PDA

View Full Version : NYC: Capital of the World?



Pottebaum
April 11th, 2005, 09:36 PM
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=200720&page=1&pp=20

Pretty interesting thread at SSC.

What do you guys think? How does NYC compare to London when it comes to finance, culture, etc?

TLOZ Link5
April 12th, 2005, 01:32 AM
That nick-taylor guy is quite knowledgeable, so I'll try giving a shot at his post. Pottebaum, I don't feel like registering for skyscrapercity just yet, so could you be a dear and post this for me?

"But what is this cultural magnet? London receives more tourists these days than either Paris or New York? London receives a hell of a lot more immigrants than New York also."

But New York's immigrant population is more firmly established, and 80% of New York's citizens are first- or second- generation immigrants. New York has more Jews than Jerusalem, more Irish than Dublin, more Puerto Ricans than San Juan, more Catholics than Rome, more Jamaicans than Montego Bay, more Guyanese than anywhere outside of Georgetown, more Dominicans than anywhere outside of Santo Domingo, and more Trinidadians than Port-of-Spain and San Fernando combined. When comparing the major immigrant groups of New York and London, there is often no overlap. It is also worth noting that Queens is considered the most ethnically diverse municipal entity in the world, with the possible exception of Toronto, in terms of sheer numbers of ethnic groups represented. London seems to attract far more African, Middle Eastern and South Asian immigrants (though New York gets a few of all those), while New York draws more Latin Americans, Caribbeans (which London gets, too) and East Asians.

According to your tourist figures, London receives 28 million tourists annually; I had the privilege to be one of them, twice — and I hope to be so again, soon. Yet if you google "new york tourists in 2003" and the first hit is an article from nycvisit.com which states, in the caption, that there were 37.4 million visitors to New York in 2003.

Let's move on to culture:

"Theatre? Well the top three most popular Broadway shows of all time are conducted and produced by Brits and also started life in London's West End before being exported to New York City............"

Cats was considered plotless, melodramatic dreck by many New Yorkers; it opened in 1982 when the city's tourism industry was suffering and needed a shot in the arm that would attract the masses. Andrew Lloyd Webber gave it the equivalent of a double-dose of anabolic steroids. Sure, it's the longest-running musical in history; but that doesn't necessarily make it the best. Quality over quantity, no?

New York is home to two opera companies. The world-famous Metropolitan Opera has hosted 25 world premieres since in the past century, from Puccini's La fanciulla del West in 1910 to John Harbison's The Great Gatsby in 1999. Not bad for a company that was established only in the 1870s, and let's not forget the radio broadcasts! City Opera has been instrumental in the development of American opera as an art form, and for bringing financially-accessible opera performances to a wide audience. Let's not forget, either, the Amato Opera on The Bowery and its wonderful abbreviated performances in such a small, intimate theater. Then there are the two ballet companies (American Ballet Theatre and the New York City Ballet), the two symphony orchestras (New York Philharmonic and New York Symphony Orchestra), and of course Carnegie Hall. There are 39 Broadway productions, but if you also count the smaller performance venues Off-Broadway and Off-Off Broadway, there are scores more productions going on in the Theater District alone. Outside of Midtown, and Manhattan itself (can't forget the Brooklyn Academy of Music), the cultural opportunities, already vast, are limitless.

"The anti-cheesehead - Actually London is more than just banks and insurance companies (technically its fortay is more currencies, futures & commodities, marine & aviation insurance, etc). Tourism, politics, media, etc..."

Same as New York, same for politics. However, I see the absence of politics in New York as a blessing, not a curse. Who needs the corrupt fat cats in Washington? Screw 'em; we have enough as it is here, and at least they're simply screwing over the city and not the rest of the world. Unencumbered by politicking, we've been able to forge an identity that's both American and worldly, not solely American and beaurocratic. Should San Francisco be considered any less significant, or any less great, because it is not the national, or even the state, capital? Vancouver? Saint Petersburg? Shanghai? Alexandria? Montreal? Rio de Janeiro? Granted that some of those cities are capitals of their states, but I digress — but if some New Yorkers get their way and we secede to become the 51st state...

But so long as we're talking economies here, New York on its own is the 16th-largest in the world, edging out Russia, Australia, and others: its GDP was U.S. $488.8 in 2003. Just google that; I have no reason to lie.

Nick, you also mentioned transportation, with London's massive rail network having twice the track mileage of New York. I should hope so, considering that London has almost twice the land area that New York has: 1,579 square kilometers to New York's 800. New York also has a million more people than London, so it is much more dense. New York's daily subway ridership is four million — the equivalent of moving the entire city of Los Angeles — a billion and a half riders a year. I couldn't find any figures on the Underground's daily ridership; if you could be so kind as to provide them?

There's also one crucial thing you left out in comparing London's transportation network to New York's: express lines. The five major trunk lines in Manhattan — the 8th Avenue IND, the 7th Avenue IRT, the 6th Avenue IND, the Broadway BMT, and the Lexington Avenue IRT — are all four-track lines, with both local and express passenger service; they then branch out to the outer boroughs, some four-, some three-, most two-track. London's tubes are all two-track, though. If there's a service delay for whatever reason, in New York you can just take the express. In London, however, you need to take a shuttle bus because that section of the line is knocked out for heaven knows how long. (It happened to me the first time I went to London.)

Please don't get me wrong; I love London and find it better, and not better, than New York in different ways. In my opinion, there is no "capital of the world", but there are great world cities, which include London and New York. I would, however, like to apologize for some of the more arrogant and embarassing posts on this thread by some of my fellow Americans, who out of courtesy shall remain nameless.

And those are my two cents. Ciao.

Eugenius
April 12th, 2005, 01:05 PM
I would also like to address the claim that because London is the ForEx capital of the world, that makes it the Financial capital. Currency is definitionally an intermediate product. No large player keeps stacks of dollars locked up in a bank vault somewhere. All of the currencies traded in London are then used to purchase assets - whether those are stocks, bonds, commodities, etc. New York is the center of the trade of the lion's share of these assets, starting with the NYSE, and ending with NYMEX.

However, another field that no one touched upon, which I believe is at least as important as any other, is information. If information is the lifeblood of the digital age, New York is the heart. New York is the headquarters for the largest number media organizations: Reuters, Associated Press, Bloomberg, Dow Jones, as well as global media companies: Viacom, Time Warner, Conde Nast, Hearst.

nick-taylor
April 14th, 2005, 07:21 PM
I have been aware of this site for a few months, but have not seen the need to sign up until now (I wonder if there is a London equivalent of this sort of site). Note also that I am not a Londoner. ;)




That nick-taylor guy is quite knowledgeable, so I'll try giving a shot at his post. Pottebaum, I don't feel like registering for skyscrapercity just yet, so could you be a dear and post this for me?

"But what is this cultural magnet? London receives more tourists these days than either Paris or New York? London receives a hell of a lot more immigrants than New York also."

But New York's immigrant population is more firmly established, and 80% of New York's citizens are first- or second- generation immigrants. New York has more Jews than Jerusalem, more Irish than Dublin, more Puerto Ricans than San Juan, more Catholics than Rome, more Jamaicans than Montego Bay, more Guyanese than anywhere outside of Georgetown, more Dominicans than anywhere outside of Santo Domingo, and more Trinidadians than Port-of-Spain and San Fernando combined. When comparing the major immigrant groups of New York and London, there is often no overlap. It is also worth noting that Queens is considered the most ethnically diverse municipal entity in the world, with the possible exception of Toronto, in terms of sheer numbers of ethnic groups represented. London seems to attract far more African, Middle Eastern and South Asian immigrants (though New York gets a few of all those), while New York draws more Latin Americans, Caribbeans (which London gets, too) and East Asians.Oh I am not denying the fact that New York has a larger foreign born population (33% to London's 25%), but London excels at representation, rather than large minority communities which New York specialises in. We should also not forget that London is a city founded on immigration also - the Romans, not the original Brits/Celts did so 2,000 years ago. Either way - both cities are diverse in different ways. But in the current climate, London is faring better in absorbing immigrants than New York is.




According to your tourist figures, London receives 28 million tourists annually; I had the privilege to be one of them, twice — and I hope to be so again, soon. Yet if you google "new york tourists in 2003" and the first hit is an article from nycvisit.com which states, in the caption, that there were 37.4 million visitors to New York in 2003.There is a problem with just stating "visitors" - what are they, tourists and business visitors? If I go to New York for a meeting, am I one of those 37.4mn visitors?




Let's move on to culture:

"Theatre? Well the top three most popular Broadway shows of all time are conducted and produced by Brits and also started life in London's West End before being exported to New York City............"

Cats was considered plotless, melodramatic dreck by many New Yorkers; it opened in 1982 when the city's tourism industry was suffering and needed a shot in the arm that would attract the masses. Andrew Lloyd Webber gave it the equivalent of a double-dose of anabolic steroids. Sure, it's the longest-running musical in history; but that doesn't necessarily make it the best. Quality over quantity, no?Well logic would dictate that if a show was not popular with the population, that it would not be running at over 7,485 performances would it not?




New York is home to two opera companies. The world-famous Metropolitan Opera has hosted 25 world premieres since in the past century, from Puccini's La fanciulla del West in 1910 to John Harbison's The Great Gatsby in 1999. Not bad for a company that was established only in the 1870s, and let's not forget the radio broadcasts! City Opera has been instrumental in the development of American opera as an art form, and for bringing financially-accessible opera performances to a wide audience. Let's not forget, either, the Amato Opera on The Bowery and its wonderful abbreviated performances in such a small, intimate theater. Then there are the two ballet companies (American Ballet Theatre and the New York City Ballet), the two symphony orchestras (New York Philharmonic and New York Symphony Orchestra), and of course Carnegie Hall. There are 39 Broadway productions, but if you also count the smaller performance venues Off-Broadway and Off-Off Broadway, there are scores more productions going on in the Theater District alone. Outside of Midtown, and Manhattan itself (can't forget the Brooklyn Academy of Music), the cultural opportunities, already vast, are limitless.London is home to 3 opera groups:
- Royal Opera & Royal Ballet at the Royal Opera House in Covent Garden (now 273 years old!)
- English National Opera at the London Coliseium also in Covent
- Opera Holland Park which operates during the Summer in the open-air of Holland Park.

London also has five professional symphony orchestra's:
- BBC Symphony Orchestra
- London Symphony Orchestra
- Philharmonia
- London Philharmonic Orchestra
- Royal Philharmonic Orchestra

The largest classical music festival, the BBC Proms is held in London over 8 weeks and over 100 events from the Royal Albert Hall.




Same as New York, same for politics. However, I see the absence of politics in New York as a blessing, not a curse. Who needs the corrupt fat cats in Washington? Screw 'em; we have enough as it is here, and at least they're simply screwing over the city and not the rest of the world. Unencumbered by politicking, we've been able to forge an identity that's both American and worldly, not solely American and beaurocratic. Should San Francisco be considered any less significant, or any less great, because it is not the national, or even the state, capital? Vancouver? Saint Petersburg? Shanghai? Alexandria? Montreal? Rio de Janeiro? Granted that some of those cities are capitals of their states, but I digress — but if some New Yorkers get their way and we secede to become the 51st state...Well politics is an issue that works towards a city being more important to the world. For example, London is where the main decisions for the UK and its interests are made. Everything, from where the big decisions of sending troops to Iraq, national budgets, etc are made from London, like they are from Washington D.C. and to a lesser extent Albany in the US and New York State. London like New York City also has its own political body. Afterall, having control over the 4th largest economy on the planet does count to something ;)




But so long as we're talking economies here, New York on its own is the 16th-largest in the world, edging out Russia, Australia, and others: its GDP was U.S. $488.8 in 2003. Just google that; I have no reason to lie.That is for the GMP is it not (cause I'm well aware of such figures). That is a population of 21,766,731. London on the other hand has no definitive metropolitan area, but the GLA and various government authorities have made estimations as to what a comparison to a CMSA/NEMSA/MSA might be.

City Proper: 7.2mn
Urban Area: 12-13mn
Metro Area: 18mn

London being an ever so smaller city clearly also has an ever so smaller metropolitan area. We also do not have an exact figure for the actual size of the economy of London. Estimations are that it is roughly US$250-300bn. But that is for the 7.2mn city proper.




Nick, you also mentioned transportation, with London's massive rail network having twice the track mileage of New York. I should hope so, considering that London has almost twice the land area that New York has: 1,579 square kilometers to New York's 800. New York also has a million more people than London, so it is much more dense. New York's daily subway ridership is four million — the equivalent of moving the entire city of Los Angeles — a billion and a half riders a year. I couldn't find any figures on the Underground's daily ridership; if you could be so kind as to provide them?Well actually nobody knows the exact milage/route km of the London rail network. Now what has to be remembered is that with New York, you have the NYC Subway within the confines of the city. You then have the commuter lines from the metro area going direct into Penn and GC.

Now with London, you have express services going into the 13 rail termini (Paddington, Marylebone, Euston, St Pancras, Kings Cross, Moorgate, Liverpool Street, Fenchurch Street, London Bridge, Cannon Street, Waterloo, Charing Cross and Victoria) of Central London. But you also have a layer on top of various local rail stations that aren't connected with the London Underground.

Daily ridership on the London Underground is at 3mn. But from a previous discussion on SSC, London has around 2.5x the commuters than New York (due also to the overlap of local city rail services) and 5.4mn people each day use London's buses.

To understand more what I am talking about, the following is the rail network of London. The London Underground lines are the thin lines, while the thick lines are various other heavy rail lines which go through the city.






http://img48.echo.cx/img48/1471/londonurban4nu.jpg







There's also one crucial thing you left out in comparing London's transportation network to New York's: express lines. The five major trunk lines in Manhattan — the 8th Avenue IND, the 7th Avenue IRT, the 6th Avenue IND, the Broadway BMT, and the Lexington Avenue IRT — are all four-track lines, with both local and express passenger service; they then branch out to the outer boroughs, some four-, some three-, most two-track. London's tubes are all two-track, though. If there's a service delay for whatever reason, in New York you can just take the express. In London, however, you need to take a shuttle bus because that section of the line is knocked out for heaven knows how long. (It happened to me the first time I went to London.)Actually London does have express lines. First of all you have the 3 main airport express lines:
London Heathrow Airport - London Paddington
London Gatwick Airport - London Victoria
London Stansted Airport - London Liverpool Street

Then you have actual express lines on the London Underground that use seperate tracks.

Example 1 - Piccadilly line + District line from Acton Town Earls Court. There are 9 stations along this route. The District line trains stop at all 9 stations, but the Piccadilly line trains stop only at 4.

Example 2 - Jubilee line + Metropolitan line from Wembley Park to Marylebone. There are 10 stations along this route. The Metropolitan line trains stop at all 10 stations, but the Jubilee line trains stop only at 3.

But on top of that are the commuter lines that also run on seperate lines, but act as express lines alongside London Underground trains.

Example 3 - District, Hammersmith and c2c lines from West Ham to Barking. There are 5 stations. The District & Hammersmith lines stop at all 5, while the c2c trains stop at only 2 stations

Example 4 - District and c2c lines from Barking to Upminster. There are 9 stations along this route. District line trains stop at all 9 stations, but c2c trains stop only at 2.


Example 5 - Piccadilly and WAGN lines from St Pancras Kings Cross to Finsbury Park. There are 5 stations along this route. Piccadilly trains stop at all 5, while WAGN trains stop only at 2.

Example 6 - Bakerloo, Silverlink Metro and Southern lines from Harrow & Wealdstone to Willesden Junction. There are 8 stations along this route. Bakerloo and Silverlink Metro trains stop at all stations, but Southern trains stop only at 2 stations,

Example 7 - Metropolitan and Chiltern Railway lines from Chalfont & Latimer to Harrow-on-the-Hill. Thre are 9 stations along this route. Metropolitan trains stop at all stations, while Chiltern Railway trains stop at only 4.

Example 8 - Thameslink and Southern lines from East Croydon to London Bridge. There are 10 stations along this route. Southern trains stop at all 10 stations, but Thameslink strains stop at only 2.

You also have to remember that commuter lines also have their own dedicated lines. For example I can get an express train from Portsmouth (on the south coast of England) into London Waterloo. There are usually 2 stops along this route with London itself: Wimbledon and Clapham Junction (worlds busiest station by train throughput - over 2,000 trains each day!). But these are still express lines, even though on the map there is one red line (South West Trains) from Wimbledon to Waterloo, there are around 5 tracks. London does infact have express lines and at least a 20 across the network.

What is also interesting to note is that while New York isn't (by the looks of it) building any more heavy rail lines or stations, London is currently:

17 New stations under construction
18 New interchange stations under construction
24 Proposed + approved new stations
30 Proposed + approved new interchange stations


35 stations/interchange stations currently under construction
54 stations/interchange stations proposed + approved


By 2008, you will be able to take a train from Central London and be in Central Paris within 2hrs thanks to the CTRL project which will allow the 400m long passenger trainsets to travel at their top speed of 300kph without any troubles between the two world capitals (currently the Eurostar HSR trains have to weave along the current commuter lines in London). An irony now is that because house prices are so much cheaper in Calais, France - people now commute into London, but live in France because the time taken to get to London from North France could be less than 1hr!

Another interesting fact is that the 2012 Olympic Park and Stadium will be built next door to the Stratford International train station. Just to keep your bid on its toes ;)




Please don't get me wrong; I love London and find it better, and not better, than New York in different ways. In my opinion, there is no "capital of the world", but there are great world cities, which include London and New York. I would, however, like to apologize for some of the more arrogant and embarassing posts on this thread by some of my fellow Americans, who out of courtesy shall remain nameless.

And those are my two cents. Ciao.Well at least we agree that there is no capital of the world. But I believe there are two cities that are as close to being this and that is London and New York. London pipping New York on a variety of fronts.






I would also like to address the claim that because London is the ForEx capital of the world, that makes it the Financial capital. Currency is definitionally an intermediate product. No large player keeps stacks of dollars locked up in a bank vault somewhere. All of the currencies traded in London are then used to purchase assets - whether those are stocks, bonds, commodities, etc. New York is the center of the trade of the lion's share of these assets, starting with the NYSE, and ending with NYMEX.

However, another field that no one touched upon, which I believe is at least as important as any other, is information. If information is the lifeblood of the digital age, New York is the heart. New York is the headquarters for the largest number media organizations: Reuters, Associated Press, Bloomberg, Dow Jones, as well as global media companies: Viacom, Time Warner, Conde Nast, Hearst.I don't believe that because the largest chunk of the largest financial market is located in London, immediately makes it the financial capital is true. London leads in a variety of other sectors such as law, ICT, OTC derivatives, aviation and marine insurance, cross-border banking, bullion, securities dealing, etc.

I think Reuters might have something to say about you saying their headquarters are in New York. For the largest international multimedia news agency: Reuters is a London company (dates back to 1851 through German immigrant Paul Julius Reuter) that has been based out of its 85 Fleet Street, London headquarters since 1939.

Then we shouldn't forget the likes of the Press Association and BBC News claims to be the largest news broadcaster in the world (100hrs+ daily output). The BBC itself is pretty immense as a media organisation and probably has the highest regard and admiration due to its non-political/commercial links. The BBC has over a dozen channels and several dozen more radio stations. Then there are the other terrestial and independent broadcasters, eg BSkyB, ITV, etc. London is also home to the large tabloid and broadsheet newspaper publishers for the UK. Believe it or not, also Times New Roman, the common typeface that is the standard for word processors was developed by The Times. Then there is Pearson which is the worlds's leading education company. The Newspaper industry is far larger in London than it is in New York, then again the first english language newspaper was printed in London, back in 1621. The UK's largest selling newspaper is The Sun with a daily circulation of 3.2mn, compared to the 2mn that read USA Today. I did some research some months back (but can't find it), that compared newspaper readership and I believe it was Japan first, then the UK and then the US, but those figures may now have changed. But I would be more inclined to stating that in terms of media organisations, New York has London here. But London aces New York interms of movie production and song writing/recording.

