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.
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.
So comparing a rich neighbourhood in California and comparing it with any random street in London is fair? How about comparing like for like, as most people with even a modicum of intelligence might do? The richest areas of London are classy in a way any area in California will never be. Now go away.
London and New York City are the top two here. I'm guessing those that weight the center city more choose London, those averaging over the whole metro are choosing New York City. Here are some spots 8-10 miles out of the city center of NYC:
London and New York City are the top two here. I'm guessing those that weight the center city more choose London, those averaging over the whole metro are choosing New York City. Here are some spots 8-10 miles out of the city center of NYC:
Not sure if googlemaps gives a good indication of vibrancy. Those images certainly don't appear to be particularly vibrant, and certainly no more so than, say, Brixton.
Not sure if googlemaps gives a good indication of vibrancy. Those images certainly don't appear to be particularly vibrant, and certainly no more so than, say, Brixton.
I was thinking more of structural density. Pedestrian volume is more a function of time of day the streetview vehicle went through. Brixton is closer to central London than any of those views are to NYC's city center.
wow, where to start? Have you been to London? To say that any random street is Third World?
And to even compare what you're trying pretty much shows your misunderstanding.
Don't think you are quite grasping my English if you think I said that.
Misunderstanding? Talk about the irony. All you have done this whole thread is search for the most desirable looking photos of London and then posted them. You might as well post some of these if all you wanted to do was give a completely biased impression of London:
Seriously though, ask most people around the world when see a rich town in California and a typical gritty street in London, which do they think is desirable and which they think is "ugly."
To get this clear with people, I think those type of people are quite thick and don't appreciate urbanity. But it seems like some of our London boosters think the exact same way when it come to finding an excuse to brag about London.
To the mod that keeps on removing my posts, I say this in the nicest manner possible, please don't portray double standards if you are doing that. If you are removing my posts because I said the UK and London has a reputation for being depressing, in response to an extremely ironic and biased post about NYC and Paris being depressing, it looks extremely dodgy when you only remove my post. You have done it twice now.
Neither post is necessary, as per your reason. Nobody would vote for Paris and NYC here because they are "depressing" and has less parkland. That's just extremely weird and troll level thinking.
London is nearer 40% parkland (so twice NYC) - only 28-36% is built up/ urban. In other words the places are crammed, with a dense centre broken up by parks and river, and contrasted with leafy suburbs.
I never got a chance to respond to this before. This really doesn't matter because weighted density accounts for inhabitable areas like parkland. This user that I'm about to quote (he is posting here, good effort!) did an analysis of the weighted density of what I believe is the urban area of both of cities:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Assuming the bottom part is correct, London has a denser core than any city in the US besides NYC, but is much less dense than NYC, which isn't surprisingly as the bulk of it is row houses. Its density profile is rather flat; similar to Los Angeles but denser throughout. Numbers I used were 2001 numbers, city has seen fast growth since then. The weighted density of Greater London is about 21,000 per square mile with 7.2 million people. Inner London has 2.5 million at a density of 21,000 or a weighted density of 31,000.
When I have a chance, I'll make graphs for other British cities. Might just graph the city cores, as determing where the metro/urban area ends is difficult and I have trouble trusting the numbers.
Good thread with a lot of good information. So that I believe puts the parkland excuse to bed for London's density numbers.
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.
