# London: ugly or beautiful?



## Accura4Matalan (Jan 7, 2004)

I cant believe that the large Tesco wagons go into central London hno:


----------



## Smarty (Jun 14, 2006)

Amazing pictures that really capture the essence of what London is about


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

I know this sounds perverse, but thanx to the wartime bombs we have the London we have today. We should be proud of our history however negative it may seem, and make the most of it for what is lost is lost - and has made us what we are now.

I really do think the architectural mix has contributed to the extreme social mix that is the place today.


----------



## aquablue (Mar 18, 2006)

london's beauty will improve as more ugly 70's/60's buildings are demolished and replaced with something more interesting -- also, it will improve with changes to oxford street future piazza's, pedestrianization, olympic park, king cross,etc..


----------



## aquablue (Mar 18, 2006)

In regards to the photos, London appears like a huge village...in comparirson with NY, with its canyons, London is more human scaled. In other words, a large tapestry of villages with different characters... spitalfields is in the east end and is not ugly, so not all east end is ugly


----------



## aquablue (Mar 18, 2006)

Its true though, London is not manicured like NYC


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

yes, London is very different from NYC in that respect:



the spliff fairy said:


> There are no ghettoes in London, not on race, architectural style or even economy, which is most rare in a 20th/21st Century city - everything is mixed to the extreme.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

btw 'London's beauty being able to be improved' by the replacement of the postwar concrete blocks goes totally against what Im trying to point out here. look at the pics on pg 4, *the ugliness makes the beauty* if u know what I mean. 

this argument shouldnt any longer be about conventional setpiece 'beauty'.


----------



## Lostboy (Sep 14, 2002)

Paris is more beautiful, the reason it is such a beautiful city is because of the large uniform nature of most of the city. London has never had that wide open space of a planned city that Napoleonic Paris has.


----------



## Lee (Jun 2, 2003)

aquablue said:


> In regards to the photos, London appears like a huge village...in comparirson with NY, with its canyons, London is more human scaled. In other words, a large tapestry of villages with different characters... spitalfields is in the east end and is not ugly, so not all east end is ugly


NY has more than just midtown, with its canyons. Go to the upper east or west side. In fact, get out of Manhattan and see what a dynamic city it is.


----------



## aquablue (Mar 18, 2006)

Hmm, i know what NYC is like, i live 4 hours drive from it == i've been there many times Mr. Lee. Also, what part of NYC is more manicured than London?


----------



## aquablue (Mar 18, 2006)

Jeez, stop comparing London to Paris, why not compare London to Tokyo, HK or Rome, why can you only compare with the top


----------



## aquablue (Mar 18, 2006)

I'm sorry, i'd prefer it when the ugly blocks are gone...you might like their perverse beauty, not me.


----------



## Myster E (Oct 17, 2006)

every city has it's ugly parts, London's most unpleasant parts include Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Harlesden and Southwark and The Southbank in Cental London's pretty gritty too with smelly zit faced greasy haired skateboarder punks spraying grafitti, but she has her beauty spots too. London is a very feminine city if you can look past certain elements and she's so beautiful in the evening sunset with the river thames glowing.


----------



## aquablue (Mar 18, 2006)

The entire southwark is not unpleasant....you must be crazy, its one hell of alot more interesting than central Birmingham.


----------



## Zenith (Oct 23, 2003)

Lostboy said:


> Paris is more beautiful, the reason it is such a beautiful city is because of the large uniform nature of most of the city. London has never had that wide open space of a planned city that Napoleonic Paris has.


Lol well that settles it then ! That is your opinion and I respect it. I do disagree. I find the uniformity to be basic, dull, and too ordered. I prefer the organic, the natural and the unplanned nature of parts of London.

I like human scale buildings that have grown through circumstance...this to me is far more varied, and adds to the historical feel of a place. That is exactly why the victoriana etc in London appeals to me more than the modern, aka Canary Wharf. However knowing that London has both grid style modern areas, and more chaotuc areas does nothing but add to the mix !

Whereas I find the huge avenues in Paris impressive (I mean by god Paris is a great city wow)...I would never want that for London.


