PDA

View Full Version : worlds greatest city?



manchesterexport
January 9th, 2006, 06:39 AM
What do you, as New Yorkers, think the worlds greatest city is? For me its the big apple with good ol' London town coming second.

londonlawyer
January 21st, 2006, 12:38 AM
I think that NY and London are tied with Paris being a very close second and Tokyo just behnd Paris.

Schadenfrau
January 21st, 2006, 01:39 AM
I'd say Tokyo is nowhere near the top.

What exactly are we basing this on?

stache
January 21st, 2006, 05:14 AM
Casual sex? :P

londonlawyer
January 21st, 2006, 09:36 AM
I'd say Tokyo is nowhere near the top.

What exactly are we basing this on?

NY and London are the absolute top to me. However, because Paris is, to me, the most beautiful city in the world, and the only city with a cultural life on par with NY and London, I put it just below the top two.

Tokyo is not as diverse as NY and London. It does not have the great old buildings that one finds in NY, London and Paris. It does not have the breadth of museums that NY, London and Paris do. Nonetheless, it is so huge and energetic. Major cities like Chicago, Berlin, SF, etc. seem like little, sleepy villages compared to Tokyo.

Gregory Tenenbaum
March 2nd, 2006, 06:39 AM
New York, Miami, Hong Kong Prague and Tokyo are equal first.

New York because its dirty, big and interesting.

Miami you say? Yes Miami, its cheesy, its sunny and its fun. You have the beach and the city. Its a spectacular looking city and interesting too.

Hong Kong, its dirty too. But its huge and spectacular, and you are actually living in China - how cool. Modern city in an ancient communist country - now that's unique.

Tokyo is cool too, has the wow factor of Hong Kong but a different flavour.

Prague - you are living in a medieval city with real history but a modern subway and infrastructure in the centre of europe - way cool.

London comes down the list quite a bit, sure its cleaner than NYC but its too expensive, people are somewhat glum and for no reason, everyone thinks its the centre of the world. Most english cant or dont want to speak another language, even though they are right there near Europe. Never could work that out. Most europeans who live there for a few months or a year cant wait to get back home. Its no wonder they call this city the "Toilet of Europe".

Gregory Tenenbaum
March 2nd, 2006, 06:48 AM
Casual sex? :P

If we are basing this on CS then I would say

1. Rio
2. Moscow
3. Australias Moms are Hoes.

Just my experience.

nick-taylor
March 2nd, 2006, 08:42 AM
New York, Miami, Hong Kong Prague and Tokyo are equal first.
London isn't actually much more expensive than New York, while 'the centre of the world' is something not coined by Londoners, but has been noted by academics (aviation, tourism, finance, etc...).

The reason we don't speak many languages is because we don't need to: english is practically the global language and the language of money. That might sound unfortunate, but it is claimed sometimes that more languages are spoken in London than in any other city in the world (300+), I myself though have moderate understanding of french and german and have some understanding of other languages.

And where on earth does the term "toilet of europe" come from! I assume that's why its one of the fastest growing cities in the developed world and is absorbing more immigrants than either New York or Los Angeles?

londonlawyer
March 2nd, 2006, 03:11 PM
London isn't actually much more expensive than New York....

And where on earth does the term "toilet of europe" come from! I assume that's why its one of the fastest growing cities in the developed world and is absorbing more immigrants than either New York or Los Angeles?

For property, London is cheaper.

Pls post statistics and sources re: immigration. I find it hard to belive that London, a metro area of 12m, is drawing more immigrants that NY, a metro area with 23m (and 35m by SSC forumers' methodology).

MrSpice
March 2nd, 2006, 05:07 PM
All those ratings are so subjective, of course. I loved Madrid and Vienna more than London. I think Paris is the most strikingly historic and beautiful city in the world. I love New York as well. But how can one say that a particular city is "the greatest"? it is meaningless. It's like here in the US people love to say that US it the "greatest nation on the face of the earth", but by what measure?

I wish New York had Vienna's cafes, its cleanliness and its public transportation. Then it would indeed be the greatest city in the world.

nick-taylor
March 2nd, 2006, 06:16 PM
For property, London is cheaper.

Pls post statistics and sources re: immigration. I find it hard to belive that London, a metro area of 12m, is drawing more immigrants that NY, a metro area with 23m (and 35m by SSC forumers' methodology).
Point One:
London has amongst some of the most expensive high-end properties in the world. That said, I'm unsure about average property prices in New York, but the average house/flat is now around £0.3mn or US$0.5mn. The following are figures for London, but excluding its metro:

Average Cost: £289,500 (US$507,783)

Detached: £569,440 (US$998,798)
Semi-Detached: £325,732 (US$ 571,334)
Terraced: £299,584 (US$525,470)
Flats: £246,964 (US$433,175)

Personally I'd be a lot happier if property prices were lower, but then again a major economic driver in the UK is the property market (much moreso than on the European continent where renting is more common) and is a core asset that many individuals in life aim towards.


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


Point Three:
London's metro as set by the GLA is at 18mn. Work conducted by academics using the INSEE (French Statistical Agency) method of using a 40% commuter rate put the metro population at 17mn. 12mn is the upper range for the urban area (but that depends on what urban area the definition is, ie gap of 200m or certain number of people per square mile, etc...).

I believe the 35mn figure was 'provided' by yourself (using one of your aliases that you used after the several bans yo u received) because you found it hard to believe that little old London is somehow a bit larger than you had previously thought. This confusion is most likely down to the different urban make up of each respecitve cities metros with London being more fragmented and divided by green belts which don't allow for sprawl or a massive connected urban sprawl. Currently, London isn't bigger....well not yet. ;)

Jake
March 2nd, 2006, 10:18 PM
That immigration chart is slightly skewed as London freely takes immigrants from the entire EU while NYC takes far less immigrants because of US Immigration policy.


If I had to choose I'd probably say NYC would be "greatest" although I don't even know where to begin to describe the criteria.

London I'd give credit to as the metropolis of the great British Empire of which us Americans are essentially a spawn of. Historically speaking NYC can't even compete with the influence of London save for the last few decades.

I think you are all forgetting one city....ROME.

The heart of everything western no other city had such impact on the world. Roman (well often techincally Greek) architecture is prominent in every gov't building in both London and New York. That's not even scratching the surface as Rome had sanitation and water systems 2000 years ago that were better than NYC's in the 1900s.

To me "greatness" means "might" and Rome, London, and New York are the great cities of the world's (former and current) empires. Think about if NYC had remained the capital of the US, no city could ever rival that kind of power.

Schadenfrau
March 3rd, 2006, 12:32 AM
In light of my recent vacation: Barcelona.

Gregory Tenenbaum
March 3rd, 2006, 05:19 AM
http://www.economist.com/images/20030809/CBR392.gif



Wow, it must mean that London is better.

Honestly, I cannot go a week without meeting a Britisher who wants to move to the USA, or somewhere warm like Thailand or Australia.

Was that chart supposed to mean something to us?

In respect of property prices, big deal. Literally, Big Deal.

Especially in London, its a Big Deal for the agents who are getting rich.

The increase is an aberration based on the fact that people can borrow more money more cheaply; sellers therefore will ask a higher price. It doesn't mean anything.

From another perspective, would you prefer to live in London, or say, a tropical paradise like Bora Bora?

Property is much cheaper in Bora Bora, and you have a lot more beach too.

High prices on paper don't mean anything except for people who own property and think that they can justify borrowing more to finance cars, holidays and other consumables just because there is a bubble.

nick-taylor
March 3rd, 2006, 06:09 AM
That immigration chart is slightly skewed as London freely takes immigrants from the entire EU while NYC takes far less immigrants because of US Immigration policy.

If I had to choose I'd probably say NYC would be "greatest" although I don't even know where to begin to describe the criteria.

London I'd give credit to as the metropolis of the great British Empire of which us Americans are essentially a spawn of. Historically speaking NYC can't even compete with the influence of London save for the last few decades.

I think you are all forgetting one city....ROME.

The heart of everything western no other city had such impact on the world. Roman (well often techincally Greek) architecture is prominent in every gov't building in both London and New York. That's not even scratching the surface as Rome had sanitation and water systems 2000 years ago that were better than NYC's in the 1900s.

To me "greatness" means "might" and Rome, London, and New York are the great cities of the world's (former and current) empires. Think about if NYC had remained the capital of the US, no city could ever rival that kind of power.Indeed, London has absorbed many people from the EU as its essentially becoming (or could be argued as already being) the primate city. Since the EU enlargement to include 10 new states back in early 2004, around 200,000 have made their way to the UK (Between the 1 May 2004 - 1 May 2005 this was around 130,000) from the 10 new EU member states alone. Two-thirds of which are locating in London. The thing is though, I wouldn't personally consider the likes of Poland to be a state similar to California due to all the numerous differences the UK and Poland have compared to New York + California states.

London though has developed a niche in immigration by harbouring multiple small communities, rather than several larger groups as seen in New York. It also helps that London is at the centre of the global aviation crossroads meaning connections to home nations is more viable than in other world cities. London is also growing at a faster rate than New York due to greater absorbtion of people than at any time in its history.

London
2001: 7,172,091
2004: 7,421,228
3 Years: 249.137
= 83,045

Revised New York City
2000: 8,008,278
2004: 8,168,338
4 Years: 160,060
= 40,015

Population changes aside, I don't believe there is a greatest city, but rather a collection of great cities through humanitys' existence. This isn't to be confused with world cities which are present-day cities and are a completely different issue.





Wow, it must mean that London is better.

Honestly, I cannot go a week without meeting a Britisher who wants to move to the USA, or somewhere warm like Thailand or Australia.

Was that chart supposed to mean something to us?

In respect of property prices, big deal. Literally, Big Deal.

Especially in London, its a Big Deal for the agents who are getting rich.

The increase is an aberration based on the fact that people can borrow more money more cheaply; sellers therefore will ask a higher price. It doesn't mean anything.

From another perspective, would you prefer to live in London, or say, a tropical paradise like Bora Bora?

Property is much cheaper in Bora Bora, and you have a lot more beach too.

High prices on paper don't mean anything except for people who own property and think that they can justify borrowing more to finance cars, holidays and other consumables just because there is a bubble.Where did I state that because of higher immigration, that it made London better?

Also what exactly is a Britisher? :D

Bora Bora is a lovely place, but its a holiday destination rather than a permanent lifestyle like that which could be found in New York or London!

Meanwhile, the number of Australians migrating to Britain is actually now larger than Brits moving to Australia. Infact I believe an investigation was undertaken to try and understand why there had been this reversal. You'll be happy to know also that New Yorkers form a large group of migrants to London, specifically those in the finance sector. ;)

ablarc
March 3rd, 2006, 08:05 AM
Not Number One, for sure, but probably in the top ten: who can tell us about Moscow?

ZippyTheChimp
March 3rd, 2006, 09:17 AM
Mr Spice?

lofter1
March 3rd, 2006, 10:08 AM
Fanning the flame ^^ ?

ZippyTheChimp
March 3rd, 2006, 10:54 AM
What do you mean?

Mr Spice stated that he immigrated from Russia.

lofter1
March 3rd, 2006, 11:03 AM
aha -- misconstrued -- apologies

MrSpice
March 3rd, 2006, 12:02 PM
I have not been to Moscow in a very long time (about 12 years ago). Moscow is a huge and busy city (sort of like New York, but even bigger). My friend visited Moscow last June and said that it was full of cars (unbrearable traffic jams on main roads) and the air felt very polluted. The center of Moscow is quite beautiful, IMHO. A lot of large and historic buildings. But there are also lots of ugly, soviet-style high rises that are someone similar in their appeal to the housing projects you see here in Brooklyn, the Bronx and lower east side of Manhattan. Moscow's is known for a very efficient and convenient subway system, just as other large cities in Russia.

I visited St Petersburg (Russia's second largest city - almost 5 mil residents) last June. That is indeed a beautiful European city. It's called northern Venice for a reason:

http://www.saint-petersburg.com/virtual-tour/

TLOZ Link5
March 3rd, 2006, 06:32 PM
From what I've heard, though, Moscow is pretty dangerous. That might have changed with the gradual improvement in Russia's economy, but it's probably nowhere near as safe as London...or even New York.

londonlawyer
March 7th, 2006, 09:19 PM
Point One:
London has amongst some of the most expensive high-end properties in the world. That said, I'm unsure about average property prices in New York, but the average house/flat is now around £0.3mn or US$0.5mn. The following are figures for London, but excluding its metro:

Average Cost: £289,500 (US$507,783)

Detached: £569,440 (US$998,798)
Semi-Detached: £325,732 (US$ 571,334)
Terraced: £299,584 (US$525,470)
Flats: £246,964 (US$433,175)

Personally I'd be a lot happier if property prices were lower, but then again a major economic driver in the UK is the property market (much moreso than on the European continent where renting is more common) and is a core asset that many individuals in life aim towards.


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


Point Three:
London's metro as set by the GLA is at 18mn. Work conducted by academics using the INSEE (French Statistical Agency) method of using a 40% commuter rate put the metro population at 17mn. 12mn is the upper range for the urban area (but that depends on what urban area the definition is, ie gap of 200m or certain number of people per square mile, etc...).

I believe the 35mn figure was 'provided' by yourself (using one of your aliases that you used after the several bans yo u received) because you found it hard to believe that little old London is somehow a bit larger than you had previously thought. This confusion is most likely down to the different urban make up of each respecitve cities metros with London being more fragmented and divided by green belts which don't allow for sprawl or a massive connected urban sprawl. Currently, London isn't bigger....well not yet. ;)

Point One:

No one disputes that property London is expensive. However, it is more expensive in New York.

Point Two:

If NY used an area the size of the one around London that you claim has 18m people, NY's population would have over 30m.

Point Three:

You are quite hilarious and exhibit a form of penis envy vis-a-vis your insecurity about NY versus London. One the one hand, it's quite sad, but on the other hand, I find it extremely entertaining.

By the way, how are your urban studies coming along?

ablarc
March 8th, 2006, 07:09 AM
Works for the Chamber of Commerce. ;)

nick-taylor
March 8th, 2006, 07:39 AM
Point One:

No one disputes that property London is expensive. However, it is more expensive in New York.

Point Two:

If NY used an area the size of the one around London that you claim has 18m people, NY's population would have over 30m.

Point Three:

You are quite hilarious and exhibit a form of penis envy vis-a-vis your insecurity about NY versus London. One the one hand, it's quite sad, but on the other hand, I find it extremely entertaining.

By the way, how are your urban studies coming along?OK...

Point One:
I just posted stats for London, so I'd love to know what the similar stats are for New York City. Surely that is something not to hard to source? Surely though this affects New York quite badly, as even though the average salary/wealth is higher, so is the wealth inequality which must have negative impacts upon the city. This is most likely why the city ended up with ghettos.


Point Two:
Well you did't answer this point regarding immigration inflows, so I assume its straight to point three...


Point Three:
No New York would not have a metro that size. Why? Well for a start, the vast bulk of New York's population isn't contained in just the city, but in the vast areas also surrounding this area. Go beyond and you encroach upon other metro areas or areas of little population.

London though is different, because outside the political boundaries of London, there is hardly any sprawl simply because of the vast green belts that surround London make it illegal for housing and the like. Instead London's core commuters outside the city itself are from the vast array of commuting nodes that are dotted all around London. It is no coincidence that London's railways are far larger than those in New York, simply because the distances travelled are slightly longer than those in New York which might not be in the city itself but in the urban sprawl surrounding the city. had New York developed a Green Belt like London, then it might have been possible that the same commuting patterns that London has would have developed. Also the areas are also roughly comparable, with London's metro being a bit shy of the area covered by New York's. London's metro doesn't for example go all the way down to Somerset like you have suggested on previous occasions: it doesn't even get to Southampton or Portsmouth.

Using roughly the same methodology, London has a metro of 18mn and New York has a metro of 21mn, although with the rapid growth of London (growth rates around double that of New York City) and its bulging metro; this gap I believe is shrinking. ;)

Why would I be envious when London is doing pretty well and gradually catching up, has already overtaken in some areas or has always been ahead of New York? We have the 2012 Olympics and vast infrastructure projects that would probably make you wish New York had the ability to take public transportation concerns in the fashion London does. By 2008, both the new Heathrow T5 (alone it is larger than the current 4 terminals or all of LAX) will have opened, as well as the final phase of the CTRL which will mean Central Brussels from Central London will be 2hrs, while Central Paris to Central London will be a shy over 2hrs. Currently some 50km of new route km of heavy rail is under construction within the city: to put things into perspective that's several SAS's being built this moment in London, including two 19km 300kph tunnels for the Eurostar which will travel through London underground.

Is this envy? No, because back in the 1930's London became cocky and didn't do much with the result being New York surpassed it in many areas. London subsequently peaked in population and then dived, while its influence evaporated with the passing of the Empire. Now though, times are changing, transport and other infrastructure projects have been making inroads through London, meanwhile, the population is growing close to 0.1mn each year (thats the fastest growth ever recorded) and it has re-establised lost links or made new links on the global stage to become a true rival to New York and has since surpassed it in a few fields, eg tourism, aviation, finance, etc... Yet New York seems to be a bit like 1930's London: cocky and confident that it won't be toppled from its position...but times change and as London found out - if you don't change with them, you get left behind. Out of all of this, you should be seriously worrying about New York, because you can't freeze time.


My degree is coming along very nicely and my studies into world cities, herarchies and global actor city networks are all very promising in my goal of developing my own hierarchy. Don't worry though: New York will be included in the Taylor Index. :laugh:

ablarc
March 8th, 2006, 07:49 AM
two 19km 300kph tunnels for the Eurostar which will travel through London underground.
How do they handle air pressure at that speed? Must be hell on your ears when you slam into that tunnel.

Must be vent buildings all over the place.

Fabrizio
March 8th, 2006, 08:20 AM
NYC wins. For second place I´ll take Rome.... it has one huge advantage over London and Paris: it´s in Italy.

Alonzo-ny
March 8th, 2006, 08:35 AM
Wow, it must mean that London is better.

Honestly, I cannot go a week without meeting a Britisher who wants to move to the USA, or somewhere warm like Thailand or Australia.

Was that chart supposed to mean something to us?

In respect of property prices, big deal. Literally, Big Deal.

Especially in London, its a Big Deal for the agents who are getting rich.

The increase is an aberration based on the fact that people can borrow more money more cheaply; sellers therefore will ask a higher price. It doesn't mean anything.

From another perspective, would you prefer to live in London, or say, a tropical paradise like Bora Bora?

Property is much cheaper in Bora Bora, and you have a lot more beach too.

High prices on paper don't mean anything except for people who own property and think that they can justify borrowing more to finance cars, holidays and other consumables just because there is a bubble.

