U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which is more vibrant between them?
NYC 49 45.37%
London 59 54.63%
Voters: 108. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-05-2015, 06:18 PM
 
1,274 posts, read 1,035,040 times
Reputation: 1413

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theropod View Post
London for its historic buildings/sights.
That's actually quite an important point when pitting these two great cities together. Whatever the differences, NYC could never claim to have a 900 year old castle (for one example among many) as part of its make up. That factor alone, for many people, adds quite a lot to the "vibrancy" of London which NYC, as great as it is, can't possibly hope to compete with.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-15-2015, 09:51 PM
 
Location: CA, NC, and currently FL
366 posts, read 333,800 times
Reputation: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbobcat View Post
That actually sounds like the most "butthurt" (what a horrible word) post on the whole thread. London IS a great, vibrant city with a multitude of things to see and do - deal with it :P
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom77falcons View Post
Lol so true.
Lol, says two dudes that posts like they get horny just by hearing the word London.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2015, 10:01 PM
 
Location: CA, NC, and currently FL
366 posts, read 333,800 times
Reputation: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hightower72 View Post
I understand this, but I personally have a hard time equating noise and chaos with vibrancy. I think it's to London's merit that it can accommodate similar crowd volumes, activities, events, concerts, outdoor markets, performances etc. to Manhattan, yet be orderly and civil at the same time. London is qualitatively distinct from New York, and both London and New York are quantitatively distinct from Paris.
Except it quite clearly doesn't. Repeating it over and over without any facts won't make it so.

It funny among the so many people here who voted for London, almost all of them are too scared to post and refute the facts and data provided by the knowledgeable poster about London quite clearly being almost sleepy in comparison really.

Last edited by KaneKane; 07-15-2015 at 10:33 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2015, 10:37 PM
 
Location: CA, NC, and currently FL
366 posts, read 333,800 times
Reputation: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yousseff View Post
Some types of people just aren't happy unless they are surrounded by filth and decay. It's a mindset I've never understood or sympathized with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hightower72 View Post
And many would regard it to be annoying and pointless.
The irony of these posts

London is extremely crowded, filthy, chaotic, noisy etc compared to the great majority of cities in the US, and the whole world pretty much apart from cities in 3rd world countries. But apparently that is just perfect amount because it's London. But when a city like NYC comes along that's more urban, that is when it all of a sudden becomes too much and only then should all the negative qualities be looked at...

I hear the World forum is right under the London one, so all these makes a little bit more sense now, but seriously how do posts THIS dire not get called out more often?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2015, 10:55 PM
 
403 posts, read 568,364 times
Reputation: 447
The world forum tends to be anti american for some reason, New York is clearly more vibrant than London which is vibrant only in the west end and then a few spots here and there whereas New York is vibrant from central park to the tip of the island and in many parts of the Brooklyn and Queens. London is simply more built in a suburban way outside the very center.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2015, 02:02 AM
 
515 posts, read 394,418 times
Reputation: 392
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryever View Post
The world forum tends to be anti american for some reason, New York is clearly more vibrant than London which is vibrant only in the west end and then a few spots here and there whereas New York is vibrant from central park to the tip of the island and in many parts of the Brooklyn and Queens. London is simply more built in a suburban way outside the very center.
I wrote about a similar topic to this in a previous post, but London actually has more hubs of liveliness over a broader area, from Chelsea, the food stalls around the Saatchi gallery, Southwark and Borough market, the campuses and museums around South Kensington and Bloomsbury, the shopping hubs in Knightsbridge, the redevelopment hubs in Victoria, the mansion rows around Marylebone and Regent's Park (which is quiet but beautiful), the South Bank along the Embankments, Camden Market and Camden Lock, the City, Canary Wharf, Greenwich and the Royal Naval College, and travelling farther beyond to nodes of beauty such as Richmond and Hampstead. And all of this ignores the West End (Mayfair, St James's, Covent Garden and Soho), Westminster and Whitehall which is jam packed with tourists.

