New York is better than your city - deal with it

[YesIsaidYesIwillYes]

no message

[ablarc]

Yes,

Your question is sort of directed to a tourist’s view of reality.

You could say, however, that any city that is a good tourist destination is also a good city to live in. If you said that, you would have covered all major U.S. tourist destinations with a city name, except Orlando. But to visitors, the attraction in Orlando is not the city, or anything in it, but the City-sized theme parks that lie adjacent: Disney World, Epcot, Universal, etc. These places are boring and passé to anyone who lives in an actual city, since what they offer is a kind of edited urban experience (you are, after all, on foot). Parts left in: walking, crowds, attractions, people from other places. Parts left out: people living there, untrammeled free-enterprise, social agitation, spontaneous community celebration, the drama of reality, crime, anything unplanned or unexpected.

You pay admission for the edited experience. If you leave, you have to have your hand stamped, or pay all over again.

Most run-of-the-mill American places have this in common with the Orlando theme-park experience: the attractions are discrete destinations, with not much of interest between. You travel from one to another by car, and there is a parking lot conveniently located at each one. But in the best cities, the attractions, the destinations, are just the excuse to get you moving; the in-between is often at least as interesting as the destination. Or to quote pre-cruise-boat Cunard, “Getting there is half the fun.”

After a few weeks of living in Manhattan, you discover that you don’t really have to plan your Saturdays and Sundays; all you have to do is go out the door. Thereafter, the entertainment takes care of itself. On Manhattan’s permissive street grid, you just head in whichever direction seems most interesting that minute. You don’t have to know where you’re going, but if you find yourself outside the Metropolitan or McSorley’s, by all means go on in for a visit.

People tell me New York is a great place to visit, but they wouldn’t want to live there.

If they tested their theory, they might find that what they mean is that it’s a great place to live, but a pretty unforgiving place to visit. Most visitors who don’t know the ropes encounter petty crime, rudeness, scams, dirty bathrooms, a thousand urban
inconveniences that every resident knows how to deal with. Most New Yorkers who are not anesthesized are lifelong tourists in their own city.

I didn’t know the Midwest had mountains and a year-round warm climate.

[YesIsaidYesIwillYes]

ablarc-
that may be the most beautiful thing I've ever read...are you a professional writer?

[Clarknt67]

Hello, fellow michigander. I'm 11 years in the city, but originally from East Lansing (Okemos, really if you want to get specific).

I think there's an urban phobia that a lot of my friends in MI express, "oh it's so big! oh crime is so bad." And it's really not the reality when you live here, you carve out little corners that you call your own (maybe that's why so many NYers live their lives in a 10 block radius, they too fear the City is too big!) :shock:

I don't really like to pit one area over another. New Yorkers do so much looking down their noses at the midwest, and when I go home to MI I think, "I can see why people are happy here," I'd probably be bored quickly if I were to return, but I do savor the quiet, the stars, the open space, nature. Even the pace is nicer, 6 or 7 is a late night at the office, where it's typically lunch time for a new yorker. New Yorkers always must do things so grandly, but my midwestern friends are content to come over sit on your couch, watch TV and eat pizza & drink beer. Something far too plebeian for a new yorker, but far more intimate than a night having drinks at the W hotel and eating at the latest bistro.

But I loved retiring my car keys, and knowing the subway and the occaisional taxi were always available to take me where I want to go. And one does meet the most interesting people in NYC, artist, actors, singers, dancers, writers. There's more room to be specific in your life choices, so people can get very interesting.

And ablarc is right on target, what you want from a vacation experience is not what you want from a hometown. I mean, while the pleasure of roaming the Strand is amazing, I wouldn't really recommend that as a tourist activity (unless my guest was a book freak).

Although NYC does have many, many big ticket touristy things to do. And the world knows it, tourism IS one of our biggest businesses.

[Clarknt67]

Great place to visit, wouldn't want to live there:

Last time I visited LA I thought my experience typified that cliche. I felt the stereotype of the beautfiul, friendly californian was exactly what I met. Everyone was so pretty and sunny and friendly, happy to take me along to this party or that.

But I also felt that if I lived there, I'd be constantly frustrated by the "let's do lunch" cliche. I'd show up ready for a burger, and the californian would be off not remembering they'd even said it.

The living for the moment zeitgeist is ideal for vacation, but not so cool for everyday.

[Stern]

There is an LA law that traffic must always yield to the pedistrian, just to illustrate by example how different the two cities are. This also offers a reason why the driving and traffic is soo horrible, it's a circumstance of the lifestyle. While LA is my favorite place to visit I would quickly go crazy living there.

[normaldude]

Most midwesterners are awfully intimidated by NYC and think it's an ugly place because it doesn't have mountains or a year round warm climate.

I think your friends are the exception. NYC has been consistently the #1 place where Americans would want to live.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=399

[Clarknt67]

Most midwesterners are awfully intimidated by NYC and think it's an ugly place because it doesn't have mountains or a year round warm climate.

I think your friends are the exception. NYC has been consistently the #1 place where Americans would want to live.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=399

Well as a transplanted midwesterner, I can attest that while the original poster's friends may be the statistical exception, anecdotally they're not rare, my friends back in the midwest echo similar sentiments.

[Tonina]

Hello, I'm new to the board and thought I would add my thoughts. I hope I don't get flamed for being the voice of dissent.

I moved to New York City earlier this year and I absolutely hate it. I certainly wouldn't show New York to a foreigner or to any other American for that matter. Now my fiance just loves the city as do most of my friends, but for me the city is a terrible experience. I've lived in L.A., Mexico City, London and Paris and I would take any of them over N.Y. in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, due to work and personal reasons I'm confined to Manhattan for the forseeable future. For me the city is dirty, ugly, a pain to get around in, has terrible weather, and is full of individuals that have that smug 'I'm a New Yorker' attitude. And don't even get me started on that hideous New York accent. It sends chills up my spine everytime I hear it. Aside from the Museums, New York doesn't provide much that appeals to me. Just about everything New York has I've seen done bigger or better in other cities around the globe. But like I said, I know a lot of people who love it. It's personal preference. Personally, I just can't wait to move.

[Kris]

I wish you luck.

[STT757]

There are cities people visit for attractions like someone mentioned Orlando (Walt Disney World), then there are cities people visit more for the experience than any one single attraction, like NYC.

NYC is at the top of the "experience" destinations in the World, however it's also the largest and most sophisticated which can make it intimidating for folks from "Middle America" or from Europe, Japan etc.

If I knew someone who was not "City Savy" I would have them gradually get accustomed to "big city" life before coming to NYC, if you have never used any kind of Mass transit ever (you would be suprised how many) then you are going to be totally lost trying to navigate the NYC Subway system. The NYC Subway system is the only Subway system in the World with separate local and express platforms/levels, this will totally confuse the heck out of most people.

To get people used to modern American City life whether they are from Northern Kentucky or Switzerland I would recomend they visit a couple other US Cities to "get their feet wet".

Boston, San Francisco, Washington DC, Seattle.

Are big US Cities that are more visitor friendly, not because of people's attitudes but because they are "big Cities" that are easier to under stand and navigate than NYC.

If someone has never been on a Metro before I would recommend riding the Washington Metro before the NYC Subway, the Washington Metro is relatively new and really easy to understand and navigate. The NYC Subway System is it's own science, and people have been studying it for a long time (Subtalk) and still don't understand every aspect.

NYC is for "experts" or the brave, NYC has more to offer than anywhere else, but you have to be able to keep up because the City does not slow down.

[billyblancoNYC]

It's best that those who can't understand the greatness of a place leave it, b/c it's a shame to waste the experience.

Don't get me started on some replies...

[TLOZ Link5]

Tonina, most of the points you voiced about why you dislike New York are common, albeit irksome, experiences for many New Yorkers. Yes, sometimes the City can be dirty, confusing, and a bit too brash—and frankly, I love the New York accent, dying breed though it is, despite the fact I don't have one. If you don't like it, then no one is going to tell you that you have to; but it's still a great city if you can see past its shortcomings.

I've been to London and Paris, and I can see myself living in the former more than the latter because London just reminds me more of home. The whole time that I was in Paris it was rainy or overcast. Los Angeles, you must admit, definitely has its flaws, and Mexico City sure as heck does too. But if you love the place you live, love it with the same passion that so many New Yorkers do, then you'll learn to tolerate its imperfections if it hasn't been ingrained in you already.

Be to its virtues very kind, but be to its faults a little blind.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Your marriage is doomed.

(NY humor)

[Tonina]

Zippy I can appreciate the humor. We joke about that all the time. lol

[NYatKNIGHT]

It's okay not to like New York, indeed this hardened city is not for everyone. So Tonina, what can we say, it's a shame you don't get out of it the same things your friends and fiance do. But sometimes it's something other than personal preference. In many parts of the country, it is engrained in their culture to hate New York City, literally, in some cases, like the devil himself. I've met too many people who vow they will never ever come here, and they despise everything related to this city (accent included). My own sister-in-law (from the midwest) has never had anything nice to say about New York no matter what we show her - she and her family, like many of people I met when I lived in other cities, can't get over their prejudice towards New York. Their gripes sound similar to Tonina's.

[Tonina]

Well I would hardly say I came here with a prejudice. I'm used to living in large cities myself and I was really looking forward to moving here and experiencing life in the big apple. That's why I say it's just due to one's own preference. Hell, everyone in my family is from New York, I've heard nothing but good things about the place all my life. It's just not for me, that's all.

[krulltime]

Ok...I want to said why NYC is better than any other city I have been to. There are all kinds of ethnic restaurants that most cities lack. The metro is a great convinience once you figured it out. The lack of the use of a car...unlike other cities. A very walkable city with alot to do and see. Great art venues, Museums, Performing Theaters, parks, being surronded by Cool buildings and at the same time experiencing the openess of Central park, the improvement on the water front and the anticipation of new projects. Meeting people from all over the world. The list goes on...

I have been in Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San francisco, Mexico city, Buenos Aires, London, Toronto, Paris and many other cities.

Even though some areas might look dirty, overcrowed, dangerous, ethnically different, and the feeling of other uncomfortable situations...I think it balances out for me. :D

I love NYC and also millions of people as well.

[NYatKNIGHT]

Sorry Tonina, didn't mean to insult you. You're entitled to absolutely hate New York. It was just your dour description of the city, it reminded me of people I know.

So everyone in your family is from New York, and the accent sends chills up your spine? You wouldn't even show it to a foreigner, which sounds like you're embarrassed by it. That's what's most shocking - that you assume others would share your perception. You see the ugly, but not the beauty. That's....too bad.

