London's skyline is a growing mess (Commentary)

[dc_denizen]

The Thames riverfront is such an architectural jumble that it doesn't affront me so much.

The Ferris wheel at place de la Concorde is arguably more jarring.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by JManc

Today, yes. A century ago, no.

Exactly the point I was trying to make. Many artists and writers of note thought the Tower to be an arrogant piece of Industrialist savoir-faire posing as Art. It took a while for Paris to warm to it but the elegance of it baffled those who sought to defile its majesty.

I don't mind the big wheel myself, I rather like it more than the shard or the gherkin personally, but I am not comparing the strong visual synthesis of the Eiffel Tower with the wheel's rather mundane evocation of "fun" in the here and now.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by pico44

The Ferris Wheel is so ridiculously terrible. I'm just in awe of the fact that it happened.

I thought Londoners loved the eye?

I mean, lots of cities have them. I've been on the one in Chicago and thought it was a great experience, a really cool thing to have in a city. Although it might not work in every city.

[LMich]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

The Thames riverfront is such an architectural jumble that it doesn't affront me so much.

The Ferris wheel at place de la Concorde is arguably more jarring.

This. There is no architectural coherence to the riverfront to begin with, so it's not like it's disrespecting some particular cohesive aesthetic vision for the riverfront, anyway.

Now, functionally? When I was there everyone was telling me there is basically a line all day just to use it, and it's not really a "ride" (it's basically a rotating observation deck) so be prepared to be on it longer than you may have imagined or wanted. I didn't even bother; we didn't have the time.

[King Kill 'em]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't think it's THAT bad. London isn't really a uniform historic city like Florence; it has tons of postwar brutalist and modern architecture. I think there's room for modern and/or tacky stuff.

That's why London is far more interesting than Paris. Cities need to evolve

[The North One]

Originally Posted by King Kill 'em

That's why London is far more interesting than Paris. Cities need to evolve

I don't find London more interesting than Paris at all.

Who says Paris hasn't evolved? Just because it preserves it's beauty doesn't mean it hasn't "evolved" that sounds like bullshit.

[mhays]

Of course Paris has evolved. I returned in May for the first time in a while, and visit London pretty frequently. They're both an interesting mix of old and new. (The best parts of London tend to skew older, not like the "transitional" and outer areas that get the highrises; this is similar between the two.)

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by The North One

I mean, lots of cities have them. I've been on the one in Chicago and thought it was a great experience, a really cool thing to have in a city. Although it might not work in every city.

Keep in mind the scale difference between the London Eye and Chicago's Navy Pier Ferris Wheel.

Chicago's Wheel is only 200' tall, and set against the immediate backdrop of Chicago's mighty skyline, it becomes a visual afterthought on the cityscape. Nearby Lake Point Tower is more than 3x taller than it. Navy Pier has also had a carnival atmosphere for several decades now, so something like a big ferris wheel is a natural fit.

The London Eye, on the other hand, is more than twice as tall as Chicago's wheel at 443' tall and it dominates its immediate area on the Thames. It has a much larger visual impact on its surroundings and thus people tend to have stronger opinions on whether or not that's a good thing.

[Jonesy55]

I don't mind the London Eye personally, it's no great aesthetic achievement but I've seen more egregious eyesores in cities...

[M II A II R II K]

It could be a lot worse:

[10023]

It may come to that.

[10023]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

The Thames riverfront is such an architectural jumble that it doesn't affront me so much.

The Ferris wheel at place de la Concorde is arguably more jarring.

Architectural jumble, sure. But it's a jumble of different buildings, not enormous amusement park rides.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by King Kill 'em

That's why London is far more interesting than Paris. Cities need to evolve

I would disagree, but whatever, it's subjective.

The vast majority of cities are an architectural jumble of styles from different eras, like London. Very few (perhaps no?) world cities have a uniform style like Paris.

Paris, to me, is easily the most beautiful first-tier city on earth. Of course, if you find the Haussmann style monotonous, then Paris isn't for you. In any case, many side streets are medieval and the outer neighborhoods are jumbled, like London, but obviously a different style.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by The North One

I don't find London more interesting than Paris at all.

Who says Paris hasn't evolved? Just because it preserves it's beauty doesn't mean it hasn't "evolved" that sounds like bullshit.

By preserving structures over people Paris has turned its city center into a museum for the pleasure of the wealthy.

So yeah, Paris has evolved, but not in a good way.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

By preserving structures over people Paris has turned its city center into a museum for the pleasure of the wealthy.

So yeah, Paris has evolved, but not in a good way.

London's core is just as wealth-centric, perhaps even worse. And it has tons of postwar and modern construction.

And it isn't like all of Paris' core is a golden ghetto. There are plenty of streets with blatant prostitution, dumpy stores, concentrations of poor, etc.

Last visit I saw a street brawl in Pigalle, steps from Moulin Rouge. The areas around Gare du Nord and Gare d l'Est are pretty seedy. Then there's that area north of Les Halles with all the African businesses and obvious illegal stuff going on.

[King Kill 'em]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I would disagree, but whatever, it's subjective.

The vast majority of cities are an architectural jumble of styles from different eras, like London. Very few (perhaps no?) world cities have a uniform style like Paris.

Paris, to me, is easily the most beautiful first-tier city on earth. Of course, if you find the Haussmann style monotonous, then Paris isn't for you. In any case, many side streets are medieval and the outer neighborhoods are jumbled, like London, but obviously a different style.

Architectural jumble is what makes cities great and interesting to explore. I love the juxtaposition of buildings from different eras all together. I like the outer arrondissements of Paris better, where there's a lot of post war mondernism mixed with the Haussmann. It's not as pretty as the inner ones but what it lacks in beauty, it gains in diversity and I assume affordability. To me affordability is the most important issue in city planning and should almost always come before issues of beauty.

[dc_denizen]

^ the 14th is awesome.

https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attracti...de_France.html

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

By preserving structures over people Paris has turned its city center into a museum for the pleasure of the wealthy.

So yeah, Paris has evolved, but not in a good way.

There is a fair amount of preservation in cities like London and even NY. In the U.S., ways to incorporate the original facade, and build on top of it. Nice structures can be preserved, just takes a bif of engineering and design modification.

With land prices the way they are, places like London and Paris have no choice to build up. To be competitive to meet the residential and office demand. BUT preservation can still happen. Its not always an end sum game of demolition of the existing structure.

OR, preservationists favorite option. Internal renovation/conversion. Saves the structure, saves the facade and look, and all the new space or functions are on the inside (interior).

There are options, but as the city grows, some beauties spanning the decades will go. Its a byproduct of growth.

[King Kill 'em]

Originally Posted by chris08876

There is a fair amount of preservation in cities like London and even NY. In the U.S., ways to incorporate the original facade, and build on top of it. Nice structures can be preserved, just takes a bif of engineering and design modification.

With land prices the way they are, places like London and Paris have no choice to build up. To be competitive to meet the residential and office demand. BUT preservation can still happen. Its not always an end sum game of demolition of the existing structure.

OR, preservationists favorite option. Internal renovation/conversion. Saves the structure, saves the facade and look, and all the new space or functions are on the inside (interior).

There are options, but as the city grows, some beauties spanning the decades will go. Its a byproduct of growth.

Except Paris doesn't grow up that much with it's super strict height limits.

[sbarn]

Originally Posted by King Kill 'em

Except Paris doesn't grow up that much with it's super strict height limits.

Nor should it IMO.