London vs New York City (school, university, prices)
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.
After D.C. NYC probably has the second most political influence of any city, nevermind that it's not a capital of anything, besides trade capital of the world where some of the wealthiest and most influential stock brokers, hedge fund managers, and business tycoons call home, the very people who buy power in Congress. As dirty as it is, NYC has a lot of political influence in this country, second to D.C. of course.
A consulate is usually there to help those usually traveling from the country it respresents, indeed there are 18 Consulates in the city of Newcastle Upon Tyne in Northern England, as the city receives a good many visitors from Scandinavia etc.
An Embassy is staffed by political staff, and is headed by an Ambassador, an Embassy's job is to provide and promote political and cultural links with the country it is based in.
Why not tabulate those out and see what the deficit is?
You can see for yourself, other than Meadowlands in New Jersey with 82,000, two baseball grounds and a few arena, NYC does not come close to London with 90,000 seat Wembley, 82,000 seat Twickenham, 60,000 seat Emirates stadium, the vast Olympic Stadium soon to reopen and a host of other stadiums and stadium redevelopments.
As for the wiki template you use, most of it doesn't involve sports stadiums but gyms and athletic tracks something London has plenty of. Whilst in terms of major sporting venues London has significantly more than NYC.
Yea, and that count doesn't even include Hong Kong.
In relation to this topic though--how does London itself fare in this? If we're going city versus city, then for comparison's sake, let's look at the cities mentioned thus far which would be London and NYC, plus the cities of Shanghai, Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and Tokyo by extension of having China and Japan mentioned.
Of the top 20 stock exchanges in the world, we have the following from September:
Rank | Name | City | Market Cap (in billions)
1 | NYSE | NYC | 18.779
2 | NASDAQ | NYC | 6.683
3 | JPX-Tokyo | Tokyo | 4.485
5 | LSE | London | 3.396
6 | HKEx | Hong Kong | 3.146
7 | SSE | Shanghai | 2.869
9 | SZSE | Shenzhen | 1.913
16 | NASDAQ OMX | NYC | 1.243
So, obviously on a country-level, the difference between second largest and third largest is pretty minimal compared to that between the first and second largest even when we include Hong Kong into the count. The scale is just massively different, so it would take quite a bit for China on a nationwide level to be comparable.
This also beggars the question of how this comparison works anywhere in London or the UK's favor as the UK's largest exchange is far smaller than both of the ones in NYC and with a good chance of being passed by the individual ones in both Hong Kong and Shanghai.
We should also circle back to this being a comparison of cities and not nations--with that, it's going to take a lot of time for any single individual city to have larger stock exchanges than NYC's, which is about an order of magnitude larger than that of London, though it wouldn't be unthinkable for the stock exchanges hosted in several cities around the world to become larger than London's in a fairly short time. So this metric might be firmly in favor of NYC, though this isn't my field so maybe I'm missing something here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bamford
You can see for yourself, other than Meadowlands in New Jersey with 82,000, two baseball grounds and a few arena, NYC does not come close to London with 90,000 seat Wembley, 82,000 seat Twickenham, 60,000 seat Emirates stadium, the vast Olympic Stadium soon to reopen and a host of other stadiums and stadium redevelopments.
As for the wiki template you use, most of it doesn't involve sports stadiums but gyms and athletic tracks something London has plenty of. Whilst in terms of major sporting venues London has significantly more than NYC.
West Ham's new home from 2016 the Olympic Stadium
That is a lot of massive venues. London seems to get this one pretty handedly. Were there a large number of them that came around in part because of the Olympics or were most of these in existence prior?
Yea, and that count doesn't even include Hong Kong.
In relation to this topic though--how does London itself fare in this? If we're going city versus city, then for comparison's sake, let's look at the cities mentioned thus far which would be London and NYC, plus the cities of Shanghai, Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and Tokyo by extension of having China and Japan mentioned.
Of the top 20 stock exchanges in the world, we have the following from September:
Rank | Name | City | Market Cap (in billions)
1 | NYSE | NYC | 18.779
2 | NASDAQ | NYC | 6.683
3 | JPX-Tokyo | Tokyo | 4.485
5 | LSE | London | 3.396
6 | HKEx | Hong Kong | 3.146
7 | SSE | Shanghai | 2.869
9 | SZSE | Shenzhen | 1.913
16 | NASDAQ OMX | NYC | 1.243
So, obviously on a country-level, the difference between second largest and third largest is pretty minimal compared to that between the first and second largest even when we include Hong Kong into the count. The scale is just massively different, so it would take quite a bit for China on a nationwide level to be comparable.
