Best Cities

[ablarc]

VOTE FOR THREE

Joking aside, everyone agrees that Paris, NY and London are the three best cities in the world. Moreover, NY and London, given the unmitigated wealth that they're enjoying in connection with the financial market's boom, are building architectural masterpieces.

Well, there’s pretty broad agreement with londonlawyer on this. But after the top three, there’s room for controversy.

BEST CITIES 4,5 and 6.

Here’s a winnowed list of ten from which we might choose the next three:

Tokyo
Moscow
Hong Kong
Rio de Janeiro
Buenos Aires
Beijing
Berlin
Shanghai
Madrid
Mexico City

It’s unlikely most of us have visited more than four of these cities, but we’re pretty knowledgeable about urbanity on this forum, so our ratings might outweigh the next guy’s.

I somewhat arbitrarily stuck to cities with over 3-1/2 million inside city limits, omitting such great smaller big cities as Sydney, Budapest, Chicago, Rome and Singapore. And I included only cities with considerable worthy sehenswuerdigkeiten. That eliminated spots like Sao Paulo, Lagos, Seoul, Teheran and Calcutta. All cities on the list have subways, though that wasn’t a criterion for selection.

List above contains four Asian cities and three each from Latin America and Europe.

Vote for three.

.

[Stern]

Where's Los Angeles?

[antinimby]

It's not loved by the urbanists.

[ablarc]

City limit population isn't high enough.

Anyway, if I wanted to be catty I could say that in among this group it doesn't really qualify as a city.

[lofter1]

I've only to been to one on that list and, without divulging which one it is, there is NO WAY it would make the top 25 of any list ...

[lofter1]

Here's the ranking of Global Cities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city#Alpha_world_cities_.28full_service_wor ld_cities.29) from wikipedia ...

Alpha world cities (full service world cities)

12 points:

London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London)
New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City)
Paris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris)
Tokyo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo)10 points:

Chicago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago%2C_Illinois)
Frankfurt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt)
Hong Kong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong)
Los Angeles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles%2C_California)
Milan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan)
Singapore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore)Refer to Official GaWC LIST (http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/citylist.html)

Beta world cities (major world cities)

9 points:

San Francisco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco%2C_California)
Sydney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney)
Toronto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto)
Zürich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z%C3%BCrich)8 points:

Brussels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels)
Madrid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid)
Mexico City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_City)
São Paulo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A3o_Paulo)7 points:

Moscow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow)
Seoul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seoul)

[ablarc]

^ Their criteria:

"ranked cities based on provision of 'advanced producer services' such as accountancy, advertising, finance and law, by international corporations...

Note that this roster generally denotes cities in which there are offices of certain multinational companies providing financial and consulting services rather than other cultural, political, and economic centres."

Ergo: business oriented and not so central to the interests of this forum.

[Punzie]

Ablarc, do you want us to vote for the three we would most want to live in -- or the three we'd recommend to an urbane Wired New Yorker?:)

[Fabrizio]

For the art of living: If youve got lots of money, after NYC ,Paris and London... its Rome

Rome will never, ever, make an official best cities list. But IMHO if you understand what really gives "quality of life" "quality"... then its Rome.

No matter how wonderful Buenos Aires must be, how energetic and modern Tokyo, Shangai and Hong Kong, and etc and etc.... Ill take Rome. Meet me at the Tazza d'Oro alle 17.30... ciao.

[ablarc]

Ablarc, do you want us to vote for the three we would most want to live in -- or the three we'd recommend to an urbane Wired New Yorker?:)
Neither. In good faith, you can only make a recommendation if you’ve been there. And you’re free to fantasize for yourself on the basis of what you’ve seen, but you’d probably just as soon stay put.

No, this is for eternal verity. Truth seems to know Best Cities 1-3 are New York, London, Paris (though it won’t divulge their order!); it doubtless also knows the identities of Best Cities 4,5 and 6. It’s for us to guess what it’s thinking.


