What makes a city "Beautiful", and what are the top 10 large cities in the world?

[Shawn]

Gentlemen, can we please act like the adults I presume we all are and not devolve a thread about personal opinions on a subjective matter into what so far has read like an elementary school slap fight?

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

I think LA is architecturally beautiful:

https://www.instagram.com/dingbatsandmore/

L.A. "Googie" architecture is fun, but dwindling. You can go miles without seeing any examples. No more "googie" coffee shops, big donuts, hot dog shops shaped like dachshunds, fake Tudor houses, bowling alleys with starship neon signs, etc. City of "the Dude". Rare whimsy. L.A. is starting to take itself seriously as a great city.

[CaliNative]

Can we agree that a "great" & "beautiful" city must have the following?

1. Density of population
2. Walkability, relative safety from crime
3. Great museums
4. Great parks
5. Great buildings
6. Unique views
7. Geographical features, things like great rivers, harbors, mountainous backdrops, canals
8. A certain history. A very young city (under 50 years) or planned city can feel boring and contrived. Brasilia comes to mind, as does Reston VA & Irvine CA. Athens is a great city because of its history, but is it "beautiful"? Probably. The history makes it so.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by urbanadvocate

Ummmmm yea I never said that but glad you can actually read and understand a post before you set your hair on fire haha.

Paris is one of my favorite cities to visit. It would certainly be on my list of top 10. I am not sure I would place LA on mine, not a huge fan of the city but there is a certain undeniable vibe there that gives it beauty. I would certainly have to give it some consideration and definitely see why people include in on their's.

L.A. is unique. When you are in L.A. you know you are in L.A. "The Dude" lives in L.A. I like San Francisco, but the city takes itself way too seriously. The "preciousness" feels somehow false, masking insecurity. And there is something wrong about a freezing cold windy August day, although in fairness Santa Monica can be pretty cold in August too. I like the natural landscape of the S.F. area. A great variety--Redwoods, pine, fir, oaks, grasslands, chaparral, eucalyptus (from Australia but quite at home) sometimes in a small area. L.A. hills are mostly chaparral, but there are some oaks & other trees in the natural areas, and conifers in the mountains, and eucalyptus pretty much everywhere giving a nice smell.

San Diego is something of a composite of L.A. & S.F.--walkable neighborhoods, great parks (Balboa, Torrey Pines etc.), great views, nice dense downtown on a big busy harbor with historic districts (Gaslamp, Old Town), great beaches & beach cities (La Jolla, Coronado, Del Mar, etc.), great museums, top 25 world class university (UCSD), great zoo, mountainous backcountry, fairly cool summer weather but you won't freeze you a** off in summer like S.F. Maybe not in the top 10 worldwide, but probably the next 10.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by The North One

It's just such strawman reasoning obviously drenched in provincialism and not to mention totally false, somehow how Paris' urban fabric is now a negative?

Go ahead and lie to yourself.

You don't seem to grasp that this is about opinions, and yours doesn't take precedence. Whining and accusing aren't fit for this board. (Edit: Oops, this has been shut down already)

[mhays]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

Can we agree that a "great" & "beautiful" city must have the following?

1. Density of population
2. Walkability, relative safety from crime
3. Great museums
4. Great parks
5. Great buildings
6. Unique views
7. Geographical features, things like great rivers, harbors, mountainous backdrops, canals
8. A certain history. A very young city (under 50 years) or planned city can feel boring and contrived. Brasilia comes to mind, as does Reston VA & Irvine CA. Athens is a great city because of its history, but is it "beautiful"? Probably. The history makes it so.

No. Density helps a lot in my opinion. Architecture is key. And topography/greenery (water, hills, trees, etc.) plays a huge role. But museums and safety are a totally different topic except to the extent they contribute to the other points.