TLOZ Link5
April 17th, 2005, 10:47 PM
Thanks for your response, Nick. Welcome to the forums. How was Germany, by the way? :D

I'm mulling a university term in London, because NYU has a lot of interesting Metropolitan Studies courses there. I'd love to return — and possibly go gallivanting across Europe during Spring Break.

Just for kicks, though, I would like to show this one map of the New York City area's transit system, commuter lines included:

http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ebrennan/subway/SubwayMap.gif

A small anecdote on the New York City subway system, though: the subway has been through a lot in the past half century. Much of the work done in the subways today has mostly been to bring the system to a state of good repair: renovating and expanding current stations, repairing signals, trackwork, buying new cars, etc. There are two expansion projects in the works: the extension of the 7 train and the construction of the Second Avenue Subway.

Economy: I'm certain, actually, that the GDP figure that I cited was for New York City alone. Considering that the New York State GDP is somewhere around $750 billion, and that there is negligible economic activity outside of NYC, Westchester and Long Island, it is my guess that NYC, as the economic engine of the state, generates the majority of its GDP. If we factored in the suburbs, edge cities and Newark — the metropolitan area — then the GMP would definitely be much, much higher.

Last parting notes on culture, though: silly me...the Philharmonic and the New York Symphony Orchestra merged as early as...1928. But then there's the Brooklyn Philharmonic, at BAM; and the Queens Symphony Orchestra, at the prestigious (sarcasm :) ) Queensboro Community College Performing Arts Center; the Bronx Symphony Orchestra, which mostly goes on tour; and the Staten Island Symphony at Wagner College, which was founded in 1980. I think, though, that the symphonies in Manhattan and Brooklyn are the real major ones.

In addition, it seems that the existence of New York's third permanent opera company — the New York Grand Opera Company — has entirely slipped my mind. NYGO is more of a midrange between the more democratic City Opera and the patrician Met (which I was at last night to see Don Giovanni; sublime, even though I was in the Family Circle, the equivalent of the Circle at Royal Albert Hall). Unfortunately, NYGO lacks a formal home and mostly performs in transient venues like Central Park, the Brooklyn Academy of Music, etc. There are smaller opera companies in some of the outer boroughs: Brooklyn also founded its own opera company in 2000, and the Bronx Opera Company has been around since 1969. And there's the aforementioned Amato Opera. Many New York venues also host international companies regularly, Carnegie Hall especially.

But I digress; forgive me. I don't intend for this to be a dispute over the quanitity of cultural institutions in New York and London — though theater tickets in London are much, MUCH cheaper than they are here; Broadway theater is a lot more oriented toward tourists than I would like.

nick-taylor
April 20th, 2005, 04:57 PM
Thanks for your response, Nick. Welcome to the forums. How was Germany, by the way?

I'm mulling a university term in London, because NYU has a lot of interesting Metropolitan Studies courses there. I'd love to return — and possibly go gallivanting across Europe during Spring Break.London has a very nice selection of universities. I myself turned down Kings College London for Portsmouth University (I study Geography).

Germany has changed since my last trip (been a few times), but it the lack of reform over the years compared to say France or the UK definately shows through in the people and urban fabric




Just for kicks, though, I would like to show this one map of the New York City area's transit system, commuter lines included:

http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ebrennan/subway/SubwayMap.gifI have seen that map before and its very comprehensive. Now I have to admit that I once did a count of all stations in London and then those in New York. I found that there was somewhere between 575-600 stations in London (for the 32 boroughs) and around 490 in New York (for the 5 boroughs).




A small anecdote on the New York City subway system, though: the subway has been through a lot in the past half century. Much of the work done in the subways today has mostly been to bring the system to a state of good repair: renovating and expanding current stations, repairing signals, trackwork, buying new cars, etc. There are two expansion projects in the works: the extension of the 7 train and the construction of the Second Avenue Subway.The 7 extension is for the Jets Stadium is it not and if I remember - the 2nd Ave Subway has been on the tables for years but not gone far?

The odd thing is, for the last 30 years, London was actually on a per km/station count being underinvested more than New York. Yet for some strange reason accidents and fatalities are lower on the London Underground, while modern amenities seem to be more frequent (ie 180 stations on the London Underground with electronic information boards, compared to 4 on the New York Subway).

Currently transport-wise London is building:

East London Line
2 southern, 1 western and 1 north-western spur - 22 new stations

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/rail/images/initiatives/ell/ell-route-map.jpg


Heathrow Express + Piccadilly Line Heathrow Terminal 5 Extensions
Extensions are currently underway for the new Terminal 5 (due 2008). The station I hear will be pretty immense - a 6 platform Canary Wharf (tube station) style "cathedral".


Docklands Light Railway London City Airport Extension

http://developments.dlr.co.uk/images/dev_map.gif


Channel Tunnel Rail Link
Immense 300kph HSR link from the Channel Tunnel. Phase I was opened last year and Phase II which will go straight to London St Pancras will be finished in 2008.

http://www.ctrl.co.uk/route/default.asp?L=8



Starting in 2007 will be the new Crossrail line (west - east line that resembles the RER in Paris which goes right through the city and serves the outer areas of each side of the metro area) and then after that the Crossrail 2 line (north - south line). Work has already begun on the Crossrail 3 line (south-west - north-east).

Dagenham Dock, Woolwich Arsenal and Stratford Internationl DLR Extensions. There is also the possibility of another Stratford - City of London extension as the DLR actually runs at a profit and 99.9% efficiency.

What is also interesting is that by around 2012, London hopes to have an immense tram network put in place (roughly 391 tram stops from the current 38 tram stops).

Croydon Tramlink
http://www.croydonastro.org.uk/routemap.gif


Cross River Tram
http://img183.exs.cx/img183/557/crossrivertram4uk.jpg


West London Tram
http://img174.exs.cx/img174/7374/westlondontram0do.jpg


City of London Tram
http://img182.exs.cx/img182/9439/cityoflondontram1ja.jpg


South London Tram
http://www.epolitix.com/NR/rdonlyres/2DEFF86D-BC55-499D-B167-B5C58DE5ECC7/0/img.gif







Economy: I'm certain, actually, that the GDP figure that I cited was for New York City alone. Considering that the New York State GDP is somewhere around $750 billion, and that there is negligible economic activity outside of NYC, Westchester and Long Island, it is my guess that NYC, as the economic engine of the state, generates the majority of its GDP. If we factored in the suburbs, edge cities and Newark — the metropolitan area — then the GMP would definitely be much, much higher.Fair enough with me. I've known that without doubt that the New York economy is larger than that of London's. This is simply because the UK as a whole has been on a re-bound post-WW2, financial and business services are really taking off in the globalised world and New York has a larger population.




Last parting notes on culture, though: silly me...the Philharmonic and the New York Symphony Orchestra merged as early as...1928. But then there's the Brooklyn Philharmonic, at BAM; and the Queens Symphony Orchestra, at the prestigious (sarcasm ) Queensboro Community College Performing Arts Center; the Bronx Symphony Orchestra, which mostly goes on tour; and the Staten Island Symphony at Wagner College, which was founded in 1980. I think, though, that the symphonies in Manhattan and Brooklyn are the real major ones.The only problem though with me and you stating all these orchestra's, is that who is right that one is above the other - something that we might never actually know!




In addition, it seems that the existence of New York's third permanent opera company — the New York Grand Opera Company — has entirely slipped my mind. NYGO is more of a midrange between the more democratic City Opera and the patrician Met (which I was at last night to see Don Giovanni; sublime, even though I was in the Family Circle, the equivalent of the Circle at Royal Albert Hall). Unfortunately, NYGO lacks a formal home and mostly performs in transient venues like Central Park, the Brooklyn Academy of Music, etc. There are smaller opera companies in some of the outer boroughs: Brooklyn also founded its own opera company in 2000, and the Bronx Opera Company has been around since 1969. And there's the aforementioned Amato Opera. Many New York venues also host international companies regularly, Carnegie Hall especially.That would be a good comparison - Carnegie Hall Vs the Royal Albert Hall ;)




But I digress; forgive me. I don't intend for this to be a dispute over the quanitity of cultural institutions in New York and London — though theater tickets in London are much, MUCH cheaper than they are here; Broadway theater is a lot more oriented toward tourists than I would like.I think that is where the main difference between the two theatre districts are. Broadway is "seen" to be the theatre district on the planet (maybe through its past glory?). London on the other hand could boast a possibly better quality and diversity of plays, yet doesn't really get much international recognition even when the likes of Kevin Spacey take over at the Old Vic.

Its such a pity that on SCC, there are so many uneducated, untravelled individuals!

TLOZ Link5
April 20th, 2005, 08:52 PM
Its such a pity that on SCC, there are so many uneducated, untravelled individuals!

I could not agree more.

MikeKruger
May 12th, 2005, 02:02 PM
let's not foget one thing: London is much older than New York. I would hesitate to compare the two cities, but I think New York today is to the world what London was in the 19th century. Pretty much its center.

nick-taylor
June 17th, 2005, 07:14 PM
let's not foget one thing: London is much older than New York. I would hesitate to compare the two cities, but I think New York today is to the world what London was in the 19th century. Pretty much its center.Difference was that London ruled the world back in the 19th century, New York for instance lacks any political sovereignty whatsoever (unlike London) and London and Tokyo challenge it on the business front, while culturally the likes of London and Los Angeles are stronger. New York's heyday was between 1930-1970 and since the 1990's its lost its role as the world's premier financial centre (Sarbanes/Oxley has made matters far worse) to London and it has lost on a lot of other fronts, especially in progressive thinking (eg stadium construction political in-fighting, etc...).

Pottebaum
June 18th, 2005, 02:25 PM
New York's heyday was between 1930-1970 and since the 1990's its lost its role as the world's premier financial centre

Not at all---- NYC's is home to the world's two largest stock exchanges, NYSE and Nasdaq and the world's largest physical commodity exchange, NYMEX. The world's largest financial services company, Citigroup, is also HQ'ed in New York. Look at any world-wide financial news website, and you'll see it centers around the latest news coming out of Wall Street. London has one huge advantage over New York, though---centralization. The United States populous spans an area almost 40X larger than the UK! Yet, NYC is the financial center of the US [and the world, according to most sources]; that gives it an enourmous amount of power. The United States has 200 of the world's largest corporations, and is home to almost half the world's billionaires. The United States also has more millionaires than the entire continent of Europe combined for the first time this year.

TLOZ Link5
June 18th, 2005, 04:46 PM
Los Angeles more of a cultural center than New York? It's more like a 55-45 split in New York's favor — and even then many of LA's cultural institutions and resources are spread throughout the metropolitan area, as opposed to in the city itself. Many of the renowned communities which make LA famous, like Malibu, Long Beach, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood and Santa Monica, are independent cities not associated with the City of Los Angeles. We can probably go further and say that it's more like the region of Southern California shares most of the U.S.'s cultural capital with New York City. To be fair to NYC, you'd then need to include parts of its own metropolitan area, like Long Island, Westchester, Rockland and Orange Counties, and possibly Northern New Jersey and Southern Connecticut.

The '70s were when we lost the title of cultural center to LA? We may have lost The Tonight Show (to Burbank, not LA itself), but in turn we got Saturday Night Live, and Rolling Stone magazine moved here from San Francisco; at the time, that established New York as the countercultural center of the US. Punk rock, anyone? That started right here. (Not to mention that once Conan O'Brien takes over from Jay Leno in 2009, in all likelihood he's going to move The Tonight Show back to New York. Hallelujah.)

Hip-hop. It started in the South Bronx in '79 and took over the music world the next decade...and the next...and now this one. Gangsta rap comes to us from Compton, which is another independent city in Los Angeles County. Lately, however, the "Dirty South" — particularly Atlanta and its environs — has been a major nexus of the hip-hop scene, with acts like OutKast, Ludacris and Sean Paul, just to name a few. But without the Sugar Hill Gang, Public Enemy, Run-DMC, Doug E. Fresh and KRS-One, they wouldn't have gotten off the ground.

NewYorkYankee
June 18th, 2005, 09:59 PM
I thought Sean Paul was from Jamaica. (Not Queens)

TLOZ Link5
June 18th, 2005, 11:01 PM
I thought Sean Paul was from Jamaica. (Not Queens)

There's a rapper of the same name from the ATL. I was confused when I heard about him, too.

NewYorkYankee
June 19th, 2005, 12:01 AM
Ah Yes, Sean Paul of YoungBloodz, the two guy group. My mistake.

Pottebaum
June 19th, 2005, 01:19 AM
I'd say the media power alone makes in NYC the cultural capital of the United States. When something happens in Hollywood, where do we hear about it? In fact, I'd say LA's impact on the world actually contributes to NYC's cultural influence. New York is also home to NBC, ABC, CBS, and Fox, which produce shows that are popular even in the UK. The BBC is a massive organization, but while I have seen American remakes, I honestly cannot remember the last time I saw a British television show. And what's the biggest movie out right now? Batman--which is produced by Timer Warner, based in NYC.

Anyway you put it, the United States is far more influential than Britain, and when you're comparing two cities that are on such a global scale, you need to put their nations into account.

fioco
June 20th, 2005, 01:52 AM
I hope this doesn't become a pissing contest. Welcome aboard, nick-taylor. You can be justifiably proud of London's leadership role in the world. The two cities enjoy a remarkable relationship that feeds each other's creativity, in ways I've not observed between other global cities. "Separated by a common language," we somehow manage an intimate relationship, sharing cultural resources (from the West End to Broadway, Covent Garden to the Met, the LSO to Carnegie Hall) all the while pushing each other to be first in line.

Mayor Bloomberg has a residence in London and I believe he was on the board at the Tate Modern. Such examples of global citizenship are common to both cities and indicative of their distinctive leadership role in the world. In many ways we are joined at the hip and create a whole greater than its parts. Artists, scientists, and business people frequently hop the pond for cross pollination and even outright mating. Many of our achievements are shared efforts. Even our failures and follies are often shared in common.

London's professional symphony orchestras are the envy of the world, as are New York's collections of modern art. For a while London's West End kept Broadway on life support; while New York's dance scene is a magnet that spills its riches into the outer Boroughs with young talent from throughout the world. Instead of a score card I recommend a dance card. Some steps London knows best and is a capable teacher. Others steps are best improvised like American jazz and the fresh upstarts take the stage.

As we bash each other over the head with statistics, maps, anecdotes, and sheer force of will, I hope all of us are able to stand back and appreciate the energy, creativity and leadership these two cities offer to the world. One would be poorer without the other. And the world would be sadly lacking.

Fabrizio
June 20th, 2005, 07:59 AM
When I moved to Italy 23 years ago, the TV seemed to 90 percent American movies and TV serials. It was American music everywhere. Everyone wanted to see NYC and California. Today the kids here donīt care much about the US. Thereīs not much of an "American dream" dream left. This country has created itīs own media stars of TV and pop music. The kids go to American films mostly to see the special effects ( Star Wars, Spiderman, Batman)... not to absorb the "American lifestyle" as their parents did seeing American films after the war. The kids want to know whatīs going on in Milan, they want the latest stuff by Dolce & Gabanna.... the American college students here look dorky to them and the American tourists look clownishly fat. Is Nike American? Or is it just another cool global brand? Italians (like Americans) have no "Made in America" stuff.... because hardly anything cool is made there anymore. GM, Ford and Chrysler canīt give away there cars here. Jeep was a desirable brand for a while, but that icon too is not what it once was. They do love Harleyīs though. NY might still be the "Worldīs Capital" as far as Forbes 500 companies go... but the mythic NY of legend that shaped modern world culture ...of abstract expessionism, pop art, of Jazz and Harlem, freedom and personal rights, of the Village, of Soho and Lower East Side as a creative center etc, etc. ... thatīs all a thing of the past... replaced with what?

Ninjahedge
June 20th, 2005, 12:28 PM
Fab, here's the irony of that statement.


You want to know why most American brands are not popular anymore? It is because the Americans do not find them chic anymore.

The mere fact that the culture that people tried to imitate years ago is now more in favor of some europen styles on the runway and on the club scene is reason enough to see why the people of those regions are starting to go back to their own styles.


And the other thing to remember is that people are PEOPLE. Every school I have been too has always looked at foreign students with a certain critical note. College is still an era of posturing and position, being foreign can be a boon or curse depending on how it is played.

And as for tourists, I have seen a few bumbling wide-eyed peeps from other countries over here as well.


So we all bear the bane of being judged on the small percentage of people that the rest of the world sees most often.

ryan
June 20th, 2005, 02:23 PM
New York is still the "capital" of the art world - even more so now that the value of the dollar is down...

that said, nyc egotism is boring - a global media world is decentralized, regardless of where the media is actually created. nothing else to talk about?



When I moved to Italy 23 years ago, the TV seemed to 90 percent American movies and TV serials. It was American music everywhere. Everyone wanted to see NYC and California. Today the kids here donīt care much about the US. Thereīs not much of an "American dream" dream left. This country has created itīs own media stars of TV and pop music. The kids go to American films mostly to see the special effects ( Star Wars, Spiderman, Batman)... not to absorb the "American lifestyle" as their parents did seeing American films after the war. The kids want to know whatīs going on in Milan, they want the latest stuff by Dolce & Gabanna.... the American college students here look dorky to them and the American tourists look clownishly fat. Is Nike American? Or is it just another cool global brand? Italians (like Americans) have no "Made in America" stuff.... because hardly anything cool is made there anymore. GM, Ford and Chrysler canīt give away there cars here. Jeep was a desirable brand for a while, but that icon too is not what it once was. They do love Harleyīs though. NY might still be the "Worldīs Capital" as far as Forbes 500 companies go... but the mythic NY of legend that shaped modern world culture ...of abstract expessionism, pop art, of Jazz and Harlem, freedom and personal rights, of the Village, of Soho and Lower East Side as a creative center etc, etc. ... thatīs all a thing of the past... replaced with what?

alex ballard
June 20th, 2005, 06:00 PM
When I moved to Italy 23 years ago, the TV seemed to 90 percent American movies and TV serials. It was American music everywhere. Everyone wanted to see NYC and California. Today the kids here donīt care much about the US. Thereīs not much of an "American dream" dream left. This country has created itīs own media stars of TV and pop music. The kids go to American films mostly to see the special effects ( Star Wars, Spiderman, Batman)... not to absorb the "American lifestyle" as their parents did seeing American films after the war. The kids want to know whatīs going on in Milan, they want the latest stuff by Dolce & Gabanna.... the American college students here look dorky to them and the American tourists look clownishly fat. Is Nike American? Or is it just another cool global brand? Italians (like Americans) have no "Made in America" stuff.... because hardly anything cool is made there anymore. GM, Ford and Chrysler canīt give away there cars here. Jeep was a desirable brand for a while, but that icon too is not what it once was. They do love Harleyīs though. NY might still be the "Worldīs Capital" as far as Forbes 500 companies go... but the mythic NY of legend that shaped modern world culture ...of abstract expessionism, pop art, of Jazz and Harlem, freedom and personal rights, of the Village, of Soho and Lower East Side as a creative center etc, etc. ... thatīs all a thing of the past... replaced with what?


Maybe it's becasue you all hate America.

ryan
June 20th, 2005, 06:03 PM
Maybe it's becasue you all hate America.

The "freedom fries" argument is even more boring. Not worshipping the US is not the same as hating it. Read up on some basic logic (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html).

Ninjahedge
June 20th, 2005, 06:35 PM
You notice Alex is a bit combattive too, don't you.

Alex, he is not insulting America. Pleas READ what people say and UNDERSTAND it before you alienate people that are actually sympathetic to a lot of things you are.

Your xenophobia, as in the other post "go to China", is quite insulting and says nothing of your observational abilities. You are insulting yourself more than you are those you seek to denigrate.

