphere they provide. I would put all other cities in western Europe a step below. Again, just my opinion.


----------



## SO143 (Feb 11, 2011)

El_Greco said:


> Good point.
> 
> What is your problem? No ones saying Paris is ugly or shit or whatever, quite the opposite - it is beautiful, vibrant and has fantastic architecture (both new and old). No ones denying its an important city either. However* Paris does not have the laid-back, care-free lifestyle of Barcelona* (and *indeed Mediterranean coast*), *nor does it have the weather, and of course*, just like London, *it is unaffordable for most*. This is why Id never choose to live there and this is why I put Barcelona above Paris.


+1 :applause:



NordikNerd said:


> London architecture consists of limestone and bricks, it's moderate and a bit *pale just like this english girls*


:troll:

you have such a terrible opinion and attitude toward london and english people i can easily see it. in your previous posts you praised paris by saying it has class, people in paris are more elegant and the fashion is more beautiful etc well i didn't see the difference (in terms of fashion and girls) when i went to paris in the summer last year. in fact london is ethnically and culturally more diverse than paris, thanks to the international language (english) which makes things much easier for anyone. london is a separated country within the uk. it has people from all over the world and more than 300 languages are spoken within the london boundaries. i know this has nothing to do with the the topic of this thread but i just want to let you know that your opinion on london is misleading and some of your posts are just rather ridiculous. 



tikiturf said:


> Yeah, thanks to Olympic games. Paris was beaten by London in a former colony "Singapore"


----------



## hseugut (May 24, 2011)

SO143 said:


> +1 :applause:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is it another Paris vs London ? And we are not talking about beauty anymore, but ethnicity etc.. Paris has also hundreds of ethnicities of course ... and : english is only one international language among others, please respect that.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

hseugut said:


> Is it another Paris vs London ? And we are not talking about beauty anymore, but ethnicity etc.. Paris has also hundreds of ethnicities of course ... _*and : english is only one international language among others, please respect that.*_


Ahahahaha.... Thanks for the laugh mate. Did you arrive in a time machine from the 19th century or something? LOL!


----------



## SO143 (Feb 11, 2011)

hseugut said:


> Is it another Paris vs London ? And we are not talking about beauty anymore, but ethnicity etc.. Paris has also hundreds of ethnicities of course ... and : english is only one international language among others, please respect that.


i welcome different opinions and i do respect the strength of both cities. i also stated many positive things about paris in my earlier posts and you can go back to the previous pages in order to check them out, but what he did was that he posted a picture of female tourists in london and he then claimed that english girls are pale looking and their fashion is not elegant whereas paris has class and french people are elegant. he was not talking about "the most beautiful big city" and his info was irrelevant, don't you think? some french folks here being are ridiculous and incredibly arrogant. 



tikiturf said:


> Most of the people you are arguing with are not French.


ah i see


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

*see page 2 of this thread for Istanbul*


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Kiev is also quite handsome.


----------



## nicdel (May 13, 2011)

Lol, you guys are trolling without any evidence of logical sense or arguments. hno:


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Metro007 said:


> Now, if i had to choose beetween going to live in Paris or Barcelona i would not hesitate a second, despite i don't speak spanish: i would choose BCN, since it is much more like cities i like: not too big, having everything, great architecture, the sea and hills!





El_Greco said:


> For me Barcelona is easily the greatest city in Europe ; its beautiful, its well planned, its location is stunning, its modern architecture is sexy, its lifestyle is exciting, its climate is great.


Except Barcelona lacks jobs, salaries are low and rents are high.

Since 2008, the population in the province of Barcelona has grown by only +0.08% per year, whereas the population in Greater Paris has been growing by +0.59% per year. In 2011 the province of Barcelona even registered a population decline. There is a reason for that. One city has a solid job market, whereas the other one is in the gutter.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Fitzrovian said:


> London and Paris are pretty much neck in neck when it comes to international tourists.


Not really. That 15 million figure posted before is just the number of tourists who stay in hotels inside the administrative borders of the City of Paris. So the tourists who stay in the many hotels along the Périphérique but just outside of the administrative border are not counted. People who stay in hotels at La Défense are not counted. People who stay in the many hotels at Disneyland Paris are not counted (for example the 15 million figure would not include a single Chinese tourist, because they usually stay at hotels near Disneyland Paris which are cheaper than in Central Paris).