[maru2501]

little is more subjective than an individual's perception of beauty

I too prefer denser, and more chaotic cities over physical beauty, but that doesn't seem to be the actual thread question

paris and SF are probably the most beautiful cities I have been to as far as how I would define the word, along with maybe NOLA.. both in terms of scale and vistas and also small intimate spaces that demand to be photographed. maybe savannah too although it's too small for this discussion

I really like LA for its kitschy american cool, and for koreatown

new york I love but don't think of it as "beautiful" necessarily, although it has great urban spaces clearly and is good-looking obviously. especially for me in places where the city and central park are visual playmates

chicago (since I live there) has its moments, but is probably best appreciated as an ongoing american project of people transporting things and working and keeping nature at bay. it is most beautiful when something there contrasts with its well-publicized dark side. the lake is beautiful though

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

Can we agree that a "great" & "beautiful" city must have the following?

1. Density of population
2. Walkability, relative safety from crime
3. Great museums
4. Great parks
5. Great buildings
6. Unique views
7. Geographical features, things like great rivers, harbors, mountainous backdrops, canals
8. A certain history. A very young city (under 50 years) or planned city can feel boring and contrived. Brasilia comes to mind, as does Reston VA & Irvine CA. Athens is a great city because of its history, but is it "beautiful"? Probably. The history makes it so.

I wouldn't agree with this. LA isn't particularly dense or walkable. New Orleans isn't particularly safe, and doesn't have any notable museums.

I really don't think this can be boiled down into a few categoricals.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by mhays

No. Density helps a lot in my opinion. Architecture is key. And topography/greenery (water, hills, trees, etc.) plays a huge role. But museums and safety are a totally different topic except to the extent they contribute to the other points.

"Water, hills, trees". I think you can have great and beautiful desert cities. I don't know if Cairo is beautiful, but it is great & vibrant. Same with Marrakesh. Marrakesh is beautiful, as is Fez (greener than Marrakesh). Marrakesh was Churchill's favorite city. Loved to paint the Atlas Mtns & city. Took Roosevelt there to look at the views after the Casablanca conference.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I wouldn't agree with this. LA isn't particularly dense or walkable. New Orleans isn't particularly safe, and doesn't have any notable museums.

I really don't think this can be boiled down into a few categoricals.

Yes, I took N.O. off in a subsequent list. Apart from the French Quarter, nothing remarkable. But the most unique of the Gulf of M. cities. FYI, L.A. is actually one of the densest American cities, #3 after NYC & SF. The central area is very dense, up to 40,000 per square mile. Much much denser than New Orleans. And some L.A. districts are very walkable.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by maru2501

little is more subjective than an individual's perception of beauty

I too prefer denser, and more chaotic cities over physical beauty, but that doesn't seem to be the actual thread question

paris and SF are probably the most beautiful cities I have been to as far as how I would define the word, along with maybe NOLA.. both in terms of scale and vistas and also small intimate spaces that demand to be photographed. maybe savannah too although it's too small for this discussion

I really like LA for its kitschy american cool, and for koreatown

new york I love but don't think of it as "beautiful" necessarily, although it has great urban spaces clearly and is good-looking obviously. especially for me in places where the city and central park are visual playmates

chicago (since I live there) has its moments, but is probably best appreciated as an ongoing american project of people transporting things and working and keeping nature at bay. it is most beautiful when something there contrasts with its well-publicized dark side. the lake is beautiful though

You are on to something--L.A. doesn't take itself too seriously (S.F. does to the point of being a "precious" & "snooty" "adult Disneyland") and I think that is good. L.A. is more real, and going up in beauty. Apart from high tech & finance & tourist services, S.F. no longer makes anything (although its burbs do). L.A. does it all. Maybe "great" and "beautiful" are different catagories, but there is an overlap.

[ChargerCarl]

LA is a city for losers, in the best possible sense.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

LA is a city for losers, in the best possible sense.

I like the REAL people of LA, not the pretentious phonies that come from other places to live the Highlyweird lifestyle.