If you want a fight, please keep it on the schoolyard and off the forum.

ryan
June 20th, 2005, 06:39 PM
You are insulting yourself more than you are those you seek to denigrate.

I would have said he is embarassing himself. I generally avoid trolls, but sometimes I let myself get sucked in...

Ninjahedge
June 21st, 2005, 10:13 AM
I would have said he is embarassing himself. I generally avoid trolls, but sometimes I let myself get sucked in...

You just wanted an opportunity to site "Freedom Fries" before the reference no longer holds any salt... ;)

ryan
June 21st, 2005, 11:43 AM
You just wanted an opportunity to site "Freedom Fries" before the reference no longer holds any salt... ;)

groan... actually, this brought a smile to my pre-coffee face. bad puns are so good.

Ninjahedge
June 21st, 2005, 11:53 AM
What pun?

:D

bkmonkey
June 21st, 2005, 05:17 PM
in my opinion, what makes New York City the capitol of the world, is a wide array of things. The fact that New York is not the capitol of any paticular nation, rather, the United Nations is a good place to start, the United Nations (despite all the scandals) is the center of world politics, and reasonablly chooses to reside in the city of New York. New York's ethnic diversity is also something to marvel at, practically, every nationallity from around the planet is represented in New York. Culturally New York is above all competition. One may argue that Hollywood makes alot of movies that have a large audience, however, pay closer attention to where those movies are set, a great portion of them are set in New York, or mythical cities which are based on New York (Gotham, Metropolis). In addition, the American media, chooses to center itself in New York, further giving credit to New York's claim as the cultural capitol. New York's cultural institutions and symbols are famous. No matter where you are in the world, when someone mentions 5th avenue, one tends to think shopping, when someone mentions wall st, people tend to think about finance, when someone mentions broadway people think about theater. On New Year's eve it is estimated that 3 billion people watch the ball drop in Times Square, (talk about cultural impact) New York is remains unrivalled. Econmically, New York houses the largest and most influencial stock market in the world, a stock market which bears the city's name. New York is home to a great many of the world's financial institutions and that list is growing (bank of America is building a new headquaters in the city). In addition, New York city has the 16th highest GDP in the world (higher than Russia's), making it one of the most econmically infulencial cities in the world. Lastly, if all of you truly seek the definition of a world city, go to Wikipedia where they list New York and London as the top two world cities. (with an extensive explanation)

nick-taylor
July 3rd, 2005, 02:51 PM
Not at all---- NYC's is home to the world's two largest stock exchanges, NYSE and Nasdaq and the world's largest physical commodity exchange, NYMEX. The world's largest financial services company, Citigroup, is also HQ'ed in New York. Look at any world-wide financial news website, and you'll see it centers around the latest news coming out of Wall Street. London has one huge advantage over New York, though---centralization. The United States populous spans an area almost 40X larger than the UK! Yet, NYC is the financial center of the US [and the world, according to most sources]; that gives it an enourmous amount of power. The United States has 200 of the world's largest corporations, and is home to almost half the world's billionaires. The United States also has more millionaires than the entire continent of Europe combined for the first time this year.Yes since the Big Bang of financial services in the UK in the 1990's, the UK has become the 2nd largest financial centre country on the planet. In 2004 I believe the current balance was that of global financial output, 21% came from the US and 15% came from the UK. Now remember that the US is 5x larger than the UK and that there is more than just New York for finance in the US, as there is Chicago, Houston, Miami, Los Angeles, Charlotte, etc... in the UK this market is dominated by London.

New York claims to two largest stock exchanges in the world. London then goes one better and claims the largest currency market in the world which is around 18x larger in daily turnover than the NYSE or equivalent to the entire stock market daily turnover.

On top that though.....and note the figures

http://www.ifsl.org.uk/research/kfm_images/crossborder.gif

http://www.ifsl.org.uk/research/kfm_images/foreignexchange.gif

http://www.ifsl.org.uk/research/kfm_images/otcderivatives.gif

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/3932/foreignequities4ay.jpg

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/1209/largestgloballawfirms5vn.jpg

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/2243/largestfinancialderivativesexc.jpg

And a little table I put together of the world's top 10 largest banks according to Forbes:

http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/5826/top10worldslargestbanks20055po.jpg


I could go on about how the price of gold and silver is set in London, how most metals are traded through London (LME) and how with New York the price of oil is set around the globe. Then there is maritime and aviation insurance, ship brokerage, dispute resolution, ICT, advertising, financial publication, etc... New York in 1980 was the world's foremost financial centre. In 2005 it is now London.

Also London has geography on its side which will only grow stronger with the rapid development of Asia: central location between North America and Asia that means London can trade with New York and Tokyo at the same time.

Also the US having more billionaires and millionaires than a more populous continent doesn't always show the good side of the US. If you had looked at gini-coefficients you would note that the US has the most extreme wealth inequality of any developed country on the planet. This means few people control a majority of the wealth, while the masses have very little or a small percentage of what they would get had there been greater equality as seen in European countries such as the UK. On top of that the average American works far harder than the average Brit or European, so the obvious GDP per capita being larger decreases more. Especially when you also factor in that productivity is falling behind most EU countries (including the UK now).





Los Angeles more of a cultural center than New York? It's more like a 55-45 split in New York's favor — and even then many of LA's cultural institutions and resources are spread throughout the metropolitan area, as opposed to in the city itself. Many of the renowned communities which make LA famous, like Malibu, Long Beach, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood and Santa Monica, are independent cities not associated with the City of Los Angeles. We can probably go further and say that it's more like the region of Southern California shares most of the U.S.'s cultural capital with New York City. To be fair to NYC, you'd then need to include parts of its own metropolitan area, like Long Island, Westchester, Rockland and Orange Counties, and possibly Northern New Jersey and Southern Connecticut.

The '70s were when we lost the title of cultural center to LA? We may have lost The Tonight Show (to Burbank, not LA itself), but in turn we got Saturday Night Live, and Rolling Stone magazine moved here from San Francisco; at the time, that established New York as the countercultural center of the US. Punk rock, anyone? That started right here. (Not to mention that once Conan O'Brien takes over from Jay Leno in 2009, in all likelihood he's going to move The Tonight Show back to New York. Hallelujah.)

Hip-hop. It started in the South Bronx in '79 and took over the music world the next decade...and the next...and now this one. Gangsta rap comes to us from Compton, which is another independent city in Los Angeles County. Lately, however, the "Dirty South" — particularly Atlanta and its environs — has been a major nexus of the hip-hop scene, with acts like OutKast, Ludacris and Sean Paul, just to name a few. But without the Sugar Hill Gang, Public Enemy, Run-DMC, Doug E. Fresh and KRS-One, they wouldn't have gotten off the ground.When I think of culture, I think of sports, history, music, film production. London is strong across the board in these categories.

Firstly sport - London currently has 10 stadiums above 20,000 capacity. New York City in comparison has 3. Then London is also at this very second building 1 90,000 and 60,000 stadium and has more on the horizon. London's new Wembley Stadium will be the largest football stadium on the planet (not by capacity - but my pure size).....the stadium in size is over 2x the size of the 80,000 Stade de France stadium in Paris. (Pictures by Peyre)


http://www.wembleystadium.com/NR/rdonlyres/0C47718A-9181-4E9A-B21A-D1715FDB764E/59403/aerial640x412.jpg

http://www.atma83.dsl.pipex.com/Pics/London/26th/cimg1667copy.jpg

http://www.atma83.dsl.pipex.com/Pics/London/26th/cimg1622copy.jpg



This is Arsenal's new 60,000 all-seater Emirates Stadum currently under construction:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/800px-Emirates_Stadium_03.jpg



By 2012, this is what the list of all stadia above 20,000+ should be like in London:
- Wembley - 90,000
- Twickenham - 82,000
- Olympic Stadium - 80,000
- Stamford Bridge - 65,000
- Emirates Stadium - 60,000
- White Hart Lane - 50,000
- The Valley - 40,600
- Boleyn Ground - 40,500
- Craven Cottage - 30,000
- Lord's - 28,000
- Selhurst Park - 26,309
- Millennium Dome - 26,000
- Griffin Park - 25,000
- The Oval - 23,000
- The New Den - 20,146


And what sport are played in London? none other than the top 4 global sports (among others): Football, Cricket, Rugby and Tennis. London just happens to be at the epi-centre of global sports, unfortunately the same can't be said of baseball, basketball or AFL. Lord's Cricket Ground is now 191 years old and still in working order (also has the world's oldest sports museum), then there is Wembley the 'home of football', the immense Twickenham and of course Wimbledon, it is the world's most watched tennis tournament (viewership figures comparable to the other 3 Grand Slams combined).




Secondly history, well thats obvious, no real need to try and make a statement there when London has some 1,600 more years of it!




Thirdly music and film production - very little appears to come out of New York other than on the music front and the only aspect of global production is that the major film studios are HQ'ed in New York. If you watched the recent Batman Begins, you might be shocked to know that the primary production and a large selection of the outdoor shooting locations were......in and around London and at Shepperton Studios (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372784/locations) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372784/locations%29). See Star Wars.....again the primary production was in London at Elstree Studios....the same studios the original 3 films were made. Harry Potter, James Bond, Aliens, Indiana Jones,... filmed primarily in studios in London. Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers was filmed just north of London (my friend's university campus is built on the spot where Tom Hanks character 'dies'. The urban fight scenes in what was meant to be Ho Chí Minh City in Full Metal Jacket have been replaced by Canary Wharf and its towers.

Most movie soundtracks, be them James Bond, Lord of the Rings, Superman, Harry Potter, etc have been done by the world's premier symphony orchestras based in London such as the London Symphony Orchestra, Royal Philharmonic Orchestra and BBC Symphony Orchestra (there is also the English Chamber Orchestra). Even War of the World's is connected to London - the original novel by Londoner HG Wells was based in and around London (infact in Woking there is a statue of a tripod walking down the highstreet: http://www.lanceradvanced.com/Illustration/FanArt/WOTW/Woking1.jpg) (http://www.lanceradvanced.com/Illustration/FanArt/WOTW/Woking1.jpg%29). The other big blockbuster that is to come out by the end of the year: King Kong was also written originally by another Londoner. London has been quite influential along the years and thats not even scratching the surface with the like of Dickens and possibly the greatest playwright: William Shakespeare and of course the most extraordinary theatre in the world: the Globe Theatre: http://omni.cc.purdue.edu/~corax/globestage.jpg (http://omni.cc.purdue.edu/%7Ecorax/globestage.jpg)





I'd say the media power alone makes in NYC the cultural capital of the United States. When something happens in Hollywood, where do we hear about it? In fact, I'd say LA's impact on the world actually contributes to NYC's cultural influence. New York is also home to NBC, ABC, CBS, and Fox, which produce shows that are popular even in the UK. The BBC is a massive organization, but while I have seen American remakes, I honestly cannot remember the last time I saw a British television show. And what's the biggest movie out right now? Batman--which is produced by Timer Warner, based in NYC.

Anyway you put it, the United States is far more influential than Britain, and when you're comparing two cities that are on such a global scale, you need to put their nations into account.London also isn't lackluster when it comes to media power. London is home to the likes of Reuters which is the world's largest international mulitmedia news agency. Then there is the world famous BBC News which is the largest broadcast news gathering operation in the world (over 100 hours each day of output). Then there is the BBC itself which has 20 global TV channels, 54 radio channels, 30 magazine titles, dozens of digital interactive channels, film and tv production studios (funded Woody Allen's latest film set in London) and one of the most visited websites on the planet: www.bbc.co.uk (http://www.bbc.co.uk) which has over 3mn webpages.

One of the most interesting things about the BBC is the BBC World Service which has some 150mn weekly listeners and is the world's only neutral non-commercial and non-political (eg VoA) news organisation that is listened around the world (especially developing and/or un-democratic countries). I have even heard stories of people learning English from the World Service!

And now prepare yourselves for a very interesting if unbelievable fact: The UK is the world's largest exporter of global format programmes and dominates by a whopping 45% of the global market (the US had 20% and the Netherlands 15%). Examples would be The Weakest Link, Teletubbies, Who Wants to be a Millionaire and Top of the Pops.


Regarding Batman Begins - Primary production was done in and around London. Secondary shooting was done in Chicago and tertiary shooting was undertaken in Iceland. The director: Christopher Nolan is.......a Londoner and what about the cast? Well I took the first page (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372784/) of Batman Begins on IMDB and the names of the primary cast overview and this is the make-up:

British: Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman, Tom Wilkinson, Linus Roache, Lary Holden, Gerald Murphy + Colin McFarlane
American: Katie Homes, Mark Boone Junior + Morgan Freeman,
Irish: Cillian Murphy
Dutch: Rutger Hauer
Japanese: Ken Watanabe

As you can see, 60% of the main cast is British, its being directed by a Brit, the primary production and shooting was in and around London. Funding was American though.




fioco - I am purely here to act as the other force of reason and to show the other side of the argument. I would note (as I haven't already), that London doesn't try to 'big itself up' like New York has done in the past - its a more reserved city that just gets the job done. If we were having this discussion back in the 70's, it would be New York on top. Now the roles have been reserved and its about time New York gets its act together to try and topple London again. This little game will continue for a good few decades I believe :laugh:





New York is still the "capital" of the art world - even more so now that the value of the dollar is down...Probably for modern art, but I would say everything other than modern art art is centered around London. I should note though that in terms of the art trade, London is the world leader as it is home to the two undisputed world leaders: Sotheby's and Christie's. Sotheby's I believe is also the largest auction house of fine art in the US.





in my opinion, what makes New York City the capitol of the world, is a wide array of things. The fact that New York is not the capitol of any paticular nation, rather, the United Nations is a good place to start, the United Nations (despite all the scandals) is the center of world politics, and reasonablly chooses to reside in the city of New York. New York's ethnic diversity is also something to marvel at, practically, every nationallity from around the planet is represented in New York. Culturally New York is above all competition. One may argue that Hollywood makes alot of movies that have a large audience, however, pay closer attention to where those movies are set, a great portion of them are set in New York, or mythical cities which are based on New York (Gotham, Metropolis). In addition, the American media, chooses to center itself in New York, further giving credit to New York's claim as the cultural capitol. New York's cultural institutions and symbols are famous. No matter where you are in the world, when someone mentions 5th avenue, one tends to think shopping, when someone mentions wall st, people tend to think about finance, when someone mentions broadway people think about theater. On New Year's eve it is estimated that 3 billion people watch the ball drop in Times Square, (talk about cultural impact) New York is remains unrivalled. Econmically, New York houses the largest and most influencial stock market in the world, a stock market which bears the city's name. New York is home to a great many of the world's financial institutions and that list is growing (bank of America is building a new headquaters in the city). In addition, New York city has the 16th highest GDP in the world (higher than Russia's), making it one of the most econmically infulencial cities in the world. Lastly, if all of you truly seek the definition of a world city, go to Wikipedia where they list New York and London as the top two world cities. (with an extensive explanation)Firstly I might point out that the UN is now the centre of world politics - it is a global forum, but thats about where it ends. It lacks any political sovereignty as shown from the lead-up to the Iraq War or on matters such as climate change and poverty in Africa. Its the actual politcal powerhouses of our world: Washington DC, London, Paris, Tokyo, etc that do have this power and the ability to make a definate change.

Another view is to take is this: more NGO's are located in London than in any other city on the planet. The reason is that the UK government is still important on the global stage and is at the forefront of a large variety of things aimed at making the world a better place: climate change, poverty reduction, etc. Now Washington is more important politically, but lacks the will to really make a fundamental change as has been seen by the policy of the US in terms of writing off debt (started by the British government) and climate change which the US I think is slowly accepting. Another interesting tit-bit is that London is also home to the LSE which has educated more world leaders than any other (2nd is Oxford, in London's metro).

Secondly I would be careful about bringing diversity into the argument as even though New York has the largest foreign born popualtion of any city, it is not the city with the most represented foreign born communities, for that city is....funnily enough it is London. A study found out that London had the highest number of 5,000+ and 10,000+ foreign born communities in the world - more than New York. An amazing fact you are probably thinking, but its actually true. The School of Oriental and African Studies in London (so happens to be a world leader in languages and foreign communites) conducted the study. They also conducted another study into the most amount of languages spoken in world cities and again London came tops - 300+ officially recognised languages.

I should also note that London is also absorbing more foreign immigrants than New York and Los Angeles. At current rates London may indeed overtake the city proper population of New York and take the title of having the largest foreign born population from New York within a few years.

http://www.economist.com/images/20030809/CBR392.gif

London also has more billionaires than any other city on the planet...this is not because they are British, but because they are foreigners attracted to the financial position of London in the world, tax arrangements and all the cultural attachments that come with it. Russian Roman Abromovich (ranked 6th I believe in the world) is now living in London and recently brought one of the world's richest sports clubs: Chelsea (located in West London) as his personal hobby. Egyptian Mohamed Al-Fayed, the man who owns Harrods owns Fulham (another West London Premiership football club), the richest house in the world located on Kensington Palace Gardens, London is owns by Lakshmi Mittal the Indian Steel billionaire.

Thirdly the latest blockbuster in the cinema is based on a book that was based around Victorian England and London. In the current form it is just located to an area that modern American cinema fans can 'attach' with.

Fourthly on all other points you have made - London isn't exempt from famous places. People would know of Oxford Street for shopping, the Square Mile for finance and business in London, West End for theatres, etc.

Just yesterday the world's largest concert was played with the largest line-up of all the Live8 concerts was held in London's Hyde Park! The likes of Pink Floyd chose London's Hyde Park Live 8 concert as a reason to reunite. The world's richest man: Bill Gates, the head of the UN: Kofi Annan and perhaps the most famous current sports person alive: David Beckham all came on stage in London. Thats not including the acts of Madonna, Razorlight, Coldplay, U2, Robbie Williams, Pete Townsend, Joss Stone, Sissor Sisters, Sting, Mariah Carey, Dido, Pink Floyd, George Michael, Bob Geldof, Elton John, Paul McCartney, Annie Lennox, Snoop Dogg, Miss Dynamite, etc.... now that was a once in a lifetime event unlikely to be repeated and its actually for a cause: eradicating poverty. Estimates put forward that some 5bn will have watched or listened to the concerts in one form or another. It was interesting as to why New York did not host it!

The NYSE handles each day around $40bn. London's currency markets handle on a daily basis some $700bn. London is home to more top 50 banks than New York and yet they still don't build skyscrapers oddly (except HSBC). Also if were going to talk about economy, New York's is not the largest - that title would go to the immense Tokyo. London is increasingly catching up with New York's which has admittedly a larger population. Also I am well aware of world-cities....I don't study Geography at university for no reason ;)


Now I aint saying New York is somehow redundant or crap or anything like that. I am saying though that it isn't the best across all fields like London now is. It would have been different back in the 1970's though.

Pottebaum
July 4th, 2005, 02:37 PM
Yes since the Big Bang of financial services in the UK in the 1990's, the UK has become the 2nd largest financial centre country on the planet. In 2004 I believe the current balance was that of global financial output, 21% came from the US and 15% came from the UK. Now remember that the US is 5x larger than the UK and that there is more than just New York for finance in the US, as there is Chicago, Houston, Miami, Los Angeles, Charlotte, etc... in the UK this market is dominated by London.