----------



## Tubeman (Sep 12, 2002)

Regarding the photos Spliff fairy posted:

Quite simply the best, most representative, collection of photos of 'real' London I have ever seen... Bravo!


----------



## ROYU (Jul 19, 2004)

What a great city, everything appers to be in order and I like the dynamic the city looks. A city with lots of mixture and great feeling. Nice pics from London.


----------



## aquablue (Mar 18, 2006)

I asked you why is london less manicured and no one answered


----------



## Citystyle (Jan 6, 2005)

London has its own feel and to compare it to Paris is silly, all cities have brilliant parts all have ugly parts. Building Avenues or winning a war? Go figure London is what it is and it has a lust from it’s own proud history, to me personally I find London a nicer place to be, Paris is a dream in my eyes but I found it hard to get involved? Lack of French perhaps. Paris feels more trapped where as London feels far more involved, Remember effort put into Paris breeds results.


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

I think that I am one of the first ones to criticize Londoners' propensity to think/say/believe "we rule all other cities drool."

However, it is extremely odd to call London an ugly city. To me, there are two types of beauties that arise in the world of cities, those that are planned and those that evolve as such. Cities like Paris for example were planned to be beautiful, as such they are. Cities like London happened to evolve to be beautiful without direct planning.

So it depends on tastes. To me, Paris aesthetically is a more pleasing city to the eye. However, I prefer how cities like London gradually evolved into their beauty.

Rant over.


----------



## aquablue (Mar 18, 2006)

well london of course was planned in a different way.. how do you think all those parks, and garden squares, and terraces came about? Regent street is a planning intervention, as is belgravia, etc... its not a free for all like tokyo.


----------



## DonQui (Jan 10, 2005)

aquablue said:


> well london of course was planned in a different way.. how do you think all those parks, and garden squares, and terraces came about? Regent street is a planning intervention, as is belgravia, etc... its not a free for all like tokyo.


Now, OBVIOUSLY it is not entirely unplanned. But what I am talking about now is that there was a MUCH reduced attempt to bulldoze buildings to great grand avenues like in Paris and to create a more unified architectural style. CLEARLY this is a HUGE difference between Paris and London. 

Plus those parks, weren't they former royal hunting grounds? IMO, that is infact a PERFECT example of an evolving city. :yes:


----------



## sbarn (Mar 19, 2004)

For anyone who thinks London is 'ugly' --> :bash: 

However, I don't see why New York (or Paris, or any other city for that matter) is even being mentioned in this thread. NYC is beautiful in its own right, as is Paris, etc...


----------



## aquablue (Mar 18, 2006)

yes, it did evolve through small planning interventions unlike a paris, a NYC or a bercelona which have planned street layouts...I would say it is more like Rome or a Tokyo in its evolution.


----------



## Zenith (Oct 23, 2003)

sbarn said:


> For anyone who thinks London is 'ugly' --> :bash:
> 
> However, I don't see why New York (or Paris, or any other city for that matter) is even being mentioned in this thread. NYC is beautiful in its own right, as is Paris, etc...


Tis logical my learned friend....Tis only natural to compare a thing to another in order to gauge its beauty..to set a benchmark as it were..


----------



## FM 2258 (Jan 24, 2004)

I was in London in August and it's one of the most beautiful cities I've ever seen. It's seriously the capital of the world and I saw so many beautiful women there too.


----------



## Zenith (Oct 23, 2003)

^^

A wonderful compliment thankyou... Im not saying its true, but it certainly means London had a positive effect on you. can I ask you why you think that? Be great to know 

I too like the ladies there...yummmm


----------



## sbarn (Mar 19, 2004)

zenith said:


> Tis logical my learned friend....Tis only natural to compare a thing to another in order to gauge its beauty..to set a benchmark as it were..


To a degree... however, they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder (as I'm sure you know)... while someone may thing London is the most beautiful city, others may think Paris or Vancouver take the prize. Therefore, due to personal preference, it is almost an unnecessary exercise.

But, in any case... as I was alluding to, London is one of my all time favorite cities... and I think it is absolutly amazing and dynamic.