Why are you so defensive?

Alonzo-ny
March 8th, 2006, 08:41 AM
[QUOTE=MrSpice]I have not been to Moscow in a very long time (about 12 years ago). Moscow is a huge and busy city (sort of like New York, but even bigger). My friend visited Moscow last June and said that it was full of cars (unbrearable traffic jams on main roads) and the air felt very polluted. The center of Moscow is quite beautiful, IMHO. A lot of large and historic buildings. But there are also lots of ugly, soviet-style high rises that are someone similar in their appeal to the housing projects you see here in Brooklyn, the Bronx and lower east side of Manhattan. Moscow's is known for a very efficient and convenient subway system, just as other large cities in Russia.

QUOTE]

Bigger than new york in what respect, certainly not population?

Anyway in my opinion the greatest cities in the world and these are only from cities i have actually been to:

1 New York
2 London
3 Paris
4 Edinburgh
5 Glasgow (voted in top 10 cities in the world to visit apparently)
6 Chicago

I havent really visited many major cities other than that but i have been to philly and didnt enjoy it so its not on my list. Id love to visit hong kong, tokyo, sydney, KL, singapore and the list goes on!!

londonlawyer
March 8th, 2006, 09:20 AM
OK...

Point One:
I just posted stats for London, so I'd love to know what the similar stats are for New York City. Surely that is something not to hard to source? Surely though this affects New York quite badly, as even though the average salary/wealth is higher, so is the wealth inequality which must have negative impacts upon the city. This is most likely why the city ended up with ghettos.


Point Two:
Well you did't answer this point regarding immigration inflows, so I assume its straight to point three...


Point Three:
No New York would not have a metro that size. Why? Well for a start, the vast bulk of New York's population isn't contained in just the city, but in the vast areas also surrounding this area. Go beyond and you encroach upon other metro areas or areas of little population.

London though is different, because outside the political boundaries of London, there is hardly any sprawl simply because of the vast green belts that surround London make it illegal for housing and the like. Instead London's core commuters outside the city itself are from the vast array of commuting nodes that are dotted all around London. It is no coincidence that London's railways are far larger than those in New York, simply because the distances travelled are slightly longer than those in New York which might not be in the city itself but in the urban sprawl surrounding the city. had New York developed a Green Belt like London, then it might have been possible that the same commuting patterns that London has would have developed. Also the areas are also roughly comparable, with London's metro being a bit shy of the area covered by New York's. London's metro doesn't for example go all the way down to Somerset like you have suggested on previous occasions: it doesn't even get to Southampton or Portsmouth.

Using roughly the same methodology, London has a metro of 18mn and New York has a metro of 21mn, although with the rapid growth of London (growth rates around double that of New York City) and its bulging metro; this gap I believe is shrinking. ;)

Why would I be envious when London is doing pretty well and gradually catching up, has already overtaken in some areas or has always been ahead of New York? We have the 2012 Olympics and vast infrastructure projects that would probably make you wish New York had the ability to take public transportation concerns in the fashion London does. By 2008, both the new Heathrow T5 (alone it is larger than the current 4 terminals or all of LAX) will have opened, as well as the final phase of the CTRL which will mean Central Brussels from Central London will be 2hrs, while Central Paris to Central London will be a shy over 2hrs. Currently some 50km of new route km of heavy rail is under construction within the city: to put things into perspective that's several SAS's being built this moment in London, including two 19km 300kph tunnels for the Eurostar which will travel through London underground.

Is this envy? No, because back in the 1930's London became cocky and didn't do much with the result being New York surpassed it in many areas. London subsequently peaked in population and then dived, while its influence evaporated with the passing of the Empire. Now though, times are changing, transport and other infrastructure projects have been making inroads through London, meanwhile, the population is growing close to 0.1mn each year (thats the fastest growth ever recorded) and it has re-establised lost links or made new links on the global stage to become a true rival to New York and has since surpassed it in a few fields, eg tourism, aviation, finance, etc... Yet New York seems to be a bit like 1930's London: cocky and confident that it won't be toppled from its position...but times change and as London found out - if you don't change with them, you get left behind. Out of all of this, you should be seriously worrying about New York, because you can't freeze time.


My degree is coming along very nicely and my studies into world cities, herarchies and global actor city networks are all very promising in my goal of developing my own hierarchy. Don't worry though: New York will be included in the Taylor Index. :laugh:

I'm really busy today and don't have time to read your reply. No offense about my deprecating comments about your urban studies degree. I'm just joking. I just like playing with you because you get all wound up into a serious frenzy.

P.S.: You do have serious penis envy about NY though. London is awesome, but it's a little hamlet compared to the Big Apple.

Jake
March 8th, 2006, 10:09 AM
NYC wins. For second place I´ll take Rome.... it has one huge advantage over London and Paris: it´s in Italy.


haha, well said, a true patriot! :)

Gregory Tenenbaum
March 8th, 2006, 10:19 AM
P.S.: You do have serious penis envy about NY though. London is awesome, but it's a little hamlet compared to the Big Apple.

PenisEnvy? Insecurity? I don't disagree with you about this poster.

But pray tell me, why LondonLawyer, why would you put the word London in you name if you weren't a little insecure yourself.

Do you live in NY or London?

Fabrizio
March 8th, 2006, 10:26 AM
Jake: Well you know, it´s the truth. Who the hell would choose to live in England? And France? The south of France is pretty fab (despite the fact that so many British have moved there) but unfortunately it´s still full of Frenchmen.

londonlawyer
March 8th, 2006, 10:32 AM
PenisEnvy? Insecurity? I don't disagree with you about this poster.

But pray tell me, why LondonLawyer, why would you put the word London in you name if you weren't a little insecure yourself.

Do you live in NY or London?

Mr. T:

Athough I am very busy today, I will respond to you because you couched your request in prayers!

I lived in London and loved it. I return many times each year. However, Nicky can't accept the fact that London is substantially smaller than NY.

P.S.: Your "logic" escapes me. "Pray tell me" how putting "London" in my name equates to insecurity in your mind?

londonlawyer
March 8th, 2006, 10:38 AM
Jake: Well you know, it´s the truth. Who the hell would choose to live in England? And France? The south of France is pretty fab (despite the fact that so many British have moved there) but unfortunately it´s still full of Frenchmen.

I love England and France. In fact, I prefer all of Europe over America. The only places in the U.S. that I am fond of are NY (which is in the US only in a physical sense), Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, Miami and San Francisco. Chicago and Seattle are ok. However, if faced with the choice of living in Tolouse or Colombus, Ohio, for example, I'd take the former.

Fabrizio
March 8th, 2006, 10:44 AM
If faced with that choice? Tolouse.

nick-taylor
March 8th, 2006, 10:54 AM
How do they handle air pressure at that speed? Must be hell on your ears when you slam into that tunnel.

Must be vent buildings all over the place.A minor correction - that should have been tunnels that will handle the 300kph Eurostars as naturally they couldn't enter or exit the tunnels without the windows being blown out. :D

They do travel at very high speeds through the tunnels though and can naturally speed up while a quarter of the way through and there are around 10 ventilation tunnels along the route through London.





I'm really busy today and don't have time to read your reply. No offense about my deprecating comments about your urban studies degree. I'm just joking. I just like playing with you because you get all wound up into a serious frenzy.

P.S.: You do have serious penis envy about NY though. London is awesome, but it's a little hamlet compared to the Big Apple.I'm busy too, but its amazing with multi-tasking and I thought it was you that got round up that London's bigger than you thought it is. Remember: I wasn't the one who made multiple accounts over at SSC, or the one who actually created threads just to compare selected properties in London to New York, or that London isn't a city, etc...

If London is a hamlet, then by god its the most impressive wee settlment on the planet:
- The world's premier financial centre (before the 90's this was New York)
- A political capital of an entire country (New York is not a capital)
- The world's largest and most important aviation centre (New York again comes 2nd)
- Higher Population growth aided by higher inflows of international migrants than those flowing to New York, which will see in the next few years New York City actually being overtaken by London
- Most visited city in the world (after overtaking Paris in 2004)


Looks a lot like this hamlet took the big apple and ate it...by god its yummy - nice and ripe after 381years of maturity! :D



Jake: Well you know, it´s the truth. Who the hell would choose to live in England? And France? The south of France is pretty fab (despite the fact that so many British have moved there) but unfortunately it´s still full of Frenchmen.The growth of Brits in France is in two forms:
- Brits owning a second home, eg Dordogne
- Elderly Brits seeking a retirement home

Interestingly many young French on the otherhand are seeking employment in London, just like many young people in the rest of Europe are flooding the Britain and London.

Australia is also undertaking a report as to why more Australians are moving (are the figure is growing) to Britain than Brits are moving to Australia.

London is also growing at around 2x the rate of New York City, so maybe some people are moving to London because they prefer it to New York City?





I lived in London and loved it. I return many times each year. However, Nicky can't accept the fact that London is substantially smaller than NY.I accept for the current that London is smaller than New York, but I've always noted this....but it is not substanitally smaller and the gap is rapidly closing up thanks to the renaissance happening in London.

Like I said before - cities don't stand still and London lost its position a few decades back, but now its clawing its way back, thanks to far larger inflows of foreign born individuals, the re-emergence of Britain on to the world stage and a major capital within the new world economy, London as the world's premier financial, tourist and aviation centre and mega-infrastructure projects, eg Heathrow T5, CTRL, Crossrail to help with the ever-changing demands placed upon the capital.

londonlawyer
March 8th, 2006, 11:11 AM
Nicky,

Your absurd claims that London is the financial capital of the world, when all evidence states that NY is, are particularly amusing.

As a young student in a mediocre (at best) university with no background whatsoever in finance -- whether professionally (you're a student) or academically ("urban studies" -- pardon me while I laugh) -- you're hardly in a position to make any credible arguments. In fact, you don't. You ignore all facts and harp on some idiotic statement about currency trading. Even you, Nicky, could trade currency with your urban studies degree.

I won't get a chance to reply to your mindless retort, as I am leaving my office for an appointment. You clearly have all the time in the world, as I suspect that the course work in your urban studies degree is hardly demanding (even for someone with your vast mental acumen)!

Fabrizio
March 8th, 2006, 11:17 AM
"London is also growing at around 2x the rate of New York City, so maybe some people are moving to London because they prefer it to New York City?"

What do you mean by "moving to" London... are they ....students...poor immigrant workers from Eastern Europe... Australians who are giving up Australia for the fun´n sun of England....? A lot of the statistics you are throwing around, in the end, mean very little.

By the way... I traveled often to London through the 1990´s on biz... know plenty of Brits.... plenty who´ve bought homes here in Chianti and Lucca. It´s nice to hear all these glowing statistics and read all of these lists... thanks, but no thanks.

MrSpice
March 8th, 2006, 12:01 PM
[quote=MrSpice]
Bigger than new york in what respect, certainly not population?


Moscow is bigger than New York ni both population and size. When I say "bigger", I am talking about NYC itself not includiong the surrounding areas like Long Island and New Jersey. Some people commute to New York from as far as Southern Jersey. In Moscow, people only commute from as far as subway and local buses go. The city itself has more than 10 million residents against about 8 mil in New York. New York City is also much more diverse in terms of its neighborhoods. For example, Staten Island is only accessible by car and ferry and is very suburban. It's oficially part of New York but really feels like a suburb. Moscow is much more monolitic. It has a river (Moscow River), but it's rather narrow. Most of the city is a large, continuous metropolis.

TLOZ Link5
March 8th, 2006, 12:14 PM
I've been listening to The Queen Is Dead by The Smiths, so I can't help myself:

Oh ! Take me back to dear old Blighty,
Put me on the train for London Town,
Take me anywhere,
Drop me anywhere,
Liverpool, Leeds or Birmingham
But I don't care,
I should like to see my ...

Heh heh :D

MrSpice
March 8th, 2006, 12:15 PM
Nicky,

Your absurd claims that London is the financial capital of the world, when all evidence states that NY is, are particularly amusing.


Why is it so important what city - New York or London - is a financial capital of the world? It's kind of childish to argue about that, isn't it?

What I like about London is that most of the city is nice whereas New York is nice only in certain places. Many city areas are just terrible. Better than they were 5-10 years ago but still ugly and terrible in terms of architecture, cleanliness and culture. You can walk down Park Avenue in the 60s and feel that this is fanciest city on earth. Then you can hop on the train and in 15-20 min end up in an ugly Queens neighborhood filled with the worst-looking housing project you can find. The same goes for many areas in Brooklyn and Queens. London is mostly clean and pleasant and that's great. I lived in Brooklyn for many years and could not stop wondering - how can so many ugly apartment buildings get built in this city? The whole bottom part of Brooklyn is filled with 5-7 story brown apartment buildings with fire escapes and poorly maintained brick walls. In New York, you have to stick to a handful or good neighborhoods that look really nice and then you will like New York. If you live in a rent-stabilized apartment in a simple Brooklyn neighborhood, it would look and feel different. It's a feeling of living in a country that is not developing but not yet developed.

Alonzo-ny
March 9th, 2006, 08:24 AM
[quote=alonzo-ny]

Moscow is bigger than New York ni both population and size. When I say "bigger", I am talking about NYC itself not includiong the surrounding areas like Long Island and New Jersey. Some people commute to New York from as far as Southern Jersey. In Moscow, people only commute from as far as subway and local buses go. The city itself has more than 10 million residents against about 8 mil in New York. New York City is also much more diverse in terms of its neighborhoods. For example, Staten Island is only accessible by car and ferry and is very suburban. It's oficially part of New York but really feels like a suburb. Moscow is much more monolitic. It has a river (Moscow River), but it's rather narrow. Most of the city is a large, continuous metropolis.

I think that at least jersey must be taken into account as the only reason it isnt in city limits is because its in another state but you cant deny its part of the city as its only on the other side of the hudson. Im not talking about commuters. I believe firmly that cities should be measured on metro area not just city llimits as a metro area shows a true representation of a cities size. for example my city, glasgow, has 700,000 in city but 1.25 mil in metro and you wouldnt think it is that big if you just look at city figures

ablarc
March 9th, 2006, 09:01 AM
New York is nice only in certain places. Many city areas are just terrible...ugly and terrible in terms of architecture, cleanliness and culture. You can walk down Park Avenue in the 60s and feel that this is fanciest city on earth. Then you can hop on the train and in 15-20 min end up in an ugly Queens neighborhood filled with the worst-looking housing project you can find. The same goes for many areas in Brooklyn and Queens...how can so many ugly apartment buildings get built in this city? The whole bottom part of Brooklyn is filled with 5-7 story brown apartment buildings with fire escapes and poorly maintained brick walls. In New York, you have to stick to a handful or good neighborhoods that look really nice and then you will like New York...It's a feeling of living in a country that is...not yet developed.
Not long ago I hosted for a first-time visitor from Europe, whom I showed around New York for a week. This was exactly her assessment.

Fabrizio
March 9th, 2006, 09:21 AM
"The same goes for many areas in Brooklyn and Queens...how can so many ugly apartment buildings get built in this city? The whole bottom part of Brooklyn is filled with 5-7 story brown apartment buildings with fire escapes and poorly maintained brick walls. In New York, you have to stick to a handful or good neighborhoods that look really nice and then you will like New York...It's a feeling of living in a country that is...not yet developed."

Europe is socialist. Certainly ugly things get built here, but it´s not the "let the market decide" free-for-all that it is for developers and owners in the US. As an example: my own town here has a governing board that over-sees asthetics.... Americans often bristle about that sort of stuff, but it works.... and it DOES´NT stifle creativity... there´s probably much more avant-guarde architecture happening in Europe right now than in the US . Also another factor: historic buildings are appreciated and maintained.

kliq6
March 9th, 2006, 10:27 AM
buildings may be better, but the economy of europe sucks thus a new wave of immigration from Europe is going on now

MrSpice
March 9th, 2006, 11:09 AM
Europe is socialist. Certainly ugly things get built here, but it´s not the "let the market decide" free-for-all that it is for developers and owners in the US. As an example: own town here has a governing board that over-sees asthetics.... Americans often bristle about that sort of stuff, but it works.... and it DOES´NT stifle creativity... there´s probably much more avant-guarde architecture happening in Europe right now than in the US . Also another factor: historic buildings are appreciated and maintained.

I would argue that the opposite is true - the ugliest buildings in New York are the "socialist" housing projects and the older multi-story buildgins that have many people living under rent control/section-8 and other city, state and federal government programs that prevent those buildings from being ever replaced by new privately built apartments. The best thing about the "free-for-all" market is that it's flexible. Possibly, some ugly 6-story building built in Brooklyn was ok for 1920-1930s when the priority was to provide any kind of housing in the city that was suffering from large number of homeless immigrants and great depression. However, now the situation is different and if we had a real "free for all" market, many of these ugly buildings would be bought by developers, demolished and replaced by nice-looking condominiums. But they cannot legally do that. So the essense of the problem is not the free market, but the regulations and limitations put on the development in this city. Europe has its share of ugly buildings, but they are mostly locasted on the outskirts of major cities.

Jake
March 9th, 2006, 11:10 AM
That's because American cities don't have historic buildings like Europe does. We're too young a country to have castles or anything like that. No American city has "old cities" as they're called in Europe that contain pre-war buildings and a market center.

We also don't tend to have squares of plazas like most cities in Europe. The oldest buildings we do preserve are revolutionary war homes.

Fabrizio
March 9th, 2006, 11:21 AM
You both make valid points... but I believe an unbridled free market economy can often ruin the intrinsic beauty of an area. Look at how many perfectly beautiful town centers in the US were ruined with highways and malls... cheap fast food architecture... less and less public transportation.
Also: I would really love to see the building codes of Europe compared to the USA... why are so many new buildings in the US sooooo cheaply made looking. We have housing projects here too (and some awfull ones) but many of them.... actually I´d say most of them, have held up nicely over the decades... the materials, proportions overall designs are nice. I´m just trying to get to some reasons for Mr. Spices observations about NYC.

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

Also... I know it´s a bore to hear someone in Europe critising things American... please know I lived many years in the US so please don´t take my statements as gratuitous USA-bashing.

lofter1
March 9th, 2006, 11:22 AM
... now the situation is different and if we had a real "free for all" market, many of these ugly buildings would be bought by developers, demolished and replaced by nice-looking condominiums.
Pure BS ...

Take a look through this site and you'll see dozens of crap looking new buildings going up all over the 5 boroughs. Often worse looking than what they have replaced.

Also it will be interesting to see how well these new buildings hold up after 25 years.

Besides affordable RENTAL properties are what are needed in NYC.

Many people choose NOT to own ... and not only because they can't afford it.

