Which is a better City: London or New York? (how much, calculation)

[ilovelondon]

Originally Posted by DavePa

You once said .... you live in San Francisco? But NEVER .... . Did I say you ~ N E V E R ~ mention or comment on SF?

I just wonder why you even live in the US and I still do not get using computer generated images? Over real photos.

I clearly understand loving London. But I just wonder as noted why in the US ......as even you commented best city is Honolulu. Because it is farthest front the US mainland and not North America.

I'm not getting why you chose the US unless a US citizen?

Dave, I don't mean to sound condescending nor am I questioning your intelligence, but computer-generated images are heavily used in the construction and architecture business to convey to clients and the general public about what the project will eventually look like when completed. In the UK, they are also being used to convey whether the proposed building responds well to the context of surrounding buildings if within a conservation area. The reason why the pics I posted are computer-generated is because, well, these developments are not completely built yet. If a certain building or area is not built yet but you want to convey to someone what they will look like when finished, one uses the magic of computers. Dave, please be aware that it is impossible for me to show what a completed Wood Wharf or Greenwich Peninsula looks like without the use of computer-generated images as they are both still under construction. I do not own a time machine where I can go to the future, take a picture, and come back to this day just to post a realistic picture just to please you. Sorry Dave, but that is just not possible. There is no such thing as a time machine. I really hope you understand this and why computer-generated images are sometimes used.

By the way, I do not live in SF. I was merely visiting my sister who lives and works there. I apologise again for disappointing you that I did not stop by in Chicago to pay you a visit. I realise that my posts can be interesting with all these incredible pictures of London, and that alone may attract some stalkers. But Dave, please understand that I do not feel the same way about you. I hope you understand

[Milky Way Resident]

It’s understandable that London can’t match New York in the verticality department, but that’s also not where it’s greatest strength lies. Skyscraper development across Europe is a more recent phenomena, though there are already a number of cities with impressive skylines, London included.

As far as center of the world. London and NYC are the biggest contenders as far as cultural and economic influence is concerned. However, looking at it geographically, a city like Istanbul or even Dubai is more strategically located.

[easthome]

Unfortunately London is turning into just another 'bland' city with all the skyscrapers going up, what's even worse is that it will turn the streets into shadowy canyons bereft of sunlight - particularly in the winter months.

[Brave New World]

Originally Posted by manitopiaaa

None of these buildings would even crack the Midtown Plateau. You need 900 footers at this point to surpass the plateau.

The Shard is over 1000 feet and there are a few other quite tall skyscrapers, however London is not Dubal and is not in some skyscraper competition. The Skyscrapers at Canary Wharf were just built on reclaimed old docks and industrial land, and the same is true of many other redevelopments.

London is at it's best in tems of it's glorious old streets and allies, it's parks and pubs and it's history, culture and arts.

Originally Posted by the troubadour

Of course what the bombs didn't do away with, the developers largely did. This has resulted in a city beyond the means of average Londoners, with I believe close to a quarter living in a state of poverty with low wages and means in an ever increasing sea of super rich and/or highly paid from within the financial sector , to which historical grandeur alone cannot resolve.

London has placed a big emphasis on all building schemes involving affordable housing, has improved rent conditions and has a vast social housing sector which was started by people such as American George Peabody (who also built a famous library), and the Peabody trust is among the number of large housing associations in the city. There are also welfare benefits and the National Health Service in the UK, whilst schools in London tend to preform very well.

[Brave New World]

Originally Posted by manitopiaaa

I don't think New York is the center of the world. But I think it gives off a "center of the world" vibe that I don't get from London.

Yes, New York's airport system is only surpassed by London's in terms of passenger traffic. I can acknowledge that.

As for your other points:
New York isn't the political capital of the U.S., but it is the economic, cultural and social capital of the U.S, which is quite impressive considering the city faces strong competition internally. The U.S. has 12 metros over 5,000,000 people in a Federal political structure, so the fact that New York has become such a dominant city despite the competition is illustrative of its strengths. I should also add that Washington, aka my home, is 2h30m from New York by train.

London is an international city, just as other great cities are, indeed Singapore is a great city whether it's part of a large country or not, the same is true of Hong Kong (which was a great city before it joined China) and is Tokyo any less of a great international city because it isn's in a country with 325 million people. As for trade journeys Paris, another one of the truly great world cities is only 2 hours 16 minutes from London by train.

Originally Posted by manitopiaaa

I disagree that New York lacks grand buildings or architecture. Look at the Chrysler Building, the Empire State Building, Rockefeller Center, Woolworth Building, Flatiron Building, Grand Central Terminal, the Brooklyn Bridge, Saint Patrick's Cathedral, Cathedral Church of Saint John the Divine, the Statue of Liberty, Hudson Yards, Radio City Music Hall, Times Square, Waldorf Astoria, etc etc. New York is a city of a different era, but there's no doubt that New York's Art Deco and Beaux Arts architectural treasures are just as impressive as London's Georgian or Victorian gems. I should also add that New York's neighborhoods like Chelsea, Soho, Tribeca, Williamsburg, Crown Heights, Prospect Park, Bedford Stuyvesant, the Upper East Side, Greenwich Village, etc, are every bit as dynamic as London's neighborhoods.

