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.
Definitely, NY is so unique within the US. The strong urban culture, 24 hour subway, most people living in apartments.etc, 24 hour bodegas on every corner, it's pretty unique. Chicago, Philly, and Boston and SF are a bit like that but it's not really comparable. London is unique in it's own way but I don't know, it still felt very English to me, which isn't a bad thing. I mean parts of Birmingham felt more Indian than anywhere in London.
Somewhere can't be 'pretty' unique. It's either unique or it isn't.
Birmingham has a large Indian population but it feels nothing like London - no city in the UK feels like London. London is in a class of its own, which is why London looks abroad for competition - it's comfortably the only globally important city in the UK. It has 8 million people versus Birmingham's 1 million - a place like Chicago can somewhat compare with New York, but Birmingham and Manchester can never, in a million yes, compare or compete with London, at all.
Within their respective countries, London and Paris clearly dominate more than pretty all other capitals vs their countries, at least ones that have such large populations.
Somewhere can't be 'pretty' unique. It's either unique or it isn't.
Birmingham has a large Indian population but it feels nothing like London - no city in the UK feels like London. London is in a class of its own, which is why London looks abroad for competition - it's comfortably the only globally important city in the UK. It has 8 million people versus Birmingham's 1 million - a place like Chicago can somewhat compare with New York, but Birmingham and Manchester can never, in a million yes, compare or compete with London, at all.
Yes NYC definitely IS unique. I mean parts of Chicago or Philly come close, but maybe it's artificial (constructed through portrayals and American dominance) or it's the way NYC is treated, but Manhattan seems like sort of separate from anywhere else. No, they can't, but London just didn't feel as unique to me as NYC. I don't know, everything about NYC is just so 'New York.' There was a comic map which showed how New Yorkers viewed the world: everything west of the Hudson was irrelevant. Maybe it's that sheer insularity which adds to it. I actually found the London Underground lacked the character of the New York Subway. London lacks, for instance, the many delis/bodegas where you can choose from a buffet style array of things to eat at any hour of the day or night. London is not a true 24 hour city in the same way New York is. Manhattan sort of encloses you, while London sort of bleeds out into Greater London. New York's numbered avenues too make navigation a lot easier. Maybe because New York is the original modern big city, even if London is older and was bigger...New York FEELS like a vast concrete jungle, with seemingly endless skyscrapers. London is more a collection of neighbourhoods/villages stuck together interspersed with parkland. Which has it's benefits. London feels surprisingly local and manageable for a city of it's size, while NY overwhelms you with it's sheer urbanity.
Yes NYC definitely IS unique. I mean parts of Chicago or Philly come close, but maybe it's artificial (constructed through portrayals and American dominance) or it's the way NYC is treated, but Manhattan seems like sort of separate from anywhere else. No, they can't, but London just didn't feel as unique to me as NYC. I don't know, everything about NYC is just so 'New York.' There was a comic map which showed how New Yorkers viewed the world: everything west of the Hudson was irrelevant. Maybe it's that sheer insularity which adds to it. I actually found the London Underground lacked the character of the New York Subway. London lacks, for instance, the many delis/bodegas where you can choose from a buffet style array of things to eat at any hour of the day or night. London is not a true 24 hour city in the same way New York is. Manhattan sort of encloses you, while London sort of bleeds out into Greater London. New York's numbered avenues too make navigation a lot easier. Maybe because New York is the original modern big city, even if London is older and was bigger...New York FEELS like a vast concrete jungle, with seemingly endless skyscrapers. London is more a collection of neighbourhoods/villages stuck together interspersed with parkland. Which has it's benefits. London feels surprisingly local and manageable for a city of it's size, while NY overwhelms you with it's sheer urbanity.
There is a running joke in the UK that anything north of Watford is considered irrelevant by Londoners - I fail to see how that is any different to New Yorkers considering anything west of the Hudson irrelevant, but I am under the impression that you weren't aware of that - it seems there are many things about the UK's relationship with London that you are unaware of. That won't stop you from commenting on it like an expert though!
London has a clean underground - New York has a filthy, outdated one. I guess that is characterful and adds to the overall dirty vibe of New York, which is appealing to a certain type of person. Not sure why this is unique though. London's underground is very iconic because of its tube shape - hence 'The Tube'.
London is, essentially, lots of former towns and villages that merged overtime - but you need to make a fair comparison. Once you go beyond Queens and the Bronx, you descend into bland suburban housing with no redeeming qualities, no different to the low-rise suburban housing of Outer London - the only difference is that all of London, both the inner-city and the suburbs, are governed by a single authority - the Greater London Authority, and the Mayor of London, so while Croydon is definitely London, somewhere like Westchester County might not be considered New York, even though they are effectively the same thing and function in the same way - suburbs.
There is a running joke in the UK that anything north of Watford is considered irrelevant by Londoners - I fail to see how that is any different to New Yorkers considering anything west of the Hudson irrelevant, but I am under the impression that you weren't aware of that - it seems there are many things about the UK's relationship with London that you are unaware of. That won't stop you from commenting on it like an expert though!
