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.
Right, but London is the city whose influence has decreased the most under this^ scenario.
New York is far less reliant on relationships with other parts of the world to justify it's prominence.
London's influence hasn't decreased, in fact over the last few decades London has secured it's place as a global financial and trading centre, and it's power and influence if anything have increased. London is even encouraging new trading links with China and has set aside the Royal Docks for Chinese companies, and the same applies to India and other parts of the world, whilst multinational banks and companies have major headquarters across the city. Even London's maritime status is being revitalised with the new £1.5 Billion London Gateway deep water port and docks, which has only just recently opened.
The fact that NYC is far more reliant on the US rather than being a more global city reduces it's own global influence if anything. Whilst London has always relied on global trade from days of Empire right through to the present day.
London's influence hasn't decreased, in fact over the last few decades London has secured it's place as a global financial and trading centre, and it's power and influence if anything have increased.
This is doublespeak. First you say London's power is being diluted and spread out especially in the developing world and London is no longer the 'mother'(pretentious much?) but here you say actually London has increased in stature? Basically you're saying 1+1=3
LOL Um no. You cant have it both ways.
Quote:
The fact that NYC is far more reliant on the US rather than being a more global city reduces it's influence of anything.
Yeah this is where you are confused. It would appear that you are mistaking being a 'global city' with being the 'most powerful city'.
Being a global city simply means that a city has connections to other parts of the world, speaking of which New York has 6 million foreign born residents, by far the largest city-level statistical area concentration of foreign born persons in the world.
Which is even more impressive considering how removed New York is from other countries and yet foreigners converge in New York like nowhere else in the world.
Los Angeles is second btw with 5.5 million foreigners.
This is doublespeak. First you say London's power is being diluted and spread out especially in the developing world and London is no longer the 'mother'(pretentious much?) but here you say actually London has increased in stature? Basically you're saying 1+1=3
I never said London's power was being diluted
Quote:
Yeah this is where you are confused. It would appear that you are mistaking being a 'global city' with being the 'most powerful city'.
London is both a global city and a powerful city. It's a hub for global economic trade, an education and knowledge hub and a capital city and seat of Government. So it's both a global city and a influential and indeed powerful city.
Quote:
Being a global city simply means that a city has connections to other parts of the world, speaking of which New York has 6 million foreign born residents, by far the largest city-level statistical area concentration of foreign born persons in the world.
Which is even more impressive considering how removed New York is from other countries and yet foreigners converge in New York like nowhere else in the world.
Los Angeles is second btw with 5.5 million foreigners.
This is doublespeak. First you say London's power is being diluted and spread out especially in the developing world and London is no longer the 'mother'(pretentious much?) but here you say actually London has increased in stature? Basically you're saying 1+1=3
I never said London's power was being diluted
I am also not being pretentious in calling London the 'Mother City of Empire' as that is what it was known as.
Yeah this is where you are confused. It would appear that you are mistaking being a 'global city' with being the 'most powerful city'.
London is both a global city and a powerful city. It's a hub for global economic trade, an education and knowledge hub as well as a capital city and seat of Government. So it's both a global city and an influential political city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Being a global city simply means that a city has connections to other parts of the world, speaking of which New York has 6 million foreign born residents, by far the largest city-level statistical area concentration of foreign born persons in the world.
Which is even more impressive considering how removed New York is from other countries and yet foreigners converge in New York like nowhere else in the world.
Los Angeles is second btw with 5.5 million foreigners.
I think you will find 3 million of NYC's 8.3 million population are foreign born and not 6 million.
Oh my bad, right. What you said is that London's power is decreasing: indeed the world is increasingly moving away from the old super power model towards new emerging powers, including powers that have in the past seen London as the mother city
Oh my bad, right. What you said is that London's power is decreasing:
indeed the world is increasingly moving away from the old super power model towards new emerging powers, including powers that have in the past seen London as the mother city.
And I agree 100%.
Where did I say that this diminished London's power, the UK is not a super power but has close relations with India and even China forged over the centuries. It may well be to London's advantage that these new powers are emerging and it certainly doesn't diminish London as a political or economic entity.
It should also be noted that the Chinese has a distrust of the US and this benefits other nations, whilst India and the UK have a historically close relationship.
What are the pics supposed to prove, the truth being that London and Paris have some amazing architecture and are in no way out done by NYC.
Where did I say they were meant to prove anything?
Um, I guess they are supposed to prove I've taken good photos, that's a big reason I post my photos. And that NYC has some nice street level scenes, too regardless of whether it's #1 or not.
Where did I say that this diminished London's power, the UK is not a super power but has close relations with India and even China forged over the centuries. It may well be to London's advantage that these new powers are emerging and it certainly doesn't diminish London as a political or economic entity.
So if the world is 'increasingly' looking elsewhere, London therefore is 'decreasing'--that's essentially what you said but now are trying to back track. indeed the world is increasingly moving away from the old super power model towards new emerging powers, including powers that have in the past seen London as the mother city
Let me edit this: indeed the world is increasingly moving away from... London as the mother city
Where did I say they were meant to prove anything?
Um, I guess they are supposed to prove I've taken good photos, that's a big reason I post my photos. And that NYC has some nice street level scenes, too regardless of whether it's #1 or not.
I am sure NYC does have some nice streets but is it really the last word as one forum member described it.
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.