If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere....

[Tonina]

No prob NYatKNIGHT, I didn't take any offense. I just wanted to point out that I wasn't one of those people who hate New York just for the sake of hating New York. I think you should approach things with an open mind and then if it's your cup of tea then great! If not, well there's not much you can do about it. As for my immediate family they really don't have the accent. My grandparents were born here and my parents lived here till they were in their early 20's. Then the clan up and moved to Cali where I was born. I'm certainly not embarrassed by New York. When I said that I wouldn't show it to a foreigner I meant that I think there are other cities that are more representative of America for me personally.

I can say one good thing about New York. The people are among some of the most friendly and helpful I've ever come across.

[NYatKNIGHT]

Cheers. No doubt some of New York's harshest critics are its residents.

[normaldude]

a pain to get around in

My experience is the exact opposite. NYC is the only US city where you don't need to own a car. NYC 24 hr mass transit & cabs, you don't have to drive in traffic every day, and you can just use 24hr car rental / zipcar car share when you need to drive out of town. Plenty of NYC millionaires don't even own a car. You won't find that in other US cities.

And for me, not needing to own a car is huge. Owning a car = change the oil, change the air filter, change the spark plugs, change transmission oil, change the tires, change the wipers, change brake pads, change timing belt, vacumn the inside, wash & wax the outside, bring in for annual state inspection, fix transmission, replace the muffler, fill tires with air, refill radiator fluid, buy a car, sell a car, arrange lease/finance terms, make monthly payments, find car insurance, pay auto insurance, pay for parking spot, buy gas, leave the car at the repair shop for a couple days to get something fixed ...What a waste of time.

Plus compared to other US cities, not needing a car can save you around $500/month. $150 for unlimited metrocard & a couple cab rides/week.. versus $600+ for owning a car (lease/insurance/parking/maintenance/gas).

[Tonina]

Hell, give me a car any day over mass transit. I think you have a great point with regards to the money you can save and the hassles you can avoid by not having a car but I'm sorry, the New York City subway system sucks. And when you really need a cab there never seems to be one around. There's nothing more unappealing than waking up in the morning and then having to walk blocks to a subway station where you have to push through crowds and sit with a bunch of strangers in a filthy environment. Give me a car and traffic any day.

[billyblancoNYC]

Hell, give me a car any day over mass transit. I think you have a great point with regards to the money you can save and the hassles you can avoid by not having a car but I'm sorry, the New York City subway system sucks. And when you really need a cab there never seems to be one around. There's nothing more unappealing than waking up in the morning and then having to walk blocks to a subway station where you have to push through crowds and sit with a bunch of strangers in a filthy environment. Give me a car and traffic any day.

What mass transit system is better? Also, there are over 12K cabs and over 30K livery cabs.

[Tonina]

Tokyo's system is much better, as is London's. Although, I'm not a fan of mass transit in general. As far as cabs are concerned, all I can say is that in my own personal experience there is never one around when I need it. They're either occupied, off duty or just non existent.

[Zoe]

Luckily the majority of people in NYC use mass transit, if not then we would have a gridlock 24hours a day and the city would grind to a halt. Until the day comes when cars are not destroying the environment and are smarter to offset the tens of thousands of people killed every year in car-related accidents... I'll stick with mass transit. I can certainly afford the luxury and privilege of owning a car, but my conscience cannot.

[Tonina]

Well mine can. To each his/her own.

[Kris]

I can't speak of Tokyo's system, but the Tube is not superior to the NY subway. It has sparser coverage, lacks round-the-clock service and direct trains, and is generally dirtier, more dilapidated and less reliable.

[Tonina]

I have to disagree with that. While it's probably true that the tube may not service as many areas it is much cleaner and better run than NY's. I was disgusted the first time I used New Yorks system, it looks like something out of some third world slum. London provides signs letting you know how long till the next train arrives as well as voice overs, the cars are well kept, there are plenty of guides to provide assistance to travellers and the general conditions of the stations are much higher.

[normaldude]

Tokyo's system is much better, as is London's.

No way. I've lived in both cities. Tokyo or London's subways don't run 24 hours. They're usually done by 1am.

And London's Underground/Subway breaks down constantly. On average once a week there would be a major holdup, and grabbing a cab to/from work was required. The problem with London's system is that they mainly ran on one track. So if one train broke down, the entire line was tangled up. In NYC, the subway lines generally have two tracks (local & express). So if one train breaks down, they can route the other trains around the problem.

[normaldude]

I was disgusted the first time I used New Yorks system, it looks like something out of some third world slum.

I agree that London's subway/underground system is cleaner & more modern than NYCs. But NYCs system is far more reliable (see my previous post) and runs 24 hours.

NYC is upgrading the subways. One by one, various stations are being renovated. And the last of the old "redbird" subway trains have been retired completely, while the new R142 trains with regenerative braking systems are about as modern as they get.
http://www.nycsubway.org/cars/r142.html
http://brooklyn.about.com/library/weekly/aa072200a.htm

[normaldude]

Give me a car and traffic any day.

There's no law saying you can't drive in NYC. The difference is that NYC is the only US city that you don't need to own a car. You have the realistic option of not owning a car.

[TLOZ Link5]

The subways had a bad two decades in the '70s and '80s, and the MTA is still working to repair the damage. When you have such an old system, upkeep is hard. Stations are currently being repaired, upgraded and renovated all the time, even though all too often the work progresses way too slowly. The real-time information displays for when the next train is coming are coming to New York, and all in all things are a lot better than they used to be. And the subways may be dirty, but they're very safe by any city's standards.

When I went to London the Underground stations and tracks themselves were pretty clean, but the trains were terribly cramped and the seat cushions often had gum stuck to them. There were no garbage cans (rubbish bins) in the stations for fear of a terrorist leaving a bomb in one, and even though they have staff to pick up waste I just felt guilty about dropping my garbage on the platform.

[Tonina]

Valid points. I'm suprised that New York hasn't banned trashcans in the subway for fear of bombs.

[TLOZ Link5]

Valid points. I'm suprised that New York hasn't banned trashcans in the subway for fear of bombs.

Hmmm. Good point.

[Jasonik]

In Boston all our subway trashbins were replaced with blastproof models following 9/11.

http://graphics.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/images/090302_security_2.jpg (http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/globe_stories/090302_security.htm)

[Kris]

Hard to believe the MTA hasn't taken this simple measure.

London provides signs letting you know how long till the next train arrives
Its only advantage I'm aware of. The Underground's neglect is glaring and acknowledged.

MIND THE GAP!... MIND THE GAP!... MIND THE GAP!...

[Jasonik]

Is displaying the next train ETA really that useful?

"Oh, I better not light this cigarette, the train is just a minute away."

(On cell phone) "Honey, looks like I'll be six minutes late."

(On cell phone to the MTA) "The schedule says the train is supposed to arrive at 8:21, but the digital sign says 8:24!"

[Tonina]

If the underground is neglected I don't know what you would call NYC's system. Abandoned perhaps? As far as the schedule listings, it's just a nice feature to have. As is the ready availability of internet access phones around London that New York is only now getting. Aren't they introducing 4 of them here or something? Sadly, I guarantee you they'll be vandalised or otherwise inoperable within a couple months in NY.

[TonyO]

Knowing that the next train is coming beyond hearing/feeling/seeing it would be useful. The DC train system is like that and I think its a great feature. NYC's train system is great, but antiquated in a lot of ways still - this is one of them. Another is that all trains are switched by people - nothing is automated.

[Jasonik]

Knowing that the next train is coming beyond hearing/feeling/seeing it would be useful. The DC train system is like that and I think its a great feature.

Useful....how? Great feature....why?

It think it makes people feel like they are acknowledged somehow, that their need to know is assuaged...even if by a computer.

Can you envision a scenario where I go into the subway station, see how long it will take for the train to get there, then think I'm better off taking a cab whereby I run back up to the street and hail one?

[billyblancoNYC]

This is just nonsense in an attempt to put down NY. Nothing is based on fact. The funny part is, this person also seems to think that NYC is only, maybe, midtown Manhattan.

[krulltime]

What are you all talking about???

Trains in NYC dont need to tell you when they are coming. They are for the most part on time and they come a couple of minutes apart for the most day. They are reliable in my experience.

Try to use the Philadelphia metro system one day and you know where I am coming from.

London should do the same thing instead of spending $$$ on stations.

[TonyO]

[quote]
Useful....how? Great feature....why?


Ever notice yourself rubbernecking looking to see when the next train is coming? This is a relief for this. DCs subway is a great example, you get very used to having the heads-up. Don't be so afraid of change...information is good. Eventually this will be incorporated..its inevitable.

[ASchwarz]

Tonina, you have a right to your opinion re. NY's subway system, but I honestly don't know how someone could prefer London. Did you ever ride outside London's central core? While most of London's main stations are renovated, few of the outer lines are in good shape. Ride any line deep into East London. There is no line in NY in such awful shape. I'm interested which lines you take in NY that are so bad.

London's system actually recruited the former director of NY's system to save London's rails.

NY is getting the electronic scheduling system. It's due to be installed in a couple years.

[Ninjahedge]

Ton, look at it this way: A lot of times the way a person is treated in an environment is due to their own perceptions and feelings.

If you start to look uncomfortable around someone with a NYC accent, I guarantee that person will probably not recieve it warmly.

OTOH, I would not be able to live in the city either. I am a suburban boy here, living in NE NJ all my life and working in NYC for most of my career. I recently moved (heh, 7 years) to Hoboken and found it a nice mix, albeit it troublesome in some of the very same ways.

But one thing I have found as I looked around the city looking for a place to live is that there are SO MANY different places to be. I had never been to Brooklyn Heights before. It is honestly the only place in NYC that I have walked through with my GF and SMILED at the prospect of living there.

I guess I would come down as a moderate in this then. I have lived in NYC (well, VERY close), LA (2 months, it was MORE than enough), Boston (again Suburb, but a VERY nice, albeit COLD and WET town) and found good and bad in all of them.

I would say NYC is a great place to live NEAR, but I don't know if I could stay here too long!!!

[Tonina]

I've only been to a small part of Hoboken but I loved what I saw. Great little place. I'm not a big fan of the Northeast in general, but Hoboken appeared to be a very liveable place. Some great little restaurants there as well.