----------



## Zenith (Oct 23, 2003)

^^

Totally agree with everything youve said


----------



## Tubeman (Sep 12, 2002)

aquablue said:


> London has no meatpacking district or places like that, trendy cutting edge places like NYC has..


Utter rubbish. What about areas like Smithfield, Hoxton, Shoreditch, Clerkenwell etc?

Smithfield is directly analogous the Meatpacking district being the main meat market in London, and its surrounded by industrial buildings converted into loft apartments and trendy bars / nightclubs (some of the trendiest).


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

what on earth are you on about aquaboy? Have u ever been to London ? They don't laud it as the coolest city in the world for nothing (tho' Istanbulis, Madrilenos and Tokyoites might have a few things to say about that....). Practically the whole of Inner London is trendsville, and its been doing this for a damn time longer, about 400 years worth of leftfield neighbourhoods falling in and out of fashion.

tediously hip places like Camden, Notting Hill and Soho (NYCs equivalent are the over-gentrified upper East side, SoHo and Greenwich villages), have been replaced by Clerkenwell, Hoxton, Spitalfields-Shoreditch, South Bank, Vauxhall, Fitzrovia, Marylebone, Brixton, Camberwell, Kensal Green, Borough, Hackney, and Islington for the cutting edge - yes there are that many of them.
All these areas with the exception of Marylebone and Fitzrovia were deprived or industrial areas, and most still are - Hackney with the worst crime in the country, Shoreditch one of the poorest Islamic areas of the city and more artists than almost anywhere in the world.
However 'hip' they are tho' these places aren't about following a fashion - go to Chelsea or Kensington for that - these places just ARE. The multitude of entertainment and cultural options haven't bloomed there just because its a fashionable part of town, theyre there because the ideas/ the social scene were already there first if u kno what I mean...
Anyways theyve got more edge and character than the meatpacking district, DUMBO or Tribeca I can tell u that...

Theres alot to love about NYC, alot thats better, but hey just dont say its more 'hip', that is definitely out of touch.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

Anyone who says London is ugly is probably just doing so out of jealousy.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

hey, anyway, back to the thread...

like someone mentioned beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If someone thinks London is ugly they have every right and justification to, all I can say is that I disagree and that , imo, it's painting a heavy misconception.


----------



## Minato ku (Aug 9, 2005)

Why every one say that Paris is the most beautiful city in the world
It is absoluty wrong (I live in Paris. I can say that :lol: )

London is beautiful, interesting and a very pleasant city


----------



## I-275westcoastfl (Feb 15, 2005)

How can london be ugly? I understand some parts of it or some building but the city overall? Whoever says its ugly is either a hater or needs a vision check.


----------



## SE9 (Apr 26, 2005)

minato ku said:


> Why every one say that Paris is the most beautiful city in the world
> It is absoluty wrong (I live in Paris. I can say that :lol: )
> 
> London is beautiful, interesting and a very pleasant city


Me too  Most say that Paris is the most beautiful city, as they compare its city-centre to other cities, in which case it can stake a very strong claim.

I personally think that no large city can hold the title of 'most beautiful city'. I generally find smaller cities with little-to-no urban decay are more pleasing to the eye.

Almost no city in the world can be described as 'ugly'.


----------



## gronier (Mar 2, 2005)

SE9 said:


> Me too  Most say that Paris is the most beautiful city, as they compare its city-centre to other cities, in which case it can stake a very strong claim.
> 
> I personally think that no large city can hold the title of 'most beautiful city'. I generally find smaller cities with little-to-no urban decay are more pleasing to the eye.
> 
> Almost no city in the world can be described as 'ugly'.



Yes, but among really large cities in the world, in terms of beauty, clearly there isn't a rival for Paris.

I mean, just look at this, who couldn't like it?


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Of COURSE London is beautiful! 

That's not to say it's all good. Railways tend to be lined with grafitti, industrial uses, and often shabby neighborhoods. Generally the older high-rises and high-rise districts are hideous. 

But most older neighborhoods and most high streets look great. London's architecture is some of the world's best. And it has great parks.


