London - The Truth and Would You Live There [Archive]

Gregory Tenenbaum

October 27th, 2005, 05:34 AM

I have just travelled through Europe and on my way back and forth, I have had the wonderful opportunity to see London.

Would you live there if you could?

Relevant considerations and my first impressions:

The Food:

For example a Cornish Pasty, contains some slightly opaque sauce that looks like it comes from a mixture of bull semen and chunks of vegetables that look like they come from a broken down fridge at the local grocery store.

Or for a mere $ 100.00 you can get a decent meal with a drink at a mediocre restaurant.

The Property:

You get to live in Dickensian style terrace houses for a mere $ 750,000.00 - and that's under the Heathrow flight path.

The People:

Yes, great people. My preliminary impression from talking to englishmen and women from all walks of life are - They really believe 1. they are still the centre of a big empire And 2. Yes they could have beaten the Imperial Japanese Navy and Army by themselves, like they did in Singapore in 1942 right?

They are not enthusiastic about life, they are also very reserved - do you find this also? I suppose if you lived on a small island with 60 million other englishmen (and pakistanis and subcontinental indians etc etc) you would be reserved too.

The Museums and Libraries:

Well, they are older than for example the Met but just a little smaller in size too. They really think their museums are special, mostly because of the age of everything.

And After All They Are Very Important People That's Why They Have a Royal Inbreed Family who Prolly Pull Rank On Tourists To Throw Keg Parties At Stonehenge.

Your thoughts?

BrooklynRider

October 27th, 2005, 11:13 AM

You forgot tea time and an inherent fear of dentistry.

stache

October 28th, 2005, 01:32 AM

Everything I hear about London lately sounds pretty grim. I hope it's not a preview of what we can expect in NYC!

Gregory Tenenbaum

October 28th, 2005, 07:09 AM

Stache - yes I agree, but can you be more specific about what you have heard? Whats the goss?

All I know is that London truly is the ARMPIT of EUROPE.

It is no wonder that all USA, Canadian, and Australian immigrants escaped to colonise what are now better countries. In fact, my impression from Londoners is that half of them want to go to Australia/Thailand/Other Warm South Pacific Destinations and the other half want to come here.

Obviously nothing there has changed since the 18th Century.

stache

October 28th, 2005, 12:06 PM

People that have visited recently have stated it's "brown". Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger. Plus the average person is just making enough to scrape by (sound familiar?) but worse than here, really dreary existances. My boss recently sold his London flat and moved to Berry (about an hour away by train). Sounds like the middle class flight we had in the '60's, only people are raking in a major profit on their way out. I'm sure it's much better if you have good financial resources (same as here) but at least London does not sound as dull as squeaky clean NYC has become.

redhot00

October 28th, 2005, 12:24 PM

I visited London for the first time last March. I enjoyed myself and enjoyed seeing the city for the first time. But a couple of things left me shaking my head.

I expected Londoners to be warmer and friendlier, but I didn't find that to be the case. I found the nightlife to be a disapointment. Bond St was deserted at night, and in Chelsea I go propositioned by no less than 5 hookers in a fifteen minute span. I found Picadilly Circus to be very touristy, and the restaurants all over the city were outrageously priced.

A couple of positives: some of the pubs were really cool; Ben Crouch's and the Red Lion being two of them. They closed way too early though. I really enjoyed Hyde Park, although Central Park it's not. I found Chinatown to be quite interesting and had one of the most authentic Chinese meals I've ever had outside of NY and Philly.

A word of advice to all who visit London though, I know it's a cliche, but DO look both ways before you cross. They drive on the wrong side of the road, and old habits are hard to break when crossing the street; I almost got flattened a couple of times.

stache

October 29th, 2005, 01:55 AM

A frind of mine was seriously injured in Edinburgh a few years ago for the same reason.

urban75

October 30th, 2005, 05:33 AM

The Food:

For example a Cornish Pasty, contains some slightly opaque sauce that looks like it comes from a mixture of bull semen and chunks of vegetables that look like they come from a broken down fridge at the local grocery store.

Your thoughts?I'm sorry to say this, but judging by your comments it looks like you acted a bit like a clueless tourist and let your prejudices guide your experience.

London, like New York, is a fabulous city. But if you just turn up and expect to find all the cool places laid out for you, you're going to be dissapointed.

You sound like you went to the worst tourist traps, didn't bother researching your trip first and got suitably fleeced.

While I'll be the first to admit that London still has some terrible restaurants (and a load of imported American junkfood 'restaurants' too), there are ample excellent restaurants to be found.

In fact, earlier this year, America's leading food magazine, Gourmet, dubbed London the best place to eat in the world!

London's food is 'best in world'

London has been dubbed the best place to eat in the world.

Gourmet, America's leading food magazine, says restaurants in England's capital are far superior to those in Paris, Rome or New York.
The editors of the magazine, who were in London recently to sample the food, said they were "blown away" by the city's cuisine and restaurants.
The magazine, which has a circulation of more than a million, has devoted its entire March issue to dining in London.

John Willoughby, Gourmet's executive editor, said: "We came to London because we had been hearing about great chefs and great products.

"We were hoping to find good food, but we didn't expect to find so much of it. We were blown away."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4303673.stm

urban75

October 30th, 2005, 05:37 AM

I found the nightlife to be a disapointment. Bond St was deserted at night, and in Chelsea I go propositioned by no less than 5 hookers in a fifteen minute span. I found Picadilly Circus to be very touristy, and the restaurants all over the city were outrageously priced..London's got some of the best nightlife in the world, but you were definitely looking in the wrong place!

Piccadilly is a tourist hell hole and Bond St is for rich tourists and out of towners looking to stock up expensive baubles.

I'd recommend that tourists avoid both places at night because they're deadly dull (but tick 'em off your 'things to see' list in the daytimes).

urban75

October 30th, 2005, 05:47 AM

A couple of positives: some of the pubs were really cool; Ben Crouch's and the Red Lion being two of them. They closed way too early though. A source of endless embarassment and frustration to Londoners!

The laws are currently being changed so that a lot of pubs will stay open later. At last!

lofter1

October 30th, 2005, 07:38 AM

Ben Crouch's and the Red Lion being two of them. They closed way too early though.

A source of endless embarassment and frustration to Londoners!

Do these two pubs themselves cause the embarassment, or just the fact that they close too early?

urban75

October 30th, 2005, 08:01 AM

Do these two pubs themselves cause the embarassment, or just the fact that they close too early?The closing times, obviously!

There's loads of pubs called the Red Lion so I don't know which one he/she's on about, although I recall that Ben Crouch is some sort of goth themed boozer.

ablarc

October 30th, 2005, 11:42 AM

I've visited London a dozen or so times and I once lived and worked in London for three months. In my estimation London is the equal of New York; worse in some respects but definitely better in others.

Hope this doesn't turn into one of those tiresome city versus city threads.

urban75

October 30th, 2005, 12:59 PM

Hope this doesn't turn into one of those tiresome city versus city threads.Me too: I've lived and worked in both cities and they've both got their own pros and cons.

If only I could merge the bits I like together (like Brixton, Southbank, Lower East Side and Williamsburg) and make my perfect city!

TLOZ Link5

October 30th, 2005, 08:14 PM

I'm sorry if you had a bad experience, Gregory, but my experiences in London have been fantastic. The food isn't all bad, and generally the touristy areas are best left well enough alone if you've done them already. It's a bit unfair to judge London by Piccadilly, much like it's unfair to judge New York by Times Square. I haven't been to Hyde Park, but I took a walk in Regent's Park in the spring and it was enchanting: a riot of colors as trees blossomed and flowers bloomed. Only occasionally did a particularly tall building clear the treeline, a subtle reminder that you were still in the metropolis.

Plus the theatre is a LOT cheaper than in New York.

Gregory Tenenbaum

October 31st, 2005, 03:48 AM

Yeah, not a bad place, just the ARMPIT OF EUROPE. This is not a our city is better than yours thread, just "Would you live in London", thats all.

You gotta get out more. Go to Moscow and make a comparison to London.

Less emphasis on the polished, pretentious, nation of shopkeepers style that London imbues; and more emphasis on culture, style and not having to eat 50 meals of calorie laden food like the english do each day.

Also, at least in other parts of Europe, you don't have the same level of self loathing that the English do. Almost EVERY Englishman I managed to meet (after I managed to get around the obligatory "What school did you go to? And Where in London is your family from again?") told me that they wanted to live in Thailand, or Australia or somewhere other than Londo blah blah-dee blah. Or they wanted to live in LA or NYC. They are reasonably happy with their lives but they are "fed up" with London.

What does that suggest?

On another point, did you note the emphasis that the English display on their victory over the French?

I mean come on, that's 200 years ago.

If Nelson's all that they hang onto to be proud of, and a big wheel and food that (unless you pay $100.00 at a swanky restaurant) looks and smells like raw bulls semen, then obviously there are better parts of the world to live in.

Just my $ 0.02 pence (which in the UK buys you a 1/100th portion of a small bottle of water).

urban75

October 31st, 2005, 05:03 AM

Yeah, not a bad place, just the ARMPIT OF EUROPE.Sadly, your wild, negative stereotyping of London and its people only underlines your obvious ignorance of the place and its people.

ZippyTheChimp

October 31st, 2005, 06:28 AM

My preliminary impression from talking to englishmen and women from all walks of life are - they could have beaten the Imperial Japanese Navy and Army by themselves, like they did in Singapore in 1942 right?

It's amazing, but that topic has always come up every time I have been to London.

It appears that when packing for his trip, someone should have left his preconceived opinions in the closet.

I hope those people from all walks of life you spoke to didn't know you were from New York. I can imagine a thread in some London forum...

New Yorkers - What are they really like?

Ninjahedge

October 31st, 2005, 11:19 AM

The lesson in life is that most people, especially foreigners, are not particularly nice.

To obnoxious closed minded individuals that is.

Food for thought.

Gregory Tenenbaum

October 31st, 2005, 12:29 PM

Sadly, your wild, negative stereotyping of London and its people only underlines your obvious ignorance of the place and its people.

Hi Urban, a life long Londoner told me that was his impression of the town, too expensive etc compared to when he was a boy.

Would you live there? Do you live there? Tell us your impressions about London.

