Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For an exciting change of pace, why don't you all chuck the Top 3, and go pay a visit to St. Petersburg? Art, ballet, fine orchestras, history up the wazzoo, exquisite architecture, good food, no dodgy suburbs, palaces everywhere like you've never seen, sailing on the Bay of Finland, a working Buddhist monastery, parks, beaches, museums, etc. "The Venice of the North". Hey, if it was good enough for Sir Paul, why not you?
I know, I know..."off-topic". meh.... :-/
Back to your regularly-scheduled bickering, oops, I mean, er, programming...
Probably a nice place to visit in the summer, but a little too cold in the winter. I much prefer London and Paris too be honest.
I can't see myself trying to keep warm whilst drinking industrial strength vodka.
You don't have to drink the vodka, and the buildings are all over-heated in winter. I'd think it would be beautiful in winter.
Is "Peter" really that much colder than London in Winter? Why would that be, because it's farther away from Ocean currents? But winter in Russia is so nice. You get to wear fur. And Petersburg is actually very tropical in the summer (not in a good way): it's built on a swamp. Spring and early fall are ideal, just like NYC.
You're missing out, Mulhall, but that's your choice.
You don't have to drink the vodka, and the buildings are all over-heated in winter. I'd think it would be beautiful in winter.
Is "Peter" really that much colder than London in Winter? Why would that be, because it's farther away from Ocean currents? But winter in Russia is so nice. You get to wear fur. And Petersburg is actually very tropical in the summer (not in a good way): it's built on a swamp. Spring and early fall are ideal, just like NYC.
You're missing out, Mulhall, but that's your choice.
It's way up north, not too far from Helsinki, that's why it's cold in winter.
I am sure St Petersburg is very nice, however it's not an Alpha City and is not really comparable to London, Paris or New York in that respect.
I am sorry but your arguments are a bit weird, Greater London was used as it is the city boundaries and is what generally constitutes London, NYC was used because the five boroughs constitute NYC and Paris's City boundaries were used because they are what Paris itself uses to define it's city boundaries.
The LSE just used the existing city boundaries for their cultural audit.
All though in terms of what is after all a 'Cultural Audit', most of the criteria in terms of major orchestras, major museums, major art galleries, major theatres etc would not change, indeed most of these venues are in city centre locations such as London's West End, Covent Garden or the Southbank. So for much of this study it wouldn't matter if you just included the city centres.
London's major orchestras, ballets, theatres, opera houses, art galleries, national museums etc are generally in the centre of the city, and the same is true of most cities.
Did they really use Paris's city boundaries only? That seems a ridiculous thing to do since it'd be like taking only Manhattan for NYC and comparing that to Greater London. Paris is only 105 square kilometers (compared to using Greater London which is 1,572 square kilometers), but certainly its only the center of a much larger network that is closely tied together. Many Parisian suburbs are either middle or upper class with a lot of cultural amenities.
Yes, there are bad Parisian suburbs, but there are also a lot more middle class and upper class suburbs strongly tied to the city itself. I think having just cut them off from the study makes for an extremely skewed study. At the very least it should include the Petite Couronne which would still be only half the size of Greater London.
I am sure St Petersburg is very nice, however it's not an Alpha City and is not really comparable to London, Paris or New York in that respect.
Definitely not Alpha City, but I bet the city would win a beauty contest against the other 3.
Generally I don't like hustle and bustle. St. Pete is more laid back.
Not that that has anything at all to do with the topic of this thread....
Did they really use Paris's city boundaries only? That seems a ridiculous thing to do since it'd be like taking only Manhattan for NYC and comparing that to Greater London. Paris is only 105 square kilometers (compared to using Greater London which is 1,572 square kilometers), but certainly its only the center of a much larger network that is closely tied together. Many Parisian suburbs are either middle or upper class with a lot of cultural amenities.
Yes, there are bad Parisian suburbs, but there are also a lot more middle class and upper class suburbs strongly tied to the city itself. I think having just cut them off from the study makes for an extremely skewed study. At the very least it should include the Petite Couronne which would still be only half the size of Greater London.
If you read the study section 'Approach and method of Audit' you will see they use Paris’ postcode 75000 which includes the main 20 main quartiers or arrondissements. Something I didn't realise myself until I re-read that section of the study. So they didn't just use the city boundaries.
