PDA

View Full Version : London - The Truth and Would You Live There



Gregory Tenenbaum
October 27th, 2005, 04:34 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, 10:13 AM
You forgot tea time and an inherent fear of dentistry.

stache
October 28th, 2005, 12:32 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, 06:09 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, 11:06 AM
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, 11:24 AM
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, 12:55 AM
A frind of mine was seriously injured in Edinburgh a few years ago for the same reason.

urban75
October 30th, 2005, 04:33 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, 04:37 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, 04:47 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, 06:38 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, 07:01 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, 10:42 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, 11:59 AM
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, 07:14 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, 02:48 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, 04:03 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, 05:28 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, 10:19 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, 11:29 AM
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, 11:52 AM
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, 12:19 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, 12:26 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, 02:00 PM
Ahhhhh.


Missed the quote thingie there.

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

redhot00
October 31st, 2005, 02:27 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, 02:30 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, 03:54 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, 03:58 PM
Hey, but at least they are both better than Paris!!!!!



maybe..... ;)

urban75
October 31st, 2005, 03:59 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, 04:00 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, 04:39 PM
I think he is hanging around the wrong Pubs, eh?

redhot00
October 31st, 2005, 04:46 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, 04:12 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, 07:32 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, 07:56 PM
Everyone?

ablarc
April 8th, 2006, 08:21 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, 05:16 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, 12:09 AM
I'd like to move there and open a dentistry practice.

Gregory Tenenbaum
April 13th, 2006, 03:46 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, 03:47 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.

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

Maybe you saw something there that we didn't.

Ninjahedge
April 13th, 2006, 09:03 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, 09:48 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, 10:23 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, 11:04 AM
We´re still not convinced.
Oh...so you're the other part of the "we." ;)

Luca
April 13th, 2006, 01:53 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, 03:18 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, 09:06 PM
Don't mind Fabrizio, Luca; he just likes to argue. :)

Especially with Englishmen. ;)

krulltime
April 13th, 2006, 11:12 PM
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.

Gregory Tenenbaum
April 14th, 2006, 03:38 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, 03:58 AM
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.




....London - 13 pts
NYC - 5 pts

And, this its totally scientific :D



Have you tried *BOOMING VOICE* -

"THE WORLDS MOST EX-PENSIVE SANDWICH"

yet? If not, run down to Selfridges and try it. YUMMY.

Just another reason for fat tards to live in LON-DON TOWN.

ablarc
April 14th, 2006, 07:11 AM
^ Bilious.

Fabrizio
April 14th, 2006, 07:25 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, 09:49 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, 08:13 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, 02:53 PM
^ It just won't die!! Quick!...somebody put a stake through the heart of this "discussion."

Fabrizio
April 15th, 2006, 04:23 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, 04:57 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, 06:17 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, 04:24 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?

nick-taylor
April 17th, 2006, 05:39 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, 05:53 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, 06:51 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, 07:35 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, 07:49 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, 10:09 AM
Oooops...ok let me correct that:


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

ZippyTheChimp
April 17th, 2006, 10:49 AM
That reminds me. My bike needs new tires.

nick-taylor
April 17th, 2006, 10:58 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, 11:19 AM
As far as award-winning cucumbers go I´ll take the Torre Agbar.

BTW: whose cucumber is bigger?

Ninjahedge
April 17th, 2006, 12:01 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, 12:55 PM
Oprah? You´ll l find that big cantelevered vertical rotating rotunda in Chicago.

Ninjahedge
April 17th, 2006, 01:37 PM
Oprah? You´ll l find that big cantelevered vertical rotating rotunda in Chicago.

She rotates?

ZippyTheChimp
April 17th, 2006, 06:11 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, 06:20 PM
The saddest thing is the fact that so many Brits are choosing to leave.

czsz
April 17th, 2006, 08:22 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, 03:00 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, 04:11 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

Gregory Tenenbaum
April 18th, 2006, 08:10 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, 08:14 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, 08:59 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, 09:57 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, 11:07 AM
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, 11:32 AM
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, 12:46 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, 01:12 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, 01:33 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, 02:20 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, 02:26 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, 02:40 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, 02:58 PM
Even more alarming than the rise in crime:

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

ablarc
April 23rd, 2006, 03:05 PM
^ An oldish article, but even more relevant today.

Fabrizio
April 23rd, 2006, 03:16 PM
Things have only gotten worse.

nick-taylor
April 23rd, 2006, 03:42 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, 04:41 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, 04:55 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, 05:33 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, 05:46 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, 05:55 PM
http://img.webring.com/r/g/georgebushslapdo/logo.

lofter1
April 23rd, 2006, 07:40 PM
Sent to me from a friend in Rome ...


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

Fabrizio
April 23rd, 2006, 08:20 PM
When Blair greets Berlusconi he does it Italian style and kisses him on the cheeks.

Gregory Tenenbaum
April 24th, 2006, 03:13 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, 04:05 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, 04:46 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.

Marksix
April 25th, 2006, 05:52 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, 11:11 AM
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, 11:23 AM
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, 11:32 AM
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, 12:34 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, 12:54 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, 01:31 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, 01:34 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, 03:34 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, 04:05 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, 02:30 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, 08:27 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, 09:06 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, 09:42 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, 09:49 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, 10:17 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, 11:03 AM
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, 11:13 AM
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, 11:49 AM
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, 12:29 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, 02:00 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, 02:39 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, 03:00 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, 05:20 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, 05:23 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, 06:02 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, 04:56 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, 06:06 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, 03:07 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, 03:08 AM
Try and live there for say, more than 10 years.

I meant 10 days..

Fabrizio
May 2nd, 2006, 04:48 AM
mmmm...10 days in London....that would take about half of my yearly salary.

Ninjahedge
May 2nd, 2006, 08:56 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, 11:33 AM
Gregory Tenenbaum do you get all of your views on the English from the Simpsons?

mr_angry
August 3rd, 2006, 11:36 AM
mmmm...10 days in London....that would take about half of my yearly salary.


Get a better job then

pianoman11686
August 3rd, 2006, 12:48 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, 02:55 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, 05:23 PM
I think it's^^ back. http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/images/icons/icon10.gif
Quick, Henry, the Flit!!!

mr_angry
August 4th, 2006, 05:27 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, 07:08 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, 10:18 PM
I lived in London. It's awesome.

Gregory Tenenbaum
October 21st, 2006, 05:21 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.

nick-taylor
October 23rd, 2006, 04:38 AM
Coming from the perspective of a New Yorker/American I'd find that not only ironic but pretty pathetic.

For do you not realise that murders and severe crime are significantly higher in New York than in London? What makes the 'debate' worse is that you're basing your conclusions on a proposed study that hasn't even taken place yet! Then again, try telling TLOZ Link5 your response to the as yet un-taken study and perhaps you'll learn to concentrate on sorting your own problems before pointing out less severe issues.

Gregory Tenenbaum
October 23rd, 2006, 07:52 AM
Ive never seen an article like this in the Times let alone the New York Post (which would more likely feed upon that kind of fear).

Why the Beeb? Must be something to it.

daver
October 23rd, 2006, 08:36 AM
For do you not realise that murders and severe crime are significantly higher in New York than in London?
FWIW, these crime rates have continued to fall in the US and NYC, while they have continued to rise in England and London. In fact, although it is true that they have not surpassed us in murder, than have surpassed us in robbery and burglary.

nick-taylor
October 23rd, 2006, 09:57 AM
GT - Perhaps its because we're more enlightened by a more diverse media; who knows. It is however a study proposal, not a conclusion that you are judging it by and even then the results would be based upon perspective and not necessarily reality which can be quite easily distorted. Perhaps you ought to pay more attention to the actual article that you come across, rather than rushing to conclusions.





FWIW, these crime rates have continued to fall in the US and NYC, while they have continued to rise in England and London. In fact, although it is true that they have not surpassed us in murder, than have surpassed us in robbery and burglary.Unfortunately this is not correct - admittedly while London has a higher level of less-serious crime, New York has significantly more serious crimes (for instance 100 cars being nicked isn't equivalent to one life being taken).

Total crimes have fallen by 5.2% over the last 12 months. Homicide has fallen by 15.7% to 161. In comparison New York had for the first 6months already 268 murders (an increase of 9.4%), in other words its quite possibly that by the end of the year they'll be what some 530ish murders? Roughly around 3.5x more than London, despite having only 0.7mn more people (and the population difference is rapidly reducing).

In addition, the entire UK in 05/06 had 713 murders (excluding the 7th July bombings, of which even when included, the number of murders had fallen), meaning despite Britain being some 7x more populous, New York had nearly as many murders as all of Britain! Also general crime has recessed.


Hence how can anyone lecture or comment about Britain and its situation when the US has some seriously bad problems. Granted if it was someone from say Tokyo - yes, okay.....but a New Yorker condemning Britain? What next - Japan taking advice on how to properly run its trains from New Yorkers? What a joke.

londonlawyer
October 23rd, 2006, 01:51 PM
GT - Perhaps its because we're more enlightened by a more diverse media...

You can't seriously believe that London's media is more diverse than NY's.

Luca
October 23rd, 2006, 02:12 PM
Don't feed the Greg!!! :(

London Crime IS a problem. It's worse in NY in many ways but I believe that the two paths will cross for the simple reason that the US has basically twigged, at the policy level, as to what creates crime (unrepresse crminals) while in the UK the media/politicans/cops (even teh cops) are still largely spouting iditotic drivel about social exclusion.

nick-taylor
October 24th, 2006, 03:57 AM
You can't seriously believe that London's media is more diverse than NY's.Pretty self explanatory both for the diverse range of publictions both in terms of quality, content and quantity.

