Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue
Even the less pretty cities like Shefield, Nottingham, Lille, Dortmund, etc. have more street vitality and urban lifestyle than places like St. Louis, Balitmore, Tampa, and even larger cities like LA (where few people walk). And they have prettier centers too. What does that say for the poorly designed average US city? I'd say they even have more street vitality than DC and Boston. Places like Dublin certainly do - I have extensive experience with that city and have compared it to DC - and that isn't a beautiful city by european standards by any stretch of the imagination. However, it would be up there with the most beautiful in the USA. Europeans are lucky that history of dense cities and nice streets has helped shape their interesting socially connected urban lifestyle. Even the bombed out cities from WWII are much more vibrant even with drab architecture. Sprawl isn't a big factor, although some cities like London, Milan, etc, certainly appear to sprawl out and could be far denser. However, that is compensated by their large populations.
Essen and Leeds have far more vibrant and fun downtowns than Kansas City and Memphis. Visit and you'll see what I mean.
|
I think this is a bit inaccurate. Memphis not fun and vibrant, what? Compared to Leeds of all places? c'mon...
http://www.city-data.com/forum/city-...s-river-9.html
Also Dublin is absolutely one of the most beautiful cities in Europe (Georgian architecture, etc). LA meanwhile is fantastically vibrant, it's just that the vibrancy is spread out.