----------



## edubejar (Mar 16, 2003)

I've never seen London as an ugly city, even its less attractive, lower-income areas. London simply has too many architectural treasures to notice the ugly parts. Nonetheless, I have seen some lame or even ugly parts, particularly in low-income neighborhoods but it certainly does not stick to my head so that it's among the first things I see when I think of London.

Yes, Paris is a very beautiful city and I do think it's a more esthetically attractive city than London. But comparing London to Paris only suggests that London is beautiful enough to dare compare with what is perhaps the most beautiful major city in the world. However, Paris, a city I've been to 10 or 11 times and that amazes me more the more I go, has it's share of unnattractive areas examplifying bad 60's/70s/80s architecture, as well as neglected old architecture in working class east neighorhoods, such as Belleville and adjacent neighorhoods. But somehow, these unnattractive areas of Paris don't seem to stand out as much, perhaps because it's less in ratio to the nice parts, compared to London.

But again, Paris is too beautiful as a comparison for London. The whole beauty of Paris is so much part of both national and municipal politics (and maybe even regional). There are so many public programs aimed at beautifying the city, as well as policies requiring private developpers to exercise strict esthetics--sometimes so strict that you end up with what many would consider conservative homogeneity.


----------



## cheersmate (May 6, 2006)

SnowyBoy1 said:


> London is neither ugly or beautiful. Of course, some parts of London are ugly, very ugly, but then there are many other areas that are so beautiful, they will take your breath away.
> 
> The only reason that some people find London to be an ugly city, is because it is a European city and many people (both from Europe and from outside of Europe) have pre-conceived notions of what a European city should be i.e. that the city centre should be comprised almost entirely of "old" buildings, with a sprinkling of iconic modern buildings. Paris is a good example of this.
> 
> ...


same w/ prague..saw some hideous buildings in the outskirt..
so far..london is the most interesting city ive ever been to..may it be history or architecture..


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

This is going down the tubes and fast becoming a City vs City .


----------



## Octoman (Nov 16, 2006)

I like the fact that some of the central areas of London average only a couple of stories. It gives a lightr, less claustrophobic feel in what can at times be quite an overwhelming place.


----------



## eusebius (Jan 5, 2004)

So, let's just stick to London then. Yes ^^ that adds to the famous village touch of Soho, Covent Garden etc however very narrow streets with multi-storey buildings at both sides can also attribute to a sense of feeling at home.

Like I said I love the buzz, the entertainment, the media, the sports and general attitude in London yet from an aesthetical point of view, I find London dull.

Someone tell me, is there a local rule, like in Edinburg, that natural stone has to be used on buildings?

This might be a little far fetched but peoples have certain qualities; the Dutch for example are crap at the auditive arts but good at the visual arts, and I feel it's v.v. with the British though British graphic design can be pretty neat


----------



## sbarn (Mar 19, 2004)

the spliff fairy said:


> if you were to 'manicure' London u'd be losing all this. London is all in one, the beauty and the grit, and Londoners wouldnt have it any other way.
> 
> To quote ad nauseum the most famous line on the city, (Samuel Johnson)
> 'if youre tired of London Youre tired of life.. for there lies in London all that one can afford'


The exact same thing could be said for New York... in fact, any of those images could be replicated in neighborhoods of Manhattan, Brooklyn, etc... I don't believed either city as a whole is "manicured".


----------



## JGG (May 3, 2006)

Tubeman said:


> This has seriously got to be one of the most misguided statements I have ever heard on ssc!
> 
> We have Roman Wall, a Medieval Castle, Norman Cathedrals, Tudor buildings, Neo-Classical (National gallery, British Museum, St Paul's), Georgian, Neo-gothic (Houses of Parliament, Midland Hotel, Natural History Museum), Edwardian, Art Nouveau, Art Deco, Modernist, Brutalist, Postmodern... I honestly think you'd be hard pressed to find anywhere on earth with as much of a mixed bag of architectural styles / eras as London.
> 
> ...