[TLOZ Link5]

If the underground is neglected I don't know what you would call NYC's system. Abandoned perhaps? As far as the schedule listings, it's just a nice feature to have. As is the ready availability of internet access phones around London that New York is only now getting. Aren't they introducing 4 of them here or something? Sadly, I guarantee you they'll be vandalised or otherwise inoperable within a couple months in NY.

Awww, couldn't you give them a year, at the very least? :mrgreen:

[Tonina]

:twisted:

[Ninjahedge]

It is. The parking sucks and the government there is VERY biased and, um, "influenced".

It used to be the rats behind for a number of years, but in the last 10 prices on hosing has gone up 300%-400% and development is EVERYWHERE.

Warning also, there are groups of cops (they usually dont last long) in Hoboken that are repeatedly, um, inconsiderate to the people that live there being how they resemble all the "new people" that are coming in and drinking and partying too much. (I have had my fill with the drunken yuppies myself, but they are a small % of the population).

Oh, San Fran is also an AWESOME area, but you really need a car.

Kind of ironic that the most envirnmentally concious state in the union is the most dependant on automotive transport.

But if you liked Hoboken, go over to BH and see what I saw. A lot of nice small shops, bars and restaurants. NO grafitti, NO streetside vendors, and generally a nicer "feel" to it (trees and all).

North Park Slope is similar. (North east of hfdjshfjkfhk park (I forgot name)). But the further south you go, and the farther away from the park, the more it gets like the rest of Brooklyn/Manhattan.

Also, take a look at $$ land on the upper west side. I was almost crying when I saw that area. I think it just bothered me that it really was not opulent, it was just done right. And I knew that I either probably never would be able to afford it, OR if I could, I could get a KILLER house in the suburbs.

One final comment (sorry). If you have so-so impressions of NJ, it is certainly understandable. It is pretty much the buffer zone for NYC on most of its populated areas (including Newark, Patterson, Hackensack, etc).

But if you get out past the airport and head into places like Ridgewood (I would recommend there first), Oakland, Franklin Lakes, some areas of Wayne, Ramsey, Wykoff, Allendale, Upper Saddle River, and Mahwah you will see a NJ that most people never really hear of.

No toxic waste, no "what exit do you live on". Just nicely spaced areas not suffering from the urban sprawl or commercial over-planning of housing communities. that is being infringed on now due to the people moving out from the city that have NO concept of what a "yard" is. Even in the most opulent of areas in Brooklyn and Queens, a "yard" is the 20 feet out in front of your row house......

Sorry, I am rambling..

I guess what I am saying is no matter how much you have seen of this city, there are always places that will still surprise you. It took me 8 years to get to BH even....

[Zoe]

The PATH stations have a banner at the bottom of the monitors in each station that notify you how long until the next train and where it is going. This new service has received a ton of positive feedback. A few months ago the PA was quoted as saying how surprised they were at all the thankful letters. As ASchwarz said, the MTA has plans to do the same.

[emmeka]

I agree that London's subway/underground system is cleaner & more modern than NYCs.

Are you kidding me?!? Londons underground is the oldest thing you can still be allowed in. It was built after the industrial revolution for gods sake. nearley all the stations are cladded with ugly stained yellow tiles (with tacky pictures of sherlock holmes in some of them) and by god do they smell!!! Its like aprison down there.

The only good subway stations in london are the ones at canary wharf, designed by norman foster.

[normaldude]

Is displaying the next train ETA really that useful?

If it was displayed on the outside (street level), it could be really useful.

Late at night (3am), you want to head home. You walk by the subway station, and see a sign that tells you when the next train is coming. If it's only 3 minutes away, you probably go down, and hop on the subway. But if it's 20+ minutes away, maybe you just grab a taxi.

[normaldude]

I agree that London's subway/underground system is cleaner & more modern than NYCs.

Are you kidding me?!? Londons underground is the oldest thing you can still be allowed in. It was built after the industrial revolution for gods sake. nearley all the stations are cladded with ugly stained yellow tiles (with tacky pictures of sherlock holmes in some of them) and by god do they smell!!! Its like aprison down there.

The only good subway stations in london are the ones at canary wharf, designed by norman foster.

When I was refering to cleaner & more modern I was more focusing on:

1) The digital "Next Train ETA" signs.
2) The fact that NYC was still running old redbird subway trains until recently.

But on the issue of general station cleanliness, I honestly felt London's stations, on average, were cleaner. Not a big issue for me. NYC's subway's relaibility & 24/7 service was more important for me.

(Edit: part of my daily commute in London involved the newer Docklands Light Railway, so that might have subconsciously influenced my opinion of the cleanliness of London's mass transit.)

btw, on the issue of clean & modern, both London & NYC's subway stations look like total crap compared to Singapore's. Singapore's stations are incredibly clean, air conditioned, and they have glass walls separating the platform from the tracks (so people can't fall on the tracks). The trains pull up, and the trains doors open in sync with the platform glass doors.

[TonyO]

btw, on the issue of clean & modern, both London & NYC's subway stations look like total crap compared to Singapore's. Singapore's stations are incredibly clean, air conditioned, and they have glass walls separating the platform from the tracks (so people can't fall on the tracks). The trains pull up, and the trains doors open in sync with the platform glass doors.

Yes, Singapore. Maybe NYC can adopt a rule that if anyone spits or throws their batteries in the subway they can be flogged? :)

On second thought...that wouldn't work here.

[Kris]

Subway and Tube Compared (http://forums.wirednewyork.com/viewtopic.php?t=1321)

[czsz]

Those who defend the New York Subway often tend to focus on the geographical and temporal breadth of its service as well as its efficiency, but most outsiders' criticisms are more generally directed at its overall appearance. Step into a station in London or Washington to compare and the stations in New York, with their tracks covered in garbage, peeling paint on the walls, and bare I-beam support pillars begin to seem like laughable affairs.

London's Underground: bright, clean, open:

http://www.jadebunker.com/photos/london/tube-posters.jpg

http://www.cs.unm.edu/~aaron/images/europeweb/LondonUnderground-24.jpg

Paris, same deal:

http://www.nickladd.com/paris/metro/b/DSCN3300.jpg

http://www.pendar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Tube/Misc/4_ParisMetro.jpg

A train at a station in London. Note how the destinations and estimated arrival times of trains are displayed. Also note the fairly modern, sleek design of the train itself:

http://www.trainweb.org/subwaymark/transit/unitedkingdom/london/underground/Photos/lon-hr-jubilee02.jpg

Granted, there's a bit higher level of civil obedience there, allowing for such comparative luxuries as cloth seats:

http://www.route79.com/assets/images/090904-23.jpg

http://www.route79.com/assets/images/090904-22.jpg

Washington, in our own country, disrespectful as it is of the entire concept of public transit, has a system fairly comparable to those in Europe:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9f/Metro_station_dc_20031013.4.jpg

The trains in Berlin's U-Bahn even have television screens which display not only ads but useful information like the news and weather:

http://www.fuercho-gestaltung.de/bildseiten/images/suostscreen.jpg

New York subway: by comparison, rather dark and foreboding. I always wonder what those black spots on the platforms are. Trash, gum, and other products of human waste often seem to be worked into the surface. High volume the excuse? Paris and London are huge cities too with their own rush hours. In only perhaps a third of the stations in Manhattan do I see regularly cleaned platform floors...

http://www.photofactory.nl/images%20medium/New%20York/subway.jpg

http://www.nootrope.net/subway/Untitled-6.GIF

The caving ceilings and crud stuck in the walls can also be somewhat disturbing...

http://www.nootrope.net/subway/Untitled-8.GIF

http://de.geocities.com/nyc_rail/subway/BMT_Cortlandt-St.2.JPG

Even NY's own PATH is much better:

http://de.geocities.com/nyc_rail/subway/PATH_Cristopher.2.JPG

Of course, improvements have been made. Some stations have been painstakingly upgraded, but compared to the new lines in London, they've still got quite a ways to go. The means by which most people commute in the wealthiest city in the wealthiest country in the world ought to set the standard, not be embarrassed by it...and express trains (which I sorely missed living in Berlin) don't nearly make up for it.

[microserf]

Having been born in the Bronx, going through the school system, living in Queens, Flushing et all then moving to LI, going to Radio City Music Hall, seeing the Rockettes, going to Macy's/Gimballs for Christmas, going to see the tree @ RC. I had an idyllic life, and memories through rose colored glasses.

Having done jobs out there @ the Javitz, staying in some nice hotels, the imagery to me is still one of wonder and amazement about the city. Yes, its different seeing the city from 4 feet off the ground hanging onto your mom or dads hand/coat tails vs. tooling around in a rental or a taxi hitting the vodka bars w. your current paramour of the moment, but the feeling is still there. :)

To me, I truly believe in the lyrics "if I can make it there, I'll make it anywhere" because my folks did it. My childhood friends are doing it. There is a lore, there is a mystery, there is a challenge.

Only "major" cities I've lived in were Atlanta (5 yrs) and San Francisco (5 yrs) since college. Known entities? Yes. Get pretty much anything and everything one could possibly need? Check. On par w. the level of sophistication, history and awe that New York exudes every second of every day? Don't bet on it.

.02 cents.

Speaking of the NY accent. I had to lose mine. When we moved down to the Sunshine state, not only did I look different, I got the comments of "why do you talk so funny?" from my cruel classmates. I adapted accordingly. :)

[JCMAN320]

I love NYC. Being born and raised in Jersey City right across the river from Manhattan and across the harbor from Brooklyn, I love everything about the city. People hate it for many unfounded reasons. I guess to appreciate everything the city has to offer you have to be an urbanite. I know many people that I go to college with and they don't like the city because its not squeaky clean like there overly steralized like their suburban and country lives. Another complaint I find is the sirens. lol. It's so funny when there like I couldn't sleep last night and I'm like why and they go becasue of the sirens and cars outside my window. LOL. I look at it this way you don't like the city then get the hell out the last thing the city needs is people like that who complain over every little damm thing. Also I go didn't you come to the open house and see what the city is really like? Usually the ansewer is no they think the city is like Manhattan, in other words LALA Land so it should be cool they really don't know what city living is REALLY like. A lot of people make the 4 outer boroughs and surrounding areas to be all like Manhattan and the city they see in Friends and Sex in the City. Its really quite funny LOL. Sorry rambling.

[alex ballard]

Cheers. No doubt some of New York's harshest critics are its residents.

Which is why it's always on the top of it's game.

However, take note how lots of people will say they hate the city, but will never leave, or if they do, will always identify themsleves with it.

