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.
To be fair erasure, some of us don't want to live in a museum that remains the same throughout the centuries - some of us appreciate change. I love London for many reasons, but one reason is it is constantly changing, it has a mishmash of new and old, often inappropriately and without consideration, but hey, that's London - unapologetic, often chaotic, daring, innovative, willing to try new things that might make people recoil in horror. London is the very definition of ambitious, and I love it. London is a proper city, and not a living museum for tourists.
Dunno, it is understood that no modern city can remain just a museum - the cities grow, expand, build new additions and so on. The question is about the OLD, historic parts of European cities, whether they stay preserved for the most part or not.
Because in the US ( just an example) the "central part" of the big cities as a rule is just that - the skyscrapers, not much else.
But if you look at the pics that Rozenn posted above - in case of Moscow for example those sky-scrapers ( the group of them at least) has been built away from the historic part of the city; it doesn't interfere with it, even as much as the city has been changed. I think it's the same story for the rest of major European cities- the ones that have old parts of historic/architectural value.
When people come to visit old European cities, they don't rush to the site of sky-scrapers; it's the old part of the city they want to see. Why? Because boxes are boxes and they are more or less the same everywhere, but those old parts of different cities - that's an art that's distinctive for every country, because it reflects its history, its culture.
I haven't been to London but from the pic that you've posted, those boxes ( as much as attempt has been made to make them look "different") are creeping too close to the old part of the city. And it does look "chaotic" from what I see.
You know what it's telling me? That London is in the middle of the controversy - the desire to "belong" with the New World, to be part of it, yet at the same time part of it intricately and irrevocably tied up with the "Old World" and continental Europe. In the deepening conflict between the "New World" and the "Old World" that wouldn't be a good spot to be in; too much pressure from both sides.
London's 'historic core' is arguably the West End, where such developments are prohibited. London's skyscraper boom is entirely contained within 'the City' and Canary Wharf - London's two business districts, as opposed to the West End, which is London's entertainment district.
The image I posted is of 'the City', and it's just a big mishmash of old and new with little coherency. That image is rather flattering - an ordinary street in 'the City' consists of different architectural styles, ranging from the medieval era to the 21st century, and everything in between. There's no loss from building these 'glass boxes' - the 'damage' was already done long before, during the war especially.
London still retains old-world charm, but is also embracing new-world ideas - just in different parts of the city. That is essentially what London is doing - bridging the gap between the old world and the new world - more so in an economic sense. It is ideally situated between the emerging markets and the developed markets.
Last edited by dunno what to put here; 02-13-2014 at 11:38 AM..
That London is in the middle of the controversy - the desire to "belong" with the New World, to be part of it, yet at the same time part of it intricately and irrevocably tied up with the "Old World" and continental Europe. In the deepening conflict between the "New World" and the "Old World" that wouldn't be a good spot to be in; too much pressure from both sides.
That makes London most interesting and exciting.
I think uncertainties and possibilities make living in a city more interesting. London is forward looking, accepting more immigrants, becoming more diverse (not that its culture and traditions are lost), and after so many years, it still is an incredibly powerful city that rivals NYC.
Plus, people need high paying private sector jobs. A city failing to do that is not a successful city.
London's 'historic core' is arguably the West End, where such developments are prohibited. London's skyscraper boom is entirely contained within 'the City' and Canary Wharf - London's two business districts, as opposed to the West End, which is London's entertainment district.
The image I posted is of 'the City', and it's just a big mishmash of old and new with little coherency. That image is rather flattering - an ordinary street in 'the City' consists of different architectural styles, ranging from the medieval era to the 21st century, and everything in between. There's no loss from building these 'glass boxes' - the 'damage' was already done long before, during the war especially.
As I've said - I am not all that familiar with the city, so I commented on the picture you've posted. The skyscrapers are clearly overpowering the old architecture, they clutter the skyline around the old buildings which are obviously still there for whatever reason, and these sky-scrapers in my opinion are ruining the look of the old European city, giving it a feeling of yet another Qatar-Shanghai-or whatever other city full of tall boxes you can insert here. Tall(er) buildings are necessary in Europeans cities - I understand it, they just should be more in harmony with the old architecture, instead of ruining its distinct look.