We all have criteria for judging big cities, and for most of us I think they’re mighty similar:

1. Dynamism. Ceaseless change marks New York or London. It makes them never fully knowable; ever arcane. It feeds our frenzy to keep abreast (as we strive on this board :p) Never a dull moment, they say, for the city never sleeps; it’s busy reinventing itself as a new version of … why, itself!. Of course.

2. Genius loci. …even as we applaud each city’s granitic unchangeability. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme. You always know where you are because you’re in a place with roots. Really, it’s always the same --and each of us its complaisant lover.

3. Limitless immensity.We can plunge Saturday morning into the city’s vastness, no thought to where we're headed --secure in its vast power to keep us entertained (and perchance edified). Saturday morning can turn into a lifetime.

4. Mystery. We know however assiduously we track its changes, we'll never know this infinitude through and through; just as we think we've gotten to the bottom of it, whole new trends and manifestations will have surged into the light. We love the mystery at its heart.

5. Cosmopolitanism. When we’re in the city’s spirit, we’re all its honorary citizens. But it also makes us citizens of the Cosmos. And to deliver our certificates, the Cosmos sends emissaries from its furthest reaches. Jews in big hats, jive-ass Islanders and pinstriped brokers; sleek supermodels, sisters of mercy, and fishnet ladies of the night.

6. Availabilities. You can always get anything you want (alas, even more). Some folks travel thousands of miles for that. Can I interest you in a plume from the last bird of paradise?

7. Fame and Fortune. For those who dare reach for it. You can be James Dean if you have what it takes. Or you can be George Soros. Or you can be John Gotti. But back home: you can’t.

Oh, and great cities have beautiful spaces, famous buildings, public transportation, diverse neighborhoods, venues for gourmandise, peculiar customs, iconic symbols, festivals and orgies, specialized occupations, bodies of water, unusual activities, inventive graffitistes, bohemians and artists, targets for Islamists, inventors of movements, plotters and subversives…


Punzi, did I have to tell you all this?

Oh, that’s right: you’re from the suburbs! :p (Cheap shot :red face:. Sorry, won’t do it again. :))

[ablarc]

No matter how wonderful Buenos Aires must be, how energetic and modern Tokyo, Shangai and Hong Kong, and etc and etc.... Ill take Rome.
Somehow I guessed you'd say this.

Wonder how I knew? ;)

[MidtownGuy]

I may take abuse for this, but I really don't think Rome can be number 4. What it does, it does very well, and it's beautiful, but it has things which prevent it from being on a list of my world's best. Dining choices are either Italian or Italian, the nightlife is definitely not what you would expect in a top world city, and other than the international tourists it doesn't feel as "worldly" to me as say Tokyo or Sao Paolo. The shopping was great if you like high end Italian labels(and I do), but I wouldn't say the shopping was eclectic. Then there's all that Catholic baggage constricting progressive thought.
A lovely town, but it can't be four. Hope Fabrizio and Lofter don't crucify me now.

[Fabrizio]

Actually Midtown, I think you are right on most points.

I look at it this way: when Im in London, I miss NYC and my mind constantly compares the 2 cities ...and NYC wins. Its just better in every way.

Paris is something different. Its on its own. Nothing can compare to it. No city.

Rome is something like that. You have to judge it another way. That architecture, the history, the people, the way they look...that away of doing things... some things just talk to your soul. Sorry, but HongKong, Tokyo, Shanghai, Berlin... are just not going to talk to my soul.

As far as the "Catholic baggage" goes... if you are talking on a social level...it in no way prevents progressive thought. Quite the contrary. Romans...Italians in general, are IMHO, more modern than most...quite sophisticated.. especially if you are talking about the middle class.

The good nightlife Rome BTW is private...in homes.

