Old photos about Budapest (1860-1920), before ww2. Here starts the real city! (2013, country)
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.
Budapest had the third largst historic city center (downtown) in Europe after Paris and Rome, It was far larger than the much bigger cities like London or Berlin.
Around of these buildings disappeared after the siege of Budapest in ww2
Fabulous photos of the city's earlier time. After seeing these it always pained me to see the city then in ruins during WWII. She suffered much in the destruction But today when one walks the city and views the incredible architecture that survived one sees great beauty in stone along the ancient and modern streets and boulevards. Budapest is arguably up there as one of the great cities of the world. If one looks carefully I think it's a truly eye-opening historic city.
Budapest had the third largst historic city center (downtown) in Europe after Paris and Rome, It was far larger than the much bigger cities like London or Berlin.
London has a much bigger old part than Budapest, check the maps below. Other European cities like Milan or Moscow also must have bigger old areas
Budapest is cool for its Secession architecture, I think it can be called world's capital of Nouveau Art / Secession, but lets be realists, is not that big. And is not big architectural diversity, most streets looks the same. In Bucharest, .g., is a much higher architectural diversity, check my photos on Flickr.
Even Old Bucharest is close to the extent of Old Budapest, if we compare maps from 1900.
These maps have been printscreened from Google Maps at identical resolution and red areas are the limits at 1900 (or 1886 for London):
London has a much bigger old part than Budapest, check the maps below. Other European cities like Milan or Moscow also must have bigger old areas
Budapest is cool for its Secession architecture, I think it can be called world's capital of Nouveau Art / Secession, but lets be realists, is not that big. And is not big architectural diversity, most streets looks the same. In Bucharest, .g., is a much higher architectural diversity, check my photos on Flickr.
Even Old Bucharest is close to the extent of Old Budapest, if we compare maps from 1900.
These maps have been printscreened from Google Maps at identical resolution and red areas are the limits at 1900 (or 1886 for London):
Bucharest was a village in 1900. It had only 200 000 population. It was not on the top 50 biggest European cities of Europe before the WW1. Bucharest was not metropolis until the 1960s with communist soviet style block-of-flat building projects. (metropolis = at least 1 M people)
It was a cener of an agricultural orthodox balkan country, so it is no wonder that it had no signifficant architecture. It's infrastuctural development was also balkanic. Everything appeared decades and years later: Telephone exchange, tram-lines, railway stations, electric street lights , sewer drain system. So it was a little balkanic city.
Budapest had 1,232,026 (city without the suburb 880,371) population in 1910.
It was no wonder that Bucharest had only little 300 000 population, because the urbanization of romanians started later. Romanians were the latest nomadic nation in Europe, nomadism of romanians ended in the 15th century.
George Milea, Contribuții la demografia Municipiului București. Volumul 1 : Populația după recensăminte. Natalitatea. Mortalitatea, 1933, Tipografia Curții Regale F. Göbl Fii
Laurențiu Rădvan, At Europe’s Borders: Medieval Towns in the Romanian Principalities, Brill, 2010, p.260
Florian Georgescu et al. Istoria Orașului București, Muzeul de Istorie a Orașului București, 1965, p. 121
Bucharest was a village in 1900. It had only 200 000 population. It was not on the top 50 biggest European cities of Europe before the WW1.
I think it was among the first 50 by population.
Quote:
Bucharest was not metropolis until the 1960s with communist soviet style block-of-flat building projects. (metropolis = at least 1 M people)
In the 1930s it had already the urbanism (wide and long boulevards like Paris), vibe and elegance of a world metropolis, while Budapest was considerably more provincial at the time:
And today the difference betwee the two cities is even bigger. Budapest has still more visibilioty because its geographicail position in Central Europe, but not for long, as people will start to discover Romania, including Bucharest.
Quote:
It was a cener of an agricultural orthodox balkan country, so it is no wonder that it had no signifficant architecture.
Geographically and culturally, was not part of Balkans (not that would been bad to be).
And was not only agricultural. Romania had the first oil industry in the world and first refinery in the world.
Quote:
It's infrastuctural development was also balkanic.
It was a city with original Wallachian architecture up to 1714, when the rulers started to be of Greek origin (Phanariotes) and between 1714-1848 it was Orientalised in its architecture, customs, dressing fashion of people etc. After 1848, it passed to a rapid and complete westernization so that at 1870 only some buildings were recalling the Oriental period.
Before the Phanariotes, during their rules and afterward, the aspect of urbanism and architecture was radical different than the ones in Balkans or Ottoman empire, as Wallachia was never Ottoman province, the Turkish presence was only occasional. Check that link to get an idea. I repeat, was an original architecture and culture, that passed through several transformations from 14th century, when the architecture of churches was pure Byzantine, later assimilating elements from the Romanian peasant architecture, Turkish, Western and sometimes even Caucasian features.
The present architectural heritage includes some old monasteries and a large number of churches in Post-Byzantine style, houses, villas and palaces mostly from late 19th - first half of 20th century. In 1930s it passed through a program of modernisation Haussmann-style, that makes it now a city of wide and long boulevards sided by monumental buildings from 1920-1940s (Neo-Brâncovenesc
and Modernist style mostly, but also some Art Deco and some older, Neoclassicist or Art Nouveau), that makes it a more elegant city than the packe-up Budapest.
Quote:
Everything appeared decades and years later: Telephone exchange, tram-lines, railway stations, electric street lights , sewer drain system. So it was a little balkanic city than the packed-up Budapest.
The chain bridge in Budapest was designed by an English architect. It was a copy of the bridge at Marlow and one at Hammersmith in London. That bridge was replaced by the current larger chain bridge.
The Budapest underground metro is the third oldest in the world after London and Liverpool.
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.
_9.jpg)
?1351624122
/1280px-Budapest_Dobrentey_ter_1915.jpg[/IMG]
.jpg)
.jpg)
