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.
In terms of London's East End Docks, here's what they look like today. The East End was always the poor area of London and back in the 1980's this area which is now full of skyscraper ansd financial services was a desolate eyesore and wasteland, with crumbling rusting disused docks.
London is also a very diverse city where at least 40% are foreign-born, compared to New York's 37% (so roughly the same). This is evident at the quality and quantity of the foreign cuisine in London, including its street food. From Chinese jian bing to Venezuelan arepas.
London is also very vibrant where the streets are closed to traffic during events and people take over, as seen in the following videos.
Are there any plans to build another supertall in London after The Shard?
22 Bishopgate Tower which is currently under construction in the City of London (financial district) is 278m / 912ft so falls just short of the 300 metre (980 feet) Supertall criteria.
There is also 1 Undershaft a slender skyscraper a bit like a smaller version of 432 Park Avenue in NYC) which has been approved, and which is 304 metres tall, it will also be built in the city (financial district).
There are also lots of other weird and wonderful proposals such as the Tulip, however these are unlikely to be approved imho, indeed the Tulip has already been found to breach London Plan guidelines. The Shard is fairly much as tall as you are going to get in London, as it's not Dubai and the Civil Aviation Authority and Local Planners will not go beyond the current skyscraper heights, indeed 1 Undershaft had it's height cut due to concerns from the Civil Aviation Authorities and City planners.
Of course there are restrictions in many parts of London and skyscrapers are generally clustered together in the city, canary wharf in the east end and other such areas away from the historic west end tourist distrct of London.
As for Thames Crossings, if anyone is intereted there is a list in the link below.
The traditional west end hasn't changed a great deal, and a lot of the parts getting newer are concentrated around the city, old east end docks and Greenwich Peninsula and places such as Vauxhall and the Elephant and Castle.
The rundown area around Battersea Power Station is being redeveloped, although it's not a case of becoming newer it's a case of London finally filling in the old empty industrial sites such as Bishopsgate Goods Yard, Battersea and Nine Elms, Kings Cross, Old Oak Common, the old empty docks in the East, which have been empty since containerisation but were once the largest docks in the entire world.
London at one time as full of WW2 bomb craters, and empty industrial land, especially in the East End, and the 1960's saw a lot of ugly concete estates, a lot of which have been pulled down in recent years and replaced with much better housing.
Some of the regeneration schemes have been very good, indeed Kings Cross has been impressive, Canary Wharf has seen a vast second fininancial centre develop in the East End and nearby Wood Wharf and the Royal Docks are also being redeveloped, as is the Greenwich Peninsula also in the East.
New renderings of the old Bishopsgate Goods Yard also look very good, and the vast Old Oak Common transport interchange is also impressive.
London has a lot of listed buildings but had so much disused land in the East End that the sensible thing to do was to utilise it.
In terms of NYC, it had the advantage of not being bombed during WW2, although the events of 9/11 were very tragic.
Saying that I love NYC and there is not much between these two great cities.
Of course what the bombs didn't do away with, the developers largely did. This has resulted in a city beyond the means of average Londoners, with I believe close to a quarter living in a state of poverty with low wages and means in an ever increasing sea of super rich and/or highly paid from within the financial sector , to which historical grandeur alone cannot resolve.
Still both financial centres. Prefer London in spades more than NYC. Both good to visit, but think London outshines NYC in things to do and ease of movement. But probably for most folk probably close enough to almost call it a draw.
I don't believe any city is at the centre of the world, and London has always had close connections to the world, it's docks were the largest in the world, it has 6 airports, has direct rail links with Lille (1 hr 22min), Brussels (1hr 48 mins), Paris 2 hrs 16 mins), Amsterdam (3 hrs 22 mins) and there are also direct trains to the South of France and Ski trains to the Alps, with new sevices to Bordeaux and Geneva planned. In terms of London's docks they are once again growing in terms of London Gateway and the expansion of Tilbury docks, and ferries also operate to Europe, whilst London is building a new cruise liner terminal.
NYC isn't even the capital of the US, there is no grand building like the Houses of Parliament or palaces where the Royals reside, indeed Prince Chrles is now Head of the Commonwealth, an organisation which represents over 2.4 Billion people. Indeed Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK have even discussed the propsect of greater political and economic ties through Canzuk.
London is also going to host a ne Financial and Trading Sector at the Royal Docks to encourage new trade with Far East countries, and the City already has two very impressive skylines in terms of the City of London whih is to the east of London and Canary Wharf in the East End, which just across the Thames from the development going on at the Greenwich Penininsula.
