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.
I never mentioned Paris as a port city nor having it being bombed--I specifically mentioned Tokyo.
NYC literally went bankrupt rather than nearly went bankrupt. Blight and deindustrialization on a massive scale is not specific to London nor the UK and was arguably worse in NYC. NYC's ports went out of the city to New Jersey.
Don't know what your problem is, but you seem to want to make this into which city is developing the most like London. The answer to that is London. Congrats!
Right so you had over tens of thousands of bombs fall on you, and were on food rations, and we were actually bankrupt after WW2, with millions of people homeless. In the 1970's the country was again on the cusp of bankruptcy, and London unlike NYC never had the luxury of being part of the richest country in the world. When we were bankrupt, the whole country was bankrupt.
I don't have a problem, all I have said is that in recent years London has had the most noticeable redevelopment - it went from virtually no real skyline to having a skyline, it went from bombed out post industrial areas to a haven of investment and masses of luxury apartments, and it's gone from a city where pubs and clubs closed very early to one where licensing laws have been relaxed and even the tube is now set to run 24 hours on weekends from 2015. If any city has seen change in recent times it's London. I am not even saying it's better than any other city I am just saying the change is massively noticeable, in terms of late night entertainment, in terms of restaurants, in terms of high rise buildings and indeed in terms of the fact that it's filled in a lot of derelict and unsightly land as well as pulling down a lot of council estates (some of the largest concrete estates in Europe) and building far nicer properties in their place. Perhaps these are things that some other cities take for granted but in terms of London they constitute massive change and therefore the change in London has been very noticeable.
^^
Not that I am really that bothered but neither are as big as Nine Elms, at 195 hectares, and Nine Elms leads directly on to further developments at Southbank and Waterloo, whilst Chelsea Creek and Chelsea Barracks are just across the river as is Lots Road Power Station and the massive redevelopment at Earls Court in Kensington, with some 6,000 new homes. Then there is the new Imperial Campus and redevelopment at nearby White City, and I am only scratching the surface here.
Paris Rive Gauche/Seine Amont is over 500 hectares.
It is all the eastern side of the Seine with current or planned redevelopment.
This was a very huge industrial area, I am not pretending that you don't have anything as large or larger in London especially with the Docklands but London is not the only city with large industrial areas under in redevelopment.
There are also of other plenty of redevelopment areas in inner suburbs and the inner suburbs of Paris are comparable with area like White City, many are even denser.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bamford
Whilst I don't mind Paris and love the fact we have a rapid Eurostar connection lets not pretend that Central Paris has anywhere near the potential of redevelopment London does, to suggest otherwise is like suggesting that London's listed West End has lots of potential for redevelopment, when in fact we all know it doesn't as it's historic and protected by law. Paris might have one or two areas but it still has no where near the potential that London has.
I haven't pretended that Paris do more than London, I say that you are ignorant about Paris and other cities.
You don't have a single clue about what is happening in the other cities nor about the their history. I don't see how you can be as categoric about London uniqueness if you don't know the other cities.
You compare apples with oranges (using pointless city limits comparison).
Last edited by Minato ku; 12-13-2013 at 04:06 PM..
Right so you had over tens of thousands of bombs fall on you, and were on food rations, and we were actually bankrupt after WW2, with millions of people homeless. In the 1970's the country was again on the cusp of bankruptcy, and London unlike NYC never had the luxury of being part of the richest country in the world. When we were bankrupt, the whole country was bankrupt.
I don't have a problem, all I have said is that in recent years London has had the most noticeable redevelopment - it went from virtually no real skyline to having a skyline, it went from bombed out post industrial areas to a haven of investment and masses of luxury apartments, and it's gone from a city where pubs and clubs closed very early to one where licensing laws have been relaxed and even the tube is now set to run 24 hours on weekends from 2015. If any city has seen change in recent times it's London. I am not even saying it's better than any other city I am just saying the change is massively noticeable, in terms of late night entertainment, in terms of restaurants, in terms of high rise buildings and indeed in terms of the fact that it's filled in a lot of derelict and unsightly land as well as pulling down a lot of council estates (some of the largest concrete estates in Europe) and building far nicer properties in their place. Perhaps these are things that some other cities take for granted but in terms of London they constitute massive change and therefore the change in London has been very noticeable.
Yes, there is massive change in London. If we are starting from the post-war period up until the 70s as a start and right now as the end, then it's Tokyo that went through the most changes and then NYC or London atter that. I'm unfamiliar with developments in Paris. I assume Paris proper, which would be a small area, did go through large changes but less than the other three though giving it an area equal to London's centered around the current municipality might make more sense.
