How did this happen? How come the Greek cities look like this while Turkish cities look like that? What would have caused for one looking better and being taken care of better than the other? I mean Greece's economy has always been better, always supported from the outside, been in the EU and has lots of money while Turkey has had economic problems the whole time due to hostile neighbours and embargoes and yet Turkey manages to look better than its wealthy neighbour.
looks dont come from wealth. istanbul appears to have a lower hight for most buildings , with religious monuments being the tallest. the athens on the other hand has no variation. this could be one reason for the difference.
Pic related, Athens was a mere village in 1830, Istanbul remained a major metropolis for millenia
>That's even worse because Istanbul's buildings would have to be demolished and rebuilt
Rebuilt by a huge empire building on the foundations of another huge empire.
Meanwhile Greece was poor and irrelevant as shit when they had to build Athens up from nothing.
> ages of Ottoman occupation
> years of civil war
> followed by shitty socialist rulers who can't manage shit
> and now German and northern bankers fuck them over with playing games with their stupid debt
Istanbul was once Constantinople.. and it wasn't just the business of the Turks.
Constantinople was the capital of the Byzantine Empire. And then, after they loss of the Christian empire and its power, the Ottoman Empire kept it as a major metropolitan city.
Because that's a very flattering picture of Istanbul, and a very unflattering picture of part of Athens. OP, you should look into the fact that there are parts of Istanbul, large swathes of it on the European side, that look exactly like Athens.
The situation is so bad in fact that the Turks are demolishing these buildings and having to put up entire neighborhoods because the buildings aren't up to standard. You may want to do more than base your opinion of two cities (and the countries they're in) from one photo.
>very unflattering picture of part of Athens
you can't really show Athens looking good unless you're showing the Parthenon, Istanbul looks better in every which way.
Don't forget Istanbul is a giant city expanding quite a long way around with 18 million people with only 14 million people actually being residents of the city and even so Istanbul looks good from practically every angle, looks proper.
It's only becoming wealthy now, it wasn't wealthy before, it was really poor, even in the 90s Istanbul was still a shit hole. Istanbul now has a strong economy but so does all of Greece and yet their capital looks terrible
Ankara looks perfectly okay and nicely developed
Ankara was the commanding center of the independence war
Now if you want a better comparison, compare athens with ankara
>both poor as shit irrelevant villages
>built with 0 money
The Ottomans had a sense of aristocracy that the greeks have lacked ever since it was christianized, and were pretty much the sole heirs of the golden age of islam after it ended.
note that I am probably talking out of my ass though that goes for the vast majority of the posts on this board
not that bad, actually. Mehmed only allowed his soldiers to loot for three days (considered merciful by the standard of the day) and restored property to citizens that had abandoned the city before its siege. Some of the worst stuff, in the eyes of Christians, was the conversion of churches to mosques and the painting-over of their icons.
Daily reminder that this is how most of Istanbul looks like and it stretches on for kilometers
>Mehmed only allowed his soldiers to loot for three days (considered merciful by the standard of the day)
It was 3 days because it was according to islamic tradition.
And the lootings stopped after 1 day.
Athens has a population of ~600 thousand, Istanbul has 18 million, it makes sense that there are these buildings but at least they don't look like shit, they look fine. They don't look aesthetically disturbing do you? unlike the way Athens looks it looks pretty nice, plus it's all in the outskirts of Istanbul rather than in the city.
I like that there are areas around it that have nothing build on them. I doubt it's designed for recreational purposes, but at least you can go into the hills and stuff. Better than pic. At least you could go somewhere to run/read/chill.
I don't know man, Istanbul even far from the centre looks pretty cozy
honestly, the only difference I see between your pic and OP's Athens pic is the usage of tiled roofs in Istanbul.
I'll admit it does add a certain critical aesthetic factor when viewed from above, but from the streets it's not as obvious.
It's all about the angles magne
Great cherry picking Mehmet, pic related is also Istambul
Yeah, Turkey being a 3rd world country
>cozy winter town
Turks are pathetic, here have some more Ankara.
>its why Ataturk didn't make it the capitol
he didn't make Istanbul a capital because it was very easy to conquer it with just a navy. canakkale was a very hard fought battle.
brits took it over after ww1.
Ankara on the other hand is very deep inland, so there is a better opportunity to defend it if there's an invasion.
Ataturk was very suspicious of the West. Many people forget this. It's the reason we had retarded laws that banned purchase of land by foreigners until recently.
