# The Most Powerful City on the Face of the Earth



## Leadingtraveler (Jun 13, 2007)

WASHINGTON D.C.


----------



## Looking/Up (Feb 28, 2008)

I guess it depends on how you define power...
However, those are some beautiful structures. It's interesting how classical themes are often used in the design of governmental buildings.


----------



## Quall (Feb 15, 2006)

Great pics. Brings back the best of memories. I'd love to visit again.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

Great pics.. I don't think everyone realizes what a beautiful city Washington is.. thanks for showing us these!


----------



## WESTSEATTLEGUY (May 5, 2007)

Great pics! You showed off DC really well!


----------



## Bluegate74 (Nov 28, 2005)

Good to see the evil empires capital looking in such good condition and in glorious sunshine too. Never been a fan of neo-classical architecture or portland stone but they certainly have the wow factor.


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

Washington DC looks more like a European capital than an American one. I love DC. Its come a long way in the past 15 years. Beyond the monuments are some of the most charming neighborhoods in the US. One thing about DC that is so pleasant is the lack of any industry. It is perched on a bucolic bluff.


----------



## Benonie (Dec 21, 2005)

Too much pics but I like them. Great photo's of a wonderful and powerful city!


----------



## Jorge M (Jun 11, 2008)

I have to say that the city and its buildings are gorgeous.


----------



## infernal (May 27, 2007)

I hate looking at Washington D.C. threads
They make me so jealous  
of all capitals Washington has to be the most beautiful


----------



## neorion (May 26, 2006)

Stunning!! Washington's architecture is a homage to ancient Athens (democracy) and Rome (republicanism). This photo tour really shows the classical inspiration of the city, down to some impressive details, such as these meanders (Greek key) bands.

On this picture frame.











And these stair railings. (as well as in multiple other places) 










Even more 'hands on' to the inspiration from Greece and Italy comes this magnificent fresco of the dome, _The Apotheosis of Washington_, by [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantino_Brumidi"]Constantino Brumidi[/URL], of Greek and Italian parentage. 










He also completed other works in Washington (and elsewhere), such as the magnificent [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brumidi_Corridors"]Brumidi Corridors.[/URL]

Great shots!! :cheers:


----------



## Audiomuse (Dec 20, 2005)

philadweller said:


> Washington DC looks more like a European capital than an American one.


I don't see how it looks European...

The marble buildings are remind me a bit of London but it doesn't really look like a European city to me. I've been to Washington D.C. twice and all over Europe and I can tell D.C. is totally different


----------



## Dr.Seltsam (May 28, 2008)

infernal said:


> of all capitals Washington has to be the most beautiful


Paris? Prague? Rome? Vienna?

I mean D.C. is really a beautiful city...but can't keep up with the mentioned cities, in my opinion.


----------



## christos-greece (Feb 19, 2008)

Amazing city :cheers:


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Dr.Seltsam said:


> Paris? Prague? Rome? Vienna?
> 
> I mean D.C. is really a beautiful city...but can't keep up with the mentioned cities, in my opinion.


I agree.

Great city and fantastic photos all the same though!


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

Andrewville said:


> I don't see how it looks European...
> 
> The marble buildings are remind me a bit of London but it doesn't really look like a European city to me. I've been to Washington D.C. twice and all over Europe and I can tell D.C. is totally different


I think it is difficult to imagine anyone looking at these photos and not noticing the European influence. In 1791, George Washington appointed Pierre-Charles L'Enfant ( an architect/planner from France) to plan the national capitol, and he based it on classic Beaux Arts designs. Certainly looks a great deal more "European" than most American cities.


----------



## VelesHomais (Sep 1, 2004)

Now I want to go there again, it's a remarkable city. The amount of magnificent awe-inspiring architecture there is just too great



Dr.Seltsam said:


> Paris? Prague? Rome? Vienna?
> 
> I mean D.C. is really a beautiful city...but can't keep up with the mentioned cities, in my opinion.


Washington is far more impressive than Rome


----------



## -KwK345- (May 23, 2007)

Amazing pics!! Love all the detail and carvings!! :yes:


----------



## another_viet (Oct 10, 2005)

Dr.Seltsam said:


> Paris? Prague? Rome? Vienna?
> 
> I mean D.C. is really a beautiful city...but can't keep up with the mentioned cities, in my opinion.