Gregory Tenenbaum
October 24th, 2006, 06:36 AM
Don't feed the Greg!!! :(

London Crime IS a problem. It's worse in NY in many ways but I believe that the two paths will cross for the simple reason that the US has basically twigged, at the policy level, as to what creates crime (unrepresse crminals) while in the UK the media/politicans/cops (even teh cops) are still largely spouting iditotic drivel about social exclusion.

Told you so.

No, seriously, read the Beeb article. I didnt say that crime was worse - I said that it was self loathing.

What is it really about? Let me tell you. The police chief has come out only a year after his white knights shot an innocent Brazilian electrician in the head several times (and lied about him jumping the turnstile) and said that the "UK is safer now etc etc" rhetoric..

This is obviously sheer propaganda. Hence the Beeb's article inviting contradictory observation.

londonlawyer
October 24th, 2006, 09:42 AM
Pretty self explanatory both for the diverse range of publictions both in terms of quality, content and quantity.

That is quite an absurd and ignorant comment. Not only is NY the world's pre-eminent media center, but it is one of the world's intellectual capitals. In the UK, the percentage of people with post-graduate degrees (let alone university degrees) pales in comparison to NY. While I really like the UK and English people, I found them to be far less educated and intellectual than their counterparts in NY or Paris for that matter.

At any rate, NY's role as a leading intellectual and media center results in its having unsurpassed media. Three of the world's largest media companies (i.e., Time Warner, Viacom and News Corp.) have their headquarters within blocks of each other in NYC. Another, GE is based in NY's suburbs.

lofter1
October 24th, 2006, 10:01 AM
UK women 'worst drinkers'

http://203.15.102.140/assetbin/2310_drinking_g216.jpg

rawstory.com / sbs.com.au (http://rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww9.sbs.com.au%2 Ftheworldnews%2Fregion.php%3Fid%3D132141%26region% 3D2)
23.10.2006

Women in England and Ireland are the world's biggest binge drinkers, according to a new study of global alcohol consumption.

Almost one in three women aged between 17 and 30 in both countries are now classed as heavy drinkers — bingeing on four or more drinks in one session at least once a fortnight, the survey found.

The figures are far higher than those for Germany, Greece, Italy, Romania and South Africa, where less than five per cent of female students were found to be heavy drinkers.

The study of students in 21 countries was authored by five experts at universities around the world to find out who is most at risk of alcohol abuse.

They found the heaviest drinkers tended to be from wealthy families with well-educated parents, and were living away from home.

Women who said they had consumed four or more drinks on at least one occasion over the previous two weeks were classified as heavy drinkers.

The findings, published in the Journal of American College Health, are consistent with recent national surveys that have highlighted binge drinking in the two countries.

The study revealed that excessive drinking has soared in England, but has declined in Germany and France.

English men fall behind

Although about 26 percent of British men binge drink, England does not feature at the top of the table for male heavy drinkers.

This is dominated by Belgium, Colombia, Ireland and Poland.

Dr Andrew Steptoe, deputy head of the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health at University College London and a co-author of the report, said heavy drinking was a worldwide problem but England and Ireland had high figures compared with mainland Europe.

He said: "Although not all young heavy drinkers end up being heavy drinkers in later life, they are at higher risk later for health problems."

In August, health experts warned the British government that it urgently needed to tackle the escalating culture of binge drinking.

A report by the Centre for Public Health said 18.2 percent of adults across England binge drink at least double the daily recommended level in one or more sessions a week, based on the week in which they were questioned.

Experts said Britain had gone from a nation "enjoying a harmless tipple" to one developing "a dangerous alcohol addiction".

© 2002 Special Broadcasting Service

daver
October 24th, 2006, 10:25 AM
One from 2002: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,647991,00.html "Londoners are now six times as likely to be robbed or assaulted as New Yorkers," And a current one: http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,20409-2413107,00.html "ROBBERY and street crime are continuing to rise," “While violent crime and vehicle crime levels remain stable, robbery continues to be an anxiety, although the rate of increase has now fallen to 5 per cent."

Gregory Tenenbaum
October 24th, 2006, 11:37 AM
It's not just the robbers doing the killing.

Just ask the family of the Brazilian electrician Mr Menezes who one morning went through a London Underground turnstile properly (and didn't jump over it as the police alleged), boarded his train and got shot in the head several times by Her Majesty's finest.

Watch the full reconstruction and documentary here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4779602.stm

Shocking.

Ninjahedge
October 24th, 2006, 12:04 PM
Greg, how many times does that have to be mentioned?

You already posted about this a few posts ago.

Don't make it seem like you are bringing up something new or you will just sound like an endless echo.

Gregory Tenenbaum
October 24th, 2006, 01:22 PM
Ninja

Not sure if anyone really saw it there - and it is relevant to the topic.

Poor old Mr de Menezes's family probably wished he'd never gone to live there.

Look at the Police chief's comments about people not having to lock their doors properly. What utter tripe.

"Dont lock yer doors, and er, dont use the Underground - we might shoot you by accident"

Ninjahedge
October 24th, 2006, 03:28 PM
My only complaint was that you repeated the same info. I can understand that you posted a link, but if people did not read it the first time on a BULLETIN BOARD, repeating it will not make them want to read it any more..


What is it really about? Let me tell you. The police chief has come out only a year after his white knights shot an innocent Brazilian electrician in the head several times (and lied about him jumping the turnstile) and said that the "UK is safer now etc etc" rhetoric..


Just ask the family of the Brazilian electrician Mr Menezes who one morning went through a London Underground turnstile properly (and didn't jump over it as the police alleged), boarded his train and got shot in the head several times by Her Majesty's finest.

Watch the full reconstruction and documentary here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ma/4779602.stm

Shocking.

Luca
October 25th, 2006, 02:35 AM
Londonlawyer: Britons are less intellectual than New Yorkers??? One thign non one's ever balmed merrykuns of is intellectualism.... It's true that college and post-grad degrees are mroe common in the US; you ahve to adjust for quality, though. Can you imagien a show like University Challenge in the US on prime time? cna you iamgine anyone that age beign that inetllectual. I can't.

Tenenbaum: The Menzenes killing was a major screw-up compounded by the Met's Nixonesque ahndlking of the information. It is hardly a common practice of the cops, though. NYC, as you will recall, had its share of disputable cop shootings.

Fabrizio
October 25th, 2006, 03:10 AM
"Experts said Britain had gone from a nation "enjoying a harmless tipple" to one developing "a dangerous alcohol addiction"."

I´m glad the press is reporting this. Because of their slobby drinking habits, the Brits have become the world´s nightmare tourists.

Gregory Tenenbaum
October 25th, 2006, 03:33 AM
Londonlawyer: Britons are less intellectual than New Yorkers??? One thign non one's ever balmed merrykuns of is intellectualism.... It's true that college and post-grad degrees are mroe common in the US; you ahve to adjust for quality, though. Can you imagien a show like University Challenge in the US on prime time? cna you iamgine anyone that age beign that inetllectual. I can't.

This is a typical view of the United States.

Let me ask you this: Can you imagine a program like the Apollo Space Program in the UK? Can you imagine anyone in the UK who could even produce a Royal Rocket that could take one man into space let alone a chimpanzee in nappies who can poop all the way to the Moon? I can't

BUZZ - WRONG

It is wrong to think this of the UK, and it is wrong for you to think that the US does not have any intellectual types ready to sit University Challenge. Do you know how many chess clubs there are in the US? Think of cities like Philly, Chicago and yes, LA, Miami, Omaha Nebraska you name it - the depth and numbers are there. That's just chess clubs.

Now think of how many theatres there are in New York City. Probably in Manhattan alone there are more theatres than in the whole of the "famous" West End of London - at least active ones with money and people to stage a production.

Now think about bookshops and libraries. Thanks to Starbucks coffee Barnes and Noble has become the new public library here. All 50 or more of them. London simply doesnt have the equivalency in bookshops - now theres a reasonably good indicator about a society.

Every time I go around a corner I am astounded by the knowledge that New Yorkers have.

Look at the politicians - Guliani could compete with Blair anyday in a debate, and thats not even a fair fight (although I do admire the old Blair).

Compare Noam Chomsky and Christopher Hitchens - Q.E.D.

ablarc
October 25th, 2006, 03:54 AM
Maybe Edward should provide a new web page entitled "Jingoism and Country Bashing." This thread could be moved there, along with "Why you hate us?", "Promoting Turkey," and "Jersey City Rising."

Luca
October 25th, 2006, 12:24 PM
"Experts said Britain had gone from a nation "enjoying a harmless tipple" to one developing "a dangerous alcohol addiction"."

I´m glad the press is reporting this. Because of their slobby drinking habits, the Brits have become the world´s nightmare tourists.

I do not understand why alarmist press hysteria is passed on as facts. As you well know, Fabrizio, the Italian press is always full of death-by-ecstasy-at-the-raunchy-disco scare stories but the reality is more subdued and nuanced

The Brits do like their drink. No more no less than many other 'drinking nations' in Northern Europe. About as much as I remember in the States in the 80s but I guess nobody parties now.

The problem in Britain is not so much with so-called ‘binge-drinking’ (in one case I saw, idiotically defined as having moiré than 4 units of alcohol at one sitting – doh!) but with very lenient law enforcement which has given rise to a relatively menacing yob culture in some segments of society.

lofter1
October 25th, 2006, 01:15 PM
The Brits do like their drink. No more no less than many other 'drinking nations' in Northern Europe. About as much as I remember in the States in the 80s but I guess nobody parties now.


Everyone has switched to coffee :(

londonlawyer
October 25th, 2006, 02:30 PM
[COLOR=black]I do not understand why alarmist press hysteria is passed on as facts. As you well know, Fabrizio, the Italian press is always full of death-by-ecstasy-at-the-raunchy-disco scare stories....