Its just ridiculous that Rome is not included in the above list.

http://www.travelandleisure.com/worldsbest/2006/results.cfm?cat=cities

http://www.concierge.com/bestof/readerschoice/top_cities/topcities_europe

http://www.amazon.com/Cities-Book-Journey-Through-Pictorial/dp/1741047315

From the above book: "the top 25 cities are: (1) Paris; (2) New York; (3) Sydney (4) Barcelona; (5) London; (6) Rome; (7) San Francisco..."

--

[MidtownGuy]

Rome is something like that. You have to judge it another way. That architecture, the history, the people, the way they look...that away of doing things... some things just talk to your soul.

I totally understand. And I do love Rome.
The above statement, for me, also describes Athens and the Greeks. The passion, way of life,history, physical (and mental) juxtaposition between East and West, they just soak into you. The negative things about Athens are being tackled. Although Athens through much of the 20th century suffered from the effects of a rapid explosion in population following the demographic transfer with Turkey, it has been in the midst of a remarkable transformation. Addition of excellent mass transit and driving restrictions in the center have started to relieve the infamous traffic and pollution, they planted half a million trees all around Athens, and the restoration of many buildings continues at a brisk pace. The beautiful beach area of suburban Glyfada is now a simple train ride away. The large number of immigrants living in Athens combined with the already spicy local culture is producing quite a dynamic brew. It won't appear on lists like this any time soon though, because I read somewhere that it takes about 30 years for the world image of a place to catch up with the new and fast developing reality. It's like that with New York I think- in some places that I've been, people still have this idea of New York from the 70's, like you have to grip your pocketbook and streets are covered in litter.

A word about Rio De Janeiro. The "Zona Sul" or south zone is truly stunning. The beauty of the physical setting, the people, the food, and the way of life are intoxicating. But the social ills are just so overwhelming right now that until some of the crime and murders are curtailed it can't be considered World's Best in my opinion. In the future, who knows.

Does anyone agree that Barcelona is worthy of honorable mention? Just not big enough?

[MidtownGuy]

oh, now I see Barcelona in your edit Fabrizio. Yay!

[ablarc]

Does anyone agree that Barcelona is worthy of honorable mention? Just not big enough?

If you dropped the size criterion to just "biggish", you'd snare Sydney, Barcelona, San Francisco, Rome, Budapest, Singapore, St. Petersburg, Chicago, Melbourne, Montreal ...

Drop the size a bit more, and you have Prague, Lisbon, Amsterdam ... on and on ...

You'd, however, start to lose some of the big city traits described in post 10.

.

[Fabrizio]

Rome is bigger than Paris.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_cities_of_the_European_Union_by_population _within_city_limits

[ablarc]

Rome is bigger than Paris.

Right, but Paris shares with San Francisco, Boston and Washington the trait of having very small municipal boundaries in a much bigger metropolis. The city-limit population of Paris is 100% urban and 0% suburban; you can't say that of Rome which fades out into commie blocks within the city limits.

I thought I could ignore Paris' small city-limit population and area, since it had already been safely stashed in the top three by you and others. It's really a very big city with a very small central administrative boundary. Some time back, London and Sydney were like that; they had core city populations of less than 100,000.

Most cities annex many of their outlying growth areas. Rome is such a city.

.

[Fabrizio]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVCuyrPk7P4

[londonlawyer]

Objectively, Tokyo, HK and Shnaghai are probably the 4th, 5th and 6th most important. In terms of 4th, 5th and 6th best, however, I think it's a tie between Rome, Barcelona, Madrid, Vienna, Munich and Amsterdam for 4th best. They're all awesome. After those cities, BA and Edinburgh are the 5th best, and Boston, SF and DC are tied for 6th.

[MidtownGuy]

^That is amusing Fabrizio. The guy is so precise and it seems I can remember seeing all of those gestures at least once. Thanks for the smile it gave me to watch.

[VdB]

My top 10:

01) New York
02) London
03) Barcelona (great city, should be in this poll and win it)
04) Rome
05) Paris
06) Amsterdam
07) Brussels
08) San Francisco
09) Toronto
10) Los Angeles

[Schadenfrau]

Barcelona.