Yes, there is massive change in London. If we are starting from the post-war period up until the 70s as a start and right now as the end, then it's Tokyo that went through the most changes and then NYC or London atter that. I'm unfamiliar with developments in Paris. I assume Paris proper, which would be a small area, did go through large changes but less than the other three though giving it an area equal to London's centered around the current municipality might make more sense.
Yes there is massive change in London, whilst in terms of Central Paris a lot more of it is historic and it certainly doesn't have the scope for redevelopment that a lot of cities do including London.
As for London, I keep having to repeat that I said in 'recent years' it has had the most noticeable change and not in the 70's or even 80's.
As for Minato Ku he usually spends his time arguing how densely populated Central Paris is when compared to London even though it doesn't have a great deal of skyscrapers, then again Paris surprisingly now also has as much land available as well, whilst Paris probably also has a bigger metro area than London and has much more development going on. No doubt Paris also fought more bravely in the war, was bombed more heavily and no doubt had twice the industry London had, despite the fact that London was the capital of an Empire of over 1 billion people (over 2 billion in today's terms) and we had docks trading with all of these centres of Empire, whilst Britain was the first industrialised country in the world and home to the industrial revlolution, the country which invented so many such things such as the Railway or indeed more recently the jet engine and a host of other things. Perhaps Paris is the most densely populated city with the largest amount of land available, with the largest metro and the greatest city ever and the rest of us are all wrong or perhaps Minato Ku is just contradicting himself and digging a big hole for himself, either way I don't really care, London has seen massive change from the Olympic site through to Central London.
Then again here's too Minato's Paris which is obviously much better than London and every other city in every conceivable possible way.
Anyway here's a look at Nine Elms in London, Europe's largest Redevelopment Project according to Bloomberg
Yes there is massive change in London, whilst in terms of Central Paris a lot more of it is historic and it certainly doesn't have the scope for redevelopment that a lot of cities do including London.
As for London, I keep having to repeat that I said in 'recent years' it has had the most noticeable change and not in the 70's or even 80's.
As for Minato Ku he usually spends his time arguing how densely populated Central Paris is when compared to London even though it doesn't have a great deal of skyscrapers, then again Paris surprisingly now also has as much land available as well, whilst Paris probably also has a bigger metro area than London and has much more development going on. No doubt Paris also fought more bravely in the war, was bombed more heavily and no doubt had twice the industry London had, despite the fact that London was the capital of an Empire of over 1 billion people (over 2 billion in today's terms) and we had docks trading with all of these centres of Empire, whilst Britain was the first industrialised country in the world and home to the industrial revlolution, the country which invented so many such things such as the Railway or indeed more recently the jet engine and a host of other things. Perhaps Paris is the most densely populated city with the largest amount of land available, with the largest metro and the greatest city ever and the rest of us are all wrong or perhaps Minato Ku is just contradicting himself and digging a big hole for himself, either way I don't really care, London has seen massive change from the Olympic site through to Central London.
Then again here's too Minato's Paris which is obviously much better than London and every other city in every conceivable possible way.
Anyway here's a look at Nine Elms in London, Europe's largest Redevelopment Project according to Bloomberg
Meh, at the same time you keep going back to WWII and the near bankruptcy of the 70s, so it seems like what times are important slide depending on what works for you. It really just sounds like you aren't too aware of other cities.
NYC, and many urban cities of the US, were hit by ill conceived urban renewal policies which destroyed a lot of the urban core of US cities. This included throwing freeways through neighborhoods and razing entire neighborhoods and building high-rise towers. The cities were also hit by a flight of people usually higher up on the socioeconomic ladder with many neighborhoods left decrepit or even intentionally destroyed (cases of arson for either insurance purposes or just the sheer joy of fire). The decline and then increase in population for London in the 20th century and early 21st century is actually very close to that of NYC numerically, though the demographic change was more drastic for NYC. Take that as you will.
London suffered a greater population decline than New York City.
Post war peak: 8,164,416 (London — 1951), 7,891,957 (New York City — 1950)
Post war population minimum: 6,608,513 (London — 1981), 7,071,639 (New York City — 1980)
Recent peak: 8,173,941 (London — 2011), 8,175,133 (New York City — 2010)
New York City though experienced a greater population change due more of the previous residents leaving and more newcomers (mostly but not entirely immigrants) coming in.
