In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Pan) wrote:

    > But overall, I prefer Paris, which also has so many things to
    > see that one can never exhaust them, but also has more places to walk.
    > It's a bigger city (a _positive_ thing for me because it's got a
    > higher ratio of residents to tourists), and my perception is that the
    > Paris I visited this past summer was - except for some dogshit -
    > _cleaner_ than the Rome I visited in 1998. I also think it may have
    > been safer. Rome in 1998 had a somewhat gritty feel to it that I
    > didn't remember from previous visits in 1991 and 1994. Paris
    > definitely has its weird areas, though, I have to say. It all comes
    > down to taste, though. Paris is a major destination for many sound
    > reasons, and the city won't suffer from your disapproval and absence.

Remember that under Mitterand, the Grands Travaux renovated several
monuments and built new ones. Notre Dame is undergoing a renovation
which was already in progress in '99 and this past summer, had not yet
finished. Beaubourg also had a major renovation in the past couple of
years.

If you look along the river, you see a lot of boom cranes rising above
the city. Constant renovation seems to be at work.

Don't know about Italy but the French know where their tourist dollars
should be spent.

On Mon, 16 Sep 2002 18:43:21 -0500, "Douglas W. Hoyt"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Or underwhelming::
    >1) Rothenburg ob der Tauber (sterile)
    >2) Vienna (dull center, really; decrepit outside the Ring)
    >3) Berlin (has lost character & soul since the Wall fell)
    >4) Paris (big rambling French city with bad air)
    >5) London (overrun, uncomfortable, and expensive)

After reading this post, I was expecting various posters to come to
the rescue of their maligned cities. Am bemused that so few have done
so...
---------------------------
A truly cool book:
The World Is Already Yours
Conscious living in the real world
www.alreadyyours.com (sample
chapter, etc...)

Jens Arne Maennig <[email protected]> wrote:


    > Maybe about ten years ago, I was reading somewhere (no idea where
    > exactly) that a communist party introduced a bill into Florence city
    > concil to close the downtown areas for tourists and re-build the the
    > relevant sights somewhere outside the city as a kind of theme park
    > where the tourists could be driven through.
    > Is there any truth behind this anecdote?


I don't remember anything like that. However, suppressing the tourists
wouldn't be enough; the city is already overcrowded with its residents
(this is evident when all cars gridlock at peak times the single ring
street that is no more sufficient to move all the traffic around). No
wonder that the residents that can afford transferring in the
surrounding country (still very beautiful) do it as soon as possible, to
the point that Florence, that was numbering 450,000 fifteen years ago,
is now around 380,000.

However, I wonder what the people here is really expecting from a city.
Florence is obviously interesting to the art lover; this having been the
center of western art for several centuries, has a couple of world class
museums, and a good number of museums that would alone make a city
worthwhile to the art lover. I understand that those not interested in
art should better skip Florence, but in no way the city could be
considered as an overrated destination.


-- -----------------------------------------------------
Luca Logi - Firenze - Italy e-mail: [email protected]

Barbara Vaughan <[email protected]> wrote:


    > I have to go to Florence next week for a doctor's appointment and I've
    > been wondering if I should try to leave a little time for a museum
    > visit, or if September will still be unmanageable.

If you send me your doctor's street address, I can mail you an itinerary
you won't find people around :-)

-- -----------------------------------------------------
Luca Logi - Firenze - Italy e-mail: [email protected]