Luca,

Are you even English? I never met an Englishman named Luca.

Moreover, the with respect to the British press, they are extremely biased. The Economist and the FT berate the Italians on a regular basis and suggest that they're inferior. Do you agree with that perspective?

Luca
October 26th, 2006, 02:33 AM
Luca,

Are you even English? I never met an Englishman named Luca.

Moreover, the with respect to the British press, they are extremely biased. The Economist and the FT berate the Italians on a regular basis and suggest that they're inferior. Do you agree with that perspective?

I'm not English; I'm Italian. I've lived in London for the past 13 years.
Why does that matter? I try to correct stupid stereotypes of Americans among Europeans (most Brits assume I'm a Yank due to the accent) -- why shouldn't I correct stupid sterotypes of Brits amogn americans? Besides, my kids are 1/4 British.

No Englishman of my age is called Luca but it is now a fairly popular name in London for English boys (and not just one from binational marriages). In Germany and the Netherlands there are a lot of kids who are given Italian names.

As a daily reader of the FT and occasional reader of the Economist I've never detected anything even approaching intimations of inferiority. The commentary is, as always happens when a media outlet covers a foreign country, somewhat 'orientalist' but generally not too ridiculous.

Quite a lot of Bits have spent time in Italy and there are a lot of expats in London so I've found that generally the Brits are far less ignorant about Italy than Americans are – far less.

Gregory Tenenbaum
October 26th, 2006, 05:42 AM
Quite a lot of Bits have spent time in Italy and there are a lot of expats in London so I've found that generally the Brits are far less ignorant about Italy than Americans are – far less.

Yes the Brits that I meet in Europe generally spend 3 days in one city or another in Italy. Not exactly a lot of time to soak up Italian culture, let alone one city or region.

Only 5.6 million Italians migrated to the US before 1978 - but what would they know about Italy?

Over 15 Million US citizens claim Italian descent, but what would they know?

Do not think that the limit of their knowledge would only be grandmother's special bolognaise sauce.

londonlawyer
October 26th, 2006, 10:11 AM
....
As a daily reader of the FT and occasional reader of the Economist I've never detected anything even approaching intimations of inferiority. The commentary is, as always happens when a media outlet covers a foreign country, somewhat 'orientalist' but generally not too ridiculous.

The FT and The Economist have regular articles stating, among other things, that Italy should be pushed out of the Euro. For whatever reason, the Brits exemplify a very superior attitude over the Italians. I hardly consider such subjectivity to be characteristic of great media.

Also, while I enjoy reading The Economist, it is hardly substantial. It's coverage of events is extremely superficial and pales in comparison to Foreign Affairs, for example.

nick-taylor
October 26th, 2006, 11:08 AM
That is quite an absurd and ignorant comment. Not only is NY the world's pre-eminent media center, but it is one of the world's intellectual capitals. In the UK, the percentage of people with post-graduate degrees (let alone university degrees) pales in comparison to NY. While I really like the UK and English people, I found them to be far less educated and intellectual than their counterparts in NY or Paris for that matter.

At any rate, NY's role as a leading intellectual and media center results in its having unsurpassed media. Three of the world's largest media companies (i.e., Time Warner, Viacom and News Corp.) have their headquarters within blocks of each other in NYC. Another, GE is based in NY's suburbs.A few things in reply to the trully ignorant forumer here....

Firstly when you compare to New York, it is not London you refer to but England or the UK - populations and areas several times larger, with demographics resoundingly different to that of New York. Why not compare more obviously to London? Do your stats only show the difference if you include less academically minded areas of the UK such as Northern Ireland and the Scottish Highlands? Now had you actually been one of those fortunate New Yorkers that you espouse of who attended university you might have noted this slight discrepancy in your comparison...

Secondly what exactly does degrees or post-graduate degrees have to do with proving your point of the media strengths of New York? I don't quite see the connection considering (as I suspect) that the vast majority of graduates will tend to work in a broad array of fields not necessarily connected to media.

Thirdly, I'd like to see some figures rather than assumptions of some 60,000,000+ people in a comparison to a city with 8.2mn people. Afterall you'd have to think people were morons to believe that you could get away with such an ill-conceived comparison - perhaps your theory of intellectual superiority has already been quashed by your corrupted and crude comparison!

Fourthly, in the assumption that the figures you talk about do show a higher percentage of individuals in New York with higher education certificates than London, what exactly has New York to show from it?

Clearly the mass of graduates didn't help New York win the 2012 Olympiad - can you recall to me exactly what cities beat New York in the bidding process, and as to which city will be hosting its third Olympics? :D

I also bet its a great thing to have all those graduates with getting the Second Avenue Subway, Moynihan-Penn, East Side Access, etc... off the ground? Meanwhile London is currently building:
- The worlds first Personal Rapid Transit system (to eventually be a whopping 30miles in route length under London Heathrow Airport)
- A 300kph dedicated HSR link to the Channel Tunnel underneath Central London which will emerge at the completely re-built London St-Pancras and King's Cross interchange (makes the Penn re-build look shameful) and will be served by not only the normal commuter train services of today, but also TGV Eurostars and Japanese Shinkansens
- A DLR extension to Woolwich under the Thames with another one to the brand new Stratford International HSR station seeing foundation work commenced
- A Heathrow Express (and I must add, London has had three airport express services in operation for decades now - could you recall to me how many does New York have again?) and London Underground Piccadilly Line extension to the u/c London Heathrow Terminal 5 (alone larger in capacity than any of the 3 main New York airports)
- The East London Line Extension (essentially three extensions) that will create a new orbital rail service around Central London.

London is even absorbing more immigrants than New York (and Los Angeles), and due to London's more significant growth rate, it could quite possibly have a population larger than that of New York within the next few years. Interestingly its not just the poor who are moving to London - the very rich are as well. Compare a list of each cities resident billionaires and you'd be pleasantly suprised to see the diversity of immigrants to London these days.

Then of course New York lost its title as primary global financial centre to London in regards to finance thanks to the Big Bang (and more recently Sarbes) and lost ground to other world cities in some or most of the finance sectors.

Even today, London is more innovative with its architecture and skyscrapers, and when you do get the rarity of iconic architecture - lo and behold its London-based architects....Hadid, Foster, Rogers or architects based elsewhere: Gehry, Libeskind, SOM, HOK, etc.... Its awfully depressing to see that despite New Yorks' 'assumed' intellectual superiority over say London, that today it lacks any world class architects or any new grand expressions of architecture. If it isn't square or rectangular to maximise floor plates, it aint going up!

Perhaps next time, when you want to bring up a debate about intellectual superiority that you actually look at the possible options and repurcussions from taking such a stance. Now I have taken the stance and assumed that you are right (when you could infact be wrong - you haven't provided the figures), but either way exactly what has New York gained from possibly having more or less graduates than London? I think the hard truth you'd have to bite is probably nothing, infact its lost a lot more to other global cities, especially London. I suspect that the problem lies not with graduates in New York, but individuals such as yourself who are too up of themselves to actually realise that the world moves on and that you have to continually adapt to ensure that you stay ahead. This is something New York (and broader national issues) has failed to address in recent years and it is now paying for it.

Fithly, why take the stance that London is somehow not equal or higher in regards to higher education? Despite not charging the extortionate fees and being based upon meritocratic principles, London and its metro has some exceptional universities. A recent study by the THES found that Cambridge and Oxford were the 2nd and 3rd highest ranked global universities.

1 - Harvard (Boston)
2 - Cambridge (London)
3 - Oxford (London)
4 - MIT (Boston)
5 - Yale (New York)
6 - Stanford (San Francisco/San Jose)
7 - CIT (Los Angeles)
8 - University of California
9 - Imperial College London (London)
10 - Princeton (New York)

Notice that of the top 10 2006 THES World University Rankings, 2 are from New York (and its metro) and 3 are from London (and its metro), the London university representations are also placed higher in the rankings than those for New York.

Now I'd suspect that your counter-argument would be that Oxford and Cambridge aren't part of London's metro and that their connections would be far lower. So let met get ahead of yourself and address your concern. Interestingly not only are Cambridge and Oxford within a similar distance of London as that of Princeton is to New York, their connections to London are far more advanced than that for the nearer Princeton.

For instance, Oxford and Cambridge are located on mainlines - Princeton is located on a branch line. It takes roughly 50-60mins to get from London to either Oxford or Cambridge, but some 70mins for Princeton, despite being closer to New York! Infact the connections are also more in favour of London:
- London-Cambridge: 8 trains every hour with no changes required
- London-Oxford: 6 trains every hour with 2 requiring a change
- New York-Princeton: 2 trains every hour requiring a change

Lastly - media. London is home to a bustling newspaper industry and unlike the US where the industry is heavyily fragmented by region and city, the big papers in Britain are all sourced from London. The depth and quality of the papers from London is far greater than London - simply more people read papers in relation to population than they do in the US. Granted, while the quality of some is diabolical, others have no comparison - the FT is far superior to the WSJ, while The Guardian is probably the finest paper around. It was also voted by the US-based Society for News Design as the best-designed newspaper in the world (alongside the Polish Rzeczpospolita). What interests me more though, is that quite a lot of articles posted here and on SSP by American forumers are either from the BBC website or British papers like The Guardian.

London is also home to the BBC - the worlds largest broadcasting coperation in the world (largest news broadcaster in the world, 29 television channels, 10 national and 40 regional radio stations and of course the mot popular content-based website in Europe - #1 english-language media website).