From a purely engineering standpoint, the Chrysler Building, the Empire State Building, the Brooklyn Bridge and Flatiron Building were just as difficult to build as the Houses of Parliament, if not moreso.

Nobody said NYC didn't have some grand buildings and nice neighbourhoods, what was said is that London has lots of very plesant green space, a lot of historic buildings (and I mean a lot) and has a lot of tradition and pagentry.

Originally Posted by manitopiaaa

And yes, there is a "Commonwealth of Nations," but it's pretty bold to say that makes London the lead city for over 2.5 billion people. People in South Asia don't look to London for political leadership, they look to Islamabad, Delhi, Dhaka and Colombo. Theresa May's power doesn't extend throughout the Commonwealth. And even Queen Elizabeth's symbolic importance is limited to the much smaller and less impressive "Commonwealth Realm" which contains about 144 million people, far less than the 330 million in the U.S. or the 450 million in the E.U. alone. And even then, I don't think Canadians or Aussies would take kindly to the thought that London is "their" premier city.

Again London is an international city, just like other Financial Sectors it trades internationally, and Canzuk is one of many deals it is looking to do. The Chinese and Far East are even investing in a new financial sector and trading sector at the Royal Docks.

Originally Posted by manitopiaaa

New York, on the other hand, is the Headquarters of the United Nations. By virtue of being the biggest hub of international organizations and staff, it is far better positioned to claim the mantle of "capital of the world."

Most of the UN is based in Geneva and Vienna, whilst in terms of the UN Headquarters, they were actually considering San Francisco, and one of the reasons the Russians agreed to NYC was because it would be easier to spy on the US. In terns of the UN it's some powerless talking shop, it's even worse than the EU. Nobody takes much notice of the UN and if the fact that so much of the organisation and indeed the League of Nations was based in Geneva must make Geneva the capital of the world.

Originally Posted by manitopiaaa

And if we say there are three economic pillars to the world: North America, Europe and East Asia, New York is the indisputed head of one of those pillars. London faces a lot of competition in Europe that New York doesn't.

London is not in competition with Europe, it is a global trading city and is in competition with NYC, Singapore, Hong Kong, Tokyo etc.

Originally Posted by manitopiaaa

Canada, Australia, UK and New Zealand are 130 million people. That's about the population of Japan or Mexico. Not tiny, sure, but CANZUK is not some "Global Superpower" in the making. It has less people than just France + Italy.

Economically speaking here's Canzuk versus the European Union and the United States:

CANZUK - lead by London: $6,176,369m
European Union - lead by Paris: $15,960,388m
United States of America - lead by New York: $20,513,000m

Again, if London's claim to power is Canzuk, then that doesn't say much, since Canzuk is less than a third of America's economy.

Once again London is an international city and Canzuk is just one of many deals on the table, the city will also keep trading in global markets.

Originally Posted by manitopiaaa

And let's be honest, a lot of London's financial and economic growth came from the perception it was an international and open city. With the rise of Brexit, UKIP and nativism, the long-term prospects for London are murky. If "Little England" mentality continues to take root throughout the country, then London's long-term position is tenous. There is no way London can keep up with New York if it is only the hub for 65 million people - or even less if Scotland and Northern Ireland go their own way.

New York taps into the human capital and innovation of a continental superpower of 330 million people. London needs to remain "open" to the world for it to compete. If not, there's no way that London can maintain parity in the long-term. Unfortunately, Brexit looks to be the future of the U.K. and that will certainly be a boom for Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Madrid, but not London

It is a global city, which is why we want to leave the EU and it's increasing protectionism in order to trade by our own rules with the rest of the world, and London is establishing itself as a global leader in numerous fields and seeing record levels of investment.

Originally Posted by manitopiaaa

In terms of education, New York has Columbia University and Cornell University's 2nd campus - two ivies alone. The region also has Princeton University and Yale University, another 2 ivies. Within New York are also Rockefeller University, New York University, CUNY and dozens of smaller colleges. And lets not forget that a lot of those Harvard/MIT/Penn/Hopkins grads also wind up in NYC post-graduation.

London is ranked as having the most world class universities as a city, just above Boston.

Originally Posted by BBC

For students in London there is a higher concentration of world-class institutions than in any other city, including Imperial College, University College London, the London School of Economics and King's College.

London ranked top city for students - BBC News

Originally Posted by manitopiaaa

There are actually two - albeit small - Smithsonians in New York City. That said, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Museum of Modern Art, Whitney Museum of American Art, the Cloisters, the Guggenheim, and American Museum of Natural History are all world-class museums. I do agree that British Museum and the National Gallery in London win on "star" attractions, then again the U.S. doesn't have the legacy of imperial plunder and looting that defined Victorian British foreign policy.

