On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 02:35:36 +0100, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 09:55:36AM +1000, Derby Chang wrote:
John Forbes wrote:
>On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 00:18:44 +0100, Gautam Sarup
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>It's right here for people who haven't seen it:
>
>Thank you. The two buildings shown are roughly a hundred years apart.
>Have those years brought any improvements in architecture? Have the
>last two thousand years? Save for the Taj Mahal, can any later
>building compare with the Parthenon?
>
>John
>
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Sydney_Opera.html
Quite possibly. I'd also suggest some of the great gothic cathedrals
(including Notre Dame and Westminster Abbey), and some of the European
castles. King's College Chapel (Cambridge) is pretty impressive, too.
Then there's the main Bombay (now Mumbai) railway terminal building ...
And how about Grand Central Terminal, New York?
I reckon it's still Bombay, in English. People who use Mumbai should
also, to be consistent, say Koln rather than Cologne, Roma, rather than
Rome, and Bharat rather than India. Liege causes a problem, as there are
two versions of the name even within Belgium.
I don't generally disagree that your nominations are pretty good examples
of architecture, though I personally find Notre Dame rather ugly. Give me,
Chartres, any day.
I always thought, but wrongly, that Bombay's Victoria Terminus had the
same architect as the Natural History Museum in South Ken, to which it
bears surely a more than coincidental resemblance. It's a bit of a shock
to see what looks like its sister transplanted to Maharashtra. But it's a
fine building.
John
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