The reason I refer to these two institutions is simple in highlighting my point: British media is more diverse. I don't see the diversity of media by having the HQ of holding companies, when a lot of their media assets are distributed elsewhere in the world. For instance, take News Corporation with its array of newspapers and magazines being concentrated in the UK and Australia (the two countries where Murdoch made his name)....that doesn't mean that New Yorkers and Americans automatically have a more diverse media simply because a company located in the US has ownership of these external interests. Its a bit like saying Standard Chartered offers British customers a strong alternative to the big British banks.....when really it is a fundamentally a British company with hordes of overseas banking and financial assets with next to no UK presence other than its HQ functions. News Corporation is a lot like this.

While Britain has the US equivalents of every media form, the US lacks anything like the BBC (certainly on scale and diversity). The BBC alone sets itself apart from anything in the US and thats probably why it has more of an international acknoledgment for quality (not forgetting of course: BBC World Service) than say Viacom. Hence my original comment of: "Perhaps its because we're more enlightened by a more diverse media..."

And I say we are - we have more variety in our media - private, state sponsored or public to make different choices, hence we're more enlightened. Something completely unconnected to having a degree or where the HQ of one media company or another is based. I would have thought that you could have worked that by yourself...obviously not!





Now think of how many theatres there are in New York City. Probably in Manhattan alone there are more theatres than in the whole of the "famous" West End of London - at least active ones with money and people to stage a production.

Now think about bookshops and libraries. Thanks to Starbucks coffee Barnes and Noble has become the new public library here. All 50 or more of them. London simply doesnt have the equivalency in bookshops - now theres a reasonably good indicator about a society.There are 100 theatres in London:
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_London_theatres#Theatres

I'm uncertain how many Broadway (37), Off-Broadway and Off-Off theatres there are in New York.

What is interesting to note however is that while both theatrelands saw 12mn visitors, the three most popular shows on Broadway of all time are London-exports produced by Brits:
- Phantom of the Opera
- Cats
- Les Misérables

Never heard of the British Library my dear friend?! With 150mn articles, the British Library next door to London St Pancras (future home of the 300kph Eurostar from next year) is the largest library in the world in regards to actual articles held. For comparison, The Library of Congress (the largest libary in the US) has 130mn articles, while The New York Public Library has 43mn articles - or 30% that of the British Library. Amazingly, the British Library adds 3mn new items every year, ie adding the equivalent of 7% of the total articles held in the New York Public Library every year. You don't get anything like the selection in a Barnes & Noble as you would in say the British Library!

I'm certain for figures for book shops - there are several hundred in London, some part of chains (Ottakars, Waterstones), others more specialist (Blackwell - Higher Education) or completely individually owned. However neither Waterstones or Barnes & Noble actually provide the depth of reading material that the British Library has!





As a daily reader of the FT and occasional reader of the Economist I've never detected anything even approaching intimations of inferiority. The commentary is, as always happens when a media outlet covers a foreign country, somewhat 'orientalist' but generally not too ridiculous.Great minds think alike, coming from a subscriber to the FT and Economist. :D





Also, while I enjoy reading The Economist, it is hardly substantial. It's coverage of events is extremely superficial and pales in comparison to Foreign Affairs, for example.Surely that comes as no suprise, one is a journal, the other a magazine-cum-newspaper.

londonlawyer
October 26th, 2006, 11:14 AM
A few things in reply to the trully ignorant forumer here....

That's quite an amusing comment coming from a student at a third-rate "uni" pursuing a challenging "urban studies" degree. I assume that you aspire to be one of the legion of brain dead buffoons who strut the streets of the "Cit-ee" prominently carrying a Pink bag with the intent of announcing that you're "someone" (as opposed to the low class moron from Essex that you really are).

Gregory Tenenbaum
October 26th, 2006, 11:14 AM
I am astounded at the breadth of knowledge that Nick Taylor is displaying. Awesome contribution Nick!


Never heard of the British Library my dear friend?!.....You don't get anything like the selection in a Barnes & Noble as you would in say the British Library!

Yes I have been there. And the Museum. Now when are the Trustees going to put the roof of the Parthenon back where it belongs? Uh, that would be, uh, on that building in Athens from whence it came.

And where are all your relics from 1942 Singapore? That's when the British Empire fell so I supposed that your Government would have at least tried to steal something then.

If not, I am sure that the Greeks would be happy to have the roof of the Parthenon back.

lofter1
October 26th, 2006, 11:23 AM
What is interesting to note however is that while both theatrelands saw 12mn visitors, the three most popular shows on Broadway of all time are London-exports produced by Brits:
- Phantom of the Opera
- Cats
- Les Misérables

While I'm a believer that current British playwrights run rings around their American counterparts (for the most part, anyhoo) I don't know that your examples of British theatre are much to crow about, especially the first two -- except in terms of pounds / dollars / euros.

btw: "Les Mis" was created by a couple of guys from France:

The musical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Mis%C3%A9rables_%28 musical%29) was written by the composer Claude-Michel Schönberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude-Michel_Sch%C3%B6nberg) and the librettist Alain Boublil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Boublil)

Ninjahedge
October 26th, 2006, 11:36 AM
That's quite an amusing comment coming from a student at a third-rate "uni" pursuing a challenging "urban studies" degree. I assume that you aspire to be one of the legion of brain dead buffoons who strut the streets of the "Cit-ee" prominently carrying a Pink bag with the intent of announcing that you're "someone" (as opposed to the low class moron from Essex that you really are).

Both of you CAN IT!

You are both stooping to be petty little infighters. Now grow up and play nice!

>:|

nick-taylor
October 26th, 2006, 12:07 PM
That's quite an amusing comment coming from a student at a third-rate "uni" pursuing a challenging "urban studies" degree. I assume that you aspire to be one of the legion of brain dead buffoons who strut the streets of the "Cit-ee" prominently carrying a Pink bag with the intent of announcing that you're "someone" (as opposed to the low class moron from Essex that you really are).Surely by resorting to childish insults you vindicate myself and London, yet in the process implicate yourself and New York for being completely the opposite to what you have tried to portray: intelligent. You do a great dis-credit to many New Yorkers who are tolerant and respectful.





While I'm a believer that current British playwrights run rings around their American counterparts (for the most part, anyhoo) I don't know that your examples of British theatre are much to crow about, especially the first two -- except in terms of pounds / dollars / euros.

btw: "Les Mis" was created by a couple of guys from France:The musical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Mis%C3%A9rables_%28%20musical%29) was written by the composer Claude-Michel Schönberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude-Michel_Sch%C3%B6nberg) and the librettist Alain Boublil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Boublil)I personally do not care for the content of the shows - I've been to none of them and am not a theatre goer! They do however illustrate a cultural export to highlight the current dominance held by 'Theatreland'.

The version of Les Misérables that became the popular form that most associate with today is the English-language adaptation by Cameron Mackintosh.

londonlawyer
October 26th, 2006, 12:57 PM
Surely by resorting to childish insults you vindicate myself and London, yet in the process implicate yourself and New York for being completely the opposite to what you have tried to portray: intelligent. You do a great dis-credit to many New Yorkers who are tolerant and respectful.




I personally do not care for the content of the shows - I've been to none of them and am not a theatre goer! They do however illustrate a cultural export to highlight the current dominance held by 'Theatreland'.

The version of Les Misérables that became the popular form that most associate with today is the English-language adaptation by Cameron Mackintosh.


I love playing with you, Nick. It's hilarious.

Luca
October 26th, 2006, 01:20 PM
Yes the Brits that I meet in Europe generally spend 3 days in one city or another in Italy. Not exactly a lot of time to soak up Italian culture, let alone one city or region.


Can't recall the source but, after Germans, the British are the msts likely group of foireigners to own property in Italy. I personally know many British families with no family connection to Italy who regularly vacation there. If don't know what yer talking about. :p


Only 5.6 million Italians migrated to the US before 1978 - but what would they know about Italy?
Over 15 Million US citizens claim Italian descent, but what would they know?
Do not think that the limit of their knowledge would only be grandmother's special bolognaise sauce.

You seem to forget I lived in the US for a decade. :rolleyes: Most Americans of Italian descent can't even pronounce their last name correctly. They know next to nothign about Italy and I've met very few who've visited more than once or twice. They can't even cook Italian food properly...that's like an American who doesn't know how to drive a car. :D

Luca
October 26th, 2006, 01:23 PM
I love playing with you, Nick. It's hilarious.

You sad git. :) Picking on lil' college students.

Capn_Birdseye
October 26th, 2006, 02:18 PM
I've read the recent postings with interest, and a smile on my face, well done nick taylor, I'd put the score at: nick 8 greg 1 Anyone for tennis? Pimms on the lawn afterwards.

Greg made some interesting snide comments about the Brits habit of "stealing" things during their Empire days - what about the little matter of the land stolen from the Native Americans?

Gregory Tenenbaum
October 26th, 2006, 02:35 PM
Yes thanks for the score Captain.


IGreg made some interesting snide comments about the Brits habit of "stealing" things during their Empire days - what about the little matter of the land stolen from the Native Americans?

The English Crown colonised America and stole the land at about the same time it tried to steal India from the Indians, Australia from the Aboriginies, NZ from the Maoris and half of Africa from the Africans (not to mention the Middle East). And was selling opium to half of China (and fought the Opium Wars to keep the Chinese people drugged - Hong Kong for 100 years and a lot of silver were the great prize for the Crown after all of that).

I am still amazed minutes after reading this that an Englishman doesnt even know that the US eastern seaboard was constituted by English colonies. Amazing.

Try "Wikipedia", Captain - you might learn something today.

Gregory Tenenbaum
October 26th, 2006, 02:47 PM
I forgot to mention Ireland. There was a war only 80 years ago to get the English Crown out. What, I mean, the Irish couldnt manage a country all by themselves now could they? Especially their own. Look at Ireland now. Even the Prime Minister Blair is an Irish descendent.

Captain I do not make snide comments. They are all very openly unctuously ingratiating to twits who don't even understand their own history for want of saluting a picture of the Queen at roll call each morning.