[lofter1]

I notice that no one is coming to the defense of Mexico City ...

[Jake]

I would also nominate Frankfurt and Toronto, they might have a shot here.

[Punzie]

I notice that no one is coming to the defense of Mexico City ...

I did a little consulting work in Mexico City, and my experience there was very enjoyable, (although being fluent in Spanish had a lot to do with it). Still, I would never put the city in the "top ten" of choice.

Located in a valley, Mexico City has such severe air pollution and car congestion that driving in the city is restricted by license plate number. (There were no driving restrictions when I was there.) The middle and upper class ranks get around the driving restrictions by owning several cars. The city has the worst pollution of all the super-cities in the world:

http://www.sbg.ac.at/ipk/avstudio/pierofun/mexico/cities.jpg (http://www.sbg.ac.at/ipk/avstudio/pierofun/mexico/cities.htm)

Source: http://www.sbg.ac.at/ipk/avstudio/pierofun/mexico/air.htm


Mexico City smog and gridlock traffic:
http://photography.mojado.com/archives/Mexico_City_Traffic_050504.jpg

Source:http://photography.mojado.com/archives/2005/05/06/mexico_city_traffic.php



I won't go into the serious water and food situation there because visitors stick to the U.S.-approved hotel food, along with bottled and canned goods. Also, one way or another, people permanently relocating to Mexico City become physically acclimated to the water and food. Still, look at what they are putting into their bodies... :eek:

[Punzie]

Punzi, did I have to tell you all this?

You didn't have to, but it was very helpful, thanks. I had an idea of what you considered important, but I didn't know what you considered... less important.

I would put more weight on: *relatively* healthy environment, access to top quality medical care, political environment, and individual liberties. A huge factor for me in foreign countries would be women's rights.

[ablarc]

^ Those are likely to be issues only in cities not on the list, though China might be a little short on individual liberties for falun gong and others --but that's the country's problem, not unique to its three cities on the list. Health care? CIA sez USA 47th in life expectancy. Women's rights? Apply to Islamia or Africa.

How could a city from hell be even considered for the list? We're talking here about THE BEST, honey.

[Punzie]

If you want THE BEST, then junk this poll and get somebody to write one for you.

[ablarc]

^ Be my guest. :)

[Punzie]

^ Be my guest. :)

In very different ways, you and I are "extremists" on this topic; neither one of us could write a poll that would yield entirely accurate results. Some of the above members, however, appear to be "mainstream WNY" in their cities of choice. I'm taking into account what I've seen written in past topics as well. Any volunteers?

[ablarc]

By definition, you can't get "entirely accurate results" on an opinion question.

You can only get opinions; that's all that's sought.

[ablarc]

Tokyo, Hong Kong, Madrid, Berlin, Moscow after 18 have voted.

[Punzie]

I am retracting the word "entirely".:D I was using the word as a figurative colloquial, (as opposed to a literal "dictionary" term).

"Accurate results": I was talking about getting accurate results on the representation of the site members' opinions. (That is, the members who participate in your topic.) Capisce?

My stat-techie eye tells me that none of the "winning cities" are actually winners with statistical significance. The only one that might come near is Tokyo, though 11 out of 18 does quite cut it with confidence.

Humor me for a minute. Suppose I designed the same poll with the 7 rattiest cities in the world as options. Then I made the remaining 3 cities Dallas, Houston and San Antonio. When the poll closed, I could declare with close to 100% statistical confidence:

!!!!WIRED NEW YORK WAS POLLED, AND VOTED THREE TEXAS CITIES AS THE 4TH, 5TH & 6TH BEST CITIES IN THE WORLD!!!!


OK, it's extreme, (unless you're the average Texan), but the point is that you need to redesign your poll with a savvy member who is closer to the mainstream in travel tastes.

