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.
Oh and I forgot. London and Greater London has more "Billionaires" than San Francisco or the Bay Area.
You see, $1,000,000,000 USD = approx £600,000,000. According to the Times, there are 70 such individuals in Greater London with such a net worth. London has 28 billionaires (using USD), SF has 12. There are 70 in Greater London using billions in USD. There are only 40 in SF.
Right-70 mainly transient Billionaires who spend some time there but really reside elsewhere.
The Bay Area has more Billionaires as permanent residents who don't have to sneak away to find stimulation.
But I digress.
Quote:
You SF boosters are something else.
Nothing gets Eurotrash in a tizzy like Americans who know their worth.
Greater London doesn't mean Metropolitan Area like it does in the United States.
okay so we are comparing 8.2 million with 3.2 million ...
or city vs. city proper...
then 7.5 million vs. 808k ???
either way you look at it london is much larger...
but none of this has to do with where you would rather live... I'd rather live in Geneva, CH (a much smaller city) for instance than London...likewise a more comparable geographically located city compared to SF such as Barcelona or Rome. I think these are more comparable as far as size, climate, location to SF than London anyhow.
Main Entry: so·phis·ti·cat·ed
Pronunciation: \-tə-ˌkā-təd\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin sophisticatus
Date: 1601
1: deprived of native or a: highly complicated or developed :b: having a refined knowledge of the ways of the world cultivated especially through wide experience <a sophisticated lady> 2: devoid of grossness: as a: finely experienced and aware <a sophisticated columnist> b: intellectually appealing <a sophisticated novel>
Yes, thank you for agreeing with me.
Quote:
London clearly wins.
It wouldnt win a beauty contest---LMAO
Quote:
London is more worldly
Most of Greater London pales in comparison to the Bay Area as far as worldiness.
Quote:
London is wealthier
No its not.
Quote:
London is more expensive
Finally your right about something.
Quote:
London is more sophisticated.
There are many sophisticated people there-but overall the Bay Area has many more.
Sure, San Francisco has better surroundings but London is more beautiful at the city's street level (you know, where I spend my time) than funky San Francisco. London has everything from dark historic to towering modern glass towers. There is no place as polished as say Kensngton/Westminster in SF. San Francisco is nothing but fugly colored wooden homes and terribly unremarkable architecture. I love architecture. SF doesn't compare. SF is just anti-development NIMBYs. We have taste panels in London which dictates what can go up. We value aesthetics.
Quote:
Most of Greater London pales in comparison to the Bay Area as far as worldiness.
LOL, yes. London isn't as worldly as San Fransisco. Screw the figures which show London is the most internationally visited city on the planet, screw London's central location, screw London's incredibly diverse populace, screw London's position as World Financial Capital. San Francisco is more worldly because Montclair18 says so?...er..yea right.
Quote:
Finally your right about something.
Yes, London is expensive because it's desirable. Not only do wealthy UK residents purchase properties, we have people from the Middle-East, United States, and various other countries in Europe buying very expensive property (such as the $170,000,000 Kensington estate). There is no U.S. domestic or international interest in SF unless they already live in the Bay Area. New York it is not.
Quote:
There are many sophisticated people there-but overall the Bay Area has many more.
scroll down to the PDF
Top States, Cities, and Regions Visited
SF is #3 in the United States behind NYC and LA...
Nice link! Facts are a powerful thing. Some people should try using them.
When you add international travel for SF with SJ (2,610,00 and 355,000) 2,965,000, the Bay Area actually beats LA (2,788,000). edit - OK add Aneheim and LA wins by a hair.
Vegas is close at 2,027,000. If you want to call three quarters of a million back close. LOL.
International travel for the SF means people have to travel thousands upon thousands of miles, unless you're from Canada or Mexico. It's apples and oranges to London, where you only have to fly an hour or two get there from most of Europe. You would expect the #s to be higher.
That said, we still get a sh*tload, and an a per capital basis, we blow NYC away. If that's not impressive, I don't know what is.
Last edited by Rhymes with Best Coast; 09-26-2009 at 04:07 PM..
It isn't London, Paris, New York, Los Angeles or even *gasp* Las Vegas- it's San Francisco.
no it isn't london paris or new york or l.a. ...I already said it was #3 in the u.s. (2nd most visited country in the world behind france, sometimes 3 behind spain...)
what exactly are you getting at?
I'll quote you again though.
Originally Posted by IT6 There is no U.S. domestic or international interest in SF unless they already live in the Bay Area.
Originally Posted by IT6 There is no U.S. domestic or international interest in SF unless they already live in the Bay Area.
Originally Posted by IT6 There is no U.S. domestic or international interest in SF unless they already live in the Bay Area.
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.