Ehhh its hard to say because these cities are completely different. 

The National Mall is really unique. No other city or capitol has a system of FREEEEEEEEE *world* class museums (Smithsonian). And you cannot forget the monuments and memorials.

Washington D.C. is strictly government and isn't cosmopolitan. The city runs on government agencies or its affiliates. There aren't any industries. (well, tourism of course). Besides, D.C. is a quarter the size of those cities. Most people live in the suburbs and commute.


----------



## Dale (Sep 12, 2002)

Nice pictures of Mordor.


----------



## skyboi (Mar 30, 2008)

Washington DC is the glory of the US , it's so well represented by those beautiful buildings , impressive ...


----------



## MNiemann (Sep 5, 2007)

I love the detail you captured in these photos. There have been quite a few DC threads here recently, but 1) you captured mostly the touristy parts without making it look tacky or slide-show and 2) you were the first to zoom in on the detail. 

Compared to any other city in the U.S. (unless, arguably St. Augustine FL or Helen GA) Washington D.C. looks the most European. You can't deny the architectural influences of so many European styles when looking at D.C. as a whole. 

Would have loved to see pics of Grand Central though. That is probably more impressive than anything in the whole city. Great set of pics.


----------



## tritown (Aug 25, 2004)

Dale said:


> Nice pictures of Mordor.


Are you crazy? :nuts: It doesn't matter what you think of the government; the pictures that he's shown are beautiful, and you can't argue against that.


----------



## Dale (Sep 12, 2002)

tritown said:


> Are you crazy? :nuts: It doesn't matter what you think of the government; the pictures that he's shown are beautiful, and you can't argue against that.


And it doesn't matter what you think of what I think of govenment. I acknowledged that the pictures were nice. Now lighten up.


----------



## MDguy (Dec 16, 2006)

Great photos! I wish you had some more photos of Georgetown and that general area though! I find that part of the city far more interesting than the mall, although the mall is always nice  Especially in these photos


----------



## melbstud (Mar 26, 2008)

nice pics but as for the most powerful im not sure, i guess then it makes it the most under threat aswell?


----------



## Leadingtraveler (Jun 13, 2007)

here r some georgetown photos!


----------



## icracked (Feb 15, 2007)

melbstud said:


> nice pics but as for the most powerful im not sure, i guess then it makes it the most under threat aswell?


How can you not be sure its the most powerful city in the world? Seriously dude. . .Think about it and this is coming from an Indonesian.


----------



## lawine (Jul 24, 2006)

Burislav said:


> Washington is far more impressive than Rome


You can not possibly be serious.


----------



## Maxim Prokopenko (Dec 1, 2006)

The Den of The Beast seems to be beautiful enough city.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

Thanks for those Georgetown pics.. very nice.


----------



## Kampflamm (Dec 28, 2003)

Burislav said:


> Washington is far more impressive than Rome


I've never been to Rome but DC didn't strike me as that impressive. There are some nice monuments out there but the city feels like it lacks a soul. And the outer suburbs are incredible (in a negative way). We drove thru them and I was shocked to see such run down areas in the capital of the most powerful country on earth.


----------



## TohrAlkimista (Dec 18, 2006)

Burislav said:


> Washington is far more impressive than Rome


Not serious?

:hahaha:


...serious?

:crazy:


Is this you? http://www.viaggiaresempre.it/06vecchio_occhiali.JPG

:shifty:


----------



## Mateus R. (Feb 4, 2007)

Great architecture and indeed a powerful city. I particularly like its street layout.


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

Such a bold thread titel and noone is complaining or arguing 

Nice pics kay:


----------



## philvia (Jun 22, 2006)

too bad the pics are down


----------



## Leadingtraveler (Jun 13, 2007)

yeah sry everyone, the pics will be workin again on the 12th! damn photobucket


----------



## Jaybird (Sep 8, 2003)

I could not agree more. D.C. is lovely! I would love to make it out to the U.S. Capital someday!