Read something about the Opium Wars in China. I strongly recommend it. It makes what the Japanese did in China look miniscule. You will never see your own government or history in the same light again.

All Hail Britannia! Especially if you have smaller guns.

pianoman11686
October 26th, 2006, 04:15 PM
Nick, I am not going to address all of the points you made in that long post. I will say this, though: you have a disturbing tendency to fluctuate between using actual facts to back up your arguments, and in other cases, just assume that what you're saying is true and should be accepted at face value.

Case in point: you blanketly state that the Financial Times is far superior to the WSJ, but where is the justification? Going by readership globally, the WSJ wins hands down, with 2.6 million compared to 1.6 for the FT. Its readership outside the US is also larger than the FT's readership outside the UK.

Next: You blanketly assume London has overtaken New York as the financial capital of the world. While Sarbanes-Oxley hasn't helped things, it certainly hasn't changed them that drastically either. New York is still by far the world's largest exchange for equities. The Nasdaq alone, at 3.6 trillion dollars of market cap, is larger than London's stock exchange. The NYSE, however, has 22.6 trillion dollars of market cap. No comparison there.

The New York Mercantile Exchange is still the world's largest physical commodity futures exchange, and Midtown Manhattan remains the largest central business district in the world, with the greatest concentration of Fortune 500 companies of any city in the world.

So, where exactly does London excel, besides in Forex?

Another: the media. You write off the existance of HQ's in New York as inconsequential, but recognize that all 4 of the major US broadcasters - CBS, NBC, FOX, and ABC - are all based out of New York. It is overwhelmingly the center of the US news market, especially now that CNN has moved much of its programming from Atlanta to NY. I understand also that a good chunk of SkyNews programming (out of London) is made up of New York-based news broadcasts such as NBC Nightly News and ABC World News Tonight. Furthermore, New York still has the highest concentration of the largest publishing and advertising companies in the world.

One final point: you criticize londonlawyer for comparing New York to the entire UK, yet you seem to forget a critical part of London's identity as a city. It is not only the center of all things British, but also the political center. New York lacks this vital characteristic, yet despite that, remains one of the top cities in global influence. So, next time you start throwing up figures from the British National Library, consider that New York doesn't have the advantages that Washington has. That makes the existence of the NYPL, and other uniquely New York (as opposed to American) institutions, all the more impressive.

Fabrizio
October 26th, 2006, 04:49 PM
"One final point:"

Yes it must be considered that London (like Paris, Tokyo, Rome among others) is a capital. NYC is not. This makes NY´s place on the world stage rather amazing and unique.

Would the English Prime Minister have ever told London to "drop dead"?

http://www.sohoblues.com/SoHoBlues/previewpages/previewpage54.htm

SilentPandaesq
October 26th, 2006, 06:04 PM
After reading all this, what is the end-game. Say, for the sake of argument, london is the "superior" city. And? Does that mean that NY instantly sucks. That the rich, pretty and smart will pack up and flee.

Nick- you have a hard-on for London. I get it. Cool even. But what's the point of arguing with poeple on a NY message board about the second place status of NY?

Besides, all those in the know are aware of the simple calculation that allows for the determining of the best city. Allow me to provide:

[[B(# of BBQ joints) X D (# of sexy Puerto Rican bettys)] - S (#number of skateboarding poser i-bankers living in lofts ) ] / N (number of days one can NOT sit outside and eat BBQ and check out PR Bettys. )

*(for london and other places that do not have true access to PR bettys, insert what ever mocha skined hottnes you currently posses)


[B*D] - S
N

Due to the effects of Global Warming, NYC is on track to increase its ranking in the future (that is until it busts into flames ).

nick-taylor
October 27th, 2006, 07:36 AM
pianoman11686 - I had written out a post to reply in detail of all of the markets that London was the dominant city of (international and secondary bonds, OTC derivatives, FX, maritime & aviation insurance, law, metals, gold, cross border banking, international bank concentrations, foreign equities, maritime services, dispute resolution, PPPs, etc...) but I noticed this article published in the NYT today being rather appropiate.






http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo153x23.gif

New York Isn’t the World’s Undisputed Financial Capital
Heather Timmons, October 27, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/27/business/worldbusiness/27london.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/10/27/business/28london.600.jpg

At a black-tie event this summer, some of the world’s most powerful bankers and business executives gathered for a toast: “We are the international finance and business capital of the world, the world’s greatest global financial center, without question,” the mayor told the assembled crowd.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/10/27/business/27london.190.jpg


But that was not Michael R. Bloomberg (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/michael_r_bloomberg/index.html?inline=nyt-per) talking. The city was not New York — it was London.

Even as the Dow Jones industrial average reaches new highs and Wall Street companies report robust profits, by some measures New York’s long-held crown as the financial capital of the world may be slipping.

London, whose lord mayor, David Brewer, made the summertime boast at the city’s annual merchants and bankers dinner, has had a heady resurgence in banking and lending. In recent years, its stock market has attracted a growing number of companies that once would have sought to list in the United States. And London is drawing an increasing tide of hedge fund assets.

Other financial centers are growing, too: Chicago will be the home of the world’s largest derivatives market when the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/chicago_mercantile_exchange/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and the Chicago Board of Trade (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/chicago_board_of_trade/index.html?inline=nyt-org) merge, while Hong Kong is poised to be the biggest market for initial public offerings this year, with today’s pricing of the huge offering of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China.

The possibility that New York is losing ground has raised alarms in Washington and in Mr. Bloomberg’s office.

“There’s a genuine recognition that we need to make some changes,” said Laure Aubuchon, head of international business development for the New York City Economic Development Corporation. Winning financial business is “so important to New York City,” she said. The financial services industry makes up 9 percent of the city’s work force and provides 31 percent of the tax base, she said.

The rise of London has been particularly notable as a reflection of its geography. Some of the most rapidly developing markets and fastest-growing companies can be found in Asia and Russia, which are within time zones that can do business easily with London but not with New York.

“In the 1980s and 1990s, large transactions did not get done without the United States capital markets,” said Michael Cole-Fontayn, a managing director with the Bank of New York (http://www.nytimes.com/redirect/marketwatch/redirect.ctx?MW=http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/nyt-com/html-companyprofile.asp&symb=BK) in London. That is no longer true, he said.

“The European and Asian capital markets are becoming deeper and more liquid by the day,” he said. “You can get a $5 billion stock global depository receipt offering or a $10 billion privatization satisfied outside the United States S.E.C.-registered markets.”

TMK, a Russian pipe manufacturer, hopes to raise $1 billion in a November public offering. The company was approached by the New York Stock Exchange (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/new_york_stock_exchange/index.html?inline=nyt-org) but chose to list on the London Stock Exchange (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/l/london_stock_exchange/index.html?inline=nyt-org).

London “is the world’s biggest financial center and very internationally flavored,” Vladimir Shmatovich, the chief financial officer, said in a telephone interview. And, he said, London is a closer flight to Moscow.

Of course, Wall Street banks dominate London and have benefited from doing business with the new wealth of Russia, Asia and the Middle East. But because the banks do a growing amount of business outside New York, the city misses out on some of the taxes, the financial services jobs and the jobs that support those jobs.

Beyond its location, London is attracting investors and companies because of a perception that regulatory scrutiny is more burdensome in the United States than in London. At the same time, while London does not use the euro, that common currency has helped bring depth to the capital markets of Europe, benefiting London.

“At the moment, people are still arguing New York versus London,” said Shaun Springer, the head of Napier Scott, a headhunting firm based in London that specializes in trading jobs. In five years, he predicts, “there will be a real, visible gap,” with London taking the lead.

So far, the only financial arena where New York is clearly being surpassed is initial public offerings. This year, through the end of September, companies raised £17.9 billion ($33.2 billion) in initial public offerings on London’s exchanges. In New York, initial public offerings raised $26.5 billion through September. By the end of 2006, more than $40 billion will be raised in Hong Kong, thanks to two oversize bank offerings. Hong Kong’s leadership in public offerings is not expected to extend to 2007, when the battle between London and New York will be fiercer than ever.

Other trends seem to favor London. Syndicated lending grew 54 percent in Europe in 2005, but just 15 percent in the United States, according to Thomson Financial. Hedge fund assets in Europe grew 80 percent from 2003 to 2005, versus 28 percent in the United States, according to International Financial Services London, which promotes British banking business.

High oil prices have in the past meant a flood of money from the Middle East into the United States. But cash-rich Middle Eastern families and governments are now looking to invest in Europe or Asia — through London or another financial center, rather than through New York.

Not surprisingly, there are few people in New York willing to acknowledge London’s superiority.

“I laugh, because if you were to dial back to the late 1980s, Tokyo was going to rule the world,” said Ms. Aubuchon of the city’s Economic Development Corporation. “I would never underestimate the power of Americans, when they get annoyed at being put down, to come roaring back.”

To assist that comeback, Mr. Bloomberg’s office is spending $600,000 on a study by the McKinsey consulting firm on the issue.

Many executives outside the United States say they could probably save them the time and trouble — the biggest problem is that it has become just too forbidding to do business in New York.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which imposed stricter rules on corporate controls, “is just one problem of many,” said Alan Yarrow, vice chairman of the German bank Dresdner Kleinwort, who is based in London. Others include the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/h/homeland_security_department/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and the perception that America does not welcome outsiders, he said.

“Getting people into the country is becoming a problem,” Mr. Yarrow said. “You have to have a situation where clients can come and see you.”

Many foreign companies and executives have a “fear of the United States: of litigation, of Sarbanes-Oxley, of the reach of the S.E.C., of the disclosure requirements and penalties associated with false disclosure,” said Mr. Cole-Fontayn of the Bank of New York.

