3 ms·
Yeah I think that using just UNESCO sites as a metric is a bit flawed. I mean on a scale from 1 to 5 (from good to bad) Rome gets 1, Paris 3 and New York City 4
by carlob 12y ago
Yeah I think that using just UNESCO sites as a metric is a bit flawed. I mean on a scale from 1 to 5 (from good to bad) Rome gets 1, Paris 3 and New York City 4.
I live in Rome and I love it, but I wouldn't say that even if we have a bunch of UNESCO sites, the cultural assets of the city are that much better than Paris or NYC.
- guard-of-terra 12y agoI think they ought to divide cultural assets into what I would loosely call "Heritage" and "Modern culture". On the Heritage scale, Rome is an undisputed [global?] leader. On Modern Culture scale, Paris is perhaps ahead (I've not been to NYC but imagint it's the leader here). These scales' appeal varies for different people. UPD: UNESCO sites headcount is a deeply flawed metric anyway. I've heard that South Korea has more UNESCO sites than India, which proves it is 1% history, 99% lobbying.