----------



## Hebrewtext (Aug 18, 2004)

but the Jews control Washington D.C so the most powerful city is located somewhere in the middle east.....:nuts::nuts:
http://images.google.co.il/imgres?imgurl=http://www15.ocn.ne.jp/~oyakodon/newversion/pic6/khazaria_map.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www15.ocn.ne.jp/~oyakodon/newversion/yudayasensou.e.htm&h=337&w=400&sz=42&hl=iw&start=437&um=1&tbnid=6ajz4RlpXFleeM:&tbnh=104&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dearliest%2B%2Bjewish%2Bcommunities%2Bin%2Beurope%2Bmap%26start%3D420%26ndsp%3D20%26um%3D1%26hl%3Diw%26sa%3DN


----------



## MelbourneMaverick (May 20, 2008)

The most powerful city is Brussels.
But DC is still cool.
until you get outside the centre.
there its shit.


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

"but the Jews control Washington D.C so the most powerful city is located somewhere in the middle east"

I thought they controlled NYC and LA.


----------



## Thermo (Oct 25, 2005)

Bandwith exceeded. Can't see the pictures anymore


----------



## japanese001 (Mar 17, 2007)

The hometown is the best.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

philadweller said:


> "but the Jews control Washington D.C so the most powerful city is located somewhere in the middle east"
> 
> I thought they controlled NYC and LA.


I have suggested to Hebrewtext that this type of generalizing is not
suitable for the photography section.


----------



## MDguy (Dec 16, 2006)

Leadingtraveler thanks for those Georgetown photos!! Love Georgetown. Love DC. Love the Mid-Atlantic. Love the East coast


----------



## Sigurbjorn Jonsson (May 6, 2008)

*No photos*

I did not see any photos. Perhaps a malfunction of some sort. Would love to see those pictures though.


----------



## city_thing (May 25, 2006)

another_viet said:


> Ehhh its hard to say because these cities are completely different.
> 
> The National Mall is really unique. No other city or capitol has a system of FREEEEEEEEE *world* class museums (Smithsonian). And you cannot forget the monuments and memorials.
> 
> Washington D.C. is strictly government and isn't cosmopolitan. The city runs on government agencies or its affiliates. There aren't any industries. (well, tourism of course). Besides, D.C. is a quarter the size of those cities. Most people live in the suburbs and commute.


All the museums in London and the UK are free, except for a few private ones. But all the major museums and galleries are free, and more than world class.

Australian ones are free as well.

Free museums might be something strange and unusual for the US, but for the rest of the world they're not.


----------



## liveforever (Nov 16, 2005)

city_thing is right to point out that most London and indeed UK museums ( the Imperial War Museum, National Portrait Gallery, Natural History Museum etc etc) are all free of charge.

I don't think anyone is arguing or complaining about the title threat because it is clearly designed to bait people into some kind of an argument that will only end up getting nasty.

Washington DC is a wonderful city, it's a shame we are unable to view your photos Leadingtraveler, but certainly it is a capital city to be proud of. However, and obviously it is down to individual opinion, but I don't think it falls into the same category as Rome, Paris or even London. I think there are some individual buildings in DC that are beautiful and particularly impressive but beyond that I fail to see anything of note. It is a city built by politicians for politicians. With respect to Rome, let us remind ourselves that as a city it boasts more that a thousand years of history and architecture, has been the epicentre of one of the largest empires on earth and one of the most widely followed religions. In terms of US cities, DC does have more in common with European architecture than most others, but is still more or less unique, which I think is more to be proud of. 

And whilst were on the topic of power guys, just remember the responsibility part.


----------



## Dank City (Aug 8, 2008)

Great photos.

Unlike most of the European Capitals DC is being compared to, Washington is growing at an astonishing rate becoming a greater city every day (the greater metro area adds about 60,000 jobs and 90,000 people per year). Most European capitals are past their prime with the exception of London, Warsaw and a few others. The United States is rapidly increasing in population meaning the budget of the Federal Government gets bigger as well. This ensures Washington will always have a rapidly growing economy and an expanding urban footprint. I remember the city 15 years ago and I can tell you Washington is unrecognizable compared to then...I'm proud to call this place home now. With new streetcar lines, new light rail, new subway lines, growth in the private sector and a continual construction boom, Washigton's limits are endless and it is rapidly growing to fit the role of the capital of the world's most powerful nation and only true superpower. 