The New York markets, meanwhile, have not been lobbying hard overseas over these issues, some executives say.

The London Stock Exchange “came after us very aggressively and did a good job of selling themselves,” said Christian Hogg, the chief executive of Chi-Med in Hong Kong, a Hutchison Whampoa (http://www.nytimes.com/redirect/marketwatch/redirect.ctx?MW=http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/nyt-com/html-companyprofile.asp&symb=HUWHY) division that began trading in May on London’s small capitalization stock market division, AIM.

Nasdaq (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/nasdaq_stock_market/index.html?inline=nyt-org), however, never contacted the company, Mr. Hogg said.

And companies pay more to list in the United States. A study by the consulting firm Oxera that was commissioned this summer by the City of London found that investment banks’ underwriting fees for listing a company in Europe were about half those for listing in the United States. [/size][/b]

But listing in London has had its challenges, Mr. Hogg added. Executives have to work hard to get brokers and analysts to notice their companies. “Nothing is guaranteed on Day 1 on AIM. It requires a lot of money,” he said.

Company executives are not the only ones in finance choosing not to come to New York. Stricter entry rules after Sept. 11, 2001, mean that some of the world’s banking talent that would have gravitated to New York is going elsewhere.

“Just getting into America, even if you’re British, is an issue,” Mr. Springer of Napier Scott said. “We’ve had candidates that arrived for an interview, were told they couldn’t leave a room in the airport and were put on the next plane back,” he said. Consequently, America is not experiencing the same explosion in specialized trading products that London is, he said. London, on the other hand, has a more open visa and work permit policy, he said.

Mark Warms, the global head of sales and marketing for FXall, a large foreign exchange platform for institutional customers, said, “Certainly, you have to argue that London is the most culturally diverse financial center in the world.”

London’s talent pool may be international and its finance business growing, but newly arrived Wall Street bankers may be astonished by some of its local traditions: most of the city’s bars, for example, close at 11 p.m., and most restaurants stop serving food around 10 p.m. Food delivery is still a rarity. Sending a FedEx (http://www.nytimes.com/redirect/marketwatch/redirect.ctx?MW=http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/nyt-com/html-companyprofile.asp&symb=FDX) package after 6 p.m. is difficult and the subway closes at midnight.

Still, London’s growing financial business has put the end to one British tradition that few will mourn: “the food,” said Stanley Fink, the former chief executive and chairman of the Man Group, the investment and hedge fund giant. London has gone from “one of the poorer places in the world to eat to one of the best,” he said.

There has been an explosion in high-end dining in London. “Over the last five years, London’s upscale restaurant offering has grown, largely as a result of the strength” of the financial district, said Iqbal Wahhab, the owner of Roast, a new restaurant, which uses only ingredients from Britain and features dishes like herring roe on toast.

In perhaps another sign of London’s ascendancy, Mr. Wahhab said he was seriously considering expanding Roast — to New York.




================================================== ======================




As for your other points: The Sun has a higher circulation not only of the Wall Street Journal, ut the largest US paper: USA Today....does that mean that The Sun is automatically a superior paper? I'm not saying that the WSJ is anything like The Sun, but I personally (hence my opinion - not a fact) believe that it is a better read and you gotta love the pink paper! Fact is, there could be a whole host of reasons as to why more people read the WSJ: US expats would be a starting ground and a domestic market 5x that of Britain would facilitate a larger expat population to read a 'peice of home literature'.

Yet what is drastically different from their content? Its not like one is a state broadcaster, they are all corporate broadcasters. Compare that to Britain which has corporate broadcasters (Sky, CNN, ITV, etc...), as well as the public broadcasters (ie the BBC, not to be confused with state) and state-corporate broadcasters (eg Channel 4 which ironically is probably the most critical of any government and was the organisation that exposed the 'Dodgy Dossier' which led to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq). The US simply doesn't have that selection on offer on top of the 'opinionated' commercial broadcasters. Regarding Sky News - I don't watch it (its the sister news channel of Fox News - both are owned by Rupert Murdoch, but its not as 'corrupted') as I personally prefer Channel 4 News and BBC News, but Fox and Sky have collaborated on stories, while certain CBS News articles have been shown on Sky News. BBC News and BBC2 also show ABC at 1:30AM. So in other words, the quantity and depth of news and media is even better than what it is in the US because we get access to content you have.

So my originally stands - the quality and depth of choice on offer is far more diverse.

Yet while London represents something like 12.5% of the UK population, and there are significant centres within the UK - there are other interests around the UK that aren't dependent upon London. Yet surely all these are factors mean nothing when you have someone trying to use Barnes & Noble as a reason for why New Yorkers are better off in regards to libaries and book shops when London has not only more, but a larger variety. Its the same for our dear friend londonlawyer trying to suggest that New Yorkers are somehow intellectually superior, yet by all counts if that was even the case its been a negative thing for the city. The fact is, such arrogance is slowly but surely sapping the life out of New York. Only yesterday, updates of the new 30mppa (ie comparable to Newark) Heathrow East project were released, it will be ready for the 2012 Olympics - an international event that New York could not get the simple bid planning organised for. Now London is to even have come next year a larger ice-hockey rink and baseketball arena than New York (02 Arena inside the Dome) has - snide comments or rebutments aren't what New York needs. New York needs a complete reinvigoration and London needs this as well, because without New York, London wouldn't have had something to aim for and to beat and in most fields it already has.

Gregory Tenenbaum
October 27th, 2006, 10:31 AM
There's a difference between living somewhere and saying that somewhere is the best and biggest.

London may well become the biggest and best. I still wouldn't live there.

Did you mention Heaf-row again? That's one big reason I wouldn't live there. Alleged terror plot in August or not.

I fly through Frankfurt or Copenhagen - much nicer.

SilentPandaesq
October 27th, 2006, 10:36 AM
Nick-
^^yet in all that you fail to mention the derth of Rib joints in London metro. What good is a huge basketball court when there is no Rib joint to go to afterwards. I am not even going to go into the strategic Buffalo wing gap between NY and London. You want to talk about revitilization, start there.

londonlawyer
October 27th, 2006, 11:02 AM
Nick,

I do enjoy playing with you. However, I am growing concerned about your well-being. The fact that you dwell on a New York board and write lengthy (and inane) comments about this city confirms your massive obsession and inferiority complex vis-a-vis New York. (It also confirms that your "urban studies" degree is less than challenging given the time that you spend composing these loquacious posts.)

As a New Yorker, I don't care about Atlanta, Chicago, etc. Therefore, I don't dwell on boards regarding these cities, and I certainly don't compare them to NY. NY is obviously vastly superior. Therefore, there is no need for comparisons.

You, by contrast, are obsessed with NY. It's not healthy. I suggest that you consult someone and seek treatment. Some diversions might also be helpful. Have you considered learning an instrument or getting a girlfriend/boyfriend? Lighten up, old boy.

Luca
October 27th, 2006, 11:41 AM
Let's all recall that Nick didn't start this thread or bash NYC gratuitously.

For waht it's worth , as a 15-year veteran of big bad global finance, I cna't iamgien anyoen but the msot provincial would disoute that London is teh capital of itnernational finance.

On the FT-WSJ dispute, for quality for eporting my vote goes heavily to the WSJ. fThe FT ain't what it used to be.

Personally I think NYC is objectively a great, amazing, maybe unmatchable city.

London is also undisputably a great city and one I've enjoyed tremendously. Greg notwithstanding and also notwithstanding that they (like all people) have their faults, only a moron would dispoute that Britian is one of the great nations on earth, together with France, the US and, on a solid second tier, Germany, Italy and Spain.

Gregory Tenenbaum
October 27th, 2006, 12:40 PM
Yes but what is the truth about living in London and would you live there if you were a New Yorker. Hence the topic of my post.

What, so Germany and Italy only get second tier status? What about Japan and Norway? :confused: Dont bother - The post isn't about countries, it's about cities. :)

pianoman11686
October 27th, 2006, 12:45 PM
...but I noticed this article published in the NYT today being rather appropiate.

And you were reading the New York Times why? ;)

Consider looking at the tone of the article. It questions New York's dominance. You assume, on the other hand, that London has already won the battle. In my mind, both, along with Tokyo, are almost on par with each other, as financial centers. But please, don't underestimate, as some of the people in that article pointed out, New York's resilience. Overall economic and social health is near all-time highs, and businesses are paying a lot to relocate here. Could/should the city be doing other things to improve itself? Of course. But anyone who follows the amount of development that is currently taking place would never suggest that New York is dying or even latent.


As for your other points: The Sun has a higher circulation not only of the Wall Street Journal, ut the largest US paper: USA Today....does that mean that The Sun is automatically a superior paper? I'm not saying that the WSJ is anything like The Sun, but I personally (hence my opinion - not a fact) believe that it is a better read and you gotta love the pink paper! Fact is, there could be a whole host of reasons as to why more people read the WSJ: US expats would be a starting ground and a domestic market 5x that of Britain would facilitate a larger expat population to read a 'peice of home literature'.

Thank you for confirming my belief. In the future, please pay more attention to your wording. If you're gonna cite facts, that's fine, but don't just throw in personal opinion and make it sound like fact.


Yet what is drastically different from their content? Its not like one is a state broadcaster, they are all corporate broadcasters. [...] So in other words, the quantity and depth of news and media is even better than what it is in the US because we get access to content you have.

So my originally stands - the quality and depth of choice on offer is far more diverse.

Not sure if you're as familiar with US media as you think you are. I'm not going to claim that I know UK media, but then again, that's not what I'm disputing. Media is indeed diverse here: FOX is very different than CBS, and ABC/NBC have their own subtleties too. Besides those, consider how many different shows are broadcast from New York: virtually all of the CNN specials, tons of sports coverage (ESPN/ABC), MSNBC/CNBC, Bloomberg, even "fake" news (Jon Stewart, etc.) The point is, New York is as much of a media center, if not more, than London.