[JeffreyNYC]

The subways had a bad two decades in the '70s and '80s, and the MTA is still working to repair the damage. When you have such an old system, upkeep is hard. Stations are currently being repaired, upgraded and renovated all the time, even though all too often the work progresses way too slowly. The real-time information displays for when the next train is coming are coming to New York, and all in all things are a lot better than they used to be. And the subways may be dirty, but they're very safe by any city's standards.

When I went to London the Underground stations and tracks themselves were pretty clean, but the trains were terribly cramped and the seat cushions often had gum stuck to them. There were no garbage cans (rubbish bins) in the stations for fear of a terrorist leaving a bomb in one, and even though they have staff to pick up waste I just felt guilty about dropping my garbage on the platform.




Not to mention that there is NO air conditioning in the London tube. Try riding that in the summer!
I'm no advocate for the MTA mostly because it is filthy but if I had to choose, the NYC. subway system is more efficient that London's tube.

[MikeKruger]

generally, public services , like the Tube in London have a much better appearance in Europe than in the US.

however, with the rabid immigration that is occuring there, I have a feeling those countries will become shabbier looking than the US by far.

[Scraperfannyc]

Lived in NYC for one year. Never felt as though it was home. Always felt like a tourist. People are hard to talk too on the street. Yes, all you have to do is walk outside and entertainment comes your way. But air quality is horrible, weather is typically too cold or too hot year year round bad weather, there is no scenery, and NYC lacks the elegence and beautiful architecture of Euorpe. NYC is mostly square and tall buildings, but not much elegence.
My conclusion:
I like to visit NYC, but I do not want to live there. I prefer CA cities with year round good weather, outdoor events and activities all year round, healthy life styles, and happy and more relaxed people. It's just more fun!!!

[Ninjahedge]

The main problem with NYC is it's impatience.

It is very tolerant to a lot of things, but if something does not fit, or seems out of place, the city does not go out of its way to welcome and incorporate it.

It is such a conglomeration of different styles and peoples that is unmatched in all but the most select of cities around the world, and it is a real great place to be in and around if you find your niche.

BUT, if you do not find it, or you have any one of a number of pet peeves such as space, crowding, noise or the like, then you are SO out of luck.


Me, personally, I love NYC, but I live OUTSIDE of it. I live in Hoboken, and the city is just a short ride or swim (jk) away.

I do not like driving through the city, and the mass transit, albeit hot and disgusting in some places, is one of the most extensive in the world.

I am amazed, however, about the insular nature of NY. The fact that people are willing to walk 5 min to a train, wait 10 min for the next one, ride it for 5 more and walk an additional 5 then to just walk to the place they were going to in 15-20. People build their own little world within a 10 small block radius and everything outside that seems to be another town to them.

And you see that when you walk through the city. I was amazed at the different feel to the city under the Queensbourough when I was playing softball there the other day. And there is always the Villages (east and west) and a miriad of other smaller subsets even within these "zones".


I don't know, I am starting to ramble on this, all I know is that NY is a great place to be around, but so many people are so unaware that there is a lot more to see sometimes than what is around you. And others do not realise that some of the things THEY see are the result of their own feelings and treatment of the people around you.

If you scowl at a bunch of people at a subway station, don't expect them to get out of your way when you are trying to get in, but every once in a while someone will help you catch your scarf blowing away in the wind, or hold a door open for you.

It all depends on how you look at it.

[NYCResident]

From NYTimes.com

The Superlative City? Let New Yorkers Count the Ways, in Almost Every Language

By SAM ROBERTS
Published: June 19, 2005
Deriding the elitist 19th-century notion that there were only 400 people who really counted in New York City, O. Henry credited "a wiser man" - the census taker - with a "larger estimate of human interest," which he memorialized in fiction as "The Four Million." Though enormous as New York must have seemed then, his four million of a century ago have doubled to more than eight million. More than ever, New York today is a city of superlatives.

But just how big is it?

So big that convening the region's largest American Indian gathering in Brooklyn, of all places, this weekend was not as incongruous as it might seem. The 11th annual Gateway to Nations powwow is being celebrated in the original homeland of the Canarsie Indians at Gateway National Recreation Area in a metropolis that, modern census takers estimate, is home to more American Indians than any other city with a population of more than 100,000 in the United States.

So big that New York has more Yiddish speakers (they outnumber the American Indians) and more who speak Spanish, Urdu, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese and English, and more people who identify their heritage as Italian, German, Scottish, Nigerian or Swiss than in any big American city. It has more who claim Irish ancestry than any city in the world except Dublin.

More people born in Pakistan, France, Greece, Israel, Lebanon, Ghana, New Zealand, the Dominican Republic and almost every other country (except, primarily, Cuba and Mexico), live in New York than in any other city in the country.

New York even ranks first in the number of people who describe themselves as having been born at sea.

The city also has more lawyers, doctors, teachers, security guards, construction workers, firefighters, railway workers and more people who work in arts and entertainment than any large city in the country and more people employed in manufacturing. It does not lead in agriculture, although the city, with 1,464 workers in related fields, ranks a respectable 10th nationwide among cities whose residents say their occupation is farming, fishing or forestry. New York has more students enrolled in every grade, from kindergarten through graduate school; more who have not graduated from high school and more with doctoral degrees.

The city also ranks first with more people in every age group (including about 540,000 under age 5 and 121,000 who are 85 and older).

New York has more people than any other city in the United States who do not own a car, and who car-pool to work or take public transportation, including taxis and ferries; more who ride their bicycles or walk to work, and more who work at home. San Francisco edges New York in the number who say they commute by motorcycle.

More New Yorkers live in jails, nursing homes, college dorms, mental wards and religious quarters - like convents - than in any other city, according to the latest Census Bureau figures.

A few of those numbers might be statistical anomalies, of course, especially since the census relies largely on self-identification. For example, there are undoubtedly a lot of American Indians in New York, but the total is probably inflated by some Asian Indians who also consider themselves American and described themselves that way - incorrectly by the government's definition - on the census forms.

With so many superlatives, no group categorized by ancestry or age or birthplace abroad or occupation or degree of education dominates, because, as Theodore Dreiser once wrote, New York "is so preponderantly large."

New York has more than twice as many people as the nation's second biggest city, Los Angeles. New York is home to more people than the next four top-ranked cities in population: Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia and Phoenix, combined.

Which means that in every category, each separate New York superlative is subsumed by the biggest superlative of them all: The Eight Million.

[NY_Yankees_1979]

LOL how can NYC be better than my city when I live in NYC..actually I live in the Bronx but it's still NYC..and I agree NYC=greatest city in the world.

[estryker]

oh - the london/new york comparison is too much for me to resist chipping in, here . . . .

The subway wins out on a couple fronts - it runs all night, it has more frequent stops, it is close to street level (so transfers take less time in most cases), it is more reliable at present. Its disadvantages? The unbearable heat on the platforms in the summer, the sheer filth, inconsiderate behavior on trains, horrible screeching turns, and a couple other things . . .
The tube's positives are rather extensive - very clean, sleek design, there is a high level of orderliness (a cultural thing, yes - but also because of CCTV and staff everywhere), regular tidying up of the station, smart card ticketing for all london transport (including overground, bus, tube, tram, and light-rail), the driver-less light-rail on elevated tracks is among the most innovative systems in the world (and offers amazing views of my present neighborhood). The major problem with the tube and British rail is that the Victorian rail infrastructure is ailing and the government waited a bit too long to begin to carry out the necessary repairs. They are doing that now, and within a few years' time, the problematic lines (primarily the District, Circle, and Hammersmith&City lines) should be up to German, French, Dutch, and Scandanavian standards . . . and the MTA, then? Well, they'll probably still be trying to find the gumption to actually build the 2nd Avenue subway. . .

The thing is - put the New York transit system up against any other U.S. transit system and it clearly wins out (covers more territory, is more frequent, removes need for car for so many more people, etc.). Even D.C., Philly, and Boston leave too many pockets of their metro-areas underserved, in comparison. Only Chicago seems to be up to par.

But if you put the New York system up against a number of West European or Japanese transit systems and you simply have to acknowledge that it is not run as well as it could be, maintenance is poor by comparison, and it seems perpetually incapable of completing capital construction projects.

Now, I'm still not sure if that makes New York a "better city." But a dynamic public transport system is certainly one component of a good city. In my case, both New York and London are "my city" and I see the good (and bad) in both of them . . .

European cities are definitely on the rise, though . . . as is the global economy . . . So, I really think it is time for New Yorkers to put down the old "We're the best city" / "New YorK: capital of the world" mentality. It is really getting a bit dated, guys, and, well, it really was always hideously arrogant to begin with . . .

[nick-taylor]

Not to mention that there is NO air conditioning in the London tube. Try riding that in the summer!
I'm no advocate for the MTA mostly because it is filthy but if I had to choose, the NYC. subway system is more efficient that London's tube.Actually there is air conditioning in some stations, eg on the Jubilee Line where Platform Screen Doors ensure the environment is enclosed away from the tracks. Generally though the majority of the underground lines don't have air conditioning....but temperatures are kept cool in another fashion: the trains themselves. How does this work? Well as anyone who has been on a deep-level platform will know, the shape of the tunnel and the train forces air from the platform into the tunnel in front of the train which is then pushed into the next station. Essentially the entire network acts as a very large air conditioning unit, just without the added wasted heat. In other stations where it gets even hotter, the idea of taking the water that gets into the tunnels and pump it around the tunnels is currently being planned.

That said, Summers are mild and although it can get hot on some days, air conditioning would really be needed for maybe 3 weeks every year and that doesn't make economical sense.

Depends how you define efficiency, the London Underground is more punctual and accidents and crashes are less common in London. Factor in that all stations across all of London (ie 600 stations) now have electronic display boards and Oyster is being gradually brought into use at all stations the system is generally more advanced, even though its the oldest network on the planet. The state of the stations and higher rate of crashes in New York could probably be attributed to the lack of time given to maintain the 24hr network. London on the otherhand shuts down for several hours and is backed up by what is probably the largest bus network in the developed world, New York doesn't so this limits its options.

[MrSpice]

Those who defend the New York Subway often tend to focus on the geographical and temporal breadth of its service as well as its efficiency, but most outsiders' criticisms are more generally directed at its overall appearance. Step into a station in London or Washington to compare and the stations in New York, with their tracks covered in garbage, peeling paint on the walls, and bare I-beam support pillars begin to seem like laughable affairs.

Of course, improvements have been made. Some stations have been painstakingly upgraded, but compared to the new lines in London, they've still got quite a ways to go. The means by which most people commute in the wealthiest city in the wealthiest country in the world ought to set the standard, not be embarrassed by it...and express trains (which I sorely missed living in Berlin) don't nearly make up for it.