Quote:
London still retains old-world charm, but is also embracing new-world ideas - just in different parts of the city.
What "new world ideas" exactly?
Quote:
That is essentially what London is doing - bridging the gap between the old world and the new world - more so in an economic sense. It is ideally situated between the emerging markets and the developed markets.
That gap between the old world and new world can't be "bridged" in economic sense, when you are talking about the "emerging markets" and "developed markets." What London can do ( and I assume that 's what it's doing) is to bring to a round table the financial elite that rules the "emerging markets" and that makes money on the misfortune of its hapless compatriots. That's why London's real estate is sold in droves to rich Russians, Arabs, Chinese - you name it, who hope that money buy them a place in old European "club." And while London's streets might be swarming with all kind of nationals, your average Brit still quietly makes his way through this crowd to dine at home with his own and he goes to the pub with his own.
I think uncertainties and possibilities make living in a city more interesting. London is forward looking, accepting more immigrants, becoming more diverse (not that its culture and traditions are lost), and after so many years, it still is an incredibly powerful city that rivals NYC.
Plus, people need high paying private sector jobs. A city failing to do that is not a successful city.
What "high paying sector jobs"?
You mean this?
"The service sector dominates the UK economy, contributing around 78% of GDP, with the financial services industry particularly important. "
I see you've mentioned Vienna, which actually, yeah it's quite true. But some countries that definitely leave in the past are those from the Eastern European block, like Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, not very developed but very beautiful. It's not that they aren't trying to develop, it's that they don't quite manage to do so. I had the chance to visit them and I would definitely go back.
As I've said - I am not all that familiar with the city, so I commented on the picture you've posted. The skyscrapers are clearly overpowering the old architecture, they clutter the skyline around the old buildings which are obviously still there for whatever reason, and these sky-scrapers in my opinion are ruining the look of the old European city, giving it a feeling of yet another Qatar-Shanghai-or whatever other city full of tall boxes you can insert here. Tall(er) buildings are necessary in Europeans cities - I understand it, they just should be more in harmony with the old architecture, instead of ruining its distinct look.
What "new world ideas" exactly?
That gap between the old world and new world can't be "bridged" in economic sense, when you are talking about the "emerging markets" and "developed markets." What London can do ( and I assume that 's what it's doing) is to bring to a round table the financial elite that rules the "emerging markets" and that makes money on the misfortune of its hapless compatriots. That's why London's real estate is sold in droves to rich Russians, Arabs, Chinese - you name it, who hope that money buy them a place in old European "club." And while London's streets might be swarming with all kind of nationals, your average Brit still quietly makes his way through this crowd to dine at home with his own and he goes to the pub with his own.
As I said, that area of London - 'the City' - has little to no coherency. On street level, it's a large variety of different architectural styles - such as a Victorian chapel next door to a carbuncle 60s disaster. You think the skyscrapers are ruining things - but the damage was already done - there were already plenty of inappropriate modern buildings alongside historic architecture in this part of London since at least the 50s. These modern skyscrapers are hardly going to make things much worse.
But as you say, it's just your opinion. I like skyscrapers, and I like the contrast you find in London. I don't like ultra-modern cities like Qatar - I like variety. You might want to visit London and explore this area of the city to see what I am talking about, and remember, London isn't seeing a rash of skyscrapers everywhere - just in very concentrated areas - there is always the West End of London, where such developments are prohibited.
By new world ideas, I mean building tall - although 'new world ideas' is probably an incorrect term, since we're seeing a skyscraper boom in the Far East and Middle East (which are part of the 'old world' too, even if people usually refer to Europe when they use that term).
With regards to your last paragraph - London is more than just a place for Russians and Arabians to buy property in their droves - it is arguably the world's leading financial centre - its position between the emerging markets of the east and the developed markets of North America is a huge advantage - it is already home to countless foreign financial corporations, and more financial transactions take place in London than anywhere else (which is why the UK government vehemntly opposes the financial transaction tax).