If we include all the tourists (staying inside the administrative borders and outside), there are 42 million in total, 30 million of whom are foreign tourists (12 million are French tourists). It's double the number of foreign tourists in Greater London.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

SO143 said:


> in fact london is ethnically and culturally more diverse than paris.


This has been proven again and again to be pure bollocks. The percentage of foreign-born people in Paris is exactly the same as in London. And both cities have significatly less foreign-born people than cities like Miami or Toronto.


----------



## SO143 (Feb 11, 2011)

brisavoine said:


> This has been proven again and again to be pure bollocks. The percentage of foreign-born people in Paris is exactly the same as in London.


:cripes:


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

brisavoine said:


> Not really. That 15 million figure posted before is just the number of tourists who stay in hotels inside the administrative borders of the City of Paris. So the tourists who stay in the many hotels along the Périphérique but just outside of the administrative border are not counted. People who stay in hotels at La Défense are not counted. People who stay in the many hotels at Disneyland Paris are not counted (for example the 15 million figure would not include a single Chinese tourist, because they usually stay at hotels near Disneyland Paris which are cheaper than in Central Paris).
> 
> If we include all the tourists (staying inside the administrative borders and outside), there are 42 million in total, 30 million of whom are foreign tourists (12 million are French tourists). It's double the number of foreign tourists in Greater London.


That's a good point. On the other hand there seem to be a lot of different rankings out there and I am having a hard time making sense of them. For example, this ranking by Euromonitor ranks London well ahead of Paris (by about 7 million):

http://blog.euromonitor.com/2010/01/euromonitor-internationals-top-city-destination-ranking.html

Which is right? Are they looking at airport arrivals? Hotel arrivals? Besides, I think you are overstating the number of people that stay outside of Paris proper. I am willing to bet it's an insigificant percentage. Just like the vast majority of people visiting London stay in Central London and those visiting NYC stay in Manhattan.


----------



## nicdel (May 13, 2011)

SO143 said:


> :cripes:


I guess he meant the percentage, not the actual size. In Addition, the foreign-born population isn't decisive for the "Ethnic diversity" of a city. In a lot of European major cities like London, Paris, Amsterdam, Berlin, Stockholm Madrid and Brussels there are more people with "migration background" (e.g. descendants of former immigrants) who obtain the local citizenship than foreign residents. (For Instance, there are approx. 175,000 Indian-born people in London, but 500,000 people of Indian origin or 105,000 Turkish-born people in Berlin, but up to 300,000 people of Turkish origin.)

These constant comparisons between Paris, London and NYC are annoying. Every city is different.


----------



## Axelferis (Jan 18, 2008)

The *TRUTH* is that a super european league is organized between *2 GIANTS London & Paris*
After you have a "medium league" with barcelona, madrid,brussels,Milan,Frankfurt , moscow.

Yes barcelona is better for living than paris or london because of the sea the beaches and offer a more provincial way of life because it isn't a super metrople like paris & london which have a GDP far above barcelona or madrid.

London and paris are the "big league". In any case barcelona can compete on economy,political international influence research & developments etc...

I repeat the life is more calm and peaceful in Barcelona ok.
But in term of beauty no match here, 

*PARIS KO Barcelona!*

Paris have the better restaurants in Europe and the better food and chefs 

Barcelona is in the league of brussels,amsterdam,milan,roma, ->beautiful cities but not super power cities

London is a *BEAUTIFUL *city trust me! people are very elegant & fashion!! Who dare say the contrary? I love the way people behave in the streets of london. Women are so sexy (much more than in barcelona)



SO143 said:


>


Paris is a marvel. :cheers:


----------



## nicdel (May 13, 2011)

BTW; the TOP 5 of tourist destinations in Europe are:

1.) Paris
2.) London (is probably going to overtake Paris this year due to the Olympic Games)
3.) Berlin 
4.) Rome
5.) Barcelona
6.) Prague


----------



## hseugut (May 24, 2011)

Fitzrovian said:


> Ahahahaha.... Thanks for the laugh mate. Did you arrive in a time machine from the 19th century or something? LOL!


Now who is arrogant ... The world thanks god is more diverse than what you think.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

SO143 said:


> :cripes:


When will you stop using bogus data from Wikipedia?