[austlar1]

LA is certainly one of my favorites. A lot of the appeal comes from the messiness of the place, the sprawl, and the lack of planning. Somehow this makes LA rewarding, perhaps because the truly beautiful or impressive parts of the city (and there are many such places) stand out in contrast to the banality of the rest of LA LA Land. The light can be sublime, and the climate, notwithstanding the air pollution, is hands down the best in the country. The beaches and nearby mountains are magnificent. LA is very soulful. Life can be difficult there. Contrary to popular myth, LA is a very hard working place that offers amazing opportunity to people inclined to take advantage. It is gritty and difficult too. People struggle there to stay on an even keel. I am often struck by how rude people can be in LA, but I have also often been taken aback by the kindness and consideration that I have both experienced and observed there. Then there is the Hollywood glitz and glamour to stir the imagination and also to annoy one with its silliness. The food scene is first rate. The nightlife world class. The high culture among the best in the US. The museum scene and gallery scene is also top notch. The artistic and creative community living and working in LA is definitely world class. All of this combines in my estimation to make LA a truly beautiful place. The perception of beauty comes in many forms. Other cities in North America that make my list are SF for the natural beauty of the setting and for its urban amenities; Chicago for the architecture, the lakefront, and the urban amenities; NY because it is NY, Washington for the monumental grandeur mostly: and Boston because it has a unique historical look for a North American city, a vibrant center that looks and feels a bit like London or maybe Hamburg, and amazing cultural/educational amenities. On the world stage, I vote for London, Paris, Barcelona, Amsterdam, Berlin (just 'cuz it is so damn full of energy), Rome, Rio and Buenos Aires. I have not been to places in Asia yet, so my world view is limited in that regard.

[NativeOrange]

Originally Posted by austlar1

LA is certainly one of my favorites. A lot of the appeal comes from the messiness of the place, the sprawl, and the lack of planning. Somehow this makes LA rewarding, perhaps because the truly beautiful or impressive parts of the city (and there are many such places) stand out in contrast to the banality of the rest of LA LA Land. The light can be sublime, and the climate, notwithstanding the air pollution, is hands down the best in the country. The beaches and nearby mountains are magnificent. LA is very soulful. Life can be difficult there. Contrary to popular myth, LA is a very hard working place that offers amazing opportunity to people inclined to take advantage. It is gritty and difficult too. People struggle there to stay on an even keel. I am often struck by how rude people can be in LA, but I have also often been taken aback by the kindness and consideration that I have both experienced and observed there. Then there is the Hollywood glitz and glamour to stir the imagination and also to annoy one with its silliness. The food scene is first rate. The nightlife world class. The high culture among the best in the US. The museum scene and gallery scene is also top notch. The artistic and creative community living and working in LA is definitely world class. All of this combines in my estimation to make LA a truly beautiful place. The perception of beauty comes in many forms. Other cities in North America that make my list are SF for the natural beauty of the setting and for its urban amenities; Chicago for the architecture, the lakefront, and the urban amenities; NY because it is NY, Washington for the monumental grandeur mostly: and Boston because it has a unique historical look for a North American city, a vibrant center that looks and feels a bit like London or maybe Hamburg, and amazing cultural/educational amenities. On the world stage, I vote for London, Paris, Barcelona, Amsterdam, Berlin (just 'cuz it is so damn full of energy), Rome, Rio and Buenos Aires. I have not been to places in Asia yet, so my world view is limited in that regard.

You described my sentiments to a tee.

It's often very hard to describe why I love LA to people who don't understand, or just take the city at face value when visiting or even living there for an extended period of time.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by The North One

Your interpretation of a toneless text is not my problem.

Nah, you do sound pretty angry a lot of the time, such as when someone has a different opinion than you about a city. How do you tolerate such rampant idiocy? I bet people even like different foods and colors than you do.

[tech12]

Beauty to me is mostly about topography and/or architecture, with a multiplier for density, because i'm a city nerd, and a bias towards mediterranean climates, because that's what I'm used to and they're pretty and stuff. In no particular order:

Istanbul, Genoa, Sarajevo, Barcelona, SF, Valparaiso, Vancouver, Hong Kong, La Paz, Paris, Marseille, Sydney, Rio

I know that's 13, but i wanted to list even more. It's hard to choose.