Ninjahedge

October 31st, 2005, 12:52 PM

Hi Urban, a life long Londoner told me that was his impression of the town, too expensive etc compared to when he was a boy.

Would you live there? Do you live there? Tell us your impressions about London.

Are you whipping up a frenzy again?

Are you asking Zippy, a self proclaimed New Yorker if he lives in London on purpose,deliberately trying to rattle his cage, or are you just that unobservant?

Your friends seem to know everything Greg, why don't you go talk to them instead of trying to insult the people here.

Gregory Tenenbaum

October 31st, 2005, 01:19 PM

Hey, not at all. No frenzy. I was asking Urban whether he lived there and what he thought specifically about it all. Sorry if I gave that impression. I do however have a strong impression about London myself which I wanted to share and get other views on.

I wanted to hear some opinions about whether you would move to London. I was thinking about it before I went, but I am not so keen now.

The Londoners I met aren't my friends, more like acquaintances. The few that I meant really thought that it was the centre of the world (Greenwich Mean Time and all) and one even said to me "Isn't NY is full of uneducated people" and spoke about Bush etc. I didn't take that personally, but listened.

I also listened when they told me about how great their victory over France 200 years ago was, other stories of empire and past greatness, and how they wanted to live elsewhere. I am sure that plenty of people everywhere want to see whether the grass on the other side of the hill is greener, it's human instinct. But they got particularly excited about moving here but I also got "except there's a lot of crime right?" and "Aren't there a lot of uneducated people there?" comments as well.

One guy told me that he thought that life was pretty tough there, he was on a good salary too (if I am to believe what he said). He just wanted to go somewhere warm or here. When I asked him why he said that a lot of Londoners were self loathing and there was nothing exciting about London anymore and too many shops there.

So what are your thoughts about it? I mean you've seen it, heard about it or otherwise know about London, Would You Live There or Not and Why?

redhot00

October 31st, 2005, 01:26 PM

Are you asking Zippy, a self proclaimed New Yorker if he lives in London on purpose,deliberately trying to rattle his cage, or are you just that unobservant?

Ninja, I believe he was asking Urban about his residency, not Zippy.

Ninjahedge

October 31st, 2005, 03:00 PM

Ahhhhh.

Missed the quote thingie there.

Still, he seems to be rousing the Rabble a little much sometimes.... ;)

redhot00

October 31st, 2005, 03:27 PM

Ahhhhh.

Missed the quote thingie there.

Still, he seems to be rousing the Rabble a little much sometimes.... ;)

Yes he is, but I admit, I always get a chuckle out of Young Mr. Tenenbaum's posts. I don't know if it's his writing style, his sarcasm or his irreverency, but reading his posts are one of those guilty pleasures.

TLOZ Link5

October 31st, 2005, 03:30 PM

All discussion of the merits of London aside, I'm quite certain that London has more crime than New York at this stage.

If not, then why would articles like the following be so prominent in the contemporary British press?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2235127.stm

http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/12/01/do0102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/12/01/ixopinion.html

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_25_54/ai_95612956

urban75

October 31st, 2005, 04:54 PM

All discussion of the merits of London aside, I'm quite certain that London has more crime than New York at this stage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2235127.stm
That article is over three years old and simply expresses the personal opinion of Ken Livingstone.

If anyone can be bothered, there's lots of crime stats available for both cities, although the different ways those stats are collected makes a meaningful comparison nigh-on impossible.

Having lived in both cities, I've generally always felt safe in both, although there's parts of London and New York I've felt more a little wary about wandering through.

But I hope this isn't going to turn into one of those awful point-scoring exchanges of selectively quoted stats that generally end up proving bugger all.

Ninjahedge

October 31st, 2005, 04:58 PM

Hey, but at least they are both better than Paris!!!!!

maybe..... ;)

urban75

October 31st, 2005, 04:59 PM

Hey, not at all. No frenzy. I was asking Urban whether he lived there and what he thought specifically about it all. I live in Brixton, London. It's a bit like the Lower East Side/Williamsburg of five years ago: lively, bustling, energetic and described by some as a bit "edgy."

I've found it to be welcoming, friendly, exciting with a fabulous sense of community.

I don't know who these 'Londoners' are that you keep going on about but they sure aren't representative of the London I know, just like your bitter, bigoted anti-London rants (thankfully) aren't representative of the many, many New Yorkers I've met and known over the years.

urban75

October 31st, 2005, 05:00 PM

The few that I meant really thought that it was the centre of the world (Greenwich Mean Time and all) and one even said to me "Isn't NY is full of uneducated people" and spoke about Bush etc.Are you sure you're not making this up?

Ninjahedge

October 31st, 2005, 05:39 PM

I think he is hanging around the wrong Pubs, eh?

redhot00

October 31st, 2005, 05:46 PM

I think he is hanging around the wrong Pubs, eh?

Yeah, he should go to Ben Crouch's, which like Urban said, is a cool goth themed joint. The bartenders were not too tough to look at either.

Gregory Tenenbaum

November 1st, 2005, 05:12 AM

What other pubs can you recommend? And do they have waffle-like smells like the one in Manhattan recently?

Anyhow peoples, here's a comparison for you to weigh up and consider:

Sample # 1. Welcome to Heaf-Row

Sample # 2. My Former Life in Miami Before Witness Protection.

Enjoy, but sorry, no waffle cone smells...

GINGER

April 8th, 2006, 08:32 PM

Goodness me,are all these replies a joke???It looks like everyone has made up the worst stereotypical things you can think of in a city and lumped them all together!!!!!
Jeez,is every person walking around Manhatten a junkie,gangster, homie,prostitute,guardian angel???
Is studio 54 still the best disco in town???
Dear me,I really do hope i've mis-read these posts!!!!:eek:

ZippyTheChimp

April 8th, 2006, 08:56 PM

Everyone?

ablarc

April 8th, 2006, 09:21 PM

Dear me,I really do hope i've mis-read these posts!!!!:eek:
Serves you right for rooting around in the archives.

No, actually Tenenbaum's a weirdo. Brings it out in others. ;)

nicksinif

April 9th, 2006, 06:16 AM

i would move to london in a heartbeat if i had a work permit or permanent residency. i think english people are cool, and another thing that appeals to me is the proximity to other eu states. would be nice to go on trips to france every weekend.

BrooklynRider

April 10th, 2006, 01:09 AM

I'd like to move there and open a dentistry practice.

Gregory Tenenbaum

April 13th, 2006, 04:46 AM

I'd like to move there and open a dentistry practice.

But they don't use dentists.

You may risk bankruptcy, that's all.

Gregory Tenenbaum

April 13th, 2006, 04:47 AM

Ninjahedge

April 13th, 2006, 10:03 AM

Tell us why you liked London, I'm interested.

Maybe you saw something there that we didn't.

"We" or "You"?

ablarc

April 13th, 2006, 10:48 AM

"We" or "You"?
Lol, I noticed that too: the community of the like-minded or the royal "we"? ;)

Tell us why you liked London, I'm interested.
OK:

LONDON

Ways in which it substantially matches New York:

• large metro area with good public transport
• row-house residential infrastructure
• ethnic diversity
• beautiful river and skyline vistas
• lots of interesting people
• great institutions: museums, colleges, libraries
• activist mayor
• superb architectural heritage from many eras
• population growth
• diverse neighborhoods, a collection of “villages”
• many beautiful streets
• lively arts, music and theatre scene
• big-time career opportunities
• widespread gentrification
• fairly easy access to lots of scenic countryside

Ways in which it falls a bit short of New York:

• not as many good restaurants
• rising crime rate
• more expensive
• beach further away

Ways in which it surpasses New York:

• more history
• more diverse street pattern
• congestion charge implemented
• even more day-trip and weekend excursion ops

.

Fabrizio

April 13th, 2006, 11:23 AM

Ways in which it surpasses New York?

• more history
( unfortunately it´s British history)

• more diverse street pattern
( "I moved to London because it has a more diverse street pattern" Nah.

• congestion charge implemented
There´s a charge there for everything ...they might as well include congestion. We are talking about sinuses aren´t we?

• even more day-trip and weekend excursion ops
ANY reason to get away...

We´re still not convinced.

.

ablarc

April 13th, 2006, 12:04 PM

We´re still not convinced.
Oh...so you're the other part of the "we." ;)

Luca

April 13th, 2006, 02:53 PM

I've lived in London for 12 years and visit New York regularly. None of the negative postings are something I wouldn't expect to read, reversed, by an ignorant, provincial Briton. Obviously, living in an amazing city like NYC is not enough to sharpen the perceptiveness/acuity of some backward-ass people beyond earthworm level.

Very disappointing, given the typical caliber of this forum.

Just for funb:

Museums Roughly even
Art/fashion scene London hands down
Architecture Very different but I'd say even
Urban form London - outside of Manhattan, NY is pretty crap.
Bars Not sure, slight edge to NY maybe? but then only tourists
and foreigners party in NY, the locals get on the train at 9 pm
- so London wins
Restaurants Even, neither town is remotely at continental European levels
3/10
Cost of living Similar, overall. But New Yorkers get paid more.
Attitude New Yorkers (Americans in general) much friendlier - also
much more obnoxious and nosy - take your pick.
Politics Bloomberg beats Ken hands down
Parks Central Park is nice. London has 3-4 parks of that quality -
we win.
History Need we mention it?
General culture The brits win it, just
TV/Radio/papers New York wipes the floor with London
Girls (looks) Pretty comparable. Again, nothing like continental Europe.
Sorry.
Girls (ehm, availability) London wins totally.
Transport Nowhere in the West is worse than London.
Provinciality Do people in NY realize there are other cities? nah.
PLQ (provincials loathing quotient) - Americans hate New Yorkers
more than Britons hate Londoners (just). London wins.
Crime London catching up but still lower in the 'headline' stuff (rape,
murder, etc.)
Finance NY about same size as London but effectively a home shop.
London much more global.
Government London has money and power, NY does what Washington sez.
Connections nowhere seriously foreign within easy reach of New York.
London 1hr from Paris.