At the 2008 census, there were 2,630,889 foreign-born people living in Greater Paris, i.e. 22.6% of the population of Greater Paris. That's official data from INSEE: http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/detail.asp?reg_id=99&ref_id=cartes-reg-nais-dom


----------



## SO143 (Feb 11, 2011)

brisavoine said:


> When will you stop using bogus data from Wikipedia?


the world uses wikipedia more than that french link you've provided, sorry chap!


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Fitzrovian said:


> That's a good point. On the other hand there seem to be a lot of different rankings out there and I am having a hard time making sense of them. For example, this ranking by Euromonitor ranks London well ahead of Paris (by about 7 million):
> 
> http://blog.euromonitor.com/2010/01/euromonitor-internationals-top-city-destination-ranking.html


For as long as I've been on SSC, tourism rankings coming from this organization have been bullshit. That's probably because they compare the 87 km² of the city of Paris with the 1572 km² of Greater London, something like that. If you look in detail, you'll probably find a link between them and the London authorities. It's often how London promotes itself worldwide, by covertly sponsoring bogus rankings to always appear on top. We're so used to that now.


Fitzrovian said:


> I think you are overstating the number of people that stay outside of Paris proper. I am willing to bet it's an insigificant percentage.


Not at all. The number of foreign tourists who stayed in registered hotels inside the administrative borders of the City of Paris was 8.1 million in 2010, whereas the number of foreign tourists who stayed in hotels outside of the administrative borders (i.e. along the Pérhiphérique, at La Défense, at CDG Airport, at Disneyland Paris) was 5.3 million that same year. So 61% of the foreign tourists sleep inside the administrative borders of the city proper, but 39% sleep outside of it.

Note that these figures grossly underestimate the total number of foreign tourists in Paris, because only people staying in registered hotels are counted. To give you an idea, in 2010, 29.5 million foreign tourists were counted in the registered hotels of France, but the World Tourism Organization says there were 76.8 million foreign tourists in France that year. The difference comes from people who stay in bed and breakfasts or unregistered small hotels, people who stay with friends and relatives, and people who stay in camping grounds (or in their caravans, as the Dutch often do).


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

By the way, if we apply to Greater Paris the same coefficient as the one for France in general (real number of tourists/tourists counted in registered hotels), then we find that 34.6 million tourists stayed in Greater Paris in 2010 (the 30 million figure I had given was from the early 2000s). That figure is slightly lower than in 2007, when (using again the coefficient) 36.6 million foreign tourists came to Greater Paris. Of course the slight decrease in the number of foreign tourists between 2007 and 2010 is due to the economic crisis.


----------



## Atomicus (Aug 23, 2011)

Madrid, Osaka, Busan. :3


----------



## Axelferis (Jan 18, 2008)

Just notice the quality of restaurants of paris:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_restaurants_étoilés_par_le_Guide_Michelin

english:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Michelin_starred_restaurants

Only tokyo is above


----------



## CODEBARRE75011 (May 16, 2006)

DiggerD21 said:


> Then you are asking for urban area or agglomeration figures. That is fine.
> 
> I understood what the thread opener meant, however before everybody throws in city names based on different understanding of the term "metro area" it would be better to agree on a common definition of that term.
> 
> ...


Wrong only 5 European urban area (agglomeration) above 5 millions :

Moscou 11 514 330 
Paris 10 354 675 
Londres 8 631 325 
Madrid 5 851 000 
Barcelone 5 083 000

And if using the urban area or agglomeration numbers of european cities, then the following ones would be above 10 millions :

Moscou and Paris 

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_agglomérations_européennes

For me the most beautiful city above 10 millions
Paris and New York


----------



## Atomicus (Aug 23, 2011)

Madrid by Madrid Panorama










Osaka, by Osaka en Valencia










Busan, by Closenoble


----------



## SO143 (Feb 11, 2011)

CODEBARRE75011 said:


> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_agglomérations_européennes


----------



## CODEBARRE75011 (May 16, 2006)

^^ Metropolitan area is not urban area (agglomeration).

Only Moscou and Paris has 10 millions people or more in Europe, sorry.


----------



## SO143 (Feb 11, 2011)

*Megacities*


----------



## SO143 (Feb 11, 2011)

*Largest cities of the European Union by population within city limits*


London 7,825,300
Berlin 3,440,441
Madrid 3,284,110
Rome 2,776,362
Paris 2,203,817
Bucharest 1,927,448
Hamburg 1,773,218
Warsaw 1,720,398
Vienna 1,723,945
Budapest 1,733,685


----------



## SO143 (Feb 11, 2011)

*Urban areas over 750,000 inhabitants*


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

CODEBARRE75011 said:


> Wrong only 5 European urban area (agglomeration) above 5 millions :
> 
> Moscou 11 514 330
> Paris 10 354 675
> ...