Here's a list of the world's 50 largests banks:
http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/8373/largestbanks8qa.jpg

3 of them are in New York, and 12 of them are somewhere within the United States---more than any other nation. 5(or 6[not sure]) are based in London; the United Kingdom as a whole has 6; half the US's count.
America's banking industry is decentralized compared to the UK's (how couldn't be? The US is 40X larger :lol: ), but it still heavily relies on financial activity in New York; for example, notice that every American bank on that list is traded on the New York Stock exchange.
World's 20 largest diversified financial companies
http://img277.echo.cx/img277/1257/diversifiedfinancials0qg.jpg
United States: 12/20
which includes
New York: 5 [highest concentration]


When it comes to business, New York is the clear winner:

World's 30 Largest Companies
Company.........Country(USA or UK)/City(NYC or London)

1. Citigroup.............................. USA/NYC
2. GE.......................................USA/NYC
3. American Int..........................USA/NYC
4. Exxon Mobil............................USA
5. BP........................................UK/London
6. Bank of America......................USA/
7. HSBC....................................UK/London/
8. Toyota.................................
9. Fannie Mae............................USA
10.Walmart................................USA
11.UBS.....................................
12.ING......................................
13.Shell.....................................UK/London
14.Berkshire Hathaway:................USA
15.JP Morgan..............................USA
16.IBM.......................................USA/NYC
17.Total:...................................
18.BNP Paribas.
19.Royal Bank of Scotland:................UK
20.FreddieMac.................................USA

21-30
Freddie Mack..............................USA
Chrysler.....................................
Altria Group................................USA/NYC
ChevronTexaco...........................USA
Pfizer........................................USA/NYC
Wells Fargo................................USA
Verizon Commun.........................USA/NYC
Barclay's...................................UK/London
Morgan Stanley..........................USA/NYC
General Motors...........................USA
Nippon Tel & Tel

*Metropolitan areas included

How each city stacks up:
Both cities are the economic capitals of their respective countries, so I included it's nation's company count as it is a factor in the city's overall influence.
New York:
-8/30 are based in New York[largest concentration of this list's companies]
-19/30 are American companies
London:
-4/30 are based in London
-5/30 are British companies
Influence....
http://img219.echo.cx/img219/6723/nycbusiness4zn.th.jpg (http://img219.echo.cx/my.php?image=nycbusiness4zn.jpg)

New York is globally known as the 'financial capital of the world' because of its role in international business, which closely relates to its huge stock exchanges; like NYSE, Nasdaq, AMEX, etc--that's what the media pays attention to. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when I researched it on Wikipedia and a random searches on the LSE website, it looks like 17 of the top 20 companies are traded on the NYSE, while 5 of them are traded on the London Stock Exchange. This is completely understandable, though, as New York is the financial and economic hub of a nation that is home to 711 of the world's 2000 largest companies[more than the entire continent of Europe].
And I know how important London is when it comes to insurance, and I'm sure you have a bunch of little facts and graphs to back it up--but the world's largest insurance company, AIG, HQ'd in New York has more sales and a larger market value than the UK's top 20 combined.


When I think of culture, I think of sports, history, music, film production.
Sports=probably London, but I don't know--I just golf. :lol:
History=London, but it really depends on what period and kind of history you're into.
Music? New York is fantastic when it comes to music! The big four record labels are:

Sony-BMG Music Entertainment: The world's largest record label by market share=Headquartered in New York City.
Universal Music Group: The world's second largest record label=Headquartered in New York City.
EMI Group=The world's 3rd largest record label=Headquartered in London, with EMI Music Publishing based in New York City.
Warner Brothers=A subsidiary of NYC based Time Warner, Warner Brothers is headquartered in Burbank, California.

Televison:

And now prepare yourselves for a very interesting if unbelievable fact: The UK is the world's largest exporter of global format programmes and dominates by a whopping 45% of the global market (the US had 20% and the Netherlands 15%). Examples would be The Weakest Link, Teletubbies, Who Wants to be a Millionaire and Top of the Pops.
I knew that; but it's only program formats; some Brits at SSC were thinking families in Ohio were sitting around after dinner to watch Dr. Who or something. Even though that's very impressive, it's just the format.
As for the actual programs, I believe the United States is the actual top exporter. There was a thread at skyscrapercity.com a while ago about the forumers' favorite TV shows--I tallied the results:

The List:
Favorite American and British TV programs mentioned by SSC Forumers outside the United States and the UK

US--- With programs produced by NYC networks noted
The Sopranos--NYC
NYPD Blue--NYC
Desperate Housewives--NYC
Simpsons--NYC
Samurai Jack--NYC
Megas XLR--NYC
Family Guy--NYC
Tweaty Show--NYC
South Park --NYC
CSI Miami--NYC
CSI Vegas--NYC
Everybody Loves Raymond--NYC
Seinfeld --NYC
Price is right--NYC
Late Night with Conan O'Brien--NYC
Magnum PI---NYC
Survivor--NYC
Nip/tuck (?)--NYC
Amazing Race--NYC
24--NYC
Big Brother {US Edition]--NYC
Bugs Bunny--NYC
Chappelle's Show--NYC
Reno 911!--NYC
CSI NY--NYC
Daily Show--NYC
Cheers--NYC
King of the Hill--NYC
Friends--NYC
Joey--NYC
Extreme Makeover(?)--NYC
Queer eye for the straight guy--NYC
Star Trek ---NYC
Lost--NYC
Twin Peaks--NYC
The Apprentice--NYC
Futurama--NYC
MadTV--NYC
Desperate Housewives--NYC
America's next top model--NYC
Third Watch--NYC
Law and Order: SVU--NYC
Law and Order: Criminal Intent--NYC
Degrasi--NYC
Will and Grace--NYC
Boiling Point-NYC
Osbournes--NYC
Frasier--NYC
Jerry Springer Show--NYC(Metro)
Stargate SG1
Stargate Atlantis
Extreme Engineering
WWE
Shield



UK

Men Behaving Badly--London
Fawlty Towers--London
Little Britain--London
The League of Gentlemen--London
Black Adder--London
Big Brother--London
The Bill--London
(?)Location Location--London
Brainaic---London
Eastenders--London
Coronation Street--London
Most Haunted UK--London
BBC World programmes--London
Top Gear--London
Monty Python's Flying Circus--London
Forumula 1 racing--London
The Office--London
A Touch of Frost--London
(?)Teachers--London
--------------------------------
Several of those are also produced within New York.

Speaking of Batman, yeah, the funding was American--and it came from a New York City based company. Gotham is also a metaphor of New York City.
Another movie produced by a company owned in New York is War of the World's. The original story was written by a Brit a hundred years ago. Today, though, it is an American movie set in New York with an American director and with American actors. And, more than likely, it will dominate the British box office next week.


I should also note that London is also absorbing more foreign immigrants than New York and Los Angeles. At current rates London may indeed overtake the city proper population of New York and take the title of having the largest foreign born population from New York within a few years.
I've probably mentioned this before..but just because there's a massive amount of international migration into London doesn't mean it's actually gaining that much population.
Take a look at this:
http://www.economist.com/images/20030809/CBR388.gif

I'll continue later--- I don't want to be late for the Fourth of July BBQ. ;)

TLOZ Link5
July 4th, 2005, 04:18 PM
I should also note that London is also absorbing more foreign immigrants than New York and Los Angeles. At current rates London may indeed overtake the city proper population of New York and take the title of having the largest foreign born population from New York within a few years.

Not that that would be a bad thing. Except for during the past half-century, London has historically always been more populous than New York. New York is currently at its population peak of 8.1 million people; in the 1939 UK Census London had 8.6m.

Both cities experienced population decline in the postwar period, but London's population loss was much more severe than New York's.

At the dawn of World War II, London's population was 8,615,050, a figure that New York has yet to match. By the 1981 UK Census, however, its long population decline had "bottomed-out" at 6,608,598. London's population has increased gradually since then, though much of this can be attributed to the outer boroughs as opposed to the relatively slower growth of Central London.

http://demographia.com/dm-lon31.htm

New York, having previously peaked in the 1970 Census at nearly 7.9m, had declined by the 1980 Census to just over 7,000,000. Its population loss was not as severe as London's, and it likewise has added population since then. Like with Central London, however, many of the most urbanized parts of Manhattan, The Bronx and Brooklyn are no longer at their population peak.

http://demographia.com/dm-nyc.htm (figures are divisible by 1,000)

In September of 2002, the Corporation of London estimated in its study "London's Place in the UK Economy" that Greater London's population would grow to 8.2 million by 2016.

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

New York has meanwhile almost reached that number already and, barring changes in immigration trends, etc., will continue to grow by 2016. However, London is catching up, so eventually it will probably surpass New York, as it should.

Fabrizio
July 4th, 2005, 06:37 PM
Definition of the word "capital" :

a. A town or city that is the official seat of government in a political entity, such as a state or nation.


If any city can make the claim to being the capital of the world itīs Washington DC, not NY or London. Whether we like it or not, the decisions that happen in Washington have the greatest impact on lives around the world.

Many other cities though, set trends in specific areas. What cities are the capital of fashion, design, architecture etc....in that sense, I think there are many "capitals of the world".

But for the overall big picture: itīs Washington DC.

bkmonkey
July 4th, 2005, 07:59 PM
New York City will continue to grow.. you cannot forget that New York has a huge metropolitian area with over 22 million people (2005) and that number is rapidly growing. In comparison London is much smaller with 12.5 million people. (wikipedia). I very much doubt that London will overtake New York in population. New York's population growth is only accelerating anyway. Now... lets be serious. We are talking about capitol in the context of global city. Which city has the most influence around the globe, New York or Washington.. London or Washington. New York is the centre of American culture, media, economics, and a large portions of its politics. Consider this, the capitol of a nation or a state, is often not it;s most important city. What is the capitol of New York State, or California? Often capitols such a such as Washington DC are planned to take power away from a specific metropolis such as New York. (the capitol was originally in nyc). Political decisions in New York are made in Albany, however that does not mean that Albany is more important than New York. However, just because the political centre is in Washington, New York is still host of the United Nations. Yes, I am well aware, the UN, is not a power in itself, however the fact that it is a political forum where all the leaders of world converge and discuss problems, this alone makes the UN important, and of course New York is the natural choice for the UN, as one of the most internatinal cities in the world.

Pottebaum
July 4th, 2005, 09:36 PM
^When he said "surpass" New York, he meant city proper population--not metro.

bkmonkey
July 5th, 2005, 03:11 AM
Granted.. isnt't London bigger than nyc in terms of landsize? Its also important to realize that trends .. tend to change. If we are talking about London having a population of 8.2 by 2016, it is impossible to know where NYC will stand by then. The city could be half the size it is or double (or anywhere in between). The fact is, there are numerous events, political, cultural and economical that havent happend yet which dictate migration and immigration trends. All we know now is that New York has 8.1 million people, and that number will change by 2016. As I said before, it is important to note, that New York's metroplitan area is growing rapidly, 9.4% since 1990, New York will continue to be a large population center for the forseeable future. Currently, it is the second largest urban area in the world, after Tokyo (wikipedia).

Fabrizio
July 5th, 2005, 09:52 AM
bkmonkey : I have a feeling you are an American. You might want to spend some time outside of the US, especially in a non-English speaking country to get a feel as to what city is percieved to be "The capital of the world". And notice I say "percieved to be". We all understand NYC is "the biggest....", "has the most...." , "Is number #1 for...." but believe me, most people around the globe donīt consider NYC to be the worldīs capital. Ask people: "NYC" or "DC"? The answer will most likely be "DC". NYC is mostly considered the place that represents American finance ....but the shots are called in Washington. Remember that the 9/11 terrorists targeted NYC, but also sent 2 planes to attack Washington. The White House and the Pentagon are truly seen as the seat of American power in the world .....and they are both in Washington. The UN in comparison means nothing. Also: most are aware of the cultural pull of American movies, TV and music.... and for that (right or wrong), most will point to Hollywood.

ZippyTheChimp
July 5th, 2005, 11:25 AM
The term "Capital of the World" is contrived.

The city with the most influence in the world is indeed Washington DC, but not because of the city itself. It projects the entire weight of America upon the rest of the globe.

New York City does not represent America. In fact, much of the world considers it an anomaly of American culture - not necessarily a bad thing. :)

Pottebaum
July 5th, 2005, 12:37 PM
New York City does not represent America. In fact, much of the world considers it an anomaly of American culture - not necessarily a bad thing. :)

It does reperesent American culture, though. In the midwest atleast, where I've lived my entire life, New York is the cool place to be. It's without a doubt more liberal, but people are still influenced and fascinated by the things that go on there.

ZippyTheChimp
July 5th, 2005, 01:14 PM
If you are discussing the Capital of the World, then the foreign perception is the relevant one.

It is true that you have to spend some time in foreign countries to appreciate the pervasive presence of American influence. That influence is perceived to be emanating from Washington, not New York.

I am not talking about how popular, or well liked, New York is.

Pottebaum
July 5th, 2005, 02:09 PM
In politics, yes, but I was talking about culture.

I see your point, though, Zippy.

ryan
July 5th, 2005, 02:18 PM
I am not talking about how popular, or well liked, New York is.

I think this helps me finally wrap my head around this capital of the world bs. NYC as[edit] the most popular city in the world - isn't that enough for all the NYC boosters?

If NYC were the "capital" of the world - or even this country, I would expect to see the values and culture of nyc more reflected in other places more than I do. People in other parts of the world might aspire to images of NYC, but at least in the rest of this country it's a superficial and unrealized aspiration.

Currently texas culture is much more dominant than NYC culture, and I'm not just talking about bush, but general cultural values and morals of the midwest.

bkmonkey
July 5th, 2005, 02:58 PM
Thoughtful comment Zippy, I see what you mean. I think that New York is certainly a part of American culture, simply because so much of our media, and our movies are set in New York. Americans are often flooded with "New York". Just look at this years top movies-- Batman "Gotham" a nickname for New York, and an achronysm for New York (taken to the extreme ofcourse) Fantastic 4 (I expect this to be a big hit) another comic movie set directly in the city (along with spiderman, and x-men). I go to school in delaware, with people from around the country and around the world. I think many people view New York as the "big city" and indeed to many Americans "big city" culture plays a role in life (im not sure how big it is)

Fabrizio
July 5th, 2005, 03:33 PM
Ryan: careful when you say: "NYC is the most popular city in the world..."

It depends on what you mean by "popular" and I donīt know how the statistics are now, but for quite sometime Paris was considered to be the top destination for international travel and tourism. The most "popular" cities... (that is "must see" cities) as far as tourism goes, are Paris, London, NY and Rome. Rember that for the longest time NYC with itīs crime rate of nearly 2000 murders (!) a year was certainly not considered a popular place or a place anyone wanted to aspire to as a model. Paris, London and Rome never had to live down that sort of reputation... Even setting NY as the site of popular movies is rather new: by the late 60īs, NY was constantly portrayed as a very scary place.

ryan
July 5th, 2005, 04:08 PM
sigh. what if I edited it to "new york as the most popular city"? If you read my posts, you'd see that I find this kind of boasting pointless and boring - and that I'm trying to understand the compulsion rather than engage in it.

Fabrizio
July 5th, 2005, 04:44 PM
An even bigger *sigh*.

Ryan: I am well aware of you feelings on the whole issue. Youīve stated them clearly. I am simply responding to the comment (well you wrote it ... see above ) "NYC is the most popular city in the world - isn't that enough for all the NYC boosters?" Whether you believe it, disbelieve it... or are saying it in an ironic way... I did want to pause and examine the comment a minute.... good for the forum... itīs called "discussion".

nick-taylor
July 6th, 2005, 09:58 AM
3 of them are in New York, and 12 of them are somewhere within the United States---more than any other nation. 5(or 6[not sure]) are based in London; the United Kingdom as a whole has 6; half the US's count.
America's banking industry is decentralized compared to the UK's (how couldn't be? The US is 40X larger :lol: ), but it still heavily relies on financial activity in New York; for example, notice that every American bank on that list is traded on the New York Stock exchange.London has the largest consolidated banking centre of any city on the planet (6 trading headquarters compared to New York's 3). This is backed up by the fact that it has the largest concentration of international banks than any other city on the planet (roughly around 2x that of New York, Paris and Frankfurt) due to the concentration of the markets and geographical location between New York and Tokyo. Another interesting fact is that London headquartered banks HSBC and Standard Chartered Group are two of the three banks (BoC being the other) that print banknotes for Hong Kong. HSBC and Standard Chartered Group are also well positioned for future Asian growth, more so than any other UK or US banking group simply because of their colonial ties. HSBC for example is to date the largest corporate financial investor into Chin. Standard Chartered used to be one of the world's largest banks, then it went into a dip and was at one time going to be brought up by Lloyds TSB. Now its the fastest growing developed economy based bank in the world thanks to its business in China and India. There is talk that if the Asian economy doesn't overheat, that it

Now considering I've just taught you this in a PM the other day I think you should take it easy ;)





When it comes to business, New York is the clear winner:Actually its not just that simple, for actual numbers of companies Tokyo comes out ahead, then its New York and then its London. A top 10/20/50, etc list doesn't who it until you observe the full 2,000 list.

Also if you just take cities into account as technically London has a quasi-metro area that nobody knows the exact boundaries of:
Citigroup - New York City
American International - New York City
BP - London
HSBC - London
Shell - London/Rotterdam
RBoS - London/Edinburgh
Altria Group - New York City
Pfizer - New York City
Verizon Communications - New York City
Barclays - London
Morgan Stanley - New York City


New York City - 6
London - 5

A complex company structure between London and Rotterdam explains Shell, while RBoS is split between the HQ and trading HQ (formerly NatWest Bank) in Edinburgh and London. The UK is quite successful when it comes to business and finance.

You would expect the influence in business of the US to be 5x that, in reality its more around 3.6x.





New York is globally known as the 'financial capital of the world' because of its role in international business, which closely relates to its huge stock exchanges; like NYSE, Nasdaq, AMEX, etc--that's what the media pays attention to. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when I researched it on Wikipedia and a random searches on the LSE website, it looks like 17 of the top 20 companies are traded on the NYSE, while 5 of them are traded on the London Stock Exchange. This is completely understandable, though, as New York is the financial and economic hub of a nation that is home to 711 of the world's 2000 largest companies[more than the entire continent of Europe].
And I know how important London is when it comes to insurance, and I'm sure you have a bunch of little facts and graphs to back it up--but the world's largest insurance company, AIG, HQ'd in New York has more sales and a larger market value than the UK's top 20 combined.Globally known by whom? Those that work within the industry and study it (like myself) or those that only just found out the other day that the UK and London has a few more teeth to bite with?

NY's stock exchanges might be the world's largest, but they handle only $40bn each day. London's currency markets handle around 18x that - $700bn DAILY. Then on top of that London's OTC derivatives market trades at around $600bn each day (or 43% of the global OTC derivatives market or around 15x that of the NYSE); it doesn't mean that they are unimportant or not critical to the global economy because they are and if London's currency markets collapsed, it would make a recession like a very lovely holiday.

Now the reason your unlikely to hear of the OTC derivatives market on say Bloomberg other than on a special bulletin, is simply because mass-media shows only information that the average person might be connected with: shares. I have shares, so obviously the stock markets concern me...but the OTC and currency markets (you might see exchange rates on TV) are each larger than the global stock market systems and operate towards banks, wealthy private individuals, pension funds, governments, etc. Now if you read a publication alike to the Financial Times (like myself) or an equivalent you might notice such issues being talked about.

London's financial strength is practically in everything other than shares and that is where it quite literally takes New York to the slaughterhouse. Its just because they aren't as 'open' to the public that they aren't recognised or even known...yet they go about making the economy go.

Actually there are differences between the insurance offered at say AIG and that by say Lloyds of London. Lloyds of London is the world's premier insurance/reinsurance market. When there is a nautural disaster, eg a tornado in the US - the cost is measured at Lloyds and the payment made out. When the WTC was destroyed, the financial underwriting had been done at Lloyds and Lloyds took the brunt of the compensation. It goes from the insurance of around 50% of all world shippage and aircraft (largest market holder) to even the most craziest of things such as insurance on Tina Turner's legs.