London - 13 pts
NYC - 5 pts

And, this its totally scientific :D

Fabrizio

April 13th, 2006, 04:18 PM

Reviewring that list:

"Museums Roughly even"

Are we talking about museums...or the art housed with-in? If we´re talking about the actual art: NYC wrote the book on post WWII art. For post-1950 to pre-1980 ...NYC wins. Hands down.

For the rest I´ll take Paris, Rome and Florence.

Art scene? Still NYC.

Fashion? It fluctuates. Right now the runway lives. And so Paris is king. Milan is number 2. American Vogue, Bazaar etc. are still the tastemakers on an international level... and they´re in NYC. Trend-watchers find street fashion just as interesting in other capials, as well as in London. The 1970´s/80´s (and London´s hold) are over. As far as the design and manufacture of desirable fashion brands go.... Paris and Milan still are still way ahead.

"Architecture Very different but I'd say even".

If we go to international capitals to see pre-1900 history, London has plenty of competition. If we go to see masterpieces of the 20th century NYC ( and Chicago) wins ...with plenty of scattered things worth seeing world-wide.

Bars&Resturants:

For good cheap eats NYC wins. For luxe eating I hate both. But I do have to say that fine dining in NYC has gotten truly weird. For bars? NYC with out a doubt. Brits have a drinking problem ...and it´s a bore.

"Cost of living Similar, overall. But New Yorkers get paid more."

So I guess in that, NYC wins.

Attitude: Brits are snobs... if your´re not British you lose and you can never truly be a member of the club. NY-ers have a genuine fascination with other cultures. And that is modern. NYC wins.

Politics: "Bloomberg beats Ken hands down. "

Well, I have to say, I like your crazy mayor.

"Parks Central Park is nice. London has 3-4 parks of that quality -
we win".

Nah. Those parks don´t equal the uniqueness of Central Park.

"History Need we mention it?"

For 20th century history I say NYC wins.

"General culture The brits win it."

I don´t know what you mean by general culture ( man.... Brits DO know about WWII... I will say that!)

"Girls (looks) Pretty comparable. Again, nothing like continental Europe.
Sorry.Girls (ehm, availability) London wins totally."

Girls? C´mon ...NYC wins. It´s no contest.

Provinciality?

The Brits are so deluded, they feel genetically superior.... I think that´s about as provincial as you can get.

"London 1hr from Paris."

Thank God.

ablarc

April 13th, 2006, 10:06 PM

Don't mind Fabrizio, Luca; he just likes to argue. :)

Especially with Englishmen. ;)

krulltime

April 14th, 2006, 12:12 AM

Gregory Tenenbaum

April 14th, 2006, 04:38 AM

I think that I am going to London for the first time this year! Yay! I can't wait!

I was in Orlando, Florida from April 2nd to April 7th this month, and I swear that most people in Orlando were from Britain. They were on the Disney Parks, Universal Studios, my hotel and in all the restaurants I went to. (which most were diners)

I talk to a few of them (that wanted to talk to me) and they all told me that they just love to visit America. Some of them told me they wish they live here. Also when I mention I was from NYC, their face expression change like they just saw gold. They wanted to hear more about my experiences in the city. LOL!

Anyway I told them that I was going to London and they were just telling me that the city was just too expensive for a trip. LOL. Ofcourse, it will be.

Yes that is a true indication of my experiences too.

Make sure that you sample this little treat when you are in London. It's on sale now at Selfridges Department Store in London. Say hello to my friend the chef who created it.

http://www.selfridges.com/index.cfm?page=1010&articleID=5330

What a complete W*NK - BRITISH STYLE.

Yes, lets all try the world's most expensive sandwich shall we? And then we shall march our armies all over the world and r*pe and kill everyone - BRITISH STYLE!

Gregory Tenenbaum

April 14th, 2006, 04:58 AM

ablarc

April 14th, 2006, 08:11 AM

^ Bilious.

Fabrizio

April 14th, 2006, 08:25 AM

Ugh! That sandwhich: beef, foie gras, brie, tomato, peppers....all TOGETHER? Sounds more like the contents of a very expensive garbage disposal.

Gregory Tenenbaum

April 14th, 2006, 10:49 AM

Ugh! That sandwhich: beef, foie gras, brie, tomato, peppers....all TOGETHER? Sounds more like the contents of a very expensive garbage disposal.

NO no not at all, don't be so negative ;)

*WITH MICHAEL CAINE ACCENT*

"this sandwich happens to be jus' 'nother one of dose one-thousand Very Very Jolly Good Reasons to Live in LON-DON TOWN".

Tenenbaum over and out.

Oh and if you try the sandwich, I know a good cardiologist near 60th street and 5th.

nick-taylor

April 15th, 2006, 09:13 AM

"Are we talking about museums...or the art housed with-in? If we´re talking about the actual art: NYC wrote the book on post WWII art. For post-1950 to pre-1980 ...NYC wins. Hands down." Museums are far more than just art. The British Museum might be the largest museum in the world (6mn+ artifacts), but I personally prefer the Victoria & Albert - absolutely amazing. Even better some 300+ museums and art galleries in London are absolutely free including every single major museum.

"Art scene? Still NYC." Lets ask the New York Times art critic.... ;)

http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/918/thetimes074wb.th.jpg (http://img127.imageshack.us/my.php?image=thetimes074wb.jpg)

"If we go to international capitals to see pre-1900 history, London has plenty of competition. If we go to see masterpieces of the 20th century NYC ( and Chicago) wins ...with plenty of scattered things worth seeing world-wide." But it isn't London Vs the world and New York is it though ;)

"For good cheap eats NYC wins. For luxe eating I hate both. But I do have to say that fine dining in NYC has gotten truly weird. For bars? NYC with out a doubt. Brits have a drinking problem ...and it´s a bore." I would say that some people have a drinking problem, but that is only because on average the Brit drinks more in constrained periods than most other people. That doesn't mean all Brits have a drinking problem.

"Attitude: Brits are snobs... if your´re not British you lose and you can never truly be a member of the club. NY-ers have a genuine fascination with other cultures. And that is modern. NYC wins." What rubbish, where is the evidence? If anything its probably the opposite - afterall isn't it New York that termed itself the capital of the world or capital of the universe or something as ridiculous as that!?! Genuine fascination with other cultures doesn't mean jack if you don't blend with them. Both cities have significant (and growing) foreign born populations, but alongside the Dutch, Brits are amongst the most travelled people on the planet. International tourism expeniture is 4.1x per capita in Britain than it is in the US.

http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/5716/worldtousimorgite4tf.th.png (http://img154.imageshack.us/my.php?image=worldtousimorgite4tf.png)

"Nah. Those parks don´t equal the uniqueness of Central Park." You do know that Central Park was based upon Birkenhead Park in Liverpool and Hyde Park in London. Although the skyscraper backdrop is pretty damn good, so is the break from being in the heart of the city as seen with Hyde Park.

"For 20th century history I say NYC wins." Pity that history is longer than the 20th century then!

"Girls? C´mon ...NYC wins. It´s no contest." Personally something as subjective as this has no chance of being properly gauged. There are beautiful and ugly girls in every society and every society.

"The Brits are so deluded, they feel genetically superior.... I think that´s about as provincial as you can get." And proof for this deluded assumption is?

"Thank God." Far from it - more the better for both cities. When the CTRL Phase II opens in 2008, Central London - Central Paris will be just over 2hrs apart via 300kph 400m long Eurostar passenger trains. You might think that - but its a benefit for both cities, for breaks, business, communications and integration of both countries. There is no city equivalent to New York just over 2hrs away from New York - hell there isn't an equivalent of such stature on the entire continent and that goes in hand for London and Paris.

ablarc

April 15th, 2006, 03:53 PM

^ It just won't die!! Quick!...somebody put a stake through the heart of this "discussion."

Fabrizio

April 15th, 2006, 05:23 PM

"Art scene? Still NYC."

Yes STILL (althogh we can debate the word "scene").

According to Louisa Buck of the Arts Council England:

"The market in England for contemporary visual art has undergone a dramatic expansion over the last decade," says Art Newspaper scribe Louisa Buck, author of Market Matters. "London is now the center of Europe’s art market, and is acknowledged as the second largest art marketplace in the world after New York."

Note: "after New York"

http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/laplaca/laplaca10-14-05.asp

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

BTW: of best-selling living artists, Britain has one (1). Ranks ninth (although of course he made his career in the US... and as far as I know still lives there):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/2940016.stm

BTW: please list London´s universally recognized masterpieces of Modern architecture... lets compare it to NYC. Or for that matter internationally recognized masterpieces of modern art .... let´s see how london compares to NYC and Paris.

Gregory Tenenbaum

April 16th, 2006, 05:57 AM

^ It just won't die!! Quick!...somebody put a stake through the heart of this "discussion."

Ok - here's the stake.

Google this -

"ROBB COCKTAIL".

From the Ritz Hotel's Rivoli Bar, and the ultimate in British W*nkFest try the Robb Cocktail for a modest penny or two

Check out this story.

Created for the Robb Report, the Robb cocktail cost $87,600 when it was offered in 2003 at the Rivoli Bar at The Ritz Hotel in London, England. Now unavailable, the cocktail was made with 22-carat gold leaf Eskalony vodka, Grand Marnier, peach liqueur and topped off with Ritz private label champagne. It came with a custom-made 13.66-carat yellow diamond swizzle stick that doubled as a bracelet.
"To be honest, I haven't heard of anything else as expensive," said Mark Skidmore, a Rivoli bar manager. No one ever purchased the drink, Skidmore added.

W*NK W*NK BRITISH ST-OYLE.

nick-taylor

April 16th, 2006, 07:17 AM

Fabrizio - Unless you aren't aware, scene and marketplace are two different things. It also happens that the marketplace in New York is also dominatd by the two London orientated auction houses: Christie's & Sotheby's (albeit Bonham's the third largest auction house has no prescence in London, but in LA and SF).

Also I'm unsure how surviving best-selling artists has to do with the New York or London art scene. Most works are afterall done by the new-generation and that was the point of that article I posted: the current and up-and-comming are centred in London and specifically that it was by a New York Times art critic.

London does have older building stock than New York and I think this works in London's favour because while other cities like Paris have stopped redevelopment (most towers in London go up on the spot of buildings destroyed by the IRA or Blitz), London has created a mix of styles, meaning you can be next door to a church older than the Pilgrim Fathers and then nextdoor a skyscraper. So, yes I would say that London does have many examples of modern-day engineering and architecture. The only problem is how do you gauge key developments and the like against each other and when or what is considered modern.