Fabrizio
March 9th, 2006, 11:51 AM
Kliq:I don´t know what statistics are with Europeans immigrating to the US... but it´s true that right now, the economy here "sucks" ....that can´t be denied.

MrSpice
March 9th, 2006, 01:38 PM
Pure BS ...

Take a look through this site and you'll see dozens of crap looking new buildings going up all over the 5 boroughs. Often worse looking than what they have replaced.

Also it will be interesting to see how well these new buildings hold up after 25 years.

Besides affordable RENTAL properties are what are needed in NYC.

Many people choose NOT to own ... and not only because they can't afford it.

The point is: when the free market forces "make the decision", the developers built what the buyers and renters desire. Yes, you may see ugly new buildings come on the market as well. But they are rarely as ugly as those huge housing projects you see in East Harlem, LES, Jamaica in Queens, and so many places in Brooklyn (Coney Island, Midwood, Brighton Beach, etc.) Can't get any uglier than this.

MrSpice
March 9th, 2006, 01:53 PM
Pure BS ...

Take a look through this site and you'll see dozens of crap looking new buildings going up all over the 5 boroughs. Often worse looking than what they have replaced.

Also it will be interesting to see how well these new buildings hold up after 25 years.

Besides affordable RENTAL properties are what are needed in NYC.

Many people choose NOT to own ... and not only because they can't afford it.

You and some other people on this forum love to say "this is needed for NYC" or "that is needed" Developers are there to satisfy the demand. You are saying that rentals are needed here. Have you seen the Carnegie Hill building on 96th Street? Half of that building is rentals. Right now people are in the state of condo-craze. They are willing to pay lots of money to purchase, especially in Manhattan. And then many of them sublet those apartments thus providing rentals. And guess what - I see so many for rent ads in Brooklyn nespapers. So many people bought coop and condo apartments in the past 3-5 years that there's a glut of available rentals. I am talking about regular Brooklyn neighborhood (i.e., Midwood, Sheapeshead Bay, Garavesand, etc.). Place like Park Slope and Carroll Gardens are very expensive for both renters and buyers. And guess what - how can anyone built rental buildings there when local residents successfully lobied the city to downzone the neighborhood? Should the developers build 2-floor rentals and hope to make a profit with 1500/month rents?

The best way to provide affordable rentals is to allow more development. It's simple law of supply and demand - you have more apartments for rent, the rents will be more affordable.

MrSpice
March 9th, 2006, 02:09 PM
Since lofter1 likes article, here's one worth reading (it's long like all research documents done by professors). It's called "Why is Manhattan so expensive"

http://www.millersamuel.com/pdf-tank/1106013654NOEow.pdf

RandySavage
March 9th, 2006, 03:13 PM
The National Geographic Society, the seminal international organization, named New York City "the greatest place on Earth" in 1999. (London was on the short list of greatest places, but NYC remains "the place the whole world beats a path towards..."). Here is the Jimmy Breslin article that was attached the the NG ranking.



"The wealth of the world has a New York address. It piles up in buildings on land that is laced with gold. And perhaps nowhere is the essence of New York more evident than in Greenwich Village—for it is a microcosm of all that New York has become, and in its story is the story of a great city. The village that became famous to America was formed by migrations from Italy, the west of Ireland, and by Americans calling themselves Bohemians—for into the narrow, crooked streets of Greenwich Village legions of artists, philosophers, poets, writers, attempted artists and writers and their followers.

It is one of the few places in the city where the sky has not been stolen by high and indescribably ugly buildings. You can stand on a Greenwich Village street in the early Manhattan morning and watch the night sky lighten and break into streaks of rose that suddenly saturate the heavens, then burst with sunlight that ignites sidewalk and street.

The sun glistens on Washington Square Park's white marble arch. Eighty-six feet high and 30 feetwide, it was built in 1895 for $128,000—then enough to buy Ukraine. The park's glory is tarnished by the fact that its pin oaks, oriental planes, yellow locusts, ashes, and American elms once were used as gallows trees from which men swung for such crimes as burglary, pickpocketing, and having the wrong skin color.

History is alive on every corner and in every alley. At Number 61 Washington Square South, Madame Blanchard's Rooming House was home to Theodore Dreiser, Adelina Patti, Frank Norris, Stephen Crane, Willa Cather, John Dos Passos, James Oppenheim, Pierre Matisse, René duBois, and Alan Steeger.

Eugene O'Neill and Edna St. Vincent Millay worked at 133 MacDougal Street. John Masefield scrubbed floors in Luke O'Connor's bar on Greenwich Avenue. Humorist O. Henry supposedly gained inspiration for his story "The Last Leaf" from the gate at 59 Grove Street. And Edgar Allan Poe, a reporter for the Broadway Journal, probably wrote some of "The Raven" in the Village.

Most Village residents back then crowded into tenement buildings. They lived with a furious energy—amid clamoring noise and children in doorways. Invariably, in a tiny room, a sick old aunt languished in bed (it was hideous to think of putting her in a nursing home).

Now these buildings are filled with the young and the successful who can pay rents of $3,000 a month. "The woman across the street was 74 and paying $50 a month in rent," says a woman called Big Millie, who lives in the area and has to climb 66 steps to her apartment at 225 Sullivan Street. "She dies. I come back from the funeral and a single woman is moving in. She ends up paying $1,500 for the same matchbox. A few more of these people and we won't have nothin' left in the neighborhood."

It is these rents that affected the Genovese crime family, once the nation's biggest and most lethal Mafia outfit. For it was in the Village, famed for palette and pen, that the mob missed its first heartbeat. The organization flourishes in places where the poor live. In a sense, real estate prices more than the law did in the Mafia—and helped change the character of this part of New York.

Consider the story of mobster Benny Eggs. He was paying $200 a month for his ground-floor clubhouse at 101 Thompson Street. He assumed the landlord was satisfied. The landlord was satisfied—satisfied that one day the cops would catch up with Benny Eggs and the clubhouse would be ready to rent to some scarecrow woman designer from Milan for thousands. Each morning, the landlord thrilled at the headlines in the New York Daily News about Mafia arrests—delight that turned to despair when Benny Eggs was not among them.

Then came the headline he had been dreaming of: BENNY EGGS BUSTED. Soon there was a store on the ground floor of Number 101 that paid $3,500 and sold expensive Italian fashions.

The city is advertised as changing, but in some ways it really has not. One of its greatest addresses—Greenwich Village—is driven by the same fierce energy that coursed through those tenement hallways of old. There are all those people crowded together, brushing against each other, causing the blood to run so fast. Those people are the most powerful people on Earth—in its most powerful city."

Jake
March 9th, 2006, 03:26 PM
A lot of great writers also live in Oregon, there's sun there too, perhaps that's the greatest place to live.

RandySavage
March 9th, 2006, 04:03 PM
Perhaps, but not according to the editors of National Geographic.

NYCDOC
March 9th, 2006, 07:38 PM
Not that it gives true value to one city being greater than the other but just to add fuel to the fire . . .

CNNmoney.com quoting data from Forbes latest billionaires report:

"New York seemed to be the hot spot for the super rich, attracting 40 billionaires, followed by Moscow with 25 and London with 23, according to the magazine."

lofter1
March 9th, 2006, 09:14 PM
Since lofter1 likes article, here's one worth reading (it's long like all research documents done by professors)... It's called "Why is Manhattan so expensive"
Oh, wow, thanks.

(hate to think what you'd send me as a booby prize ...)

My favorite part of the article had to be the logarithmic formulae used to discern the regression results due to "view loss" (the dummy variables were especially clever); see below for specifics.

And I do have to admit that the section on "congestion externalities" tickled my funny bone.

What was your favorite part? (I actually do read the articles that I post).

Interesting that the authors seem conclude that the biggest impediment to reasonable housing costs in NYC is due to "a reassignment of property rights from developers to local homeowners" and cite one somewhat recent battle in Carnegie Hill (yet they fail to note that in that case the developer wanted to build well beyond what zoning allowed and the local residents -- not necessarily all "homeowners" -- were merely trying to insure that city officials held the developer to zoning rules).

PS: I'm not an economist, so next time something with a bit less sawdust and a bit more zing would be appreciated ;)

***

Alonzo-ny
March 10th, 2006, 06:56 AM
buildings may be better, but the economy of europe sucks thus a new wave of immigration from Europe is going on now

Id like to point out how britains economy is fine because we didnt join the bloody euro!

ablarc
March 10th, 2006, 07:46 AM
Oh, wow...I'm not an economist, so next time something with a bit less sawdust and a bit more zing would be appreciated ;)
Interesting conclusions, nonetheless.

londonlawyer
March 10th, 2006, 08:05 AM
Not that it gives true value to one city being greater than the other but just to add fuel to the fire . . .

CNNmoney.com quoting data from Forbes latest billionaires report:

"New York seemed to be the hot spot for the super rich, attracting 40 billionaires, followed by Moscow with 25 and London with 23, according to the magazine."

Nicky boy and his boyfriends will be twisting this story on SSC to say that London has the most billionnaires. If anyone disagrees, they'll be banned and then wjfox or shiro will write that London has the most and then close the thread.

MrSpice
March 10th, 2006, 09:53 AM
Oh, wow, thanks.

(hate to think what you'd send me as a booby prize ...)

My favorite part of the article had to be the logarithmic formulae used to discern the regression results due to "view loss" (the dummy variables were especially clever); see below for specifics.

And I do have to admit that the section on "congestion externalities" tickled my funny bone.

What was your favorite part? (I actually do read the articles that I post).


I did not know that you're going to read everything. I forgot what a diligent scholar you are :) My favorite part is the common-sense summary of why the NY eal estate is so expensive relative to other cities and states (except for Cali that has similar problems). And the reason is the legal/regulatory restrictions put on developers, zoning regulations and the amout of beauracracy and paperwork required to build anything here. It's amazing to me that one one hand residents of, say, Park Slope demand zoning restrictions and on the other hand complain that life has gotten too expensive in Park Slope. This artcile just confirms on a more scientific level what is obvious without any additional studies. When you allow developers to build more and the suply of housing increases, that has a moderating effect on prices because of the basic law of supply and demand.

BrooklynRider
March 10th, 2006, 10:22 AM
That's a very generalized theory and one that does not apply in New York. We are in a building boom and prices are not being driven down. There are less rent-controlled and rent-stabilized buildings in New York than ever before and those types of rentals make up a smaller percentage of the total housing stock than ever before, and apartment rents have not gone down.

Park Slope did not "demand zoning restrictions." Park Slope agreed to upzoning along Fourth Avenue. Park Slope residents united years ago to protect poor and minority residents from displacement as housing costs soared. The only zoning "restrictions" being demanded are zoning in areas where the construction of taller buildings will block views from Greenwood cemetary, where certain cemetary elements were built to create dialogue with the Statue of Liberty. That's the only zoning fight going on the the Park Slope neighborhood. Park Slope generally works very well with developers and collaborates with developers to bring the best product, best suited to maintaining the neighborhood.

There's tons of development going on in Park Slope and, for the most part, there is no controversey surrounding any of these developments.

Marksix
March 10th, 2006, 12:14 PM
London was visionary in being the first city to build a major sewer network. Now they run trains through it and call it the underground :)

Liverpool - England's St Petersburgh and the "pool of life"

ablarc
March 10th, 2006, 12:37 PM
That's a very generalized theory and one that does not apply in New York. We are in a building boom and prices are not being driven down.
Supply and Demand's not a theory, it's a law; and it applies everywhere, just like Gravity. If we're in a building boom and prices haven't come down, it just proves the boom's not big enough yet and there are other factors operating. Nor will it ever be big enough, if the article is correct, because regulation is progressing even faster than the building boom.

Related phenomena:

1. Construction costs are being driven up by lengthy permitting and onerous requirements, which means that high and certain profit is required for a developer to undertake a project.

2. Developers get hooked on that high and certain profit, and when prices do start to show the slightest downward movement, developers take that as a sign that it's time for that vacation in Puerto Vellarta or Santorini they've been promising themselves. Or like the Donald, they move their focus to Dubai, where they can still find their sky-high profits. So the boom abates the moment the profits are anything but red hot.

ablarc
March 11th, 2006, 10:55 AM
Trump also stated that he doesn't build "rentals" anymore because he can build a condo for $1.5 M and sell it for $3 M -- and that it would take too long to get a return on building rentals.

The problem of NYC housing in a nutshell!
Building condos doesn't much help prices on the rental market; few folks are looking at condos and rental simultaneously. Developers are also abandoning rental for the bigger, faster returns in condos.

Supply and Demand is working as it always has, BR, but there are additional factors operating. That's where we need to look for diagnosis of the problem, and for its cure.

londonlawyer
March 11th, 2006, 02:20 PM
Nicky boy and his boyfriends will be twisting this story on SSC to say that London has the most billionnaires. If anyone disagrees, they'll be banned and then wjfox or shiro will write that London has the most and then close the thread.

My prediction was realized. Someone posted that NY and HK have the most billionnaires, and before Nicky boy could write that London does (despite hard facts to the contrary), WJFox closed the thread!

AndrewMe
March 11th, 2006, 04:24 PM
I don't live in NYC but, I do love the city, dude. Greenwhich Village, Chelsea. Those areas can't be beaten. Think Soho is a bit over rated.

My number two city of all time is New Orleans. It waas before Katrina hit it, anyway. The French Quarter is awesome.

nick-taylor
March 12th, 2006, 02:15 PM
Nicky,

Your absurd claims that London is the financial capital of the world, when all evidence states that NY is, are particularly amusing.

As a young student in a mediocre (at best) university with no background whatsoever in finance -- whether professionally (you're a student) or academically ("urban studies" -- pardon me while I laugh) -- you're hardly in a position to make any credible arguments. In fact, you don't. You ignore all facts and harp on some idiotic statement about currency trading. Even you, Nicky, could trade currency with your urban studies degree.

I won't get a chance to reply to your mindless retort, as I am leaving my office for an appointment. You clearly have all the time in the world, as I suspect that the course work in your urban studies degree is too demanding (even for you)!How is it absurd? Salaries in most areas are now higher in London, and in a few instances they are more than double than those that can be found in New York, including the likes of exotic trading and debt capital markets.

In todays world: more people are employed in finance in London than in New York, this was not the case as in the early 1980's.

I shall remind you again though,that I am not the one that continues to go on about currency markets when I have far more markets and instruments under my sleeves of which London not only leads in, it dominates:
- Bullion
- Foreign equities
- International bonds
- OTC derivatives
- Marine & aviation insurance
- Cross-border banking
- International banks
- Financial services training
- Information services
- Legal services
- Dispute resolution
- Currency
etc....

An interesting aspect to London's renaissance in finance has been that a large number of immigrants to London have been those within finance. New Yorkers are interestingly forming a large component of this due to the higher salaries and a requirement for the best of the best from around the world to handle the most international markets on our beloved planet. If you actually took away the US domestic finance market from New York, you'd notice that its internationalisation has been lagging behind the likes of London which are only where they are due to global connections.

I assume you'll take this note to mention investment banks like you usually do, so I'll answer your points again before you re-address them. Yes, London lacks a major player, but has instead evolved into the critical convergence centre for all the major international investment banks. You for example don't get the extent of convergence that you do in London with European investment banks in the US, or US investment banks on the European continent. Note also that due to the immense competition, profitability and flows of money, London has bucked the trend seen in the respective homes of the major investment banks with an ever growing demand for more employees in London, less in the other financial centres of the world, including New York. In reality, London isn't about specific players, but global players working within London which is the worlds premier international market.

The funny thing is though, the problem is getting worse for New York - you only have to look at Sarbanes-Oxley to see this. New York's unlucky geography also means that it can't deal to the extent that London can with a far larger (and faster growing) area of the planet and the continued growth of China, India, Eastern Europe and even the Middle East are areas of future growth for London. This is illustrated by the number of floatations

As Jeremy Isaacs, CE Lehman Brothers Europe & Asia CE said: "People go to Tokyo to do business in Japan, they go to New York to do business in America, but they come to London to do business with the rest of the world."

With the global economy outperforming the US and Japanese economies, the growth in London will continue to accelerate, as will the gap between London and New York.

Last year, non-domestic floatations on the LSE were worth £9bn+ and numbered 32. Contrast that with the US, where non-domestic floatations on the NYSE were below £2bn and numbered 2. Of the top 10 flotations last year on the LSE, three were from Russia, two from the Middle East and one from Gibraltar. The largest ever external Korean floatation (£2bn) was made on the LSE last month by Lotte Shopping. Even US companies fearful of Saranes-Oxley are looking to London to operate in a freer marketplace!


I'm unsure why you focus on my university or my background in finance (I actually work on-off with a small but rapidly maturing multi-faceted mixed finance company), afterall you don't see me going on about what firm you work for, or what position you are within that firm. Why? Because I have the facts and figures to back up my original statements rather than make quick and pathetic stabs at those that you can't debunk their claims. I should ask though - what exactly is wrong with urban studies? The financial markets are critical to the formation of world cities and are clear seperators as to why some cities are above others. Infact my interpretation of other academical work into financial flows is a critical cornerstone to my dissertation work. It could be argued that I even have greater understanding of finance across the global economy simply because I've studied it for so long (my dissertation has been put on paper in the last 3 years, but has been an on-going work for around 6h years now).

The real reason as to why you won't reply to my original points is because you know that they are true and that if you so strongly believed that they were false, you'd have no trouble debunking them instead of wasting your time in creating a lengthy post of why you believe my degree is a joke.

Its called scheduling and managing my time efficiently: I don't have to work 7hrs to get a 9-5 job done, when I can get it done in 5hrs, maybe you should use your time more efficiently instead of wasting time with a post criticising my background rather than addressing my points: its called havng a mature debate.





"London is also growing at around 2x the rate of New York City, so maybe some people are moving to London because they prefer it to New York City?"

What do you mean by "moving to" London... are they ....students...poor immigrant workers from Eastern Europe... Australians who are giving up Australia for the fun´n sun of England....? A lot of the statistics you are throwing around, in the end, mean very little.

By the way... I traveled often to London through the 1990´s on biz... know plenty of Brits.... plenty who´ve bought homes here in Chianti and Lucca. It´s nice to hear all these glowing statistics and read all of these lists... thanks, but no thanks.The people moving to London come from all walks of life: pretty much like it was with New York at the beginning of the last century. They can be from the highest order, eg Lakshmi Mittal (Indian) and Roman Abromovich (Russian) who are the two richest people living in London, to the swathes of international students who look to London for their education (vast numbers from India, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc...). Entrepreneural Eastern Europeans are coming to London in their droves and facilitating the growth of entire new quarters: you only have to look at the presence in London and the UK of many Eastern Europeans from the new EU members over at SSC - trully remarkable.