Urban area for London is meaningless due the Green Belt. About *15 million* people live in *London metro area*, making the British capital the largest urban complex in Europe.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

^^Don't pull numbers out of your ass. Thank you.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> Urban area for London is meaningless due the Green Belt. About *15 million* people live in *London metro area*, making the British capital the largest urban complex in Europe.


As if it was a good thing to change a huge part of a country/land into an endless and ugly giant suburb... hno: Nothing to be proud of here ! 
(btw, the main purpose of the green belt wasn't it trying to stop/restrain this worrying phenomenon that you seem to praise ?)

PS: Quite rich to praise this kind of things in a thread about "most beautiful cities".... :nuts:


----------



## Axelferis (Jan 18, 2008)

what is a megacity?
because it is biased about london:
I mean London is a wonderful city of a small territory comparing to france or germany which are far bigger on km2 surface.
It is normal that the metropolitan urban area includes cities like birmimgham or bristol which are just 1h or 1h30 from london.

England is small compared to France or germany(geographical limits).
No ? :dunno:


----------



## CODEBARRE75011 (May 16, 2006)

Axelferis said:


> Just notice the quality of restaurants of paris:
> 
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_restaurants_étoilés_par_le_Guide_Michelin
> 
> ...


It's just restaurant in central Paris (inner Paris 83km²)^^

Tokyo city proper 2187,65 km².


----------



## SO143 (Feb 11, 2011)

Great satellite photo of NW Europe (the powerhouse of Europe) from space:


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

brisavoine said:


> ^^Don't pull numbers out of your ass. Thank you.


You're getting lower and lower... Anyhow:



Yuri S Andrade said:


> Back to the thread, as you're talking about a broader defintion of metropolitan areas, I believe London's should be at least like this:
> 
> 
> 
> Population: *15,578,000*; Area: *16,655 km²*.





Yuri S Andrade said:


> About London, I decided to stick on ceremonial conties as it's easy to collect the data. Of course, it's subjected to adjustments following other boundary lines. Adding East and West Sussex, for instance, we'd have *17,152,000* people in *20,438 km²*.



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




parcdesprinces said:


> As if it was a good thing to change a huge part of a country/land into an endless and ugly giant suburb... hno: Nothing to be proud of here !
> (btw, the main purpose of the green belt wasn't it trying to stop/restrain this worrying phenomenon that you seem to praise ?)
> 
> PS: Quite rich to praise this kind of things in a thread about "most beautiful cities".... :nuts:


Who said anything about being good or bad? Green Belt, whether we like it or not, it's a fact. 15 million people living in London metro area is also a fact.


----------



## CODEBARRE75011 (May 16, 2006)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> Urban area for London is meaningless due the Green Belt. About *15 million* people live in *London metro area*, making the British capital the largest urban complex in Europe.


1. Paris has a green belt too. 
http://idf.ffrandonnee.fr/670/html/grp.aspx
London with green belt = 8,6 millions, Paris with green belt = 10,4 millions

2. The metro area of London and Paris are quite similar, around 12 millions. With the same criteria which you speak Paris metro area has 16 millions.

3. The difference is the urban area (agglomeration), Paris is the largest urban complex in european union, sorry.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_agglomérations_européennes


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

^^
Are there 15 million people living 16,000 km² around Paris? Please, could you provide data/maps?

P.S. I'm also curious about this "Paris Green Belt". I googled and found nothing about it.


----------



## CODEBARRE75011 (May 16, 2006)

The metropolitan area not depending on the area (km²) but jobs rate dependance. Once again the metropolitan area with the traditionnal criteria (minimal of 40% navetor), London and Paris are quite similar, around 12 millions. 

13,6 or 13,8 millions correspond to the London metropolitan area with the criteria minimal of 20% navetor. This criteria is used for compare with the metropolitan area of the usa cities.

The Paris metropolitan area was not calculated below rate of 40% navetor precisely by INSEE. But probably 15/16 millions. 

Below 10% or 5% navetor i can tell the metropolitan area of Paris is larger because many people come to Paris in the high speed train to Paris there are not in England. The area is probably larger for this.