FWIW - I don't disagree that there should be limits on where skyscrapers are allowed - I would not propose building a glass tower next to the Houses of Parliament or Buckingham Palace, but that isn't happening at all.
Last edited by dunno what to put here; 02-14-2014 at 11:57 AM..
Geese, first of all In many European countries the sheer cost of hiring and doing business is one of the things that keep companies from thriving and being innovative. Here in Italy many of the largest companies have finished in the hands of foreigners due to those reasons. It's as if the government here "has taken oxygen away from enterprises" Although, it certainly doesn't mean there isn't a young, vibrant, well educated work force just waiting to have a chance to shine. This is why many young southern Europeans head to the north of Europe (although even now the job situation isn't great there either).
As far as skyscrapers go.......
What exactly is so attractive about a skyscraper though?????
I think that pic of London with the skyscrapers in the background is just awful, to me they ruined the skyline.
If you want to see the worlds tallest and most impressive skyscrapers then go to Dubai where NEW MONEY is pouring like water from a faucet and some people may be impressed but you know what......
Go take a walk inside any church in ROME and you will realize there is no money on GOD's green earth that can recreate the immense beauty which can be found inside and this is true in almost every country in Europe. No amount of new money can recreate something old world masters have taken centuries to achieve and painstakingly realize. That is unless these Arab countries have enough money to resurrect Michelangelo Buonarroti.
Lastly, let me tell you if Aliens came down on Earth and we had to show them Humanities greatest achievement I would not show then one damn UGLY skyscraper I would show them Europe's Artistic Patrimony in both art and architecture.
PS. Many European cities do by the way have skyscrapers outside the historic center with the exception of LONDON (which is unfortunate). Paris has the La Defense just outside the city Rome has EUR to the way south and outside the center. Point is though in countries like Italy and France they build for Aesthetics not efficiency. There is a common unspoken belief here (Italy) which everyone follows "better dead than unattractive" and that spills over in all decision making.
Point is .. Italy ... not efficiency. There is a common unspoken belief here (Italy) which everyone follows "better dead than unattractive" and that spills over in all decision making.
And that is exactly what they are achieving, albeit inefficiently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli
... people need high paying private sector jobs. A city failing to do that is not a successful city.
I agree with this definition of a successful city.
Regardless of whether it has skyscrapers, the argument over which in this thread is quite inane.
Geese, first of all In many European countries the sheer cost of hiring and doing business is one of the things that keep companies from thriving and being innovative. Here in Italy many of the largest companies have finished in the hands of foreigners due to those reasons. It's as if the government here "has taken oxygen away from enterprises" Although, it certainly doesn't mean there isn't a young, vibrant, well educated work force just waiting to have a chance to shine. This is why many young southern Europeans head to the north of Europe (although even now the job situation isn't great there either).
As far as skyscrapers go.......
What exactly is so attractive about a skyscraper though?????
I think that pic of London with the skyscrapers in the background is just awful, to me they ruined the skyline.
If you want to see the worlds tallest and most impressive skyscrapers then go to Dubai where NEW MONEY is pouring like water from a faucet and some people may be impressed but you know what......
Go take a walk inside any church in ROME and you will realize there is no money on GOD's green earth that can recreate the immense beauty which can be found inside and this is true in almost every country in Europe. No amount of new money can recreate something old world masters have taken centuries to achieve and painstakingly realize. That is unless these Arab countries have enough money to resurrect Michelangelo Buonarroti.
Lastly, let me tell you if Aliens came down on Earth and we had to show them Humanities greatest achievement I would not show then one damn UGLY skyscraper I would show them Europe's Artistic Patrimony in both art and architecture.
PS. Many European cities do by the way have skyscrapers outside the historic center with the exception of LONDON (which is unfortunate). Paris has the La Defense just outside the city Rome has EUR to the way south and outside the center. Point is though in countries like Italy and France they build for Aesthetics not efficiency. There is a common unspoken belief here (Italy) which everyone follows "better dead than unattractive" and that spills over in all decision making.
Good post :-)
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.
