The best Capital City

[sebes 3]

Of course the best is ... Amsterdam (aka Mokum)

Runner up: New York as "Capitol of the World".

[Ebullient 1]

Washington, D.C. definately. It's so beautiful, like, and artest painted his masterpiece on a canvas of earth. (is that corny or what??) oh, and someone said that it was to post modern and a facimalie of Paris, which I totally disagree with. First of all, it's greek revival, not post modern, and second of all, it looks nothing like paris. When you walk through D.C., you can tell it was planned. It looks...new. Paris looks old. they are different! lol. The best part of D.C. are the parks, the monuments, the architecture, and the free museums. If you ever go, make sure to check out the botanical gardens. they are AMAZING.

[Cjah 15]

lol....Amsterdam rules...so liberal...so amazing....

Also Tokyo...so futuristic...so going places....

Then there is Moscow...home of Communism....even if the USSR is dead....

Also Budapest.... that right there is my absolute favorite...

It has Hungary's tallest building and a badass castle and many many famous bridges....hell you can eat and drink on the Danube in Budapest...whats more to ask for!!!??!

[adpbns777 0]

Originally posted by: Ebullient Washington, D.C. definately. It's so beautiful, like, and artest painted his masterpiece on a canvas of earth. (is that corny or what??) oh, and someone said that it was to post modern and a facimalie of Paris, which I totally disagree with. First of all, it's greek revival, not post modern, and second of all, it looks nothing like paris. When you walk through D.C., you can tell it was planned. It looks...new. Paris looks old. they are different! lol. The best part of D.C. are the parks, the monuments, the architecture, and the free museums. If you ever go, make sure to check out the botanical gardens. they are AMAZING.quote>

You're right.  It's not modeled after Paris.  It's modeled after Versailles.  Look at the similarities in the layout of the cities.  They are almost identical.

[ACEfanatic 7]

Originally posted by: Ebullient Washington, D.C. definately. It's so beautiful, like, and artest painted his masterpiece on a canvas of earth. (is that corny or what??) oh, and someone said that it was to post modern and a facimalie of Paris, which I totally disagree with. First of all, it's greek revival, not post modern, and second of all, it looks nothing like paris. When you walk through D.C., you can tell it was planned. It looks...new. Paris looks old. they are different! lol. The best part of D.C. are the parks, the monuments, the architecture, and the free museums. If you ever go, make sure to check out the botanical gardens. they are AMAZING.quote>

*sigh*

Look up Post-Modern architecture.  That is what at least 99% of DC's architecture is.

It looks too new - Washington doesn't have the same inviting appeal that Paris does.

-ACE

[xiziz 11]

Well, Stockholm(Sweden) is definatly the best ive been to and the one i frequent most as i live here ^^ But i Also like Dublin(Ireland) and London(England/GB). Never been to Tokyo but im thinking its a great capital city.

Otherwise i like Evarin of Vando ^^

[Argentino 0]

Buenos Aires is BIG! Mexico City is BIGGER!!

[Stik Fig 2]

I went to Washington D.C. in July, and I was a little dissapointed. They'e turned the thing into freakin' Disneyland. There's no restraunts near the actual Monuments and stuff, just overpriced hot dog carts and kiosks. Also, immediatley outside of the Mall area is just poor housing, low income neighborhoods and liquor stores. Sure the Mall area is pretty, but for the capital city in one of the most powerful nations in the world, it's a little crappy.

[JWUT 2]

I've been to both D.C. and Paris, and I've gotta say, Paris is better.

Sure, D.C. has some awesome museums, but even the Smithsonian can't beat out the Louvre, IMHO.

D.C. has great monuments, but, um... Eiffel Tower? Arc de Triomphe? Sorry, George, Paris wins.

Architecturally, D.C. looks like government modernism run awry. there are the few priceless exceptions on the National Mall, but the rest of the city is basically crap. Paris, for the most part, is loaded with beaux-arts forms, that despite being wayyyyyy older, are simply more appealing than modernist boxes. Paris values form over function, D.C. values function ofer almost everything else. Also, D.C. is just downright dangerous, with one of the highest murder rates anywhere in the U.S.

I like 'em both, but I say Paris is the more refined of the two.

[Menotyou 0]

I have to say Washington D.C., because I live in the U.S.A.

[ACEfanatic 7]

Originally posted by: JWUT

Architecturally, D.C. looks like government modernism run awry. there are the few priceless exceptions on the National Mall, but the rest of the city is basically crap. Paris, for the most part, is loaded with beaux-arts forms, that despite being wayyyyyy older, are simply more appealing than modernist boxes. Paris values form over function, D.C. values function ofer almost everything else. Also, D.C. is just downright dangerous, with one of the highest murder rates anywhere in the U.S.

