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.
It turned out kind of disappointing didn't it? I still think they should have rebuilt the original twin towers.
Hudson Yards should turn out to be decent, though I get the creeping suspicion they'll mess that up too.
For comparison I thought the Shard was a bit disappointing after completion, but now that there are other high rise/reclad developments going on around it, it's looking pretty impressive now. Who knows, 1 WTC will also grow on me as well.
1WTC is not terrible, but not great either. A bit bland and soulless. But still looks kinda cool at night and from certain angles. It might look better when 2WTC and 3WTC will be built (should take only a few years now).
The original WTC were ugly but the fact that they were two made it look kinda cool, and the buildings themself despite having a very simple design had something more impressive, oddly 1WTC doesn't look very impressive or even that high from the ground
1WTC is not terrible, but not great either. A bit bland and soulless. But still looks kinda cool at night and from certain angles. It might look better when 2WTC and 3WTC will be built (should take only a few years now).
The original WTC were ugly but the fact that they were two made it look kinda cool, and the buildings themself despite having a very simple design had something more impressive, oddly 1WTC doesn't look very impressive or even that high from the ground
Given how delayed and over-budget 1 WTC was, I sincerely doubt it.
Not sure how a quora discussion really helps this along, but I think most arguments people make for London are usually geared towards putting a lot of emphasis on very specific things in London's favor. Overall, NYC is just a far larger metro (population and GDP) in a far larger megalopolis (population and GDP), in a far larger country (population and GDP). It simply has more of a lot more things and that can't be helped. It's the main host to what is the closest thing there is to a global governing body.
It turned out kind of disappointing didn't it? I still think they should have rebuilt the original twin towers.
Hudson Yards should turn out to be decent, though I get the creeping suspicion they'll mess that up too.
For comparison I thought the Shard was a bit disappointing after completion, but now that there are other high rise/reclad developments going on around it, it's looking pretty impressive now. Who knows, 1 WTC will also grow on me as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryever
1WTC is not terrible, but not great either. A bit bland and soulless. But still looks kinda cool at night and from certain angles. It might look better when 2WTC and 3WTC will be built (should take only a few years now).
The original WTC were ugly but the fact that they were two made it look kinda cool, and the buildings themself despite having a very simple design had something more impressive, oddly 1WTC doesn't look very impressive or even that high from the ground
Original WTC, even as twin towers, were terribly ugly. New 1 WTC isn't great either. The memorial site around it has pretty alright features. It seems like we've globally been in an age of ugly architecture since the 70s or so (imo).
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTDominion
Given how delayed and over-budget 1 WTC was, I sincerely doubt it.
3 is actually going up quickly right now. 1 WTC had a lot of redesigns and early halts in comparison and the building was given an especially high degree of scrutiny and a large number of disputes due to being the landmark building for the whole complex. 3 isn't really hitting the same kind of snags right now and it seems unlikely that it would in the near future (and the near future is when it looks to be completed).
2 is on hold though. Not even going since prime Manhattan commercial real estate is getting pretty intensely (over?) built right now.
Not sure how a quora discussion really helps this along, but I think most arguments people make for London are usually geared towards putting a lot of emphasis on very specific things in London's favor. Overall, NYC is just a far larger metro (population and GDP) in a far larger megalopolis (population and GDP), in a far larger country (population and GDP). It simply has more of a lot more things and that can't be helped. It's the main host to what is the closest thing there is to a global governing body.
Yet despite having a far larger metro, lags its sister city in financial trading, foreign direct investments, international tourism, retail and so on, in some areas quite significantly. I don't think it's tenable to say specificity or specialization entails insignificance.
I think another poster (SE9 I think) once said that from the point of view of someone in the USA, NYC is the center of importance but from the point of view of someone in Dubai or China (and emerging economies around the world) London is the more important. I'd concur with this based on my experience.
Even the former point is being challenged these days with the federal (!) government and local municipalities in the states now referring to London for setting interest rates on various contracts.
Yet despite having a far larger metro, lags its sister city in financial trading, foreign direct investments, international tourism, retail and so on, in some areas quite significantly. I don't think it's tenable to say specificity or specialization entails insignificance.
Right, which is what I meant when I said in some places, especially as we specialize/narrow things a bit, London does come out on top.
Like, take foreign direct investments. Sure, that's great, but consider that most investments in many places are domestic. Then take into consideration that the US is a much larger country. Then take into consideration the US is actually significantly wealthier per capita (nominal or PPP). And where do you see a good fat chunk of that investment going into in the US? This would go similarly for international tourism as well.
Overall, though, it's not really a match.
Though keep in mind, no single city anywhere in the world really has a particularly strong grasp on the rest of the world. There's no real major command center and obviously some cities are going to be more important to this or that region than others even if it may not be really that high up trying to abstract the "importance" of each city on a global level. And things are really distributed now with even the start of this thread in 2011 having a pretty different landscape where a lot of cities outside developed countries really got a relative leg up. Like, have you seen the massive difference in makeup of Global 500 company headquarters now as compared to pre-recession?
Though I guess this is off-topic as this seems more to be about quality of life, what it's like to live in these respective cities and personal tastes. Vote goes to Paris!
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 07-25-2015 at 09:53 AM..
Sorry, London: New York Is the World's Most Economically Powerful City
Our new ranking puts the Big Apple firmly on top.
...New York’s metro economy is much larger than London’s, with total economic output of $1.4 trillion compared to $836 billion for London. New York gains additional advantage from being part of the Boston-Washington mega-region, a $3.75 trillion dollar economy. That would make it the world’s the fourth-largest economy, larger than Germany and a trillion dollars larger than $2.55 economy of the entire United Kingdom...
New York also topped London in all the indexes the firm reports references.
Global Metro Monitor Map (Brookings) Global Financial Centres Index (Z/Yen)
Global City Competitiveness Index (The Economist)
Global Cities Index (A.T. Kearney)
City Prosperity Index (United Nations)
Sorry, London: New York Is the World's Most Economically Powerful City
Our new ranking puts the Big Apple firmly on top.
...New York’s metro economy is much larger than London’s, with total economic output of $1.4 trillion compared to $836 billion for London. New York gains additional advantage from being part of the Boston-Washington mega-region, a $3.75 trillion dollar economy. That would make it the world’s the fourth-largest economy, larger than Germany and a trillion dollars larger than $2.55 economy of the entire United Kingdom...
New York also topped London in all the indexes the firm reports references.
Global Metro Monitor Map (Brookings) Global Financial Centres Index (Z/Yen)
Global City Competitiveness Index (The Economist)
Global Cities Index (A.T. Kearney)
City Prosperity Index (United Nations)
I've seen this already. It's just a crude score-based tally of the 5 city ranking indices that you've listed and conveniently ignores the (more numerous) rankings that have London at the top. Without working inclusion/exclusion criteria it's a pretty textbook example of cherry picked data. I remember being appalled by how bad it is when I read it months ago.
'Sitting pretty' waiting for the wave of municipal bankruptcies on the horizon with little to no money to pay for decent infrastructure. To add to that you have Billary Clinton to look forward to as next POTUS. Ho ho ho.
Hillary Clinton would be a fantastic president. I very much look forward to her presidency. Bill was probably the greatest U.S. president of the modern era.
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.