Great pictures! How can anyone even compare New York subway with any subway system in Europe. I have lived in New York for 11 years. I have been to many European cities. All of the subway systems I saw in Europe (Paris, Vienna, London, Prague, Moscow, Madrid, Barcelona, and more...) and all of them were far superior to New York subway.

With all due respect, New York subway is terrible: the service is bad, the stations are mostly dirty and dark. It looks old and tired. If our politicians had guts, they would privatize the subway and hire some other company (instead of MTA) to run it.

[Fabrizio]

I´ll take the NYC subway over London´s anyday.

The fact that the NYC subway is so close to the surface of the street is a huge plus....it makes the difference to me. Hot, dirty, noisy...yes....but going down, down, down to those London trains is suffocating to me. They feel claustrophobic....scary.

[MrSpice]

I´ll take the NYC subway over London´s anyday.

The fact that the NYC subway is so close to the surface of the street is a huge plus....it makes the difference to me. Hot, dirty, noisy...yes....but going down, down, down to those London trains is suffocating to me. They feel claustrophobic....scary.

For most people (I would guess, 99%), clean, convenient and pleasant to use are more important factors than being close to the surfice. Not to mention many aeras in Queens and Brooklyn where the subway runs above the surface creating quite a bit of noise down below. And those views of roofs covered with graffiti make it even worse...

[Fabrizio]

I´ll take "close to the surface". Thank you.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/23/newsid_2547000/2547639.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kings_Cross_fire

[czsz]

The New York subway has had its share of similarly sensational disasters, particularly on the els, which once every couple decades tend to see a catastrophic derailment.

The fact that New York's stations are closer to the surface often means that one just winds up waiting longer on a dark, dank, crudulent platform without air conditioning (no, London's don't have it either, but the further underground one is, the cooler, and the summers in London are nowhere near as oppressive). Deeper stations have also given London the excuse to pay for escalators at many stations, as opposed to the narrow stairways of street-entry New York stations.

[nick-taylor]

The majority of London Underground stations are either above ground or in trenches. probably 40% of the stations are deep-level and even then these can be reached quite easily. For its age and size its one of the safest large networks on the planet, safer than Paris and New York for instance.

Old sub-surface
http://images.nycsubway.org//i23000/img_23789.jpg

Modern at-ground covered
http://images.nycsubway.org//i12000/img_12460.jpg

Trench
http://images.nycsubway.org//i12000/img_12563.jpg

Train-shed sub-surface
http://images.nycsubway.org//i12000/img_12561.jpg

Old cut and cover
http://images.nycsubway.org//i12000/img_12544.jpg

New deep level
http://images.nycsubway.org//i23000/img_23679.jpg

Open-air
http://images.nycsubway.org//i12000/img_12398.jpg

Reconditioned deep-level
http://images.nycsubway.org//i12000/img_12373.jpg




Yes there have been some horrific accidents over the years, but most of these problems have been ironed out, for example no wooden escalators Pits dug under the tracks at platforms to allow people (if they were to fall) to stay under the tracks if a train were to come in. PSD's of which no New York Subway station has, then there are the electronic display boards dotted across every sation to keep updated of any situations either on the line or on other parts of the network. Then lets not forget the significant number of CCTV cameras on platforms, within the station complex and on trains to ensure if anything does happen, a correct response can be made to ensure nobody is hurt or if they are hurt, that they are given the appropiate attention.

Also you'd have more to be concerned about with New York, what with there being more crashes. In a study between the two systems it was found that over a five year period for both networks, 21 people died on the London Underground and 126 died on the New York Subway, ie 6x more fatalities. Still feel safe about being close to the surface now because it doesn't seem to make you more 'safe'!

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_localtrans/documents/page/dft_localtrans_504022.hcsp

[Fabrizio]

Cz: "The New York subway has had its share of similarly sensational disasters, particularly on the els, which once every couple decades tend to see a catastrophic derailment".

For instance? Please post the deaths from these "similairly sensational disasters" (See below.) Thank you.

Considering the history of fires and bombings... combined with the cramped un-air conditioned cars (smaller than NY) and it´s super deep tunnels....I´ll take NYC.

This is psycological.... I do admit that. Just as there are far fewer deaths flying on a plane, than riding on a highway.... I, like many others, feel nervous on the plane, not in the car. Same for me with London´s underground.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4661059.stm



"The three train bombings, with a total of 39 dead, constitute one of the deadliest incidents in the peacetime history of the London Underground, with more casualties than the King's Cross fire of November 1987 (31 dead), but less than the Moorgate tube crash of February 1975 (43 dead) ....."
"The London Underground has been targeted by bombers before. In February and March 1976, the Irish Republican Army (IRA) left several explosive devices in the tube network. On 4 March 1976, eight people were injured by a bomb in Cannon Street; 11 days later, nine people were injured by an explosion at West Ham tube station. Seconds after that incident, the driver of the train was shot dead when he attempted to pursue the fleeing bomber. Two more devices found at Oxford Circus and Wood Green stations were defused."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings

[czsz]

It's a bit callous to argue the Underground is fundamentally less safe due to the bombings. Everyone knows they could just as easily happen in New York, and numerous attempts have already been foiled. If anything, London was lucky to have such an advanced and extensive CCTV system to help identify the suspects.

[Fabrizio]

*sigh* Straw man alert.

[czsz]

I really think the straw man is yours. Explain why the London Underground is somehow more vulnerable to bombings than the New York subway.

[nick-taylor]

Fabrizio - I know you don't like London, but there are sometimes when you just have to give up. You go on about being below ground is bad...what about being above ground in the dozens of skyscrapers throughout New York? Thats just as bad, as was shown by 9/11 - it doesn't matter if you're stuck 100m above or below ground: if something goes wrong they are both screwed up situations to be in.

Yet you go on about the London Underground somehow being unsafe because of its deep-level when you'll be very unlucky to be killed on a London Underground train compared to New York, where the threat is 6x larger. Yes the New York Subway carries a few more people, but not 6x more and the London Underground is longer with trains attaining higher speeds between larger distances between stations.

Fatalities over a 5 year period
London Underground: 21
New York Subway: 126

What is annoying also is that your constant attention about London detacts away from the point that 6x more people are killed on the New York Subway. This distraction moves peoples' attention away from something far more serious and something that needs to be looked at.

You should feel nervous in the car, because there is a higher probability of being killed or killing someone else in a car than you have of being in a train or plane crash.

[Fabrizio]

Are you guys able to read?

I wrote: "This is psycological.... I do admit that. Just as there are far fewer deaths flying on a plane, than riding on a highway.... I, like many others, feel nervous on the plane, not in the car. Same for me with London´s underground."

Furthermore in my original post to Mr Spice, I write: "The fact that the NYC subway is so close to the surface of the street is a huge plus....it makes the difference to me. Hot, dirty, noisy...yes....but going down, down, down to those London trains is suffocating to me."

Note the use (2 times) of the words "to me".

Mr Spice answers with:

"For most people (I would guess, 99%), clean, convenient and pleasant to use are more important factors than being close to the surfice. "

I do not dispute what he says and I don´t try to convine him of anything. I reply with some links and the words "I`LL take "closer to the surface. Thank you"

I find the super deep tunnels of the London underground, it´s tiny cars, it´s lack of airconditioning, it´s long, long escalator rides.... as well of it´s real history of catastrophy and death.... enough to make the whole experience unpleasant for me.

Got it?

I´ll take the subway.

[nick-taylor]

Fabrizio - You go on about a history of catastrophy and death....yet it is New York that is the city which has 6x more fatalities....not London.

Also not all of the London Underground is deep-level, perhaps only 30-40% is. 20% is probably above-ground (ie on viaducts or at grade), while the rest is sub-surface.

I'd add also that only the Bakerloo, Central, Jubilee, Northern, Piccadilly, Victoria and Waterloo & City Lines are small-tube trains (and even then they are tall enough to stand in unless you're 7'). The Circle, District, East London, Hammersmith & City and Metropolitan lines are tube trains similar in size to that of normal trains, ie similar to those that New York use. Infact the deep-level trains are possibly one of the greatest inventions ever considering how much of a normal train has to be condensed into them and they date back to 1890 - before any other city had even begun sub-surface lines!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/London_Underground_subsurface_and_tube_trains.jpg/800px-London_Underground_subsurface_and_tube_trains.jpg


Irrational fear are the two words you're probably searching for.

[Fabrizio]

Nick Taylor: I´m still waiting for you to back up your clams in other threads with stastics.

In the meantime your latest is: "New York that is the city which has 6x more fatalities."

The latest figures that I find from the UK´s Department of Transport are the following:

Injuries/millions pax: London 3.52 NYC 3.14

Fatalities/ 5 years: London 21 New York 126

None of the above are qualified. Are suicides counted as fatalities? Is slipping and falling on to the tracks? If there is a danger, which city is best to deal with it? Which system is easier to escape from in case of a terrorist attack or fire? I wouldn´t want to be in one of those London underground super deep tubes....that´s for sure.

Remember too: the NYC subway is open 24 hours a day. Has 5,800 cars compared to London´s 4,000 (perhaps that´s why NYC´s seem so much less crowded..... even though the NYC system carries more passengers: London 1 billion NYC 1.3 billion. And has way more stations: London 275 NYC 468

I freely admit from the beginning that my fear is psycological.

Or perhaps I prefer the NYC subway because it´s in.... New York. On that count, the London Underground is at a deep disadvantage...

[nick-taylor]

Fabrizio - I do have a life which unfortunately means I don't have the necessary time to respond to your points within the same day; I also view different posts here with differing priorities of response. ;)

They may well include suicides, but what does that say about New York - that far more people can't hack it in New York and thus kill themselves? Hell there could be multiple serial-killers on the New York Subway just pushing people onto the tracks....is that more comforting? :D

Also in London, the deep-level tube tracks have ditches underneath the tracks for two reasons:
- People that accidently fall onto the tracks can stay under the train while it passes overhead
- Remains of the people that do commit suicide are pushed down into the ditch instead of being blasted all over the platform


You can see the difference between the tracks and the ditch in this photo:
http://images.nycsubway.org//i12000/img_12655.jpg


Again, the London Underground has numerous escape tunnels. Fact is 6x more people die on the New York Subway than the London Underground. Yet the New York Subway is not open for 6x more hours each day, it does not carry 6x more passengers and it does not have 6x more stations. Oh and the London Underground is longer by route km and will grow by another 20km by 2012.