Sports=probably London, but I don't know--I just golf. :lol:
History=London, but it really depends on what period and kind of history you're into.
Music? New York is fantastic when it comes to music! The big four record labels are:

Sony-BMG Music Entertainment: The world's largest record label by market share=Headquartered in New York City.
Universal Music Group: The world's second largest record label=Headquartered in New York City.
EMI Group=The world's 3rd largest record label=Headquartered in London, with EMI Music Publishing based in New York City.
Warner Brothers=A subsidiary of NYC based Time Warner, Warner Brothers is headquartered in Burbank, California.Come on now with sports. Neither basketball, baseball of AFL are the world's most followed sports. Football, rugby, cricket and tennis are. The US might be insular when it comes to world sports, but for the other 6bn other people in this world - they know and worship these sports. People kill and commit suicide because it gets so emotion. Wembley is probably the most recognised global stadium. Golf is also a British invented sport also :laugh:

The most famous road to do with soundtrack production? Abbey Road Studios, London. Hendrix came to London to make it big. Infact most music soundtracks are recorded by London orchestras. Then you had just the other day the world's most watched and greatest concert ever: Live8. The premier concert held in London's Hyde Park where the likes of Brad Pitt, Kofi Annan and Bill Gates introduced acts such as Madonna, Pink Floyd, U2, Scissor Sisters, REM, Annie Lennox, Mariah Carey, The Who, Robbie Williams, The Killers, Dido, Coldplay, Paul McCartney, Sir Elton John, Snoop Dogg, etc...

For most people - such an event as the Live8 concert seen in London would most likely rank higher than where music labels are based. These are cultural events that are probably higher ranked amongst the average person than a business or financial institution. The allure of London now holding the 2012 Olympics will also be a bonus in the eyes that its a true global and great city.





I knew that; but it's only program formats; some Brits at SSC were thinking families in Ohio were sitting around after dinner to watch Dr. Who or something. Even though that's very impressive, it's just the format.
As for the actual programs, I believe the United States is the actual top exporter. There was a thread at skyscrapercity.com a while ago about the forumers' favorite TV shows--I tallied the results:I'm not quite sure why you keep bringing up that list....it doesn't show dominance whatsoever as the vast majority of those shows aren't even filmed there. The shareholders of those production companies are also global and may well be based in say London.

The format is important, to get a clean slate for it to be so successful in the world probably talks about a good deal of success in developing broad programming. In other words, its not about showing a UK venture, but a product modelled for the foreign country of destination, hence why they have been so successful.

Then again if it interests you - Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston (although split) are addicted to London-based Eastenders. Infact I believe Jennifer is starting a Eastenders-inspired soap drama for the US. Brad Pitt on the otherhand is in the process of moving to London to become a better architect (which I dont quite understand as Gehry's offices are in LA, then again Pitt is working on a project in Brighton - where Britney Spears will also I hear be moving to ;)).





Speaking of Batman, yeah, the funding was American--and it came from a New York City based company. Gotham is also a metaphor of New York City.
Another movie produced by a company owned in New York is War of the World's. The original story was written by a Brit a hundred years ago. Today, though, it is an American movie set in New York with an American director and with American actors. And, more than likely, it will dominate the British box office next week.I just find it interesting that us Brits can revolutionise the Batman franchise, while Spielberg has kept to the original story which is still so famous. Infact Britain has produced quite a few literary geniuses. The top two movie franchises of all time: Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter were written by Brits. Brits seem to be quite good at global influences.





I've probably mentioned this before..but just because there's a massive amount of international migration into London doesn't mean it's actually gaining that much population.
Take a look at this:But that graph means nothing more than London having the larger foreign born population % than New York within a few years. It also means that as London grows at a faster rate than New York that in the next few years it will also have a higher city proper population and total foreign born population.

For example between 2000 and 2004 (4 years), New York City grew by 95,801 citizens. London in comparison between 2001 and 2005 (4 years) grew by 249,192 - 2.6x faster than New York City. London's growth rate might I add is increasing what with the opening of the UK to the new Eastern European EU accenssion countries (London estimates alone in 2004 put at 40,000 for 10 countries). The reason is London has one of the most favourable geographical, political and social situations around. London's population should overtake New York in around 2015-2020, we are at the start of strong growth, not average growth. Infact just the other day, Ken Livingstone the Mayor of London along with Richard Rogers who manages the 'London Masterplan' proposed a new city within London with a popualation of around 1mn called 'City East'.




TLOZ Link5 - London, like many other UK cities lost a lot of its population. The population ended up shifting not into suburbs (like in the US beyond the city proper boundaries), because of the green belts (that stop the sprawl that even New York is a vicim of) but into commuter towns that orbit London. Growth I should add is increasing in London, infact London is now reaching the levels of growth seen in Victorian times. There are some very interesting times ahead, including a push to Paris or Manhattan density in and around Stratford (where the Olympics will be held)...currently the site is a wasteland.





But for the overall big picture: itīs Washington DC.I personally don't believe there is a world capital. I do believe though that there is one city that comes close to covering all sectors with high marks (diversity, economy, finance, business, politics, culture, etc...) and that city is London.





New York City will continue to grow.. you cannot forget that New York has a huge metropolitian area with over 22 million people (2005) and that number is rapidly growing. In comparison London is much smaller with 12.5 million people. (wikipedia). I very much doubt that London will overtake New York in population. New York's population growth is only accelerating anyway. Now... lets be serious. We are talking about capitol in the context of global city. Which city has the most influence around the globe, New York or Washington.. London or Washington. New York is the centre of American culture, media, economics, and a large portions of its politics. Consider this, the capitol of a nation or a state, is often not it;s most important city. What is the capitol of New York State, or California? Often capitols such a such as Washington DC are planned to take power away from a specific metropolis such as New York. (the capitol was originally in nyc). Political decisions in New York are made in Albany, however that does not mean that Albany is more important than New York. However, just because the political centre is in Washington, New York is still host of the United Nations. Yes, I am well aware, the UN, is not a power in itself, however the fact that it is a political forum where all the leaders of world converge and discuss problems, this alone makes the UN important, and of course New York is the natural choice for the UN, as one of the most internatinal cities in the world.I should note that London has a metro area of 18mn over an area of 22,000kmē. New York's metro area I believe is 21mn over an area of 27,000kmē.

Now I am unsure of growth rates for London or New York's metro, but London's metro too is growing - its infact seeing most of its growth from the North of England and outer regions. Alas I have no figures so I can't really state much here other than the fact that it too is growing.

What you have to look at, is that in the US you have New York and Washington. In the UK and Europe you have London - politics, economics, culture, business and finance all intertwined in one urban centre.

Also I believe the UN being based in NYC is more to do with the influence Washington wanted to have on the international body. Naturally it could never be placed in a Washington for fears of tainting. Yet what do you mean by international? London has the largest amount of international connections (GaWC) than any other city on the planet. It also so happens to have the largest number of 5,000+ and 10,000+ foreign born populations than any other city.





Granted.. isnt't London bigger than nyc in terms of landsize? Its also important to realize that trends .. tend to change. If we are talking about London having a population of 8.2 by 2016, it is impossible to know where NYC will stand by then. The city could be half the size it is or double (or anywhere in between). The fact is, there are numerous events, political, cultural and economical that havent happend yet which dictate migration and immigration trends. All we know now is that New York has 8.1 million people, and that number will change by 2016. As I said before, it is important to note, that New York's metroplitan area is growing rapidly, 9.4% since 1990, New York will continue to be a large population center for the forseeable future. Currently, it is the second largest urban area in the world, after Tokyo (wikipedia).Yes London is larger than New York in terms of land area: 1,579kmē compared to 800.31kmē for New York City. Yet city proper boundaries don't really make much difference. The City of Paris for instance is only 86.928 kmē.

London though is a city that has only in the last 20 years re-aligned its priorities into a global city. Yes trends do change, growth could speed up or slow down. Yet indicators now are that London is absorbing more and more people like never before from foreign countries and growth is not stalling or levelling off - its actually accelerating. Hence the announcement the other day of City East and the continual development of the Thames Gateway (construction of 200,000 new homes).




Fabrizio - I should note that the most visited city in the world is now.......London since late 2004. According to a report by Mintel:
"The English capital welcomed 11.6m overseas visitors and 16.1m UK tourists in 2002 - ahead of its nearest rival Paris which had 9m foreign visitors."








And I should congratulate NYC for giving a good attempt at the 2012 Olympics, had the red tape not been so dense, it might have made things more interesting. Ah well roll on 2012 in London AND another 80,000 seater stadium for the city - what better for one of the greatest cities in the world to beat 2 of the other greatest cities in the world for the greatest sports event ever. All we need to do now is get the World Cup and we'll be sorted!

Then again the best bit is when Blair will welcome Chirac to Gleneagles - I want to see Chirac's face after all the idiotic things he has said in recent weeks!


http://www.lda.gov.uk/upload/img/Illustrative_Olympic_Masterplan_20050526104904.jpg


http://cache.gettyimages.com/comp/53202002.jpg?x=x&dasite=MS_GINS&ef=2&ev=1&dareq=E2399169AC85D6DE9A21091711E5AD1E00BEA0C78F30 9A3D7757C85AE85A779B
Getty Images

Fabrizio
July 6th, 2005, 10:44 AM
A wonderful informative post... and congrats on the the olympics.

Again... you, just like the NYers here, should give consideration to the city that is percieved to be the "Capital of the world" ..... not by Americans or Brits.... but by the other millions and millions of folks around the globe.


Believe me it ainīt London. London and NYC can have all the blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.... but Washington is the seat of the American government ...and the decisions that truly affect the planet. The US is an "empire" with the worlds biggest military that can eat England for a snack. No matter what statistics you come up with.... it makes nooooo difference. Washington rules.... and that by default, makes it the "Capital of the World"..... or at least that is how it is percieved.

ZippyTheChimp
July 6th, 2005, 11:21 AM
Perhaps a more descriptive title for what some here seem to be saying is the world's second home. For that title, no city on earth comes close to New York.

London, Berlin, Paris, and Tokyo are all extensions of their countries. New York is unique in being viewed as apart from its all powerful nation, which gives it a mythical quality around the world. And its status as a point of immigration has been a consistent throughout its history - actually its defining characteristic.

nick-taylor
July 6th, 2005, 03:43 PM
Fabrizio - I believe Washington is a very important city....but I wouldn't consider it to be a world capital simply on the basis that it lacks an all-round appeal that a city like New York or London has. If there ever was a war between the US and the UK it would most likely end up in a stalemate - both countries have nukes and a conventional land, sea and air attack on the UK would make Iraq look like a picnic. Quite simply, in todays world the true leader has to encompass economy, politics, culture and a variety of other aspects without the use of lethal force which simply doesn't show greatness or shows dominance in todays world. On a city basis this would have been New York in 1970, now it could be London.




ZippyTheChimp - From an outsiders view, Ive never really viewed New York as a sort of enclave of the US. If anything Boston in my view was more detached from the US. I still don't quite see the connection though, other than with diversity, which is only one aspect.

Fabrizio
July 6th, 2005, 05:03 PM
"I believe Washington is a very important city....but I wouldn't consider it to be a world capital..."

Nick : The thread is titled "NY: Capital of the world?"

"Capital of the World" ...not "World Capital". And there is a difference.

Obviously Washington canīt be considered a world class city... "a world Capital" ....on the level of NY, Paris or London ....but despite that ...around the globe it is Washington that is indeed considered to be "Capital of the World".... no matter what you might think. It is home to the American President and the Pentagon. I have a feeling you have no idea what those institutions signify to millions around the world.

Do it this way: ask any American what city they truly consider to be the "Capital of the US". They will answer: Washington DC... no matter how important NYC is.... because it is Washington where the power is. If you ask anyone in the world what city they would consider to be "capital of the World"... considering Americaīs status as empire... they too will most likely answer Washington DC... it is logical.

RandySavage
July 6th, 2005, 05:48 PM
"On a city basis this would have been New York in 1970, now it could be London"

But New York has also seen dramatic improvements since 1970's.

Anyway, I don't think you can separate the city from the Mother Country that easily. London, Britain's greatest city, will always take second fiddle to New York, America's greatest city.

While New York is a global city with a diverse population, it remains an American city. I would argue that NYC is truer to the "American" ideals and principles than any other part of the country. As has been noted many times, it is also the center of American media, American finance/banking, American advertising/marketing, American theater, American fashion, etc.

We live in a time when the world is shaped, for better or worse, by America. That was Britain's position for much of the past three centuries. But as some Brits seem reluctant to admit, the sun has forever set on the their Empire.

Mother Countries aside, Manhattan causes unquantifiable, inspiring, jaw-dropping awe for first time visitors unlike any other city. This is probably due to the density and height of its buildings and also because the city's mythology that has been imbued in us by books, movies, poems, television, and song. There is a magic and a vibrancy and an energy in the air that no other city can touch. NYC is, without a doubt, the greatest city on Earth.

nick-taylor
August 6th, 2005, 07:00 AM
"I believe Washington is a very important city....but I wouldn't consider it to be a world capital..."

Nick : The thread is titled "NY: Capital of the world?"

"Capital of the World" ...not "World Capital". And there is a difference.

Obviously Washington canīt be considered a world class city... "a world Capital" ....on the level of NY, Paris or London ....but despite that ...around the globe it is Washington that is indeed considered to be "Capital of the World".... no matter what you might think. It is home to the American President and the Pentagon. I have a feeling you have no idea what those institutions signify to millions around the world.

Do it this way: ask any American what city they truly consider to be the "Capital of the US". They will answer: Washington DC... no matter how important NYC is.... because it is Washington where the power is. If you ask anyone in the world what city they would consider to be "capital of the World"... considering Americaīs status as empire... they too will most likely answer Washington DC... it is logical.Forgot to reply to this thread ;)

Capital of the world and world capital are literally the same meaning, like State Capital and Capital of the State. Its if I left out the 'world' or 'state' where I would have been wrong.

If your going to count only capitals of countries then that negates New York totally as its unfortunately a capital of nothing (harsh but a fact).

Also I believe US dominance is waining, Brussels for example is as powerful through the EU economically, while Beijing, New Delhi, etc are challenging so. The US might have the world's most powerful military but when it can't take on the world single handedly. The last country to do that was Britain and I can't see any other country in the future (unless they use nuclear weapons to disable all other nuclear-powers) doing so anytime soon.

Of course you would expect people to state the capital of the US as being Washington DC, just like Australians would say Canberra, etc. The most important overall city though - the city that would be the most critical target if an enemy wished to wound deeply - is not Washington DC, it is New York.

Also I really wouldn't call the US an empire, if it is - its severely restricted to only a few patches and even then it has to ask permission to use for example UK overseas territories for bases (eg Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean). Economically it is just as powerful as the EU and the likes of Japan, India and China are growing giants that will soon overtake both the US and EU.










"On a city basis this would have been New York in 1970, now it could be London"

But New York has also seen dramatic improvements since 1970's.

Anyway, I don't think you can separate the city from the Mother Country that easily. London, Britain's greatest city, will always take second fiddle to New York, America's greatest city.

While New York is a global city with a diverse population, it remains an American city. I would argue that NYC is truer to the "American" ideals and principles than any other part of the country. As has been noted many times, it is also the center of American media, American finance/banking, American advertising/marketing, American theater, American fashion, etc.

We live in a time when the world is shaped, for better or worse, by America. That was Britain's position for much of the past three centuries. But as some Brits seem reluctant to admit, the sun has forever set on the their Empire.

Mother Countries aside, Manhattan causes unquantifiable, inspiring, jaw-dropping awe for first time visitors unlike any other city. This is probably due to the density and height of its buildings and also because the city's mythology that has been imbued in us by books, movies, poems, television, and song. There is a magic and a vibrancy and an energy in the air that no other city can touch. NYC is, without a doubt, the greatest city on Earth.If New York has seen dramatic changes since 1970's, then London is on an altogether different plane of existence!

Seriously London has done like it has for its 2,000 years of history: adapted and evolved to the changing global environment. It was in a bit of chaos post WW2, what with some 30% of the city in ruins and the country close to bankruptcy. Yet it pulled itself together like it has done in those previous two millennia.

Although I would love to know why London plays second fiddle to New York? In finance, London is above across the board 'higher'. Politics....well no need to go there, as there is no political power in New York City when there is in London. Demographically, London is not only growing 2.5x faster than New York, its absorbing more immigrants which will mean within the next few years that it will have: a larger foreign born population, larger percentage of foreign born people and an overall larger city popualtion (maybe even metro, but that could be pushing it and the stats on that are very hazy).

London though I should note is the home to media in various forms - maybe not the actutal HQ, but the likes of Abbey Road and various artists are attracted to the capital to make their name in music (eg Jimi Hendrix). Most movie soundtracks are produced in London by London orchestras.Primary production from films such as Batman Begins, Saving Private Ryan, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Harry Potter, James Bond, etc (check IMDB if you don't believe me) were shot in and around London. Even Woody Allen has defected to London where he can make his movies without hassle like he would in New York! Newspaper readership/circulation in the UK is larger than in the US and there are several newspapers written and printed in London that are larger (The Sun, The Daily Mail and The Daily Mirror have larger circulations than USA Today than any US paper (national, regional or city-wise). The world's largest book publisher is in London (Pearson - by number of books). The top three shows of all time ever on Broadway were originally productions from London's (Cats, The Phantom of the Opera and Les Misérables) West End - and also produced and written mainly by Brits (Cameron Mackintosh and Andrew Lloyd Webbet). Hollywood stars that you could name easily (Val Kilmer, Madonna, Gwyneth Paltrow, Nicole Kidman, Kevin Spacey, Kathleen Turner, Daryl Hannah, Macaulay Culkin, Jessica Lange, Matt Damon, Jake Gyllenhaal, Freddie Prinze Jr, Glenn Close, Brendan Fraser, Woody Harrelson, Matthew Perry, Hank Azaria, etc... Thats not even including the likes of Alan Rickman, Sir Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart, etc that have their theatre bases in London. To top it off London is home to the Globe Theatre - the theatre that Shakespeare wrote and performed his plays. New Yorker Kevin Spacey is now a resident of London and runs the Old Vic Theatre - infact he is now thinking of becoming a permanent resident. London is also home to more banks than any other city on the planet and London has more trading HQ in the top 10,20,50 banks in the world than any other city in the world. London also performs well in everything finance that isn't stock markets. London, Paris, Milan, Tokyo and New York are roughly equal when it comes to fashion. Also London has more top 10 advertising companies than any other city on the planet. Then theres what is (probably) the world's largest media organisation: the BBC with its dozens of radio channels, magazines, websites, TV channels, merchandise, etc... It is also the largest news gathering operation in the world (100hrs of news output each day) and Reuters is the world's largest multimedia organsation.....phew ;)

Also I don't believe in the bile that some people keep going on about, ie that 'the sun has set' and that somehow its not important or critical to the world.

Also technically the sun does continue to shine across Britain and its overseas territories: going eastwards and showing main examples:
UK
Gibraltar (Mediterranean)
Akrotiti & Dhekelia (Cyprus, Mediterranean)
British Indian Ocean Territory (Indian Ocean)
Pitcairn Islands (Pacific Ocean)
Bermuda + Cayman Islands & others (Caribbean)
Falkland Islands (South Atlantic)
Saint Helena (Atlantic Ocean)

Technically the sun does continue to never set on Britain and her overseas interests as the rough map I quickly drew up states.


http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/8601/worldmap2004ciafactbooklarge2m.th.jpg (http://img174.imageshack.us/my.php?image=worldmap2004ciafactbooklarge2m.jpg)


Regarding jaw-dropping - Hong Kong has far more and taller towers in a more densely packed and confined backdrop of ocean and hills. London on the other hand is not about canyons of many indescript buildings, but about the detail at street level - the magnificance that New York lacks from before 1900 when buildings were built to make a massive statement when walking pastand something that is far more important than a skyline which would mostly be voided by the surrounding towers.

Fabrizio
August 6th, 2005, 08:18 AM
Nick....

What you said in your original post:

"I believe Washington is a very important city....but I wouldn't consider it to be A WORLD CAPITAL ...."

Are you going to tell me that "a world capital" and "Capital of the world" are the same thing? English is my second language, but even I am able to understand the difference.

There can be many "world capitals" but only ONE "capital of the world".