This also beggars the question of how this comparison works anywhere in London or the UK's favor as the UK's largest exchange is far smaller than both of the ones in NYC and with a good chance of being passed by the individual ones in both Hong Kong and Shanghai.
We should also circle back to this being a comparison of cities and not nations--with that, it's going to take a lot of time for any single individual city to have larger stock exchanges than NYC's, which is about an order of magnitude larger than that of London, though it wouldn't be unthinkable for the stock exchanges hosted in several cities around the world to become larger than London's in a fairly short time. So this metric might be firmly in favor of NYC, though this isn't my field so maybe I'm missing something here.
In terms of the Chinese I was really referring to the rate of growth of their stock exchange in terms of the future if t continues it's present growth.
As for London it relies more heavily on foreign exchange and money markets, insurance and an array of international markets. NYC relies far more heavily on domestic shares in US Companies, whilst London as a city in a far smaller country relies on International markets and trade.
That is a lot of massive venues. London seems to get this one pretty handedly. Were there a large number of them that came around in part because of the Olympics or were most of these in existence prior?
Wembley, Twickenham, Lords, the Oval and most of the other football (soccer) and rugby grounds are quite historic.
In terms of the Olympics only the Olympic Stadium, Cycling Velodrome & Centre, Aquatics Centre, Copper box and white water centre are thanks to the 2012 Olympics. Indeed some of the Olympic venues were taken down for recycling, and London did also make use of other existing sporting infrastructure and stadiums.
In terms of the Chinese I was really referring to the rate of growth of their stock exchange on terms of the future. As for London it relies more heavily on foreign exchange and money markets, insurance and an array of international markets. NYC relies far more heavily on domestic shares in US Companies, whilst London as a city in a far smaller country relies on International markets and trade.
All of that is true! The Chinese stock exchanges are growing very quickly! However, the current size difference means that it won't be overtaking the US anytime soon. However, how specific cities figure into this, and London especially, is a bit of a mystery since the major Chinese stock exchanges are in multiple cities, are pretty close to overtaking London's (with the impressive growth rate you've mentioned), and would still not really lessen the huge distance between the market cap values of the London-based and NYC-based stock exchanges. The argument about the Chinese stock exchanges has a red herring quality to it, doesn't it? I mean, it is a relative comparison ("more powerful" rather than "most powerful"). I think it might make sense to pick Beijing if we're going for actually most powerful.
And yes, NYC does rely far more heavily on domestic shares (though often of multinational corporations) than London's. It makes a lot of sense when the US economy is so massively larger than the UK's (about an order of magnitude larger), a much larger portion of the global GDP and is host to many, many more Global 500/2000/whathaveyou headquarters (including many more in NYC than London). I can't see how this becomes something like a demerit for NYC.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 12-22-2014 at 03:20 PM..
All of that is true! The Chinese stock exchanges are growing very quickly! However, the current size difference means that it won't be overtaking the US anytime soon. However, how specific cities figure into this, and London especially, is a bit of a mystery since the major Chinese stock exchanges are in multiple cities, are pretty close to overtaking London's (with the impressive growth rate you've mentioned), and would still not really lessen the huge distance between the market cap values of the London-based and NYC-based stock exchanges. The argument about the Chinese stock exchanges has a red herring quality to it, doesn't it? I mean, it is a relative comparison ("more powerful" rather than "most powerful"). I think it might make sense to pick Beijing if we're going for actually most powerful.
And yes, NYC does rely far more heavily on domestic shares (though often of multinational corporations) than London's. It makes a lot of sense when the US economy is so massively larger than the UK's (about an order of magnitude larger), a much larger portion of the global GDP and is host to many, many more Global 500/2000/whathaveyou headquarters (including many more in NYC than London). I can't see how this becomes something like a demerit for NYC.
Hang on a minute London is home to more American Bank HQ's than London, has a very strong and growing number of company HQ's including US Companies. Is very strong in terms of currency exchange where it dominates NYC and indeed a host of financial markets such as the Insurance Market.
New York may have more listed banks by market capitalisation but London-listed rivals and the city remains the undisputed global king of equities and the global equities market.
Hang on a minute London is home to more American Bank HQ's than London, has a very strong and growing number of company HQ's including US Companies. Is very strong in terms of currency exchange where it dominates NYC and indeed a host of financial markets such as the Insurance Market.
Oh? I didn't know that about American Bank HQs. Is there like a Fortune 500 list or something you can point to? Does London and its metro actually have more of these massive corporate HQs than NYC and its metro does?
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.