Interestingly the largest heavy-rail network in London isn't the London Underground but the Network Rail lines that cover areas of London that the Underground doesn't. In total there are 1,196km of route km across 600+ stations within the political boundaries of London - the largest or second largest network in the world alongside Tokyo.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I like London, but I'm starting to hate it.

Nick, your incessant booster-ism many be having a reverse effect. Instead of turning all these threads into a Something vs London pissing match, why don't you start a webpage. You can call it London's Shit Doesn't Stink. Link to it in your profile, and we can all visit and sniff around for ourselves.

[nick-taylor]

ZippyTheChimp - How is it boosterism if someone claims something to be a fact when its clearly the opposite! I merely set the record straight....I don't start it.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I wasn't referring to this thread in particular - just posted it here - but across several. Taken in total, it's like being forced to listen to a pile-driver.

Any particular reason you hide your online status? I thought Marksix was the paranoid one.

[Ninjahedge]

Nick, if you woudl get the figures on death and see how many that is we might get a better idea.

How many were caused by the system and how many were caused by people pushing, running down the stairs, or other things.

Also, are we talking hundreds of people here, or 5 a year? It is great to say "6X more people" when the difference might be 5 people total!


And although I do agree wih some of the statements you are placing, youar brow beating everyone in the process. A lesson I have learned in life is that it does not matter if you are wrong or right about something if you alienate everyone in the process of proving it.

[Dynamicdezzy]

nick, unfortunately this did become a pissing match. Fabrizio did say it was psychological. and no matter how many more deaths NYC subway has over London underground (whether its 1,000 to 1) he was simply stating why (to him) he felt safer. And that in no way shape or form reflects the true quality and efficiency of London's underground system.

[krulltime]

I like London, but I'm starting to hate it.

Nick, your incessant booster-ism many be having a reverse effect. Instead of turning all these threads into a Something vs London pissing match, why don't you start a webpage. You can call it London's Shit Doesn't Stink. Link to it in your profile, and we can all visit and sniff around for ourselves.

I feel the same way... I used to respect and like London alot... Maybe though about spending time there... but then came along nick-taylor hammering on that London is better than NYC thing (like in other threads) which is getting very annoying... Which makes me feel like I have to choose between London and NYC. Ofcourse I will choose NYC since this whole website is dedicated to NYC.

[nick-taylor]

ZippyTheChimp - And its been the exact same case in all threads. I don't start the threads, nor do I start inaccuracies. If you want to stop me putting the facts right, target those that come up with the inaccuracies in the first place.

What is wrong with using the 'hide online status' option? What relevance is this to proving your point?




Ninjahedge - If I had the appropiate figures at hand I would have used them, but unfortunately the only figures I had were those listed.




Dynamicdezzy - But that is an irrational fear that has no substance in reality and that is the point I am making - not that everything is rosy, but that this is something that is different. I mean look - the guy went as far as to point out the worst accidents on the London Underground, but can't accept that the probability of dying on the New York Subway is far higer in relation to the London Underground. This guy clearly has a chip on his shoulder about Britain, yet when he went on about ancestoral-Brits being cave-dwelling peoples nobody bats an eyelid, despite the fact that the world's tallest building (and first to be built higher than the pyramids) had just been built!




As for these 'used to like London, now don't' bandwagon comments....these are utter bull - I don't even live in London, nor am I a Londoner! I thus find it funny how because of me correcting people and style of debate, that the opinions of some 7.4mn people changes in an instance..... :rolleyes:

[Fabrizio]

Classic Nick:

"But that is an irrational fear that has no substance in reality"

I said it was psycological.

"but can't accept that the probability of dying on the New York Subway is far higer in relation to the London Underground."

Please post where I say that. Thank you.

"yet when he went on about ancestoral-Brits being cave-dwelling peoples"

Please post where I "went on" about "ancestoral-Brits being cave-dwelling peoples"

BTW: Any 8 year old could read that thread and understand the humour....but it all goes over your head.

[ZippyTheChimp]

BTW: Any 8 year old could read that thread and understand the humour....but it all goes over your head. This collection of threads could be a Monty Python skit.

The Ministry of Monotone Tourism, across the hall from the Ministry of Silly Walks.

[ZippyTheChimp]

What is wrong with using the 'hide online status' option? What relevance is this to proving your point?
It was a joke, more directed at Marksix, given the two of you are on opposite poles about security vs privacy,

I hope at least he gets a chuckle out of it.
Any particular reason you hide your online status? I thought Marksix was the paranoid one.

[krulltime]

I dont think someone posted this article before...


California and New York City Most Popular Places People Would Choose to Live, According to Harris Poll on States and Cities in the U.S.


Maybe it is the sandy beaches or perhaps the warm weather, but California, Florida and Hawaii are respectively the #1, #2, and #3 states that U.S. adults would choose to live in if they could live in any state in the country.

And when it comes to Americans’ choices for cities, while the West may again be overrepresented, the ‘Big Apple’, New York City, comes in #1 for the sixth consecutive time as the U.S. city people would choose to live in or near.

These are some of the results of a nationwide Harris Poll of 2,339 U.S. adults conducted online by Harris Interactive® between July 12 and 18, 2005.

The next most popular states in which people would like to live are Colorado (#4), New York (#5), Arizona (#6), Oregon (#7), Texas (#8), North Carolina (#9), and Tennessee (#10). Since Harris Interactive last asked this question in 2003, there has been surprisingly little change in the top 15 states. Oregon moves from #11 to #7, Virginia drops from #9 to #12 and Tennessee re-enters the top 15 after falling out of the top tier in 2003.

One interesting thing to note is that eight of the 15 states are in the West and six of them are in the South. New York is the anomaly, representing the mid-Atlantic region, and there are no states from the Midwest or Northeast in the top 15.

Favorite U.S. cities to live in

Following New York City’s lead as a top U.S. city people would choose to live in or near, the next four cities are all in the West – San Diego (#2), Las Vegas (#3), San Francisco (#4) and Seattle (#5). The Midwest makes the list with Chicago at #6 and rounding out the top 10 are Denver (#7), Honolulu (#8), Atlanta (#9) and Portland, Oregon (#10).

Returning to the list of the 15 top cities this year are San Antonio at #14 and Nashville at #15. Nashville has not been in the top 15 since 2000. Interestingly, since Harris Interactive last asked the question in 2003, the cities from Florida that were on the top 15 list (Orlando, Tampa and Miami) have all dropped off, perhaps related to the 2004 devastation that occurred in Florida as a result of hurricane Ivan.


http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=593 (There are charts in here)

[Fabrizio]

"New York City, comes in #1 for the sixth consecutive time as the U.S. city people would choose to live in or near."

Gee.... does Mike W know about this?

Does FoxNews?

And look! Faggy San Francisco at number 4.......

and granola-munching, monorail-worshiping, gay-rights-preaching, church-shunning, flannel-wearing, book-devouring, vegan-dining, obsessively recycling, salmon-protecting, pinot noir-sniffing, latte-sipping, war-protesting, bluer-than-blue-voting Seattle at number 5!!!!!

---------------------

[krulltime]

Over a year old but is a good read...


The town of the talk


http://www.economist.com/images/20050219/0805SU8.jpg


Feb 17th 2005
From The Economist print edition

WANDER into “Avenue Q” at Broadway's Golden Theatre and you can see the best current incarnation of an old New York favourite: a musical about the town that invented musicals. The show features a group of young hopefuls who are, for now, consigned by the city's high rents to a fictitious street in an outer borough. If today's twenty-somethings could afford a Broadway ticket, they would be nodding appreciatively.

The story is also true to life in another way, which it may not have intended. Some of the characters are people, some are humanoid glove-puppets, and some are green or covered with hair. The real New York is not quite as ethnically diverse as that, but it is getting there. In the 1990s, immigrants flooded into New York in greater numbers and from more countries than ever before. The city's population has reached an all-time high of 8.1m, and a higher proportion of its people—over 36%—are foreign-born than at any time since the 1920s. Los Angeles and Miami have an even larger proportion of immigrants, but New York's are far more diverse. Over half of Miami's new arrivals are Cuban, and over 40% of Los Angeles' are Mexican. In New York, the Dominican Republic provides the biggest chunk of immigrants, with a share of 13%. China comes next with 9%, then Jamaica with 6%. No other country has more than 5%.

The impact of these multifarious new New Yorkers is easily summed up. They saved the city, and they are helping to rebuild its neglected neighbourhoods. In the disastrous 1970s, New York lost 10% of its population and more or less went bankrupt. Without the influx of some 780,000 foreigners in that decade, things would have been much worse. And ever since then, immigration has helped New York to avoid the decline that beset most of America's other big old cities. Now immigrants make up 43% of the city's labour force, including over a third of its workers in finance, insurance and property, over 40% in education, health and social services, more than half in restaurants and hotels, 58% in construction and nearly two-thirds in manufacturing.


Up and coming


When The Economist last surveyed New York, in 1983, it said the city needed to strike more of a balance between rich Manhattan at its core and its four partly decaying outer boroughs of Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx and Staten Island. Manhattan is still enormously wealthy. The residents of just 20 streets on the east side of Central Park donated more money to the 2004 presidential campaigns than all but five entire American states. But many of the most wretched neighbourhoods of 20 years ago—in south Bronx, central Brooklyn and Harlem—have seen a remarkable renaissance.

Most immigrants live in the outer boroughs, two-thirds of them in Queens or Brooklyn, where they build businesses and often homes. Flushing in Queens, whose population is now nearly two-thirds immigrant, is a striking example. Poor and virtually all white in the early 1970s, the place is now Asian and flourishing. Across the city there has been a boom in housing construction. From the start of 2000 to July 2004, permits for about 85,000 new units were issued, almost as many as in the whole of the 1990s. And nearly half of all new housing in the past seven years is reckoned to be occupied by immigrants or their children.

New York is once more where the young want to go, whether it is to take up a high-paying job on Wall Street, to study, or to vegetate on Avenue Q whilst figuring out which of the city's opportunities to aim for. New York University is now the most popular in America, according to a survey of college hopefuls by the Princeton Review in 2004. Its number of applicants for undergraduate courses more than doubled from 1995 to 2004. More graduates from America's top business schools go to New York than to any other city. For the less well-heeled, a little creativity may be required to pay the rent. At a subway stop on 57th Street, a student busker plays the “Godfather” theme with her saxophone held sideways like a flute, to accommodate a well-twirled hula-hoop. The effect is a pleasing vibrato.