New York has a more crowded core in select places, but it can't hope to match the quality and depth of the London experience over a broader area, in intangibles, the green spaces and gardens, the transit and pedestrian spaces, squares and plazas, the naturalistic attraction and the cleanness.

Last edited by Yousseff; 07-16-2015 at 03:10 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2015, 02:51 AM
 
1,274 posts, read 1,035,040 times
Reputation: 1413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yousseff View Post
I wrote about a similar topic to this in a previous post, but London actually has more hubs of liveliness over a broader area, from Chelsea, the food stalls around the Saatchi gallery, Southwark and Borough market, the campuses and museums around South Kensington and Bloomsbury, the shopping hubs in Knightsbridge, the redevelopment hubs in Victoria, the mansion rows around Marylebone and Regent's Park (which is quiet but beautiful), the South Bank along the Embankments, Camden Market and Camden Lock, the City, Canary Wharf, Greenwich and the Royal Naval College, and travelling farther beyond to nodes of beauty such as Richmond and Hampstead. And all of this ignores the West End (Mayfair, St James's, Covent Garden and Soho), Westminster and Whitehall which is jam packed with tourists.

New York has a more crowded core in select places, but it can't hope to match the qualitative edge that London has over a broader area, in joie de vivre intangibles, the green spaces and gardens, the pedestrian spaces, squares and plazas, the naturalistic beauty, the cleanness and transit.
Absolutely, you could also mention Hoxton, Shoreditch and Dalston in the East End which, since the last 15 years or so, have shed their dodgy image and have become more gentrified with great clubs, bars, restaurants and art galleries whilst still retaining a gritty edge. And Brixton in the south too, is as vibrant as anywhere in NYC.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2015, 02:54 AM
 
1,274 posts, read 1,035,040 times
Reputation: 1413
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaneKane View Post
Except it quite clearly doesn't. Repeating it over and over without any facts won't make it so.

It funny among the so many people here who voted for London, almost all of them are too scared to post and refute the facts and data provided by the knowledgeable poster about London quite clearly being almost sleepy in comparison really.
Well how about the knowledgeable posters that, you know, might actually LIVE HERE?!

Maybe you should visit sometime and explore all it has to offer with an open mind.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2015, 01:09 PM
 
403 posts, read 568,364 times
Reputation: 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yousseff View Post
I wrote about a similar topic to this in a previous post, but London actually has more hubs of liveliness over a broader area, from Chelsea, the food stalls around the Saatchi gallery, Southwark and Borough market, the campuses and museums around South Kensington and Bloomsbury, the shopping hubs in Knightsbridge, the redevelopment hubs in Victoria, the mansion rows around Marylebone and Regent's Park (which is quiet but beautiful), the South Bank along the Embankments, Camden Market and Camden Lock, the City, Canary Wharf, Greenwich and the Royal Naval College, and travelling farther beyond to nodes of beauty such as Richmond and Hampstead. And all of this ignores the West End (Mayfair, St James's, Covent Garden and Soho), Westminster and Whitehall which is jam packed with tourists.

New York has a more crowded core in select places, but it can't hope to match the quality and depth of the London experience over a broader area, in intangibles, the green spaces and gardens, the transit and pedestrian spaces, squares and plazas, the naturalistic attraction and the cleanness.
Because NYC is not London doesn't mean it's inferior. London has better parks in general and is more spread out but NYC is more urban and vibrant. London is more conventional and predictable, NY is more like an exaggeration of a city.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2015, 02:52 PM
 
1,274 posts, read 1,035,040 times
Reputation: 1413
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryever View Post
London is more conventional and predictable, NY is more like an exaggeration of a city.
Mmm, not sure about conventional and predictable, the architecture in London is far more varied for a start, from castles built in 1086 to gigantic ferris wheels, a medieval cathedral a stone's throw away from the tallest building in western Europe and the 17th century splendour of Greenwich just across the river from Canary Wharf. And that's just for starters

With a grid-like road structure and a mass of skyscrapers, I'd say Manhattan is a bit more conventional and predictable.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top