Not only is the center of the District of Columbia incredible, but so are Washington's many ring cities such as Friendship Heights, Arlington, Bethesda, Alexandria, Silver Spring, Tysons Corner, Rockville, Reston, Leesburg, Frederick, Annapolis and Baltimore.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

city_thing said:


> Free museums might be something strange and unusual for the US, but for the rest of the world they're not.


Nothing is "free"- it comes from general taxation. "No admission" would be a better term.


----------



## Leadingtraveler (Jun 13, 2007)

btw, the pictures are finally working again!


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Great DC pictures. When I visited DC I liked the flair and life in George town but also Capitol hills. The central city seemed to be a bit sterile, even though I have heard some parts of it are also raising to live again. The mall damn sure is impressive, but for my taste its a bit too extensive, you know its quite a walk from one side to another. 


But as someone mentioned above the thread title might be disputed by Brussels. At least thats supposedly the city with slightly more lobbyists and international journalists. 

The EU buildings are however not exactly what one would call a tourist magnet. The architecture there looks rather depressing, people probably would have lacked the understanding for neoclassicist buildings anyway. 

To give you an idea, the European Parliament in Brussels: (the complex even has a nick name "the whim of the gods")


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

^^ I see your point. Not really a "Kodak Moment", is it?


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^ But to be fair. Add some sun and the square looks pretty friendly and human scale. Apart from that it seems to be the sole place in the EU quarter with bustling life as there is a quite some gastronomy around the square where you can also go out a bit.


----------



## zazo (Dec 5, 2005)

Yeah, the most powerfull city in the world is Brussels, the capital of the most powerfull country: the European Union, but our city doesn't appear on Tv and cinema as Washington.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^ True but I think recently Brussels makes it increasingly often onto the list of cities that have to be destroyed in Armaggeddon movies 

Thats progress


----------



## Deanb (Jun 7, 2006)

LOL!!!


----------



## disturbanist (Sep 4, 2008)

zazo said:


> Yeah, the most powerfull city in the world is Brussels, the capital of the most powerfull country: the European Union, but our city doesn't appear on Tv and cinema as Washington.


Brussels is powerful, but the top three most powerful cities in the world are Rome, London and probably Washington D.C.

Hint: There's a reason the E.U. Constitution was signed in Rome.


----------



## giallo (Sep 14, 2002)

Rome is not even close to being one of the most powerful cities in the world. 1200 years ago, yes.


----------



## disturbanist (Sep 4, 2008)

giallo said:


> Rome is not even close to being one of the most powerful cities in the world. 1200 years ago, yes.


The Vatican and it's sub-organizations wield an incredible amount of power.

All commerce/commercial contracts are governed by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) which is licensed by UNIDROIT - based in Rome.

All road still lead to Rome.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Energy2003 said:


> ^^ you´re right !
> 
> but f.e. bruxelles as town itself has no power.
> if you would put away the EU from Bruxelles (just as an example) what would there be in Bruexelles ?


It would still have the NATO headquarters...
and the regional governments of some Belgian regions. 
From an economic point of view I guess it would be quite normal compared to other larger European cities (apart from the heavy weights)

But all in all its quite true. Brussels itself is maybe a Beta City or maybe even less. But the EU simply is an integral part of Brussels nowadays. 

What would be Washington DC if the US would relocate its capital btw? I guess even less than Brussels would be without the EU institutions.


----------



## christos-greece (Feb 19, 2008)

Brussels have "huge" power...


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

Very nice thread! The city is really monumental and powerful! Great!


----------



## christos-greece (Feb 19, 2008)

Different opinions - different cities...
(Washngton, Brussels, Rome, London, Miami, e.t.c. e.t.c.)
I think a poll needed here :lol:


----------



## city_thing (May 25, 2006)

Check out how much the 'Georgetown' sign on the bus stands out...

You must be able to see them coming from miles away...


----------



## Dr.Seltsam (May 28, 2008)

Federicoft said:


> :hilarious
> 
> SSC is priceless. Just priceless.
> I wonder how I ever survived without it.


:lol:
Best post in this thread!



Milos Obilic said:


> ...without Britain the EU would be a joke...