I like 'em both, but I say Paris is the more refined of the two.quote>

BINGO!

My rationale exactly.

-ACE

[inick69 0]

well its not concord nh

[inick69 0]

or augusta maine. portland is a nice city though

[adpbns777 0]

NOTE: D.C. is not my favorite capital, but it's getting a bad rap, and I feel a need to defend it.

I see a lot of comparisons between Washington D.C. and Paris (and other cities), but I do not think they can be classified together. Washington D.C. was constructed for the sole purpose of being the Nation's Capital. I'm not sure the order, but it used to be Philadelphia, then New York City, then maybe Philadelphia again, and then D.C. It was swamplands until they constructed the city.

Other capital cities (especially european capitals) are also like the commercial center of their country as well. D.C. just functions as a political center. You can't compare the Louvre to the Smithsonian, because the Smithsonian isn't America's premier art museum. It actually isn't just an art museum. It is a great cultural center for everything in American History. It contains the oldest constitution in the world. It has the Air & Space Museum which is amazing. It also has the Hope Diamond in the Museum of Natural History. It also has a few museums that are amazing. Not to mention that all these museums are FREE, and the lines are much shorther than the Louvre.

Also, downtown D.C. is kind of run-down. But every city has their slums. How large is Paris? Washington D.C. is only 10 miles by 10 miles (and actually much smaller because the river actually cuts it into about 2/3 of that). This makes the slums more noticeable because there isn't much space for them, so they are closer to the downtown area.  And D.C. is dangerous? I don't remember D.C. having over a weeklong of rioting recently. And the city is much cleaner than Paris.

It has several beautiful areas. The downtown area where all the government buildings are, is just a beautiful area. Monuments that are meant to commemorate a great human being or beings. Every monument means something. Paris has the Eiffel Tower (as previously mentioned) which represents nothing except a World's Fair. I'll give you the Arc de Triomphe, but everything else was built a symbol of the King's Power by the King himself. You have the Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial, Jefferson Monument, Vietnam Veteran's Memorial, Korean War Memorial, WWII Memorial (the newest one), Iwo Jima, President Kennedy, FDR Memorial, and Albert Einstein memorial, among probably others I can't remember.

Even if you do not like the architecture, the history around you is just amazing. And if you go during March-April with the cherry blossoms in bloom, it is one of the most beautiful places on earth.

[The boy formerly known as Evil Muzz 27]

I feel a few were missed out on that list. Of course, you don't need to ask really, my favourite is Edinburgh Scotland. Why? It's not too big and it's not too small. There's a fantastic mix of old and new architecture. No skyscrapers to ruin the skyline (the city doesn't need towers when it has hills), a wonderful castle, possibly the best preserved in the UK, an exciting new modern waterfront development, lots of excellent parks to punctuate the built up areas, a great military tattoo that attracts tourists from around the the world (and I'm not just saying that, I went and I had a Canadian man on one side and a kiwi lady on my other!), IMO THE greatest street show and performers in Europe, if not the world (but it's not quite Rio de Janeiro standrards , well one of the greatest anyway), festivals for EVERYTHING (books, films, games, comedy acts, drama, journalists conferences etc....), the best walking and hill climbing opportunity in the UK only 40 minutes away by car and an excellent and easy to use transport system which is soon to be upgraded with trams...

Well.... That's me done...

I also like London, but not as much, but maybe it's because I don't know it as well. I've been to Nicosia. Very strange place... We were there and there were glass towers and bustling streets... but as we strayed off the beaten path and closer to the Turkish side of Cyprus, it got more worn downa and dilapidated. The streets were sand and gravel, there were Mosques everywhere that were run down, and then we got to a big wall with armed guards. On one side (our side) a big Greek flag, and on the other a Turkish flag. And then, we could see further behind that wall it got nice again, glass buildings etc... very weird.

I've also been to Paris, which I liked very much. I liked the architecture and the history. But the Eiffel Tower gave me a headache afterwards...

[Equilibria 16]

D.C. was not a copy of Paris, but it was designed by a French planner, so of course he drew inspiration from his own homeland.

That said, having spent some time in both places (I lived outside D.C. at one point), I would have to say that Paris wins out, for one simple reason: it's a city. Washington D.C. has an essence of a huge park with some buildings sitting in it, or perhaps a large sculpted office park. Paris has areas like that, but it also has really cosmopolitan secions, and is an active and dynamic metropolis.

I just tend to like an urban sense in my capital. That's why I like Boston so much.

[Angrymidget134 0]

WOOT GO LONDON!!!!!

