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.
In truth though residentially it's dense, but also very green. Londoner's (and UK in general) suffer the smallest housing in the West (and the most expensive despite).
This survey cçompare apple with oranges, it compares the size of the new houses built in and around London with entire other countries.
It is pretty obvious that the size in the large and most expensive city will be lower.
I don't think London would have the smallest house, in my opinion it would not be smaller than Paris.
That's only because its competitors are very powerful and the most vibrant to me personally - NYC, Paris and Tokyo....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariete
Excuse me, you're asking which city is the least urban, and if someone says it's not London, you start bickering? So what's the point of this thread? Are you really asking, or is the only answer you'll accept London?
I hate it when they do that. Now I bet someone's gonna come and attack me for choosing London as the "least vibrant".
The City of New York post a document with pedestrian counts of some of the busier commercial streets compared against some busy European streets. Oxford St is busier than Times Square by their measure [Times Square is more concentrated, however] Regent Street is less busy than Flushing St (busy street in Queens) or Fordham Road (busy street in The Bronx)
Add me to the list of people that's confused at what we're voting for here.
London is the least urban, but wander even beyond tourist-boom central London and you come across many individual points of interest in the inner London area with plenty of activity and things going on.
That's also true of Paris to a lesser degree - the are cultural hotspots laid out all across the metro area though without the same activity levels as London. I can't speak for Tokyo but you don't get your wanderlust as rewarded to the same degree in New York.
To put it in comparison, Times Square boasts "only" over 300,000 a day according to the Times Square Alliance. Over 480,000 on busiest days.
The poll for this thread is a mess:
Some people are voting for London on the basis of its merits (most green spaces).
Many are voting for New York on the basis of its faults (most depressing).
The rest I think are hedging their bets as to what the OP is talking about and choosing Paris (neither the most depressing nor the most green, but somewhere in between).
Good job OP. You have a long productive career ahead of you as a government employee.
NYC/ US counts daytrippers in it's tourist figures - and makes no secret of the fact, not just overnighters. European cities, and much of the rest of the world only count overnighters.
If however you counted daytrippers in London it reaches 176-180 million a year (150 million daytrippers-not-commuters + average 26 million overnighters):
Does vibrancy factor in qualitative aspects such as excitement, cultural stimulation, elegance of public realm, walking perspective and so on, or is it meant simply to mean numbers of people cramming the streets?
If going by sheer numbers, based on my experience:
1. Tokyo 9/10
2. New York 6/10
3. London 5.5/10
4. Paris 3.5/10
If qualitative aspects are important:
1. London 8/10 (trending up)
2. Tokyo 7/10 (trending slowly down)
3. Paris 6.5/10 (static)
3. New York 5/10 (trending slowly down)
I voted with the latter in mind because what's the point in having lots of people crammed into a city if it's oppressive or unpleasant? You may as well go to a Calcutta slum if all you want to see are crowds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noggin of Rum
I admire your patience, but I think this is a troll thread right down to false choice poll - London is objectively least 'urban' because of its green spaces, but the way the question is worded, by voting for it you also have to concede to the idea of it being less 'vibrant', which is kind of silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davy-040
Density is not the same everywhere,
There is a huge difference in 1st-world organized cities (New York, London, Paris, Madrid, Seoul, Tokyo etc.) and 3rd-world unorganized cities (Lagos, Karachi, Mumbai, Delhi, Calcutta, Dhaka etc.).
I see to fanboys the title of the thread reads "101 excuses reasons not to vote for London in this thread." I mean Calcutta ffs.
3rd world cities ARE often considerably more urban and vibrant than the very best of 1st world cities. What of it?
I find it quite baffling that find people here have nerve to bring up the 1st world and 3rd world stuff when quite clearly the US in comparison can very well make the UK look like a poor man's destination.
In a thread about urban lifestyles, we get emotional fanboys talking about subjective things and dissing the actual aspects of urbanity and the 3rd world out of random.
If you want to speak of the 3rd world btw, pick a rich man's town in California at random and pick a random street in London. The latter would look 3rd world to most people. It's funny that a group of urbanites who are suppose to be above that level of stupidity is using that same thing for London boosterism.
I see to fanboys the title of the thread reads "101 excuses reasons not to vote for London in this thread." I mean Calcutta ffs.
3rd world cities ARE often considerably more urban and vibrant than the very best of 1st world cities. What of it?
I find it quite baffling that find people here have nerve to bring up the 1st world and 3rd world stuff when quite clearly the US in comparison can very well make the UK look like a poor man's destination.
In a thread about urban lifestyles, we get emotional fanboys talking about subjective things and dissing the actual aspects of urbanity and the 3rd world out of random.
If you want to speak of the 3rd world btw, pick a rich man's town in California at random and pick a random street in London. The latter would look 3rd world to most people. It's funny that a group of urbanites who are suppose to be above that level of stupidity is using that same thing for London boosterism.
HUH?
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.