I fully agree. No idea what Eusebius is going on about. He can state London is ugly, that's all a matter of personal taste, but not that it lacks architectural variation. I just add a few - all pre-war:

- Gothic revival, for instance Houses of Parliament and St Pancras Chambers
- Regency, for instance Regent's Park
- Palladian, for instance the Queen's House in Greenwich
- Baroque, for instance St Pauls and all the Wren churches
- Italianate, for instance the Royal Albert Hall and Little Venice
- Tudor, for instance Liberty & Co
- Gothic, for instance Westminster Abbey
- Norman, for instance the Tower
- Romanesque, for instance Temple Church
- Jugendstil, for instance the Daily Express building on Fleet Street
- Art deco, for instance Eltham Palace and the Oxo Tower
- Neoclassicism, for instance the National Gallery
- Second Empire, for instace Her Majesty's Theathre
- and I could go on for a while


----------



## JGG (May 3, 2006)

eusebius said:


> The grandeur of Mayfair and such neighbourhoods isn't very special compared to many other cities.


Nobody in London will claim Mayfair has any particular status of grandeur. If you want to see grandeur, visit Holland Park, Regent's Park, Belgravia, Brompton, Kensington, the Mall, Pall Mall, Victorial Embankment, Notting Hill, Little Venice, Maritime Greenwich, all the Royal parks, etc... and this is not to mention all the palaces in and around London.

Eusebius I can understand that you don't think London is beautiful and I do believe London has a huge challenge on its hand, first to stop further monstrosities from being built and secondly to correct mistakes of the past, but to say London does not offer architectural variety or has no places of grandeur does not make sense to me.


----------



## bnmaddict (Jan 6, 2005)

JGG said:


> - Tudor, for instance Liberty & Co


Isn't "Tudor house" the name of the building? It was built in the 1920s... I doubt it's real Tudor style, it's more a Neo-Tudor or something...

Edit: Anyway, It's a nice list of buildings JGG! Some of my favorites are there...


----------



## LLoydGeorge (Jan 14, 2006)

bnmaddict said:


> Isn't "Tudor house" the name of the building? It was built in the 1920s... I doubt it's real Tudor style, it's more a Neo-Tudor or something...


It is less than 100 years old.


----------



## eusebius (Jan 5, 2004)

@JGG
Most of those areas pretty much resemble perhaps a hundred of mid-sized cities on the continent. We're not impressed. I have grand palaces, estates etc at a dog's walk, in a city you might have never heard of.

When in London, I'd expect the style and grandeur to be multiplied by the factor 20 to 50, but in reality I'm even disappointed to witness lesser than one on one.


----------



## Manuel (Sep 11, 2002)

Peter Ackroyd on London, interviewed during London architecture Biennale 2006

"London's always been an ugly city"

"Power and money are what have made it both ugly and voraciously successful". (...) It's a largely unplanned city, with buildings that come and go. Little or nothing stays still in London. The drive for money makes it a restless creature, forever biting off its own limbs and watching them grow back in new, bigger and shinier forms."

"The city's ability to generate money makes it what it is: a rip-roaring, all-consuming, piratical monster."

"The fact that it has any saving graces in the looks and planning departments is a matter of luck, says Ackroyd, and of the passion of individuals, rather than collective judgment."

@Bnmaddict
Yes it is Neo-tudor.
Art Deco wise, I would give Barkers and the Ibex building my top marks!


----------



## eomer (Nov 15, 2003)

JGG said:


> Nobody in London will claim Mayfair has any particular status of grandeur.


But if you stop just in front of an hotel in Mayfair, you may say "I'm ruined...".
Mayfair got a very particular atmosphere.


----------



## FM 2258 (Jan 24, 2004)

zenith said:


> ^^
> 
> A wonderful compliment thankyou... Im not saying its true, but it certainly means London had a positive effect on you. can I ask you why you think that? Be great to know
> 
> I too like the ladies there...yummmm


Why do I think London is beautiful? It's just an old city that has gotten better with age. It has great architecture, beautiful large trees, great night life and their tube system is great. Also the women there have style like I haven't seen anywhere else. I can't wait to go back to London. There's so much to see and do in London and it just gets better.


----------



## JGG (May 3, 2006)

bnmaddict said:


> Isn't "Tudor house" the name of the building? It was built in the 1920s... I doubt it's real Tudor style, it's more a Neo-Tudor or something...
> 
> Edit: Anyway, It's a nice list of buildings JGG! Some of my favorites are there...