Originally Posted by CaliNative

I like San Francisco, but the city takes itself way too seriously. The "preciousness" feels somehow false, masking insecurity.

What exactly do you mean by "preciousness", and how is it false? SF is objectively a unique/important/highly valued (AKA "precious") city, in multiple ways: setting, architecture, climate, culture, economy, etc.

As for SF being insecure or taking itself too seriously...i didn't know cities were sentient. Some people take SF seriously, some people don't. Some people are insecure, some aren't. Shocking!

Originally Posted by CaliNative

You are on to something--L.A. doesn't take itself too seriously (S.F. does to the point of being a "precious" & "snooty" "adult Disneyland") and I think that is good. L.A. is more real, and going up in beauty. Apart from high tech & finance & tourist services, S.F. no longer makes anything (although its burbs do). L.A. does it all. Maybe "great" and "beautiful" are different catagories, but there is an overlap.

lol



i see what's going on here. City-data is that way -------->

FYI you don't seem to really know that much about SF.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by austlar1

LA is certainly one of my favorites. A lot of the appeal comes from the messiness of the place, the sprawl, and the lack of planning. Somehow this makes LA rewarding, perhaps because the truly beautiful or impressive parts of the city (and there are many such places) stand out in contrast to the banality of the rest of LA LA Land. The light can be sublime, and the climate, notwithstanding the air pollution, is hands down the best in the country. The beaches and nearby mountains are magnificent. LA is very soulful. Life can be difficult there. Contrary to popular myth, LA is a very hard working place that offers amazing opportunity to people inclined to take advantage. It is gritty and difficult too. People struggle there to stay on an even keel. I am often struck by how rude people can be in LA, but I have also often been taken aback by the kindness and consideration that I have both experienced and observed there. Then there is the Hollywood glitz and glamour to stir the imagination and also to annoy one with its silliness. The food scene is first rate. The nightlife world class. The high culture among the best in the US. The museum scene and gallery scene is also top notch. The artistic and creative community living and working in LA is definitely world class. All of this combines in my estimation to make LA a truly beautiful place. The perception of beauty comes in many forms. Other cities in North America that make my list are SF for the natural beauty of the setting and for its urban amenities; Chicago for the architecture, the lakefront, and the urban amenities; NY because it is NY, Washington for the monumental grandeur mostly: and Boston because it has a unique historical look for a North American city, a vibrant center that looks and feels a bit like London or maybe Hamburg, and amazing cultural/educational amenities. On the world stage, I vote for London, Paris, Barcelona, Amsterdam, Berlin (just 'cuz it is so damn full of energy), Rome, Rio and Buenos Aires. I have not been to places in Asia yet, so my world view is limited in that regard.

Agree with most of what you say about L.A. Los Angeles, like New York City, is a vast universe with spectacular beauty and spectacular ugliness too, usually separated but sometimes in proximity. L.A., like New York City, never bores, frequently amazes, sometimes scares, and often seduces you into feeling lucky to live their. I used to, but now live in San Diego, which has all the climate advantages & good beach towns of L.A., but also a compact and walkable downtown area on the waterfront, with an adjacent large central park with great museums plus a great zoo (Balboa Park) and a great big harbor like San Francisco.

Yes, Buenos Aires is a contender, as is Montevideo & Rio. La Paz for its spectacular altiplano setting, Cuzco & Quito too. As far as Asian cities go, Hong Kong belongs on a top 10 or 20 list.

[maru2501]

LA is a REAL city, and has been for quite some time. Too car-dependent, but very real

[mhays]

I was in Hong Kong for a few days and found it infinitely fascinating and awesome in its way but not beautiful. The hills are nice but somehow they didn't click as beauty. The waterfronts are often expressways.

Above I suggested greenery is key. But it's not necessary. A Greek or Italian hill town can be incredibly beautiful. San Francisco would be in my top 20 though probably not top 10.