Quote:
Originally Posted by LuciaGarzaron
I would like to make a definition of NYC and need your help!!
How would you define NYC? And what are its main differences to London -if any-?
Thank you  
|
I've lived in London, New York and Los Angeles. The biggest differences between NY and London is that London has more in common with Los Angeles.
I feel that way and many Londoners who have visited and lived in either or the other feel the same way, the ones I know anyway.
Why? One thing is that both London and L.A. are made up of many cities, NY is only one city made up of counties with other names, borroughs, etc.
The city of London has burroughs but there are other cities that make up London, i.e. City of Westminster, etc.
L.A. is a county made up of many cities, and surrounding counties with same. NY is a city that consists of counties or borroughs.
London is also a complex of cities, some have borroughs but don't equate to NY borroughs, they are different subdivisions of London. NY's borroughs are also named as counties, Kings, Queens, Richmond, New York County (better known as Manhattan) having multiple confusing names.
Consisting of counties still gives NYC its special provincial flavor as well as Manhattan referred to as The City, by Outer Borrough residents. NYC is at once a region, a large city, and a bunch of small town neighborhoods.
Rather than a Big City in many ways, NYC is a Big Village which surprises many first timers in how relatively "quaint" the people can be when taking your money. If they are not in a position of taking your money for a service or whatever, then they have no "quaintness" nor use for you and you're in their way. Sure they'll help you out as long as it doesn't take them 20 seconds out of their way, be quick, it's over. It was established by the Dutch and British as primarily a trade center, that's essentially what it is, no tikky no laundly, everything is dollars and cents terms. That's practically it.
NY IS similar to London in that NY is essentially a big Bus Station, a major transportation center, crossroads city, people coming in to get somewhere else, the world passes through all the time. IN that regard it mirrors that aspect of London's world presence as also a major hub.
However, L.A. and San Francisco are also major hubs, but getting around and the types of districts London and L.A. have make them more similar to each other than NY.
They say there's only 1 NY, and it's true, for better or for worse. There's only one in innumerable ways.
But all big world class cities, Chicago, L.A., NY, Sao Paulo, Tokyo, London, Mexico City, Paris, Milan, Berlin, Mumbai, Moscow, Cairo, Washington, DC, SYdney, Beijing, of that tier have a number of things in common.
But London and L.A. are more similar to each other in more ways than London to NYC. First of all NY was a colonial city for London and much of its traits are suprisingly still colonial and provincial, relatively speaking. That's why you'll always hear NYers sucking up or being sycophants to London and Londoners, England or Brits.
Angelenos and Londoners don't suck up to anyone.
To sum it all up, L.A. proper is a county made up of cities, and other counties. NY is a city made up of counties.
London is a collection of cities like L.A. with vast other metro areas with similar linkages around it. NYC doesn't have good linkages within its own counties or borroughs, hence it's very fragmented and balkanized. The only residents who can actually have a NYC address are those 1.5 million residents in Manhattan. Everyone else is chopped liver living in NYC in name only sharing a few basic city resources, those in the outer borroughs (anything outside of Manhattan) are given table scraps and leftovers to put in less economic and resources terms.
In that sense NYC bears more resemblance to Mexico City or Sao Paulo or a host of other developing nation major population centers and less like London, Paris, Tokyo, Washington, L.A. or Rome.