Paris has a more important urban complex and it is especially that which is important.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_agglomérations_européennes


----------



## CODEBARRE75011 (May 16, 2006)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> P.S. I'm also curious about this "Paris Green Belt". I googled and found nothing about it.


Paris green belt in french = ceinture verte de Paris ^^
















Nota : The Bois de Vincennes & Bois de Boulogne on the last map are not colored in green.

http://driaf.ile-de-france.agriculture.gouv.fr/Agriculture-periurbaine-l
http://www.iau-idf.fr/detail-dune-etude/etude/la-ceinture-verte-dile-de-france-quelle-realite.html
http://idf.ffrandonnee.fr/670/html/grp.aspx
http://www.memoireonline.com/06/07/...gne-ile-de-france-zone-maraichere-cergy1.html
http://www.iau-idf.fr/detail-dune-e...lio]=1&cHash=a5213a0ca10cc7519b8c415751ba392f
http://www.iau-idf.fr/detail-dune-e...erte-dile-de-france-un-espace-de-vie-a-r.html

According to the american famous guide Reader's Digest, Paris is 4th top Green Cities in the world.

Pics of a beautiful megacity, 5 years ago.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=128322


----------



## quashlo (Jun 14, 2008)

CODEBARRE75011 said:


> It's just restaurant in central Paris (inner Paris 83km²)^^
> 
> Tokyo city proper 2187,65 km².


I don't really care for the London vs. Paris rivalry (which seems to have drifted off the topic of "most beautiful big city"), but I will just say one thing in response to your statement here, since it appears that you are trying to assert that Tōkyō has a lot of starred restaurants simply because the area surveyed was much larger. However, if you look at this map, you will see that they pretty much only looked at central Tōkyō, quite similar in total area to the number you are quoting for "central Paris".

http://youkoseki.com/michelin/


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

Axelferis said:


> The *TRUTH* is that a super european league is organized between *2 GIANTS London & Paris*
> After you have a "medium league" with barcelona, madrid,brussels,Milan,Frankfurt , moscow.


Are you really going to put Moscow in a league of "medium" sized cities? Moscow is bigger or at least as big as Paris or London.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

^^ Indeed, not to mention Istanbul.


----------



## SO143 (Feb 11, 2011)

beauty is in the eye of the beholder therefore i suppose this thead is just nonsense


----------



## Axelferis (Jan 18, 2008)

CODEBARRE75011 said:


> It's just restaurant in central Paris (inner Paris 83km²)^^
> 
> Tokyo city proper 2187,65 km².


^^ i disagree. They listed ALL the starred restaurants in the region of Paris.



Metro007 said:


> Are you really going to put Moscow in a league of "medium" sized cities? Moscow is bigger or at least as big as Paris or London.


Ok then istanbul or moscow have more tourists than Paris or london?
they have the same GDP? the same influence in arts & culture,fashion?


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

CODEBARRE75011 said:


> Below 10% or 5% navetor i can tell the metropolitan area of Paris is larger because many people come to Paris in the high speed train to Paris there are not in England. The area is probably larger for this.


Do many people commute long distances daily by TGV from Rouen or Reims or Orleans or Amiens? I would think it is quite expensive for one thing.

Birmingham is only 75-85 minutes from London by train but commuters are minimal and there's no way it could be included in the London metro area.


----------



## alekssa1 (Jan 29, 2009)

CODEBARRE75011 said:


> Wrong only 5 European urban area (agglomeration) above 5 millions :
> 
> Moscou 11 514 330
> Paris 10 354 675
> ...


If French wikipedia says so 

In fact, St Petersburg within *city limits*:
Census 2010, official data - 4 879 566
01.01.2012, estimated by Russian Federal State Statistics Service - 4 951 607

Metropolitan area doesn't have official borders but the population living within 50 km from the city centre is estimated in 5,4 - 5,5 million


----------



## alekssa1 (Jan 29, 2009)

del, double post


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

SO143 said:


> Great satellite photo of NW Europe (the powerhouse of Europe) from space:


Thanks for this great picture! Are the highways in England illuminated as they are in Belgium? If yes it could explain the big difference beetween Paris and London. Otherwise - according to the visual interpretation of these lights - it seems that London has a larger urban area than Paris, even in its core.

Whatever! 

For me Paris is much nicer (talking about beauty) than London. I also find that people are more elegant and girls prettier. Thats just my personal opionion. But Paris is not larger than London.


