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.
The built density of Manhattan is undeniably higher, but the crowds in London bigger. In terms of visual stimulation that's arguable as both cities are mesmerising in different ways, history, architecture, scale, detail, juxtaposition, people, mix etc.
I would agree - I guess in part for me it was more visually stimulating because I'm from North America so it was just more 'different' - add to that the crowds it was awesome. There was just so much going on in central London in terms of street performances, festivals, events I wouldn't rank it less than NYC in terms of vibancy solely because it has less density on paper or because it doesn't have as many tall skyscrapers lol..
yep, as noted in the last few pages the stats on pedestrian activity in London is significantly higher than NYC.
...
The built density of Manhattan is undeniably higher, but the crowds in London bigger.
Well no, there are been no comparable comparison between NYC and London here.
Especially about the data which are either the number of pedestrian of a whole district but only used for a single street or often inflated figure for publicity. Don't believe everything you see on the web, especially when it comes for an advertising website.
Or a comparison of a long 2km street to a single square.
Sometimes I feel virtually everyone walking around in Central London are either Tourists or people from the Home Counties. Especially around the West End.
Do you know where they are from based on how they talk?
I can't imagine most Londoners have any reason to visit places like Piccadilly Circus, but I presume Oxford Street is a popular destination.
The RP accent people have that everywhere but the typical London accent I can tell what part of London they live in by the speech. Its normally influenced by their background; its hard to explain...
London is very crowded in its "hot spots", but, outside of them, the "vibrancy" decreases quickly and then overall is the least vibrant of those four.
Tokyo is very crowded but i think is a bit overstated about this. It could be way more crowded for a monster of its size than actually is. For example, Times Square beats easily shibuya on average in terms of "crowdiness".
London is very crowded in its "hot spots", but, outside of them, the "vibrancy" decreases quickly and then overall is the least vibrant of those four.
Tokyo is very crowded but i think is a bit overstated about this. It could be way more crowded for a monster of its size than actually is. For example, Times Square beats easily shibuya on average in terms of "crowdiness".
I think this is a bit outdated based on visits in the last year. I think London has more nodes of cultural interest and activity dispersed across a wider area than all of these save Tokyo, but the footfall distribution is more uneven. (A disclaimer is I didn't wander around non-tourist Paris as much).
For example, head west from the tourist nodes in Kensington and you have Kensington Palace Gardens (a tree-lined billionaire's row), Kensington High Street (moderate activity but a nice, affluent area), north to Notting Hill (which is leafy and residential) then west to Shepherd's Bush which is very busy.
Head north from Marylebone (moderate footfall) to the parkland area around Regent's Park (quiet and tranquil) to Camden (jam packed). Then further north to Hampstead (vibrant and upclass).
Head east from the West End and you have the City (busy financial/insurance sector), to Shoreditch/Brick Lane (vibrant and active), to Bethnal Green (leafy residential), Whitechapel Road (moderately busy high street with ethnic flavor), to Mile End (concentrated around a university campus full of students), South to Canary Wharf (busy high rise financial zone), to Greenwich (vibrant point of beauty with the Cutty Sark, the gorgeous English baroque Naval College and historic town and indoor market).
Head south from the West End and you have Parliament Square (busy tourist node), Victoria (moderately busy redevelopment zone), Chelsea/King's Road (vibrant and upclass arts hub famous for the Saatchi Gallery and Tate Britain), Pimlico (quiet and residential), South Bank (extremely busy in peak tourist season), Vauxhall/Nine Elms (high rise redevelopment zone which is currently pretty quiet), east to the Tate Modern then Southwark (a reasonably busy tourist node with famous indoor market and food stalls).
Then you have outlying points of interest such as Epsom, Guildford, Richmond, and so on.
Of course all this ignores the city core (what I call tourist boom Central London), the West End from Mayfair to Bloomsbury, St James's and the Royal Parks to the Kensington museum district.
Visit all the above, and you feel like you've still barely touched the surface of London.
London and Paris feel kind of sleepy compared to NYC and Tokyo
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.