Your final paragraph is almost indecipherable. The only thing I got out of it was the point about the Olympics. Congratulations. Believe it or not, a lot of people here didn't want them. I remember that being one of the crucial factors in determining the winner.

Ninjahedge
October 27th, 2006, 01:47 PM
Let's all recall that Nick didn't start this thread or bash NYC gratuitously.

For waht it's worth , as a 15-year veteran of big bad global finance, I cna't iamgien anyoen but the msot provincial would disoute (??) that London is teh capital of itnernational finance.

Slow down Luca, you are keymashing.... ;)

ablarc
October 27th, 2006, 01:53 PM
keymashing.... ;)
Too many fingers. My solution: use just one.

Rational Plan
October 27th, 2006, 02:02 PM
Nick, I understand you want to defend the honour of our capital city. But this is a New York Board , full of people who love this city. It's a bit gauche to shout we are the best.

In theory we should all be rational beings capable of discussing issues without taking it personally, but I've never seen it happen. I know its hard to resist when someone starts posting unpleasent opinions about English people and London, but half time they are just baiting you, to get you to burst a blood vessel. Well, hopefully they are just baiting you.

You just have to accept, not everyone is going to like us, and some actively hate us. You are not going to change anyone's mind. It's a waste of your time. If a board is getting unpleasent, just leave it, it will soon die off without the oxygen of dissent.

I come here primarily to look at New York building projects and to catch a flavour of New Yorkers opinions on their city and life in general. I don't post that often, as some of the boards seem a bit toxic at times. Hopefully things will calm down.

The short version of that Nick, is just walk away you'll have a quieter time.

ablarc
October 27th, 2006, 02:16 PM
I don't post that often, as some of the boards seem a bit toxic at times.
Why don't you step up the pace of your posting? IMO, your moderating influence could provide the antidote.

Ninjahedge
October 27th, 2006, 02:51 PM
Or the anitperspirant.

Nobody is dying here, but there sure is a lot of stench in the air... ;)

londonlawyer
October 27th, 2006, 03:06 PM
I know its hard to resist when someone starts posting unpleasent opinions about English people and London, but half time they are just baiting you, to get you to burst a blood vessel....

Exactly. We're all adults and are just having fun (at least I am). I love England and the English people. I do enjoy the joking though. It's entertaining.

Fabrizio
October 28th, 2006, 04:50 AM
"....only a moron would dispoute that Britian is one of the great nations on earth, together with France, the US and, on a solid second tier, Germany, Italy and Spain."

Italy is not a great nation, I don´t even know if you could call it solid second tier, but it´s the still BEST friggin´country on the planet (ok granted we´re talking about holidays, but still...).

http://www.cntraveller.com/ReadersAwards/2006/Countries/

Britain no where to be found. And as far as cities go? :

http://www.cntraveller.com/ReadersAwards/2006/Cities/

London doesn´t even make the list. LOL. And OF COURSE Italy is represented by 3 cities out of 20.

If London is SO great why do travelers give it such a poor showing?

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

Funny that NIck posts an article that basically claims that NYC is still number one:

"by some measures New York’s long-held crown as the financial capital of the world MAY BE slipping."

"The POSSIBILITY that New York is losing ground has raised alarms in Washington and in Mr. Bloomberg’s office".

"IN FIVE YEARS, he predicts, “there will be a real, visible gap,” with London taking the lead."

----

Gregory Tenenbaum
October 28th, 2006, 07:37 AM
Ok thats about enough on the money market debate. Im not interested in which city or country is better to have the privilege of saying that 'I live in the city with the best stock market".

Who cares. I don't care about London being the centre of the men in suits rushing off to work. I can live in Tokyo with the 31 million other people - its 3 times bigger than London. Or even Osaka is about 26.5 million others. Those cities alone have a lot more energy than London.

The topic is not about which is the best or biggest city. Its about living somewhere.

What about lifestyle.

People, restaurants, theatres, culture, food, transport and yes to some degree, ability to make a living.

Fabrizio
October 28th, 2006, 08:01 AM
Even the Mercer quality of life index gives GB a VERY poor showing:

(And where´s London located? In Great Britain.)

http://www.il-ireland.com:80/il/qofl06/index.php

(Notice that in leisure and culture Italy gets a 100, the only country to do so, in other words: I´m staying)

Another example of the quality of life here:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0100556/

-----

Luca
October 30th, 2006, 03:27 AM
Too many fingers. My solution: use just one.

I shoulda took dat typin' course they offered in high-school :)

Being the world's worst typist should be worth some sort of nice disability pay-out, you'd think, but nooooooooooooo :confused:

Gregory Tenenbaum
October 30th, 2006, 06:46 AM
I saw the funniest film yesterday which does relate to the topic (if you read on you will see why).

The film is called STORMBREAKER.

Surely this is just propaganda. It's sad to see the "Nuns on the Run" star Robbie Coltrane or even Ewen McGregor in this appalling film.

Its about a boy who is recruited by British Intelligence and gets to have "Boys Own Adventure". A kid's James Bond without the tongue in cheek and humour that Spy Kids or Cody Banks did.

Apart from the melting faces of Mickey Rourke as the evil guy and Alicia Silverstone, and Nighy's over the top performance, what is notable about this film is that it is sheer propaganda to give boys in England hope of becoming national heros by getting back at those bad "American tycoons".

The cliches are horrendous.

Silverstone's character is an American girl who will be deported for working illegally in the UK. Well that would make any UK working person feel instantly more important and precious.

The evil guy in this film is a bad American tech-king/profiteer and criminal who of course dresses like a pimp and rose to success from a trailer only to want to destroy English schools because he was teased as "trailer trash" when he attended one after his family won the lottery. I mean if your family won the lottery you would send them to school in London wouldnt you.

The film also tries to make Cornwall look glamorous - and this is very funny. There are some stunning aerial shots of London's skyline however, ugly towers and all.

The line that really got me was "England has the best schooling/education in the world".

Cracked me up. It was sheer propaganda all round and I have no doubt that any english person watching this would instantly feel more important (than they already do).

Read here the comments of the author Horowitz about the child actor who plays the Secret Spy Child Wonderboy Star who will save Mother England from the bad people :

"In contrast, Pettyfer is far from average. He was a child model and last year starred in an acclaimed TV adaptation of Tom Brown's Schooldays. He saw off competition from 500 others for this film. His father is the actor Richard Pettyfer, but Alex has been brought up by his mother, Lee, who manages his affairs as well as overseeing the progress of his younger half-brother, a potential world-class tennis player. "It's an astonishing gene pool," says Horowitz."

The full article is here - http://living.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1051932006

"...an astonishing gene pool" ??? - Who the hell talks like that? Dr Evil?

Capn_Birdseye
October 30th, 2006, 08:33 AM
The line that really got me was "England has the best schooling/education in the world".
But its true if you, like me, went to Winchester and Cambridge. Ok the proles might not get that chance but hey thats the way it goes in the US or England! Anyone for a Pimms and a game of cricket?

Gregory Tenenbaum
October 30th, 2006, 09:24 AM
Captain let me first tell you that I went to the oldest grammar school in the state I was educated in. Chief Justice, world famous engineers and anthropologists and economists went there. Impressive isn't it?

And it makes absolutely no difference whatsover to my daily ability in performing my role whether I be an attorney, husband, father, citizen or anything else for that matter.

It's all bloody sheer nonsense. Care to check where Nelson Mandela went to school? He would proudly claim to be a "prole" as you put it so well.

Luca
October 31st, 2006, 03:08 AM
Doh... of course bad guys in US films always speak with a British accent and increasinglk bad greedheads in UK shows are either American or act like Americans. Meeja programmers must all be soul brothers to Tenenbaum. :p . "Why can't we all jsut get along?" :)

And in ALL cases, corporations are evil. Yup. It was corporations that killed millions, started wars, blew up the WTC and gave teenagers pimples (so they could sell them zit cream, the evil bastards!!!)

londonlawyer
October 31st, 2006, 10:22 AM
The following is from the Evening Standard.
PS: Joking aside, this is not to bash London, which along with NY and Paris, is my favorite city. I just recall that crime issues were raised in this thread. Sadly, crime is everywhere. I used to live in Chelsea and recall that there are many violent muggings.

"Actress Martine mugged as robber jumps into her car"

31.10.06

Actress Martine McCutcheon has been mugged by a hoodie on the King's Road in Chelsea.

She told friends she feared for her life when the attacker leapt into her 4X4 vehicle as she returned from the shops.

A 6ft man jumped into the passenger's seat and grabbed the actress's leg. She screamed "Please, no" and he fled with her handbag.

McCutcheon shouted at passers-by to give chase but two men lost the robber as he ran towards the World's End estate.

The friend said: "She was driving down the King's Road and stopped at a chemist's. She got out and noticed a huge white bloke wearing a hoodie and looking suspicious. When she went to get back into her car, he was still hanging around.

"She decided to lock her doors immediately. But as soon as she got in, he jumped in the passenger side. He grabbed her leg and for a moment she had no idea what he was going to do. "Martine screamed and just said, 'Please, no.' She was completely frozen in her seat with his hand firmly gripping her thigh. That moment seemed to go on forever. His face was covered the whole time. Then he grabbed her bag and jumped out. Two blokes chased him but he got away."

The bag contained a few personal belongings, make-up and a TV script.

McCutcheon's agent, Jaine Brent, said the Love Actually star and former EastEnder, 30, reported the theft, which happened last Wednesday, to police. The Met said there had been no arrests but inquiries continued.

The King's Road and other prestige shopping streets in London have long been targets for muggers, who watch for women carrying purses and wearing expensive jewellery.