London has a clean underground - New York has a filthy, outdated one. I guess that is characterful and adds to the overall dirty vibe of New York, which is appealing to a certain type of person. Not sure why this is unique though. London's underground is very iconic because of its tube shape - hence 'The Tube'.
London is, essentially, lots of former towns and villages that merged overtime - but you need to make a fair comparison. Once you go beyond Queens and the Bronx, you descend into bland suburban housing with no redeeming qualities, no different to the low-rise suburban housing of Outer London - the only difference is that all of London, both the inner-city and the suburbs, are governed by a single authority - the Greater London Authority, and the Mayor of London, so while Croydon is definitely London, somewhere like Westchester County might not be considered New York, even though they are effectively the same thing and function in the same way - suburbs.
Well I suppose some Londoners have the same myopic view, but London seems not as isolated from it's surrounding countryside as NY is. NY seems to have little to do with NY state, although the wealthy do have homes in Long Island, CT and the Catskills. Whereas Oxfordshire let alone the Home Counties seem connected to London. I suppose yes, the tube is iconic, but idk, the subway interested me more. I like how NYC still has that 'grit.' Go to Harlem and it still feels like the 70s, like you're in the movie Shaft or Taxi Driver.
Well yes, the NYC metro is vast - 22 million, vs 12-14 million in London. NYC city officially already has over 8 million and spreads far from Midtown Manhattan, which is comparable to Greater London in size and population. An interesting thing is the high rises in the London area tend to be further out from the city centre it seems. The vast NYC metro/tri-state area sprawls into NJ and CT as well.
Yes NYC definitely IS unique. I mean parts of Chicago or Philly come close, but maybe it's artificial (constructed through portrayals and American dominance) or it's the way NYC is treated, but Manhattan seems like sort of separate from anywhere else. No, they can't, but London just didn't feel as unique to me as NYC. I don't know, everything about NYC is just so 'New York.' There was a comic map which showed how New Yorkers viewed the world: everything west of the Hudson was irrelevant. Maybe it's that sheer insularity which adds to it. I actually found the London Underground lacked the character of the New York Subway. London lacks, for instance, the many delis/bodegas where you can choose from a buffet style array of things to eat at any hour of the day or night. London is not a true 24 hour city in the same way New York is. Manhattan sort of encloses you, while London sort of bleeds out into Greater London. New York's numbered avenues too make navigation a lot easier. Maybe because New York is the original modern big city, even if London is older and was bigger...New York FEELS like a vast concrete jungle, with seemingly endless skyscrapers. London is more a collection of neighbourhoods/villages stuck together interspersed with parkland. Which has it's benefits. London feels surprisingly local and manageable for a city of it's size, while NY overwhelms you with it's sheer urbanity.
I read somewhere that the London Underground is planning to have 24/7 service in the future. So London might become more 24/7 in a few years time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunno what to put here
There is a running joke in the UK that anything north of Watford is considered irrelevant by Londoners - I fail to see how that is any different to New Yorkers considering anything west of the Hudson irrelevant, but I am under the impression that you weren't aware of that - it seems there are many things about the UK's relationship with London that you are unaware of. That won't stop you from commenting on it like an expert though!
London has a clean underground - New York has a filthy, outdated one. I guess that is characterful and adds to the overall dirty vibe of New York, which is appealing to a certain type of person. Not sure why this is unique though. London's underground is very iconic because of its tube shape - hence 'The Tube'.
West of NYC/Hudson river is New Jersey not NY.
London's underground system is just as old (if not a bit older than) as the NYC subway system. So how can one say that the NYC is more outdated than the London system?
I probably like London almost as much for other reasons, but NYC just feels more like a typical 'big city.' I mean there are other cities just as busy, Tokyo, Seoul, Sao Paulo, to name a few, but they are very Japanese/Korean/Brazilian, while NYC is so international, despite also being very American and having it's own strong identity. Maybe it's the movie exposure, but there's something about NYC I feel that I can't quite explain. I've been to many big cities and none have had that same feel to them.
I do love New York, but nowadays Manhattan just feels 'tired' to me. I don't think the city has ever been quite the same after Lehman imploded 5 years ago.
I do love New York, but nowadays Manhattan just feels 'tired' to me. I don't think the city has ever been quite the same after Lehman imploded 5 years ago.
Every time I go to NYC at the end of the day I am also extremely tired, I just want to go to sleep. If your planning on going on a vacation there, it defiantly is not a relaxing vacation, everything is a headache.
Every time I go to NYC at the end of the day I am also extremely tired, I just want to go to sleep. If your planning on going on a vacation there, it defiantly is not a relaxing vacation, everything is a headache.
The city itself I meant. It just doesn't have that intangible property, that indefinable 'spark' or 'magic' that it used to.
Though it is still a very bustling city, there's a pervasive feeling of 'can't be arsed'-ness that permeates the place, especially by mid-afternoon.
London's underground is older in age, but is more modern. NYC still uses old carriages and is dirtier - it's busier, so I guess that might explain it.
I also know that west of the Hudson is NJ - not sure what point you're making.
This is true. Modern is good, of course, but the NY subway just seems to have more character to me. Totally my opinion of course, others might feel the opposite.
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.