Thank you!

Yes you are correct, it is called Tudorbethan. And they still build Tudorbethan houses in many new developments (not just in Prince Charles' villages), a lot of people like it.

There are still some real Tudor buildings in London, most of them got destroyed in the fire of London though. If you go to Smithfield market, there is a tudor gatehouse to the St Bartholomew priory church, which itself is romanesque / norman style (oldest church of London after the chapel in the Tower and surprisingly most people in the world know the church, because it was the church in Four Weddings and a Funeral). Next door you also have the St Bartholomew hospital and because the NHS has never been particularly wealthy, you can see what a 18th century hospital looked like. I really recommend anybody working in the city to go there, it is an extremely historic and untouched oasis in the city. Whilst you are there, also have a look at 41 and 42 Cloth Fair, which is one of London's oldest surviving residential houses (16th century). Because the walls of the priory stopped the fire of London, this is one of the unique places to discover Norman and Tudor London (better than the Tower because there are really no tourists around). And it also shows you the extreme contrasts of London because you are really next door to the brutalist Barbican.


----------



## JGG (May 3, 2006)

Manuel said:


> Peter Ackroyd on London, interviewed during London architecture Biennale 2006
> 
> "London's always been an ugly city"
> 
> ...


So true, and certain things do not change: read my new signature!


----------



## sarflonlad (May 13, 2005)

Can I just say thanks to the people who have posted some amazing photos on this thread. They truely capture the organic forward progressing nature of London. The juxtaposition between old and new, beautiful and indeed the ugly, the street level with it's mix of characters, the views of chimneys from a recent past that has died, churches and castles from an age lost but not forgotten, the grand roads and junctions and quiant medievil alleys.

This city I was born in can get me down and sometimes i feel like I'm running to catch it up - but if you take time to stand back and just look you'll be taken aback by something you can't quite find anywhere else. A uniqueness that will hopefully grow.

I envy all who in the future who will see the relics from our age alongside whatever new creations they replace or put up alongside them.:cheers:


----------



## Snowy (Nov 6, 2006)

sarflonlad said:


> I envy all who in the future who will see the relics from our age alongside whatever new creations they replace or put up alongside them.:cheers:


Perhaps it will be the daleks JGG! Let's hope not!


----------



## SE9 (Apr 26, 2005)

Octoman said:


> I like the fact that some of the central areas of London average only a couple of stories. It gives a lightr, less claustrophobic feel in what can at times be quite an overwhelming place.


I agree, it helps London retain the 'village' feel in some senses, yet display the vibrant feel the city exudes:











As for the difference in architectural styles, this picture shows the variation in a small area:


----------



## Manuel (Sep 11, 2002)

SnowyBoy1 said:


> Perhaps it will be the daleks JGG! Let's hope not!




Oh no! I quite like the Daleks! 
The citiscape from London Bridge City to Tower Bridge is appaulling! But this is London! I find this stretch of the riverbank almost funny for its sterility!


----------



## Zenith (Oct 23, 2003)

^^

Totally agreed 

It leaves me fuming every single time.......London is my fav city but I simply will not defend whole areas of the riverbank.


----------



## eusebius (Jan 5, 2004)

Which is the very point; why on earth do people from London brace themselves as coming from a grand city. Let the people from Paris brag on length. London has so much to offer for that the city's dire architecture can never prove to be much of a burdon. It's just that most buildings look like crap and this ought to be a merely minor complaint.


----------



## Snowy (Nov 6, 2006)

eusebius said:


> Which is the very point; why on earth do people from London brace themselves as coming from a grand city. Let the people from Paris brag on length. London has so much to offer for that the city's dire architecture can never prove to be much of a burdon. It's just that most buildings look like crap and this ought to be a merely minor complaint.


Prick.


----------



## SYDNEYAHOLIC (Nov 3, 2006)

I've never been to London but I have seen many pictures of the city (and not just touristy ones) and it appears to me that it has one UGLY skyline and is fairly ugly from the air, but that once you go down to street level it has TONS of character. It's not necessarily BEAUTIFUL but character brings a certain type of beauty that can beat the conventional concept of beauty. 

