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.
Thanks, nice video. It reminds me of the streets I used to walk when I lived in London, last year.
I think London is the most vibrant city in Europe (that if you don't like Berlin, haha). But not among the 5 most vibrant cities in the world. I believe it can't match the energy of New York, or the energy of 20-million-people hectic Latin metropolises like Sao Paulo or Mexico DF, which are full of life. I'm not sure about Tokyo, but it looks like it's more vibrant as well.
Nightlife isn't the most important factor, but a city which feels dead after midnight, can't pretend to be the most vibrant place on Earth. Not when you have cities like New York, that never stop moving. But these are just my personal views after having lived there, I don't pretend to convince you.
Didn't you say that you'd never visited New York? The perception of new york and the reality of the city, especially post-giuliani, doesn't always see eye to eye. In reality it's not the city in perpetual motion that many claim it is and large parts are a ghost town after working hours. This is how I would rank the cities according to vibrancy...
1. Seoul
2. Tokyo and Hong Kong
3. London (daytime) and New York (nighttime)
4. Barcelona
5. Miami and Las Vegas (I can't stand either but they're definitely vibrant in terms of things going on).
6. Rio de Janeiro
7. Paris
8. Bangkok
9. Los Angeles
I would add, it's the strength of London's daytime environment that garners it such a high ranking. The quality of things going on also figures highly in my scoring of NY, london and paris.
I'd personally struggle to put BA, sao paulo or Berlin in the top ten. Though of course that's my opinion.
Last edited by MarineBlue; 11-23-2014 at 02:42 PM..
Didn't you say that you'd never visited New York? The perception of new york and the reality of the city, especially post-giuliani, doesn't always see eye to eye. This is how I would rank the cities according to vibrancy...
1. Seoul
2. Tokyo and Hong Kong
3. London (daytime) and New York (nighttime)
4. Barcelona
5. Miami and Las Vegas (I can't stand either but they're definitely vibrant in terms of things going on).
6. Paris
7. Los Angeles
8. Rio de Janeiro
9. Bangkok
I'd personally struggle to put BA or sao paulo in the top ten. Though of course that's my opinion.
True, I haven't been to NY yet. I was judging from my sister's perceptions after spending some time there. My bad! However, my flawed views don't deny the fact that:
- The subway system runs 24 hours and the city never sleeps, unlike London.
- There are 8.5 million people in a relatively small area, which makes for a dense and hectic place full of energy.
- The avenues are a lot wider and busier, the traffic is more intense, the skyscrapers are much taller, and the pace of life is faster. All of which convey the feeling of being in a much more vibrant place.
We must have very different perceptions, if you think Miami (!!) and Las Vegas (really?? if you move 5 blocks away from downtown it's completely dead) are more vibrant than Buenos Aires and Sao Paulo. I love Barcelona, that's where my family came from, but it's a small city with one tenth of the population of Buenos Aires. Not very vibrant, in my opinion. To me, Rio is the laid back city, while Sao Paulo is the crazy one. Again, it's cool if we think different. It makes the world much more interesting.
True, I haven't been to NY yet. I was judging from my sister's perceptions after spending some time there. My bad! However, my flawed views don't deny the fact that:
- The subway system runs 24 hours and the city never sleeps, unlike London.
- There are 8.5 million people in a relatively small area, which makes for a dense and hectic place full of energy.
- The avenues are a lot wider and busier, the traffic is more intense, the skyscrapers are much taller, and the pace of life is faster. All of which convey the feeling of being in a much more vibrant place.
We must have very different perceptions, if you think Miami (!!) and Las Vegas (really?? if you move 5 blocks away from downtown it's completely dead) are more vibrant than Buenos Aires and Sao Paulo. I love Barcelona, that's where my family came from, but it's a small city with one tenth of the population of Buenos Aires. Not very vibrant, in my opinion. To me, Rio is the laid back city, while Sao Paulo is the crazy one. Again, it's cool if we think different. It makes the world much more interesting.
The traffic is definitely more intense in Manhattan. But the roads aren't that wider. The pictures paint a different story to reality. The N-S avenues (excl park ave) are about the same width as many of the major roads in London. E-W streets are a bit wider than the sidestreets in London. The outer boroughs all have wider streets than the outer parts of London but the cityscape of london in these areas is generally nicer. I would say the pace of life is about the same.
Note that I'm talking about the downtown experience in all these cities. Not what goes on in the suburbs or outskirts. A big population and tall (often ugly) buildings do not necessarily translate to vibrancy in my view.
The traffic is definitely more intense in Manhattan. But the roads aren't that wider. The pictures paint a different story to reality. The N-S avenues (excl park ave) are about the same width as many of the major roads in London. E-W streets are a bit wider than the sidestreets in London. The outer boroughs all have wider streets than London but the cityscape of london in these areas is generally nicer. I would say the pace of life is about the same.
Note that I'm talking about the downtown experience in all these cities. Not what goes on in the suburbs or outskirts. A big population and tall (often ugly) buildings do not necessarily translate to vibrancy in my view.
Yes, I agree that pictures paint a different story to reality. That was the case with London's vibrancy!
A big population do not necessarily translate to vibrancy, but usually a city of 20 million people (like Sao Paulo) will be more vibrant than one of 1 million (like Las Vegas). Let's say that the amount of activities, cultural events, things happening, and the overall pace of life and vibe will result in a place which 'feels more alive'. As I said, move 5 blocks away from downtown Las Vegas and you'll find depressing endless suburbia as well as desert. A couple of avenues full of casinos don't translate to vibrancy either. Neither do lots of shopping malls, hotels and beaches (hello Miami!) devoid of interesting culture or people.