I'd like to add that the Guggenheim is a good building - compare that to the art-deco refurbished power station of Tate Modern opposite St Pauls (infact my current favourite project in all of London is the redevelopment of Battersea Power Station). I would have thought for most people 30 St Mary Axe (Swiss RE) would have popped into frame, as would the Millennium Dome, London Eye, Lloyds of London, etc. Would anyone here also deny that even London's skyscraper projects look more inviting, diverse and different than those going-up or will be going-up in New York? But why end there - buildings like the new Wembley won't be known by most Americans, but the name will be recognised by most of the rest of the world. Also transport developments like the Canary Wharf tube station and other Jubilee Line Extension stations are prime examples of modern underground station (as also seen in Hong Kong and Singapore) design and yes they have PSD's (I think only the Airtrain to JFK have these).

And let us not forget all the new buildings, arenas and stadia that are going up in association with the 2012 Olympics. ;)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/images/2005/08/25/025_430x316.jpg

Gregory Tenenbaum

April 17th, 2006, 05:24 AM

nick-taylor

April 17th, 2006, 06:39 AM

Nick

These modern buildings are less than attractive in London. They should stop trying to be a skyscraper city and stop buiding horrendous modern white elephants in the middle of what would otherwise have been beautiful old city. London will never be Hong Kong.

Its too late for London. The London skyline is just plain ugly.

Just me 2 pence worth...is that enough to buy a sandwich?London is not aiming to become Hong Kong because its already London - it follows its own pathway.

Also the skyscrapers that are going up in London aren't replacing architectual beauties - they are replacing horrific post-WW2 concrete buildings that themselves replaced buildings destroyed in The Blitz (1/3 of London was destroyed in the Blitz). The reason London didn't re-build the old-era buildings was simply because the entire country was close to going bankrupt and these buildings could go up en-masse so that office and residential space was made available ASAP.

Now, these buildings themselves are being pulled down e-masse because they are falling apart or are unsuitable for many people (asbestos, poor floor plans, etc...) and some of these sites are home to these new projects. Skyscrapers in this situation are the lesser of a far larger problem that is slowly being vanquished.

30 St Mary Axe (Swiss RE) was the site of where the home of the historic Baltic Exchange building was located....that was until the IRA decided to combine a lorry load of semtex and fertiliser, park it outside the Baltic Exchange....and detonate it back in 1992. After several deaths and the entire area being wiped out (including damage to several of Wren's churches which survived the Luftwaffe), the building had to be broken up because there was literally nothing left of it (although some parts were salvaged). The result is Swiss-RE - a trully world-class modern day skyscraper (which I suspect many New Yorkers wouldn't have mind having) rose from the ashes.

Also these skyscrapers aren't white-elephants: they are going up to satisfy the demand of clients wanting skyscraper bases of operations.

London doesn't need a beautiful skyline: it has a beautiful streetscape which far more people are exposed to every day. That said, the majority of projects going up are pretty spectacular.

A 2p coin might be sufficient enough to plug that anus of yours ;)

Fabrizio

April 17th, 2006, 06:53 AM

No London does not have a skyline.... and unfortunately the new buildings that predominate are a cucumber and a ferris wheel.... and Canary Warf... whose tallest looks like a copy of NY´s World Financial Center.

Old London is beautiful... not as beautiful as Paris or Rome... but beautiful.. especially if you like derivative architecture.

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

London´s tallest. Look familiar?:

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=110714

Second tallest. Wow... what a beauty:

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=190809

Number three (Philadelphia.... here I come):

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=110742

Number four (World Trade Center envy):

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=110590

nick-taylor

April 17th, 2006, 07:51 AM

Fabrizio - You are incorrect - everything from a village to a sprawling metropolis has a skyline. Church spires and minarets can have as much imact on a setting of a skyline as say a 300m skyscraper. It all takes perspective and by all accounts you'd seem to believe that no settlement in Italy has a skyline - madness!

Florence for example has a skyline - it has structures that punctuate the natural surroundings, just like any other settlement on the planet. The skyline of Rome or Oxford are for example nice skylines - not dominanted by highrises, but domes, spires and the like.

Personally the current crop of skyscrapers aren't spectacular (exception being Swiss RE), but that wasn't the point I was making was it now - it was in regards to the next crop, eg LBT, Bishopsgate Tower, 122 Leadenhall, Minerva, etc...

The reason One Canada Square resembles Three World Financial Center is because they were both built by the developer Olympia & York and designed by the same architect: Cesar Pelli. The only difference is that One Canada Square is around 4 years younger, 10m taller and clad entirely in stainless steel.

Also Tower 42 is nothing like the WTC! The WTC was a vertical block, Tower 42 on completition was the world's tallest cantilevered building, is built with three almost triangular blocks around a central core and entirely designed around the symbol of the original tenants: Nat-West Bank: http://www.jasonhawkes.com/upload_dir/images/5152.jpg
http://www.natwest.com/images/logo.gif

If you actually did you research you'd find that the London Eye isn't a ferris wheel: its an observation wheel. A ferris wheel is supported on both sides of the wheel; the London Eye meanwile is supported from one side and 'hangs' over the River Thames.

Most of old London is actually older than old Paris (you can thank Haussmann for changing that)....but London doesn't pretend to be a museum city - its a city that is in constant flux with global events and the result is that isn't all pretty.

ZippyTheChimp

April 17th, 2006, 08:35 AM

If you actually did you research you'd find that the London Eye isn't a ferris wheel: its an observation wheel. A ferris wheel is supported on both sides of the wheel; the London Eye meanwile is supported from one side and 'hangs' over the River Thames.

I didn't know that! :)

Gregory Tenenbaum

April 17th, 2006, 08:49 AM

Nick, interesting post.

A 2p coin might be sufficient enough to plug that anus of yours ;)

But my, you are a potty mouth, aren't you.

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

Anyway, have a nice day. Tenenbaum.

Fabrizio

April 17th, 2006, 11:09 AM

Oooops...ok let me correct that:

"....unfortunately the new buildings that predominate are a cucumber and an OBSERVATION wheel....

ZippyTheChimp

April 17th, 2006, 11:49 AM

That reminds me. My bike needs new tires.

nick-taylor

April 17th, 2006, 11:58 AM

A cucumber which has gained international recognition and various international architecture awards for being one of the best modern skyscrapers. I'd expect with the likes of LBT and Bishopsgate, there will be more awards floating London's way. I don't believe this has been or will be the case with New York skyscrapers, especially as the city goes through the current trend of boxes with mish-mashed roofs. I think this is something that most New Yorkers would accept - the current batch is far too geared towards the corporate side of skyscraper design.

Yet I'd prefer to have these the likes of 30 St Mary Axe and the London Eye over say the Freedom Tower or Bank of America Tower, simply because they are structures that are a) Icons of a new London that are known around the world and b) Far more attractive and innovative.

Fabrizio

April 17th, 2006, 12:19 PM

As far as award-winning cucumbers go I´ll take the Torre Agbar.

BTW: whose cucumber is bigger?

Ninjahedge

April 17th, 2006, 01:01 PM

Get yourself out of THAT pickle why don't you!

;)

You guys are just getting silly. They are both good for varying reasons, but I have heard a lot of bad about both as well.

I believe NYC is the better of the two for the most people, but that London definitely has more history and character in some respects.

Now if you want to go on and split hairs as to who has the most $$ in artwork or the biggest cantilevered vertical rotating observation rotunda, go on ahead.

The rest of us would probably pay more attention to Oprah.

Fabrizio

April 17th, 2006, 01:55 PM

Oprah? You´ll l find that big cantelevered vertical rotating rotunda in Chicago.

Ninjahedge

April 17th, 2006, 02:37 PM

Oprah? You´ll l find that big cantelevered vertical rotating rotunda in Chicago.

She rotates?

ZippyTheChimp

April 17th, 2006, 07:11 PM

^ It just won't die!! Quick!...somebody put a stake through the heart of this "discussion."No use in that.

Someone will just read an incantation from the Book of the Dead, and it'll be resurrected with a different title.

Besides, it's funny when at least one person doesn't realize that it is.

Fabrizio

April 17th, 2006, 07:20 PM

The saddest thing is the fact that so many Brits are choosing to leave.

czsz

April 17th, 2006, 09:22 PM

They must be, as the saying goes, tired of life.

There are plenty more appreciative South Asians, Arabs, Caribbeans, East Asians and Africans to populate London in their absence anyway.

Gregory Tenenbaum

April 18th, 2006, 04:00 AM

The saddest thing is the fact that so many Brits are choosing to leave.

Choosing to leave this post? Or London?

They have been leaving the UK for hundreds of years. And if you go there now you can see why they did, even 200 years later. Social and religious intolerance and persecution, undue emphasis upon title and rank, and other oddities that remain to the present day.

nick-taylor

April 18th, 2006, 05:11 AM

Gregory Tenenbaum

April 18th, 2006, 09:10 AM

If these oddities mean that we remain less likely to kill ourselves or each other, work less hours to enjoy life, have a better education, actually have a sufficient alternative to the car, travel around the world more, are healthier and live longer than Americans then boohoo me! :D

By the way I'd be more concerned about that slight problem of greater wealth inequality in the US which as you might have guessed is actually worse in the US than in the UK; ie Brits are more equal than Americans who are more openly shifted towards being either rich or poor. I also don't think you should be lecturing to the UK about social and religious intolerence - you get enough of that in the US already what with the Katrina muckup, the current alienation of the Latino population and oh lets not forget - its been less than 40 years ago for African Americans to be nationally treated the same as anyone else. Britain might have had its problems with Northern Ireland - but thats small fry compared to what the US has recently and will continue to go through.

Game - Set - Match. :D
Nick, interesting post, and I am glad you have stopped being a potty mouth, for all of our sakes but the topic is "London - Would You Live There".

Northern Ireland is still a big problem; I mean when will the English realise that their invasion of ireland, started as it was several centuries ago, is over. And as for intolerance, look no further to suburban England's treatment of the local muslim population. The racial tensions apparent in british society were sufficient to bear bitterly resentful home grown terrorists and this is a great tragedy.

