Ranking of the most beautiful cities in the USA

[nathanjizzle]

I just wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, because it's such an idiotic concept that I couldn't believe you were actually insisting on it.

no, its not an idiotic concept, its a principle that any designer/artist understands, youre just ignorant.

[DCL]

So Rome is not beautiful? Paris? London?

well, europe is different because it's full of classical architecture that will probably never be unappreciated. they looked good before, still look good now, and will continue to look interesting long after we're gone.

but our cities are mostly made up of buildings that are from a more modern period. but these buildings don't usually age well, especially shit built in the 60s, 70s, or 80s. even the new modern shit looks kinda stupid... just blocks of similar looking lofts that look like simple boring boxes. these buildings will look even less appealing 30 years from now. then they'd have to tear them down again to build more weird looking architecture that probably won't pass the test of time neither.

there are still some places to appreciate distinctive and cultural architecture in the us though. but it's nothing like europe.

[Jasi]

no, its not an idiotic concept, its a principle that any designer/artist understands, youre just ignorant.

We are talking about cities, not chairs.

The most beautiful cities in the world are definitely far from having simple architecture and 1-2 storey buildings.

[Dresta]

So Rome is not beautiful? Paris? London?

Honestly, London is well on its way to being ruined. It takes a real sort of unfeeling bumpkin to want to clutter such a city with ugly modern monstrosities, buildings with no tie to the people who live among them, but which are more often that not expressions of the architect's vanity.

https://www.theguardian.com/artandde...-ruins-skyline

London will just be a shitter Abu Dhabi in 50 years. Sucks, but not enough people care about such things to prevent them any more (at least in London they don't).

[Dresta]

well, europe is different because it's full of classical architecture that will probably never be unappreciated. they looked good before, still look good now, and will continue to look interesting long after we're gone.

but our cities are mostly made up of buildings that are from a more modern period. but these buildings don't usually age well, especially shit built in the 60s, 70s, or 80s. even the new modern shit looks kinda stupid... just blocks of similar looking lofts that look like simple boring boxes. these buildings will look even less appealing 30 years from now. then they'd have to tear them down again to build more weird looking architecture that probably won't pass the test of time neither.

there are still some places to appreciate distinctive and cultural architecture in the us though. but it's nothing like europe.

There seems zero appreciation from the people who build these things that what they are building needs to last, and that people could be forced to live its shadow for hundreds of years. Instead, you get idiotic modernist experiments that will have lost their allure in a decade, and which already look glaringly out of place in really old cities that are completely unsuited to modern architecture and massive skyscrapers.

[Orlando Magic]

Dc...

[thefatmiral]

Listing by what I've been to by there scenic views
1. San Diego
2. Corpus Christi
3. Albuquerque
4. San Antonio

I'm a southwestern person

[Jasi]

well, europe is different because it's full of classical architecture that will probably never be unappreciated. they looked good before, still look good now, and will continue to look interesting long after we're gone.

but our cities are mostly made up of buildings that are from a more modern period. but these buildings don't usually age well, especially shit built in the 60s, 70s, or 80s. even the new modern shit looks kinda stupid... just blocks of similar looking lofts that look like simple boring boxes. these buildings will look even less appealing 30 years from now. then they'd have to tear them down again to build more weird looking architecture that probably won't pass the test of time neither.

there are still some places to appreciate distinctive and cultural architecture in the us though. but it's nothing like europe.

Well that's the point of this thread, point out the cities with distinctive architecture.
I surely wouldn't care about ticky tacky little boxes.

[nathanjizzle]

We are talking about cities, not chairs.

The most beautiful cities in the world are definitely far from having simple architecture and 1-2 storey buildings.

whos building your cities? architects?

like what, rome? rome has great historic value, thats what makes it beautiful, and not many people are use to seeing that type of architecture so its considered beautiful. but it would get redundant just like seeing modern skyscrapers. if everyone lived in a city with architecture like rome and traveled to a place like new york, they would deem new yorks architecture as "beautiful" too. thats just a contrast in perspective. but im talking about general perspective in judging beauty that can be applied to looking at anything, that less is more beautiful. bitches that wear less makeup, simple makeup, is more beautiful than bitches that do. a piece of grilled steak with a drizzle of sauce and a side of asparagus is more beautiful than that same plate with 2 more sides on it. its already an established principle.

[~primetime~]

Do you mean the downtown areas? Or just the entire city as a whole in general?

[Jasi]

whos building your cities? architects?

like what, rome? rome has great historic value, thats what makes it beautiful, and not many people are use to seeing that type of architecture so its considered beautiful. but it would get redundant just like seeing modern skyscrapers. if everyone lived in a city with architecture like rome and traveled to a place like new york, they would deem new yorks architecture as "beautiful" too. thats just a contrast in perspective. but im talking about general perspective in judging beauty that can be applied to looking at anything, that less is more beautiful. bitches that wear less makeup, simple makeup, is more beautiful than bitches that do. a piece of grilled steak with a drizzle of sauce and a side of asparagus is more beautiful than that same plate with 2 more sides on it. its already an established principle.

You keep mixing up things that aren't even remotely comparable. Women, food, art, objects... cities.

And LOL at your explanation of Rome's beauty. So Romans and Italians in general don't have any reasons to consider it beautiful I guess, since they're used to it.

"Less is better" is ONE of the many possible principles for designing stuff.
You act like Minimalism is the only valid style in all the art domains, lol.

The fact that it can work with a cutlery or TV-sets or even one specific house, doesn't mean that a town with 1-2 storey buildings is more beautiful than one with taller buildings. What a simplistic way to look at things.

You are deleting entire chapters (gothic, baroque, rococ

[Lebowsky]

whos building your cities? architects?

like what, rome? rome has great historic value, thats what makes it beautiful, and not many people are use to seeing that type of architecture so its considered beautiful. but it would get redundant just like seeing modern skyscrapers. if everyone lived in a city with architecture like rome and traveled to a place like new york, they would deem new yorks architecture as "beautiful" too. thats just a contrast in perspective. but im talking about general perspective in judging beauty that can be applied to looking at anything, that less is more beautiful. bitches that wear less makeup, simple makeup, is more beautiful than bitches that do. a piece of grilled steak with a drizzle of sauce and a side of asparagus is more beautiful than that same plate with 2 more sides on it. its already an established principle.

You're the biggest imbecile on this entire board. The multiple ways in which you manage to constantly make an idiot of yourself every time you post is truly something of wonder.

[Jasi]

Do you mean the downtown areas? Or just the entire city as a whole in general?

It depends. Look at it from a tourist's point of view. You can choose what cities to visit, where do you go?

[~primetime~]

It depends. Look at it from a tourist's point of view. You can choose what cities to visit, where do you go?

okay...Hawaii does not count I take it?...only the main land?

[Dresta]

[QUOTE=Jasi]You keep mixing up things that aren't even remotely comparable. Women, food, art, objects... cities.

And LOL at your explanation of Rome's beauty. So Romans and Italians in general don't have any reasons to consider it beautiful I guess, since they're used to it.

"Less is better" is ONE of the many possible principles for designing stuff.
You act like Minimalism is the only valid style in all the art domains, lol.

The fact that it can work with a cutlery or TV-sets or even one specific house, doesn't mean that a town with 1-2 storey buildings is more beautiful than one with taller buildings. What a simplistic way to look at things.

You are deleting entire chapters (gothic, baroque, rococ