Sun might be excellent for some, but for others they might want something different: hence why more Australians are moving to Britain than Brits are moving to Australia. I think these stats are quite the opposite and show that times change, afterall Australia was built on immigration from countries like Britain, but now its changing with Australia aiding in net growth to Britain!

I believe there was a recent poll across 35 countries and 25,900 participants (Anholt Nations Brand Index) that stated that Britain was the 'worlds favourite country'. Britain ranked highest when it came to sport, education, culture and politeness, but were also the most boring. Meanwhile French were perceived as the rudest and Americans as the most ignorant. ;)





buildings may be better, but the economy of europe sucks thus a new wave of immigration from Europe is going on nowAs has been noted already, the UK economy has actually performed pretty well. Infact in the last downturn, when the likes of Europe and US regressed, Britain managed to continue moderate growth and is infact still in its longest period of growth in recorded history. If you compare growth between the UK and US, the UK is growing at a slightly faster rate per capita. Britain and London can be summarised as being a meeting place for the capitalism in the US, but socialist argument from the continent.

Britain though has retained many historical buildings and is continuing to build interesting buildings. You only have to look at London's skyscraper proposals and the likes of 30 St Mary Axe (Swiss RE/The Gherkin) to see that the organic style is clearly making its stamp in London. London's ambition though is in the modernisation and renovation of such structures like the neo-gothic London St Pancras and art deco Battersea Power Station projecs that are currently underway

As I've mentioned before, a large number of immigrants to London are infact New Yorkers. ;)





Nicky boy and his boyfriends will be twisting this story on SSC to say that London has the most billionnaires. If anyone disagrees, they'll be banned and then wjfox or shiro will write that London has the most and then close the thread.Incorrect once again. Nobody twisted or distorted the Forbes figures, methodology or conclusions, but instead noted the Sunday Times own work (it produces the The Sunday Times Rich List each year and has done since 1989) which found that in comparisons with other world cities, London had more billionaires than any other city on the planet. The vast majority of London's billionaires aren't even nationals, but foreign born individuals residing in London. Infact London has far more foreign born billionaires residing in London than New York has (Abromovich + Mittal - Russian/Indian are the two richest residents in London) which indicates that London has a more diverse background of billionaires!

The Sunday Times Rich List 2006 will be released by the end of this Spring, while you can buy it for just under £200 in the weeks afterwards or just buy a copy of The Sunday Times instead when it is released. Are you by any chance homophobic?

I thus require you to get your facts straight before assuming something other than reality - oh I beg my pardon you're a lawyer thats something you could never do! :laugh:





London was visionary in being the first city to build a major sewer network. Now they run trains through it and call it the undergroundHillarious. Amazingly though Victorian engineering prevails and our sewers and Underground are to this day architectural and engineering miracles.





My prediction was realized. Someone posted that NY and HK have the most billionnaires, and before Nicky boy could write that London does (despite hard facts to the contrary), WJFox closed the thread!I actually have't been over at SSC until you stated just now that there was a thread on the issue! Also you are misguided - I wasn't saying that the Forbes list was false, only that London has more billionaires according to the Sunday Times Rich List and its analysis of world cities: I can't help it if you can't remember these little details.

What alias are you using on SSC now? Isn't that like your tenth and I should point out that multiple accounts are not allowed on SSC, just like I suspect that they are not allowed on WNY.

I'll also quote the last post in that thread and will answer to many as to why the thread was closed by the moderator:
wjfox2002: "This has nothing to do with Citytalk & Urban Issues. Please stick to the forum rules."

Not too good at this debating and winning arguments business are you londonlawyer?

krulltime
March 12th, 2006, 02:49 PM
^ I think you talk too much. I am no financial major or whatever but I go by respectable articles I read. So if you have an article supporting your predictions... posted. I will love to read it. Anyone can make up numbers and stories. I can even say I am a financial advisor or some crap like that.

Although I am glad that London is doing well... it will never be greater in business than New York City. I think there was a fear that Tokyo will take over a while back. It never did.

Fabrizio
March 12th, 2006, 02:57 PM
"I believe there was a recent poll across 35 countries and 25,900 participants (Anholt Nations Brand Index) that stated that Britain was the 'worlds favourite country'. Britain ranked highest when it came to sport, education, culture and politeness, but were also the most boring. Meanwhile French were perceived as the rudest and Americans as the most ignorant. "

"Worlds favourite country"? Meanwhile the British are leaving in droves:

http://www.workpermit.com/news/2006_02_20/uk/record_number_britons_leave.htm

http://www.emigratenz.org/bye-bye-blighty.html

http://www.newstatesman.com/nssubsfilter.php3?newTemplate=NSArticle_World&newDisplayURN=200408020014

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1311334,00.html

"Britain ranked highest when it came to sport, education, culture and politeness, but were also the most boring."

Most boring? Lets make that: the most borish drunks:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/11/news/journal.php

http://society.guardian.co.uk/drugsandalcohol/story/0,8150,1297760,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3121440.stm

BTW:the scenes described above are played out by drunken Brits nearly every weekend in our cities popular with the British like Florence. The British are notorious here as being the absolutely worst tourists because of it.

Polite indeed.

lofter1
March 12th, 2006, 03:17 PM
NYC seemingly used to rank high on the binge list (lots of visitors, no doubt). But with the arrival of Starbucks caffeine has taken over.

Now everyone here is just more cranked up ...

krulltime
March 12th, 2006, 03:32 PM
^ LOL! Here is some proof of that Starbucks sensation.... Some people even get fool.


Fake coupons jolt Starbucks


By Valerie Block
Published on March 13, 2006

Starbucks Coffee Inc. plans to give away free cups of joe on the morning of March 15, but some folks are getting their java gratis anytime they want. For the last two weeks, Starbucks stores in midtown have been inundated with fake coupons that say "Have a drink, on us."

The phony freebies are circulating via e-mail. If coupon holders raise a ruckus, Starbucks employees have been instructed to hand over that latte. "We get at least four or five a day, and some stores in the neighborhood are getting 40 or 50 a week," says Timinit Ashebir, a store manager.

Ms. Ashebir, who's been with Starbucks for eight years, says she doesn't know who started circulating the fakes that pop up from time to time. The counterfeits are similar to legitimate Starbucks coupons, but they lack proper system codes and are usually stamped with trademarks from 2000 to 2003.


©2006 Crain Communications Inc.

ZippyTheChimp
March 12th, 2006, 03:59 PM
I believe there was a recent poll across 35 countries and 25,900 participants (Anholt Nations Brand Index) that stated that Britain was the 'worlds favourite country'. Britain ranked highest when it came to sport, education, culture and politeness, but were also the most boring.
How can both be true? What does this say about tourism?

krulltime
March 12th, 2006, 04:17 PM
I believe there was a recent poll across 35 countries and 25,900 participants (Anholt Nations Brand Index) that stated that Britain was the 'worlds favourite country'. Britain ranked highest when it came to sport, education, culture and politeness, but were also the most boring.

How can both be true? What does this say about tourism?


^ that does not make sense

He also uses "I Believe"?

How creditable that is for us. Post the real poll results please and not what you believe.

I just don't know how you can work in any company if your research starts with "I believe."

MidtownGuy
March 12th, 2006, 04:37 PM
the scenes described above are played out by drunken Brits nearly every weekend in our cities popular with the British like Florence. The British are notorious here as being the absolutely worst tourists because of it.

They are viewed much the same way in the Greek islands. With such a "stick up the butt" culture, Brits have to get sloshed to loosen up a bit. Can't say I enjoy being around anyone whose had too much to drink. Loud, sloppy, and lewd.

nick-taylor
March 12th, 2006, 06:45 PM
^ I think you talk too much. I am no financial major or whatever but I go by respectable articles I read. So if you have an article supporting your predictions... posted. I will love to read it. Anyone can make up numbers and stories. I can even say I am a financial advisor or some crap like that.

Although I am glad that London is doing well... it will never be greater in business than New York City. I think there was a fear that Tokyo will take over a while back. It never did.Predictions? These aren't predictions but facts and the figures aren't made up! Also what would be your criteria of a 'respective article'? Something that mentions New York as a god amongst other cities? One word: flawed.

Business is different from finance, but even there more foreign companies are heading to London than New York due to the increasing problems being encounted due to Sarbanes-Oxley. London is simply a more attractive destination with links to international markets and immense flows of capital, a large pool of international and talented labour, connections to other parts of the world and more liberal atmosphere (ie no Sarbanes-Oxley.)





"Worlds favourite country"? Meanwhile the British are leaving in droves:

http://www.workpermit.com/news/2006_...tons_leave.htm (http://www.workpermit.com/news/2006_02_20/uk/record_number_britons_leave.htm)

http://www.emigratenz.org/bye-bye-blighty.html

http://www.newstatesman.com/nssubsfi...N=200408020014 (http://www.newstatesman.com/nssubsfilter.php3?newTemplate=NSArticle_World&newDisplayURN=200408020014)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...311334,00.html (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1311334,00.html)

"Britain ranked highest when it came to sport, education, culture and politeness, but were also the most boring."

Most boring? Lets make that: the most borish drunks:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/11/news/journal.php

http://society.guardian.co.uk/drugsa...297760,00.html (http://society.guardian.co.uk/drugsandalcohol/story/0,8150,1297760,00.html)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3121440.stm

BTW:the scenes described above are played out by drunken Brits nearly every weekend in our cities popular with the British like Florence. The British are notorious here as being the absolutely worst tourists because of it.

Polite indeed.So those are the first results you could find from a google search then!

What is interesting though is exactly what sort of people are emigrating and for the most part these are elderly people, while the number of people actually migrating to the UK are young, of child-bearing age, of good health and most importantly educated and of an economic participatory age. So I honestly don't see anything wrong with that, because we shift the elderly UK population to other countries, while at the same time taking in the young. In summary, tens of thousands of Brits are indeed leaving the country, but hundreds of thousands are arriving. Between 2001-mid 2004, the UK population grew by 1.04mn people. :laugh:

As Brits, yes we do binge drink, but I could name numerous problems with Italian and American societies, but this is not a thread geared to such a debate and I won't go into those details simply because I believe that would probably constitute a breach of forum rules and most likely cut deep. Afterall, every society has its problems. ;)





How can both be true? What does this say about tourism?Well Britain was crowned this title after tallying up the scores from observations from the several thousand people that were polled. Britain was observed as being perceived as boring, but as the same time being ranked top in politeness, education, sports and culture. London overtook Paris in around mid-2004 (Source: Mercer) to become the most visited city in the world and global aviation links to London continue to bulge: London's 5 international airports now handle close to 140mppa.





How creditable that is for us. Post the real poll results please and not what you believe.

I just don't know how you can work in any company if your research starts with "I believe."Actually it was a figure of speech for something that I had right in front of me. I also thought in this day in age where the internet is present, you could have typed in Anholt Nations Brand Index which I had clearly mentioned in that portion of my post (a simple google search would have provided a first link to the actual website that holds the report). That said to quell your interest, here is a press release: http://www.gmi-mr.com/gmipoll/release.php?p=20060221


London , 21st February 2006 – Britain is the world’s top nation brand, according to the latest Anholt Nation Brands Index (NBI) created by nation branding expert Simon Anholt and powered by GMI (Global Market Insite, Inc.), a global market intelligence solutions provider. Switzerland and Canada are placed second and third respectively in the overall ranking, which was based on a survey of 25,907 people in 35 countries. This fourth global NBI survey polled respondents worldwide about how they view a country’s culture, people, and appeal as a place to visit, invest in or migrate to.


For the first time ever, the latest NBI puts a dollar value on each nation brand. These brand valuations range from nearly US$18 trillion for ‘Brand America’ to $43 billion for ‘Brand Poland’. The UK came in 4 th place at $3.5 trillion (£2 trillion), following Japan and Germany. Many of the nation brand values are greater than the actual gross domestic product of the country – for example, the brand value of the USA is equivalent to 152% of its GDP, the UK 163% and in the case of Denmark 320%.


In the overall rankings, the UK was ranked number one, scoring particularly well on investment questions (1 st). The UK also ranked strongly for sports and cultural heritage (3 rd). As a nation brand, the UK’s greatest asset continues to be how its people are being perceived - for example, UK came fourth for highly skilled citizens.


“Britain is a hugely appealing and varied destination, for both business people and tourists, thanks to our strong mix of traditional and contemporary culture,” explains Tom Wright, chief executive of VisitBritain, the national tourism agency responsible for marketing Britain worldwide and developing England’s visitor economy . “In fact, you can think of Britain a little like an onion. There is always a new layer for visitors to peel back and discover and that’s why we are seeing more and more people coming back here every year.”


Simon Anholt explains further why Britain is number one: “ Brand UK continues to rank high because its scores are so consistently good in most categories and in most countries. Other countries get better scores here and there, but the UK hardly gets a low score from anyone .”


The USA is the world’s tenth most popular ranked nation brand. It is also the nation brand that most divides world opinion. The majority of NBI respondents ranked the USA near the top of such categories as product brands, popular culture, investment, technology, education and sport, but near the bottom for cultural heritage and governance.


The NBI also measured how respondents from other countries perceive people from other countries. UK citizens were considered to be the most polite, most boring and best educated. The French were seen as the rudest and Americans were viewed as the most ignorant and most ambitious. Dietmar Walter, managing director, Europe for GMI, explains: “Internet-based research means that we can now collect and measure global opinions about people and places incredibly quickly and accurately. The NBI is a great example of our capabilities, and it has proved to be a valuable tool to help governments and organisations across the world looking to promote their nation’s brand values to a global audience.”


Simon Anholt explains the value of the Nation Brands Index further: “What’s most exciting about the new NBI dollar valuations is how much it appears that a nation’s economy could be boosted or busted by a high or weak nation brand value. It’ll surely turn the heads of many citizens to know that based on our figures, their individual brand value is over $60,000 in the case of an American or as high as $143,000 for a Dane”.
The top ten ranking of the nation brands is:
UK
Switzerland
Canada
Italy
Sweden
Germany
Japan
France
Australia
United States About the Anholt Nation Brands Index

The Q4 Anholt Nation Brands Index was conducted November 08-19, 2005 on the GMIPoll platform (www.gmipoll.com (http://www.gmipoll.com/)), which provides integrated solutions for global market intelligence. A 200-1,000 representative sample based on age, gender, and where applicable, geographical region, race and ethnicity was collected in each of 35 countries. For further information about the Anholt Nation Brands Index methodology, please visit www.nationbrandindex.com (http://www.nationbrandindex.com/).
About Simon Anholt

Anholt developed the concept of the Nation Brands Index in 2005. The first Index was published in May 2005. He is recognized as one of the world’s leading authorities on the branding of countries, regions and cities. Anholt advises a number of national governments and United Nations agencies on brand strategy, public diplomacy, cultural relations, investment and export promotion, tourism and economic development. He is the editor of the quarterly journal, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, and the author of Brand New Justice, Brand America and several other books.

About GMI

GMI (Global Market Insite, Inc.) is the only company that provides comprehensive integrated solutions for global market intelligence for both market research firms and corporate market research departments at Global 2000 companies. Solutions include Net-MR, a suite of software tools to manage and automate research throughout the project lifecycle, desktop analysis tools, 24/7 service bureau capabilities, and one of the world’s largest, highly profiled, double opt-in managed panels, spanning across 200 countries. In addition, GMI offers high-value, real-time enterprise feedback solutions for customer, partner and employee programs. Founded in 1999 with world headquartersin Seattle, Wash., GMI has operations on five continents.

Fabrizio
March 12th, 2006, 07:22 PM
"So those are the first results you could find from a google search then!"

Please note that all of the articles posted are from legit resources... what does it matter to you if they were found in a search?

And glossing things over by boiling things down to "retirees" is avoiding the issue. As the Sunday Times reports:

"The polls show wishful thinking as well as actual movement. ICM and YouGov have both found that over half of a large sample would, in principle, move out of the country. Surveys by the Centre for Future Studies and the Alliance & Leicester International bank show that a third of British people are actively considering a move abroad, with the bank projecting that 6m of us — over a million families — will be gone by 2020. "

And:

"This is one of the more unexpected facets of the great exodus — that young people want to leave too. A poll of 11,000 16- to 29-year-olds conducted by the youth style magazine The Face showed that 46% thought the UK was "a worse place to live now than it was five years ago". Most are skilled and educated, the middle and respectable working classes, affluent enough to buy their way to a comfortable life. But there is an air of desperation about this grand depart. "We have noticed a big surge of people who are impatient to move, especially over the last year," says Sue John of the British Expat Forum, at her home in Charlotte, Virginia, in the US. "One thing that's really changed is the people, who don't even seem to care where they go. They say, 'We want to get out of Britain. We can't speak any languages. We just want to leave.'"

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

And please note: I only posted about the Brits horrible binge drinking epidemic because of your post mentioning the Brits as being percieved as the "most polite" (whatever that could mean) when in fact any hotel or pub owner in Europe will tell you of how unruly they are.

About that national brand ranking :

Countries are ranked "based on worldwide public perceptions of a country`s cultural, political, commercial and human assets, investment potential and tourist appeal".

And Italy comes in at 4th just behind the UK, Switzerland and Canada ( I´m trying to hold back the laughter...)..... ahead of Sweden, Germany, Japan, Australia, the USA, Norway, Denmark, New Zeland, Belgium......

My, my, ......considering that, compared to those others, Italy has the worst economy, is the most unorganized, the most corrupt, the least modern, the most ready to rip you off....and yet MIRACULOUSLY comes in at 4th.... pretty much proves my point:

ITALY is indeed the greatest country in the world.

good grief.

LeCom
March 12th, 2006, 07:26 PM
Not Number One, for sure, but probably in the top ten: who can tell us about Moscow?
Moscow is a madhouse. It literally makes New York seem homely and slow-paced. Traffic is off
the chain, business is lazzies faire, there is a ton of counstruction and redevelopment going on,
diversity is not at NY level but is steadily getting there. It is one of the grandest and busiest
places I know of. It has monumental city planning that New York lacks (I'm not saying New York
is not monumental, it's just so dense and crowded in all its central parts), it has enormous forest-parks
in the middle of the city, has 10 million people within city limits, world-class
museums, and its subway literally kicks ass (for instance, in New York you can sometimes hear
the train running underneath while you're walking the street while Moscow subway served as a
bomb shelter when Germans carpet-bombed the shit out of the city during WWII). Its 850+ years of
history have seen many different eras, from Czar rule to Napoleonic battles to the
Revolution and bloody civil war to the carnage of WWII to the Pax Romana of the late Soviet
state to this new era where capitalism runs as rampant as it did in America at the turn of the
20th century. It is very hard to say where the city is headed as each new century brings about
such drastic change. One thing is certain: it will remain the heart, brain and soul of the world's
largest country for years to come.

