Cities You Need To Travel To More Than Once To Appreciate

[Double L]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Pretty much every interior city in the Southeastern U.S.? Nashville, Charlotte, Raleigh, even DC, to some extent, look the same, with the green, rolling hills, winding roads, endless patchy nontraditional sprawl, density along linear corridors, etc.

How many times have you visited Atlanta?

[Anders Franzén]

Originally Posted by austlar1

Cologne does have a lot of vitality at street level, but I agree that it is sterile. The WW2 destruction must have been monumental, and it all seems to have been rebuilt around the same time and to the same standard of blandness. The cathedral, on the other hand, is something to behold.

Funny, we had this discussion at work some days ago and Cologne was brought up as unusually ugly. The reason is supposedly because Cologne was not bombed much during WWII. Other German cities are prettier because they were built up with that purpose after being bombed. Cologne has been rebuilt over a longer period of time without any plan of being charming.

I was just 11 years old when I visited Cologne, so I definitely owe it another visit.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Double L

How many times have you visited Atlanta?

Probably a dozen times, but why does it matter? The facts of Atlanta's geography are unrelated to my number of visits.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by emathias

I've been to SF four times. The first two times I hated it. The last two I liked it.

i like your persistence

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Anders Franzén

Funny, we had this discussion at work some days ago and Cologne was brought up as unusually ugly. The reason is supposedly because Cologne was not bombed much during WWII. Other German cities are prettier because they were built up with that purpose after being bombed. Cologne has been rebuilt over a longer period of time without any plan of being charming.

I was just 11 years old when I visited Cologne, so I definitely owe it another visit.

I don't think Cologne's postwar rebuilding was vastly different than that of other German cities. Basically every German city was destroyed, and then quickly rebuilt, in the 1950's and 1960's style, so German cities tend to be bland or even ugly compared to their French, Dutch, or Belgian equivalents.

But Cologne, for whatever reason, seems to have almost nothing of historical value. Most cities at least attempted some half-assed reconstruction of a block here or there, but in Cologne, there's practically nothing besides some restored churches.

I can't think of a major German city that is particularly pretty. I guess Munich or Nuremberg would be the nicest, at least in their cores? There are some smaller cities that weren't totally wiped out (say Heidelberg) but I think all the biggies were basically starting from scratch. Cologne, Mannheim and the Ruhr cities, in particular, really got hit with the ugly stick, IMO (though all are vibrant and somewhat interesting). They were all big industrial centers so naturally got flattened.

[Centropolis]

there's something to be said for cities that do a good job of allowing you to easily appreciate them the first time, although i understand that this thread is about the opposite. philadelphia, portland, boston, milwaukee all come to mind as american cities. new orleans counts so long as you make the tiniest of effort to leave the french quarter.

most any midwestern/southeastern city of any size is going to require some effort to ferret out the hidden stuff that is to be appreciated. indianapolis may be an exception in a bad way, milwaukee an exception in a good way. st. louis may just be the most extreme example of "hidden stuff," in the midwest (or beyond), with a semi-decentralized larger than people expect pre-war fabric. cincy and pgh have lots and lots of hidden nooks.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Cologne, Mannheim and the Ruhr cities, in particular, really got hit with the ugly stick. They were all big industrial centers so naturally got flattened.

and here's a picture of said ugly stick:


source: wikipedia

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

and here's a picture of said ugly stick:


source: wikipedia

And this is what was left; https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...EwvamqSXMawcM:

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Anders Franzén

Funny, we had this discussion at work some days ago and Cologne was brought up as unusually ugly. The reason is supposedly because Cologne was not bombed much during WWII. Other German cities are prettier because they were built up with that purpose after being bombed. Cologne has been rebuilt over a longer period of time without any plan of being charming.

I was just 11 years old when I visited Cologne, so I definitely owe it another visit.

Usually the bombed/rebuilt areas are ugly. Do you mean that sometimes care was taken to make the replacements look like the originals? Some of those have been very successful.

[dc_denizen]

If they cared about their cities, they would have surrendered hehe

[MonkeyRonin]

I recall a recent thread asking "which cities were you unimpressed with?", and seeing London brought up a lot. Which is understandable - for what was a long time the largest and most important city in the world, it doesn't have the sense of grandeur that jumps out at you like it does in other European capitals. It's kind of understated and can even be downright ugly in the centre of town - but give it more time and the depth and scale of the place becomes a little more apparent.

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

this is my assessment of toronto too. very generic, not particularly attractive, a very high number of chain stores, much more auto-oriented than i expected and overall quite forgettable. even in the non-CBD neighborhoods i explored (annex, west queen, danforth, distillery), the cool shops, restaurants and bars are set to a pretty standard midwest taste and aesthetic, lots of burgers and beer. after falling passionately in love with montreal, i was ultra disappointed to discover what toronto is about. if there's something happening there, i think it'd take multiple visits to discover it.

