Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sydney is a bit like London met San Francisco/NYC and had a baby.
A lot of the oldest suburbs like Paddington are full of Victorian style terrace housing that resembles London, but adapted for the Australian climate.
Sydney's CBD has some narrow roads that are "boxed in" like London, but architecturally it is more like New York or an American city.
I think American cities are more aesthetically pleasing than English ones. The USA and Australia have some of the best laid out cities in the world, a lot of them were given a "grid layout" (New York, Melbourne, Adelaide, Philadelphia, Washington D.C.).
In my opinion, most of the beauty in the UK is too be found in the older, small/medium size cities. Many of the large cities were originally backwaters which quickly exploded during the Industrial Revolution, giving them a gritty character, or post-war in the 50's/60's, which certainly wasn't a golden age of western architecture.
Many of the older cities and towns are great, aesthetic architecture, dense, very walkable. I can't speak from personal travelling experience, but the US seems to be lacking in this department in comparison to Europe. Perhaps there's some older towns around parts of New England which have something to offer in this department?
In my opinion, most of the beauty in the UK is too be found in the older, small/medium size cities. Many of the large cities were originally backwaters which quickly exploded during the Industrial Revolution, giving them a gritty character, or post-war in the 50's/60's, which certainly wasn't a golden age of western architecture.
Many of the older cities and towns are great, aesthetic architecture, dense, very walkable. I can't speak from personal travelling experience, but the US seems to be lacking in this department in comparison to Europe. Perhaps there's some older towns around parts of New England which have something to offer in this department?
Lacking in having old architecture and walkable streets? No, they aren’t. This is also confusing because the older British towns and cities are not dense, in any meaningful way. The UK is a densely populated country, overall, and plenty of its towns are walkable, but I wouldn’t say they have radically more mixed use development or non-SFH housing than their US counterparts.
Anyways, I lean towards the US. Generally, the smaller towns of the US can have main streets or sometimes squares/“malls” that are equivalent in beauty to the average British counterpart (give or take, I guess), but the housing stock and residential streetscapes in the US tend to be much, much more varied and attractive than their British counterparts.
As far as urban areas, the US at least offers a much better variety of architecture and city-scapes to chose from. The US generally has more ornate and impressive 19th and early 20th century architecture, while Britain has impressive architecture and streetscapes from the 18th and sometimes 17th centuries. Modern architecture is pretty equivalent between them both. Bristol is pretty evenly matched with DC as far as architectural beauty goes, whereas London is somewhat less architecturally impressive than New York. A lot of British cities and larger towns are kind of ugly, (uglier than many more significant US cities) as are parts of modern, commercial Britain, but then, so are parts of Houston and the modern development in the US south (you might not find areas in the UK that are quite as ugly and disorganized as parts of Houston, for example).
I think both are evenly matched for aesthetic beauty, on average - the UK has historic Edinburgh and a certain palatial ambiance in towns like Oxford and Cambridge, though I’d give the edge to the US because it offers more variety, a prettier housing stock/residential areas and has some cities with more impressive (formidable, ornate, game-changing) architecture.
US cities are car based, hwy based, ugly mcmansions, dirty, either hot/humid or cold/windy. The architecture is ugly, and no real walkability for most of them.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 1 day ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,163 posts, read 13,449,232 times
Reputation: 19459
Quote:
Originally Posted by townhm
Lacking in having old architecture and walkable streets? No, they aren’t. This is also confusing because the older British towns and cities are not dense, in any meaningful way. The UK is a densely populated country, overall, and plenty of its towns are walkable, but I wouldn’t say they have radically more mixed use development or non-SFH housing than their US counterparts.
Anyways, I lean towards the US. Generally, the smaller towns of the US can have main streets or sometimes squares/“malls” that are equivalent in beauty to the average British counterpart (give or take, I guess), but the housing stock and residential streetscapes in the US tend to be much, much more varied and attractive than their British counterparts.
As far as urban areas, the US at least offers a much better variety of architecture and city-scapes to chose from. The US generally has more ornate and impressive 19th and early 20th century architecture, while Britain has impressive architecture and streetscapes from the 18th and sometimes 17th centuries. Modern architecture is pretty equivalent between them both. Bristol is pretty evenly matched with DC as far as architectural beauty goes, whereas London is somewhat less architecturally impressive than New York. A lot of British cities and larger towns are kind of ugly, (uglier than many more significant US cities) as are parts of modern, commercial Britain, but then, so are parts of Houston and the modern development in the US south (you might not find areas in the UK that are quite as ugly and disorganized as parts of Houston, for example).
I think both are evenly matched for aesthetic beauty, on average - the UK has historic Edinburgh and a certain palatial ambiance in towns like Oxford and Cambridge, though I’d give the edge to the US because it offers more variety, a prettier housing stock/residential areas and has some cities with more impressive (formidable, ornate, game-changing) architecture.
I don't think any one is attacking US cities, and the US is a vast country and has many more cities than the UK.
It's you that seem intent on attacking British cities for some reason.
As for comparing a relatively small regional city such as Bristol and Washington DC, and stating London is less architecturally impressive than NYC, whilst stating that a lot of British cities are ugly, it is just laughable nonsense.
As for your constant attacks on Britain and it's cities are tiresome, and just amount to little more than trolling.
There are plenty of very pleasant and attractive British cities.
There are plenty of very pleasant and attractive British cities.
Yes there are. The thing about living in the UK is how walkable everything is. And you get some nice history thrown in. Too many US cities are really car dependent. Which is great if you want a 5 bedroom McMansion, but not so good if you want to be able to walk to the shops, boozer, local restaurants etc. There are some really lovely smaller US cities though.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 1 day ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,163 posts, read 13,449,232 times
Reputation: 19459
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCC_1
Yes there are. The thing about living in the UK is how walkable everything is. And you get some nice history thrown in. Too many US cities are really car dependent. Which is great if you want a 5 bedroom McMansion, but not so good if you want to be able to walk to the shops, boozer, local restaurants etc. There are some really lovely smaller US cities though.
The comparison between the UK and a country over 40 times it's size, is not exactly like for like.
In terms of the UK, at best it represents the New England and North East region of the US, and the cities in this area, as well as the coastal areas and some of the countryside.
However in terms of California, it has more in common with the French Riviera and Italian Riviera or Amalfi Coast, whilst Florida is more similar to Mediterranean Spain, with other US coastal regions being more similar to the South European Atlantic Coast in Ireland, South Western France and Portugal.
Hawaii is more similar to the Azores, Madeira, the Canary Islands etc, and parts of Northern USA including Alaska are more similar to Scandinavia.
As for the US plains, they are similar to the Central European and German plains, whilst the Rockies and other mountain rangers have their European equivalents such as the Alps.
The idea that the UK can be compared with the US as a whole or even areas such as California is just ridiculous.
As for cites, UK cities are not perfect, but they do have many good attributes, and most cities have their wealthier and poorer areas, suburbs or hinterlands, and you can find large millionaires houses in many wealthy UK major cities and their suburbs, whilst in terms of London and it's surrounds there are even billionaires rows.
Last edited by Brave New World; 03-06-2023 at 03:15 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