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/3197/red9un.jpg

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/5234/moscowpano13ex.jpg

http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/1570/moscowpano55iy.jpg

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/5421/moscowpano68gt.jpg

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/9463/moscowpano81sw.jpg

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/3312/mgu2mx.jpg

krulltime
March 12th, 2006, 07:28 PM
Actually it was a figure of speech for something that I had right in front of me. I also thought in this day in age where the internet is present, you could have typed in Anholt Nations Brand Index which I had clearly mentioned in that portion of my post (a simple google search would have provided a first link to the actual website that holds the report). That said to quell your interest, here is a press release: http://www.gmi-mr.com/gmipoll/release.php?p=20060221

Ok I'll look in here http://www.gmi-mr.com/gmipoll/release.php?p=20060221

krulltime
March 12th, 2006, 07:28 PM
^ Ok? I understand how people feel about the USA as a whole, most people (consumers) just don't like us, according to your source. That is very understandable why we are at 10th place in that list. With our current governemnt and all the bad headlines shown across the world about the USA. But either way the USA still number 1 in the highest economic value. I just don't really understand what your point is really.

Anyway here is the real news about the USA... (from the same website http://www.nationbrandindex.com/nbi_q4-us-press-release.phtml)


Brand America Worth USD $18 Trillion

-- Yet worldwide, consumers are polarized over perceptions of America’s economic opportunities, people and government --

SEATTLE – February 21, 2006 – The most recent Anholt Nation Brands Index (NBI,) created by nation branding expert Simon Anholt and powered by GMI (Global Market Insite, Inc.), a global market intelligence solutions provider, estimates the worth of Brand America at $18 trillion, ranking number one out of 32 nations. Yet, despite featuring the highest economic value, the United States came in 10th in the overall nation ranking and in last place for “consistency of brand.” This highlights that global consumers’ perceptions of what the U.S. has to offer are the most inconsistent of any other country surveyed.

The NBI, which polled 25,907 consumers around the globe, gauges people’s perceptions of 35 countries across six areas of national competence: Investment and Immigration, Exports, Culture and Heritage, People, Governance and Tourism. Introduced in Q2 of 2005 as the first analytical ranking of the world’s nation brands, the NBI puts a dollar value on each nation brand for the first time ever in its Q4 edition.

Brand America surpasses Brand Japan (second place), whose worth totals $6 trillion, and Brand Germany, weighing in at #3 with $4.5 trillion. Brand Poland comes last with a value of only $43 billion. The financial valuation of the nation brands was performed using the ‘royalty relief’ approach, which assumes a country does not own its own brand and calculates how much it would need to pay to license it from a third party. The present value of that stream of (hypothetical) brand contribution payments represents the value of the brand.

Although America’s strong brand value proves that the country is still an economic powerhouse that transcends its other attributes, including being good at sports and a great place to live for example, the U.S. is the most inconsistent scorer in the entire index in 35th position. Singapore, Portugal and Hungary top the charts for brand consistency, while South Korea and China are only slightly higher than the U.S. at 33rd and 34th, respectively. While the majority of respondents rank the U.S. near the top in categories such as brands/products, popular culture, investment, technology, education, and sport, an almost equal number rank it near the bottom for cultural heritage and governance. This kind of love/hate dynamic could compromise America’s ability to attract the respect and trust of other nations.

“People tend to think about countries as a complete entity when they are considering whether to visit them, buy their products, or engage with them in some other way,” said Simon Anholt. “The U.S. is a country that really polarizes global opinion, with top rankings in some categories and bottom rankings in others. The fragmented lens through which other nations view the United States has not yet impacted its economic value. However, the global dichotomy of perspective shown in this NBI edition could put Brand America in a vulnerable position over the long term.”

Also for the first time in the NBI, the U.S. gives itself second place for governance, ranking Canada at first place. American self-esteem appears to have slipped on several aspects of the governance rankings since the Q3 2005 edition: the panel scored the United States slightly lower on the question of international environmental and ethical policy, and substantially lower on questions of domestic policy and internal human rights and fairness. In fact, on international peace and security, Americans demote the U.S. from second to sixth place, compared with the third-quarter NBI results. The low self-confidence may be attributed to low presidential approval ratings, continued engagement in the Iraq war, and the potential for an even sharper rise in oil prices.

Even in traditionally strong areas, such as manufacturing, export and technology, the margin between the U.S. and its perceived economic rivals has narrowed. Perceptions that the U.S. is a country “which makes a major contribution to innovation in science and technology” have fallen by 1.8%, while perceptions of Japan’s contribution have increased by 0.26% and China’s by 3.03%.

“By keeping the finger on the pulse of global consumer opinion, the NBI keeps a temperature check of the nations’ health in today’s highly competitive global economy, where nations have to compete for investment, talent and recognition,” explains Mark Houston, chief marketing officer for GMI. “The NBI is one example,, among many that showcases the unlimited possibilities offered by online research: the ability to collect valuable market intelligence at any time, in real time, in any language anywhere around the world by leveraging an ever-expanding online panel of 5.5 million respondents in over 200 countries worldwide.”


© 2005 Nation Brands Index

ablarc
March 12th, 2006, 07:54 PM
Wow, LeCom, Moscow sounds interesting and dynamic. Maybe it's the real greatest city. Maybe it's the dark-horse; maybe it's the winner in the categories we care about on this forum --you know, street life, efficient transport, stimulating surroundings, rather than number of stockbrokers, commodities traders, poll wins, or beer drinkers.

Sounds worth a visit.

* * *

In the third pic there's a Stalin skyscraper that isn't the usual white color. Is that a building under demolition? Weren't they going to take down the big ol' hotel?

ablarc
March 12th, 2006, 08:11 PM
ITALY is indeed the greatest country in the world.
Well, actually, it is.

antinimby
March 12th, 2006, 08:51 PM
You guys are all WRONG! None of those cities mentioned are the world's greatest city because that title belongs (or soon will be) to Newark and Jersey City, New Jersey. Well, at least according to what a few boosters are saying (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3727&page=2):


Newark has great architecture and parks, these pics put it on display beautifully and these are just a small sampling of the beautiful architecture there. With the new Arena hosting various events such as the Devils and Seton Hall BAsketball, circus, concerts etc.., NJPAC, Newark Bears Stadium, subway extension, and the refurbishing of the surrounding buildings that has already started, this will help to bring Newark back to it's former glory. It may be hard to believe for some of you New Yorkers, but the intersection of Broad and Market was BUSIER than Time Square and was the busiest intersection in the world. Had more cars and people going through there per hour than any other intersection at the world and this was through the 20s-40s. Newark was once a great alternative to NYC for a night out and the people that would perfrom in Newark were the same headliners that would be in NYC. I mean Newark once had the population in the 40s-50s of 450,000. A little less than currently in Boston, thats how popular Newark was. Than after the riots it was down hill. But Newark will be back and along with it's come back and Jersey City's already having made a strong comeback, NYC will be given a run for its money.


I agree, I see the changes going on in the downtown area and its amazing and Jersey City is simply a burgeoning city ready to take over. I attend New Jersey City University and Im downtown all the time. Its become a mini manhattan over there. People dont realize Wall Street is moving to Jersey City and Newark is already one of the top Insurance towns in the world. Me being born and raised in East Orange I'm very proud of what I am seeing

So that's it, the debate is officially settled. The Newark and Jersey City duo are poised to take over and share the top spot. NYC, London, Moscow, Tokyo it is all over for you people. ;)

Alonzo-ny
March 13th, 2006, 07:48 AM
I can most definetely say britain i not boring we may be conservative in some respects, ie taking so long to build some skyscrapers but we all love having fun. and yes we do like booze but thats our culture and if you dont like it tough, maybe we are a bit unconsiderate on holiday when we get wasted and im guilty of that myself (apologies to paris and the couple whose moment i ruined shouting 'bonjour' while pissing off the sacre cour) but that isnt a large part of our population on holiday. Worst tourists in my opinion are french, they act as if your not there, ive been barged out of the way in edinburgh without so much as an an apology and this weekend for example i was looking for a book in borders when a french woman walks straight in and blocks me like i wasnt there, rude as hell. That explains my revenge in paris ha ha.

lofter1
March 13th, 2006, 09:27 AM
ha ha ^

That French <> Brit thing will go on forever, eh?

nick-taylor
March 13th, 2006, 10:54 AM
Please note that all of the articles posted are from legit resources... Where did I say that the sources you picked were not legit? I was just noting that even though people will be leaving Britain, far more will be coming into the country. Those that leave are mostly retirees, while those who are moving in are mostly young and of an economical age: how is that avoiding the issue because thats actually a good thing!

Also perceptions are different to actual migration figures and there is one thing I should point out: Brits are always the first to moan about something no matter if its good! When someone becomes successful, we'll be the first to try and find something about their past that bring them down: hence the tabloids.

Fact is: those who are leaving the country are mainly from the OAP age group: retired, old, low-economic productivity and not of suitable child bearing age.

I'm unsure as to exactly how binge drinking is an overall reflection upon politeness? Brits aren't drunk 24/7 if that is what you think. :laugh:

I think many people would choose Italy over the likes of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, etc because these countries for most people are too cold, too remote and too sparse. There is no great Milan or Rome in Scandanavia for instance. Of thoe countries, I'd say only Germany and Japan are above when it comes to public transportation, while Italy's welfare state and relaxed living mean that it is one of the healthiest societies on our planet. Remember - not everyone goes for the brains in a partner, but their physical features, the same can be said of Italy. :laugh:





^ Ok? I understand how people feel about the USA as a whole, most people (consumers) just don't like us, according to your source. That is very understandable why we are at 10th place in that list. With our current governemnt and all the bad headlines shown across the world about the USA. But either way the USA still number 1 in the highest economic value. I just don't really understand what your point is really.

Anyway here is the real news about the USA... (from the same website http://www.nationbrandindex.com/nbi_...-release.phtml (http://www.nationbrandindex.com/nbi_q4-us-press-release.phtml))Well what do you expect - the US has a vast population around 5x larger than either that of Britain or France! Hence why when you break it down, the US ranks lower than the 9 other countries which are above it!





That French <> Brit thing will go on forever, eh?Until France collapses of course ;)

Fabrizio
March 13th, 2006, 11:13 AM
"Those that leave are mostly retirees, while those who are moving in are mostly young and of an economical age: how is that avoiding the issue because thats actually a good thing!"

* sigh* Nick: again I r -e -p- e- a- t :

"The polls show wishful thinking as well as actual movement. ICM and YouGov have both found that over half of a large sample would, in principle, move out of the country. Surveys by the Centre for Future Studies and the Alliance & Leicester International bank show that a third of British people are actively considering a move abroad, with the bank projecting that 6m of us — over a million families — will be gone by 2020. "

And:

"This is one of the more unexpected facets of the great exodus — that young people want to leave too. A poll of 11,000 16- to 29-year-olds conducted by the youth style magazine The Face showed that 46% thought the UK was "a worse place to live now than it was five years ago". Most are skilled and educated, the middle and respectable working classes, affluent enough to buy their way to a comfortable life. But there is an air of desperation about this grand depart. "We have noticed a big surge of people who are impatient to move, especially over the last year," says Sue John of the British Expat Forum, at her home in Charlotte, Virginia, in the US. "One thing that's really changed is the people, who don't even seem to care where they go. They say, 'We want to get out of Britain. We can't speak any languages. We just want to leave.'"

BTW: The Britisn exodus ( or the "Great Exodus" as the Sunday Times calls it) (and intense desire to leave the place) is not just because of an inferior quality of life ...but also flight from the non-British ( muslims, Eastern europeans etc.) moving in.

More:

"One in six British graduates has deserted this country to work abroad, according to a new study.
Britain has lost more skilled workers, including scientists, bankers and doctors, than any other country in the world."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=366528&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article346141.ece

krulltime
March 13th, 2006, 11:40 AM
^ Wow those numbers are really surprising. I didn't know that so many british young people want to move out of the U.K.. I always though the U.K. was a cool country to live. I guess I was wrong. And I was thinking one day that I might live in London for a few years. Maybe I will just stay in New York City in the end and just visit London a few times instead.

BTW I am going to Europe this year and my plans will be to visit Spain, France and Italy. :)

TLOZ Link5
March 13th, 2006, 06:11 PM
In the third pic there's a Stalin skyscraper that isn't the usual white color. Is that a building under demolition? Weren't they going to take down the big ol' hotel?

That's actually Triumph-Palace, an apartment building that was finished in '05 or '04. It's meant to superficially resemble and complement the Seven Sisters, but it's a firmly modern building and currently the tallest in Europe. The hotel you're thinking of is only about 12-15 stories high and dates to 1935; it predates the Sisters by two decades.

nick-taylor
March 13th, 2006, 07:40 PM
"Those that leave are mostly retirees, while those who are moving in are mostly young and of an economical age: how is that avoiding the issue because thats actually a good thing!"

* sigh* Nick: again I r -e -p- e- a- t :

"The polls show wishful thinking as well as actual movement. ICM and YouGov have both found that over half of a large sample would, in principle, move out of the country. Surveys by the Centre for Future Studies and the Alliance & Leicester International bank show that a third of British people are actively considering a move abroad, with the bank projecting that 6m of us — over a million families — will be gone by 2020. "

And:

"This is one of the more unexpected facets of the great exodus — that young people want to leave too. A poll of 11,000 16- to 29-year-olds conducted by the youth style magazine The Face showed that 46% thought the UK was "a worse place to live now than it was five years ago". Most are skilled and educated, the middle and respectable working classes, affluent enough to buy their way to a comfortable life. But there is an air of desperation about this grand depart. "We have noticed a big surge of people who are impatient to move, especially over the last year," says Sue John of the British Expat Forum, at her home in Charlotte, Virginia, in the US. "One thing that's really changed is the people, who don't even seem to care where they go. They say, 'We want to get out of Britain. We can't speak any languages. We just want to leave.'"

BTW: The Britisn exodus ( or the "Great Exodus" as the Sunday Times calls it) (and intense desire to leave the place) is not just because of an inferior quality of life ...but also flight from the non-British ( muslims, Eastern europeans etc.) moving in.

More:

"One in six British graduates has deserted this country to work abroad, according to a new study.
Britain has lost more skilled workers, including scientists, bankers and doctors, than any other country in the world."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=366528&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article346141.eceThat is hypothesising that something like 20mn people are actively considering moving abroad. Yet the facts are 20mn people aren't migrating (unless you can somehow reference to me that Britain has lost 20mn over the last year :laugh: ). I bet if you polled the US after Bush was re-elected, you'd probably get similar figures simply because people would have pondered a move due to Bush being re-elected again.....yet the vast majority won't actually go through with it because when it actually comes down to the move, there aren't enough suitable places and those that do leave tend to return home unless they are mainly in the retiree bracket. Hence why more Australians are moving to Britain than Brits are moving to Australia: more Brits are returning home after the move not working out and Australians are coming to Britain.

I think you'll also find that those 'exodus' figures also include Brits that take a gap year between secondary and tertiary education (ie university) and families that migrate hoping for a better life, but end up returning home. Australia for example is one of the most sought after locations, but now Brits are returning home in their droves after being there for a few months or years, while at the same time Britain is now seeing massive inflows from Australians! In other words: a reverse is actually happening. I again quote the figures:

UK
2001 - 58,789,194
Mid 2004 - 59,834,300
+1,045,106

Also I'm unsure why you bring up those two articles....the first is a right-wing tabloid that is not an article but a list of chosen opinions to go with the ideological stance of the newspaper, while the second article again is a comment article. Are we going to start quoting from random blogs as reference to this debate? I'd also like to see this report, its methodology and who financed it.

The problem you fail to note though is that you are concentrating ONLY on the outward flow....but fail to notice that the inward flow is far higher. Infact I wouldn't be suprised that Britain is gaining more people with degrees than it is loosing due to many talented people from around the world migrating to Britain.

How is the UK's life 'inferior'? It has both a flexible and organic economy like the US, but a welfare state like the continent. According to the UN, the UK's Human Development Index is ranked 15th in the world: ie the UK is ranked above France, Germany and Italy...does this automatically mean that because you label the UK as being 'inferior' that somehow Germany, Italy and France are worse off, or should I say even more 'inferior'?

What is wrong with Britain absorbing immigrants - the vast majority are moving to the UK to have a good life. Infact the average migrant to the UK works harder than a 'native'. If anything Britain is becoming better, not worse.

Although there was a program on immigration recently and the hillarious thing was one family were like "these damn immigrants, taking our jobs, our healthcare. I'm so sick of it I'm moving to Spain" (I don't think they quite understood the contradiction in their own words).

Face it: the facts tell that Britain is booming, its economy has been doing better than even the US (per capita), our cities are all seeing massive repopulations, our living standards and freedoms have increased, we're becoming a more tolerant and open-minded country and our population is growing due to more Brits returning home and massive inroads caused by a wide variety of migrants including Australians, Canadians and Americans, among other groups.

By the way, instead of harping on about Britain's 'problems', did you ever consider to stand back and look at the state of Italy? Afterall it is in a sticky boat: people are leaving, not being born quick enough and not enough people are moving to Italy. In what - around 8 months, Italy has 'lost' around 350,000 people. I'd say thats ironic considering your tone used here, but I fear that that would dent your pride to much.

Italy
Dec 2004 - 58,462,375
July 2005 - 58,103,033
(359,342)

lofter1
March 14th, 2006, 12:00 AM
Italy Rocks

londonlawyer
March 14th, 2006, 12:02 AM
Personally, I think that Italy and the UK are both fantastic.

Fabrizio
March 14th, 2006, 04:20 AM
Nick: again you are refuting what your own press (left and right) is reporting: "The Great British Exodus". THEIR headlines, not invented by me.

OF COURSE Britain&#180;s population is growing with immigrants... so are most other European countries...duh. Many far out-pacing Britain: CIA population growth statistics for 2005: Britain + 0.28; Denmark 0.34; France 0.37; Portugal .39; Norway 0.40; Switzerland 0.49 ....and over in Australia 0.82...... the US 0.92.

So what&#180;s your point?

And BTW: another example of how you continualy chose to skewer statistics: Actually Italy&#180;s population has GROWN since 2002. In fact it had a boom in 2003, but has fallen off since then. CIA statistics show a growth rate of .07 for 2005.