(and btw, even if you donīt consider Washington to be "the" capital-of-the-world ...it certainly is "a" world-capital...)


You also say:

"Also I believe US dominance is waining"

"Also I really wouldn't call the US an empire"


Nick, the truth is I completely agree with those statements, but.... whether the US is ....or isnīt ....it is PERCIEVED around the world to be the dominant force...it is a "symbol" like no other.... it is the country that is the standard, the country that can (and will) start major wars unilaterally, the country that can overthrow governments, that can meddle in the worlds economy, that can set peace accords, that sets cultural trends (good and bad), it is the country that you blame for all evil and praise for what is good, it is a thorn in everyones side and the place that REPRESENTS all that is modern and progressive ......even though the FACTS might be very different.

It is the one country that you feel whose policies can affect your own country.

The election of the American president is seen as the election of the "President of the world". It carries a weight around the world like the election of no other leader. And you know that. Over here in Italy (and weīre in Europe...) people hold their breath for the election of the US president. The election of the English prime minister ( for instance) means n o t h i n g. And thatīs the way it is around the globe.

The American president and the Pentagon and the CIA and the FBI ....govern from Washington... the capital of the US.... and therefore.... logically ....percieved to be the capital of the world ( not "a" world capital but "the" capital of the world).

BTW: do you have ANY idea how loaded the words, "President of the United States", "Pentagon", "CIA" and "FBI" are? They are MYTHIC... so you can write list, after list, after list, of facts and statistics about LONDON but guess what?

Washington rules......

You also state:

"The most important overall city though - the city that would be the most critical target if an enemy wished to wound deeply - is not Washington DC, it is New York".

I beg to differ. The 9/11 terrorists did attack the WTC but they also set planes to attck TWO targets in Washington: the Pentagon and either the Capital building or the White House.

Imagine if they had destroyed the White House. The White House blown to bits. Pictures of the White House in smoldering ruins, beamed around the world.

That would have had an impact and symbolism (and created a panic) that would have far surpassed the destruction of the WTC.

nick-taylor
August 6th, 2005, 09:55 AM
Nick....

What you said in your original post:

"I believe Washington is a very important city....but I wouldn't consider it to be A WORLD CAPITAL ...."

Are you going to tell me that "a world capital" and "Capital of the world" are the same thing? English is my second language, but even I am able to understand the difference.

There can be many "world capitals" but only ONE "capital of the world".

(and btw, even if you donīt consider Washington to be "the" capital-of-the-world ...it certainly is "a" world-capital...)I'm unsure of whether this is a division because of the pond, but both are the same. Its all down to the word: "world". If I talk about the likes of Paris, London, Beijing, Tokyo, Washington DC, etc... I call them capitals not world capitals. Its as if to imply that there is something more than the world out there ;)




You also say:

"Also I believe US dominance is waining"

"Also I really wouldn't call the US an empire"


Nick, the truth is I completely agree with those statements, but.... whether the US is ....or isnīt ....it is PERCIEVED around the world to be the dominant force...it is a "symbol" like no other.... it is the country that is the standard, the country that can (and will) start major wars unilaterally, the country that can overthrow governments, that can meddle in the worlds economy, that can set peace accords, that sets cultural trends (good and bad), it is the country that you blame for all evil and praise for what is good, it is a thorn in everyones side and the place that REPRESENTS all that is modern and progressive ......even though the FACTS might be very different.I think the US isn't the only country that can do that. Countries lik the UK, France, Russia and China have the capability and possibly requirement to force many countries to capitulate....the difference though is that the US is the larger power, but all have the same problem: it would be hard to try and successfully carry out such an operation without suffering or inflicting major casulaties.




It is the one country that you feel whose policies can affect your own country.

The election of the American president is seen as the election of the "President of the world". It carries a weight around the world like the election of no other leader. And you know that. Over here in Italy (and weīre in Europe...) people hold their breath for the election of the US president. The election of the English prime minister ( for instance) means n o t h i n g. And thatīs the way it is around the globe.

The American president and the Pentagon and the CIA and the FBI ....govern from Washington... the capital of the US.... and therefore.... logically ....percieved to be the capital of the world ( not "a" world capital but "the" capital of the world).

BTW: do you have ANY idea how loaded the words, "President of the United States", "Pentagon", "CIA" and "FBI" are? They are MYTHIC... so you can write list, after list, after list, of facts and statistics about LONDON but guess what?

Washington rules...... I never saw the US election as some sort of 'World President Election'. It is important because the US makes up some 30% of the global economy (the EU making up another 30% and the rest of the world the other 40%).

But are those words any good? Bush is one of the crappest presidents to have ever existed (I'm suprised he hasn't been treated in the traditional fashion of being assassinated ;)). The Pentagon is seen as gun-ho, willing to kill anyone be it civillian or not and then ask and answer questions. The CIA and FBI seen as defunct and incompetent (eg 9/11). The likes of Mossad and MI5/MI6 aren't as well known, but they get the job done if not to a higher degree even though they have less spending power. I do think they are important though. Bush, or the puppeteers controling him does have impact on my life, but I'd say New York has a far larger impact in the form of culture, multi-nationals, finance, etc. The same is said for London.








You also state:

"The most important overall city though - the city that would be the most critical target if an enemy wished to wound deeply - is not Washington DC, it is New York".

I beg to differ. The 9/11 terrorists did attack the WTC but they also set planes to attck TWO targets in Washington: the Pentagon and either the Capital building or the White House.

Imagine if they had destroyed the White House. The White House blown to bits. Pictures of the White House in smoldering ruins, beamed around the world.

That would have had an impact and symbolism (and created a panic) that would have far surpassed the destruction of the WTC.I am well aware of the events of 9/11, but what is remembered more - the WTC or the Pentagon? I think if the White House had been hit then it would have had far more serious implications, but I think people would still be looking at New York.

Then again its not like the White House hasn't been destroyed before, Americans tend to forget about the British incursion of 1812 for a few reasons.

Imagine though had the Palace of Westminster been hit - knocking out the legislature, judiciary and executive in one swoop, attacking an internationally recognised building that is one of the greatest peices of art on the planet and in the world's most connected city and important financial centre. Hopefully that won't happen, but the Luftwaffe and IRA have made attempts at it :(

Your points are valid, I just don't think Washington has the scope that in todays world where empires are non-existant that politics is the sole driver.

Fabrizio
August 6th, 2005, 10:33 AM
Nick... Will you tell me WHY you insist on IGNORING that fact that you SAID:

"....but I wouldn't consider it to be "A" WORLD CAPITAL ...."

Got it?

"A" "world capital" and "THE" "capital of the world" are INDEED different concepts. Geeeeeeez.

And why are you going on about what a rotton pres Bush is? Thatīs not what this is about. Itīs about the INSTITUTION of the American presidency and the weight that carries... itīs symbolism around the world. Even though YOU donīt consider the election of the American pres. the election of the most important politcal seat in the world.... it is. I hate Bush too but thatīs ANOTHER debate.

You say: "The Pentagon is seen as gun-ho, willing to kill anyone be it civillian or not and then ask and answer questions".

Well EXACTLY. thatīs my POINT.


"Then again its not like the White House hasn't been destroyed before, Americans tend to forget about the British incursion of 1812 for a few reasons".

LOL. Yes, the White House was destroyed once before. What does that have to do with anything? Do it today, in this century with the US now the global power... with all of us linked globally and the impact would be quite different.

How on earth you can think the destruction of the Houses of Parliment would have the same impact and symbolism ......it is almost comic in itīs provincialism to think so.

I am not American. I donīt live there. But I do understand the countryīs significance (like it or NOT) on the world stage.

London might have the financial and cultural numbers and statistics , Downing Street, the Houses of Parliment, Scotland Yard and the Queen, but Washington has the American President, the FBI, the CIA, the Pentagon, the White House, the Capital building and it is the Capital of 50 UNITED states... if they had blown up the White House, 9/11 would have been an even much more dramatic scenario.

Furthermore: it has been posted over and over again by the moderators here to be prudent when posting quotes. Why do you insist on wasting bandwith quoting whole paragraphs?

nick-taylor
August 6th, 2005, 11:09 AM
Fabrizio - Theres a clear difference though that hes the president one one country, not the world. Thats a BIG difference. I just don't see the connection with the world and Washington.

I would also think if the Houses of Parliament were destroyed ala 9/11 style it would probably be far more damaging - the UK isn't provincial - its the 4th largest economy on the planet and gradually leading the interior for the New EU which is just as powerful as the EU is.

I assume Brussels though is as powerful as Washington though using the logic you state! Not only is the EU economy larger (depending on methodology), it has a larger population, enough nuclear weapons, a semi-federal state system, etc... I don't see many people claiming that even if the connections are slightly looser.

I'm not exactly a regular on these forums so would not know about requests on quoting.

Fabrizio
August 6th, 2005, 11:45 AM
Nick: Continuing in your illogical reasoning:

"I would also think if the Houses of Parliament were destroyed ala 9/11 style it would probably be far more damaging - the UK isn't provincial - its the 4th largest economy on the planet and gradually leading the interior for the New EU which is just as powerful as the EU is".


So.... the UK is the 4th largest economy (not the first ) it is not even the capital of the EU (but "gradually leading the interior of the new EU...) and yet .... and yet..... "if the Houses of Parliament were destroyed ala 9/11 style it would probably be FAR MORE DAMAGING". ( than having the White House destroyed.)

ZippyTheChimp
August 6th, 2005, 12:00 PM
GDP figures for 2004:

Total world............... $55,500,000,000,000
United States..............11,750,000,000,000
United Kingdom.............1,782,000,000,000
EU..............................11,650,000.000.000

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

nick-taylor
August 7th, 2005, 01:10 PM
Fabrizio - The Palace of Westminster isn't just a house housing the leader of the US. The Palace of Westminster hold the laws of the UK (ie the laws and rules that are written in the US constitution - all in their original, non-copied format are held at the Palace), the equivalent of Congress and the highest court in the land. Not forgetting the fact that people could quickly identify with it more so than the White House. Its also an architecurtal masterpeice ;)



Zippy - Depends on your source, outlook and methodology. For instance according the IMF, the EU has the larger economy. The World Bank on the other hand states that the US has the larger economy. Both are pretty much identical when it comes to PPP.

ZippyTheChimp
August 7th, 2005, 01:40 PM
^
The signficant data for this discussion is that the U.S. economy is at least 10 times that of the U.K.

U.S. international influence is projected via Washington DC. It is the capital of the world.

2000 years ago, the capital of the world was Rome.

200 years ago, it was London.

nick-taylor
August 9th, 2005, 06:56 AM
This is something I don't get though. Rome wasn't the capital of the world 2,000 years ago - it never claimed or was handed such a title. The same can be said of London which had by far the largest land and sea empire known to man....but it was never the 'world capital'. I've at least to hear of anything like it.... Maybe the term is used to try and inflate Washington and the US which lacks a large empire which expanded beyond its own borders which is what Rome and London achieved. I think thats a more reasonable answer.


Also using your own source, the US is more like 6.5x larger than the UK economy, according to the IMF it is only 5.4x larger, while the World Bank states that also its around 5.4x larger.....thats no way near 10x larger! The US population is roughly 5x that of the UK.

ZippyTheChimp
August 9th, 2005, 08:17 AM
This is getting a bit silly.

Rome wasn't the capital of the world 2,000 years ago - it never claimed or was handed such a title.I didn't realize it was necessary for the Roman senate or some world body (I don't think one existed at the time) to confer the title.

Should we discuss military strength next?

We can parse data ad nauseam, but anyone who thinks that London or New York or any other city has had more influence on world events over the last 60 years than Washington DC has not been paying attention. The closest challenger during that time was Moscow.


Maybe the term is used to try and inflate Washington and the US which lacks a large empire which expanded beyond its own borders which is what Rome and London achieved. I think thats a more reasonable answer.The term was used in this thread to determine if London or New York had that title, and it was stated, correctly in my opinion, that if such a title is relevant, it belongs to Washington DC.

It seems you are trying to inflate the status of the UK on the world stage above that of the US. I wish it were so. Having lived through much of the Cold War, I had hoped the collapse of the Soviet Union would lead to a more egalitarian role for the US, but that has not happened.

nick-taylor
August 9th, 2005, 09:55 AM
Zippy - I just have never heard of a world capital used anytime for Washington until now. Not for London, not for Rome, not for anywhere other than New York which goes 'and claims' such a title which is even looser than London claiming such a title.

A world capital doesn't exist in my opinion, you do though have an amalgamation of international peoples, political institutions, business, finance, culture andeconomic power. New York and London are the only two cities that encompass this - yet I wouldn't call them world capitals (which is something I keep saying).

I also wouldn't call Washington the world capital - if it was, it would set the laws in the UK, the EU, etc - it doesn't. A capital afterall has to have sovereignty over its subjects and even though the US has the superior military....it doesn't have sovereignty over the likes of me or say someone in Iraq. That is the difference and THAT is the reality. Also if the UK was at the level of the US in terms of population, economy and military strength I think the world probably would be a bit better off, but that won't ever be happening - it can though through the EU and with other EU member states create a force that can act with and against the US. The same can be said of China and India.

Ninjahedge
August 9th, 2005, 10:05 AM
I have heard "world leader" and different things associated with washington as a governing body NOT as an "official" would capital because of the obvious political backlash that we are seeing even on this rather small, semi-global bulletin board.


I do not know if any one city at any time could be considered literally a world capital, but Washington seems to be the closest contender for that at this time regardless of world perception.


NYC would be seen more as the worlds FINANCIAL capital, but that is another issue....

Fabrizio
August 9th, 2005, 11:41 AM
Nick wrote: "I also wouldn't call Washington the world capital - if it was, it would set the laws in the UK..."

uh... yeah... uh... ....and youīd be paying your taxes to Washington too but youīre not..... and youīd be voting for the president but youīre not... and...

HEY! WAIT a minute... itīs starting to dawn on me..... Washington canīt be considered the capital of the world...

BrooklynRider
August 9th, 2005, 11:58 AM
In this age, whatever city we presume to be the world's financial capital would be THE world capital.

And, hey, what about Switzerland sitting out there in all its "grayness" and "neutrality". What exactly goes on inside those borders?

Fabrizio
August 9th, 2005, 12:38 PM
"In this age, whatever city we presume to be the world's financial capital would be THE world capital".

I can understand that observation.

So what is more important... financial power or political power? Or.... the politically powerful city that pulls the strings of the financial power?.....

Ninjahedge
August 9th, 2005, 02:53 PM
I think NYC does just that, but unfortunately, it is not the politicians that are pulling the worlds strings....

TLOZ Link5
August 9th, 2005, 05:28 PM
Not to split hairs, but Washington DC is considered a gamma (minor) world city by the Globalization and World Cities Study Group and Network. So in terms of economic and cultural influence, it manages to have some pull.

ZippyTheChimp
August 9th, 2005, 06:50 PM
So what is more important... financial power or political power? Or.... the politically powerful city that pulls the strings of the financial power?.....
Washington can print money.
New York must balance its budget.

Washington blows $1billion a week in Iraq.
New York begs for transportation funds.

Ninjahedge
August 10th, 2005, 10:55 AM
Washington has cherry blossoms.
New York has Good Bagels.


Sorry Zip, but I do not see the solid connection on your comparison there. I agree with what you are saying, and the system needs work, but the association is a little weak... ;)

ZippyTheChimp
August 10th, 2005, 11:08 AM
The association is a response to Fabrizio's quote.

Does the financially powerful city or the politically powerful capital have a greater influence on world events?

Ninjahedge
August 10th, 2005, 11:19 AM
The association is a response to Fabrizio's quote.

Does the financially powerful city or the politically powerful capital have a greater influence on world events?

Yes.

;)

BrooklynRider
August 10th, 2005, 06:21 PM
...Washington can print money.
New York must balance its budget.

Actually, as you probably know, the government does not print its own money. The Federal Reserve prints and controls money in this country. This is all well documented - google it anywhere. Here is the story from one source...

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

The first misconception that most people have is that the Federal Reserve Bank is a branch of the US government. It is not. The Federal Reserve Bank is a private company. Most people believe it is as American as the Constitution. The fact is: The U.S. Constitution forbids its existence. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to create money and regulate the value thereof, not a bumnch of international bankers. Today the Fed controls and profits by printing worthless paper called "money", through the Treasury, regulating its value, And the biggest outrage is that the Fed is collecting interest on it! (THE SO-CALLED NATIONAL DEBT).

The FED began with approximately 300 people or banks that became owners, stockholders purchasing stock at $100 per share in the Federal Reserve Banking System (the stock is not publicly traded and you and I cannot buy a "share"). They make up an international banking cartel of wealth beyond comparison. The FED banking system collects billions of dollars in interest annually and distributes the profits to its shareholders. The Congress illegally gave the FED the right to print money through the Treasury at no interest to the FED.

The FED creates money from nothing, and loans it back to us through banks, and charges interest on our currency. The FED also buys Government debt with money printed on a printing press and charges U.S. taxpayers interest. Many Congressmen and Presidents say this is fraud. Who actually owns the Federal Reserve Central Banks? The ownership of the 12 Central banks are: 1. Rothschild Bank of London 2. Warburg Bank of Hamburg 3. Rothschild Bank of Berlin 4. Lehman Brothers of New York 5. Lazard Brothers of Paris 6. Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York 7. Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy 8. Goldman, Sachs of New York 9. Warburg Bank of Amsterdam 10. Chase Manhattan Bank of New York.

These bankers are connected to London Banking Houses which ultimately control the FED. When England lost the Revolutionary War with America where our forefathers were fighting their own government, they planned to control us by controlling our banking system, the printing of our money, and our debt. The individuals listed below owned banks which in turn owned shares in the FED. The banks listed below have significant control over the New York FED District, which controls the other 11 FED Districts. These banks also are partly foreign owned and control the New York FED District Bank: First National Bank of New York, James Stillman National City Bank, New York, Mary W. Harnman, National Bank of Commerce, New York, A.D. Jiullard Hanover, National Bank, New York, Jacob Schiff, Chase National Bank, New York, Thomas F. Ryan, Paul Warburg, William Rockefeller, Levi P. Morton, M.T. Pyne, George F. Baker, Percy Pyne, Mrs. G.F. St. George, J.W. Sterling, Katherine St. George, H.P. Davidson, J.P. Morgan (Equitable Life/Mutual Life), Edith Brevour, T. Baker.

How did it happen? After previous attempts to push the Federal Reserve Act through Congress, a group of bankers funded and staffed Woodrow Wilson's campaign for President. He had committed to sign this act. In 1913, a Senator, Nelson Aldrich, maternal grandfather to the Rockefellers, pushed the Federal Reserve Act through Congress just before Christmas when much of Congress was on vacation. When elected, Wilson passed the FED. Later, Wilson remorsefully replied, referring to the FED, "I have unwittingly ruined my country". Now the banks financially back sympathetic candidates. Not surprisingly, most of these candidates are elected.

The bankers employ members of the Congress on weekends (nickname T&T club - out Thursday...in Tuesday) with lucrative salaries. Additionally, the FED started buying up the media in the 1930's and now owns or significantly influences most of it. Presidents Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, James Garfield and John Kennedy tried to stop this family of bankers by printing or proposing to print U.S. dollars without charging the taxpayers interest.

Today, if the government runs a deficit, the FED prints dollars through the U.S. Treasury, buys the debt, and the dollars are circulated into the economy. In 1992, taxpayers paid the FED banking system $286 billion in interest on debt the FED purchased by printing money virtually cost free. Forty percent of our personal federal income taxes goes to pay this interest.

The FED's books are not open to the public. Congress has yet to audit it. Congressman Wright Patman was Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Banking and Currency for 40 years. For 20 of those years, he introduced legislation to repeal the Federal Reserve Banking Act of 1913. Congressman Henry Gonzales, Chairman of a banking committee, introduced legislation to repeal the Federal Reserve Banking Act of 1913 almost every year. It's always defeated, the media remains silent, and the public never learns the truth. The same bankers who own the FED control the media and give huge political contributions to sympathetic members of Congress.
The Fed fears the population will become aware of this fraud and demand change. The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks acting together have cost this country dearly.