This is so ridiculous!
Britain wasn't even a founder member.


----------



## GaBo_CR (Oct 20, 2007)

amazing photos... i was wondering... is there any poor in DC? or anything not as perfect as in these pics?


----------



## Leadingtraveler (Jun 13, 2007)

yes, there are several poor areas. However, I never had the chance to go to them. These are pics really of the government center, rather than the whole of DC.


----------



## christos-greece (Feb 19, 2008)

Georgetown its in the center of D.C. right?


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

christos-greece said:


> Georgetown its in the center of D.C. right?


Well not the very center. Its north west of it. 
Maybe Capitol Hill is a nice quarter however. It seemed less posh but like a maybe even nicer place to me.









Georgetown in red.


----------



## MDguy (Dec 16, 2006)

Yea, Georgetown used to be Georgetown, Maryland and was there way before the idea of DC was ever around so its older than the rest of DC and really nice. I love DC


----------



## MDguy (Dec 16, 2006)

GaBo_CR said:


> amazing photos... i was wondering... is there any poor in DC? or anything not as perfect as in these pics?


There are many poor areas of DC. Generally, SE is the worst part of the city while NW and SW are the nicest part of the city, as well as the mall of course


----------



## christos-greece (Feb 19, 2008)

Slartibartfas said:


> Well not the very center. Its north west of it.
> Maybe Capitol Hill is a nice quarter however. It seemed less posh but like a maybe even nicer place to me.
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for the info (map too)


----------



## cachen (Feb 25, 2008)

> I think it is difficult to imagine anyone looking at these photos and not noticing the European influence. In 1791, George Washington appointed Pierre-Charles L'Enfant ( an architect/planner from France) to plan the national capitol, and he based it on classic Beaux Arts designs. Certainly looks a great deal more "European" than most American cities.


to clear up some bullshit in this thread: 

1. dc was not "designed by a french guy to look like paris" or any such crap. in fact, paris itself was cramped and disease rampant with medieval style while washington was being planned. it wasnt until the 1870s or so that paris got most of its famous wide streets. and guess what, dc was a podunk, muddy street hovel until after the civil war. go look up some pictures of it in the 1860s. so dc wasnt really made grand until almost a century after the streets had been laid out by the french guy. and lol, "beaux arts classics" dont come from the 1791. you are off by about 100 years. :lol: or maybe you should just stop making stuff up to support your eurocentrism. :lol:

2. europe at the time dc was planned hadnt itself yet been taken by grand neoclassical designs. europe got its big fancy sacre couers, houses of parliaments, reichstags, etc AFTER the us capitol was built. dc wasn't copying "europe", it was copying a long dead 2000 year old architectural style (also found in turkey, egypt, syria, algeria - anywhere there was greek or roman ruins), which was meant to recall reason, enlightenment, democracy, and crap. architects from europe also looked to greeks and romans for inspiration, at the same time that the americans did.

3. i love how all the racists on this site act. any time they see some pretty architecture that looks fairly clean, they go "wow it looks soo european!!" doesn't matter if its in syria, thailand, japan, mexico, or india. any nice buildings with clean streets is automatically equated with europe. and i know you racists mean it as a compliment, but its not really, when people say your city looks like a knockoff of "great civilized europe".

4. brussels, lol. yeah they command the might of the combined european armed forces, don't they. they handle the foreign affairs of all of europe, don't they. they set budgets and expenditures for all of europe, don't they. :lol: oh wait...every country in the eu still has their own military, their own foreign policy, and their own federal governments. whereas dc handles all of that shit for the united states. oh yeah, not to mention all the eu military bases on american soil. :lol: how can the eu be more powerful than the united states when the us is actually occupying europe? :lol:


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

cachen said:


> to clear up some bullshit in this thread:
> 
> 1. dc was not "designed by a french guy to look like paris" or any such crap. in fact, paris itself was cramped and disease rampant with medieval style while washington was being planned. it wasnt until the 1870s or so that paris got most of its famous wide streets. and guess what, dc was a podunk, muddy street hovel until after the civil war. go look up some pictures of it in the 1860s. so dc wasnt really made grand until almost a century after the streets had been laid out by the french guy. and lol, "beaux arts classics" dont come from the 1791. you are off by about 100 years. :lol: or maybe you should just stop making stuff up to support your eurocentrism. :lol:


That does not change the fact that the city was master planned by a French guy and that he did a fine job at it. DC was not the first planned city nor the last one. Thomas Jefferson himself brought up plans European cities as basis for the task as well. Among them the plans of Karlsruhe, Amsterdam, Paris, Orléans, Montpellier, Turin und Mailand. Even though that French man did not finish his job the influence of European architecture hardly can be neglected. 