In terms of education and culture, London has some superb universities sich as UCL, Imperial, LSE, Kings etx which are often classed as among the best in the world, whilst unlike NYC London host national museums, the national museums such as the Smithsonian in the US are mainly in Washington DC along with most of the political institutions.
London is also one of the great sports cities of the word home to numerous famous sporting teams and grounds as well iconic national sporting venues such as Wembley (Football/Soccer), Twickenham (Rugby), Lords (Cricket), the Oval (Cricket), Wimbledon (Tennis) etc.
Much as I love NYC, the world doesn't revolve around it, beither does it revolve around London, however London like NYC is very much part of the world and very international in it's outlook and links.
I don't think New York is the center of the world. But I think it gives off a "center of the world" vibe that I don't get from London.
Yes, New York's airport system is only surpassed by London's in terms of passenger traffic. I can acknowledge that.
As for your other points:
New York isn't the political capital of the U.S., but it is the economic, cultural and social capital of the U.S, which is quite impressive considering the city faces strong competition internally. The U.S. has 12 metros over 5,000,000 people in a Federal political structure, so the fact that New York has become such a dominant city despite the competition is illustrative of its strengths. I should also add that Washington, aka my home, is 2h30m from New York by train.
I disagree that New York lacks grand buildings or architecture. Look at the Chrysler Building, the Empire State Building, Rockefeller Center, Woolworth Building, Flatiron Building, Grand Central Terminal, the Brooklyn Bridge, Saint Patrick's Cathedral, Cathedral Church of Saint John the Divine, the Statue of Liberty, Hudson Yards, Radio City Music Hall, Times Square, Waldorf Astoria, etc etc. New York is a city of a different era, but there's no doubt that New York's Art Deco and Beaux Arts architectural treasures are just as impressive as London's Georgian or Victorian gems. I should also add that New York's neighborhoods like Chelsea, Soho, Tribeca, Williamsburg, Crown Heights, Prospect Park, Bedford Stuyvesant, the Upper East Side, Greenwich Village, etc, are every bit as dynamic as London's neighborhoods.
From a purely engineering standpoint, the Chrysler Building, the Empire State Building, the Brooklyn Bridge and Flatiron Building were just as difficult to build as the Houses of Parliament, if not moreso.
And yes, there is a "Commonwealth of Nations," but it's pretty bold to say that makes London the lead city for over 2.5 billion people. People in South Asia don't look to London for political leadership, they look to Islamabad, Delhi, Dhaka and Colombo. Theresa May's power doesn't extend throughout the Commonwealth. And even Queen Elizabeth's symbolic importance is limited to the much smaller and less impressive "Commonwealth Realm" which contains about 144 million people, far less than the 330 million in the U.S. or the 450 million in the E.U. alone. And even then, I don't think Canadians or Aussies would take kindly to the thought that London is "their" premier city.
New York, on the other hand, is the Headquarters of the United Nations. By virtue of being the biggest hub of international organizations and staff, it is far better positioned to claim the mantle of "capital of the world."
And if we say there are three economic pillars to the world: North America, Europe and East Asia, New York is the indisputed head of one of those pillars. London faces a lot of competition in Europe that New York doesn't.
Canada, Australia, UK and New Zealand are 130 million people. That's about the population of Japan or Mexico. Not tiny, sure, but CANZUK is not some "Global Superpower" in the making. It has less people than just France + Italy.
Economically speaking here's Canzuk versus the European Union and the United States:
CANZUK - lead by London: $6,176,369m
European Union - lead by Paris: $15,960,388m
United States of America - lead by New York: $20,513,000m
Again, if London's claim to power is Canzuk, then that doesn't say much, since Canzuk is less than a third of America's economy.
And let's be honest, a lot of London's financial and economic growth came from the perception it was an international and open city. With the rise of Brexit, UKIP and nativism, the long-term prospects for London are murky. If "Little England" mentality continues to take root throughout the country, then London's long-term position is tenous. There is no way London can keep up with New York if it is only the hub for 65 million people - or even less if Scotland and Northern Ireland go their own way.
New York taps into the human capital and innovation of a continental superpower of 330 million people. London needs to remain "open" to the world for it to compete. If not, there's no way that London can maintain parity in the long-term. Unfortunately, Brexit looks to be the future of the U.K. and that will certainly be a boom for Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Madrid, but not London.
In terms of education, New York has Columbia University and Cornell University's 2nd campus - two ivies alone. The region also has Princeton University and Yale University, another 2 ivies. Within New York are also Rockefeller University, New York University, CUNY and dozens of smaller colleges. And lets not forget that a lot of those Harvard/MIT/Penn/Hopkins grads also wind up in NYC post-graduation.