There just my rambling thoughts.


----------



## eusebius (Jan 5, 2004)

Just go there and enjoy the visit. Never mind the skyline and neither the lack of design in the city's architecture. Other cities like Paris and Frankfurt might offer a lot more but not in terms of entertainment and such.


----------



## eusebius (Jan 5, 2004)

SnowyBoy1 said:


> Prick.


When you can't stand people replying either way in an 'ugly or beautiful' debate, why did you land here in the first place?

Off to watch the Ashes highlights, if you don't mind.


----------



## Har (Dec 4, 2005)

:cheers: [email protected] is very conscious of being annoying, so am I :cheers:


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

I wouldn't go as far as calling London ugly but it's not beautiful either. The best I can give it is above average for British cities. Below average for world cities.


----------



## aquablue (Mar 18, 2006)

Bullshit, so you think Tokyo is prettier than London, or HK? Hahahaha

Who is Akroyd, i can't believe this fool. why the hell does he say London is ugly -- does he even know what an ugly city is --- Houston, LA, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Milan, Jakarta, Bankok, etc... -- what crap is he talking. London may not be the most beautiful, but its up there, and hardly Ugly at all -- idiot


----------



## aquablue (Mar 18, 2006)

Frankfurt prettier than London -- how so? Frankfurt is ugly, even its skyscrapers are only average -- and its old town is fake and small.


----------



## JDRS (Feb 8, 2004)

London is far from ugly. Sure it's not perfection and I havent been to Paris but I'm sure Paris is alot more beautiful in the original sense of the word. However you only need to take a drive through London to see the rich architecture and fantastic old buildings combined with some great new stuff. Obviously there are areas which are very shabby and of poor quality. Sometimes very centrally, unlike maybe other EU capitals. City of contrasts.


----------



## aquablue (Mar 18, 2006)

Central Frankfurt -- I don't see anything that could beat London here in terms of arch, do you?




















Nothing that london can't match or beat -- very average buildings here...pedestrianization is the only thing going for it.


----------



## aquablue (Mar 18, 2006)

esubies, most buildings in london don't look like crap, that is a false statement -- very silly indeed.


----------



## aquablue (Mar 18, 2006)

Hey Calvin, Candian cities hardly match London in beauty -- Central Toronto isn't much on streetscape, and many streets are damn ugly including bloor and younge. Vancouver is lacking in architectural might, only saved by its location, and montreal's center is grey and dank, only saved by its old town and inner city neighborhoods.. There is nothing very architectually stunning about your countries downtowns..


----------



## Capoeira (Nov 22, 2006)

mmmmm

i think london it´s kind of ugly.


----------



## aquablue (Mar 18, 2006)

and i think you are too...probably hasn't even been there, creep


----------



## eusebius (Jan 5, 2004)

aquablue said:


> esubies, most buildings in london don't look like crap, that is a false statement -- very silly indeed.


Honestly, most look like crap from what I've seen. Granted, London does feature some fine buildings but as a major city of the world; nah, dim chance to make that elusive list of grand places, mate. I probably was in LDN before your parents were even born (1965).


----------



## anm (Aug 25, 2005)

The very fact there is such a discussion is telling most of the answer. IMO it is neither ugly nor beautiful overall, but has both ugly and nice parts.


----------



## eusebius (Jan 5, 2004)

Should you ask artists to rise from their graves, they'd probably answer Paris or New York, leaving it up to London and Tokyo to decide who's the ugly daughter of the world.


----------



## Capoeira (Nov 22, 2006)

ok just kidding..



honestly, among Paris, London, NY and Tokyo

The most beautiful cities for me are..

Paris
London
....
...
...
...
...
Tokyo - NY

Definately, Paris and London are much more beautiful than any city in the US. There´s no comparison.

i have been twice in Paris and London.


----------



## aquablue (Mar 18, 2006)

eusebius said:


> Honestly, most look like crap from what I've seen. Granted, London does feature some fine buildings but as a major city of the world; nah, dim chance to make that elusive list of grand places, mate. I probably was in LDN before your parents were even born (1965).