> 2. europe at the time dc was planned hadnt itself yet been taken by grand neoclassical designs. europe got its big fancy sacre couers, houses of parliaments, reichstags, etc AFTER the us capitol was built. dc wasn't copying "europe", it was copying a long dead 2000 year old architectural style (also found in turkey, egypt, syria, algeria - anywhere there was greek or roman ruins), which was meant to recall reason, enlightenment, democracy, and crap. architects from europe also looked to greeks and romans for inspiration, at the same time that the americans did.


Neoclassicism has strong French roots. You will have a hard day denying its European origin and I am not just talking about 2000 year old roots but 250 year old roots. But whats so bad anyway with that or what is surprising? The USA were a damn young state at the time full of people with strong and rather recent European background. 



> 3. i love how all the racists on this site act. any time they see some pretty architecture that looks fairly clean, they go "wow it looks soo european!!" doesn't matter if its in syria, thailand, japan, mexico, or india. any nice buildings with clean streets is automatically equated with europe. and i know you racists mean it as a compliment, but its not really, when people say your city looks like a knockoff of "great civilized europe".


:lol: 
Well, I guess you have to live with it that the US belongs to the western world. Its old style architecture of course has been considerably influenced by Europe. Whats racist about stating that obvious fact. After all its not surprising in a country 200 years ago full with European immigrants. 



> 4. brussels, lol. yeah they command the might of the combined european armed forces, don't they. they handle the foreign affairs of all of europe, don't they. they set budgets and expenditures for all of europe, don't they. :lol: oh wait...every country in the eu still has their own military, their own foreign policy, and their own federal governments. whereas dc handles all of that shit for the united states. oh yeah, not to mention all the eu military bases on american soil. :lol: how can the eu be more powerful than the united states when the us is actually occupying europe? :lol:


The Commission decided in Brussels that the American companies GE and Honeywell are not allowed to merge, while the US administration allowed it. They did not merge even though they wanted. Sounds like quite some power to me. When Brussels decided to reform the chemical safety regulations and get rid of those outdated American ones, it created REACH. REACH is on the best way to become globally the leading regulation on chemicals, leaving the US far behind. American companies will also have to adopt it, if they want to trade with Europe, which most large companies actually do. 

These are just two examples where Brussels matters on a global stage. But also when it comes to environmental or green tech issues it plays a role. Everyone knows that the EU is no federal state with a large army on its own. So what? Its telling for you that you as an American equate power with military power and perhaps a little bit of foreign policy alone. 

The USA also has their state governments and they have a load of competences as well. Now don't try to pretend that the USA is a big centralist state, when it is quite the opposite of it. 

There are actually also European soldiers in the US, not in camps on their own but nonetheless. Thats called cooperation. You should look up the term "occupation" btw. As it seems you have problems using it correctly. The US has been granted some small pieces of territory for maintaining bases in Europe (not in eg France or Austria though). Those American forces have no authority at all outside of those basis. 


PS:
Brussels is probably not the most important city in the world, but its blind eyed to claim it does not belong to the group of most influential cities in the world. And no, you don't need a huge army for being influential, even if some Americans could not believe that. If you don't believe it, look at the number of lobbyists in DC and in Brussels. They usually are not in cities for no reasons.