About public health and life expectancy, a good reason to live in London if there are real benefits, I would have thought that London and NYC are about on par. If you want to examine a really healthy society, look at Japan or Iceland.

Your government 65 years ago basically handed most of eastern europe to Hitler on a platter, resulting in hundreds of thousands of American and Commonwealth (not to mention British) lives being lost, trying to undo what had been allowed to happen. This is a fact most easily forgotten in the legitimately awe inspiring shadow of your Mr Chamberlain's successor. Or is it forgotten for other reasons?

But I would be interested to hear from you about how your great social experiment of a nation managed to hold back the tide of nationalism promoted by the then Empire of Japan and the Third Reich, all by itself. Because I, as do a lot of people, do not believe that it did .

Listening to you however, I am almost certain that your government successfully managed to convince you at school that it in fact did. Oh yes, but for great Great Britain, the world would have been lost.

Now, for something more refreshing to the mind Nick. Would you live in London and Why?

Fabrizio

April 18th, 2006, 09:14 AM

"the current alienation of the Latino population and oh lets not forget - its been less than 40 years ago for African Americans to be nationally treated the same as anyone else. Britain might have had its problems with Northern Ireland - but thats small fry compared to what the US has recently and will continue to go through."

Glad to hear Britain´s "small fry" minority problems are a thing of the past:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4190892

nick-taylor

April 23rd, 2006, 09:59 AM

Gregory Tenenbaum - Northern Ireland is no longer a large problem - the troubles have been on the decline for the last few years and Northern Ireland is now actually attracting FDI - its actually one of the fastest growing regions of the UK.

An invasion doesn't last for hundreds of years - if that was the case, then you are a part of the invasion of Native American lands and pretty much in no different a situation than Northern Ireland. What is interesting though, is that there is growing popularity in the Republic to rejoin Great Britain - a United British Isles. Personally i'm half Irish with family ties in the Glen of Aherlow and although I don't consider myself as Irish, I would welcome such a re-union.

There has not been poor treatment of muslims on a general scale in the UK - there wasn't anything like the backlash against muslims post 7/7 as there was 9/11. What has happened is that a few individuals have become disillusioned, gone off to Pakistan and fallen into bad circles; to come back warped. Yet to put all of this into perspective the US only has around 2.5mn muslims, the UK alone has 1.6mn - thats even though the UK has a population 1/5th that of the US. Muslim populations are even larger in France and Germany; they also have their troubles but the main problem of the US is its foreign policy, and that does more harm than a few individuals who are deluded. I'd like to add also that the US is not free from home-grown terrorists, afterall did the anniversary of the Oklahoma bombing where 168 people died slipped your mind!

Indeed if you want a healthy society, you look to Japan, but I wasn't talking about Japan - I was comparing Britain to the US and generally the image looks far more clearer.

And how did Britain hand Eastern Europe over to Hitler? History recalls that Britain wasn't read for a war and that had it gone to war it would have been defeated pretty swiftly. Had that happened, Hitler would have dominated all of Europe, developed the A-Bomb at an earlier date (ie before the US because they would not have had a war machine and begun the Manhattan Project which was afterall a US, UK and Commonwealth effort) and then ransomed countries like the US to surrender. It wasn't until Britain had built up a war machine, that provided enough planes, ships, infantry and armour that it could actually attempt something and even then that was too soon as was shown by Dunkirk. Also remember that Britain didn't have to go to war - but it did and it went to war when Poland was invaded when it told Germany not to do so. More lives would have been lost had Britain gone to war without an army, navy or air force or the proper logistics to support such a war: it would have been WW1 daily losses again.

I'm unsure how one country and the Commonwealth was meant to battle alone against a far larger force that had defeated other allies (eg France) and accumulated their wealth and arms in the process. It wasn't until the combined force of Britain, Russia and the US came together that fascism lost.

I'd live in London because its a forward moving city - more so than other developed world cities. An example of this would be London overtaking New York to become the world's premier financial centre to cater to the new global economy which New York hasn't evolved towards.

Fabrizio - I still call that a small fry problem and far smaller than the problems within the US. A forumer here was only just killed due to the actions of racist kids: I'd call that a far more troubling problem in US society which costs far more lives.

Fabrizio

April 23rd, 2006, 10:57 AM

"Fabrizio - I still call that a small fry problem and far smaller than the problems within the US. A forumer here was only just killed due to the actions of racist kids: I'd call that a far more troubling problem in US society which costs far more lives."

Nick: actually crime in NYC has DROPPED dramatically over the last 10 years...while London´s has RISEN dramatically. While NYC´s homicide rate still is higher... London´s rate of muggings has surpassed NYC. But the overall crime trend in NYC is downward....London:up. Troubling indeed.

nick-taylor

April 23rd, 2006, 12:07 PM

Fabrizio - Like I used to say to someone over on SSC - would you rather have your wallet stolen or your life. In 2005, 540 people were murdered in New York, in London this was around 175: 3x lower.

In 2001, there were less than 25,000 police officers in London, now there are over 31,000. The number of officers in New York was over 42,000 in 2000, but has since fallen to around 34,000.

Crime Total
12 months to March 2005: 1,015,121
12 months to March 2006: 984,125
Percentage TotalChange: -3.1%

Crime Breakdown
Homicide: -10.3%
Violence againt the person: -2.3%
Rape: -2.0%
Other Sexual: -6.2%
Robbery: 16.1%
Burglary: 2.0%
Gun enabled crime: 4.2%
Motor vehicle crime: 1.2%
Domestic crime -3.6%
Racist crime -11.7%
Homophobic cime -3.9%

Only problem with these figures is that these are recorded crime, so although the total number of crimes in figures is lower for New York, (taking into account the actual number of violent crimes) there could be a cloud of coercion, thus distorting the true figures. This is more likely due to the prevalence of the gun-culture in the US.

So you are incorrect - crime in London is on the decline and most of this is dominated by petty crime. Violence, racism and murder is far lower and a more appropiate measure between both cities would be to assign a figure to each crime, ie one murder isn't equal to one handbag stolen, so 1 murder might equal 1,000,000, but a handbag only 5. If you did that, you'd see New York shoot up. Also the Metropolitan Police stats are far more comprehensive and include stats that the NYPD don't cover because of overlap with the FBI.

Fabrizio

April 23rd, 2006, 12:32 PM

No... you are incorrect. As my post states "during the last 10 years" the crime TREND in London ( for all crimes) is UP. The trend in NY is down.

"...one murder isn't equal to one handbag stolen, so 1 murder might equal 1,000,000, but a handbag only 5."

I really think it depends on the handbag. I think a Fendi handbag or a Hermes "Kelly" bag could easily rate much more.

nick-taylor

April 23rd, 2006, 01:46 PM

Fabrizio - No the trend is not upwards, its a peaked trend because while it might have been going up from 1995-2001; after 2001-2006 its been going down. Crime levels in London are currently down to around 1997 levels and continuing to fall.

So you think a handbag is worth more to society than a human life?

Fabrizio

April 23rd, 2006, 02:12 PM

Well, maybe if you throw in a pair of matching heels.

I don´t have recent statistics, but in the meantime....this is interesting about crime reports in Britain:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment071800c.html

nick-taylor

April 23rd, 2006, 02:33 PM

I fail to see the relevance with your poorly chosen article: its from 2000 and even refers back to a Daily Telegraph article from over 10 years ago! To top it off, its not even a news article - its a comment peice written apparently by an optometrist and dentist! They seem to be pro-gun as well and somehow believe that crime is worse here than it was back then when it isn't. Where on earth do you find these articles - you using some hacked version of google or something!

In total in 2005:
- 858 people were murdered in the UK (pop: 60mn)
- 540 people were murdered in New York City (pop: 8mn)
- 175 people were murdered in London (pop: 7.4mn)

czsz

April 23rd, 2006, 03:20 PM

In total in 2005:
- 858 people were murdered in the UK (pop: 60mn)
- 540 people were murdered in New York City (pop: 8mn)
- 175 people were murdered in London (pop: 7.4mn)

Thank you. Now maybe the people who keep insisting that crime is actually worse in London now will finally shut up.

Fabrizio

April 23rd, 2006, 03:26 PM

"its a comment peice written apparently by an optometrist and dentist!"

Ooooops... I forgot you folks in Britain don´t trust dentists.

Anyway...my original post mentioned that ,"actually crime in NYC has DROPPED dramatically over the last 10 years...while London´s has RISEN dramatically. While NYC´s homicide rate still is higher... London´s rate of muggings has surpassed NYC."

ablarc

April 23rd, 2006, 03:40 PM

Now maybe the people who keep insisting that crime is actually worse in London now will finally shut up.
The civil liberties problem, however, seems alarming.

Fabrizio

April 23rd, 2006, 03:58 PM

Even more alarming than the rise in crime:

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=863525

ablarc

April 23rd, 2006, 04:05 PM

^ An oldish article, but even more relevant today.

Fabrizio

April 23rd, 2006, 04:16 PM

Things have only gotten worse.

nick-taylor

April 23rd, 2006, 04:42 PM

Fabrizio - You can't beat me in debate so you resort to cheap blows. No, the correct wording would be more along the lines of London saw a rise in crime, but has in recent years seen a recession of this said crime.

Your Economist article although dated (you could actually search for more up-to-date articles) is valid and I actually share its points. That said many of those same points are shared by many other developed world countries. Infact Britain has been slower at bringing them in than say France or Germany. Its no coincidence that London was called Beiruit-on-Thames or Londistan because various 'people' have come to Britain precisely because of the soft-nature of Britain towards such individuals. You only have to look at the Mr Ramada case where repeatedly asked for his extradition, only for the courts to say that they believed he would be in danger. As of early last year, only 11 people are being held without trial, no way near the levels of GB in Cuba. Its a difficult decision, the last time people were kept under surveillance, we ended up with the Stockwell tube shooting. Should we keep them locked up or allow them to move around and risk accidently targetting an innocent person.