As for the architecture, I think it has to do with the fact that London pretty much developed as a huge "collection of villages", which means that the area is enormous, but it is not very dense. NY seems to be more concentrated in a smaller area, which in turn appears to be more vibrant and full of energy (the outline of the city being only one of the factors). But I need to go there first and see it for myself.
Yes, I agree that pictures paint a different story to reality. That was the case with London's vibrancy!
A big population do not necessarily translate to vibrancy, but usually a city of 20 million people (like Sao Paulo) will be more vibrant than one of 1 million (like Las Vegas). Let's say that the amount of activities, cultural events, things happening, and the overall pace of life and vibe will result in a place which 'feels more alive'. As I said, move 5 blocks away from downtown Las Vegas and you'll find depressing endless suburbia as well as desert. A couple of avenues full of casinos don't translate to vibrancy either. Neither do lots of shopping malls, hotels and beaches (hello Miami!) devoid of interesting culture or people.
As for the architecture, I think it has to do with the fact that London pretty much developed as a huge "collection of villages", which means that the area is enormous, but it is not very dense. NY seems to be more concentrated in a smaller area, which in turn appears to be more vibrant and full of energy (the outline of the city being only one of the factors). But I need to go there first and see it for myself.
Yes, vapid cesspit as it is, I'm afraid I find Las Vegas more interesting than Sao Paulo.
I find your knowledge of London questionable though if you think that Oxford St is the most vibrant place in London or that the roads are narrow. The fact that it's a conglomeration of different urban centers doesn't really make that much difference to the downtown experience. If anything the different neighborhoods in manhattan have as much flavor and difference between them as the ones in London. You seem to be bandying about the usual stereotypes made by people who haven't actually been to either city.
Last edited by MarineBlue; 11-23-2014 at 04:59 PM..
Yes, vapid cesspit as it is, I'm afraid I find Las Vegas more interesting than Sao Paulo.
You don't seem to know much about London though, thinking that Oxford St is the most vibrant place in London or that the roads are narrow. The fact that it's a conglomeration of different urban centers doesn't really make that much difference to the downtown experience. If anything the different neighborhoods in manhattan have as much flavor and difference between them as the ones in London. You seem to be bandying about the usual stereotypes made by people who haven't actually been to either city.
Well, I repect your opinion if you find Las Vegas interesting. We must have VERY different tastes!
As for the rest, you are using ad hominem attacks in an attempt to invalidate my arguments, instead of addressing the actual debate while using logic and intelligence to support your thoughts. That's an immature attitude, considering that we know nothing about each other, and it's quite premature to draw conclusions about a stranger's life. I don't care to "know much" about London, I only lived there for five months and those are my views.
The following are typical of the major thoroughfares in London.
Source: Google Maps (Street View)
In general, the view of the roads in London being narrow compared to other cities in its class seem to hold true outside of Central London (and much of Inner London). Within those bounds, however, it's ostensibly not true as far as major thoroughfares are concerned. I think, as far as side-streets are concerned, there's too much variation to come to any clear conclusions.
Well, I repect your opinion if you find Las Vegas interesting. We must have VERY different tastes!
As for the rest, you are using ad hominem attacks in an attempt to invalidate my arguments, instead of addressing the actual debate while using logic and intelligence to support your thoughts. That's an immature attitude, considering that we know nothing about each other, and it's quite premature to draw conclusions about a stranger's life. I don't care to "know much" about London, I only lived there for five months and those are my views.
If you find my comment offensive then I apologize, but please spare me the sanctimony. If any form of criticism to the person is off-limits, then you should not be making snide comments about other people's intelligence.
If you say questionable things about a subject matter then they can discredit your subjective opinions but not any logical arguments you give. So far, most of what you've written is, by your own admission, subjective opinion.
If you find my comment offensive then I apologize, but please spare me the sanctimony. If any form of criticism to the person is off-limits, then you should not be making snide comments about other people's intelligence.
If you say questionable things about a subject matter then they can discredit your subjective opinions but not any logical arguments you give. So far, most of what you've written is, by your own admission, subjective opinion.
Sure, I forgive you for using ad hominem fallacies. Of course my opinions and arguments are subjective, just like yours. My perception of reality is as subjective and valuable as yours. Branding my arguments as "questionable" is also your subjective opinion. I don't agree with you, but I respect you. I think it's questionable to think Miami is an interesting place, but what do I care!
Now back to the topic, I still think London's vibrancy is overrated. You don't? I'm fine with that! It's good to have different views. Let's celebrate diversity of thought.
Sure, I forgive you for using ad hominem fallacies. Of course my opinions and arguments are subjective, just like yours. My perception of reality is as subjective and valuable as yours. Branding my arguments as "questionable" is also your subjective opinion. I don't agree with you, but I respect you. I think it's questionable to think Miami is an interesting place, but what do I care!
Now back to the topic, I still think London's vibrancy is overrated. You don't? I'm fine with that! It's good to have different views. Let's celebrate diversity of thought.
That's fine, but I've just explained to you why it's not the ad hominem fallacy.
Discrediting a person does not discredit his arguments but it does discredit his subjective opinions.
But we'll spare that for the forum on logic if we have one.
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.
