Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRCRASH
Alight people, looks like were gonna have to stop voicing our opinions on whether a new building being built on parking lots and other dead zones isnt tall enough, cause apparently some here think it is so funny that they would include that in half of their posts.
And there will be no comparing a city that is over a thousand years old like london to los angeles, the majority of which was urbanized only in the last 75 years). there's a reason why the former city favors low-rises more than the latter... the old architecture in london is some of the most beautiful on the planet, putting that of 90% of los angeles' to shame.
And even then, london in fact did go through a little boom of its own in the years leading up to the olympics, even giving birth to what is now the tallest skyscraper in Europe.
|
Well, the top architecture in most cities will put 90 percent of any city's housing to shame. That's almost a tautology unless you're talking about 3rd world vs. 1st world.
London is NOT a beautiful city, generally speaking: the great majority of it is old, dirty and of very doubful aesthetic quality. Built in a hurry for functional purposes during its growth periods. No match for Paris and Barcelona and several others, for example. A great city, maybe the greatest, and with plenty of great monumental architecture, but not architecturally strong overall, counting the great stretches of middle and lower income areas.
Again, not city vs. city; love London and what it offers.
Threaded Mode