You could say the same for Paris, Venice, Prague, etc. I feel the opposite of you: these cities fill me with a sense of beauty that no modern architecture is able to match. And their urbanism, centered around piazzas and dense walking centers with low rise buildings, is so much more human and enjoyable than any American city. It makes me wonder what we have learned in the past 300 years....
> These suburbs are dominated by huge, gray, unattractive public housing projects.
I'm guessing the above commentator was referring to the parts of European cities outside of the historic city centers. It seems very similar in the few German cities I've wandered around extensively, you have a great walkable low rise center with lots of mixed use and then just bland same looking housing blocks outside of that.
The European city centers tend to be far better than their American counterparts but I would argue the suburbs mentioned are worse architecturally.
Venice actually does feel a bit more monotonous to me, even though you can clearly see different period styles. Most of Venice's history happened in a relatively shorter time frame than many Italian cities. Here in Padova there are everything from Roman ruins (and they've dug up even older stuff) to modern buildings. Venice has none of the Roman architecture because it got its start much later.
Paris isn't too bad. The Louvre Pyramid, Centre Pompidou, much of Palais de Tokyo (e.g., National Museum of Modern Art in Paris), Parc de la Villette, Musée du quai Branly.
I think it's inevitable that any international city with loads of history will struggle to find opportunities for urban renewal that reaches the typical tourist.
