What's your favourite city in Europe?

[Pollock]

Hamburg, Barcelona, Frankfurt, Brussels

[Pollock]

Originally Posted by South

Ah, the common misconception is that London's a flat city. Alright, its not set beside mountains, but it is very hilly.

Here's some photos I took over South East London to demonstrate:

(to give you an indication, the mast to the left of the 1st photo is over 200m tall)

You are funny. Is this the great London mountain range?

[elfabyanos]

Originally Posted by Pollock

You are funny. Is this the great London mountain range?

They are the great south london plataeux, as the hills gently rise for 10 miles southwards, into the wooded heights of the North Downs, to a height that may cause the odd cyclist to break out into a sweat, before plunging down the steep southern face (from a giddying 200 metres up! Wow, thats almost as high as canary wharf!) into the picturesque valley below, enhanced of course by the M25. Yes, the great London Mountain Range.Lower than a building. Don't forget the other gigantic topographical features, such as the Great Thames Plain, the Lea Valley Delta (famous for its 2 billion nesting flamingoes) and the Trans Croydon Hill-The-Size-Of-A-Speedbump. And certainly don't overlook the largest natural gorge on earth - The Watford Gap.

[The Dear Leader]

Originally Posted by South

Ah, the common misconception is that London's a flat city. Alright, its not set beside mountains, but it is very hilly.

Here's some photos I took over South East London to demonstrate:

(to give you an indication, the mast to the left of the 1st photo is over 200m tall)

You're kidding me, right? That's not hilly at all, unless you mistook the clouds for a mountain range. A city like Lisbon is what I'd consider to be "hilly" but not London or Paris.

[The Dear Leader]

Now this is hilly (Innsbruck):

[Mercutio]

^ No Innsbruck is set amongst mountains - not hills. Hills don't have to be large - and South admitted that London's hills were gentle. However he's right that London is not flat in the way that, say, Berlin or Chicago are.

[The Dear Leader]

Alright, Innsbruck is mountainous (example was used as an exaggeration anyway).

Of course Berlin's überflat, so compared to that city just about any city can call itself hilly.

[GENIUS LOCI]

Originally Posted by The Dear Leader

Alright, Innsbruck is mountainous (example was used as an exaggeration anyway).

Of course Berlin's überflat, so compared to that city just about any city can call itself hilly.

Milan is totally flat too, like a glass board

Anyway it's just 50 kms from Alps and just 30 kms North from its centre still in the urban area of its metro Brianza hills stand

[nito]

Originally Posted by Fabb

There should be a museum-city category and a business-city category.

Would that be a category for museum cities or museums in cities

[tradlak]

We need to have different categories of cities, that is, for architecture and history, business, leisure and living and for large, medium and small cities. It's not fair to compare apples and oranges. No?

[South]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

^ No Innsbruck is set amongst mountains - not hills. Hills don't have to be large - and South admitted that London's hills were gentle. However he's right that London is not flat in the way that, say, Berlin or Chicago are.

Precisely... I didn't say that London's very hilly... I just said that it wasn't at all flat.
And then you have 'elfabyanos', 'Pollock' and 'The Dear Leader' mocking it.

This is the view from one of the hills... (oh no wait, there aren't any)



Innsbruck is set beside mountains (Patscherkofel 2246m and Serles 2718m) , not hills.

[EuropeanHero]

1. Paris
2. Amsterdam
3. Moscow

[rubensanga]

1.Madrid
2.Paris
3.London

[Simcoe]

What do hills have to do with anything?????!!!!!! Do hills make or break a city? Manhattan is as flat as a pancake and has done rather well for itself despite it not being built on the side of a mountain. London is not flat, but it is not mountainous either. Of no importance.
My fave European cities:
1)Paris
2)London
3)Florence (Firenze)
4)Vienna

[FREKI]

Hmmm... there's nowhere in Europe I would rather live than Copenhagen ( othervise I'd be long gone ) so I'm gonna be boring and pick my own city...

But cities like Berlin, Paris and London most certainly deserve recognition as well as a ton of other ones... Europe has some awesome cities!

[London999]

Originally Posted by Nightsky

Barcelona! Because of the many exciting architectures and nightlife. It also has tall buildings.

London and Prague are also really good, but London is too cold and Prague has no skyscrapers. And Paris is too tourist unfriendly. Haven't been to Madrid and Milan though.

Funny considering London is warmer than Malmo in every month of the year

[niko333]

1. Vienna/Paris
2. Prague
3. Rome/Milan
4. Madrid
5. London

[sukan]

The most favourite, it's easy to say

Prague!!!

what than: Madrid, London, Gdansk (is actually very interesting)

[joey10101]

A)Madrid B)Francfort C)Viena D)Roma E)Lisboa

[joey10101]

London is beautiful, but it still needs to address issues regarding its people. Its not just about the magnificent buildings that make a great city, but its people.

London currently has a 17% poverty rate, while the U.S. has only a 12% poverty rate according to the CIA World Factbook.

Also, according to their demographic chart for the City of London it appears as if the majority of its inhabitants are white or Anglos.

London profile:

Ethnic groups:
white (of which English 83.6%, Scottish 8.6%, Welsh 4.9%, Northern Irish 2.9%) 92.1%, black 2%, Indian 1.8%, Pakistani 1.3%, mixed 1.2%, other 1.6%
Population below poverty line:
17%