BUT yes, compared to 2003, Italy&#180;s population "growth rate" has indeed fallen.... AS HAS Great Britains:

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=uk&v=24

Furthermore:

It should be noted that on the "UN livabilty index" that you mention, where the UK is ranked 15 (below: Norway, Iceland, Australia, Luxembourg, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Ireland, Belgium, Unites States, Japan, Netherlands, Finland and Denmark) the trend of it&#180;s ranking has been going DOWN:

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

And while you say that Britain. "has been doing better than even the US (per capita)" it should be noted that while Britain&#180;s GDP is on the rise, so is the US&#180;s (and so is Italy&#180;s for that matter).... but do note overall rankings per capita for 2005 :

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=us&v=67

As for:"By the way, instead of harping on about Britain's 'problems', did you ever consider to stand back and look at the state of Italy? Afterall it is in a sticky boat: people are leaving, not being born quick enough and not enough people are moving to Italy. In what - around 8 months, Italy has 'lost' around 350,000 people. I'd say thats ironic considering your tone used here, but I fear that that would dent your pride to much."

You know very well that Italians are not nationalistic and are the first to point out their countrys problems. You don&#180;t see us waving flags, blabbing about past military glories (if you can point one out...), lamenting about what might have been, or trying to teach others how to live. And you won&#180;t see an Italian doing the excruciatingly boring (and suspect) cheerleading of his country the way you are doing.

It&#180;s just not something that "un vero signore" does.

ablarc
March 14th, 2006, 06:39 AM
It´s just not something that "un vero signore" does.
That's right. Kid stuff. Belongs on SSP.

ZippyTheChimp
March 14th, 2006, 07:09 AM
Hah!

That brings it full circle.

nick-taylor
March 14th, 2006, 08:04 AM
Nick: again you are refuting what your own press (left and right) is reporting: "The Great British Exodus".

OF COURSE Britain´s population is growing with immigrants... so are most other European countries...many out pacing Britain. CIA population growth statistics for 2005: Britain + 0.28; Denmark 0.34; France 0.37; Portugal .39; Norway 0.4; Switzerland 0.49 ....and over in Australia 0.82...... the US 0.92.

So what´s your point?

And BTW another example of how you continualy skewer statistics: Actually Italy´s population has GROWN since 2002. In fact it had a boom in 2003, but has fallen off since then. CIA statistics show a growth rate of .07 for 2005.

BUT yes, compared to 2003, Italy´s population "growth rate" has indeed fallen.... AS HAS Great Britains:

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=uk&v=24

Furthermore:

It should be noted that on the "UN livabilty index" that you mention where the UK is ranked 15 (below: Norway, Iceland, Australia, Luxembourg, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Ireland, Belgium, Unites States, Japan, Netherlands, Finland and Denmark) the trend of it´s ranking has been going DOWN:

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

And while you say that Britain. "has been doing better than even the US (per capita)" it should be noted that while Britain´s GDP is on the rise, so is the US´s (and so Italy´s for that matter).... but do note overall rankings per capita for 2005 :

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=us&v=67

You know very well that Italians are not nationalistic and are the first to point out their countrys problems. You don´t see us waving flags, blabbing about past military glories (if you can point one out...), lamenting about what might have been, or trying to teach others how to live. And you won´t see an Italian doing the excruciatingly boring (and suspect) cheerleading of his country the way you are doing.

It´s just not something that "un vero signore" does.I argue what you say, because you are concentrating on just those that are leaving, but failing to take into account those that return and those that are entering the country. A company doesn't just post results on outcome, but on outcome and income.

Note that my figures were between December 2004 and July 2005 for Italy, not for all of 2005, or 2002. Note also how I clearly note that Britain is growing, but not stating that somehow its the fastest growing country. I should also point out that Italy is a country in danger of dying off: there are not enough births, too many peole are leaving the country, not enough people are migrating and too many people are dying. The UN POpulation Division estimates that are current trends caused by the aforementioned problems within Italian society - the Italian population will contract to just over 50mn by 2050. Britain meanwhile will have grown to 67mn and France 63mn. Germany will shrink to around 78mn. Naturally these are only estimates based on current trends and socio-economic factors present in these countries. Without action now though these trends will become a reality.

No Britain's population has not fallen, even your own source that you link to shows positive population growth. :D


Actually its not a trend if its between two figures, if anything it has shown that the UK has indeed slipped 3 places, but that isn't somehow a trend that the UK is on a downward spiral as you seem to perceive. Italy has jumped 3 places for instance, but that doesn't mean necessarily that there is a trend in place that will see it jump up another 3 places.

And? Wealth inequality in the US offsets GDP per capita for the US! In other words, yes the 'average' American is 'worth more' than a Brit with both respectively being $40,100 and $29,600....but not every American is around $40,100 and the same is said for Brits....now when you factor in wealth inequality which is statistically far higher in the US, you'd note that it actually evens out.

How am I cheerleading? I'm just putting the facts straight not the one setting the ball running (ie like yourself): yes people are leaving, but the vast majority that do are elderly and the young people that do actually leave are now returning after a few months or years abroad. Britain is also being aided by a reasonable birth rate and immigration.

I think you confuse us with the French with the flag waving and military parades...now if you're going to go on about Trafalgar 200, well that was a once in a lifetime event which most likely won't be repeated until 2105. Over half the participating vessels weren't even British - the largest ship there was the French Charles de Gaulle!

A true gentleman knows what he is talking about (using sources that aren't authoritiative or have been interpreted incorrectly doesn't hold much weight) without going on a one-sided crusade against another country which they seem to know very little about. I do find it laughable though as to how you can try and take the moral high ground when clearly you're just doing as many google searches as possible in an attempt to bundle stats together that don't reflect the entire picture within Britain.

Fabrizio
March 14th, 2006, 08:45 AM
"I argue what you say, because you are concentrating on just those that are leaving, but failing to take into account those that return and those that are entering the country. A company doesn't just post results on outcome, but on outcome and income."

I posted statistics that show that other European countries (as well as the US and Australia) far out pace Britains population "growth rate". So I really don&#180;t see what your point is.

Meanwhile I posted numerous articles that speak of the phenomena of the "Great British Exodus"... and the discontent with the country that is driving people... from retirees to working professionals out.

"No Britain's population has not fallen, even your own source that you link to shows positive population growth. "

NO WHERE have I said that Britains population has fallen... but the FACT is according to CIA statistics, in the past 3 years it&#180;s population "growth rate" HAS gone DOWN.

"....the Italian population will contract...." Bla, bla, bla....

Why are you babbling about Italy? YOUR the one desperate to convince... and skewering statistics. I really don&#180;t give a rat&#180;s a$$ how many people are in Italy this year OR next. This stuff for some reason is important to YOU.

About the living index:

"Actually its not a trend if its between two figures, if anything it has shown that the UK has indeed slipped 3 places, but that isn't somehow a trend that the UK is on a downward spiral as you seem to perceive. Italy has jumped 3 places for instance, but that doesn't mean necessarily that there is a trend in place that will see it jump up another 3 places."

Bud, the UK slipped from 12 to 15th place. No matter how you want to spin it......it&#180;s slipped from 12th to 15th place. That&#180;s NOT a postive sign.

You also write:

"Wealth inequality in the US offsets GDP per capita for the US! In other words, yes the 'average' American is 'worth more' than a Brit with both respectively being $40,100 and $29,600....but not every American is around $40,100 and the same is said for Brits....now when you factor in wealth inequality which is statistically far higher in the US, you'd note that it actually evens out."

Would you please back that up with some statistics? In the meantime: http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications.php?publication_id=2067

And: " the young people that do actually leave are now returning after a few months or years abroad".

Some proof on that please?

"using sources that aren't authoritiative or have been interpreted incorrectly doesn't hold much weight"

The UN, the CIA, the Times etc...all of my sources are documented... and they&#180;re from reputable sources... the thread is here for all to follow and others can make up their own minds.

(psssst...Nick.... you&#180;re not doing very well.)

nick-taylor
March 14th, 2006, 02:21 PM
I posted statistics that show that other European countries (as well as the US and Australia) far out pace Britains population "growth rate". So I really don´t see what your point is.

Meanwhile I posted numerous articles that speak of the phenomena of the "Great British Exodus"... and the discontent with the country that is driving people... from retirees to working professionals out.

NO WHERE have I said that Britains population has fallen... but the FACT is according to CIA statistics, in the past 3 years it´s population "growth rate" HAS gone DOWN.

Why are you babbling about Italy? YOUR the one desperate to convince... and skewering statistics. I really don´t give a rat´s a$$ how many people are in Italy this year OR next. This stuff for some reason is important to YOU.

About the living index:

Bud, the UK slipped from 12 to 15th place. No matter how you want to spin it......it´s slipped from 12th to 15th place. That´s NOT a postive sign.

You also write:

Would you please back that up with some statistics? In the meantime: http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications.php?publication_id=2067

And: " the young people that do actually leave are now returning after a few months or years abroad".

Some proof on that please?

The UN, the CIA, the Times etc...all of my sources are documented... and they´re from reputable sources... the thread is here for all to follow and others can make up their own minds.

(psssst...Nick.... you´re not doing very well.)You would have a point had I actually said that Britain was the fastest growing country in Europe....but I never said that. Instead I said that Britain was growing and your own chart shows a general positive trend across the timescale indicated in your source.

Britain's population is essentially making a profit - people do leave, but people are returning, while more people are coming to the UK.

People complain a lot in this country, but don't actually follow through with anything. All words, no action - either because they realise there isn't anywhere suitable to go to or they leave only to return after a few month/years. Quite a few people would probably say that they would kill Bush if they had the chance....but I doubt anyone would actually go through with this.

I wasn't the one that started off slagging Britain as to why anyone should want to go here - simply they do - more people are coming in than are leaving and I don't think you can accept that. I don't see why you should be concentrating on Britain, when:
a) I never stated that Britain is a utopia
b) Your own country is in a far more precarious situation
c) I never mentioned Italy in comparison to Britain

Where did I spin anything? I was just pointing out that it was not a trend as you had assumed because there were only two figures. Its like trying to get a mean from only one figure! I also never stated that it was good for Britain as I didn't actually comment on it.

Originally that was in reference to the exodus that includes the likes of gap year students - yes they are seen as leaving the country for extended periods of time and woud be counted in those figures. 50,000 pre-degree study students go on gap years in the UK, while around 25,000 go on a gap year post-degree studies. I for example lived in Singapore for three years and Ireland another year - I'd have been considered as being a part of that exodus - yet both times I've come back. You also didn't find the methodology for that report like I asked for!

I can only assume then that you aren't aware of something called the Gini Coefficient - it marks wealth equality/inequality...the lower the score, the lower the inequality, the higher, the higher the inequality.

UN HDI 2005 DPR
UK: 36
US: 46.6

Thus when you factor in the larger wealth and inequality of the average American, the difference between Britain and other European countries becomes less noticable.

You quoted two comment articles.....I'm unsure how exactly they are repuatble sources! Nobody would use a blog as a serious article, so why did you refer to comment articles? I'm unsure how I'm not doing well as I'm just stating the facts. You say Britain is loosing people; I say that it is gaining far more, that more people are returning and that places such as Australia are now feeding Britain's growth rather than the other way around. If you actually did proper research rather that googling, you might have a point to prove.




That said this all started with this post my yourself:


Jake: Well you know, it´s the truth. Who the hell would choose to live in England? And France? The south of France is pretty fab (despite the fact that so many British have moved there) but unfortunately it´s still full of Frenchmen.If anything you were the one who had everything to prove from your first post as France and Britain are the fastest growing of the large countries in the EU. At second glance its as if you have a major chip on your shoulder with us Brits and French so that would explain your insane love for debating Britain but unable to take criticism closer to home and no google won't help you out with sorting that problem out.

ablarc
March 14th, 2006, 03:33 PM
World's greatest city: Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Fabrizio
March 14th, 2006, 04:02 PM
"You quoted two comment articles". I&#180;m sorry but I don&#180;t know what you are refering to... the last link I posted (equality/inequality) was from the UK based "Institute for Financial Studies" (I don&#180;t know this organization, but it seems to check out as being very legit):

http://www.ifs.org.uk/aboutindex.php

and a paper they&#180;ve published: http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications.p...cation_id=2067

Please note: I made NO comment about the article....it&#180;s only a description of the article&#180;s contents. But it is interesting to note about their findings: "And even after controlling for age and income differences between the two countries, we show that the median US household accumulates more financial wealth than their UK counterpart".

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

I can go on but am rushing...in the meantime:

I think it&#180;s&#180;obvious to ANYONE that the comment: " Well you know, it&#180;s the truth. Who the hell would choose to live in England? And France? The south of France is pretty fab (despite the fact that so many British have moved there) but unfortunately it&#180;s still full of Frenchmen." Is meant to be humourous.

Especially considering that I had this to say when comparing my OWN country to others:

"Italy is the most unorganized, the most corrupt, the least modern, the most ready to rip you off"

And

"Italy comes in at 4th just behind the UK, Switzerland and Canada ( I&#180;m trying to hold back the laughter...)"

Does THAT sound like someone "unable to take criticism closer to home"?

*sigh* Nicky, Nicky, Nicky...

nick-taylor
March 14th, 2006, 07:05 PM
"You quoted two comment articles". I´m sorry but I don´t know what you are refering to... the last link I posted (equality/inequality) was from the UK based "Institute for Financial Studies" (I don´t know this organization, but it seems to check out as being very legit):

http://www.ifs.org.uk/aboutindex.php

and a paper they´ve published: http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications.p...cation_id=2067

Please note: I made NO comment about the article....it´s only a description of the article´s contents. But it is interesting to note about their findings: "And even after controlling for age and income differences between the two countries, we show that the median US household accumulates more financial wealth than their UK counterpart".

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

I can go on but am rushing...in the meantime:

I think it´s´obvious to ANYONE that the comment: " Well you know, it´s the truth. Who the hell would choose to live in England? And France? The south of France is pretty fab (despite the fact that so many British have moved there) but unfortunately it´s still full of Frenchmen." Is meant to be humourous.

Especially considering that I had this to say when comparing my OWN country to others:

"Italy is the most unorganized, the most corrupt, the least modern, the most ready to rip you off"

And

"Italy comes in at 4th just behind the UK, Switzerland and Canada ( I´m trying to hold back the laughter...)"

Does THAT sound like someone "unable to take criticism closer to home"?

*sigh* Nicky, Nicky, Nicky...Firstly let me remind you of the two comment articles that you posted back on the 13March, 2006 at 04:13 PM:
- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...id=1770&ct= 5 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=366528&in_page_id=1770&ct=5)
- http://comment.independent.co.uk/lea...icle346141.ece (http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article346141.ece)

The first is a tabloid collection of specific baised opinions to back up the tabloid title of "This is why millions are leaving Britain, Mr Blair". If you can't see the political message there, then I do worry, especially as the Daily Mail is a heavily right-wing paper and can't even get the heading right (ie that could be over any given timescale). Guaranteed, there will be graduates that leave the country - this happens everywhere, but I suspect the figure also includes those that depart the UK to go on gap years after graduating which involve doing part-time work to fund travels around the planet. Remember - smart people always look at the source, the bias of the source and the different interpretations that could be made from it and clearly with the likes of the Daily Mail, you have to take into account that a tabloid is liable to twist the truth. Infact the Daily Mail is much like The Sun, just with different journalists or Fox News in paper format: a different viewpoint but filled with messed up and inaccurate/incomplete facts and figures.

The second is a comment article: it even mentions that in the URL meaning its not actual journalism but some rant by an individual. The stub mentions Australia, but Australia is worried (commissioning a report into the causes of change) that there is now a net outflow from Australia to Britain and not the other way around which had been the case in previous decades. The comment article also does not go into detail as to the exact breakdown of those leaving. For example, gap years have increased rapidly due to far larger numbers of tertiary education students and flexible income, while the onslaught of the low-cost carriers such as Easyjet and Ryanair have in the last 5 years made second home ownership on the continent a common thing. One out of every three residents in the Dordogne or France are now Brits - but they are either retiring there or staying there for the Summer. As the EU has also become more integrated, the elderly who are traditionally of the lowest mobility are now branching out to Spain and France in their droves and essentially this isn't bad for the UK because it shifts the burden of the elderly to Spain.


Secondly, the report you cited (http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications.php?publication_id=2067) was published in 2000: nearly six years ago. The UN however with their HDI ranking (latest being 2005, or less than a few months old) takes into account gini coefficients for all countries in the world and clearly shows the US with greater wealth inequality than the UK. Infact the UK is somewhere inbetween European nations and the US. Like with most things, the UK is economically, politically and socially neither close to America nor Europe.


Thirdly, how are we meant to be know that that was just 'humour'. If I hadn't re-addressed your original point you wouldn't have actually noted anytime soon that that was 'humour'. Also if you counted the number of words where you criticise the UK and those for Italy, you'd note a wee bias towards the UK and if you can't acknowledge that, then I think you'll have trouble not only debating with me, but with other people outside these forums.

Fabrizio
March 14th, 2006, 07:36 PM
Fine.... besides those articles, I posted at least 4 others about the same subject....including a 3 page article from the Times. All of the articles...right and left... are in AGREEMENT about what the Times calls "the Great British Exodus". A phenomena also reported in the press here, the Herald Tribune and heard from British acquaintences.

Shall I post others?

"Also if you counted the number of words where you criticise the UK and those for Italy, you'd note a wee bias towards the UK and if you can't acknowledge that, then I think you'll have trouble not only debating with me, but with other people outside these forums."

Go ahead and "count words" but if you READ what I wrote: "Italy is the most unorganized, the most corrupt, the least modern, the most ready to rip you off" ....how can you POSSIBLY say that I&#180;m "unable to take criticism closer to home "? As another poster here has described you:

You is.... "confused".

nick-taylor
March 15th, 2006, 05:07 AM
Fine.... besides those articles, I posted at least 4 others about the same subject....including a 3 page article from the Times. All of the articles...right and left... are in AGREEMENT about what the Times calls "the Great British Exodus". A phenomena also reported in the press here, the Herald Tribune and heard from British acquaintences.

Shall I post others?

Go ahead and "count words" but if you READ what I wrote: "Italy is the most unorganized, the most corrupt, the least modern, the most ready to rip you off" ....how can you POSSIBLY say that I´m "unable to take criticism closer to home "? As another poster here has described you:

You is.... "confused".Well lets take a look at that Times article and low and behold it actually confirms exactly what I've been saying:

"A substantial rise, but possibly not the true figure, because the International Passenger Survey — the source of most migration statistics — doesn't isolate the emigrant from others that leave, including temporary students and contract workers."

It also states that a majority are the over 50's (ie retirees) which backs up my points that they are not of child bearing age and on the economic productivity decline. This is good for Britain.

An interesting thing though, is that while some of the people complain of rain - most parts of the UK see less rain than the Middle East, while the likes of London have only slightly more rain than Los Angeles.

Also do you not see that those that are migrating then to not be that well educated....