As for NYC, a city doesn't need bombing if it can burn itself down:
London suffered a greater population decline than New York City.
Post war peak: 8,164,416 (London — 1951), 7,891,957 (New York City — 1950)
Post war population minimum: 6,608,513 (London — 1981), 7,071,639 (New York City — 1980)
Recent peak: 8,173,941 (London — 2011), 8,175,133 (New York City — 2010)
New York City though experienced a greater population change due more of the previous residents leaving and more newcomers (mostly but not entirely immigrants) coming in.
As for NYC, a city doesn't need bombing if it can burn itself down:
When New Yorkers imagine real estate development in their city, they tend to imagine voracious builders – they think about the crop of towers rising in downtown Brooklyn, in Williamsburg and around the High Line, the construction sites that litter the far west side and Hudson Yards, and the Billionaire’s Row of supertall skyscrapers massing south of Central Park on 57th Street, and they imagine a city overcome by developers.
The narrative of New York as captive to builders overrunning any rational bounds to growth is a popular one, but the statistics – annual housing production numbers so meager that they’d surprise even Amanda Burden, New York’s chief city planner – tell a different story.
According to numbers compiled by James Gleeson for a paper released by Greater London Mayor Boris Johnson’s office on the need to build more housing, New York’s housing production lags far behind its main “world city” competitors, London and Tokyo. In fact, despite New York’s skycraping reputation – it has more high-rises, however you count, than relatively squat Tokyo and London – it actually has more in common with Paris, a city with a reputation for being frozen in its 19th century urban form, when it comes to current growth.
Gleeson found that Tokyo grew the most during the first decade of the 21st century, with its overall number of houses and apartments rising by 1.95 percent each year. London took second place, growing its housing stock by 0.82 percent each year. Paris and New York, meanwhile, lagged behind, both growing their number of homes by just 0.5 percent per year – not enough in either case to keep up with national population growth.
That disparity is on the path to growing even larger in coming years. In London, Mayor Johnson wants to build 42,000 new homes per annum over the next decade, an average rate that would surpass New York’s yearly housing production right before the crash by nearly 10,000 units. (And that was with pro-density Michael Bloomberg in New York’s City Hall.)
Gleeson’s analysis used data from a 10-year period around 2000 to 2010 (due to limited data, the ten-year windows varied by a few years, with Tokyo’s starting in 1998, London’s in 2001, New York’s in 2000 and Paris’s an 11-year window from 1999 to 2010). He also examined areas of similar scale within the four metropolises – New York’s five boroughs and Greater London both have 8.2 million people, Paris and its three inner departments have 6.7 million, and the prefecture-city of Tokyo has 12.7 million inhabitants….
Even though Tokyo is building at a vast rate. it's less noticeable than in a mega city like Tokyo, which is much larger than London, in terms of London we are already building more than NYC and Paris, and that's up to 2011. London is now embarking on over 400,000 extra homes over the next ten years and more in the decade after in order to accommodate over 2 million extra people, bringing London's population to over 10 million by 2030, on top of this London is investing in new infrastructure, transport, offices and other facilities. Paris is also be building more than many people would imagine given it's reputation, however other than Tokyo no city is building more, and such building work and redevelopment is far more noticeable in a city such as London than it is in a city of Tokyo's proportions and population.
Even though Tokyo is building at a vast rate. it's less noticeable than in a mega city like Tokyo, which is much larger than London, in terms of London we are already building more than NYC and Paris, and that's up to 2011. London is now embarking on over 400,000 extra homes over the next ten years and more in the decade after in order to accommodate over 2 million extra people, bringing London's population to over 10 million by 2030, on top of this London is investing in new infrastructure, transport, offices and other facilities. Paris is also be building more than many people would imagine given it's reputation, however other than Tokyo no city is building more, and such building work and redevelopment is far more noticeable in a city such as London than it is in a city of Tokyo's proportions and population.
So the answer is Tokyo, right? I mean, your chart says it's going by percentages, so it's still proportional to how large Tokyo is--meaning relative to their sizes, Tokyo is outbuilding all of the other three and in absolute amounts is outpacing the other three by a massive amount. So basically the other three are all within arm's reach of each other with one way out on top. That's interesting. I wonder how the recession years and 9/11 affected those rates.
Bamford just stop, hate being so rude and unkind but your argument is terrible, please just stop while you can. Yes London is changing, both NYC and London has changed dramatically, but it also matters where each city started out in the first place.
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.