----------



## SO143 (Feb 11, 2011)

Bonrub said:


> There's a reason why wikipedia is not used in academic circles, you know. You can't use wikipedia as source material in Research papers a the University level.
> But since you're a 15 year old kid, I guess you didn't know that.
> 
> The link provided by brisavoine is the correct one.


no need to be a stuck up snob in order to reveal what kind of person you are chap. do you even know what wikipedia means? those facts, data and info shown on wiki are not written by a little fetus but they are the real info and circumstance reported by several (official)websites. if you go down to the button of the wiki page you will find some useful links which are the original and genuine sources. the link posted by uk-basher brisavoine is a french website written in french and we are not discussing in the french forum therefore his info is just irrelevant here, sorry chap :cripes:


----------



## hypnotoad (Dec 16, 2010)

Watching bokeh by A.G. Photographe, on Flickr


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

SO143 said:


> the link posted by uk-basher brisavoine is a french website written in french


The link posted by Brisavoine comes from INSEE, the French national statistical office.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Metro007 said:


> Otherwise - according to the visual interpretation of these lights - it seems that London has a larger urban area than Paris, even in its core.


Well, that's just an optical illusion (or a clever angle used for the picture, by, let me guess, some organization close to the Greater London authorities?).

In the real world, the census shows this:


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

^^
_L'enfant terrible_...

Would you mind to explain us why 1,572 km² is the paramount number? Why not 2,000 km² or 5,000 km² or 20,000 km² or even 30,000 km² as New York metro? London _de facto_ metro area is more populated than Paris' one. It's just the way the world is.


----------



## SO143 (Feb 11, 2011)

brisavoine said:


> Well, that's just an optical illusion (or a clever angle used for the picture, by, let me guess, some organization close to the Greater London authorities?).
> 
> In the real world, the census shows this:


that's not even a map of paris and bare in mind that london underground is the world's second largest in the world after shanghai metro. it clearly says that london is far bigger than paris. although i find paris more beautiful (in terms of neoclassical architecture) i have to tell the truth that london is bigger and more powerful.


----------



## hseugut (May 24, 2011)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> ^^
> _L'enfant terrible_...
> 
> Would you mind to explain us why 1,572 km² is the paramount number? Why not 2,000 km² or 5,000 km² or 20,000 km² or even 30,000 km² as New York metro? London _de facto_ metro area IS more populated than Paris' one. It's just the way the world is.


This surface corresponds to Greater London. What is shown here is that Paris has many more people on the same surface. 

Data > visual impression


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

^^
Ok, but WHY the surface must be the same of Greater London? Yes, data = visual impression. How about we count the population living in a 70 km radius from both the City and Île de la Cité?


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Jonesy55 said:


> Do many people commute long distances daily by TGV from Rouen or Reims or Orleans or Amiens? I would think it is quite expensive for one thing.


There is no TGV in Rouen, Orléans, and Amiens. Only regular trains.

The percentage of people in employment living in each urban area around Greater Paris and who came to work in Greater Paris was the following in 2008:
- Senlis: 31.8% (i.e. 31.8% of the residents of the Senlis urban area who have a job work in Greater Paris)
- Dreux: 29.1%
- Creil: 27.9%
- Château-Thierry: 18.7%
- Chartres: 12.1%
- Sens: 11.9%
- Compiègne: 11.5%
- Soissons: 8.9%
- Evreux: 7.9%
- Beauvais: 6.7%
- Amiens: 4.5%
- Orléans: 4.2%
- Reims: 4.2%
- Rouen: 3.8%
- Troyes: 3.1%

Note that none of these urban areas are included in the Paris metropolitan area as defined by the French statistical office.

In terms of absolute numbers, for the 4 cities you mentioned:
- Rouen: 7,220 (i.e. 7,220 residents of the Rouen urban area who have a job work in Greater Paris)
- Orléans: 5,005
- Reims: 3,600
- Amiens: 2,821


----------



## SO143 (Feb 11, 2011)

if paris is much bigger than london, how come the size of it's subway/underground/metro is so small/short compared to london?


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

^^You forgot to include the RER network. Once you include it, the Métro/RER network is far more extended than the Underground in London.


----------



## SO143 (Feb 11, 2011)

^^ that list is only for the london underground which runs within the city, do you aware of other transportation systems that london operates? i can also include london overground, London Buses (biggest networks in the world), Tramlink, the Docklands Light Railway, and high speed crossrail serves etc.