Everyone's experience is different I guess, but this is one of the more bizarre assessments of Toronto I've read. The vast majority of retailers (even in the core, and even in newer, higher-rent buildings) are independents, and I can't think of a North American city besides New York and maybe Montreal that's less auto-oriented.

And midwestern burgers and beer? I don't even know where to start with that one... it's too bad if you stumbled upon a couple boring places, but the eating, drinking, and shopping options are one of the best parts of the city (and not particularly hard to find). I'll grant you that it's not the best looking place and I totally understand its charms aren't for everybody, but that's one thing you couldn't be more wrong about.

[ChrisLA]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Whereas I loved LA the first time I visited and didnt really understand the disparagement it gets from outsiders.

If you already had some understanding of the city, then LA can be loved the first time around. Also when you hang around with someone who knows the city very well, most times that visitor will love the city.

I have given tours of the city many times to first time visitors and those who have been to LA countless times. Some people I know that visit LA many times didn't like the city. Although after they hung out with me, and learned more about LA, it has become their preferred city to visit in California. In fact some have requested we take the train instead of driving.

[ChrisLA]

For me I have to say San Francisco didn't do much for me the first time. I have lots of relatives in the Bay Area and I was 18 and they didn't want me to go out on my own so I was given a tour mainly of Oakland and Berkeley, and small tour of San Francisco.

My knowledge of the city was crossing over the the Golden Gate Bridge, and seeing the cable cars. I was more impressed with the Oakland Bay Bridge, seeing the skyline as my uncle drove me across it. At the time I visit, the cable cars weren't in operations, as they were doing major upgrades to the entire system. So I was really disappointed, as many of the streets were dug up along the routes, so it was a mess.

I was visiting Oakland at the time, although my relatives home and neighbor hood was decent, I thought Oakland was a dump. It reminded me of some really ugly run down neighborhoods I recall visiting on the west side of Chicago. There were even parts of San Francisco at the time that was just run down and it didn't look like the city of the last 20 years. In many ways San Francisco has improved tremendously.

I will say Berkeley was kind of impressive at the time, just because of knowing a bit about the hippy movement when I was a kid, and still seeing those people older, and still hanging out in the area.

Today, there is definitely things I love and appreciate about the Bay Area, and much of has a lot to do with familiarity. It is different than LA, but at the same time, there are a lot of similarities, and it is a west coast city to the core, and that's what I love about it.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

and here's a picture of said ugly stick:


source: wikipedia

Crew of this classic bomber must be frantic.Nobody likes showing up this late to a party.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by ChrisLA

If you already had some understanding of the city, then LA can be loved the first time around. Also when you hang around with someone who knows the city very well, most times that visitor will love the city.

I have given tours of the city many times to first time visitors and those who have been to LA countless times. Some people I know that visit LA many times didn't like the city. Although after they hung out with me, and learned more about LA, it has become their preferred city to visit in California. In fact some have requested we take the train instead of driving.

I have a friend from the Chicago burbs who moved to LA and disliked it right away. It was mostly due to she didnt want to be away from her family near Chicago. She harped on all LA's negatives, alot.

But the longer she lived here, the more she liked it. When she had to move back to Illinois after two years, she was sad to leave. She plans to return on many trips, I'm guessing it's one of her favorite cities now.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by ChrisLA

If you already had some understanding of the city, then LA can be loved the first time around. Also when you hang around with someone who knows the city very well, most times that visitor will love the city.

I have given tours of the city many times to first time visitors and those who have been to LA countless times. Some people I know that visit LA many times didn't like the city. Although after they hung out with me, and learned more about LA, it has become their preferred city to visit in California. In fact some have requested we take the train instead of driving.

Yea, I knew where to go on my first trip to LA. I wanted to the neighbohoods, rather than tourist attractions. And I do the same with anyone else.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by LA21st

I have a friend from the Chicago burbs who moved to LA and disliked it right away.

Probably had trouble finding an LA home with enough closet space for the parkas.

[maru2501]

most places you have to knock out some touristy items before you settle in on return trips and become more spontaneous and relaxed. Paris was way better on trip four when I didn't feel compelled to race through museums and art galleries not knowing if I would ever be back. Was much more fun to go to the Nation stop or somewhere grittier (at least years ago)

new york has been the same for me for that reason. And I have had multiple visitors to me in chicago who say the same thing. Visitors feel they must check off certain items but enjoy the city more when they hang out at a neighborhood bar etc

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Probably had trouble finding an LA home with enough closet space for the parkas.

Your dollar goes so damn far in Chicago too. Seeing what $1500 gets you in LA compared to Chicago should be enough to make any person bitter.

Although now that I've lived in the Bay Area I can't believe how cheap LA is by comparison.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

Your dollar goes so damn far in Chicago too. Seeing what $1500 gets you in LA compared to Chicago should be enough to make any person bitter.

I don't think anything is more expensive in LA, excepting real estate.

And LA real estate isn't that bad outside of posh areas. Apples to apples generally cheaper than other Western first world megacities.