They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; the rich and predatory money lenders. This is an era of economic misery and for the reasons that caused that misery, the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks are fully liable. Half a million dollars was spent on one part of propaganda organized by those same European bankers for the purpose of misleading public opinion in regard to the Federal Reserve Bank.

Every effort has been made by the Federal Reserve Board to conceal its power but the truth is the Federal Reserve Board has usurped the government of the United States. It controls everything here and it controls our foreign policy and relations. It makes and breaks governments at will. No man and no body of men is more entrenched in power than the arrogant credit monopoly which operates the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks. They have robbed this country.

Currently, half the states have at least a grass roots movement in action to abolish the FED, but there's no press coverage. In July, 1968, the House Banking Subcommittee reported that Rockefeller, through Chase Manhattan Bank, controlled 5.9% of the stock in CBS. Furthermore, the bank had gained interlocking directorates with ABC.

In 1974, Congress issued a report stating that the Chase Manhattan Bank's stake in CBS rose to 14.1% and NBC to 4.5%. The same report said that the Chase Manhattan Bank held stock in 28 broadcasting firms. After this report, the Chase Manhattan Bank obtained 6.7% of ABC, and today the percentage is most likely much greater. It only requires 5% ownership to significantly influence the media . This is only one of 300 wealthy shareholders of the FED. It is believed other FED owners have similar holdings in the media. To control the media, FED bankers call in their loans if the media disagrees with them.

Rockefeller also controls the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the sole purpose of which is to aid in stimulating greater interest in foreign affairs and a one world government. Nearly every major newscaster belongs to the Council on Foreign Relations. The Council on Foreign Relations controls many major newspapers and magazines. Additionally, major corporations owned by FED shareholders are the source of huge advertising revenues which surely would influence the media.

Every day I hear people complaining about what they don't like about our government and media, but not one of them are willing to put forth an effort to try and change it, especially when it comes to their personal lives. We are as much a slave on a personal level, as our government is to the international bankers. We keep right on using the tool they put out here to control us, credit cards, and we are imprisoned by it. We are no longer willing to save up to buy something, we have to have it right now, so the Government has made it easy to have what you want without the having to save for it, (CREDIT). Don't you think it funny that in a land with so much wealth, only 2 PERCENT of the people own their homes? (CREDIT). Do you know 60 PERCENT of Americans have at least 3 Credit cards used to it's maximum? (CREDIT). Do you know that only 1 PERCENT of the people have their car paid for? (CREDIT). To be free, you must throw away your credit cards, and NEVER buy anything that you cannot afford at the moment of purchase. We will never be a free people until we rid ourselves of the burden placed here to control us, and when we stop renting from the powers, the power will cease to exist.

I will close with Thomas Jefferson's Warning To America : "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." Written by Jefferson in a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin (1802).

BrooklynRider
August 10th, 2005, 06:22 PM
Another one....

The Federal Reserve Act

by John DiNardo

On the night of November 22, 1910, a small group of surrogates of the most powerful bankers of the World met, under the veil of utmost secrecy, at specific little-used tracks of the railway station in Hoboken, New Jersey. Each of these secret banking agents had his own private railway car with new servants who would not recognize the identity of these men. The men traveled in silence to their secret destination, the elitist resort island off the coast of Georgia named Jekyll Island. Over the next few weeks these men would perpetrate, under the orders of their masters (men such as the Rothschild, Rockefeller and Morgan bankers) perhaps the most colossal and devastating fraud ever inflicted upon the American People.

This ultra-secret fraud is known as the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The Federal Reserve Act responded to the Public's outcry for an end to concocted monetary crises that had robbed the entire American citizenry of much of their life's earnings. Ironically, their response was like a physician responding to a poisoned patient by injecting massive doses of poison into the patient (of course, no physician would ever commit just such a heinous crime, known as chemotherapy).

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 concocted legislation, to be foisted upon the People's Congress of the United States, that empowered and commissioned this secret cabal of World-dominant bankers to PRINT UNITED STATES CURRENCY, a usurpation of our Constitution's explicit edict empowering ONLY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT to print and coin currency. This world banking empire used their stolen power to print, out of thin air, paper currency which, in no way represents the gold and silver reserves that authentic currency is supposed to represent. Thus, the Rothschilds, the Morgans and the Rockefellers connived the power to pick the pocket of *EVERY* American, from the small child buying a loaf of bread to bring home, to the father of a household, working his life away to feed, clothe and shelter his family.

This monumental, yet secret fraud had swindled untold billions of REAL dollars from the hands of the American citizenry, from the moment of the birth of the Federal Reserve Act (sneaked through Congress on Christmas Eve, 1913) until the day when one courageous President of the United States, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, determined that he shall return the United States Treasury to its rightful task of printing UNITED STATES SILVER CERTIFICATES, notes that represent REAL money, silver held in reserve by the United States Government -- silver which the U.S. Government promises to pay, upon demand, to the bearer of that certificate.

This sterling deed of rescue of America's financial self-determination so angered the supremely powerful Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, and other ensconced banking families, that they ordered the execution of this courageous President John Kennedy who dared serve the interests of his people, the People of the United States of America.

So virulent was the bankers' anger, that they ordained that he shall have his brains blown out in the most public of settings -- on the streets of a major American city, in an open and highly heralded motorcade, amidst throngs of his admiring people.

And, yes, these banker assassins wanted to communicate to the world, in some cloaked manner, that they, the world's banking emporers, were the true rulers over the American People, not this renegade president, whose job it was to take orders from his masters lurking behind the curtain of the world's stage. So these banker assassins DELIBERATELY left their calling card, not at the scene of their atrocity, but at the TIME of their atrocity: that time was their calling card: NOVEMBER 22nd, the anniversary of the conception of their evil Federal Reserve Act -- November 22nd, 1910, the night when their emissaries began their secret journey from that lonely railway station in Hoboken, New Jersey to Jekyll Island, Georgia, the womb which was to hatch a most ghastly, fearsome and ravenous monster, THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND, the Federal Reserve Act.

I have just discovered this calling card, and I wanted to tell everyone who might listen, that here is a substantial clue to the identity of the murderers of President John F. Kennedy. The secret societies comprising the world's ruling elite are deeply into numerology. With this understanding, it certainly seems too much of a random coincidence that the murder of President Kennedy occurred only a few months after he struck a blow at the Federal Reserve banking cabal by issuing United States currency notes, and, compounding the coincidence to a highly dubious degree is the symbolic fact that the Federal Reserve's day of conception is the same as the day of destruction of the president who attempted to destroy the Federal Reserve: November 22nd.

Buy or borrow the book from your librarian (through your library's inter-library loan network), THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND, by G. Edward Griffin, and learn the whole appalling story of the Federal Reserve System which, at this moment, is bringing you and all Americans to the imminent loss of most of your life's savings through a great financial collapse, just on the horizon of the looming Twenty-First Century.

Fabrizio
August 11th, 2005, 06:15 AM
Yeah, yeah.... we know...."The secret societies comprising the world's ruling elite...." ...and blah, blah, blah.... and Jewish bankers.... and the Freemasons and so on and so forth.... (arenīt they all actually lizards?)

BrooklynRider: could you keep John Dinardo and his racist paranoid New World Order conspiracy theories outta here?

nick-taylor
August 11th, 2005, 08:13 AM
These bankers are connected to London Banking Houses which ultimately control the FED. When England lost the Revolutionary War with America where our forefathers were fighting their own government, they planned to control us by controlling our banking system, the printing of our money, and our debt. The individuals listed below owned banks which in turn owned shares in the FED. The banks listed below have significant control over the New York FED District, which controls the other 11 FED Districts. These banks also are partly foreign owned and control the New York FED District Bank: First National Bank of New York, James Stillman National City Bank, New York, Mary W. Harnman, National Bank of Commerce, New York, A.D. Jiullard Hanover, National Bank, New York, Jacob Schiff, Chase National Bank, New York, Thomas F. Ryan, Paul Warburg, William Rockefeller, Levi P. Morton, M.T. Pyne, George F. Baker, Percy Pyne, Mrs. G.F. St. George, J.W. Sterling, Katherine St. George, H.P. Davidson, J.P. Morgan (Equitable Life/Mutual Life), Edith Brevour, T. Baker.;)

BrooklynRider
August 11th, 2005, 09:03 AM
...BrooklynRider: could you keep John Dinardo and his racist paranoid New World Order conspiracy theories outta here?

You've given the properly programmed response - call it a conspiracy. Yet, you offer nothing to counter it. People can put whatever "spin" on it they like, but the core FACTS remain.

And, to answer your question, no I can not keep it out of here.

So interesting to see such a strong response. Within all of that dismissive, rant, you actually said nothing. And, aside from attacking ONE of the posts, you did nothing to dispel the FACT the US government does NOT print its own money.

Also, please QUOTE the portions of what I POSTED that make "rascist" statements. Also, quote the portions that are not "factual" and cannot be supported with independent data. The Jekyll Island meetings are well documented.

Your quick attempt to dismiss it actually shows how you failed to actually read a word of it. Attitudes like the one you displayed, that question nothing and attack others for presenting information, are what people depend on to get away with this stuff.

Thank you for demonstrating why this has worked so brilliantly for years.

Actually, you're right. We have no budget deficits here and the world doesn't react every time the Fed makes a move.

ZippyTheChimp
August 11th, 2005, 09:15 AM
Since I started this line, let me explain that when it is said that the government prints money in regard to fiscal policy, it is understood to mean that it engages in deficit spending, whereas local governments can not.

Fabrizio
August 11th, 2005, 11:36 AM
Brooklyn:


"Buy or borrow the book from your librarian (through your library's inter-library loan network), THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND, by G. Edward Griffin, and learn the whole appalling story of the Federal Reserve System which, at this moment, is bringing you and all Americans to the imminent loss of most of your life's savings through a great financial collapse, just on the horizon of the looming Twenty-First Century."


LOL. Brooklyn.... do you reeeeeally think I want to learn about the FED from the editor of John Birch Society publications? From someone who usually writes about chemtrails and the curative miracles of B17?

And as for you first post about the FED, you write: "Here is the story from one source..."

Yep, and hereīs the source folks: http://www.geocities.com/northstarzone/FED.html

(be sure to check out the home page!) ( Booooo !)



"Thank you for demonstrating why this has worked so brilliantly for years".

Yeah, WEīVE been duped and the freakezoid "Coast-to-Coast" fringe has ALL the answers.

( btw: you ignored MY question.... the ruling elite... they are actually lizards, arent they?)

BrooklynRider
August 11th, 2005, 01:34 PM
I do't think we want to get into a booklist here. Although, if you want to, there are plenty of OTHER books that explain these things without the sensationalism.

I think your arguments actually ring more and more hollow as you continually point to "me" and label me a "conspiracy theorist" as opposed to addressing the story.

There are many books that tell the story - some tie it back to UFOs, others tie it back to Reptiles, others tie it back to masons, others tie it back to the Rothschilds. The attempts to explain where the "idea" behind the Act originated does not refute the FACT that the Federal Reserve usurped Constitutional power and the Federal Reserve Act was the method used.

People can also read the story in articls like these...

http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/fract/
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa081599.htm

The sites I went to explain these acts and I am less concerned with their sense of the origin than I am with their ability to explain the ramifications ofthe Act clearly.

I have to drawn attention to the fact that I talked specifically about the Federal Reserve Act and its ramifications. You, on the otherhand, attacked my attention to the issue with "rascism", "masons", "paranoia", "repitiles" "Jewish bankers" "freakazoids".

I'm just wondering how many more names you might want to call me before you concede that the information I posted is an accurate description of the Federal Rseserve Act and an accurate and factual narrative of what the timeline was.

Your name calling will impress some folks here, but I thnk you've just revealed more about yourself than you have about me.

Fabrizio
August 11th, 2005, 02:00 PM
Brooklyn: first of all in NONE of my posts do I call you names.

Furthermore maybe you should mention that the author Griffen (of the book that you so enthusiastically urge us to read) is a big time John Bircher and his writings about the FED just might have a particular AGENDA.

And if you are going to post such a loooooong article about the FED, rather than being obscure about the source, why donīt you just post where it comes from? Hey, whatīs there to be ashamed of? :

http://www.geocities.com/northstarzone/index.html#top

Jasonik
August 11th, 2005, 04:47 PM
R. Buckminster Fuller tells the story of how the US Gov't mortgaged away its autonomy by taking on debt in Critical Path. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312174918/103-7864355-9169446?v=glance)

BrooklynRider
August 11th, 2005, 07:42 PM
And if you are going to post such a loooooong article about the FED, rather than being obscure about the source, why donīt you just post where it comes from? Hey, whatīs there to be ashamed of? :

http://www.geocities.com/northstarzone/index.html#top

Oh, now you are complaining about the length of the article too.

I'm not denying where it came from. I haven't denied where it came from.

You keep pointing to the source, attacking the messenger and are pretty intent on ignoring the message. If you Google "Federal Reserve Act Fraud", that site is the first that comes up (or it was for me). That's how I grabbed it - not by some deep connection to THAT site. Maybe the John Birch Society has an agenda. The Republican Party and Democratic Party both have separate agendas, but, if one of them says the sky is blue, its hard to dismiss it because you disagree with the source's agenda.

Fab - you have continually avoided the subject. But, you have presented a classic example of ignore the message and "shoot the messenger". We can both lay this rest, but I'll remain perplexed by your argument about source without acknowledgement of the factual content.

And, just to clarify where you are coming from, please explain what The John Birch Society agenda is and how it impacts the content. What exactly is it about them that makes you so repulsed by the facts? I've heard of them but haven't studied them to the same degree you imply you have. What horrors have they poured into our world?

Or, you can just keep reporting the ONE source I used out of the hundreds that you can now find yourself by Googling "Federal Reserve Act Fraud".

BrooklynRider
August 11th, 2005, 07:49 PM
R. Buckminster Fuller tells the story of how the US Gov't mortgaged away its autonomy by taking on debt in Critical Path. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312174918/103-7864355-9169446?v=glance)

I'm waiting for the assault on this source next.

Jasonik
August 11th, 2005, 08:36 PM
Fuller is a crackpot!

Fabrizio
August 12th, 2005, 10:31 AM
Brooklyn, I took your advice and Googled "Federal Reserve Act Fraud". Exactly 2 links show up. One is an extremist radical-right wing website called stanley2002.org. The other is something called financialprivacy.com. Not a very good showing for such an "important" issue.

I then tried "Federal Reserve Act Fraud" without the quotations. Here we do get hundreds of links, but those that compose the words into the concept of "a Federal Reseve act fraud" and lead us to an article about the issue, are all of the same loony-fringe style: healthfreedom.info ; the7thfire.com ; jesus-is-savior.com ; ecclesia.org etc.

Perhaps the idea of "checking the source" is a never-before-heard-of concept to you and something to mock, but ya gotta believe me Brooklyn: intelligent people do it all the time.

Does any reasonably sophisticated person get their info from web-sites that also tell tales of alien abductions, black helicopters and Elvis sightings?

Iīd be happy to read about the great "Federal Reserve Act Fraud" and "the
the whole appalling story of the Federal Reserve System which, at this moment, is bringing you and all Americans to the imminent loss of most of your life's savings through a great financial collapse...", if you would post some info about books or articles published on mainstream webites, by reputable publishers, written by respected journalists and historians. For such an important claim and dire warning about our savings... asking for scholarly sources is a reasonable request.

Oh BTW, donīt I remember hearing about the "great financial collapse" thatīs "just around the corner" as a kid in the 1960īs, and then again in the 1970īs, in the 80īs, the 90īs and now as you write, "just on the horizon of the looming Twenty-First Century"?

Uh BTW, Brooklyn, the 21st century is no longer "looming". (but then again the whole quote has the ring of something lifted directly from a book jacket...)

You ask, "And, just to clarify where you are coming from, please explain what The John Birch Society agenda is and how it impacts the content".

The John Birch society is a notoriously rascist and anti-semetic extremist organization. This nutty group even accused Eisenhower as being a card carrying commie. They also believe ( since the 50īs) that that an elite international cabal is seeking to establish a world tyranny.... led by David Rockefeller.... so yeah, I think Griffen as a John Birch Society member and editor might have an extremist agenda. For more info:

http://www.bartleby.com/65/jo/JohnBirc.html

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

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_047800_johnbirchsoc.htm

http://www.answers.com/topic/john-birch-society

BrooklynRider
August 12th, 2005, 11:27 AM
...if you would post some info about books or articles published on mainstream webites, by reputable publishers, written by respected journalists and historians. For such an important claim and dire warning about our savings... asking for scholarly sources is a reasonable request.


So, information needs to be pre-screened for you by people who reaffirm your view of the world. "Respected" is a subjective word. You may hold someone in high-esteem, who I find to be less open. Stephen E. Ambrose comes to mind - a bestselling and "respected" historian, who was later found to be a plagiarizer. - Mainstream websites, like the New York Times, with Jayson Blair - or Fox News with Bill O'Reilly.

Sometimes people try to handle the confusing and complex world around them by forcing everything to conform to what they can intellectually and emotionally comprehend. Considering your rather interesting posts elsewhere, I remain perplexed by your attachment to continued attacks in this thread. You discredit the methods by which I found the info, but you have done nothing to refute the facts. You are attacking the sources I listed, yet you say nothing about the content.

The intent here was never for me to "prove myself" as much as provoke curiosity and correct a misconception. You will find quite a a bit of content if you choose to seek it out.

BrooklynRider
August 12th, 2005, 11:29 AM
Fabrizio, before you argue for the sake of arguing, I'll do the "research" for you:

A History of the Federal Reserve, Volume 1: 1913-1951
by Allan H. Meltzer

Allan H. Meltzer's monumental history of the Federal Reserve System tells the story of one of America's most influential but least understood public institutions. This first volume covers the period from the Federal Reserve's founding in 1913 through the Treasury-Federal Reserve Accord of 1951, which marked the beginning of a larger and greatly changed institution.

To understand why the Federal Reserve acted as it did at key points in its history, Meltzer draws on meeting minutes, correspondence, and other internal documents (many made public only during the 1970s) to trace the reasoning behind its policy decisions. He explains, for instance, why the Federal Reserve remained passive throughout most of the economic decline that led to the Great Depression, and how the Board's actions helped to produce the deep recession of 1937 and 1938. He also highlights the impact on the institution of individuals such as Benjamin Strong, governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in the 1920s, who played a key role in the adoption of a more active monetary policy by the Federal Reserve. Meltzer also examines the influence the Federal Reserve has had on international affairs, from attempts to build a new international financial system in the 1920s to the Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944 that established the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and the failure of the London Economic Conference of 1933.

Written by one of the world's leading economists, this magisterial biography of the Federal Reserve and the people who helped shape it will interest economists, central bankers, historians, political scientists, policymakers, and anyone seeking a deep understanding of the institution that controls America's purse strings.
__________________________________________________ _____________

Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country
by William Greider

One might think of William Greider's "Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country" as "Central Banking for Poets." If you've ever scratched your head in wonder when reading how Alan Greenspan and the Fed have "lowered interest rates" or are "easing monetary policy," this book will be extremely enlightening and well worth the time it will take you to plow through all 700 plus pages. If (like me) you majored in economics, you'll be surprised how much better Greider is in explaining arcane economic theory than your college professors (and you'll probably learn -- or re-learn -- quite a bit in the process).
The focal point of the book is the celebrated and controversial tenure of Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volker (1979-1987), but the mechanics of central banking so clearly and concisely explained are just as much applicable today as in 1980 - or 1950 for that matter.