"a.spencer3" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
    > > "Ryan B" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > >For me it's Carcassonne, France. I arrived in town in the early evening;
    > I
    > > >got to the bridge about a half mile away as the sun was setting and I
    > looked
    > > >up at the ancient walled town and thought it was magnificent. I got
    > inside
    > > >only to find it was a highly commercialized Disney type theme park. Just
    > > >one junk shop and ice cream stand after another.
    > I've only seen the photos and still want to get there. But I've heard that
    > the majority isn't original but badly reconstructed. True?
    > Surreyman

http://www.culture.fr/cu-
lture/carcassonne/index.html

The problem with carcassonne IMO is that, except the walls, when you
get inside there are few monuments to see except the countal castle
and
Saint Nazaire cathedral with its (nevertheless) beautifull stained
glasses. The common houses even if they have mostly kept their
original shape, seen from air, are less attractive from near because
they are covered with local grey coatings (facades) and because the
inhabitants modified many of them in the details before the city was
protected. Many still need to be restored in their original aspect.
But concerning the restoration of the walls by Viollet-le-Duc it is
exagerated to say that it was badly done. The quasi totality of the
walls are in fact originals. In proportion considering the huge size
of the city and its very bad state in the 19th c. nearly only the
upper parts of them were redone with their machicolations and above
all the rooves wich had mostly DISAPPEARED for centuries. In fact VLD
made a complete survey with precise drawings of the city before
beginning the works in a very scientific way for the period. The
rooves were the core of the polemic in the 19th c. because the local
historians wanted red tile rooves while VLD reconstructed slates
rooves. Some slates rooved were later replaced with red tiled rooves
but it is now aknowledged by the historical monuments services
themselves that the great campaign of restoration by the royal
ingeneers in the 13th was probably predominantly made with slates and
that finaly VLD wasn't so far from the real aspect of the city after
this campaign. On the contrary if he restored many monuments rather
well or even perfectly like Vezelay for ex. it is considered that the
restoration of some, mainly Saint-Sernin in Toulouse, was incorrect as
well as the inside of Pierrefond castle but for this last one Napoleon
III wanted a creation a bit like Neuschwanstein not a faithfull
restoration.

didier Meurgues

On Mon, 16 Sep 2002 18:43:21 -0500, Douglas W. Hoyt wrote in
<[email protected]>:

    >Or underwhelming::
    >1) Rothenburg ob der Tauber (sterile)

Where? How can it be overrated? Who rates it? Or is it that bad that
even though there's only 55 references on Google, it still doesn't
deserve that many?

    >2) Vienna (dull center, really; decrepit outside the Ring)
    >3) Berlin (has lost character & soul since the Wall fell)

Buggers, fancy them doing that. They never give a thought for the
tourists. Robin Island's not the same since they let the POC's out,
either.

    >4) Paris (big rambling French city with bad air)

I often think that but it has its moments. Try touring it at night.

But, yeah, it's too big.

    >5) London (overrun, uncomfortable, and expensive)

No, it's very overrun, very uncomfortable and bloody expensive.




--
Cheers,

Chris

    > Living in Munich and in spite of loving beer I would like to add
    > 6) Hofbräuhau Munich

But there's a fine pub directly across the street from the Hofbrauhaus that
serves magnificent Ayinger beers on tap. You can sit outdoors there and
watch the minions throng in and bzw. lurch out of the Hofbrauhaus. By the
way, about 30 years ago I had heard that the way to pilfer mugs from the
HBHaus was to take two or three of them in one hand, cover them with your
coat, and then lurch toward the door drinking from another mug in your OTHER
hand, singing at the top of your lungs, and then then someone waiting at the
door would demand your drinking mug--but I imagine this has changed.

    > My first thought of an overrated European destination was St. Paul de
    > Vence. It was pretty from 1-2 km, but when I got there, I found that
    > there was nothing there except a medieval little walled town that
    > looked better from outside and a bunch of shops selling very expensive
    > things.

I have to agree with you on that one! Grasse is a bit breezier and more
natural I think. And if you're going a bit further afield I do like Aix en
Provence!

    > For me it's Carcassonne, France... Disney type theme park. Just
    > one junk shop and ice cream stand after another.

I have to agree with you too, 100%. I did a day trip from Nimes just to see
Carcasonne, that famous guide books would tell you is "worth a journey" and
it was a complete waste of time. If it were stuck in the middle of another
worthwhile destination, it might be worth trekking up to see as a dalliance,
but it is not worth more than an hour of anybody's time.

