Better architecture: Paris vs Rome (best, life, places, people)

[nature's message]

Out of the cities chosen, which do you think has the better architecture?? Please post some pics.

[NYC1DAY]

Originally Posted by nature's message

Out of the cities chosen, which do you think has the better architecture?? Please post some pics.

You start really good threads.

I know that this is off topic....... but I would rather live in these two cities over many places in the u.s.

As far as architecture, they are both great. I refuse to vote

[BPerone201]

Rome.

Roman architecture is the platinum of architecture

[nycricanpapi]

Isn't this thread supposed to be in the World forum? Because this is General U.S. lol.

[K.O.N.Y]

i would pick rome. But personaly both of their architecture is overrated. Their architecture is based on ancient ish. Like on some before christ..... bc(when caesar was emperor), ish. Chicago and nyc both are better in that we are modern greatness. Stop overrating these foriegn cities its getting outta hand

Rome has better architecture

(The best in the world)

Paris has a better cityscape though imo

[grapico]

Rome ancient... Paris modern...

Eh... there is really no better in this, but I voted Rome... the whole city is one giant archaelogical dig. Walking around some of the palaces, and the Vatican along is mind blowing...(especially the sistine chapel ceiling)

[jacksonian]

Did someone really just call Rome's architecture "overrated"? Are you kidding?!? The Romans, along with the Greek, gave birth to "classical" architecture. The comparison between Paris and Rome has no justification, as classical architecture is the single most influential architecture to ever exist. If you want to prove me wrong, name me one building that has been built in your lifetime that will still be standing 2000 years from now. If you think Roman architecture is "overrated" then you obviously have never visited Rome.

Oh, and here's the Pantheon, just one of Rome's many great examples of architecture. It was built in 126 AD.

[atlantagreg30127]

Originally Posted by nycricanpapi

Isn't this thread supposed to be in the World forum? Because this is General U.S. lol.

I will allow this because it's not a comparison between a U.S. and a European city (which doesn't work), but instead two European cities (hence technically, "city vs city" and of a fair quality), and frankly, because it keeps this non-serious stuff OUT of the more serious world rooms.

So long as it remains civil and people abide by the room sticky, I'll leave it be.

[tmac9wr]

Originally Posted by K.O.N.Y

i would pick rome. But personaly both of their architecture is overrated. Their architecture is based on ancient ish. Like on some before christ..... bc(when caesar was emperor), ish. Chicago and nyc both are better in that we are modern greatness. Stop overrating these foriegn cities its getting outta hand

It's blasphemous to call the architecture of cities like Paris and Rome overrated. You're entitled to your opinion, but many other people think that this ancient "ish" is much better than the modern "ish" you're praising. In my opinion, both Paris and Rome have better architecture than both New York and Chicago. However, as I've said in other threads, just because people are praising other cities doesn't mean cities like New York and Chicago are any less beautiful. Beauty is not a zero-sum game. P.S. Please stop saying "ish" haha.

On topic:

This is a battle of two architecture titans. Paris, Rome, London, New York, and Amsterdam have the most impressive architecture in the world in my opinion. I personally like Paris' architecture better, but that's only because I believe Paris is the most beautiful city in the world. People can make extremely valid points to support both sides.

The Art Nouveau and Haussmann style in Paris are my two favorite in the world.

It's hard not to fawn over Paris' architecture. Thanks to JP at SkyscraperCity, all pics taken by him:

Mod cut.

I think this is apart of some museum