"We have both worked our entire lives, and other than a house we could barely cover the bills on, that is all we had amassed in the UK," wrote Jennifer Brown and her husband, who recently moved to Australia. "England is overpriced, taxed to hell and our policy for immigration is absurd. We spent months getting in here, and I applaud Australia for being so vigilant. I don't ever want to be squeezed out again by immigrants taking my country for a ride." :D

And from the same article:

"Colin Marchant adds that those who do return are often reluctant to speak ill of the experience. "There's a lot of pride involved in emigration," he says. "People always want to let you know they're doing well. In reality, I think there are a few stages of emigration: the initial excitement, the adjustment period, then the hard slog. I've noticed that if they get past two years, they don't usually return home."
Conversely, can Britain really be the overcrowded, stress-inducing, crime-ridden hellhole described by the emigrants? The economist Christian Dustmann, himself from Germany, finds that the positive aspects of the UK can be overlooked by its residents. "I see many good things here," he says. "There's a very flexible labour market, and the public services aren't as bad as people think.""


Why post other sources when they won't actually go into more detail about the actual socio-economic groups that are moving other than to note that the majority that migrate are retirees. A similar thing is happening with the US with retirees and the like migrating to Florida from say the north-east US. The only difference is that Floria is another state, while Spain is another country within the EU.


Yet you have still spoken more about Britain when I said nothing to exagerate its position.


If you had actually read that thread, you'd notice that I wasn't the one 'confused'...afterall why don't you note the points he made, such as that he actually believes MI5 want our medical records for some devious purpose but its all a secret so nobody knows about it... Or that he believes planes are environmentally more sustainable than the average train... Like usual, the fools group together, almost as if its a binding magnetic force!

Alonzo-ny
March 15th, 2006, 08:09 AM
Britain is a really good place to live but we are just adventurous maybe something passed down from the empire days but we love to go somewhere else and try another life, also the weather is a factor and money. Britain is extremely expensive, a pound buys you the same amount of product as a dollar but is worth almost twice as much. Our taxes are big too 17.5% sales tax on everything you buy. For some people its hard to stay here when you can have australia for less money. I for one plan to move to new york as soon as i can but its not because i hate scotland but because i love new york.

Fabrizio
March 15th, 2006, 09:05 AM
Nick:

From THE SAME Times article:

"There is no doubt that the British are leaving en masse"

"ICM and YouGov have both found that over half of a large sample would, in principle, move out of the country. Surveys by the Centre for Future Studies and the Alliance & Leicester International bank show that a third of British people are actively considering a move abroad, with the bank projecting that 6m of us — over a million families — will be gone by 2020."

"This is one of the more unexpected facets of the great exodus — that young people want to leave too. A poll of 11,000 16- to 29-year-olds conducted by the youth style magazine The Face showed that 46% thought the UK was "a worse place to live now than it was five years ago". Most are skilled and educated, the middle and respectable working classes, affluent enough to buy their way to a comfortable life. But there is an air of desperation about this grand depart. "We have noticed a big surge of people who are impatient to move, especially over the last year," says Sue John of the British Expat Forum, at her home in Charlotte, Virginia, in the US. "One thing that's really changed is the people, who don't even seem to care where they go. They say, 'We want to get out of Britain. We can't speak any languages. We just want to leave.'"

"The "push" factors come next, and here the picture becomes murkier. Many of those who post on the British Expat Forum talk about the poor quality of life in the UK, and refer to the breakdown of society as the reason they wanted to make the move. It's a litany of British discontent: overcrowding, high crime, low crime detection, high stress, antisocial behaviour, expensive house prices, shabby pension cover, traffic jams, terrorist alerts — even user-unfriendly pubs and restaurants. Speed cameras are a common grumble; more importantly, so are poor schools and hospitals"

Another interseting article:

http://www.workpermit.com/news/2006_02_20/uk/record_number_britons_leave.htm

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

BTW: why do you INSIST on copying and pasting nearly my ENTIRE posts in your replies? Besides being rude to other members, it is against forum rules.

MrSpice
March 15th, 2006, 09:49 AM
Are you guys preparing for the writing contest or something?

Some people may want to leave the U.K., but by all objective measures, U.K. has one of the most dynamic economies in Europe, some of the least restrictive labor laws and some of the lowest uneployment numbers in Western Europe. Whereas Italy has high unemployment, very tight labor laws, a lot of beauracracy and curruption and the government that is highly inefficient and can't get things done. And for any casual traveller to Europe, the differences between the UK and Italy aer aparent. In the UK everything works like a clockwork. In Italy, you get charged for everything. You often oay a lot for a relatively poor service.

ZippyTheChimp
March 15th, 2006, 09:58 AM
Not that it has any relevance to "the world's greatest city," but efficiency notwithstanding, this casual traveller woiuld rather spend a few weeks in Italy.

Fabrizio
March 15th, 2006, 10:10 AM
Actually these exchanges have no relevance to the worlds greatest city.... but I just couldn&#180;t let some comments pass by... OK enough!

BTW Mr Spice: no argument here... but despite all of that, for some strange reason if I had to choose between the two....

lofter1
March 15th, 2006, 10:13 AM
Italy has high unemployment, very tight labor laws, a lot of beauracracy and curruption and the government that is highly inefficient and can't get things done.
But you can have a long delicious meal and a refreshing passagiata afterwards.

Give me a week in the UK and a month in Italy and I'd be very happy.

MrSpice
March 15th, 2006, 11:40 AM
But you can have a long delicious meal and a refreshing passagiata afterwards.

Give me a week in the UK and a month in Italy and I'd be very happy.

I agree. Italy is such a beautiful country with great weather and amazing natural attractions. Rome may be the world's greatest city, but I have not been there, so can't comment on that.

LeCom
March 15th, 2006, 12:19 PM
Wow, LeCom, Moscow sounds interesting and dynamic. Maybe it's the real greatest city. Maybe it's the dark-horse; maybe it's the winner in the categories we care about on this forum --you know, street life, efficient transport, stimulating surroundings, rather than number of stockbrokers, commodities traders, poll wins, or beer drinkers.

Sounds worth a visit.

* * *

In the third pic there's a Stalin skyscraper that isn't the usual white color. Is that a building under demolition? Weren't they going to take down the big ol' hotel?
Maybe that city is the winner. Maybe not. My take on it is that these contests are pointless. I mean, if aliens promised to destroy all Earth cities except one and we had to choose one, then it would matter. But if that's not happening, choosing a definite winner is pointless. There ain't one.

As for the skyscraper, they aren't demolishing it - they're building it. Triumph Palace, a new residential done in the old school Stalin style.

lofter1
March 15th, 2006, 01:14 PM
Rome may be the world's greatest city, but I have not been there, so can't comment on that.
Ahhh, yes ... it's incredible.

As long as you're not doing business there ;) .

Despite living there for a couple of years a number of years ago I never did figure out the "under the table" 30% portion of payments that everyone kept talking about.

Fabrizio, can you give an update -- is that still the Roman way, or has EU connection put an end to that?

Fabrizio
March 15th, 2006, 02:54 PM
30% sounds about right.

nick-taylor
March 15th, 2006, 06:13 PM
Nick:

From THE SAME Times article:

"There is no doubt that the British are leaving en masse"

"ICM and YouGov have both found that over half of a large sample would, in principle, move out of the country. Surveys by the Centre for Future Studies and the Alliance & Leicester International bank show that a third of British people are actively considering a move abroad, with the bank projecting that 6m of us — over a million families — will be gone by 2020."

"This is one of the more unexpected facets of the great exodus — that young people want to leave too. A poll of 11,000 16- to 29-year-olds conducted by the youth style magazine The Face showed that 46% thought the UK was "a worse place to live now than it was five years ago". Most are skilled and educated, the middle and respectable working classes, affluent enough to buy their way to a comfortable life. But there is an air of desperation about this grand depart. "We have noticed a big surge of people who are impatient to move, especially over the last year," says Sue John of the British Expat Forum, at her home in Charlotte, Virginia, in the US. "One thing that's really changed is the people, who don't even seem to care where they go. They say, 'We want to get out of Britain. We can't speak any languages. We just want to leave.'"

"The "push" factors come next, and here the picture becomes murkier. Many of those who post on the British Expat Forum talk about the poor quality of life in the UK, and refer to the breakdown of society as the reason they wanted to make the move. It's a litany of British discontent: overcrowding, high crime, low crime detection, high stress, antisocial behaviour, expensive house prices, shabby pension cover, traffic jams, terrorist alerts — even user-unfriendly pubs and restaurants. Speed cameras are a common grumble; more importantly, so are poor schools and hospitals"

Another interseting article:

http://www.workpermit.com/news/2006_02_20/uk/record_number_britons_leave.htm

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

BTW: why do you INSIST on copying and pasting nearly my ENTIRE posts in your replies? Besides being rude to other members, it is against forum rules.Yet the majority that are leaving tend to be elderly and retired - I see nothing wrong with this whatsoever infact it makes Britain and our cities more youthful and vibrant.

6mn might indeed leave, but I'd bet that due to retirees forming the majority of this 'exodus', ie around 5mn. The rest being those that go elsewhere just like any other country.

A poll isn't vindictive of the bulk of individuals who are actually emigrating though. Like I said, you might get millions maybe billions wanting to strangle Bush...but it doesn't mean they will go through with it. That poll says half of the young working generation want to leave, reality: nowhere near that actually does because they usuall realise just how bad it is elsewhere, how they won't fit in or they become homesick.

Yet those 'push factors' are mostly false. Britain for a start is not overcrowded - yes it has a high population density, but he majority of the country is vast rural areas with pockets of market towns and the like. Compared to the continent crime is lower. You're more likely to be murdered in any of the larger destination countries than you are in Britain! Crime prevention has gone up, its just so has the population! Antisocial behaviour can be found anywhere. Yeah house prices are high, but they are what every person in this country builds up to - its their core asset. Pensions are something that have to be met by the individual - going to Spain or Australia will actually decrease your chances of a stable pension, not increase it. Traffic jams are every where - depends where you live and the UK has extensive public transportation, especially when compared to say Australia and Canada. While terrorist threats are all around the world - Spain has ETA terrorists and islamic terrorists struck Spain as well as Britain. You won't find British pubs outside Britain, just like you won't find authentic continental cafes outside the continent. If people didn't speed, they wouldn't have to worry about speed cameras: its because of speed cameras and other precautions that Britain has one of the lowest fatalities per driven km of any nation in the world! According to the OECD, Britain is 'statistically significantly above the OECD average', ie above the likes of France and Germany, but equal with Canada, Australia and Japan...also except for the US, the only country that offers a globally recognised university system is the UK: hence why UK universities have something like 300,000 foreign students. British healthcare remarkably according to the WHO ranks higher than either the US or Germany - not as high as the heavily funded systems of Italy, France and Japan, but its above the MEDC average. Yes Britain isn't perfect - but nobody is claiming this, but its important to get across that many opinions are flawed and the majority that tend to follow them are uneducated and usually socially and economically regressive.

That article you produces makes even more sense - of the 350,000 who were a part of that exodus, only 207,600 were British citizens (the 142,400 others are foreign students and foreign nationals returning home). Of these the vast number are elderly. At the same time though, 582,500 entered the country and have stayed for more than a year.

Also another thing is it states one in six graduates leaves the UK: I can assume that this includes foreign students which you guessed it make up around 15% of university places! Like I said, many things can be interpreted differently.

Another example from your new source that shows that those that are leaving tend to be not to well educated.... "He added: "I am fed up with this country and what is happening to it with immigration and the like. When I was made redundant it took eight weeks to get any payment for the Jobseeker's Allowance - it's things like that that make me want to leave." Ironically they are migrating to Australia which I have no problem with - but I do have a problem with people that complain of immigration here when then go to a country that is built around immigration!

Interestingly while it mentions people are still moving to Australia, it doesn't mention the larger numbers moving back and Australian nationals moving to the UK.

Fact: People are leaving the UK
Fact: The majority of those leaving are elderly, retired, not of suitable child bearing age and economically declining
Fact: The 'exodus' figure includes those that are on their gap year between studies and those on work placements elsewhere with full knowledge of coming back home as well as foreign students and others returning back to their home nation
Fact: Many families that leave Britain end up returning after becoming homesick or unable to fit in (there was actually a programme in the UK about this)


I quote your post to ensure clarity and to prevent you from altering your post afterwards in light of a problem. And where have I been rude? I was clearly pointing out that you shouldn't refer to another forumers' comments about me especially when he had even more absurd ideas and theories than yourself! If proving people wrong in a mature manner is against forum rules then I must be guilty! :D

MrSpice
March 15th, 2006, 06:18 PM
I heard the UK has problem with bad teeth :) I think most people that leave the UK are dentists :)

Jake
March 15th, 2006, 07:02 PM
wait...what does this mean?


We can't speak any languages

lol, who? the British? What language do they need to emigrate?

Fabrizio
March 16th, 2006, 04:27 AM
Aaaaaarrrrggggg! He&#180;s Back!!!!!

Just to illustrate to the forum how this guy operates:

I say to Nick-Taylor:

"BTW: why do you INSIST on copying and pasting nearly my ENTIRE posts in your replies? Besides being rude to other members, it is against forum rules."

English is not my daily language, but I THINK this sentence is clear and well stated. Now look how this guy sets up straw men and spins things around:

His relpy:

"I quote your post to ensure clarity and to prevent you from altering your post afterwards in light of a problem. And where have I been rude? I was clearly pointing out that you shouldn't refer to another forumers' comments about me especially when he had even more absurd ideas and theories than yourself! If proving people wrong in a mature manner is against forum rules then I must be guilty! "

First of all, note the sleazy: "to prevent you from altering your post afterwards in light of a problem." Wha?

Then:

"And where have I been rude? I was clearly pointing out that you shouldn't refer to another forumers' comments about me especially when he had even more absurd ideas and theories than yourself! "

Again...what? I&#180;m clearly saying that: posting the entire posts of others is rude....but notice how he changes this around and goes out into left field.

Then:

"If proving people wrong in a mature manner is against forum rules then I must be guilty! ""

Notice the straw man. Again, my original statement clearly states: posting the entire posts of others "is against forum rules". Now under Nick-Taylor, it becomes: "If proving people wrong in a mature manner is against forum rules then I must be guilty! "

Geeeese!

ablarc
March 16th, 2006, 06:46 AM
My take on it is that these contests are pointless. I mean, if aliens promised to destroy all Earth cities except one and we had to choose one, then it would matter. But if that's not happening, choosing a definite winner is pointless.
We're not even doing that. Thread's become a pissing contest. Time to move on.

ZippyTheChimp
March 16th, 2006, 08:01 AM
Nick Taylor: There is a policy at WNY concerning quoting text. It is not rigorously enforced, but we do expect posters to abide by the rules when they are made aware of them.

Fabrizio: Just a suggestion. I've wondered why you don't make use of the "quote tags" around the passages you cite, changing

"This"

into

This

LeCom and ablarc: Yup. But at least this thread didn't become the usual high maintenance item for moderators.

What's funny is that the thread starter is long gone, and one remark by another, who also dropped out of the discussion, fueled the London debate. I doubt too many people who visited London would consider it the "toilet of Europe."

The archives are full of variations on the theme: Capital of the World, blah blah. If you were travelling in 150 AD, the choice would be obvious, but the playing field is more level today.

Fabrizio
March 16th, 2006, 08:28 AM
Zip: Because I&#180;ve never liked that shade of blue..... no actually, because I&#180;ve never been able to figure out how to do that.

ZippyTheChimp
March 16th, 2006, 09:12 AM
Use quote tags.
I've left a space in the format so it would show up:


The passage you want to quote

becomes


The passage you want to quote

If you want to attribute the passage to a person, use an equal sign:

The passage you want to quote[/quote ]

becomes

[quote=Joe]The passage you want to quote.


There's a button above the message window that puts the tags in automatically, and others for bold, italic, or underline.

The codes are listed here:
http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/misc.php?do=bbcode

nick-taylor
March 17th, 2006, 11:52 AM
Fabrizio - I do that with all my posts anywhere no matter who, just to ensure that they don't alter their posts afterwards which 'alters' the debate.

How is it rude to quote the forumer that I am answering - you are doing the exactly same thing just deciding to answer points you think you can answer, but ignoring others that you have lost!

I'm also unsure as to why you've turned the argument to debating my style of quoting....unable to actively argue my points? Google won't help you win this debate.




ZippyTheChimp - I'll respect those wishes.

Fabrizio
March 17th, 2006, 02:29 PM
Uh.... Nick you are truly losing me. What on earth are you tallking about here?:

"How is it rude to quote the forumer that I am answering...."

Where in the world do I say anything about such? My comment was:

"BTW: why do you INSIST on copying and pasting nearly my ENTIRE posts in your replies? Besides being rude to other members, it is against forum rules."

In other words it is not the quoting that is rude....what is rude is copying and posting ENTIRE posts. It is against forum rules because IT ( copying and pasting ENTIRE posts) takes up unnessesary space and bandwith, assumes others can&#180;t follow a thread etc. It is so rude it is AGAINST FORUM RULES. NOT the fact that you are quoting someone.... but that you are copying and pasting their ENTIRE posts.

WHEW!

Got it now?

And:

Again just to show you how this guy operates. In one sentence, see how he spins and contradicts:

"I'm also unsure as to why you've turned the argument to debating my style of quoting....unable to actively argue my points? Google won't help you win this debate."

Notice how he claims I&#180;ve turned the argument into debating his style of quoting (when in fact my comment about his style of quoting was separated by a line.... keeping it clearly OUT of the debate) BUT in the same breath says: "Google won't help you win this debate."

In otherwords: now HE&#180;s turned the argument into debating my style of research.

LOL. Nicky, Nicky, Nicky...

nick-taylor
March 17th, 2006, 06:27 PM
Fabrizio - There was no need for you to yet again to go on a rant after failing to address my original points. In summy of your post of 'who would want to move to Britain, well many hundreds of thousands are. Those that are leaving are mostly elderly, but the figure you continue to resort to includes mean youngsters who go on trips around the world inbetween education in the UK and those leaving to go back to their home country.

You would have nothing to show to anyone else had you actually backed up your original post - because people are coming here and very few are actually leaving for good.

I would also argue that you have turned this debate into a miserable critique of my quoting, especially as you have failed to continue the earlier debate you started in regards to the current inflows and outflows into the UK. Infact in the last three posts you have mentioning nothing in regards to Britain, but have instead dedicated them towards myself. I on the otherhand have.

I do find 'googling' as a sole means of information collection and being used as an authoratative and whole approach to understanding topics (which you do) as a heavily flawed approach. There are items called journals around which you might or might have access to or of course there are the options of resorting to actual sources that bring together the figures and facts instead of comment pages or newspaper headlines.

