Originally Posted by Bouji
Some parts of London have great architecture, of what has been mentioned, Chelsea actually has quite poor architecture, as does most of Knightsbridge, Marylebone and Mayfair.
Belgravia is very nice, most of Holland Park is also, but it's only just in 'real' London.
Kensington is very so so in my opinion.
If I were to rank London's areas in terms of architectural quality, it would be as follows:
2. Regent's Park
3. Little Venice / Maida Vale
4. St. John's Wood
5. The City
6. Holland Park
7. The south east of Marylebone
8. Canary Wharf
10. South Kensington
11. (Architecturally) generic areas (Bayswater, Mayfair, Paddington, Notting Hill, Belsize Park, Most of Kensington, Earl's Court, Fulham, Ealing etc.)
To say Chelsea or has nice architecture confuses me. Sure it is a nice area, but architecture? It is simply a mix of very bad 60s architecture and London's generic architectural style.
And these are the top 10 - I lived in areas that were much more unattractive than even South Kensington. I spent a year in Vauxhall near the Oval - dreadful; a year in Battersea - nice park but architectural desert (besides Foster's offices). Not to mention Clapham, Brixton or most of the northern neighborhoods (King's Cross, Farrigndon... yuck)
A lot of London's architecture was rebuilt after the war and most neighborhoods are truly depressing archi-wise. Not to mention the traffic planning which makes most of London a nightmare for pedestrians (ah how much I hated these subterrean passages to cross 6 lane roads...)