Absololute nonsense, London has a fantastic mix of buildings old and modern. You may not like the architectural styles of England, but you can't possibly say that most of the buildings in london are crap. The mix is much more impressive than the uniformity of some cities that are considered more beautiful. How dare you bring age into this, just shows how desperate you really are to resort to such tactics. In fact, you are completly wrong on that note. Actually, London is in the elusive list of grand places already, why don't you do some freaking research before making dumb grandiose statements that make no sense.

I agree Paris is more beautiful, but not NYC. Yes, NY has great buildings, but many ugly ones mixed in too just like London. Its also smothered in traffic and car fumes, and large parts of its outer neighrbohoods are not so pretty at all just like London's, etc... 

These statements about NY/Paris over LDN/TKY are just your own biased opinions, so don't attempt to proclaim that this is somehow a favored opinion on these boards.


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

aquablue said:


> Hey Calvin, Candian cities hardly match London in beauty -- Central Toronto isn't much on streetscape, and many streets are damn ugly including bloor and younge. Vancouver is lacking in architectural might, only saved by its location, and montreal's center is grey and dank, only saved by its old town and inner city neighborhoods.. There is nothing very architectually stunning about your countries downtowns..


Never said Canadian cities were beautiful. The thread is asking for our choices and we are giving them if you don't like it,And from your comments you don't seem to like anything outside of your precious London, you don't have to.

But to cut everyone else down obviously shows your level of maturity is lacking. Maybe some day when you grow up you won't have that inferiority complex and will be able to communicate on a mature level. Till then goodbye.


----------



## aquablue (Mar 18, 2006)

yawn, i don't even live in London - don't give me that "holier than thou, I'm more mature than you" shtick please.... Your opinion that London is uglier than Tokyo and NYC is off base, i'm sorry, but that is rather immature to suggest that London is below average/uglier than most large cities on the world stage..I'm incredulous, what an odd opinion to hold..:bash: hno: :nuts:


----------



## eusebius (Jan 5, 2004)

Of course I can say that many buildings in London look like crap because I've seen them develop through the years and was in the position to compare those to about a hundred towns and cities on the continent.

It's about time Londoners get to see the continent. When there's no football match taking place that is.


----------



## aquablue (Mar 18, 2006)

sure you can, but don't think everyone feels that way...and the continent has its fair share of ugly buildings... most of the major german cities for instance, with their very plain post-war architecture to replace those destroyed by bombs in WW2 - just check out most of berlin, much of hamburg, cologne, etc; look at Milan, outer Rome, rows of continuous ugly commieblocks/public flats just outside Barcelona's central districts. The list goes on and on.. i wasn't impressed by the architecture in Amsterdam's inner central district either (near dam square, not canal area)...the continent is not the architectural heavan as you think it is. And while we are at it, show me the beauty in your city.


----------



## aquablue (Mar 18, 2006)

P.S, didn't you see those pics of Frankfurt i posted -- those were pretty ugly, i expected more from the 'continent's' major financial center. Give me london over that anyday


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

My top 10 most beautiful cities.
Perth
Vancouver
Sydney
Moscow
Chicago
Berlin
Athens
Melbourne
Brussels
Rome
Not to many European cities.


----------



## eusebius (Jan 5, 2004)

@Aquablue
I don't care, we're discussing London is this thread. And either way, Amsterdam commieblocks offer twice the space of the urine-drenched council estates in London.

Which logically brings me to the smell in London.

Truly awful, ain't it? Why does London not have rules against urinating in public???

Aargh, the smell of LU. Disgusting. Guess why women hate to use the tube ...


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

eusebius you are getting a reputation eh? 
Quote:
"Mr. esiiubus in the world forums says that he thinks most of london's buildings are crap -- can you believe such nonsense -- most are crap? He also says it is lowest world city in the beauty stakes.. crazy" (aquablue)

Not nice cutting down London.:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## nitro2038 (Feb 26, 2006)

London is ugly AND beautiful. That's what makes it so special.


----------



## Tubeman (Sep 12, 2002)

This thread's gone to the dogs

I'll leave it on the note of the last comment, as it sums it up so simply and eloquently


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

Well done Eusebius for ruining the thread.

:hahano:


----------