----------



## Leadingtraveler (Jun 13, 2007)

Hey guys, thanks for the responses!! I was hoping some of you could visit the following link and vote for a picture I took in DC. its for a scholarship I could win!.http://www.brickfish.com/Pages/Phot..._PPIMEMAIL&isep=1&pbapi=1634167&pbvi=52085789


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

Slartibartfas said:


> That does not change the fact that the city was master planned by a French guy and that he did a fine job at it. DC was not the first planned city nor the last one. Thomas Jefferson himself brought up plans European cities as basis for the task as well. Among them the plans of Karlsruhe, Amsterdam, Paris, Orléans, Montpellier, Turin und Mailand. Even though that French man did not finish his job the influence of European architecture hardly can be neglected.
> 
> 
> Neoclassicism has strong French roots. You will have a hard day denying its European origin and I am not just talking about 2000 year old roots but 250 year old roots. But whats so bad anyway with that or what is surprising? The USA were a damn young state at the time full of people with strong and rather recent European background.
> ...


But you foget something. Behind are politicians from all capitals of Europe. Surely Brussels concentrates the EU power. But let's be honest: Politically okay, but strategically powerful, no.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Skyline_FFM said:


> But you foget something. Behind are politicians from all capitals of Europe. Surely Brussels concentrates the EU power.


Partially but not exclusively. The big anti trust decisions for example are in the hand of the trade Commissioner in Brussels. The trade Commissioner therefore might be also one of the most powerful positions in Brussels. Even Top Managers from huge companies won't ignore him, they can't afford ignoring him. 

Moreover also on other aspects of EU politics the view of Brussels concentrating national power comes too short. Supranational institutions like the Commission, the Parliament and the European Court of Justice are playing a significant role as well. Furthermore the whole is more than just the sum of its parts. 



> But let's be honest: Politically okay, but strategically powerful, no.


If strategically means military I think your argument is correct. After a European military alliance failed in the 50's or so, the EU has started to gain military capabilities only recently. So it will take still a long time until it has some larger and reliable capabilities, in case that should happen at all.


----------



## christos-greece (Feb 19, 2008)

Skyline_FFM said:


> ...Surely Brussels concentrates the EU power. But let's be honest: Politically okay, but strategically powerful, no...


I think strategically power is also "okay"


----------



## Densetsu (Feb 1, 2008)

For being the capital of USA, i can also say that Washington DC is one the most powerful cities on earth.


----------



## christos-greece (Feb 19, 2008)

MDguy said:


> ^^ 16th street


Thanks MDguy 




Slartibartfas said:


> But DC is important because of politics, nothing else...
> Maybe an exemption can be found when it comes to art. There are certainly enough high class museums in DC for the importance the city has as a capital.


Is not only political think... DC is capital also for the history of U.S. it self (Day Intependence e.t.c.)


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

christos-greece said:


> Thanks MDguy
> 
> 
> 
> Is not only political think... DC is capital also for the history of U.S. it self (Day Intependence e.t.c.)


Maybe I am biased but I consider Philadelphia as historically more important than DC.


----------



## MDguy (Dec 16, 2006)

Many, many historical things have happened in DC, but Philly was founded in 1682, while DC (not including Georgetown which had existed for a long time as Georgetown, Maryland) was founded in 1801 (that's when it was officially organized). That definently makes a difference, but i don't know if i would say either one are more historically important


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

MDguy said:


> Many, many historical things have happened in DC, but Philly was founded in 1682, while DC (not including Georgetown which had existed for a long time as Georgetown, Maryland) was founded in 1801 (that's when it was officially organized). That definently makes a difference, but i don't know if i would say either one are more historically important


Well, of course thats up to the focus you have on history. But in Philadelphia some of the most important actions in the US history took part. Its a key to understand the creation of the state as such. Thats in my opinion hard to beat. I do not want to say however that DC has not a very rich history itself, it certainly has.


----------



## MDguy (Dec 16, 2006)

DC wasn't officially even existing in 1776 when the country itself was formed so i guess theres no way, for you at least, that DC could be more historically important than Philly


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^ Of course the history of a country is much more than just the place of its creation and its beginnings. Nonetheless this very aspect makes the place where it took place certainly very important. Later on, DC certainly overtook most of the importance, but until then, and that was not such a short time, Philadelphia was a very important place in the USA. 

But you are perfectly right. It completely depends on the focus someone sets. DC certainly has a very interesting and important history itself.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Slartibartfas said:


> But the 500 000 inhabitants are certainly not who are the cause for DC's fame. Actually thats a pretty small city. Granted there are very fine areas in DC. I personally like as already indicated earlier in this thread Capitol hill but also George Town is fine in its own way.
> 
> But DC is important because of politics, nothing else. I mean no one is trying to claim that DC rivals cities like Tokyo, London, Paris in terms of economic significance.
> 
> ...