    > > 1) Rothenburg ob der Tauber (sterile)
    > Yes indeed , Quedlinburg outcompetes as a medieval town

We were in Quedlinburg this summer and it is quite remarkable. My folks,
who knew it in GDR times, say that the changes are astounding. In fact
there are so many German cities who have taken to Altstadt-sanierung, with
restoration of the gingerbread facades in whole streets and districts, that
I don't think that public perceptions, or even the guidebooks, can keep up.

    > (3) Why don't you tell us your 'choice' cities so we get an idea of your
    > criteria . . . and we will get a chance to 'fight back'. :-)))

I was in Prague this summer, despite warnings about how overrun it is. It
was indeed overrun, but it was still fresh and alive, and very, very cheap

Everyone knows about the tourist swarm in Venice, but there is still no
place like it on earth, and if you get OFF the ant stream you will find
places of atmosphere and character that are virtually deserted. Venice is
godly.

Budapest is stimulating. It's scruffy around the edges but in an
up-and-coming way.

I think Nice must be the most relaxing big city on earth. All those
pastels, and the miles of waves pounding at the stony beach, and the easy
daytrips, and the good food, and the incredibly reasonable hotels, and the
buzz and murmur of thousands of relaxed happy people strolling at night.

Rome is not easy to expeience, but it's still a vivid, dynamic jumble of
sensual intensity.

Amsterdam can be grotty in the center, but I love the Dutch--the most
pleasant, decent, intelligent, kind, thoughtful, well-tempered people on
earth (I'm not Dutch myself), and again, if you get off the beaten track, or
take little sidetrips from Amsterdam, you experience rich beauty and some of
the highest heights of human civilization on this earth.

Antwerp is nice. Aix-in-Provence is very nice. Aachen is very pleasant.
Strasbourg is a bit busy but also very nice. But I would trade all of them
to spend more time in Italy--even places that aren't traditionally nice. I
just love the colors and the flavors in Italy, and the pace, and the heat
(and, of course, the cafe macchiato). Puts London to shame.

"Keeger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:mmcfouso8ssm86bu6p0ia321-
[email protected]...
    > IMO:
    > 1) Salzburg. I found it more tourist-oriented than Florence and worse
    > than that it was cold, dark and damp in July. (this was 2 or 3 years
    > ago).
    > 2) Cologne. The cathedral is amazing, and there are many good
    > museums, but it's pretty ugly otherwise.

Except for the cathedral, the central part was essentially flat after the
WW2 bombing.

IMO:

1) Salzburg. I found it more tourist-oriented than Florence and worse
than that it was cold, dark and damp in July. (this was 2 or 3 years
ago).

2) Cologne. The cathedral is amazing, and there are many good
museums, but it's pretty ugly otherwise.

3) Amsterdam. Yeah, it's safe, but I found it to be seedy. I was
constantly bothered by dirty junkies looking to buy or sell drugs.
The city itself is pretty, but I've never felt the desire to return.
Next time, I will go to other Dutch cities.

As for the original list, I've always liked Vienna and would recommend
it to just about anyone. As for London, yes it's crowded and
expensive, but it's got everything you could want in a city, except
sunshine and quiet. I go there at least once every year. And once
you've tired of it, you can be in the Cotswolds or Dorset in a few
hours.

Paul

Douglas W. Hoyt <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Or underwhelming::
    > 3) Berlin (has lost character & soul since the Wall fell)
Aw, how inconsiderate of them!

    > 5) London (overrun, uncomfortable, and expensive)
Not even a teensy bit exciting?

In article <[email protected]>,
grey <[email protected]> wrote:

    >After reading this post, I was expecting various posters to come to
    >the rescue of their maligned cities. Am bemused that so few have done
    >so...

Some trolls are more obvious than others, I guess.


--
---
Eric Holeman eholem1 at uic,edu Chicago Illinois USA