Sorry Mulhall you're not correct : the 20 "arrondissements" are not suburbs but are the 20 parts of intramuros (as they say in Manila) Paris, each (!) with local town council and mayor (!), and they have the Super Mayor and Council of Paris that head them all. Pretty complicated in my book, but hey! that's France, a little bit like the Mexican army (everybody want to be general or officer in charge...)
Sorry Mulhall you're not correct : the 20 "arrondissements" are not suburbs but are the 20 parts of intramuros (as they say in Manila) Paris, each (!) with local town council and mayor (!), and they have the Super Mayor and Council of Paris that head them all. Pretty complicated in my book, but hey! that's France, a little bit like the Mexican army (everybody want to be general or officer in charge...)
It's really up to Paris as to how it organises itself or as to what data it supplies. The LSE did their best, and most of the top theatres, national museums, galleries, ballet, opera and other important cultural events occur within the city boundaries. Paris being a very centralised city.
I really don't think it matters a lot in the case of a 'Cultural Audit', most of the major cultural activities of note are in terms of all three cities fairly central, so there is little point in engaging in some daft argument regarding city limits. It's up to each individual city how they wish to impose city boundaries. It's also up to the cultural departments of each city as to what data they choose to supply, in terms of Paris some of the data has been returned n/a which usually means not applicable or not available. The LSE just used the data supplied by them from each city, hardly controversial, indeed all the data used is secondary as supplied by the cities in question cultural departments.
Of course Paris is not going to do as well as London in some areas, it doesn't have the West End Theatreland that London does, then again it makes up for this through some very good museums.
London has a strong acting and performing arts industry, which is one of it's strong points.
Britain is particuarly strong when it comes to the performing arts and this is reflected by it's national theatre companies, world famous drama schools, dance and ballet schools/companies, music conservatoire and vast theatreland. Indeed every time I turn some slick US TV series (usually by the likes of HBO) on it usually has a British Actor in a leading role. In fact increasingly an old Etonian one at that.
Quote:
As Eton's head quipped at a school event last year: "When HBO want a gritty, hard-bitten, authentically American character to head up a mini-series they instinctively think: Old Etonian."
I'm impressed by the kind of propaganda the Londoners give us as much as they can....
You are trying to say, in Paris, it's just real estate in the suburbs, whereas the suburbs have got about 8 millions people while Paris just 2... Are you really serious ? no theaters, no bars, no clubs, no museums, no cinemas, no book shops, etc. ??? are you serious ? for example the palace of Versailles is a museum and it receives each year about 7 millions of visitors, which is way higher than any British museum...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulhall
In terms of the study, the inclusion of some of the outlying areas of Paris is not going to have a big impact on a lot of the criteria such as Orchestras, National Museums, Major Theatres or UNESCO World Heritage sites.
It's up to Paris what data it supplies or how it organises it's city boundaries. Indeed some of the data regarding Paris is simply marked as n/a, as it's simply not available.
The London School of Economics (LSE) Urban Research Centre compiled the report from the information supplied from each city, they can do no more than that.
It's up to Paris yes and it's up to London to show BS studies year after year...
A large part of the city of Paris is a world heritage it's not just 4 landmarks like in London : Paris Banks of the Seine, you can add to that The palace of Versailles, Provins and Fontainebleau...
The Louvre is the most visited museum in the world, 3 millions more than the second one (which is British and it's more than half of its visitors ), the most visited monument in the world is the eiffel tower with 6 millions people each year...
The city of Paris is the most visited city in the world with 30 millions of international visitors...
What I can already tell you, is the number of museums, the numbers of cinemas, the number of theater you gave us are actually the numbers you can find in the city of Paris (only 2 millions of people).
Your statement about the suburbs of Paris being only dangerous or bland or I don't know what you said exactly is showing you finally don't know very well this city. And this study made by a London school is showing the same prejudices...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And Petersburg is actually very tropical in the summer (not in a good way): it's built on a swamp. Spring and early fall are ideal, just like NYC. 
yes and it's up to London to show BS studies year after year... 
), the most visited monument in the world is the eiffel tower with 6 millions people each year... 
