‘ridiculous’ London skyline
Paris is more beautiful than London. However, The Center of England has something before the French capital – a dialogue about the architectural influence of two world cities that never actually takes place.
Primrose Hill, north of central London, offers beautiful views.
Photo: Simon Dawson/Bloomberg
London was not doing well: “The horizon is a joke,” said the old lady. The passage in which I spoke these words and heard them a few weeks ago is well suited to such a judgment. Primrose Hill offers a sweeping view of the capital of the United Kingdom. It is no coincidence that this vantage point, a hill north of Regent’s Park, appears in many films and TV series that work more or less with the ‘London theme’.
The old lady spoke kindly, but also in a slightly wistful voice befitting a former teacher somewhere in England. Anyway, I imagined she might take up this profession someday. Her ability to make her point so well reinforced my suspicions.
The lady addressed her words to a friend from Germany, also a woman of old age. Not only did she like the outlines of the big city in the sky, but a group of skyscrapers like “Shard” or “Gherkin” commissioned by Swiss Re or other office towers he called “Walkie Talkie” or “Cheesegrater”. I find the entire urban development of the last four hundred years rather dubious.
“London was rebuilt after the Great Fire,” she said, with a mixture of disapproval and remorse. In early September 1666, London burned for five days. The fire started in a bakery, and eventually destroyed much of the city over what is now more or less the City of London. The landmark of London at that time, St. Paul’s Cathedral, was also destroyed.
Architect Christopher Wren rebuilt the church in a more splendid form and with references to St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. London was also springing up again about her, but, as the old lady said, in a very disorderly way. She said, “Higgledy Biglide” has been developing London ever since. all mixed up. It would have been better for London to orient itself towards other cities. I also knew an example: “Paris is much more beautiful.”
An interesting point of view that was good to discuss. But you don’t interfere with other people’s conversations in a public park. If I did, I would have contradicted the old lady.
Paris is undoubtedly beautiful. Paris has been copied all over the world. But sometimes, in my opinion, Paris is almost “too” beautiful. One cannot endlessly treat the spectacle of magnificent facades. But then there’s something else: Paris in its current form was created in the mid-19th century under Napoleon III, an authoritarian ruler. Its capital, Paris, should not only look beautiful and classy, but also orderly. That is why in Paris there are many boulevards of uniform decoration, which lead to huge ornate buildings.
On the other hand, in London, there does not seem to have been any central planning. The city was shaped by economic considerations: shops, commercial buildings, apartments, and transportation routes dominate the picture. London may be the seat of the King, but you’ll rarely notice it outside of its tourist attractions. In Paris, where kings in the true sense of the word no longer reside for a long time, the former understanding of the rulers is felt everywhere.
The London skyline isn’t pretty – I’ll agree on this point. But he should not be the sole judge of the world city. A mixture of architectural styles, brick and concrete buildings, classic columns and new glass facades, old churches, old train stations and never straight streets make London a likable place. The way life goes on is accurately reflected in the turbulent cityscape.
Found an error?Report now.
“Alcohol buff. Troublemaker. Introvert. Student. Social media lover. Web ninja. Bacon fan. Reader.”