[Sticksboi05 2]

Originally posted by: The Terminator Id say London, Washington DC would have a chance, if it wasent for that dumb, "no buildings taller than the washington monument rule". there both are home to oppressive tyrannical governments, but there nice cities.quote>

You're so ignorant.  First of all it's the capital you can't build taller then.  Second, if you built skyscrapers above the monuments, the city loses it's character.  It's a city of great historical importance.  The mouments represent that.

The fact is, Washington's CBD is the #3 largest in the US behind NYC and Chicago so it's still effective and it's the #6 most toured city in America.  

[____----____ 37]

Originally posted by: sebes Of course the best is ... Amsterdam (aka Mokum)

Runner up: New York as "Capitol of the World".quote>

 

Yep A-dam it is

[Makollig Jezfahted 0]

I'll choose London, it has a lot of different cultures and also has the most languages spoken in 1 single city. The mixture of new and old architecture is well planned and not forced. Also, the planned upgrades for various aspects of London life in time for 2012 will surely boost London's status higher and higher. I can't wait until 2012 to see a skyline worthy of the future!

[Sticksboi05 2]

 He's right.  Washington functions as a political cente but Paris is a huge city of 2 million while Washington DC has just under 600,000.  But beofre you continue bashing Washington, D.C. here's some things you should know from a native.  Let's compare Paris and Washington DC.

1) Most of you people talking crap about DC have only visited the mall so you only know about 2% of the city.  There is MORE to Washington DC then just the National Mall.  It has special neighborhoods like any other city.   Woodley Park, Adams Morgan, Tenleytown, Dupont Circle and Georgetown, Foggy Bottom etc.   Both cities have distinct neighborhoods.

2) Both cities thrive with tourism.  The Louvre, Eiffel Tower, Arc De Triomphe  etc.  Great stuff.  DC however has the world's most popular museum (Air and Space),  and the Smithsonian provides free and world renowned museums.  The Hope Diamons in Natural History, The Enola Gay in Air and Space.  These musems also have IMAX theaters.  The fact that the lines aren't nearly as long and the cost is free gives tourists in DC the edge moneywise.  The amount of art museums in DC rival the Louvre.  Besides, the Washington Monument was the tallest structure in the world until the Eiffel Tower was built.  It's more original.  Who needs to go up 980 feet when you can go up 555 feet(joke).  The National Zoo is also free and The Library of Congress is the largest library in the world.

3) Paris has a world class subway system with well over 300 stations.  That being said, so does Washington DC.  Travel Channel rates Paris #2 in the world and DC #3.  That being said, Paris' system doesn't fare well for disabled touristsd whereas DC's has elevators at every station.  DC's stations are enormous and DC Metro has held the record for longest escalator in the western hemisphere since the 1970's.  DC Metro is also much cleaner and trains are more modern.  Paris' covers much morea but I mean it has 2 million + people as oppose to 580,000.  Paris' modern stations are amazing.  They resemble DC's modern outdoor stations.   Each city is serviced by a high speed train network.

4) Both cities have height limits in certain areas making their cities very classical and both cities better show the landmarks with the height limits.  The CBD of Paris speaks for itself.  The city is thriving.  If Paris was a country, it'd have the 15th largest economy in the world with a 2003 GDP of over $506 billion.  Washington DC's CBD is also booming.  The height limit keeps the city from being able to put up all the office space wanted.  The demand is always extremely high.  In terms of office space, it is the 3rd largest CBD in America behind Chicago and New York City.  Now that's pretty good company.  In terms of gross state product is over $75 billion which would be #35 if matched with the 50 states and it has just 580,000 people.

5) Remember, Washington DC and Paris are........SISTER CITIES.  They both have their ups and downs but the point needs to be made that DC is more then just the Nat'l Mall area.  Bottom line IMHO is that Paris provides more in a city but DC provides more in a city for its size.

[Mike the Mayor 51]

LONDON!!! 0^O Longtitude

[ExiL3 10]

Well, have to throw in my 1,5 quadrillion EXTRA NOK (that we norwegians get because of high oil prices) But what ever, OSLO is the best capital in the world,... why? You ask...

1. It's the capital of the counrty that is "THE BEST COUNTRY TO LIVE IN, ON EARTH". !!!BEAT THAT!!!

2. It's a small Capital, well about the size of Washington DC, around 600,000ppl, though only 800,000 in it's metro area, which is less than D.C.

3.Has a good variety of old and new buildings. (OLD, like around 800 years and older)

4. It has gone through a lot of history, the city is now over 1000 years old.

5. You can take the subway for 15 min from the city centre and go snowboarding or skiing downhill. Or in summer you can take the subway for around 5-10 min and chill on the beach, or go swimming.

Well, they are all facts, but written with a sense of humor. Don't take anything personally, us Norwegians are peacefull beings ....

