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.
The only problem I have with the infographic is that London's Tube is only compared, when any one who has lived in or near to London will tell you that the London Rail system is used far more extensively than in other cities and this is reflected by the number of train stations in London.
^
That's using different standards of what constitutes a 'metropolitan area'. As I've posted elsewhere concerning metropolitan areas, they are not calculated in the United Kingdom.
To give someone with no idea about London an indication of how populated its region is, this is the easiest way to compare:
The New York Metro Area occupies 13,318 square miles and is home to 23,508,600 people.
London and its two surrounding entities (East and South East, excluding Norfolk) occupy 13,288 square miles and is home to 21,930,969.
To summarize, for the same surface area (roughly 13,300 square miles around each city), New York is home to 23,508,600 and London is home to 21,930,969. Both cities dominate their respective region.
I'm from Europe (temporarily in Toronto now) and far prefer New York. More exciting, interesting, nicer people, I prefer the vibe, food and the aesthetic.
I'm from New York and far prefer London. More exciting, interesting, nicer people, I prefer the vibe, food and the aesthetic.
The grass is greener, I suppose.
I would add that London is more central globally - geographically, time-zone wise, and in terms of financial flows. To be sure, New York is the most powerful, but its power overflows even to that certain center. And that's of great benefit to both, nor is it an accident.
Unfortunately, the OP did not save anyone's time with another set of statistics. What do the compilers of these statistics mean by "core city"? One would have to carefully research how the researchers did the research, a waste of time. In my view, New York is Manhattan where the resident population is around 1.7 million.
Having said that, there is one mayor for five counties, more commonly called boroughs, but they are counties for most administrative purposes such as courts - New York, Queens, Kings, Staten Island, Bronx -, no other such administrative arrangement in the US, at least as far as I know. Also, the Port Authority of New York New Jersey is its own administrative entity. Do the statistics include those parts of New Jersey that are under the jurisdiction of the Port Authority? You can slice it and dice it in so many ways. It all depends on the purpose.
But, yes, my own research, for my own purposes, concludes that New York (Manhattan) is less expensive than London. Guess why.
Anyway, as mentioned, this topic has been beaten to death, and then some. What's the point?
^ they forgot to mention NYC metro is 22 million vs 14 million for greater LDN
There are 8.6 million people living in the South East, which is the countries surrounding the South and West of London, in terms of the East of England which covers areas such as Essex and Herts up to Beds it has a population of 5.8 million giving a population of around 14.4 million, whilst London itself has a population of 8.3 million. Meaning that small corner of England has a population in excess of 20 million.
^
That's using different standards of what constitutes a 'metropolitan area'. As I've posted elsewhere concerning metropolitan areas, they are not calculated in the United Kingdom.
To give someone with no idea about London an indication of how populated its region is, this is the easiest way to compare:
The New York Metro Area occupies 13,318 square miles and is home to 23,508,600 people.
London and its two surrounding entities (East and South East, excluding Norfolk) occupy 13,288 square miles and is home to 21,930,969.
To summarize, for the same surface area (roughly 13,300 square miles around each city), New York is home to 23,508,600 and London is home to 21,930,969. Both cities dominate their respective region.
I'm in London for the end of spring to summer and loved LOVED the gumball 3000 rally weekend and the one just gone. Many many beautiful sexy supercars in a beautiful sexy city, with beautiful sexy buses, and ... You get the picture. Both the men and women are dressed smart and snappy here. A different world.
A topic that's been done to death. To summarize the main talking points raised by others on previous threads on this:
New York for the urban concrete jungle experience, gritty roads that are as thrilling as they are disgusting, friendly approachable service culture, affordable dining, beautiful art deco skyscrapers and brownstone neighborhoods, third world directly juxtaposed with first world, destitute rubbing shoulders with moneyed elite. Cooler street vibe, ghetto culture.
London for sheer class, sophistication, refinement, sweeping modernity and high technology interwoven into and among beautiful historical edificies, culturally layered, nuanced and refined, opulent-looking, exceptional infrastructure and cleanliness of public realm (compared to New York at least), more civil and formal social dynamics.
I've yet to visit New York in the 2010s, but unless it's become suddenly more exciting than it was in the 1990s then I would say London is now the more exciting of the two.
^
That's using different standards of what constitutes a 'metropolitan area'. As I've posted elsewhere concerning metropolitan areas, they are not calculated in the United Kingdom.
To give someone with no idea about London an indication of how populated its region is, this is the easiest way to compare:
The New York Metro Area occupies 13,318 square miles and is home to 23,508,600 people.
London and its two surrounding entities (East and South East, excluding Norfolk) occupy 13,288 square miles and is home to 21,930,969.
To summarize, for the same surface area (roughly 13,300 square miles around each city), New York is home to 23,508,600 and London is home to 21,930,969. Both cities dominate their respective region.
Metropolitan areas are calculated by commute rate and not by the number of inhabitants in a XXX sq mile area.
This shows just that London is located in a highly populated region and nothing else, not the overal size of the city.
If I take 12,037.79 sq mi around Dhaka, I find 47,424,418 inhabitants.
This doesn't means that the metropolitan area of Dhaka has 47 million inhabitants, just that the region around Dehaka is highly populated.
One big difference between London and New York City is that most of the 13,288 square miles of the CSA is hardly populated, almost all the population live in a much smaller area closer to New York.
You could divide this area by two and you would still find over 20 million inhabitants around New York City, the rest is lowly populated rural land.
The region around London has a high population density everywhere, if you cut the 13,288 square miles area by two, you will find much less inhabitants around London.
Last edited by Minato ku; 06-16-2014 at 08:00 AM..
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.