The city is bubbling with more conventional attractions, too. After a renovation project that cost $858m, the Museum of Modern Art unveiled its new building in November. It hiked its admission charge from $12 to $20 but is packed. A couple of weeks earlier, Jazz at Lincoln Centre opened its concert spaces, run by Wynton Marsalis, a jazz trumpeter, in the angular twin towers of the new Time-Warner Centre (TWC) at Columbus Circle. The TWC is the headquarters of Time-Warner, but also houses a shopping mall (the first real one in Manhattan, which is causing shudders), some of the most expensive apartments in New York and two restaurants where it would not be hard to spend $1,000 on dinner for two.

Worlds away downtown, countless cheaper joints are jumping. According to Moby, a techno musician who owns a vegetarian restaurant on the Lower East Side, ten years ago there was nowhere in the area for bands to play. Now there are if anything too many venues. With at least 850 bars and clubs all over the city, the competition can be fierce.

One big reason why New Yorkers have been able to rescue their neighbourhoods, attract people and smarten up the city is a dramatic fall in crime, which began in the 1990s and continues apace. Once notorious for its threatening streets, graffiti-covered subways, drug-addled hobos and general air of menace, New York today—as its businessman-mayor, Michael Bloomberg, rightly never tires of saying—is the safest big city in America. Now that New Yorkers are comfortable lolling on the sidewalks, eating outside and moving around the city, the trend is self-reinforcing. They have reclaimed their streets.


Street smarts


Rudy Giuliani, who was mayor in 1994-2001, is usually given the credit for transforming the city with his introduction of “zero-tolerance” policing. He did indeed demonstrate that crime can be driven down and kept down. He showed that the city was manageable, which was a great legacy to leave. But the conquest of crime did not happen quite as New Yorkers think they remember it. The virtuous cycle was started when David Dinkins, a black former mayor who is now rarely credited with anything, raised taxes to hire thousands more police in 1990-93 and crime began to drop. And it was Mr Dinkins's police commissioner, Ray Kelly—now back in the job again under Mr Bloomberg—who began the campaign to stamp out windscreen-washing “squeegee men” and other minor annoyances before they turned into something nastier. It helped, too, that the city's crack-cocaine epidemic was ending anyway in 1991.

From the late 1960s to the early 1980s, films showed the world that New York was steeped in sleaze and violence. The image of the city portrayed in “Midnight Cowboy”, “The French Connection”, “Death Wish”, “Taxi Driver” and “Fort Apache, the Bronx” took time to fade. But in the 1990s three yawningly peaceful sitcoms broadcast a very different picture of the city, supplanting menace with safer kinds of urban adventure. They were tinged with just enough hedonism and cynicism to attract young people without risking their parents' disapproval. The three are “Friends”, in which nothing happens, “Seinfeld”, in which even less happens, and “Sex and the City”, where plenty happens, but usually to someone else.

“Sex and the City” stars four young career women and is ostensibly about the difficulties of finding a man in New York. It has a point. According to an analysis for The Economist, there are 93 men to every 100 women among single New Yorkers aged 20-44. In the country as a whole, and in most other big cities, there are more young single men than young single women. What the programme mostly shows, though, are the joys of chatting, shopping and going out to glamorous places. The six young friends in “Friends” are poorer and don't have quite the right invitations. They hang out together, discuss who is hanging out with whom, then hang out some more. “Seinfeld” is about a self-satisfied comic who occupies himself by being mildly witty about the trivial frustrations of urban living and his eccentric neighbours.


Volume, mass and destiny


All three programmes show New York as essentially one big conversation, which is why they reflect and sell it so well. For this is the town of the talk—a town of irrepressible boosterism somehow combined with deprecating and ironic Jewish humour, of endless argument and opining, of making deals, exchanging ideas and remaking lives through meetings that seem pure chance but are inevitable given the city's buzzing density. Manhattan's confined grid of streets packs together not only the 1.5m people who live there but also 2.4m jobs, and the lion's share of the city's huge number of visitors. As the capital of the nation's media, it is the place where America talks to itself. Most of the news networks and late-night talk shows, the two almost-national quality papers, the news weeklies and the book publishers are here. Discourse and intercourse—in the broad sense of that word—are the essence and the comparative advantage of New York. This survey will argue that the jobs which thrive here are those that require or exploit the interaction of people jammed together.

Yet density brings a small risk of great danger. New York is a strikingly healthy place to live, and was so long before Mr Bloomberg began to wage a war on smoking in 2002. Partly because there is no room for many cars—so New Yorkers are highly unlikely to be killed by them, and take more exercise—New York has the lowest mortality rate of all but three of America' s 46 biggest cities. But, as the journalist and author E.B. White pointed out long ago, the highly concentrated splendour of New York also makes it a tempting target for any “perverted dreamer” with the power to “loose the lightning of annihilation”. With what now seems like chilling prescience, in 1948 he wrote:

A single flight of planes...can quickly end this island fantasy, burn the towers, crumble the bridges, turn the underground passages into lethal chambers, cremate the millions. The intimation of mortality is part of New York now: in the sound of jets overhead, in the black headlines of the latest edition.

Three-and-a-half years after New York's blackest headlines, the island fantasy is evidently far from ended. Jobs are growing (just), Wall Street bonuses are up, and last year there were more visitors than before the attacks. But then the numbers killed were not the millions White envisaged; he was thinking of nuclear bombs.

Leave out the passengers and crew on the aeroplanes that were flown into the World Trade Centre, and about 2,600 people were killed in New York on September 11th 2001. Put that tragic number in perspective, and you can perhaps see how it is possible for New York to be a powerful magnet for talent, youth and energy once more. In 1990 there were 2,290 murders in the city; last year there were 566. Thus even if a September 11th were to occur every other year, the city would by one measure be quite a lot safer than it would be with crime at its 1990 level and no terrorism.


Copyright © The Economist Newspaper Limited 2006.

[estryker]

"New York City, comes in #1 for the sixth consecutive time as the U.S. city people would choose to live in or near."

Gee.... does Mike W know about this?

Does FoxNews?

And look! Faggy San Francisco at number 4.......

and granola-munching, monorail-worshiping, gay-rights-preaching, church-shunning, flannel-wearing, book-devouring, vegan-dining, obsessively recycling, salmon-protecting, pinot noir-sniffing, latte-sipping, war-protesting, bluer-than-blue-voting Seattle at number 5!!!!!

---------------------

i hope that homophobia was ironic. :mad:

[krulltime]

Yeah... I hope it was a mistype and he meant 'Foggy San Francisco' (cause many times it is foggy in that city) instead of 'Faggy San Francisco' (cause there is a big gay commnunity there) Cause the latter is not a very good word to use.

[ablarc]

^ Oh, come on guys, lighten up.

[krulltime]

;) Let me post this here aswell...


In record numbers, city's residents say they `love' New York


BY KIRSTEN SCHARNBERG
Chicago Tribune
Mon, Dec. 26, 2005

NEW YORK - Everyone has seen them: the "I heart NY" T-shirts that tourists buy on their first visit to the Statue of Liberty or Times Square or the Empire State Building.

It turns out that New Yorkers themselves should be wearing the upbeat - if uncharacteristically unstylish - apparel.

A long-running poll that gauges New Yorkers' attitudes toward their frenetic, often maddening metropolis recently found that 61 percent "love" their hometown, the highest percentage in poll history. "This is an honest-to-God love affair, not just a casual affection," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute in Connecticut, which has conducted the poll since 1994.

Just four years after the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center, when many predicted that hundreds of thousands of residents would flee New York and that those who stayed would never feel quite the same about a place now universally seen as a terrorism target, the poll found that just the opposite has occurred.

In addition to the 61 percent who say they love the Big Apple, another 22 percent say they "like" New York. Fifteen percent have mixed feelings, and only 2 percent describe their feelings toward the city as "dislike" or "hate."

"Why doesn't that 1 percent of haters just move back to Boston?" Carroll quipped.

The numbers have not always been so rosy for New York.

In 1999, just 46 percent of residents said they loved their city. Even more stark: When asked in 1994 how satisfied they were with "the way things are going in New York City today," just 3 percent said they were "very satisfied." That number in the latest poll is 19 percent, with another 56 percent saying they are "somewhat satisfied."

New York has long been a place that some outsiders love to hate. The people are too rude, they say. The pace is too hectic. The prices are too out of control.

Indeed, there have been years when even the most devoted residents of America's largest city had a hard time disagreeing with some criticisms - in the 1970s when the city almost went bankrupt, in the 1980s when crime was sky high and in the 1990s when the cost of living soared. In fact, at the turn of the millennium, the average cost for a home in Manhattan topped $1 million.

But a stunningly successful 1977 advertising campaign - the launch of the "I heart NY" slogan - has proved to be a timeless refrain among even those New Yorkers who occasionally grow frustrated with the place they call home, who critique it and its leaders, who grumble about pollution and who put up with disruptions like last week's three-day transit system strike.

"Listen, New Yorkers are realists," said former New York Mayor Ed Koch, who was elected to the post the same year the advertising slogan was introduced. "They know New York is not the most architecturally beautiful - that's Paris. They know it's not even the most interesting - that's London. They know it's not the cleanest - that's probably Chicago. But what distinguishes us is the electricity of New York."

Yet electricity alone can't explain the numbers found in the latest Quinnipiac poll. Electricity might lead to lust - passionate, short-lived lust - but not the deep love that 61 percent of residents profess.

The breakdown in the numbers also reveals that feelings for New York spanned gender, ethnic and political boundaries. Fifty-seven percent of Republicans and 62 percent of Democrats said they loved the city. Sixty-one percent of whites, 55 percent of blacks and 66 percent of Hispanics felt the same. Fifty-seven percent of men said they loved New York, compared with 64 percent of women.

"What's interesting is that this is a cross section of people both ethnically and socioeconomically," said Stanley Renshon, a New York psychoanalyst and professor of political science at the City University of New York. "This is not just Donald Trump saying he loves New York. It's Mr. and Mrs. Jones. It's Mr. and Mrs. Gonzales. It's Mr. and Mrs. Ling."

So from a psychoanalyst's perspective, what about a place can make people feel so strongly for it that they describe their feelings with a word often reserved for only the most important things?

Sept. 11 certainly plays a part, Renshon said. They love a city that has endured, a city that has persevered.

And, paradoxically, the very difficulties associated with life in New York - the struggle of finding a cab during rush hour, the sharp-elbowed sidewalks, the constant racket from the streets when trying to sleep at night - make people love it, the doctor said.