Greider divides the book into three more-or-less equal thirds. The first covers the inflationary surge of the 1970s, Carter's tenuous decision to appoint Volker, and Volker's radical move of abandoning the control of interest rates in favor of controlling the nation's money supply. (In other words, a shift from the Keynesian orthodoxy dominant in the post-War period in favor of a monetarist approach more in line with the theories of the iconoclastic economist Milton Friedman.) The second, and most informative third provides an historical overview of central banking and its development in the United States. For those solely interested in a better understanding of central banking and the US Federal Reserve in particular, this book will be worth your while even if you only read this middle section. The final third deals with Volker's punishing monetary policy during the early 1980s, as he attempted to destroy lingering anticipation of inflation and the incredibly simulative effects of the Reagan era federal deficits and tax cuts.

Greider is highly critical of Volker's performance as Fed chairman. In short, he argues that far from being the independent and benevolent Shepard of the economy it often claims to be, the Fed, in practice, is beholden to its most powerful constituency: the major money-center financial institutions (i.e. Citibank, Bank of America, etc.). Traditional central bankers view combating inflation as their primary professional objective, which tends to favor creditors at the expense of debtors. Grieder suggests that in waging war on inflation the Fed in effect was waging war on the millions of ordinary Americans struggling to make end meets and keep their heads above water.

Whether you agree with his conclusions or not, Greider's "Secrets of the Temple" is exhaustively researched, expertly written, and extremely enlightening.
__________________________________________________ ______________

The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve
by G. Edward Griffin

G. Edward Griffin is to be commended for this splendid work. At first glance The Creature from Jekyll Island is a huge book. While this may be daunting to some, once the book is actually started, it flows smoothly and reads quickly. There are so many fascinating tidbits of information here that the reader won't even be concerned about the size of the book. The title refers to the formation of the Federal Reserve System, which occurred at a secret meeting at Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910. It was at this meeting, as Griffin relates, that the "Money Trust", composed of the richest and most powerful bankers in the world, along with a U.S. Senator, wrote the proposal to launch the Federal Reserve System (which Griffin calls a banking cartel) to control the financial system so that the bankers will always come out on top.
While Griffin starts with this event, he quickly moves into the present day to detail several financial crises that resulted in a quick government intervention at the behest of the bankers from the Fed, who told all who would listen that if the government (read: taxpayers) didn't bail out the banks that had made bad loans, it could cause the entire system to collapse. Massive loan defaults; bank runs, and a major economic depression would manifest this collapse. Griffin shows how time and time again the taxpayer is bilked so that bankers can make billions in profits off of these financial scares. Griffin also shows how the supposed safeguards against these woes, such as the FSLIC, are scams to reassure the average person that their banks are safe. In actuality, these insurances against bank closures are so inadequate that there isn't enough money to even come close to paying off investors in case of a collapse.

The biggest problem in modern banking, according to Griffin, is and has always been the creation of fiat money. Fiat money is money that is "declared" money by the government. It is not backed by anything but promises and deceit. All societies were sound financially when they used gold or silver to back their currency. When the bankers finally get their way and install fiat money, the result is inflation and boom and bust cycles. Griffin gives numerous examples of this, such as repeated failures by American colonies and European states in using fiat money. The purpose of fiat money is so that the government can spend more then they take in through taxes.

Without writing reams on this book, it is sufficient to say that this is a must read for anyone who is interested in learning how the money system operates. Griffin gives comprehensive accounts of how the Fed creates money, and how this affects everyday life. I would have to say these sections are better than Murray Rothbard's book, The Case Against the Fed, because Griffin gives himself more room for explanation.

Griffin does believe in the conspiratorial view of history, and he believes that the bankers are working in concert with such groups as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission to bring about a socialist-world system in which an elite composed of intellectuals and bankers will rule over the entire planet. Griffin even spends a chapter outlining how this system could come about, and the consequent results of this socialist system. These chapters are a bit unsettling, but even if you aren't interested in this worldview, you can still learn much about the economy from this book. Recommended

Editorial Reviews

Publisher/Editor, Dan Smoot Report
"A superb analysis deserving serious attention by all Americans. Be prepared for one heck of a journey through time and mind."

Ron Paul
Publisher/Editor, Ron Paul Report
Member, House Banking Committee
"What every American needs to know about central bank power. A gripping adventure into the secret world of the international banking cartel."

Mark Thornton
Asst. Professor of Economics, Auburn Univ.
Coordinator Academic Affairs,
Ludwig von Mises Institute
"A magnificent accomplishment - a train load of heavy history, organized so well and written in such a relaxed and easy style that it captivated me. I hated to put it down."

__________________________________________________ _______________

Pick a book Fabrizio. Pick an academic. Pick a journalist.

Curiosity can actually lead you to paths unexplored.

ZippyTheChimp
August 12th, 2005, 11:51 AM
The intent here was never for me to "prove myself" as much as provoke curiosity and correct a misconception.The misconception had nothing to do with this topic, and the correction has taken this thread way off-topic.

If you gentlemen are going to conduct a personal debate, at least do it on-topic. You are free to open a thread on the Federal Reserve System, and continue there.

BrooklynRider
August 12th, 2005, 01:33 PM
Tangents are my specialty. But, I hear ya loud and clear. Cheers...

Fabrizio
August 12th, 2005, 03:39 PM
Zippy: you are right, and Iīll stop... but boy I have a hard time keeping quiet when the links go back to bizzaro web sites and books are pushed written by John Birch Society conspiracy theorists.

Can I squeeze this in? :

Brooklyn: nice attempt.... but the Grieder (a respected journalist) and the Meltzner book have N O T H I N G to do with this so called "Federal Reserve Fraud". Of the "hundreds" of articles and links that you claim are out there.... what do you do? you bring us back to the Griffin book and the ridiculous and tired wierdo conspiracy theories:

"Griffin does believe in the conspiratorial view of history...... the bankers are working in concert with such groups as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission to bring about a socialist-world system in which an elite composed of intellectuals and bankers* will rule over the entire planet".

* and we know what "intellectuals and bankers" is code for.

And of course, we get the "in-house" endorsements by other Birchers like Dan Smoot.

Please.

ZippyTheChimp
August 12th, 2005, 03:49 PM
You don't have to stop. Just open another thread.

Besides, Brooklyn Rider may want one last rebuttal.

BrooklynRider
August 12th, 2005, 05:24 PM
NYC might be the Capital of the World. It is my favorite city.

Sometimes, there are people who love this city as much as me, who are so rigid and inflexible in their views, that they fail to find a way to communicate an idea or contrary idea, and so - instead - attack the messenger.

As I said, I think New York City might well be the Capital of the World. Yet, there are people who will disagree with me, not be cause they have any proof to contradict my statement - but rather because they must have their values and beliefs reaffirmed as the only possible value and beliefs that could possibly be correct.

Saddam Hussein might think New York is the capital of the World. People in the John Birch Society may think New York City is the capital of the world. Aliens from other planets may think that New York is the capital of the world. But, if they do, they are wrong because of who they are - even if the statement is - in fact - correct.

But for some people, the world can only exist in the context in which they are most comfortable. Poor people. They want to be seen as enlightened, but their narrow view of the universe (that encompasses New York as the possible Capital of the World) and their almost fascist dictate that any other opinion besides their own must be wrong, makes it difficult to take them seriously.

Maybe New York City is the capital. Maybe its not. Somewhere nearby is someone ready to rabidly attack either idea because it does not reflect the world they have been indoctrinated into. Somewhere someone is irrationally threatened by something they would rather just not take the time to understand. New Yorkers can be like that - and that's just FAB.

I love New York,

Fabrizio
August 13th, 2005, 04:43 AM
(eyes rolling).... Now youīre resorting to a tacky association/metaphor with terrorism....my, my, the times we live in....

londonlawyer
February 4th, 2006, 01:30 AM
Even worse was how poorly the fountains were designed in that you could end up getting drenched from the other side of the road quite easily.

This is all going to change with the advent of Crossrail, Crossrail 2 and Crossrail 3 the metro-city-metro heavy rail services that will revolutionise London with completely new 12 carriage 30tph lines. The services will be much like the current Thameslink line through London, but Tottenham Court Road will become the principle interchange for all of the Crossrail lines. All designs of the actual stations are still in development, there is an idea for general land purchase to safeguard the route. Tottenham Court Road due to its location won't resemble another Canary Wharf station (although other stations like Isle of Dogs look promising: it will be built within a dock) is unlikely due to the requirement to leave space for 2 other Crossrail lines, work around the Central and Northern Underground Lines and other Victorian era works.

Yet, the Centre Point plaza will be redeveloped as it will become the principle surface entrance for Crossrail... pages 43 onwards illustrate this. I believe the surrounding areas will be landscaped.

http://www.westminster.gov.uk/environment/planning/sitesandprojectspolicies/upload/TCR%20ETH.pdf


Hi, Nicky.

London's metro has 18m people, right?

nick-taylor
February 4th, 2006, 10:01 AM
Hi, Nicky.

London's metro has 18m people, right?The GLA defines London's metro as being 18mn, although this is rapidly changing as London and its metro continue to show strong signs of growth. London is estimated to grow by around 83,000 each year while the metro grows by around 100,000. At current growth rates, London would overtake New York city populaton wise possibly by the 2012 Olympics...hence for all the transport and other infrastructure projects to cope. ;)

londonlawyer
February 4th, 2006, 06:52 PM
Thanks for the laugh!

P.S.: Too bad that your boy Shiro isn't here to write that London's population is 18M and then close the thread to prevent anyone from disputing that fallacy! You two are hilarious!!

TLOZ Link5
February 5th, 2006, 12:24 AM
��
Even worse was how poorly the fountains were designed in that you could end up getting drenched from the other side of the road quite easily.

I guess the fact that the fountains were not running when I walked by Centre Point worked to my advantage, then.


Yet, the Centre Point plaza will be redeveloped as it will become the principle surface entrance for Crossrail... pages 43 onwards illustrate this. I believe the surrounding areas will be landscaped.

http://www.westminster.gov.uk/environment/planning/sitesandprojectspolicies/upload/TCR%20ETH.pdf

Another terrible mistake in -- and mockery of -- urban planning corrected. Now, if only something could be done with Barbican Centre... :)


The GLA defines London's metro as being 18mn, although this is rapidly changing as London and its metro continue to show strong signs of growth. London is estimated to grow by around 83,000 each year while the metro grows by around 100,000. At current growth rates, London would overtake New York city populaton wise possibly by the 2012 Olympics...hence for all the transport and other infrastructure projects to cope.

Question: are these estimates pre- or post-7/7? Many experts have noted that New York's growth rate now is a fraction of what it was before the attacks of 11 September; though the transit bombings in London in July were obviously less destructive in terms of property and human life, has any study of their impact on London's growth rate been performed, or is it too soon to tell?

londonlawyer
February 5th, 2006, 01:01 AM
....

Question: are these estimates pre- or post-7/7? Many experts have noted that New York's growth rate now is a fraction of what it was before the attacks of 11 September; though the transit bombings in London in July were obviously less destructive in terms of property and human life, has any study of their impact on London's growth rate been performed, or is it too soon to tell?

They're insane ramblings with no basis in fact. Another one of Nicky's hilarious assertions is that London has supplanted NY as the financial capital of the world despite the fact that NY has the world's two biggest stock exchanges, the biggest commodities exchange, the most top 10 investment banks (London is not the world HQ of one top 10 investment bank), etc.

Post your sources and the original articles for all of your groundless assertions, Nickyboy. Is Alfred E. Newman your source or is Red Ken Livingston? (Actually, isn't Red Ken Alfred E incarnate?)

Anyone who knows NY and London well, as I do, knows that London is a much smaller city and it's second to NY in terms of being the financial hub (notwithstanding the fallacious statements of Nicky and his buddy, Shiro, to the contrary).

ablarc
February 5th, 2006, 01:51 PM
Welcome back, Nick; always nice to get some London viewpoints on this forum.

Having just seen Woody Allen's Match Point, I'm yet again impressed by how serious a rival London is for New York.

Some years ago I was fortunate to get a job in London that allowed me to live in your beautiful and thrilling city. This was after years of delirious life in New York, and half a year in Paris. IMO, London's the match of both its rivals for world-capital-hood.

Indeed, as a melting pot, as a magnet for global immigration, as a center of culture and as a favored playground of the rich and famous, it seems to me it now surpasses New York, and both English-speaking cities leave Paris in the dust. London's astronomical cost of living testifies to its desirability as a pied-a-terre for the wealthy and the wannabes.

God bless Crossrail and London's penchant for funding deep-bore subsurface rail lines; seems it will resemble Paris' R.E.R., a kind of high-capacity express metro. I'm really impressed by this station's integration into its surroundings. Sorry they'll probably demolish the theatre; hope construction won't impact Soho Square, a lovely green oasis.

I'd like to see more reports on London's progress. How's the Shard coming along?

nick-taylor
February 6th, 2006, 07:51 AM
londonlawyer - London's population is not 18mn....its metro is though as defined by the GLA. I do believe you disputed this fact on so many occasions (creating dozens of threads) on SSC and SSP that it got you banned. INSEE (the French statistical agency) even used a 40% commuter rate and still got 17mn for a London metro....American metro's use 20% for commuter rates I do believe.

I'm not going to go into depth about finance here and I won't dispute your points because New York has the largest stock exchanges, etc... Yet even you must acknowledge by now that finance doesn't just end there and that it is a diverse sector with many markets and instruments. Both cities have their specialised strengths and weaknesses and its because of your failure to recognise this that you were warned on countless occasions and then banned.

I won't deny that London is the smaller city, but that is changing as London consolidates its position as the crossroads of the world. Yes it might not have as high density or yet (but not for long) have as many people but this is gradually changing. Now what you should really be asking yourself is that if London isn't growing faster than New York....why is it that London seems to be actually making large scale transport improvements a reality. Just in December, the DLR extension to London City Airport opened, while the Stansted Express opened a new route to Stratford meaning you can take a dedicated Airport Express train (from the site which will be the 2012 Olympic Village site) to what is going to become the premier airport for London over the next few decades: London Stansted Airport. I can't be bothered to go into any more detail about the projects that are still being built or are going to be built because this is not the place to go into such detail. Yet I think your concern should be why is London managing to get large infrastructure projects up and running, but New York can't....because that is what will count against New York in the years to come and I think that is something you should be more worried about than London's metro population or financial position.




TLOZ Link5 - The fountains were erratic when they did operate and I don't believe that they have been working for years now.

The Barbican is a mix....it has both great aspects including what are still (but not for long) the three tallest residential towers in Britain but also awful back alleys where the concrete is showing its age. A new 100m tower was proposed the other day for the Barbican though so it is moving on.

Obviously 7/7 was what 7 months ago so demographic knock-on effects won't be known for definate for a few more months. Naturally there was a drop in tourists, but I believe that this has now stabalised back to normal trends. Yet there has been a flood of new EU member citizens to Britain since May 2004 - May 2005 (123,000)...note that this is just from the 10 new EU member states. Two-thirds located in London and such an influx would destabalise any effect 7/7 had on inflows into London. I suspect though that there was an impact...but nothing serious as is highlighted by the sister of Jean Charles de Menezes (the Brazillian shot on the tube after the failed bombings) who along with other friends is still going to go to London.




ablarc - Been lurking but not posting ;)

I actually don't live in London but I do live in the 'metro' (next door to London Stansted Airport) and I should note that metro terms are new not just in Britain but in all of Europe - something we have just 'caught' onto from you guys.

I believe London is actually 'falling down' in being expensive (obviously depending on what criteria and source you look at) and compared to New York, the gap has now decreased considerably, there are though dozens of reasons for this that change every year.

I remember doing some work sometime ago in regards to foreign born billionaires in London and something like 50% of London's billionaires are foreign born - the richest being Russian and Indian for example.

Unfortunately due to all the tunnels that exist already under London, sub-surface is a thing of the past within most parts of London....but Crossrail will indeed resemble the RER in Paris. Currently Thameslink which you might also be aware of, has frequencies similar to some of the RER lines and acts in the same way. Crossrail will go a step further with 12 carriage 30tph which is even higher than the current RER lines are.

The Shard is currently awaiting the full vacation of PriceWaterhouseCooper from its current 100m tower. This tower which is above London Bridge Station then has to be gradually dismantled, but the tower is still going ahead. Some people on other forums are misled that because it takes so long to get a tower going in London that its all one big lie. Yet the land and time spent on something like the Shard is already into the tens of millions without any actual groundwork starting. I do believe the Shard is set to become the most expensive skyscraper ever built and most other London skyscrapers won't be far off, hence why developers take their time to ensure they get a suitable pre-let and the office climate is moving in the right direction.

Most other skyscraper projects though are awaiting pre-lets and vacation of current tenants. Unfortunately most companies (no matter what country of origin) seem to like their groundscrapers and these have eaten up the market requirement quite a lot unfortunately. Some could easily be 400m towers if placed vertically and re-shaped a bit for example.

I could go into lots of detail about other projects like transport (new Terminal 5 at Heathrow, East London Line, Channel Tunnel Rail Link, etc...) but I think that that would just clutter this thread. Instead I will highlight two threads of mine. The first is of a transport interchange project which is probably the largest transport interchange modernisation project in the world, while the second although not related to infrastructure is to do with stadiums and arena that are being or going to be built in London (lots of construction pics - you have been warned). I have a saying: Dubai proposes a supertall every other week...London proposes a stadium every other week....see why yourself. ;)

Modernisation of a 154 year old railway interchange:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=97630

London Stadiums & Arena's: U/C, Approved + Proposed:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=69590

londonlawyer
February 6th, 2006, 11:15 AM
You're hilarious, Nickyboy! When your "buddies" Shiro and WJFox are on the same board as you, you state unequivocally that London has supplanted NY as the financial capital (based upon some moronic comment regarding currency trading) and you state that NY and London's metro areas are nearly as large (21m v. 18m). Then when people dispute those fallacies with facts, your "buddies" reiterate your groundless position and close the thread. It's quite comical.

PS: As you well know, I was banned from SSC because I consistently provided hard evidence which disputed the myths that you, Shiro and WJFox sought to propagate, namely: London is the financial capital, London's metro pop is nearly as large as NY's and property in London is more expensive than it is in NY.

nick-taylor
February 7th, 2006, 06:47 AM
londonlawyer - You are incorrect as it was other forumers that concentrated on the currency trading aspect; but as I illustrated back then, curency was one of many aspects that London dominates within the finance sphere. You know this - but decide to blank it out.

When people looked at London property it was for the high-end properties on offer as I can clearly remember that thread. I also recall you made not one, but numerous threads showing selected properties for New York but negating some for London to somehow belittle London in some pointless exercise.

You were banned for constantly flooding the forums with threads dedicated to belittling London and were incapable of accepting that there was the possibility that New York was loosing or had lost in certain aspects. I also recall that you started insulting many people, including my educational background and of numerous other forumers in a failed attempt to try and deflect your inability to provide a mature and reasonable post that actually backed up your 'idea'.

It's been shown to you before that 18mn for London's metro isn't somehow made up by nobody - it has been defined as so by the Greater London Authority (ie the people who administer/govern London).

Also using the INSEE (French Statistical Agency) method (40% commuting instead of 20% which is used by American metro methods) you end up with 17mn people and there is a map to go with that.
http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/8193/londoninsee7lx.png

What part of law is it that you specialise in again?

ablarc
February 7th, 2006, 09:15 AM
Guys, be nice; your dispute seems reconcilable.

ZippyTheChimp
February 7th, 2006, 10:20 PM
The preceeding 10 posts were moved from the London photo thread

BankerToBe
November 5th, 2010, 08:43 AM
Hi, Nicky.

London's metro has 18m people, right?

That's a lot of Londoners - WOWIE!

I couldn't find a thread about this but "The Underground" in London is pretty nice for the amount of dirty footsteps it gets but who knows what really goes on there in the banking capital of the world - so how about this story (http://bit.ly/c8uSca) which may interest some member here?