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.
It must be right if it's on facebook, then again I think facebook pretty much sums up your levels of research.
Abramavitch was denied British Citizenship which he tried to gain through Gibraltar in 2011 and is currently refurbishing a £100 million property in Cheyne Walk in Chelsea in London.
He controls his Facebook and updates it periodically. And he made it clear that his main residence in Moscow.
Direct Quote;
Quote:
His main residence is located in Moscow, Russia, although he has additional properties in Chukotka, London, the United States, and France.
Why would he lie? Roman Abramovich knows more about Roman Abramovich than the silly Times does. LOL.
He is currently buying a $75 million property on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan but he still does not live there...he lives in Moscow. He owns a $100M property in St. Barths but he does not live there either..he lives in Moscow. New York's most expensive real estate is owned by countless Russians as well, but guess what? They aren't New Yorkers as their main residence is Moscow. Hence them not being included in these lists as New Yorkers or Londoners.
No, it's making it comparable to the NYC map. What do you think the NYC map contains, too? It's extremely broad as well. But dormitory commuter towns as still part of a greater city at least in the American metros are generally counted. Still few of those in the outer region of the NYC map commute in the city proper.
I guess you're right - but the NYC region seems more continuously urban to me. London's urbanity does not extend very far beyond Greater London's boundaries - just a few towns like Watford, Staines and Esher could be part of London, whereas New York's urbanity extends well beyond New York City itself.
He controls his Facebook and updates it periodically. And he made it clear that his main residence in Moscow.
Direct Quote;
Why would he lie? Roman Abramovich knows more about Roman Abramovich than the silly Times does. LOL.
He is currently buying a $75 million property on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan but he still does not live there...he lives in Moscow. He owns a $100M property in St. Barths but he does not live there either..he lives in Moscow. New York's most expensive real estate is owned by countless Russians as well, but guess what? They aren't New Yorkers as their main residence is Moscow. Hence them not being included in these lists as New Yorkers or Londoners.
Abramovitch property on Cheyne Walk in London alone is worth nearly as much as both his NYC and St Barts properties put together, and he also owns the late Australian Billionaires Kerry Packers Old House at Fyning Hill in Sussex among numerous other UK properties. Then again somebody recently payed £140 million ($234.79 million USD) for an apartment in London, never mind a house.
As I have already explained, he's a non dom but lives here, he therefore has to have a residency to return to in order to avoid business tax on overseas assets, it doesn't however mean he doesn't in reality live in London which is why he is listed in the ST Rich list.
As for the silly Sunday Times and it's silly sister companies the Times, US Dow Jones and US Publisher HarperCollins they have bought a new HQ beside the Shard in London, which they will all soon share.
I guess you're right - but the NYC region seems more continuously urban to me. London's urbanity does not extend very far beyond Greater London's boundaries - just a few towns like Watford, Staines and Esher could be part of London, whereas New York's urbanity extends well beyond New York City itself.
Hmm. I would have thought the opposite since the outer suburbs of NYC are much lower density. Though in some directions, for example along the CT coast and perhaps the southern coast of Long Island the continous build up is more obvious. London's urbanity seems to end because of the Green Belt, but the towns past the green belt seem functionally similar to NYC's suburbs or Paris's Outer suburban ring.
Dark green is the continuous built up region, southwestern CT is counted separately (due to slightly lower commute connection) and in light green even though it's adjacent to the NYC urban area. Not sure why Staten Island is gray, probably an error.
I guess you're right - but the NYC region seems more continuously urban to me. London's urbanity does not extend very far beyond Greater London's boundaries - just a few towns like Watford, Staines and Esher could be part of London, whereas New York's urbanity extends well beyond New York City itself.
New York suburbs are actually more rural. The Los Angeles area even has more continuous density and urbanity than greater New York.
The intense density drops dramatically once you leave New York City proper.
Huge swaths of NY's area's boundaries is this...really nothing:
Yeah I get that they're less densely populated - but they extend a lot farther. New York's continuous urban area is a lot larger than London - take a comparable area in the UK and you have lots of towns dotted all over the place.
New York suburbs are actually more rural. The intense density drops dramatically once you leave New York City proper.
Huge swaths of NY's area's boundaries is this...really nothing:
I though NYC was supposed to have this highly populated metro area that has a much greater population than London's. So which is it, a high population metro area or these huge swaths of nothing.
I though NYC was supposed to have this highly populated metro area that has a much greater population than London's. So which is it, a high population metro area or these huge swaths of nothing.
When did I ever say that? New York and London are nearly identical in population.
London population: 8.308 million
New York population: 8.337 million
London "area" population (according to the Greater London Authority): 21 million
New York combined statistical area population: 23 million
I am not picking at London. I actually love London but the hyperbole coming from you Londerners in regards to importance is ridiculous. There seems to be a new ranking every month that is either commission by the city of London or written by London property consultants i.e. Knight Frank, which seem to desperately want to sway public opinion into believing that London is clearly #1 in everything. You will never see such rankings originating from the U.S. or New York. From reading the web, one city looks very confident with its status and one city is wailing about and screaming how great it is. It's getting a bit stale now. But it's expected as the U.S. blew past U.K. in terms of wealth and importance many decades ago, and since the U.K. doing better now, it appears to be orchestrating a huge campaign to boost the U.K. and London's profile.
New York suburbs are actually more rural. The Los Angeles area even has more continuous density and urbanity than greater New York.
The intense density drops dramatically once you leave New York City proper.
Huge swaths of NY's area's boundaries is this...really nothing:
That's preserved parkland at the northern edge of the NYC urban area. It's somewhat similar to the London Greenbelt. It's not really a reflection of NYC suburbs as no one lives there.
What areas can we say that NY indisputably leads the world in nowadays?
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.
