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.
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.
Hmm yes and no, some people like the craziness and disorder. Some of the most boring cities are the most clean and orderly (think Singapore), while the most crazy are the most exciting (NYC, Bangkok, ..), so order doesn't equal quality.
And many would regard it to be annoying and pointless.
I think the reason why some regard Singapore to be dull is not orderliness and cleanliness, but in part to do with the cityscape and in part to do with culture. Indeed, London is a testament to the idea that you can have a vibrant and exciting urban environment without everyone behaving like idiots.
And many would regard it to be annoying and pointless.
I think the reason why some regard Singapore to be dull is not orderliness and cleanliness, but in part to do with the cityscape and in part to do with culture. Indeed, London is a testament to the idea that you can have a vibrant and exciting urban environment without everyone behaving like idiots.
Obviously NYC, i can't understand why is London winning the poll. Using the universal criteria of continuous building area (as Demographia studies do), NY has at least twice the population of London, and logically is more crowded and therefore more vibrant than London. Also NY seems a more 24/7 city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hightower72
And many would regard it to be annoying and pointless.
I think the reason why some regard Singapore to be dull is not orderliness and cleanliness, but in part to do with the cityscape and in part to do with culture. Indeed, London is a testament to the idea that you can have a vibrant and exciting urban environment without everyone behaving like idiots.
Cleanliness is good, but extreme cleanliness has the opposite efect IMO. Extreme cleanliness makes a city more soulless and dystopian, and less vibrant. Tokyo is the finest example of this. And Barcelona's Sagrada Familia is the perfect example of why cleanliness but fakeness isn't necessarily better than rawness but historic flavour, since it has both in the same building.
Cleanliness is good, but extreme cleanliness has the opposite efect IMO. Extreme cleanliness makes a city more soulless and dystopian, and less vibrant. Tokyo is the finest example of this.
Re your comment as regards to Tokyo, 'Tokyo is the finest example of this' - really? only a fool or someone who doesn't know the city (perhaps you're thinking of somewhere else) would suggest that Japan's capital is soulless or lacks vibrancy.
Obviously NYC, i can't understand why is London winning the poll. Using the universal criteria of continuous building area (as Demographia studies do), NY has at least twice the population of London, and logically is more crowded and therefore more vibrant than London. Also NY seems a more 24/7 city.
It shows that there is more to people's idea of vibrancy than just cramming lots of people into a small area, or comparing non-dynamic metrics over whole city areas without considering the nuances of distribution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by modernist1
Re your comment as regards to Tokyo, 'Tokyo is the finest example of this' - really? only a fool or someone who doesn't know the city (perhaps you're thinking of somewhere else) would suggest that Japan's capital is soulless or lacks vibrancy.
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.
If you ask me, I would say both cities are vibrant in their own way. I have been to NYC and LOVED it. Never been to London but whatever information I managed to gather are given below.
London:
Less dense
More international as a city - 40% of London is foreign-born (NYC: 36%)
It is easy to travel from London cheaply
Milder weather
European-style vacation days, health care and workers' rights.
New York:
More dense, particularly in Manhattan.
Public transport is cheap and fast, and subway runs 24/7
Food is better and superior client-centric service standards in restaurants and bars
Lower taxes
Everything is open late; bar closing hours never on your mind
Cheaper services like taxis, deliveries, laundry services make day-to-day life more convenient
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.