Generally though, freedoms have increased among 99.99% of the population and it is only a small minority (ie suspects) that have seen the reverse. I'd look closer to home though Fabrizio because while you concentrated on the problems in britain, you allowed for a long time a mad man to rule Italy single-handedly.

ablarc - Well depends how you define 'alarming'. If you go by the words of MarkSix who believes Britain is worse off than Myanmar then yes it would be alarming....but that isn't reality. Civil liberties in the UK and US don't tend to alter too much, but in the areas that they do such as cameras its generally positive (safer transport, better cities, lower road fatalities, greater number of succesful convictions, etc....). The Congestion Charge for instance has re-born Central London into a place with less restrictions (restrictions being walls of traffic) aiding greater flows of people in a less polluted environment: something I bet many New Yorkers would actually love to have.

Fabrizio

April 23rd, 2006, 05:41 PM

"I'd look closer to home though Fabrizio because while you concentrated on the problems in britain, you allowed for a long time a mad man to rule Italy single-handedly."

Oh, so now it´s MY fault?

Listen Nick, Blair and Bush led the world into the war in Iraq while "mad-man" Berlusconi was getting hair-transplants and hanging out at the tanning salon. A man like Berlusconi would be GOOD for Britain.

ablarc

April 23rd, 2006, 05:55 PM

Listen Nick, Blair and Bush led the world into the war in Iraq while "mad-man" Berlusconi was getting hair-transplants and hanging out at the tanning salon. A man like Berlusconi would be GOOD for Britain.
Lol, Fabrizio. Do you suppose we could interest Monica Lewinsky in a second White House excursion? Or is she getting a little long in the tooth?

nick-taylor

April 23rd, 2006, 06:33 PM

Although I don't necessarily believe the way the Iraq War went, on other fronts Blair is by far the better of the three.
-Under his leadership, Britain has experienced the longest period of sustained growth in recorded history and the likes of London have been able to carve out a new position as the foremost financial centre.
- Public transportation is something that we can begin to actually take some pride in as the investment has begun to poor in, while Britain's healthcare which was creaking at the seems has been rejuvinated.
- Thanks to this government, the number of skyscrapers has ballooned as planning has become more refined, while it would be doubtful if London would have got the Olympics.
- Britain is now a large immigration destination and London now absorbs more foreigners than either New York or Los Angeles.
- Press freedom and liberties have increased over the years as Britain becomes more open (and this is even with the likes of proposed ID cards), be that in the form of the regions having greater control over planning and transport, more control at the local level for schools and policing and London actually now having a mayor. Thats not even getting into devolution of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where national assemblies are now reality. Yet one of the most important changes was transparency: the Freedom of Information Act brought in 2000 which gives people the right to information that might not have been available even if it didn't concern national security.
- Disabled people now have more rights, while pay gaps between the sexes has decreased, and Britain becomes a more harmonous society.

Now Blair is far more intelligent than Bush and clearly isn't controlled by the oil giants, while Berli' is the most sinister of the three: controlling the media with one hand and directing the country with the other. Thankfully he is no more but how he was allowed to get into office the first place is just crazy. Remember: Italy went to Iraq as well.

ZippyTheChimp

April 23rd, 2006, 06:46 PM

Now Blair is far more intelligent than Bush and clearly isn't controlled by the oil giants He's controlled by Bush. How low can you get.

ZippyTheChimp

April 23rd, 2006, 06:55 PM

http://img.webring.com/r/g/georgebushslapdo/logo.

lofter1

April 23rd, 2006, 08:40 PM

Sent to me from a friend in Rome ...

I miracoli del make-up
\/
\/
\/

Fabrizio

April 23rd, 2006, 09:20 PM

When Blair greets Berlusconi he does it Italian style and kisses him on the cheeks.

Gregory Tenenbaum

April 24th, 2006, 04:13 AM

Interesting posts.

How about Nick tell us the top 10 reasons to live in London. Maybe he can tell us why it so damn good.

Show us the London-Town-GOOD-NESS Nick.

G.Tenenbaum.

nick-taylor

April 24th, 2006, 05:05 PM

ZippyTheChimp - If you did some research, you'd realise that on only front do Blair and Bush agree and that is the War on Terror. Had Blair actually been Bush's poodle there is no way that Blair or Britain would be completely different when it comes to the economy, public transport, housing, voting, company protectionism, environment, health, education, etc.... Also you might be aware that Blair isn't going to go into Iran if Bush does.

Ironically, Chirac has more in common with Bush than Blair does and although they might not like each other or their respective countries they share far more 'points'.

Gregory Tenenbaum - London can be summed up as being the best balanced city in the world at this present moment in time. Its not the best in every field, but does significantly well across all fields compared to other cities. Yet the point of this thread I suspect was that you wanted a comparison between London and New York.

ZippyTheChimp

April 24th, 2006, 05:46 PM

Marksix

April 25th, 2006, 06:52 AM

^ It just won't die!! Quick!...somebody put a stake through the heart of this "discussion."

Steaks in NYC are far better than in London (unless you can afford the £60 restaurants...) but here's my two 'penneth;

London is no more representative of the rest of the UK than Manhattan is of the rest of the USA.

For a cultural snapshot of contemporary London you could do no better than listen to this Lilly Allan record "LDN" at myspace:- http://www.myspace.com/lilymusic ...a must listen for contributors to this thread imho!

As to which COUNTRY I'd prefer to live?

...well on the one hand the beer in the US is rubbish but on the other hand, American girls just love the British accent. It really is that finely balanced.

nick-taylor

April 25th, 2006, 12:11 PM

Blair himself is so worried about his status as Bush's puppet that he cancelled his trip to Washington.

Doesn't want a photo-op with Geppetto.

Bush couldn't have cared less about Blair's views on housing, health, education, etc. The war in Iraq was the key issue. I'm still waiting for the release of the key documents the British government say they have which support the Niger-Iraq-uranium connection that started this mess.

As for Blair not going into Iran, I didn't say he was stupid - just a puppet.Hang on your contradicting yourself here. If Blair was a poodle to Bush, he wouldn't be worried about trip to Washington. Its far too simplistic and leans towards tabloid perceptions of the world.

Also it could be argued that this was all a conspiracy by Blair and Britain to control the actions of the US around the world. :D

MidtownGuy

April 25th, 2006, 12:23 PM

Its not the best in every field, but does significantly well across all fields compared to other cities.

Everything in London costs too damn much. That puts it at the bottom of the list in my book. What good are nice things if you can't afford them? And no, salaries there do not make up the difference according to many ex-pats that I have spoken with.

Blair is indeed a puppet, well, more like a co-conspirator doing as he's told.

Fabrizio

April 25th, 2006, 12:32 PM

London is considered the 7th most expensive city in the world. NYC is way down on the list at 27th.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/31/real_estate/world_cities_most_expensive/

Maybe that´s an indication of why on the Economist Intellegenc Unit "Quality of Life Index" Great Britain is ranked a sorry 29th.... the US 13th.

Italy 8th.... even with Berlusconi.

I´m telling you guys, you need leaders like him. Gold chains and bikini underwear.

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:q7VIosn93qcJ:www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf+the+Economist+Intelligence+Uni t+&hl=it&gl=it&ct=clnk&cd=13

Gregory Tenenbaum

April 25th, 2006, 01:34 PM

Everything in London costs too damn much. That puts it at the bottom of the list in my book. What good are nice things if you can't afford them? And no, salaries there do not make up the difference according to many ex-pats that I have spoken with.

Blair is indeed a puppet, well, more like a co-conspirator doing as he's told.
Exactly my point.

I've heard during my travels people all over the world describing London as "Unecessarily Expensive".

It is expensive, and for what? One of the worlds most goddamn ugly skylines. Hong Kong's expensive too, and so is Tokyo, and Moscow, but at least you get something interesting and good food too (yes, just look at the Moscow ladies).

There is a good reason why there was so much immigration from the UK 300 years ago to the present day.

Tenenbaum

nick-taylor

April 25th, 2006, 01:54 PM

If cost was everything then you shouldn't be in New York cause thats far from being the cheapest city around: you're contradicting yourself!

And yes salaries do bridge the gap - its no coincidence that salaries across finance are now higher in London and I'd take figures over perceptions simply because perceptions don't cover such a vast issue when figures do.

Interestingly when I was having a discussion with one of Londonlawyer's aliases over at SSC it became apparent that if London was considered to have a metro area of around 13mn it turned out that per capita people were richer than in the New York metro per capita. So there is some ground behind this.

Fabrizio - If you actually took into account the methodology you'll understand a few things about the QoLI with indicator and the actual variable measured in brackets:
- Material wellbeing (gdp per capita)
- Health (life expectancy)
- Political stability and security (political stability and security rankings)
- Family life (divorce rate)
- Community life (church attendance and trade-union membership)
- Climate and geography (lattitude)
- Job security (unemployment rate)
- Political freedom (Freeodom House political & civil liberties ranking)
- Gender equality (ratio of male and female earnings)

The problem here is that church attendance has collapsed in the UK because people have learned that church is old-fashioned, out of touch with the needs of a modern society (eg gay marriages which are now a fact of life in the UK) and connected to paedophiles and the likes. In this ranking, the UK would be ranked down because of this although most would note that greater independence and freedom of thought away from the word of the Church is a positive thing.

Another problem is that Britain has a more loose society and greater individual financial freedoms meaning people can divorce far more easily than in other countries where people either don't have the right to divorce or are tied down in old-socity arranged marriages, yet these bad things would be viewed as a good thing! And not only that, but that divorce would be weighted similar to material wellbeing.

Also if a country has a high lattitude it is a disbenefit, even though some of the most successful societies are in Scandanavia. In other words deserts where no water is good, but snow capped mountains is bad.

Apart from these, the UK compared to the EU has a higher GDP per capita, longer life expectancy, lower unemployment rate, greater political freedom and gender equality. If you take away the above 'odd measures' you'd probably see the UK shoot up the rankings without much doubt.

The main point is that this is a highly subjective ranking by The Economist and anyone with any analytical capability would note this.

Gregory Tenenbaum - Ironic it is then that one of the largest immigrant groups to London is none other than New Yorks: simply because London is where the dominant financial markets are now located.

I'm unsure how you can define a skyline as being ugly - London's dominated by church spires with the odd office tower here and there. Personally though I don't just got to cities to see the skyline and to be honest I'd rather have a streetscape which is welcoming to the pedestrian (thank you Congestion Charge), actually lit by natural light and blends old and new.

lofter1

April 25th, 2006, 02:31 PM

Nick: I'm hoping that NYC will instigate a "congestion charge".