[ablarc]

... a savvy member who is closer to the mainstream in travel tastes.
Who might that be, what is "closer to mainstream travel tastes", and in your opinion what cities are likely to make their appearance as a result of such improvements?

Give us a demonstration (hypothetical, of course --but less so than your Texas example, which is a straw man).

The phrase "mainstream travel tastes" especially intrigues me, as the listed cities are major travel destinations, and I'm hard-pressed to come up with more mainstream ones. Am I missing something? Have I overlooked a recent surge of enthusiastic visitors to Lagos, Kolkata and Jakarta? Have I been asleep in a time capsule?

I think it's time for you to stick your chin out and get specific. Without hyperbole or absurdism.

[canguy23m]

Toronto should be one of those cities with 10 points.

It's got one of the 10 largest stock markets in the world (like Chicago), and has a similar population, has one of the 30 busiest airports in the world.

It is also home to some of the biggest banks in the world and some of the biggest insurance companies in the world.

if the 5 banks headquartered there merged they would form of of the 5 largest banks in the world. When comparing world metro areas the size of Toronto's economy would be 7th. If you want to look at economics, Canada is a G7/G8 country.

[antinimby]

When comparing world metro areas the size of Toronto's economy would be 7th.I am surprised by this one. I wanna see proof.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I doubt it.

It gets a little blurred when you talk about "metro areas" or "combined statistical areas," but the city of Toronto isn't in the top 20. Hard to believe factoring in metro would jump it to 7.

[ablarc]

It gets a little blurred when you talk about "metro areas" or "combined statistical areas," but the city of Toronto isn't in the top 20. Hard to believe factoring in metro would jump it to 7.
And even if it did, it wouldn't put Toronto in the first rank by this poll's criteria --any more than Los Angeles. Toronto lacks essential traits that quicken the heart.

Among Canadian cities, both Montreal and Quebec have more soul, though they're smaller.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Yes, city size (geographic/economic) is not relevant to the thread topic.

[ASchwarz]

I would nominate Istanbul in this short list of potential cities. Istanbul is certainly sufficiently large and important and has almost unrivaled history.

It's also quite beautiful.

[homeandaway]

Sydney 4 Eva!

[ablarc]

I would nominate Istanbul in this short list of potential cities. Istanbul is certainly sufficiently large and important and has almost unrivaled history.

It's also quite beautiful.
The best suggestion I've heard yet to augment the poll.

Poll only allows 10 choices. Which one would you eliminate?

[NYatKNIGHT]

Mexico City.

[Chi2NYC?]

no chicago = no dice. augment the list.

[ablarc]

Which one would you eliminate?
Mexico City.
Somebody voted for it.

[Punzie]

I voted for Mexico City, for slot #6, because of the incredible business opportunities I would have there. But it's not for everybody.:D

Furthermore, if San Francisco, Chicago and Barcelona had been on the list, I would have pushed Mexico City down to #9.

[pianoman11686]

Somebody voted for it.

Indeed, every city's gotten at least a vote by now.

Truthfully, I hadn't voted until today, and I had been thinking to submit Berlin as my city to eliminate. I was pretty shocked to see it third place in number of votes. Surely there are other European cities that are more worthy: Vienna, Athens, Budapest, Amsterdam, Rome. Even in Germany itself, I think Munich is far and away the better city.

[Turboff]

I think such a poll is really pretty pointless, because it's obvious that everyone has their own criteria for what makes a city great. I find it pretty funny, for example, that canguy wants Toronto included and yet all of his arguments are solely about business matters. My "best city" has to excel in more than just one category. I think Toronto sucks, for instance, having lived there for five years.

I also don't like how Fabrizio says New York is better than London in every category. Again, that's his personal opinion, and many would disagree. I think that New York has an advantage in that most people associate it solely with Manhattan whereas divisions are far less abrupt in other cities. The point that I am trying to make, of course, is that this is too subjective of an issue to have any real merit.

