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.
Its not #1 material but is it #2? Ok I will go to London on my next vacation whilst you enjoy yourself in Sydney --- at the Opera House! Btw lots of American cities have large immigrant populations so I do not think that should be a reason for its high rating. Frankly if I fly all the way over the Pacific, I rather go to Hong Kong or Tokyo!
I didn't say it was #2 either. I just said it wasn't #1 but belongs somewhere on the list. And I don't think the criteria for this list was where LINative would rather go on vacation. The criteria were basically quality of life measures and Sydney ranks high on most quality of life measures. This isn't some shocking or surprising thing.
As soon as I saw Sydney I pretty much stopped looking at the rest of the list. As you say yourself "while many may not have visited" should be a sign that something is wrong with the methodology of this list. Maybe that people see the Australian cities as clean cut utopias and do not know the flaws like they know the better known cities have?
What Hoarfrost said...
Look. I didn't say I agreed with the list, I was really just countering jluke's statement, but just because you haven't visited a placed doesn't mean you haven't heard about it or don't think about it--it simply means that you haven't visited. There are lots of places I know a great deal about, but don't have the time and or monetary resources to visit. Also, when I said "while many may not have visited," I was saying that in reference to the US specifically. Take a chill pill.
Look. I didn't say I agreed with the list, I was really just countering jluke's statement, but just because you haven't visited a placed doesn't mean you haven't heard about it or don't think about it--it simply means that you haven't visited. There are lots of places I know a great deal about, but don't have the time and or monetary resources to visit. Also, when I said "while many may not have visited," I was saying that in reference to the US specifically. Take a chill pill.
I never stated it didn't belong on the list, I just felt it was too high up imo.
I didn't say it was #2 either. I just said it wasn't #1 but belongs somewhere on the list. And I don't think the criteria for this list was where LINative would rather go on vacation. The criteria were basically quality of life measures and Sydney ranks high on most quality of life measures. This isn't some shocking or surprising thing.
It does seem to me that a international survey of "brand names" would be something similar to a survey of product names like "Coke vs. Pepsi". Its hard for me to believe I would recommend to someone who won a once in a lifetime free trip overseas that they go to Sydney instead of say Rome or London just because Sydney "ranks high on most quality of life measures". Thats not a "brand names" index --- that real estate promotion!
Last edited by LINative; 06-17-2009 at 07:20 PM..
Reason: spelling
Look. I didn't say I agreed with the list, I was really just countering jluke's statement, but just because you haven't visited a placed doesn't mean you haven't heard about it or don't think about it--it simply means that you haven't visited. There are lots of places I know a great deal about, but don't have the time and or monetary resources to visit. Also, when I said "while many may not have visited," I was saying that in reference to the US specifically. Take a chill pill.
I would not mind going to Sydney, and especially Australia in general although the plane ride would be a horror, lol. But there are alot of places I would rather go first London, Paris, Hong Kong, Rome, Tokyo, Madrid and even Los Angeles right here! To me that is a TRUE BRAND NAME INDEX --- not because one city has less crime or a better sewerage treatment plant!
This thread is just another shameless opportunity for 18Montclair to remind everybody that the San Francisco Bay Area is superior to all other regions and how we should be envious of those fortunate enough to live there. Does that about sum it up?
This thread is just another shameless opportunity for 18Montclair to remind everybody that the San Francisco Bay Area is superior to all other regions and how we should be envious of those fortunate enough to live there. Does that about sum it up?
Not quite. You left out that it served as YET ANOTHER perfect opening for you to jump in and down CA. You seem to love doing that for whatever reason. That'd about cover it.
It sounds like it's rating these cities by "brand", which I take to mean the value of the city's name recogntion. Going by that, Sydney has no business being #2. NY should be #2 or #3. Rome isn't a more valuable "brand" than NYC. London MIGHT be, but I think NY has it beat.
All over the world you see "NY _____" - "NY Bagels", "NY Pizza", "NY Fashions", etc. I never see "Sydney ________". Never. I see "Australian (or Aussi) _______", but not Sydney.
And Paris is definitely widely used, so I can believe it is more valuable than NYC's name. But not Sydney.
And, SF shouldn't be above L.A. Los Angeles dwarfs SF; that's not to cut on SF, but honestly SF is not on the same level as L.A.
It sounds like it's rating these cities by "brand", which I take to mean the value of the city's name recogntion. Going by that, Sydney has no business being #2. NY should be #2 or #3. Rome isn't a more valuable "brand" than NYC. London MIGHT be, but I think NY has it beat.
All over the world you see "NY _____" - "NY Bagels", "NY Pizza", "NY Fashions", etc. I never see "Sydney ________". Never. I see "Australian (or Aussi) _______", but not Sydney.
And Paris is definitely widely used, so I can believe it is more valuable than NYC's name. But not Sydney.
And, SF shouldn't be above L.A. Los Angeles dwarfs SF; that's not to cut on SF, but honestly SF is not on the same level as L.A.
Actually, as far as reputation and perception, Sydney may not be bigger than NY but it is seen more favorably than NY-think about it, who ever complains about Sydney?
Actually, as far as reputation and perception, Sydney may not be bigger than NY but it is seen more favorably than NY-think about it, who ever complains about Sydney?
Same goes for SF and LA.
But the quote in the OP sad Sydney was the better "brand". If that were the case, people would exploit the brand name of Sydney, but they don't. Same for L.A. over San Francisco. The more popular brands are going to naturally have more complaints because there is more discussion about them because they're more popular and well-known and therefore more valuable brands.
I hear more complaints about McDonald's than In-N-Out Burger, but McDonald's is clearly the more valuable "brand". Even though their burgers aren't as good.
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.