In your experience what are the major changes that you've noticed in London since the practice was put into effect?

MidtownGuy

April 25th, 2006, 02:34 PM

Finance salaries may be high, but people in other industries don't fare as well. London is a fantastic city, I want to make my opinion of that clear. There is one thing, though, which cannot be denied, and that is the climate. Grey is not my favorite color for skies.
Every year I marvel at the number of sun-deprived British crowding into Greece to get a bit of golden warm sunshine.

Fabrizio

April 25th, 2006, 04:34 PM

"The main point is that this is a highly subjective ranking by The Economist and anyone with any analytical capability would note this."

The Economist is one of the most authoratative publications in the world.

If the UK loses out in quality of life because it´s more secular... funny that Switzerland, Norway and Sweden are in the top 5. If high latititute is a disbenefit, interesting that Italy, a very mountainous country ranks so high. In the Economists words the UK´s, "performance on health, civil liberties, and political stability and security is also below the eu-15 average."

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

"I'm unsure how you can define a skyline as being ugly - London's dominated by church spires with the odd office tower here and there."

And now by the odd cucumber and ferris wheel.....er...ah... the odd "observation" wheel.

MidtownGuy

April 25th, 2006, 05:05 PM

I really, really don't like the way the giant wheel looks. It's just too carnivalesque.
However, with some of the attractive new projects coming up, the London skyline may yet be redeemed.

Gregory Tenenbaum

April 26th, 2006, 03:30 AM

I really, really don't like the way the giant wheel looks. It's just too carnivalesque.

Yes, but its prettier than most of the other high rise buildings in London. Carnivalesque? (nice adjective there!). You are right, have you tried walking accross the bridge lately?

A carnie lady (there's a group of about 5 of them) will try to put a poppy on your clothes with a smile, and then try to extract 5 pounds from you for her unsolicited "gift".

*WELCOME TO LON-DON* (with Michael Caine Accent).

The wheel (London Eye) is the least of London's problems. The high rise buildings in that city are horrendous.

There is a good reason why the english have erected these buildings. The English suffer a collective angst going back to their lack of self sufficiency during war and loss of empire. They suffer for example, from New York envy (hence the tall buildings).

In fact, talking to a lot of englishmen, many want to move here, Hong Kong, Australia, Thailand, anywhere.

There is one good reason to live in England, cheap flights. Not a good enough reason for most people however.

nick-taylor

April 26th, 2006, 09:27 AM

lofter1 - Well for a central core that is based around roads that date back 2,000 years the Congestion Charge was a miracle.

From first hand account the air is better (you can definately smell the difference) because there are less cars around. Not only that but historical buildings won't receive as much punishment from the corrosive elements and stains emitted from cars.

You can now cross roads like the Strand without weaving in and out of stationary cars. With smaller flows of traffic, London has been able to reclaim roads that you couldn't previously. Trafalgar Square used to be an island amongst road lanes. Now its been pedestrianised to the north (no major feat due to the problems of trying to re-direct traffic throughout the local area) and various other roads have been totally pedestrianised. Quite simply people have reclaimed the streets and this is the way it should be.

To add to this positive aspect of pedestrianisation, road accidents have fallen and fewer people have been hurt or killed, while deliveries to Central London stores and couriers has become more efficient. Effectively although the Congestion Charge makes only a few million, the knock-on effects are creating billions in London's favour either by new business or FDI.

The other big point is the bus network. In New York, the bus network isn't particularly large, but in London its the other way around with 6mn people using the system each day. Journeys across Central London used to be long and tiresome. Now speeds have increased due to less congestion, buses are given more priority due to more bus lanes and the flow of people is now more efficient. The result is 100mn new trips on London Buses each year. The average speed of traffic is now finally higher than it was in 1920.

The other point is that the revenue is actually being used to modernise public transport: modernisation of trains and stations, new buses, etc... The result is that London's transport network has become more efficient, quicker, more accessible, cleaner and more modern.

MidtownGuy - According to an analysis of London in its 'New City' report of 27/03/06, finance, banking and insurance is the largest employment sector in London (at 1.2m). Manufacturing for example employs only 200,000 and these are people employed in high-tech industries or R&D, not low-end show manufacturing.Government-related jobs are also some of the highest paying, while the average tube driver gets well in excess of $60,000 for around 4 days driving.

It might be overcast, but London gets far less rain than the likes of Rome, New York, Sydney, Chicago, Paris, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc...

The London Eye might look like a carnival attraction but its so much more than that - its basically re-invented a dated concept and modernised it: a peice of architectural modernity and engineering skill (it hangs over the Thames). Hell its started a trend for other cities around the world to consider observation or ferris wheels. A trend-setter in wheels it would appear!

Fabrizio - But that affects its ranking in relation to other countries. Bible-bashing Texans for example are viewed as a good thing.

Latitude is completely different to altitude. LOL!

Interestingly though how Freedom House states the opposite in regards to civil liberties (You've seen the figures for that already). So if you took out divorce rate, latitude and church-going as measures that would reduce the total measures to 6 and although Britain wouldn't be the top country, its ranking would change significantly upwards - probably 10-15th place.

London's skyline is more than that - its not the skyscrapers that dominate London, its the church spires that are far more frequent and far more numerous. It'll only be thanks to the new batch of skyscrapers that their presence becomes more noticable around London.

Gregory Tenenbaum - You get those sort of people everywhere in any city and you'd be deluded to think otherwise.

The current batch other than SwissRE might not be brilliant, but they aren't as bad as mot of the skyscrapers in New York. There is for example no monolithic gravestone overlooking London as there is with the MetLife in New York and while New York is still controlled by boxes, the next batch of London skyscraper at least go for the quality of a variety of different shapes other than boxes

New York envy? What fun. There were tall buildings around the world long before New York. Hell this is going to really hurt some, but I guess if this is turning into a little match, might as well bring out the old 12lb for show....London has nothing to envy from New York in regards to skyscrapers and tall buildings. Especially as the 'mother' of skyscrapers was funnily enough built in the UK back in 1797....http://www.bbc.co.uk/shropshire/history/2003/07/restoration_2.shtml :D (prepares for the ultimate of all fall-outs :D).

Yet more New Yorkers come to London than Londoners that go to New York! Also more Australians are coming to Britain than Brits are going to Australia. Britain is an immigration destination, hence why the likes of London is absorbing more than 2x the amount of immigrants that New York is and more than Los Angeles.

I presume thats why the number of people returning after leaving has increased, why significant quantities of people are emigrating to Britain and why Britain is a more attractive destination for foreign students.

Fabrizio

April 26th, 2006, 10:06 AM

Latitude...altitude...atitude...dude, it´s all the same when you´ve been drinking.

The FIRST skyscrapered city was Italian. When this was built ....you guys were still living in caves:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lessi/123734370/

^^^Only 14 of SanGimignano´s towers survive today...but the city had 72 such towers (!) in the 1300´s.

The inspiration for the World Trade Centre:

http://goeurope.about.com/library/phot/bl_bologna_towers_1.htm

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

"Also more Australians are coming to Britain than Brits are going to Australia. Britain is an immigration destination, hence why the likes of London is absorbing more than 2x the amount of immigrants that New York is and more than Los Angeles."

Would you please post the statistics on this. Thank you.

ZippyTheChimp

April 26th, 2006, 10:42 AM

I really, really don't like the way the giant wheel looks. Not a Giant Wheel. Not a Ferris Wheel.

It's an Observation Wheel.

Maybe a One-Armed Ferris?

Semi Ferris...Not Quite a Ferris...New Improved Ferris...The Anti Ferris?

Isn't it called the London Eye? I wonder if that makes Marksix nervous.

nick-taylor

April 26th, 2006, 10:49 AM

I don't think being drunk is an excuse for your responses.

Yet none of those admittedly amazing towers were the basis for the engineering behind skyscrapers - the Ditherington Flax Mill is believe it or not. Also to rain on your parade....Lincoln Cathedal was the world's first building to be built taller than the Great Pyramid at Giza and held the world tallest record between 1300 until 1549 (it had been under construction in various stages since 1092) when the spire was destroyed by a hurricane.

It was 160m tall and the world's first building built above 150m. Had the spire not been destroyed, it would have remained as the tallest structure on the planet until the Washington Monument was finished in 1884. Yet although it was only the tallest building between 1300-1549 it is still the longest holder of tallest structure in the world after only the Great Pyramid.

Unfortunately the other two spires were taken down due to stability issues but there is a movement to see the spires re-installed to the exact same designs back before 1300 but with modifications to ensure they stay up for longer.

Next time you might want to do some reseach before coming out with half arsed comments about my ancestors somehow living in caves when those towers were already eclipsed by the tallest structure in the world even before it was a quarter finished.

Lincoln Cathedral - still 83m tall despite missing its spires, possibly to be re-installed to gain its original height of 160m:
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/384LincolnCathedral_pic9.jpg

I'll try and find the document - I've got it on my laptop and the Australian goverment were so perplexed by this that they have begun an investigation which got a few of the Australians annoyed over at SSC .:D

Fabrizio

April 26th, 2006, 11:17 AM

If you NOTICED I did not claim world´s first skyscraper...or even world´s tallest... I said skyscrapered city. And that first city of tall structures was SanGimignano. Not a one-off tall building (the Egyptians as you mentioned created the pyramids beating all of us) but Italy had a culture that created an entire city of tall buildings. Also interesting to note that most of these tall buildings were not built by the church, but were buildings built by private merchants... trying to outclass one another. A very modern concept of building.

Here is the creator of the Sears Tower talking about his inspiration:

"Tall buildings are man-made. Towers have historically been not only the pride of their temporary owners, but of their cities as well. So the Sears Tower, one more mountain, was created for this city on the plains. Sears is very direct in its structural solution, a new concept of cluster tubes, originally fifteen, reduced to nine when the hotel was eliminated from the plan. The Sears Tower itself is much like the idea behind San Gimignano, but unlike most tall buildings in New York, it is a tower of the people, not the palace of a bank."

Bruce Graham of SOM

As for:

"....half arsed comments".

Gregory Tenebaum is right...you are a potty mouth.