"That whole `If you can make it here you can make it anywhere' song lyric," Renshon said. "They take pride in making it every day, and that makes them feel good not only about themselves but about the place."

But most of all: New York seems to be a city on the rise.

The weekly wage of workers in Manhattan rose 5.8 percent in the first quarter of 2005, according to the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. The city has had nearly a decade of declining crime rates, and the number of homicides has been more than halved since the early 1990s. Drug dealers and porn shops are no longer the staple fare of Times Square.

"This used to be a pretty rough town to live in," Renshon said. "It's no fun to worry that you can't get back to the bus stop after work without getting mugged. But people see how much safety has improved, how the economy is doing, how much the city has been cleaned up. They love a place that is clearly trying so hard to be better."

At a little street stand on Canal Street, in the heart of New York's teeming Chinatown, Mei Liu was selling the famous "I heart NY" T-shirts earlier this month. It was a cold day and she did not have many customers, but she folded and refolded her wares, making the display orderly and appealing.

"These are very nice shirts," said Liu, 36. "It is a very nice city. My life is better here than it was in China. My children's lives are better."

As Liu spoke, two taxi drivers nearly collided on the corner. One began screaming obscenities at the other. Liu just laughed.

"Most days, very nice city," she repeated.


© 2005 KRT Wire and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.

[Ninjahedge]

Yeah... I hope it was a mistype and he meant 'Foggy San Francisco' (cause many times it is foggy in that city) instead of 'Faggy San Francisco' (cause there is a big gay commnunity there) Cause the latter is not a very good word to use.


JESUS CHRIST!!!

Have you guys even read the entire thread, or were you all waiting for him to say something YOU could object to!

HE WAS BEING SARCASTIC AND IRONIC!!!!

He was using all the labels that neo-cons use as disparaging to describe areas that people around the world just voted as the places they all wanted to live in or around!

"Not a very good word to use". SHEESH! :rolleyes:

[krulltime]

^ YES... I understand what he was trying to say... I apologize to Fabrizio if he thinks I was been defensive.

[lofter1]

ironmike: You dug up that post by Tonina (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/search.php?searchid=184978) from 2.5 years ago!

Chances are this one has left the city and the forum, so don't be expecting to get the explanation you're seeking from the horses mouth.

[moogyboy]

You guys don't need to convince me. While I've had my eyes vaguely set on moving to NYC ever since college, I think it was my girlfriend (incidentally, from New Jersey) who has succeeded in convincing me what a colorless dump Columbus, Ohio is. I actually loathe my city now—if there's any one reasonable-sized city that NYC is absolutely 100% better than, it is my hometown, from what I've seen. Especially for one of an artistic-creative bent like me. Right now, except for a few bright spots, this place is a vanilla dungeon.

I admit, I'm still rather sensitive and defensive when my gf disses my town--it may be a $#!thole, but it's my $#!thole--and the fact that she has to live here, but ultimately I have to agree with her.

(Now I just worry that I'm going to be too old to get the full experience by the time I can make save up enough cash to actually move there. Is, say, 35 or 36 too old to make the move? Stupid question, I know...)

cheers

Billy S.

[moogyboy]

...what a colorless dump Columbus, Ohio is.

Colorless, that is, except for

SCARLET

and

GREY

It's gotten to where I want to throttle someone every time I see that color combination, or hear some moron shout "Go Bucks!" And I'm an OSU alum. Gotta move, gotta move, gotta move...

cheers

Billy S.

[amaluu729]

There's no law saying you can't drive in NYC. The difference is that NYC is the only US city that you don't need to own a car. You have the realistic option of not owning a car.

Not true. You don't NEED to own a car in Chicago or D.C. either. They have great public transit systems as well.

[ASchwarz]

Not true. You don't NEED to own a car in Chicago or D.C. either. They have great public transit systems as well.

The point is that NYC is the only American city where a car-free existence is the norm rather than the exception.

People without cars in places like Chicago tend to be poor or in college/grad school. You won't find many lawyers in Chicago without cars.

[amaluu729]

People without cars in places like Chicago tend to be poor or in college/grad school.

That is REALLY not true. Where in the world would you get that idea? There are plenty of working people in Chicago that CHOOSE not to have a car because the public transit is so much easier.

[ASchwarz]

That is REALLY not true. Where in the world would you get that idea? There are plenty of working people in Chicago that CHOOSE not to have a car because the public transit is so much easier.

Well of course some people choose not to drive, but it is unusual relative to NYC. It's far from impossible; if I moved to Chicago I would live car-free but it would be tougher than in NYC.

I lived in Chicago for a summer (Lakeview) and my sister lives in River North. In Lakeview every single elevator building has a large parking lot or garage. In my sister's River North condo, a unit automatically comes with a reserved heated parking space. My sister drives to do most of her shopping as do most of her friends. Nearby stores like Whole Foods and Jewel/Osco have their own free parking lots and the Clybourn Corridor has tons of big boxes with free parking.

In the winter she drives to go out on weekends. Restaurants/clubs all have valet parking. In the summer she might walk.

More than half of NYC residents don't own a car. Something like 25% of Chicagoans don't own a car. If you work downtown and live in Lincoln Park, Lakeview, River North, you can make it work. It gets tougher if you live/work in other neighborhoods.

[lofter1]

San Francisco is another city where a car is both unneccessary and more trouble than it's worth, although many folks still own a car:

http://www.mtc.ca.gov/maps_and_data/datamart/forecast/ao/aopaper.htm#sec33

At a county level, San Francisco has always shown the lowest vehicle availability levels. The share of zero-vehicle households residing in San Francisco declined from 42.1 percent of households in 1960 to 30.7 percent of San Francisco households by 1990. The total number of zero-vehicle households has also declined in San Francisco between 1960 (123 thousand) and 1990 (94 thousand households). This compares to the other Bay Area counties which have all shown slight to moderate increases in absolute numbers of zero-vehicle households between 1960 and 1990.

[ablarc]

NYC, CHI, SFO, WAS. Add PHL and BOS, and you have completed the list of USA's real cities.

(Big ones, anyway. There are smaller cities like Miami Beach, Charleston, Savannah, New Orleans...)

The criterion is: can you live without a car?

[Zerlina]

Well, I love my town because I was born here, my family and my friends live here and so on... but I think that New York is the most beautiful town I have ever seen and if I could, I would choose to live there...:)

[SuddenImpact]

Ciao Zerlina,
Of course NYC is always first in my heart but I love Palermo too!
Forza Azzurri, campioni del mondo, e grazie Grosso!!! :D :D :D

(off topic but does anyone have NYC pictures celebrating this past World Cup?)

[MidtownLivin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by YesIsaidYesIwillYes
Most midwesterners are awfully intimidated by NYC and think it's an ugly place because it doesn't have mountains or a year round warm climate.


Old comment but..

Wtf is that? Midwesterner's are complaining that NYC doesn't have mountains? Isn't the Midwest the place that just has the flattest land in the country besides the Southeast and has farms, cows, silos, and yellow grass that never gets cut? I mean seriously, that has to be the stupidest thing ever! And since when did the Midwest have a year-round warm climate? We have mountains 15 miles north of NYC along the Hudson River. We also have the Catskill Montains about 100 or so miles from NYC. So tell me the names of the mountains in the Midwest. There's big hills in and right outside NYC and you can get awesome skyline views from them. On (I think)Broadway in Yonkers, you can get great skyline views. We have big hills in the city. And why the hell would you get intimidated because a place doesn't have mountains or a year-round warm climate? So I guess Midwesterners are intimidated at home. Please tell me you were joking. That was probably the most hilarious comment I've ever read. Lmfaoooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[pianoman11686]

Don't want to rehash a dead subject, but I just couldn't resist...

While the Midwest does have a lot of plains, New York's geography is also predominantly flat. However, both areas share the common trait of small mountain ranges. The Catskills are actually not even a mountain range, but an old plateau that has just been carved over the years by glaciers, and thus resembles mountains. Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota all have mountain peaks that are taller than anything in New Jersey, and rival many of the peaks in the southern Catskills. South Dakota's Black Hills rise to an elevation higher than anything in the Appalachians. So, depending on where you are in the Midwest (it's a much bigger area than the New York metro), you could find yourself on some of the flattest land in the country, or you could be among hills that are similar in height to those in this area.

By the way, that is an exceedingly stupid comment.

[MidtownLivin]

Don't want to rehash a dead subject, but I just couldn't resist...

While the Midwest does have a lot of plains, New York's geography is also predominantly flat. However, both areas share the common trait of small mountain ranges. The Catskills are actually not even a mountain range, but an old plateau that has just been carved over the years by glaciers, and thus resembles mountains. Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota all have mountain peaks that are taller than anything in New Jersey, and rival many of the peaks in the southern Catskills. South Dakota's Black Hills rise to an elevation higher than anything in the Appalachians. So, depending on where you are in the Midwest (it's a much bigger area than the New York metro), you could find yourself on some of the flattest land in the country, or you could be among hills that are similar in height to those in this area.

By the way, that is an exceedingly stupid comment.

NY's geography is flat? We are 2nd in the country for most diverse natural landscape. Man, we have snow-capped mountains, oceanside cliffs, salt water oceans, fresh water oceans, hot springs, natural springs, geizers, thousands of islands, lakes, and rivers, above ground caves, underground caves, Niagara Falls, deep gorges, Letchworth State Park, the Finger Lakes, the Hudson River valley, and a lot more.

[pianoman11686]

Since this is a thread about New York City, my comments were mainly focused on the metropolitan area, not the entire state. Don't know how exactly you get ranked 2nd most diverse natural landscape, but I'm not going to argue with you.

As for the components: snow-capped mountains is a joke. If that were true, you'd be able to go skiing any time during the winter and not have to worry about slush or rain. The only real snow-capped mountains in the US exist in the Rocky Mountains, and westward.

There are no oceanside cliffs in New York state. Anywhere.

There's no such thing as a freshwater ocean.

I've never heard anything about either a geiser or a hot spring anywhere in New York state.

Niagara Falls and the Thousand Islands are equally part of Canada's geography, and arguably more impressive on that side of the border.

Everything else - rivers, lakes, caves, and gorges - are found all over the country, and New York is not particularly known for any of these.

I will acknowledge this much though: Lake George is breathtaking, as is Lake Champlain.

[MidtownLivin]

Since this is a thread about New York City, my comments were mainly focused on the metropolitan area, not the entire state. Don't know how exactly you get ranked 2nd most diverse natural landscape, but I'm not going to argue with you.