Washington is a top ten media market, it is home to many Fortune 500 businesses and Forbes regularly rates it as one of the top places to either start or relocate a business. It is more important (not on a political level) than most American cities. The surrounding suburbs are collectively the richest in the nation, and themselves have numerous fortune 500 companies. I guess you can take it from me, someone who used to live in Washington, that the city is much more than you think it is.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

en1044 said:


> Washington is a top ten media market, it is home to many Fortune 500 businesses and Forbes regularly rates it as one of the top places to either start or relocate a business. It is more important (not on a political level) than most American cities. The surrounding suburbs are collectively the richest in the nation, and themselves have numerous fortune 500 companies. I guess you can take it from me, someone who used to live in Washington, that the city is much more than you think it is.


I did not mean that DC is an economic dwarf. I said, it clearly does not belong to the peak of global economic heart cities. No way that it could come close to NYC, Tokio but also London or Paris to name examples. 
Its economic influence might be large for a city of its size, maybe even huge, but don't forget that there are far larger cities out there with considerably more economical potential. Even a similar sized city like Frankfurt am Main might overcome DC in economic significance.


----------



## Siegessäule (Jan 16, 2009)

Berlin & Brussels Baby! :bow:


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

Slartibartfas said:


> I did not mean that DC is an economic dwarf. I said, it clearly does not belong to the peak of global economic heart cities. No way that it could come close to NYC, Tokio but also London or Paris to name examples.
> Its economic influence might be large for a city of its size, maybe even huge, but don't forget that there are far larger cities out there with considerably more economical potential. Even a similar sized city like Frankfurt am Main might overcome DC in economic significance.


But Frankfurt has not the power to chose or not whether there is world peace or world war! Washington HAS! (But so have Beijing, Moscow, London, Paris)...


----------



## christos-greece (Feb 19, 2008)

Siegessäule said:


> Berlin & Brussels Baby! :bow:


Brussels


----------



## CODEBARRE75011 (May 16, 2006)

Haughtiness photos.:cheers: That this above reminds me the Garnier Opera :


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Sheash, this thread degenerated into an argument of epic proportions. Sure the thread title is a little inflammatory, but the photos are interesting! Washington is a city of contrasts and it certainly interests me far more than many of the sunbelt cities of the US.


----------



## christos-greece (Feb 19, 2008)

What is it building in the first pic ^^


----------



## MDguy (Dec 16, 2006)

Svartmetall said:


> Sheash, this thread degenerated into an argument of epic proportions. Sure the thread title is a little inflammatory, but the photos are interesting! Washington is a city of contrasts and it certainly interests me far more than many of the sunbelt cities of the US.


DC a sunbelt city?

subelt:


----------



## wushui (Aug 9, 2005)

MDguy said:


> Uh...no behind the white house is no ghetto
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's a nice house, I wonder how much the guy who lives there now paid for it.


----------



## wushui (Aug 9, 2005)

MDguy said:


> DC a sunbelt city?
> 
> subelt:


No. Read again.


----------



## Skyline_FFM (May 25, 2008)

MDguy said:


> DC a sunbelt city?
> 
> subelt:


No, I actually understood him saying that Washington is more than THOSE sunbelt cities (e.g. Miami only offering skyline and beaches)... And even not being in the sunbelt it offers so much! But this is only what I think what he wanted to say. With my rudimentary English knowledges I am not sure whether this was what he wanted to say or not...


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

MDguy said:


> DC a sunbelt city?
> 
> subelt:


I wasn't saying it was a sunbelt city. Sorry, I did convey my thoughts badly there, but both Skyline_FFM and Wushui are dead right, I meant that I find cities like DC in the US to be far more photogenic and worthy of being displayed on this forum than most of the sunbelt cities in the USA which tend to saturate the forums more.


----------



## MDguy (Dec 16, 2006)

ok, ok! I get it now, you three! haha

Although i think some people forget that cities like Charleston, Savannah, and New Orleans lie in the Sunbelt


----------