I hope they mark that down on your ID card.

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

nick-taylor

April 26th, 2006, 12:03 PM

Fabrizio - The only people that claim that I have got a potty mouth are those that seem to be the most unstable and/or seem to be confused (eg altitude>latitude) about simple things.

I however never stated that you had made a claim for those being the first skyscrapers. I did however reflect that the Ditherington Flax Mill is behind skyscrapers and countered your argument that the people on the British Isles were somehow cave-dwelling people even though they had finished the tallest building on the planet! There is nothing modern about building something else to outclass someone else, its been going on for millennia; the only difference being the height, scale and proportions have increased through time.

Its a pity Bruce didn't take a hint from his inspiration - Sears from certain angles is a coffin and lacks any of the warmth of the towers you illustrated.

Fabrizio

April 26th, 2006, 12:13 PM

Nick... we´re just not gonna buy this business that the father of the skyscraper is a flax mill. Sorry.

So, you don´t like the Sears Tower, but you do like the Ferris Wheel and the cucumber...

As they they say in New York:

Go figure.

nick-taylor

April 26th, 2006, 12:49 PM

Fabrizio - You might not believe it, but if you actually studied its structure then pretty much yeah it is the father/mother of skyscrapers. The whole reason behind this isn't because its not an office building, but because its the first iron-framed building in the world!

Thankfully its being restored to its original state by English Heritage and will be opened to the world to see in the near future. I actually work in something like this, although its from around 1825 and only 7 storeys tall.
http://www.feildenclegg.com/images/projects/img/1214-M-001-FLAXMILL.JPG

If you're into quantity then Sears would be your scene. If you're into quality then Swiss RE or the London Eye. I think most would agree with this observation.

Fabrizio

April 26th, 2006, 01:29 PM

"I actually work in something like this, although its from around 1825 and only 7 storeys tall."

So how´s the flax business?

ablarc

April 26th, 2006, 03:00 PM

I don't think being drunk is an excuse for your responses.

Nick, how do you manage to stay so serious?

nick-taylor

April 26th, 2006, 03:39 PM

I didn't say it was a flax mill though did I. The office I work in is a renovated maltings just north of London. Its a pretty good office actually with high triple vaulted ceilings and views of a canal and a quaint bakery that is older than the actual maltings. Better than being in a glass and steel box.

ablarc - Far too many people use jokes to cover up the errors that they have made.

Fabrizio

April 26th, 2006, 04:00 PM

"The office I work in is a renovated maltings just north of London. Its a pretty good office actually with high triple vaulted ceilings and views of a canal and a quaint bakery that is older than the actual maltings. Better than being in a glass and steel box."

Well....since we´re comparing cucumbers...I really wouldn´t boast about working in a building with "high triple vaulted ceilings" built in 1825 (practically yesterday) to an Italian. I´ve got you topped (so to speak).

nick-taylor

April 26th, 2006, 06:20 PM

Fabrizio - Where was I boasting? I was just clarifying that I worked in a similar building and that it wasn't related to flax.

lofter1

April 26th, 2006, 06:23 PM

10 Points for London:

Actors could escape England's smoking ban

Link: breitbart (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/26/060426155939.2y9cnbe6.html)

Fabrizio

April 26th, 2006, 07:02 PM

I´m wondering how this will affect the UK´s ranking in the Economist´s "Quality of Living" index. It´s already ranked at 29th...just slightly above Mexico. Smoking on stage could push it down even further.

Luca

April 27th, 2006, 05:56 AM

Ma sono tutti rompiballe come te, i Toscani? (Translations: are all Tuscans as much of a pain in the arse as you are?) :D :D :D

Jeez-uhs!!!

Back to Pisa with you!

Fabrizio

April 27th, 2006, 07:06 AM

La parola giusta: "toscanaccio"!

BTW: Personally I love London and the UK....I wouldn´t want anyone to get the wrong impression.

Gregory Tenenbaum

May 2nd, 2006, 04:07 AM

La parola giusta: "toscanaccio"!

BTW: Personally I love London and the UK....I wouldn´t want anyone to get the wrong impression.

Try and live there for say, more than 10 years.

Gregory Tenenbaum

May 2nd, 2006, 04:08 AM

Try and live there for say, more than 10 years.

I meant 10 days..

Fabrizio

May 2nd, 2006, 05:48 AM

mmmm...10 days in London....that would take about half of my yearly salary.

Ninjahedge

May 2nd, 2006, 09:56 AM

mmmm...10 days in London....that would take about half of my yearly salary.

With or without the beer?

mr_angry

August 3rd, 2006, 12:33 PM

Gregory Tenenbaum do you get all of your views on the English from the Simpsons?

mr_angry

August 3rd, 2006, 12:36 PM

mmmm...10 days in London....that would take about half of my yearly salary.

Get a better job then

pianoman11686

August 3rd, 2006, 01:48 PM

^ It just won't die!! Quick!...somebody put a stake through the heart of this "discussion."

I think it's^^ back. http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/images/icons/icon10.gif

Ninjahedge

August 3rd, 2006, 03:55 PM

Get a better job then

He would try to be a comedian, but you are SO funny he would not stand a chance.

Some deoderant should fix that all up BTW..... ;)

ablarc

August 3rd, 2006, 06:23 PM

I think it's^^ back. http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/images/icons/icon10.gif
Quick, Henry, the Flit!!!

mr_angry

August 4th, 2006, 06:27 PM

Why does he hate the English so much?

Why does he hate London so much?

Ive only been on this forum for a few days and came here to read about NY and see the photographs but reading a number of threads it seems like Gregory posts in every single one and just has to drop some sarcastic comment, insult or backhanded compliment.

I have just travelled through Europe and on my way back and forth, I have had the wonderful opportunity to see London.

Would you live there if you could?

Relevant considerations and my first impressions:

The Food:

For example a Cornish Pasty, contains some slightly opaque sauce that looks like it comes from a mixture of bull semen and chunks of vegetables that look like they come from a broken down fridge at the local grocery store.

Or for a mere $ 100.00 you can get a decent meal with a drink at a mediocre restaurant.

You went to London and ate a Cornish pasty? You probably got it from a newsagent for £1. Its hardly a national dish, do you think people across the Uk sit down at night and tuck into a Cornish pasty straight out of the plastic wrapper?

The Property:

You get to live in Dickensian style terrace houses for a mere $ 750,000.00 - and that's under the Heathrow flight path.

Imagine that, a capital city with limited housing being expensive to live in...oh and what did you expect? Brand new flat pack style US homes?

The People:

Yes, great people. My preliminary impression from talking to englishmen and women from all walks of life are - They really believe 1. they are still the centre of a big empire And 2. Yes they could have beaten the Imperial Japanese Navy and Army by themselves, like they did in Singapore in 1942 right?

Wow, such nonsense. You are living in a dream world, you really are. Please tell me how exactly did these conversations comes up? Were you sat in a bar in London talking to someone when suddenly they brought up the war? Yes, WW2 is what most strangers talk about...

No one i know ever mentions the British Empire, everyone is too busy getting on with their lives to care about that.

They are not enthusiastic about life, they are also very reserved - do you find this also? I suppose if you lived on a small island with 60 million other englishmen (and pakistanis and subcontinental indians etc etc) you would be reserved too.

English people are famous for being reserved but you seem shocked by this. Oh and since when was being reserved a negative trait in someones character?

English people were reserved well before the population was 60 million and well before there were immigrants running around so i dont know what you are trying to get at.

The Museums and Libraries:

Well, they are older than for example the Met but just a little smaller in size too. They really think their museums are special, mostly because of the age of everything.

"well, they are older" REALLY! imagine that, i thought US history pre-dated English, really i did!

Oh and yes, us English think our museums are AMAZING. We have national museum days whereby we light a fire and dance around saluting the museum gods. Its all we talk about at home. We love nothing more than sitting around a table with a nice cup of tea and slice of cornish pasty discussing WW2 and our world leading museums.

And After All They Are Very Important People That's Why They Have a Royal Inbreed Family who Prolly Pull Rank On Tourists To Throw Keg Parties At Stonehenge.

Your thoughts?

....

I think he has an inferiority complex. He reminds me of the ugly girls at school who bitch about the pretty girls. They bitched about every little thing they did, hmm, reminds me of someone.

You attack the English as if you have been abused by us in the past. Tell me, were you bullied at school by a Brit?

lofter1

August 4th, 2006, 08:08 PM

mr_angry throws down the gauntlet!!

ten paces, gentlemen ...

Then start your keyboards ;)

(ps: welcome to the fray, mr_a)

londonlawyer

August 4th, 2006, 11:18 PM

I lived in London. It's awesome.

Gregory Tenenbaum

October 21st, 2006, 06:21 AM

From BBC Panorama Website

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/6058212.stm

No go Britain?

Do you feel terrorised by yobs, abandoned by the authorities and trapped in your home?

Panorama wants to build up a map of the areas you believe are a misery for ordinary people to live in.
This is your chance to tell us about the problems in your neighbourhood which make you feel helpless.
Has the quality of life in your street dropped dramatically? Have buses or deliveries stopped running to your area?

Have you been a victim and tried to defend yourself? What happened? Were you supported by the authorities?
Metropolitan Police chief Sir Ian Blair said: "People are opening their doors or leaving them unlocked in a way they haven't done for 25 years."
Is this true about where you live?
In August, Peter Woodhams was killed outside his London home. His wife claims she called the police every day for five weeks asking for help after an earlier attack on her husband but she was ignored.

You can give us your reports and we would also like to build up a picture gallery for each region so you can send us any still or video pictures about where you live.
Click on the map to file your report or pictures. You will be able to see what other people have said about where you live.
All messages and pictures will be looked at by Panorama before they are posted on the site. We will need your contact details but all the messages will be published anonymously.
If you wish to send something in confidence which you do not want to appear on the site but you want us to investigate please make that clear when you send your material.

We will not post it on the site but you may be contacted by one of our researchers.
We will make a film using your stories which will be shown in the new year.

What a remarkably self-loathing and self-doubting group of people must live there. Perhaps the BBC has a point - maybe it is true. Perhaps Britain has become a no-go area. I just wonder what the tourist board said about this story.

Remarkable. I have never seen anything like it.