There were 400 muggings recorded in Kensington and Chelsea since April - a 1.3 per cent increase.

Across London, there have been more than 22,000 robberies since April this year, but a rise of 16 per cent last year has been stemmed.

Robberies overall rose by 0.2 per cent, but there has been a 0.3 per cent fall in street muggings.

Intensive policing of hot spots, such as Tube and railway stations, and the targeting of prolific offenders have helped.

Gregory Tenenbaum
November 1st, 2006, 04:34 AM
Doh... of course bad guys in US films always speak with a British accent and increasinglk bad greedheads in UK shows are either American or act like Americans. Meeja programmers must all be soul brothers to Tenenbaum. :p . "Why can't we all jsut get along?" :)

Not true.

Think of the Bond villains. Most villains are German or Russian.

And Albinos.

nick-taylor
November 1st, 2006, 10:29 AM
London may well become the biggest and best. I still wouldn't live there.

Did you mention Heaf-row again? That's one big reason I wouldn't live there. Alleged terror plot in August or not.Firstly what a relief that you won't live in London!

Secondly, you haven't even been to Britain so how would you even know what Heathrow is like (and while admittedly its not the bet, its being currently overhauled for your first trip!). :D





I do enjoy playing with you. However, I am growing concerned about your well-being. The fact that you dwell on a New York board and write lengthy (and inane) comments about this city confirms your massive obsession and inferiority complex vis-a-vis New York. (It also confirms that your "urban studies" degree is less than challenging given the time that you spend composing these loquacious posts.)

As a New Yorker, I don't care about Atlanta, Chicago, etc. Therefore, I don't dwell on boards regarding these cities, and I certainly don't compare them to NY. NY is obviously vastly superior. Therefore, there is no need for comparisons.

You, by contrast, are obsessed with NY. It's not healthy. I suggest that you consult someone and seek treatment. Some diversions might also be helpful. Have you considered learning an instrument or getting a girlfriend/boyfriend? Lighten up, old boy.Surely if you were more 'mature' and more 'educated, then you'd be capable of quashing my posts (which I should note have been partially backed up by the NYT and other sources that are readily available) without much thought. Yet your responses have either been insulting, deluded or ill-thought out; a representation on your behalf not of stupidity, but denial and concern of which you are all too fluent in.

I'm not even a New Yorker or a Londoner, but I pay atention to the likes of Chicago and other cities around the world for the simple reason that they all offer different perspectives on the world. Afterall how can anyone trully understand global processes if they aren't imbedded with external sources...WNY is one, but I am a forumer or 'lurker' on an array of other forums. Yet it is ignorance and arrogance about the world that led to Londons' decline in the 1930's....how ironic it is for New York to follow the same fate.




pianoman11686 - Actually another WNY forumer posted that article, although admittedly I did until a few months back frequently read the NYT and other international papers for the simple reason that I used them as a chapter for my study into world cities.

As I noted in the beginning of my reply before the NYT article, I highlighted markets that London is already dominanted in, of which the article doesn't really touch upon - the majority of which are dominanted exclusively by London. Finance is afterall a vast field covering numerous instruments and markets and while the article moved in the right direction it isn't the whole story.

Yet where is the resilience? Sarbs isn't going anywhere, US protectionism (refer to the recent online gambling situation) and anti-Americanism is increasing due to failing domestic and foreign policy, New York politicians discuss not about the future of the city, but what their legacy project will be, other cities continue to innovate and make their case as unique centres and the current transport infrastructure which already lags significanly behind other cities is going to continue lagging behind for the forseeable future. Where for instance is the Downtown Manhattan - JFK direct rail link that countless other cities offer and businesmen crave for? Add all these things and you have an unsustainable situation wereby in todays globalised economy, relying upon historic situations won't be what ensures New York retains its position.

In regards to Tokyo, it has lost considerable control over the region thanks in part to Hong Kong and Singapore as exceptionally competitive centres.

Where did I cite it as fact - clearly anyone could have interpreted my original point as being an opinion. I'm also not saying that somehow Fox and CNN are within the same political realm...what I am getting at is the actual orientation behind them. Britain has its similar situations with Fox and CNN like news networks, but what the US and other countries lack is a vast network like that of the BBC which isn't dictated to by politics or capitalism: the third perspecitve. Yet the whole point was originally not about who has the larger media companies, but the depth and diversity on offer. When the US builds up a serious non-political and non-commercial operator then we can begin to re-evaluate the situation.





"....only a moron would dispoute that Britian is one of the great nations on earth, together with France, the US and, on a solid second tier, Germany, Italy and Spain."

Italy is not a great nation, I don´t even know if you could call it solid second tier, but it´s the still BEST friggin´country on the planet (ok granted we´re talking about holidays, but still...).

http://www.cntraveller.com/ReadersAwards/2006/Countries/

Britain no where to be found. And as far as cities go? :

http://www.cntraveller.com/ReadersAwards/2006/Cities/

London doesn´t even make the list. LOL. And OF COURSE Italy is represented by 3 cities out of 20.

If London is SO great why do travelers give it such a poor showing?

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

Funny that NIck posts an article that basically claims that NYC is still number one:

"by some measures New York’s long-held crown as the financial capital of the world MAY BE slipping."

"The POSSIBILITY that New York is losing ground has raised alarms in Washington and in Mr. Bloomberg’s office".

"IN FIVE YEARS, he predicts, “there will be a real, visible gap,” with London taking the lead."

----Oh no Fabrizio - if you'd actually looked at your source, you'd realise that its the UK version of Condé Nast Traveller. This is clearly obvious in the cities page where it clearly illustrates "Overseas Cities" and "UK cities". In other words, the cities are seperated by everything outside the UK and a list of UK cities. Now I could turn your argument on its head by combining the two lists and taking the top 20 - of which 8 are British Cities. The UK is exempt from the country rankings as there aren't multiple UK's, unlike the multitude of British cities present.

Funnily the top place to go this second according to Condé Nast Traveller isn't Ravello, Italy, it is isn't Phuket in Thailand or the Maldives - no of the number one place to be at this second is........

Bristol Airport, England (http://www.cntraveller.com/Special_Features/10_places_to_go_right_now/Bristol_Airport/)

:D

Regarding the article, I built upon it with my opening comment, but the point you illustrate shows another angle: that over the last 20 years, New York which used to be the sole financial centre of the world has thrown it away leading to the re-emergence of London as the premier financial centre. Londonlawyer might dismiss it, but even he admits it with the tone used in his posts that it has already happened, henceforth why he hasn't come back with anything that doesn't include an insult!





Even the Mercer quality of life index gives GB a VERY poor showing:

(And where´s London located? In Great Britain.)

http://www.il-ireland.com:80/il/qofl06/index.php

(Notice that in leisure and culture Italy gets a 100, the only country to do so, in other words: I´m staying)18th is a very poor showing? I guess we'd better feel even more sorry for the lower ranked Germany and Japan!

Fact is, these surveys always tend to be rubbish because they are based upon criteria and variables that are fixed towards a bias. For instance Japan is given a figure of 72 for infrastructure, yet the US gets 93? Where is the justification when transport and communications are significantly more advanced in Japan than probably any other country on the planet?

Add to that the measures are pretty random (culture and environment????), for instance Russia gets 65 for climate and the Sychelles 56? How can you even measure climate or the environment? Its almost as irrelevant as The Economist ranking countries by their quality of life by taking the rate of church attendance! By all accounts that would I suspect make New York look worse off than say New Orleans or other bible-bashing cities.

Its also interesting to see how France despite having significantly higher unemployment, consistently lower growth rates, protectionist issues and one of the most unflexible economies in the developed world is ranked higher than Britain! China is also apparently only 1 point behind Germany for economy? How does that work out when there are hundreds of millions of Chinese in the interior provinces left in conditions worse than most of Africa? China certainly doesn't offer anywhere near as close to the social safety net or economic benefits that Germany does and China is far from attaining anything close to living standards of the average German.

As a geographer, I tend to observe the methodology before looking at the lists as the methodology always answers the questions which lends me to ask - do you have the methodology for this 'ranking'?




GT - I would have thought the latest Woody Allen films (naturally based in and around London after he defected here ;)) would have been more up your street...but naturally a kids film might appease to a lone elderly men such as yourself what with all those kids in the cinema with yourself.




Sentenced in slay

thevillager.com/policeblotter
Volume 76, Number 23
October 25 - 31, 2006

Andre Johnson, 15, one of the four teenagers who pleaded guilty to second-degree murder last April of Broderick John “JB” Hehman, the New York University student who died after he was hit by a car while fleeing from robbers, was sentenced in Family Court on Oct. 16 to three years in a juvenile detention facility. The sentence can be extended each year by one year until Johnson’s 21st birthday.

In another Family Court hearing the same day, the sentencing of another defendant in the case, Clarence Hassan Mayfield, 16, was adjourned until Oct. 23 for the attorneys to submit written summations. Family Court Judge Mary Bednar said she would issue a written decision later.

The two other defendants, Humberto Guzman and Denzell Fell, both 14, were sentenced previously to 18 months in juvenile detention.

© 2006 Community Media, LLC

Kris
November 1st, 2006, 10:35 AM
Enough.

ZippyTheChimp
November 1st, 2006, 10:46 AM
Good advice, ignored.


Nick, I understand you want to defend the honour of our capital city. But this is a New York Board , full of people who love this city. It's a bit gauche to shout we are the best.

The short version of that Nick, is just walk away you'll have a quieter time.

Who are you trying to convince, Nick - us or yourself?

I would guess that most of the regulars here don't give a damn, and find this topic rather tedious, the main reason not too many respond to the topic, except those that are "pushing your buttons." The joke to me is that the replies to your very long and well researched documents appear to take 30 seconds to compose.