Notable Cities of Europe

The best cities in europe

Similar Lists


Comments:

Tadeusz598

Tadeusz598
Florianópolis

Notable cities: a points system?

It seems to me that the list could easily be expanded to include about 80 cities.

I would suggest that the criteria have to be refined substantially.

a. Are the cities in question notable for historical events? or as capitals?

Should population size be the criteria, with larger cities being given priority?

c. Or is architecture the main thing?

d. Or economic importance?

e. Or cultural facilities? (museums, galleries, libraries, bookshops

f. Food and Drink?

Perhaps one could develop a points system, according points to each of these criteria, so that Paris, which is important for a all six would be awarded the maximum of 60 points, while Bruges, which is only important in point c. and e. would get 20 points.

London is the only other city that would get this maximum score.

A city like Warsaw, which is medium sized would get 10 for historical events, only 5 for population, five for economic importance and perhaps 5 for architecture, and 5 for cultural facilities and 5 for food, totalling get 30 points (I may be being generous here).

Only cities which reached up to 30 points would be included?

What do you think?

Bla Deblah

Bla Deblah
Helsinki

This is an interesting suggestion, but would be quite a hazzle… And actually I think one aspect could be enough to make a city notable – but there has to be at least one aspect that makes the place more worth visiting than most other European cities. And I think there shouldn’t be more than 50 cities on the list.

So how about looking for each city’s main justification, such as

  • Brussels: capital of European Union
  • Rome: historical center of Roman Empire that shaped much of Europe
  • Berlin: history of east/west division (city, country, continent)

    …

    If there is no special reason for a city to be part of this list, then it can be deleted.
Tadeusz598

Tadeusz598
Florianópolis

Your suggestion has the merit of simplicity.

But I am not sure whether it follows through that a place which is important for historical reasons is necessarily therefore interesting or worthwhile to visit.

For instance, for a time Aachen was the centre of the Holy Roman empire, but apart from a small cathedral, there is really very little to see there.

And there would remain the difficulty of weighing the importance of one criteria over another.

Does the fact that Brussels is head of the EC make it more “listworthy” than a second city of less contemporary significance, such as, say St Petersburg?

But very few people would chose to visit Bruussels over St Petersburg…unless they were mentally ill.

Bla Deblah

Bla Deblah
Helsinki

Ok, I tried to make it short, but like that it wasn’t obvious enough…

A place of historical importance is not necessarily interesting, but the main reason for Rome is its history which has left lots of interesting sites.

Brussels’ notability, for example, is more arguable. Yet it’s a big city in the middle of Europe, it’s multilingual, there’s some notable architecture that made it a world heritage place, you can visit the EU headquarters, and many people might indeed just be curious about the “European capital”.

I just think there should be a comment on each of the cities. Like that, it could become more obvious that some of them should better be replaced by, for example, some of your Italian places.

But if you feel like suggesting a complex ranking system, you’re of course welcome to do that ;)

Tadeusz598

Tadeusz598
Florianópolis

Thanks…no it wasn’t obvious what you were suggesting.

You still haven’t said how you would resolve the inevitable conflicts between the listing of x city versus y city, which is why this discussion started in the first place, and which my points sysytem was intended to, at least formalise the terms of.

I shall attempt to produce a more rigourously evaluated list of fifty cities.

Untitled - Bla Deblah