London has 15 National Museums, a National Library, National Archive and many hundreds of museums, the city has a wealth of arts and is one of the sporting capitals of the world. I also think you will find that London's museums are diverse and are not down to imperial plundering and looting.

Originally Posted by manitopiaaa

I agree that London is a world-class city, but I don't think the gap favors London at all. If anything what New York has accomplished without being a primate city or political capital is impressive, and the city is undergoing a renaissance today that is every bit as impressive as London's if not moreso.

What gap.

In terms of London, it's a global trading city, which has imprroved significantly over recent decades, indeed it took the city and country a long time to recover from WW2 when parts of the city were heavily bombed. I have stated previously my love for NYC and I wis the city well in it's redevelopment and future endevours.

[DavePa]

Originally Posted by ilovelondon

Dave, I don't mean to sound condescending nor am I questioning your intelligence, but computer-generated images are heavily used in the construction and architecture business to convey to clients and the general public about what the project will eventually look like when completed. In the UK, they are also being used to convey whether the proposed building responds well to the context of surrounding buildings if within a conservation area. The reason why the pics I posted are computer-generated is because, well, these developments are not completely built yet. If a certain building or area is not built yet but you want to convey to someone what they will look like when finished, one uses the magic of computers. Dave, please be aware that it is impossible for me to show what a completed Wood Wharf or Greenwich Peninsula looks like without the use of computer-generated images as they are both still under construction. I do not own a time machine where I can go to the future, take a picture, and come back to this day just to post a realistic picture just to please you. Sorry Dave, but that is just not possible. There is no such thing as a time machine. I really hope you understand this and why computer-generated images are sometimes used.

By the way, I do not live in SF. I was merely visiting my sister who lives and works there. I apologise again for disappointing you that I did not stop by in Chicago to pay you a visit. I realise that my posts can be interesting with all these incredible pictures of London, and that alone may attract some stalkers. But Dave, please understand that I do not feel the same way about you. I hope you understand

I do not live in Chicago unless we were transported back to the 80s. I live in more rural small city Central Pennsylvania. Can be picturesque, but of little interest for most. Also near my hometown.

I just see computer generated images as the future if unbuilt and many projects that have them generated for a city's future plans. Might never get built or a unapproved venture has to be changed to a required addition or removals.

Happens in US large city's especially where community input effects what projects get built to effectively altering the developers plans and new computer generated images eventually re-imagined for a new possible outcome.

Living in a city you love and boast for. Makes it so much easier to have REAL photos of completed projects.

I'm fine with showing future plans with these images. But you can't beat the reality of a Goggle streetwise or actual photo.

Many projects show imagined realities of completed projects that might be built over 5 to even 30-years. Especially, if a high-rise to Skyscrapers rendering that few buildings will actually look as the rendering, as the real project moves forward over years. Small-scale projects of existing areas established more accurate if all plans are carried thru over months vs years.

But this is opinion and not to sound condescending nor to say images are not interesting and of value. Just when all are ..... I rather see the reality even in streetview.

[ilovelondon]

Dave, this is really way off-topic, but in about 99% of my posts, the pictures I posted are real everyday life of London. The 1% are of current developments that are under construction. Why do you focus your efforts on that 1%? I am so sorry to hear that you now live in a small rural area, but that is not enough reason to be fixated by me or my incredible posts about London simply because you are bored with your life. Please stop harrassing me.

[DavePa]

Originally Posted by ilovelondon

Dave, this is really way off-topic, but in about 99% of my posts, the pictures I posted are real everyday life of London. The 1% are of current developments that are under construction. Why do you focus your efforts on that 1%? I am so sorry to hear that you now live in a small rural area, but that is not enough reason to be fixated by me or my incredible posts about London simply because you are bored with your life. Please stop harrassing me.

Will not reply to you again. Since my few were harassment. They have a ignore feature. I just rather see others post and replies and realize opinions others have - most positive and some differ. Are not a basis to call harassment. Some apparently I find hard to tell apart. I generally post links to renderings.

Back to NYC vs London on topic as both are awesome cities in their own right. constantly changing and history.

[OyCrumbler]

NYC is simply a lot more packed than London is overall whether it's with skyscrapers, mid-rises or brownstones.

Saying Paris is denser than NYC is sort of meaningless given that Paris encompasses far smaller official city boundaries. Paris and the petite couronne together is a somewhat more apt comparison.

[ilovelondon]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

NYC is simply a lot more packed than London is overall whether it's with skyscrapers, mid-rises or brownstones.

Saying Paris is denser than NYC is sort of meaningless given that Paris encompasses far smaller official city boundaries. Paris and the petite couronne together is a somewhat more apt comparison.

I am aware of that. Do I really have to explain what I meant in the post? I brought up Paris' density to point out that statistics on density alone does not show the whole picture. Tokyo is much less dense than New York on paper, but that does not mean that Tokyo feels like a quaint village compared to New York.