Battle of the Cities: Alpha+ Category (credit, to live, rankings)

[dunno what to put here]

- it doesn't matter if they 'suck', Hollywood is synonymous with the film industry and it will continue to thrive even if they produce sh1t.

Chicago's as a financial centre, I've never really given it much thought - I think Edinburgh could give it a run for its money, not as big but is home to two of Europe's premier banks (RBS, Lloyds)

And San Fran.. well.. silicon valley I believe is still often associated with Sacramento, but even then it's just a big business park more or less and is not located in San Fran itself..

I still think America's big cities are given too much attention on these rankings.. just my opinion though

[BigCityDreamer]

Originally Posted by dunno what to put here

I still think America's big cities are given too much attention on these rankings.. just my opinion though

If culture could be measured as easily as money is, then European cities would rank a lot higher.

[Trimac20]

Originally Posted by Benjamin Hubard

It's ultimately incorrect, although not totally without basis; London is a matrix of many hundreds of villages and hamlets that have become stitched together over centuries, and it's sense of scale comes not from standing in one spot and being overwhelmed by the size of the buildings (which mostly aren't that big), but by traveling through it...

But now I'll return the thread back to to the topic...

Yes that's what I mean.

[dhdh]

Singapore for quality of life, HK for buzz

[Benjamin Hubard]

Originally Posted by Trimac20

Yes that's what I mean.

But if I am right in saying that you have not visited London, then, without wanting to sound uncharitable, I do feel that you are not well qualified to comment on how the place feels.

[Trimac20]

Originally Posted by Benjamin Hubard

But if I am right in saying that you have not visited London, then, without wanting to sound uncharitable, I do feel that you are not well qualified to comment on how the place feels.

Okay I admit no, haven't visited London yet, so take my comments with a dash of salt. Movies, TV.etc don't substitute being there.

[BigCityDreamer]

Some cities are impossible to get a feel for from pictures alone. And London is one of those cities.

Pics simply cannot do London justice in any way. It is a MONSTER of a city. Like a country almost. You have to visit.

[Benjamin Hubard]

Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer

Some cities are impossible to get a feel for from pictures alone. And London is one of those cities.

Pics simply cannot do London justice in any way. It is a MONSTER of a city. Like a country almost.

I don't really think you can get a feel for anywhere without going there. Take Tokyo - the throbbing, buzzing neon skyscraper districts shown in the movies certainly do exist, but vast swathes of the city are quiet, low-rise, dominated by pedestrians and cyclists and small shops and restaurants.

[Benjamin Hubard]

However there are plenty of places I haven't been to that I've risked an opinion or two about in the past, so so don't think I'm trying to be an innocent party here

[Trimac20]

Although I've never physically been I'm so familiar with London (see it millions of times on screen, read about it, had people I know tell me about it) I do feel as if I've been there, so it will be interesting to see how visiting will live up to my expectations. New York City seemed almost exactly like I imagined it - as it did LA - and that usually doesn't happen with a place I visit, so I chalk it up to having been exposed to it so much. Of course a lot of Hollywood films leave out the gritty parts of the city, but I often find these areas more interesting.