There are actually two - albeit small - Smithsonians in New York City. That said, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Museum of Modern Art, Whitney Museum of American Art, the Cloisters, the Guggenheim, and American Museum of Natural History are all world-class museums. I do agree that British Museum and the National Gallery in London win on "star" attractions, then again the U.S. doesn't have the legacy of imperial plunder and looting that defined Victorian British foreign policy.
I agree that London is a world-class city, but I don't think the gap favors London at all. If anything what New York has accomplished without being a primate city or political capital is impressive, and the city is undergoing a renaissance today that is every bit as impressive as London's if not moreso.
Yes, New York is twice as dense as London when using city area as a whole and not taking into account the various large parks (at least 30% of London is green space). On the other hand, Paris is at least twice as dense as New York, but I doubt you (or anyone would) consider Paris as being more "global" than New York.
Someone posted on a different thread showing a document (though that document itself is no longer available it seems) containing data on pedestrian traffic on the busiest areas of certain cities. The data showed that London's Oxford Street was busier than New York's Times Square during all days of the week. It is expected that once the new Elizabeth Line opens to the public, it will even get busier.
And yes, London is densifying. Thanks to the green belt that has stopped London from sprawling since the 1950's and a population boom since 1991, London is building up. But, London will not tear up its historic fabric for that. Instead, just like what has already been mentioned, most of the growth will be on industrial wasteland.
As seen in the graph below, only 18% of the tall buildings being built or planned are in Central London. Almost half of the tall buildings are being built in East London where the Docklands area is. Most of it will be in the boroughs of Greenwich and Tower Hamlets as seen below.
IloveLondon, London is a fantastic city, but I don't think it does it justice to bring skylines into this.
Here are the numbers of buildings in New York vs. London by height - including U/C and Topped Out according to CTBUH:
300m+: New York has 19 supertalls, London has 1
200m+: New York has 108, London has 10
150m+: New York has 320, London has 31
100m+: New York has 932, London has 100
Since 2010, London has built or is building 8 skyscrapers over 200m. Since 2010, New York has built or is building 52 skyscrapers over 200m.
Just this year, New York will open 13 skyscrapers over 200m, 5 of which are supertalls.
London's growth is impressive, but New York is going gangbusters at the moment.
To put things in perspective, somebody posted a beautiful picture of Canary Wharf below. The tallest building in that picture is London's third tallest, One Canada Square at 236m.
If One Canada Square were in New York, it would be the 54th tallest building. Of the 53 buildings taller, 37 were built in the past decade.
In terms of London's East End Docks, here's what they look like today. The East End was always the poor area of London and back in the 1980's this area which is now full of skyscraper ansd financial services was a desolate eyesore and wasteland, with crumbling rusting disused docks.
IloveLondon, London is a fantastic city, but I don't think it does it justice to bring skylines into this.
I agree regarding skylines! I often roll my eyes when I read people judging cities based on skyline. That being said, you are mistaken with my intention as I did not intend to bring skylines to this discussion. My post was to point out that London is densifying while maintaining its human-scale character and that the bulk of this densification are in the suburbs -- that's it! And of course to show that London is densifying in a grand gangbuster way with hundreds and hundreds of hectares of land being redeveloped within its city limits.
I love New York, but I laughed when I saw a video about Hudson Yards on YouTube yesterday when someone mentioned that Hudson Yards is the "largest urban development project in the US". It barely compares to those large-scale developments in London.
I agree regarding skylines! I often roll my eyes when I read people judging cities based on skyline. That being said, you are mistaken with my intention as I did not intend to bring skylines to this discussion. My post was to point out that London is densifying while maintaining its human-scale character and that the bulk of this densification are in the suburbs -- that's it! And of course to show that London is densifying in a grand gangbuster way with hundreds and hundreds of hectares of land being redeveloped within its city limits.
I love New York, but I laughed when I saw a video about Hudson Yards on YouTube yesterday when someone mentioned that Hudson Yards is the "largest urban development project in the US". It barely compares to those large-scale developments in London.
You once said .... you live in San Francisco? But NEVER .... . Did I say you ~ N E V E R ~ mention or comment on SF?
I just wonder why you even live in the US and I still do not get using computer generated images? Over real photos.
I clearly understand loving London. But I just wonder as noted why in the US ......as even you commented best city is Honolulu. Because it is farthest front the US mainland and not North America.
I'm not getting why you chose the US unless a US citizen?
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.