>you can't really show Athens looking good unless you're showing the Parthenon
I dunno, this looks okay
>It's the Kurds
>they're slums so they're not part of OUR city
Top lel, don't play dumb turk, you know full well what a Gecekondu is and the fact Turkey is full of them.
You're like Brasil, you can show off pretty sky scrapers and the centre of town, but everyone know the majority of it is shit and most people live like shit on 50 bucks a month.
Istanbul looks fantastic from pretty much every angle
>It's the Kurds
If you read the history of rural migration of Turkey you'd understand. The Kurds now make up around 3 million of Istanbul's population.
Btw you keep posting the same slum houses from different angles and as I said slum houses are being demolished and replaced by other buildings. It's all being gentrified.
that photos quality and filter would make any place look shitty.
yeah, I'm sure it must be the Kurdish camera or something :^)
there's something about minarets, especially the turkish thin ones, that makes their cities look aesthetically pleasing
i've also been to a lot of other countries, including the muslim ones, but all the other minarets are too fat/large.
>Kurdish camera or something :^)
what does that even mean? The only thing that looks bad in this picture are all the clothes hanging out, the colour looks saturated due to shitty camera quality too
>still posting the same hill
At least the city in general looks great instead of just one bad hill unlike in Athens where it all looks terrible. Also those slum houses are gone already
Athens is the ugly concrete jungle here. You see the Turks had success and with the success they demolished ugly buildings and built new better looking houses while the Greeks built shit houses despite being very wealthy and now Greeks live in a shitty concrete jungle while the Turkish concrete jungle looks very aesthetic to the eye. Pic related is Athens.
Oh, the same hill in Ankara is also located in Istanbul?
>At least the city in general looks great instead of just one bad hill unlike in Athens where it all looks terrible. Also those slum houses are gone already
Literally the only part of Istambul that looks "great" is the Greek part.
you posted a bait pic though, for example here's bosporus without the cute HDR effects
and here's a panorama of athens with water and sky instead of OP's photo
to have an equal comparison
meanwhile in the officially the most beautiful city in the world(rome)
The main problem with this thread is that most people have a completely inaccurate perception of the world and have no idea what happens outside their local region. Westerners overrate their own cities and underrated most others, except foreign ones that are mystified in some way within their culture. People who think that Greece is some idyllic utopia with columns, brave warriors and philosophers need to wake up from their philhellene wet dream. It's not the cradle of Western civilisation, just like Romulus and Remus weren't actually raised by wolves.
It's all about the economic flow generated by the city. Sure Greece until recently had a stromger economy but that doesn't mean that Athens was an economic center. Instanbul however, is a huge trading and economic center not just for Turkey but as a trading center for goods and commerce between Europe and Asia. Also the turkish political system is very corrupt, corrupt governments love nothing more than to make their cities and sites extremely beautiful because beauty seems to give the illusion of stability and prosperity
That's Naples, not Rome, just because an inscription in the back says "Roma" does not make it Rome.
It's literally the first pic when you google "Naples Trash"
Most of the buildings in athens are 20-30 years old.
At the 80s houses in greece like these in OP's pic were the most cheap and big to fit a lot of people in them.
But as times passed they didn't changed the housing design cause the money went elsewhere.
As a Greek I can tell you that Athens is the shittiest city in Greece. Literally any city in Greece is more beautiful than Athens. Athens is nice for visiting museums, the Parthenon and the night life. After the 60's because everybody from the country moved to the city to get a job and because of the cheap housing, the entire city became a concrete nightmare. Apart from that Thessaloniki is 200x better.
dont kid yourself, they are the same.
I blame the fucking civil engineers during the 60's and 70's and the incompetent goverments we had that failed to preserve the old Archontika.
Thessaloniki would be the most beautiful city in eastern europe if they had not tore them down to biuld commie blocks.
Ottomans in a nutshell:
>mongolian filth from the steppes that become keks and take up a moon religion that isn't even theirs
>can't build their own great city, have to capture the (already weakened and mostly abandoned) Constantinople, and they can't even accomplish it with force, have to resort to bribing the guards
>turn the greatest city in the world into a slum in a few decades
Constantinople back in Christian hands best day of my life.
>you will never be the man that places the explosives in the ugly minarets the muslims build outside of Hagia Sofia
>you will never participate in the first liturgy of Hagia Sofia in over 600 years, with a rifle in your shoulder and a cross in your uniform
why even live?