Take care,

ExiL3

[jvlm.123 0]

1. It's the capital of the counrty that is "THE BEST COUNTRY TO LIVE IN, ON EARTH". !!!BEAT THAT!!!quote>

Actually, Ireland is the best country to live in... Norway's third...

(This takes into consideration standard of life/wealth/etc...)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4020523.stm

[dmscopio 225]

I will go with Canberra, the capital of Australia. I've been there once, the capital hill just stunning.

[ExiL3 10]

jvlm.123: Human Development Index has ranged Norway to be the best place to live on earth, and Norway is also on the top on the UN's list. so in this case you are wrong.

"For the fourth year in a row, the United Nations has ranked Norway as having the highest standard of living in the world. Sweden, Australia and Canada are next in line, while the United States is further down the scale.

The report measured standards of living in 177 countries around the world. Other Nordic countries also ranked high, with Iceland in 7th place, Finland 13th and Denmark 17th.

Norway's gross national product per person amounted to USD 36,600, beaten only by Luxembourg. Its men and women are expected to live to an age of 78.9 years and Norway is one of 19 countries in the world with no measurable rates of illiteracy.

Researchers for the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) also weighed countries' degrees of cultural freedom in their analysis. They called cultural freedom a "basic human right," and awarded high scores in this year's UN Human Development Report to countries that accept immigrant cultures in addition to their own.

Norway's cultural diversity has blossomed in recent years, and public policies are aimed at integrating various ethnic groups and promoting tolerance.

Norway also was lauded for its high literacy rate in addition to educational levels and material wealth. Norwegians themselves generally point to their country's scenic beauty, recreational opportunities, clean water and fresh air.

The United States landed in eighth place on the list, while France, for example, was 16th.

The worst countries in which to live are all in Africa, according to the UN report. All 23 nations at the bottom of the list were African, with war-torn Sierra Leone in last place."

Taken from  Aftenposten.no,  though  here is a link to BBC ,  stating the same:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2149799.stm

Or MSNBC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9085910/

Here Ireland is 10th

There are obviously different approaches to "best place", Norway is much richer than ireland, but it seems Ireland got a "certain cosy elements of the old, such as stable family and community life." This i say varies from person to person, what you like.

For example people in Tromsø (northern city in Norway) are very happy about their way of living, and their city is fast growing. I would never wish to live there though...

"Norwegians have the highest quality of living, which makes it the best place to live in the world";  thats what I mean about being the best place to live on earth...

[confused04 14]

Who care's who's "the best place to live." Statistics mean nothing. Quantifying "satisfaction" is a joke.

It is nice for someone to have pointed out that DC was planned before the remodeling of Paris by Haussman. And its hard to say what really inspired Pierre Charles L'Enfant who probably felt more towards his adopted nation than his former home. Also, although I lack any knowledge of Versaille history, did Versaille get redesigned by Haussman as well? or did the growth of Versaille happen to follow a similar plan of Paris' new facade? I find it very hard to grasp that Versaille would follow a nice, grid/diagonal plan in a time where random chaotic roads were the norm.

Anywho, I have been to Paris and I have been to DC and based ONLY on the "capitol" function of either city, Washington DC wins hands down. I didn't see any particular rhyme or reason to Paris' lay out (perhaps there is one and I couldn't see it). Looking at the actual centers of government, I was far more impressed by Washington DC. I still think that the Capitol building, despite what we think about the people inside, is one of the most majestic and awe-inspiring buildings. Going to the memorials in DC (argueably not governmental, but honoring those who fought to protect the US is close enough) were general much more moving and beautiful than the few (I admit, I haven't been to most of the Parisian ones so this point might be mute) in Paris.

But comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges. Their plans are different, their purposes are different, the land use is different. Besides, I honestly don't see why people have this innate desire to say "my capitol is the best". Whether this capitol or that capitol is better, has no bearing on my life.

If I had to chose state capitols, St. Paul, MN. (And my disclaimer is similar to the previous, I live here).

[owenluby 1]

I like Paris and London... although Canberra is pretty cool...

[topcliff 1]

Are we talking country capital's, or can it be state capitals? If so, Sacramento, CA takes the cake! I mean, it practically got everyone to the West Coast, and it (California) is the fifth largest economy in the world. Not to mention it's not that big, lots of downtown renewal. In total population, little over 2 million people. No Joke. TopCliff

[Sticksboi05 2]

Originally posted by: topcliff Are we talking country capital's, or can it be state capitals? If so, Sacramento, CA takes the cake! I mean, it practically got everyone to the West Coast, and it (California) is the fifth largest economy in the world. Not to mention it's not that big, lots of downtown renewal. In total population, little over 2 million people. No Joke. TopCliffquote>

Sacramento the city has around 500,000 people....

Sacramento County has 1.3 million people....