[lofter1]

Where in Indiana ^^^ do you hale from?

[Punzie]

I spotted him in the '500 three weeks ago.

[Turboff]

I currently live in Columbus, if that matters. I've been to New York twice, however, and I'm a big fan of Manhattan, in case you got a different impression from my post. In fact, it's the only city in the country that I've been to that I genuinely like.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I think such a poll is really pretty pointless, because it's obvious that everyone has their own criteria for what makes a city great.The poll is just a vehicle for discussion.

[kliq6]

Best cities in US are i

NYC
Chicago
Atlanta
LA
San Diego
Houston
Philadelphia
Miami

[londonlawyer]

Best cities:

1. London
2. NY/Paris
3. Tokyo
4. Rome
5. Barcelona
6. Munich
7. Berlin
8. Madrid
9. Buenos Aires
10. HK
11. Boston
12. Washington
13. SF
14. Chicago
15. Singapore

[ZippyTheChimp]

Read the first post before replying.

[MidtownGuy]

Rome is nice, but I would never put it all the way up at 4. Certainly at least Hong Kong should be above Rome. In Italy (and Sicily), Palermo ranks far above Rome in my book!
I just think Rome would need more international flavor to qualify...I get church-and-sculpture-fatigue really quick (and I'm an artist myself). Of course, I was further put-off by the absolute inconvenience of Rome. Walk 8 blocks, find a bottle of water. Walk another 8 blocks, find a bus ticket. Another 14 blocks and you might locate an internet point. Forget about the cabs, they'll cost an arm and a leg IF you can track one down...
I enjoyed Rome, but 4 days is plenty. I could never live there.

[pianoman11686]

Why does no one ever mention Vienna or Budapest? How about Prague or Amsterdam?

Some of these suggestions for 'Best Cities' seem way off-target.

[Turboff]

Amsterdam is one of my personal top 6 choices, and the other three you mentioned are on my dad's, but they're not on the list, presumably because their populations aren't "world class" and they're not in a country that is an international power house economically. With every other city in Asia seemingly cracking the 10 million mark, however, the definition of a "world-class" population will no doubt become skewed in the years to come.

[Punzie]

Amsterdam is one of my personal top 6 choices, and the other three you mentioned are on my dad's...
Your dad's? That's something a young person would say...
How old are you, anyway?:rolleyes::)

[londonlawyer]

Why does no one ever mention Vienna or Budapest? How about Prague or Amsterdam?

Some of these suggestions for 'Best Cities' seem way off-target.

Vienna is awesome. I thought that Budapest was not but not great.

[Turboff]

Your dad's? That's something a young person would say...
How old are you, anyway?:rolleyes::)

19, but I don't see why an older person wouldn't say that. It's simply to show that there are other people out there that like those cities.

[ablarc]

I thought that Budapest was not but not great.
Hard to decipher. Is there a typo?

[alonzo-ny]

Krakow, Poland is a nice city, and fun, although they hate english and me and some buddies almost got arrested one night.

[ablarc]

Krakow, Poland is a nice city, and fun, although they hate english...
Why?

They hate English people or the English language?

[pianoman11686]

Maybe just Brits?

Krakow is an amazing city, as hospitable and welcoming as any you'll find. They love tourists (especially Americans), and they're on track to become the next Prague.

Alonzo, would hating the Brits have anything to do with the vast number of Poles that have working visas in the UK?

[alonzo-ny]

Should have explained, many brits go for stag parties to eastern europe these days and get drunk and do stupid things. for example an english man was arrested and imprisoned in Slovenia for jumping into a fountain naked. Dont quote me but generally speaking english peoples attitudes abroad are worse than scottish. to make an analogy look at soccer fans. English fans cause riots and scottish fans (the tartan army) usually ends up mingling with the opposition fans and making friends with them.

