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.
At this moment in time, I would agree with Madrid. Paris and New York are both fantastic cities, but I think neither are currently in their prime as far as "urban experience" is concerned due to a number of underlying issues.
The whole tourist thing and landmarks in relation to Paris and New York are also another cause of irritation. Whether it's the excessively crowded Time Square or queing for the Eiffel Tower. Both Cities have become victims of their own success in many ways.
Dirt/Pollution, Crowds, Noise, constantly trying to avoid people is not my idea of fun. I much prefer more laid back cities and even more enviromentally welcoming cities.
Dirt/Pollution, Crowds, Noise, constantly trying to avoid people is not my idea of fun. I much prefer more laid back cities and even more enviromentally welcoming cities.
Which is another way of saying that Madrid doesn't have as much interesting stuff as Paris and NYC, hence fewer visitors.
If someone wants a "laid back and environmentally welcome city" then Madrid would be the worst possible choice in Spain. It's a very large, busy, polluted city, with horrible traffic and far worse air quality than Paris or NYC.
Which is another way of saying that Madrid doesn't have as much interesting stuff as Paris and NYC, hence fewer visitors.
If someone wants a "laid back and environmentally welcome city" then Madrid would be the worst possible choice in Spain. It's a very large, busy, polluted city, with horrible traffic and far worse air quality than Paris or NYC.
The world does not merely revolve around NYC, London and Paris, there are plenty of amazing and very underated Cities out there including the likes of Madrid.
Paris is just too tourist orientated and the whole city is designed to help tourists part with their cash, although sadly the current security problems and last years tragic events will have had an impact on this great city.
You believe this because of the way Paris is portrayed in media but the reality of Paris is very different, the city is much less tourist oriented.
Paris city life doesn't revolve around tourist attractions or monuments.
Living in Paris, I don't notice difference of Paris before and after the attacks, it is the same city and the life is the same as it was.
You believe this, again because you have a tourist view of Paris.
NYC does everything on a larger scale, sadly this includes filth, trash, rats, noise and pollution. NYC is a 24 hour city but to be honest it's too full on and too dense and crowded.
Paris is just too tourist orientated and the whole city is designed to help tourists part with their cash, although sadly the current security problems and last years tragic events will have had an impact on this great city.
Personally I think the winner here is Madrid, nice city, some very beautiful buildings, an interesting cultural hub and a lot cleaner than NYC and a lot less of a global tourist magnet than NYC and Paris.
That's not true, Paris is much less tourist orientated than most other touristic cities (Rome, Venice, Florence, Barcelona ..), the only places that are tourist orientated in Paris are located right next to the most famous monuments (and Montmartes) but other than that the city is designed for Parisians.
Heck, even London is much more tourist orientated than Paris.
As for NYC it is crowded but is it much more crowded than any other place ? No, it's even quaint in many places, NYC has more to offer than just Midtown Manhattan you know.
Nola 101.-
Amiably I suggest you visit Madrid before disqualify to Madrid-.
I am sure you rectify your current opinion that perhaps is result of a very common prejudice in the English-speaking people, who never, they visited Spain and Madrid- ,
As you will have seen in this thread with other american people who are in love today of Madrid after of visiting this city.-.-
Madrid is vastly underrated. It's much cleaner than NYC and Paris. It's not even close how much cleaner it is. I don't mind it in NYC since I love the city, but Madrid is much cleaner. Madrid is definitely more 24 hour. I've visited NYC several times and I lived in Madrid. The only thing I can think of that would hold Madrid back is that the subway doesn't run 24/7. But the night buses cover the exact same routes so there is really no lack in service.
- Walkability: find me a collection of neighborhoods like Tribunal, Malasana, Chueca, Lavapies, La Latina, and Chamberi. Chueca is probably the most dynamic neighborhood I've ever been to in my life. Yeah, Times Square is busy, but it's inauthentic. Chueca is extremely authentic.
- Accessible amenities: not sure what this refers to
- Availability of public transportation: Paris and Madrid cover their cities better than NYC. Outside of Manhattan, NYC can't compare. It's #1 by US standards, but still behind European standards. Also, during rush hours in the morning and afternoon, it's common to have only 1 minute headways between subways. During the strikes when I lived there, the headways were still only 2-3 minutes.
- Build-up of infrastructure (roads, railways, water transportation, taxi, uber/lyft, bike lanes, pedestrian walkways, so on): Obviously no water transportation in Madrid. But Madrid has much more pedestrian-only streets than NYC. El AVE puts any American inter-city train to shame. Taxis I'd say NYC has better access to them, but they're also easier to use. Without a grid and so many pedestrian only streets and narrow streets with extremely low speed limits, taxis are not as useful in Madrid as walking or taking the Metro.
- Comprehensive planning: I think they all do a wonderful job at this. Three of the most premier cities on earth thanks to their comprehensive planning and outlook to the future.
- City parks and greenbelts integrated into the urban experience: Tie between NYC and Madrid. Central Park and Retiro are both beautiful and easily accessible. Central Park is 1.3sqmi, but Casa de Campo is 6.8sqmi. Casa de Campo is huge and much more rugged than anything in NYC. But for simple green space, Central Park is much more accessible.
- Easy integration of residential, office, and entertainment establishments into the urban fabric: All three do this very well. They each have their own high-rise districts without much street life after dark and on weekends. But the rest of the cities' land is pretty well integrated between different uses.
Personally though, I just found Madrid to be more pedestrian-friendly. The amount of pedestrian-only streets, the ease of taking the Metro and its much cheaper cost, the best nightlife of nearly any city on earth, the utilization of plazas for outdoor dining and drinking, etc. just appeal more to me. But to say it can't compare to Paris or NYC and maybe not even Barcelona or Rome is absurd.
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.