----------



## Copperknickers (May 15, 2011)

> if paris is much bigger than london, how come the size of it's subway/underground/metro is so small/short compared to london?


Probably because London's is much older so we've been working on expanding it for longer. We started it over a hundred years ago, when there were not as much deep foundations and pipelines to contend with. London has been built around the Underground, whereas Paris has increasingly had to build the metro around the city.

London and Paris are both nice looking cities in some parts, and horrible in others. Personally, I like the fact that Paris has restricted modern developments a lot, so that it keeps a homogeneous appearance with the use of facades and height restrictions, however I think in some ways it detracts a little bit. There are still plenty of 60s monstrosities in Paris, like the tour de Montparnasse and such like, not too far away from the city centre. Plus for me, although paris architecture is much more grand, it all seems a little samey to me, not enough variation, like in London where you have just built skyscrapers next to 17th century churches, and yes, giant ferris wheels next to medieval cathedrals. 

London could benefit from less horrible concrete things like half of what lines the Thames, and more pleasant scenery, but its feel is a lot more contained than Paris's while its vibe is more cosmopolitan. Paris has the feel of chic little streets occasionally, but there are too many huge open spaces like the Place de la Concorde and the Champs-Elysées which are like Washington DC, unneccessary and overly uniform. Plus its skyline is about to become rather dated once the Shard and City are completed.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

hseugut said:


> This surface corresponds to Greater London. What is shown here is that Paris has many more people on the same surface.
> 
> Data > visual impression


Can we do a similar comparison using the surface area of Ile de France?


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

SO143 said:


> ^^ that list is only for the london underground which runs within the city, do you aware of other transportation systems that london operates? i can also include london overground, London Buses (biggest networks in the world), Tramlink, the Docklands Light Railway, and high speed crossrail serves etc.


Paris has buses too believe it or not.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> ^^
> Ok, but WHY the surface must be the same of Greater London? Yes, data = visual impression. How about we count the population living in a 70 km radius from both the City and Île de la Cité?


I love it... He's only looking at "Greater London" which doesn't even cover the whole area within M25. What about the adjacent Home Counties which have over 6 million population with very high commute rates? And that's not even the full extent of the commuter belt.

That's like saying, let's just look at 100 sq km where Paris is much more populous than London. Therefore Paris is a bigger city.

Point being that 1571 sq km gets much closer to covering Paris' entire metro area than London's.

PS. Satellite images don't lie. Paris' urban area is more populous, London's urban area is larger. London's METRO area is both more populous and larger.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Jonesy55 said:


> Can we do a similar comparison using the surface area of Ile de France?


That would be a bit meaningless, given that the south of Oise and the east of Upper Normandy are far more populated than the east and south-east of Île-de-France. The zone of high population for Paris goes from Beauvais-Compiègne in the north to Fontainebleau-Rambouillet in the south, and from Meaux-Fontainebleau in the east to Rouen-Evreux-Dreux in the west. All the easternmost part of Seine-et-Marne is a rural desert.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

SO143 said:


> ^^ that list is only for the london underground which runs within the city, do you aware of other transportation systems that london operates? i can also include london overground, London Buses (biggest networks in the world), Tramlink, the Docklands Light Railway, and high speed crossrail serves etc.


Do you think the Paris Métro, RER, suburban train network is not as extended? :smug:


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Copperknickers said:


> not enough variation, like in London where you have just built skyscrapers next to 17th century churches


What about skyscrapers next to 13th and 18th century churches. 











Copperknickers said:


> and yes, giant ferris wheels next to medieval cathedrals.


What about giant ferris wheels next to 3,300 years old obelisks?


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

^^ My dear Brisav', aka THE "_Enfoiré_ _pour vous servir_...." (& @ some Brit wannabe.. :|)... :dunno:








PS: Please, my dear Brisav', don't hit me because of this reprise, I mean, I know it's originally an English-language song.. Oh no, please don't ! horse


This is for you, my dear(s) !








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





More seriously: They need YOU (feel free to make a donation :yes: *enfoires.fr/uk/home*


----------



## SO143 (Feb 11, 2011)

brisavoine said:


> What about *skyscrapers *next to 13th and 18th century churches.



parisians call it a skyscraper? well, londoners call it a highrise.


and this is the city of london, historical core, the centre of london !! down town in american term. are there any skyscrapers in the middle of paris?


----------