[Punzie]

. . . generally speaking english peoples attitudes abroad are worse than scottish. to make an analogy look and soccer fans. English fans cause riots and scottish fans (the tartan army) usually ends up mingling with the opposition fans and making friends with them.
You may want to start a thread in Anything Goes about the attitudes of the English vs. the Scottish. You may even want to start a poll. (Then again, you may not, your choice.:))

In any case, please stay closer to the original topic. Thank you.

[alonzo-ny]

I made a statement

Two people asked questions

I responded

Thats the end of it, whats with the tight moderation? The thread isnt heading off topic, its not wrong to make a statement and answer a quick query on. I wanted to answer the questions but not start a new thread.

[Punzie]

I made a statement.
This is not an objective statement about the Scots vs. the Brits:
generally speaking english peoples attitudes abroad are worse than scottish. to make an analogy look and soccer fans. English fans cause riots and scottish fans (the tartan army) usually ends up mingling with the opposition fans and making friends with them.
It's a controversial opinion that is bound to be offensive to many site members from England. It has nothing to do with the topic and it belongs in a separate thread.

The "tight moderation" (as you call it) is because I'm tired of seeing nice people leave this site, or just view it as guests, due to inflammatory opinions in the wrong topics and forums.

[alonzo-ny]

opinion maybe, stereotyping yes but what i stated is FACT just not as a generalisation however i dont see the problem with answering the question i was asked, i just happened to put in an opinion as well. If this is how you are going to moderate you will have quit your day job moderating off the cuff comments like mine.

If you have objections to my 'offensive' comment i stated 'dont quote me' which i was suggesting it was my opinion.

[ablarc]

Punzi, ease up.

[Punzie]

If you have objections to my 'offensive' comment i stated 'dont quote me' which i was suggesting it was my opinion.
Saying "Don't quote me" does not give you carte blanche to give any opinion you want any time you want.

I wrote to you nicely and politely before, witness in bold:
You may want to start a thread in Anything Goes about the attitudes of the English vs. the Scottish. You may even want to start a poll. (Then again, you may not, your choice.:))

In any case, please stay closer to the original topic. Thank you.
Since being polite didn't work, I'll repeat it plainly:

You must give your inflammatory opinion of the Scots vs. the English in a new thread, or not at all.

Any more discussion of this subject on this thread will be deleted.

[Meerkat]

Saying "Don't quote me" does not give you carte blanche to give any opinion you want any time you want.

I wrote to you nicely and politely before, witness in bold:

Since being polite didn't work, I'll repeat it plainly:

You must give your inflammatory opinion of the Scots vs. the English in a new thread, or not at all.

Any more discussion of this subject on this thread will be deleted.


Rapunzel - Thanks for stopping this scots vs english rubbish - its all very boring. I come on here because i like New York, not to be constantly strereotyped, but please no threads on this subject - i've seen them before in other sites and it just gets very nasty.

Anyway, back to the ORIGINAL TOPIC, my favourite cities are:
London, Rome, New York, Paris, and Copenhagen. There are a few places i'm ambivalent about including Brussels and Berlin.The bottom of the list has to be Bombay, which is the most god awful i've ever been to, plus i got food poisoning there.

I've voted for Tokyo (never been but would love to), Berlin and Hong Kong (going there in 2 weeks).

[ablarc]

Anyway, back to the ORIGINAL TOPIC, my favourite cities are:
London, Rome, New York, Paris, and Copenhagen. There are a few places i'm ambivalent about including Brussels and Berlin.The bottom of the list has to be Bombay, which is the most god awful i've ever been to, plus i got food poisoning there.

I've voted for Tokyo (never been but would love to), Berlin and Hong Kong (going there in 2 weeks).
If you want to return to the real original topic --which was very BIG cities, you'd have to omit mention of Copenhagen and Brussels (and maybe even Rome).

[Turboff]

If you want to return to the real original topic --which was very BIG cities, you'd have to omit mention of Copenhagen and Brussels (and maybe even Rome).

Well, Rome and Madrid have nearly the same population. According to wikipedia.org, Rome has 5.48 million, Madrid 5.56. But yes, Copenhagen, Brussels, Vienna, and Amsterdam may be a bit too small among the other candidates with only about 2 million each (metro).

[clubBR]

New York
Seoul
Chicago
Honolulu

[ASchwarz]

Personally I think Rome, while of course beautiful, central to Catholicism and with amazing history, is somewhat overrated. It's a must-see for everyone, but it is not the most vibrant city even in Italy and its glories are generally well in the past.

I think Chicago is slightly overrated on such forums because of the emphasis on skyscrapers. I would take the more fine-grained neighborhoods and streetlife in Boston, San Francisco or Philly over Chicago.

Frankfurt is also overrated on such forums because of the skyscrapers. Berlin, Cologne, Munich and Hamburg are all much more interesting cities.

[ablarc]

Well, Rome and Madrid have nearly the same population. According to wikipedia.org, Rome has 5.48 million, Madrid 5.56. But yes, Copenhagen, Brussels, Vienna, and Amsterdam may be a bit too small among the other candidates with only about 2 million each (metro).
http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?p=172150#post172150





Btw, how does it feel to live in a museum of Modernist architecture?

.

[Turboff]

Btw, how does it feel to live in a museum of Modernist architecture?


To be honest, I think that Columbus is very overrated. Except for the downtown area and a few of the modernist buildings, the architecture is typical and the modernist structures are few and far between. And like most American cities except for New York, no one lives downtown so it's not at all lively. The most lively place in the city is the intersection into Wal-Mart, miles from downtown.

I'd much rather live in a "real" city like New York.

[Meerkat]

If you want to return to the real original topic --which was very BIG cities, you'd have to omit mention of Copenhagen and Brussels (and maybe even Rome).

OK i'll omit those then, but Berlin and Madrid are both on the list and they aren't what i would describe as very big cities- more medium sized.

[alonzo-ny]

Isnt the original topic 'best cities' not best big cities?

edit. on re-read the first post is kind of ambiguous on size "arbitrarily stuck to cities over 3.5mil" I think if we really want to talk about the very best cities we should discuss all without size restrictions, within reason. the smallest city in the UK only has pop. 2000

[canguy23m]

I doubt it.

It gets a little blurred when you talk about "metro areas" or "combined statistical areas," but the city of Toronto isn't in the top 20. Hard to believe factoring in metro would jump it to 7.


Without its metro area Boston would have a smaller economy and population than Calgary. When major cities grow most of that growth in economy and population occurs in area around the suburbs.

Sydney, Australia (the main city that's always quoted) is allowed to cover an area of over 12, 000 km squared without people having say oh that's the metro area. They just say that's the city. The city of Toronto only is what's quoted when you just look up cities and that covers 600 km squared. How is that fair ? In the 600 km squared Toronto has over 2.5 million people, but in the 7,000 km squared metro area it has 6 million people and a much larger economy. If you want it to be more fair and make Toronto 12,000 km squared big it would have over 7 million people giving it a population of Melbourne and Sydney combined.
In North America for some reason the cities are very small you have to look at them and their metro areas if you really want to compare them to cities in other countires.

[ablarc]

canguy, here by chance is a thread that discusses the very issues you bring up: http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14147.

I'd be interested to see you plug in the three numbers for Toronto (you can make an educated guess about contiguous urban population), and see where it falls on the spectrum.

[TREPYE]

Has MONTREAL ever been mentioned?? A lackthereof a huge population should not omit this, IMO, great city (1.5 million), even still it has a metropolitan area pop of 3.5 million. I am very surprized it didnt make the cut in this list. In terms of enrichment through architectural beauty, history, arts and a lively population it reminds me of NYC more than any other city I hav been to (definitely more than Mexico, a city in the list that I actually have been to). Also, like NYC it has a great park in the center, its very walkable and has fabulous waterfront.