By the way, the reason as I mentioned as to why I quoted people and now will not was just proven by yourself - you re-edited your post 17mins after originally posting it. ;)

Fabrizio
March 18th, 2006, 07:06 AM
....and the contradictions a keep on comin´:

Collecting articles from The Times, statistics from the CIA, from the UN etc., through a Google search is suddenly a "flawed approach" yet to Krulltime he RECOMMENDS doing a Google search:

"I also thought in this day in age where the internet is present, you could have typed in Anholt Nations Brand Index which I had clearly mentioned in that portion of my post (a simple google search would have provided a first link....)"

and the sleaze:

"By the way, the reason as I mentioned as to why I quoted people and now will not was just proven by yourself - you re-edited your post 17mins after originally posting it."

But it certainly was NOT edited AFTER your reply.

Nick!

nick-taylor
March 18th, 2006, 11:06 AM
....and the contradictions a keep on comin´:

Collecting articles from The Times, statistics from the CIA, from the UN etc., through a Google search is suddenly a "flawed approach" yet to Krulltime he RECOMMENDS doing a Google search:
How is it contradictory? I dissected your sources....

Of the 350,000 that leave each year, 142,000 aren't British citizens (ie 40% are those on short term work placement in the UK and are foreign students). The remaining 207,000 (60%) are formed of students who go on gap years inbetween secondary and tertiary education, those that go on short-term work placements around the world and the elderly (who aren't of child bearing age and not as economically active). Your own sources illustrate this!

I was not the one that referred to 'comment articles' as a source of proving a point - you were and that is not a respectable source. I actually recommended using google for a specific issue (ie for Anholt Nations Brand Index....not for example 'Is Britain a good country'); not a general issue which would introduce far more problematic issues, eg comment articles.

How is is that sleaze? I clearly pointed out earlier a reason as to why I quoted an entire post - because it stops people from editing their post sometime afterwards to cover up their fundamenal errors. You so happened to re-edit your post 17mins afterwards, unfortunately I was not online inbetween the time you posted and edited, so you could have created a whole new post for all I know. I also did not mention that I posted inbetween the time you had posted and edited that post.

ablarc
March 18th, 2006, 02:01 PM
Exegesis.

Fabrizio
March 18th, 2006, 06:10 PM
Gesis indeed!

Get this: my sources are flawed ...yet Nick is now using them to prove his point.

This is fascinating.

Funny, my flawed sources report the following:

"More than 350,000 men and women are emigrating every year, a rise of 30 per cent in 10 years...."

"Experts are particularly concerned that the number of people in professional occupations leaving Britain has doubled since 1994."

"Of the people leaving the UK, 207,600 were British citizens, the highest since current records began in 1991. The number of people in the professional classes emigrating almost doubled from 69,000 to 122,000 in the same period."

"Poor workforce planning has also meant that hundreds of newly qualified junior doctors have found that there are no jobs for them in Britain, despite the fact that the NHS needs more staff. Andrew Roland, deputy chair of the British Medical Association's junior doctors committee said: "These are people who have trained for years to work in the NHS and have then found that there is no job for them.

"Doctors are not going abroad for an easier life, but to start their careers. The problem is about whether they come back or not."

"A report by the World Bank last year found that one in six graduates leaves the UK, more than any other Western country. Professor Andrew Oswald, professor of economics at Warwick University, said: "We have a severe problem in holding on to our best graduates. A junior academic economist in Britain will earn about &#163;25,000 a year; in America, they start on about &#163;50,000 to &#163;60,000."

Heck even the flawed UN livability index shows Britain slipping 3 places from it&#180;s last report.

The flawed UN, the flawed Times, the flawed... it&#180;s all flawed.

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

"You so happened to re-edit your post 17mins afterwards, unfortunately I was not online inbetween the time you posted and edited, so you could have created a whole new post for all I know."


Yeah, it&#180;s kind of like those lost Nixon tapes.

Anyway, it IS unfortunate you weren&#180;t on-line.

Could you post your mobile?

I&#180;ll make sure to give you a ring next time I&#180;m ready to post.

nick-taylor
March 18th, 2006, 07:53 PM
I actually focused on your flawed sources such as quoting comment articles, I didn't say that UN articles were flawed. The others are reasonable but even then they don't highlight the significance of the groups that make up that total, be that their nationality and why they are leaving (eg students on gap year, etc...) or their age - ie retired.

The rise can be explained by:
- More people returning to their country due to more people arriving in the first place
- More students going on gap years due to more people attending university and wishing to take a break before tertiary education
- The global economy and EU becoming more flexible allowing people to go abroad for short-term work placements (eg those in the professional classes)
- The immense rise in foreign students has led to a rise in those returning returning home (ie professional classes)
- More elderly people are seeking retirement in other areas

All your quotes can be backed up by actual points within the articles (which I have already noted) which highlight areas that you seem to neglect, eg rise in gap year students, foreigners returning due to more entering the country, etc.... Either way in reply to your first post in this thread - more people are coming to the UK than are leaving.

Fabrizio
March 19th, 2006, 05:39 AM
"Either way in reply to your first post in this thread - more people are coming to the UK than are leaving."

(....oh, boy)

If you NOTICED, I never argued with you on that point.

My comment, backed with links, was: "the BRITISH are leaving in droves". The phenomena is called "the BRITISH exodus".

Note the use of the word "BRITISH". Not "people".

Sunday Times:

"There is no doubt that the British are leaving en masse"

"...emigration professionals claim that the human outpouring is little short of a deluge."

"...one of the more unexpected facets of the great exodus — that young people want to leave too."

and etc.

nick-taylor
March 19th, 2006, 07:52 AM
Fabrizio - But 40% (142,000) of that 350,000 exodus figure aren't even British!

Also that figure includes those going on gap years and short-term work placements which mean that they are coming back to the UK. Factor in this and the figure continues to fall and in reality the actual level of families migrating has probably not changed significantly, but that other socio-economic and migrating groups have.

Also the rise in foreign students at British universities is naturally going to lead to an increase in those going home: hence the increase in graduats leaving the UK....there are more coming here to study in the first place (300,000 to be accurate). The biggest rise has been those who are elderly and retired and personally I have no problems with this because it decreases the average age of the UK and cuts off these people who become more dependent upon British society which eases the pressure off of the likes of me and others of my age.

Many people say different things, but it doesn't mean that they'll actually follow through with it. The figures speak for themselves: the rise are by those who are retired and those returning back to their home country!

ablarc
March 19th, 2006, 08:23 AM
They got tired of arguing.

* * *

Nick, show us some more pubs. Can I put in a request for London pubs? Do you do the interiors?

And Fabrizio, when do we get to see Tuscany? There's a little place called Monteriggiano...

Fabrizio
March 19th, 2006, 09:37 AM
"They got tired of arguing"

Ablarc... if you´re going to quote my Google searched articles at least quote them correctly.... reasons given are: "overcrowding, high crime, low crime detection, high stress, antisocial behaviour, expensive house prices, shabby pension cover, traffic jams, terrorist alerts — even user-unfriendly pubs and restaurants. Speed cameras are a common grumble; more importantly, so are poor schools and hospitals."

Monteriggiano? Yes they´re moving there too!

nick-taylor
March 19th, 2006, 05:13 PM
ablarc - I don't live in London so that would be a hard thing to do.




Fabrizio - Yet on most of those points other countries are worse, eg education, terrorist alerts, crime, etc.. People say that its bad here...but don't know how bad it is elsewhere. People think - it doesn't make them necessarily right and that is why not many people are leaving (ie those who are economically active, young and fertile) compared to the elderly who are looking for a retirement home. The facts and figres speak for themselves, not a select few opinions and I think this is a problem that you can't seem to quite attach to.

ablarc
March 19th, 2006, 05:53 PM
"They got tired of arguing"

Ablarc... if you´re going to quote my Google searched articles...
Did I do that? I thought I wrote that line.

Somnambulating.

Alonzo-ny
March 20th, 2006, 09:10 AM
I heard the UK has problem with bad teeth :) I think most people that leave the UK are dentists :)

Really stupid stereotype

Alonzo-ny
March 20th, 2006, 09:23 AM
300,000 out of 60 million people is hardly an exodus. I dont know how many in this thread are actually live in the uk but it is extremely multi-cultural. My friends include malaysian, chinese, nigerian, etc and this is at my college city of 150,000 population 80 miles from my home in glasgow. Id also venture glasgow and edinburgh are almost as multi-cultural as london.

ablarc
March 20th, 2006, 10:42 AM
The new melting pot.

Is it also the de-Europanization of Europe?

ZippyTheChimp
March 23rd, 2006, 09:54 AM
Gotham Gazette - http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/civilrights/20060323/3/1796

London and NYC Compared On Surveillance, Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, etc.

by Andy Humm
23 Mar 2006

I just spent a week in London where I was photographed about 300 times a day. No, the paparazzi were not interested in the civil rights topic page writer for Gotham Gazette. That is the average number of times someone in London is captured daily on closed circuit television cameras – whether in the Underground (their subway), driving into the city, or just walking along the street. The police force for the city’s square-mile financial district (called, confusingly, the City of London), photographs every person and every vehicle that comes within its boundaries.

Now, New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly has announced that the city will use $9.1 million in federal homeland security funds to install 505 surveillance cameras (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/401834p-340392c.html) in 253 locations around the city -- and will be pushing to do what London has done, create what the department is calling a “ring of steel” around the financial district in downtown Manhattan, photographing every person and vehicle coming south of Chambers Street.

This is far from the only idea that New Yorkers have taken from our sister city -- or that some New Yorkers are advocating -- on a range of matters from transportation to security. A high number of them seem to involve civil liberties in one way or another. But in recent incidents touching on such matters, the cities are not exactly clones of one another -- and the contrast in their approaches may be instructive.

Recognizing Same-Sex Relationships

London has leap-frogged New York in the recognition of same-sex relationships, performing more than 700 “civil partnerships” in just a single month after they became legally available on December 21. The new United Kingdom law accords gay couples most of the rights of marriage, unlike the limited rights New York City has granted through domestic partnerships starting in the early 1990s.

New York City does recognize same-sex marriages -- but only if they have been performed legally elsewhere such as Canada. Mayor Mike Bloomberg is in court fighting against the obligation of the city to give marriage licenses to gay couples, a case that will be heard by New York State’s high court on May 31 in Albany. If the gay couples prevail, New York will still not catch up to London because the United States prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages no matter what the states may do.

Mayors And Free Speech

While Republican Bloomberg was chastised by civil libertarians for his approach to free speech when he curbed mass demonstrations in New York against the Iraq War in March 2003 and the Republican National Convention in 2004, Mayor Ken Livingstone of London, a Socialist in the Labour Party, participates in his city’s protests of the war policies of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair. Now Bloomberg is scoring points with First Amendment protectors by refusing to fire the Correction Department’s top chaplain, (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/15/nyregion/15imam.html?ex=1300078800&en=43b644d0745e0d35&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss ) Imam Abdul-Jalil for anti-Zionist remarks he made outside of work.

Perhaps the strangest debate over free speech is being waged over something Livingstone said that prompted a quasi-governmental board to order his suspension from office for a month beginning March 1. He appealed to the courts and the suspension was stayed. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1720398,00.html)

In February 2005, Livingstone got into a verbal contretemps with a reporter he despises from the Evening Standard newspaper. He asked the reporter, Oliver Finegold, whether he had ever been a "German war criminal." The Guardian reported, "On being told that the reporter objected to the remark and was Jewish, the mayor said: 'Ah, well you might be but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren't you?'''

The Board of Deputies of British Jews complained to something called the Adjudication Panel, "the government body which deals with serious disciplinary cases involving local government," the paper wrote. They judged the mayor's remarks "insensitive" and sanctioned him because he was unapologetic.

Richie Nimmo of Manchester wrote to the Guardian, the suspension "is just the latest example of a creeping orthodoxy in British public life, according to which you cannot say anything that offends anyone if it can be construed to be in any way connected to their ethnic or religious identity. The placing of community relations above freedom of expression, satire and vigorous argument, whether in the form of the cancellation of a theatre production in Birmingham, the self-censorship of cartoons across Britain or the suspension of an elected representative in London, is a sinister development."

In his own essay in the same paper, Livingstone wrote, (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1720374,00.html) "The fundamental issue in this whole affair is not whether or not I was 'insensitive,' it is the principle that those whom the people elect should only be removed by the people or because they have broken the law."

If New York mayors could be suspended for "insensitive" remarks, Ed Koch and Rudy Giuliani might not have served more than a few weeks between them. Koch used to brag about "giving ulcers, not getting them." And Giuliani did things like calling an innocent man killed by the police "no altar boy," based on sealed juvenile records he was under no authority to release. Both mayors suffered a dip in the polls attributed to such off-the-cuff remarks.

Recently, Giuliani called upon his fellow Italian Americans to lighten up about their criticisms that one of his favorite TV shows, HBO's "The Sopranos," defames their ethnic group. "You could spend your whole life wanting to be insulted," he told the New York Times. "Why?” Of course, Giuliani acted deeply offended when a portrait at the Brooklyn Museum of Mary, the mother of Jesus, was displayed because it contained elephant dung. He tried to get the city to reduce the museum’s subsidy, an effort blocked in court because it involved government censorship.

The Flap Over “My Name is Rachel Corrie"

While not a civil liberties issue because it does not involve censorship by the state, one of the most direct contrasts between London and New York involves a play called "My Name is Rachel Corrie." When it was mounted at the Royal Court Theatre in London, it was a sold-out hit. But a planned production of it at New York Theater Workshop was postponed, provoking much debate over self-censorship in the arts. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/16/theater/newsandfeatures/16corr.html?ex=1300165200&en=4fc92316b2d56797&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)

The play, by noted actor Alan Rickman and Kathleen Viner, is drawn from the diaries of Corrie, a 23-year old American who three years ago “was killed by an Israeli Army bulldozer in the Gaza Strip as she tried to protect a Palestinian home,” the New York Times reported. After James Nicola, the artistic director of the New York Theater Workshop, spoke to "friends and colleagues in the artistic community and to religious leaders as well as to representatives of the Jewish community, because the play involved Israeli action" (as he explains in a note on the theater company's Web site), he made the decision to postpone the production: "As we listened to various opinions and read thousands of entries on websites and blogs, we realized we needed to find ways to let Rachel’s words rise above the polemics. We regret that requesting more time to achieve that goal was interpreted as failing to fulfill a commitment and, worse, as censorship."

"I don't think we were worried about the audience," he told the New York Times. "I think we were more worried that those who had never encountered her writing, never encountered the piece, would be using this as an opportunity to position their arguments.”

Nicola has been attacked by everyone from 2005 British Nobel Prize winner Harold Pinter to Tony Award winning playwright Tony Kushner, whose work is often produced at the Workshop. Viner, writing in the Guardian (http://arts.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1720592,00.html) where she is an editor, said, “Since when did theatre come to be about those who don't go to see it? If the play itself, as Mr. Nicola clearly concedes, is not the problem, then isn't the answer to get people in to watch it, rather than exercising prior censorship? With freedom of speech now at the top of the international agenda, and George Clooney's outstanding ‘Good Night, and Good Luck’ reminding us of the dangers of not standing up to witch-hunts, Americans should not be denied the right to hear Rachel Corrie's words -- words that only two weeks ago were deemed acceptable.”

The play will now get a West End (their equivalent of Broadway) production in London starting on March 28, and the search for another American producer is currently underway.

The Right to Protest

London is an easier place to protest publicly, despite all the security. Anti-war demonstrators are virtually camped out 24 hours a day on the sidewalk directly across from the entrance to Parliament, unthinkable these days either at City Hall or at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. During the world-wide protests at the start of the Iraq War in February 2003, demonstrators in London had the run of the town and paraded right past the Houses of Parliament. In New York, the police department prevented marchers from going past the United Nations and even from joining the demonstration on the side streets to which it was restricted.

When I was in London, I passed a peaceful anti-war vigil of about 40 people in Trafalgar Square one evening. There were no police in sight. In New York a few months ago, by contrast, a small picket of housing activists working for home rule on rent regulation laws was not only prevented from marching past the home of Mayor Michael Bloomberg on East 79th Street, but there were swarms of cops and virtually everyone in the demonstration was photographed and videotaped by a police unit.

On the other hand, there may have been no effective difference in the surveillance: After all, the London demonstrators were no doubt picked up by the omnipresent closed circuit cameras.

Surveillance, Security and Civil Liberties

New York frequently follows London’s lead in instituting security measures. It wasn’t directly after 9/11 or when Spain’s commuter trains were bombed by terrorists in 2004 that New York began making spot bag checks for people entering the subways; it was when London was attacked this past July.

And now the New York Police Department is proposing to take London's lead in saturation surveillance of Wall Street, and reportedly contemplating (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06025/644077.stm) similar treatment for midtown Manhattan as well. There is also a plan to install closed circuit cameras throughout our subway system, which is scheduled for completion in 2008.

Those who advocate for such heightened surveillance echo the sentiments of Jack Gin, who heads a private security company in Great Britain called Extreme CCTV: (http://www.securityinfowatch.com/article/article.jsp?id=5014&siteSection=387) “I suggest that without security, we would lose the foundation upon which civil liberties exist," he said shortly after the London bombings. "Without security, we would have no freedom."

The New York Civil Liberties Union sees it differently: “What's next? A GPS [Global Positioning System] tracking device on every bumper? Cameras in our living rooms? Where does it end?” Donna Lieberman and Christopher Dunn of the New York Civil Liberties Union asked in the Daily News. (http://www.nydailynews.com/02-05-2006/news/ideas_opinions/story/388470p-329629c.html)

Critics point to a 2005 study of closed circuit TV surveillance (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/16856213?source=Evening%20Standard) in 14 British cities, which found that it had no significant effect on crime in 13 of them, mostly due to understaffing of monitors and poor images at night. They did play a key role in identifying the July 7 Underground and bus bombers, but only after they had done their deeds.

Liberty, the British equivalent of the American Civil Liberties Union, is wary of the misuses of images captured by all the TV cameras. But the organization is more stirred up about proposals for the future -- a national identification card and a national registry, which, it says, " will fundamentally change the relationship between the individual and the state,” (http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/press/2006/id-cards-compulsion-by-stealth.shtml) intrude on privacy, and adversely affect race relations without having a real impact on crime and terrorism.

But if in some ways London has instituted, and is contemplating, stricter security measures than those in New York, in other ways they are less strict. Bag checks are not a routine experience in London. The British Museum and most others do not ask to look into the bags of people entering, whereas guards at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York always do so now.

Andy Humm, a former member of the City Commission on Human Rights, has been in charge of the civil rights topic page since its inception in 2001. He is co-host of the weekly "Gay USA" on Manhattan Neighborhood Network (34 on Time-Warner; 107 on RCN) on Thursdays at 11 PM.

Gotham Gazette - http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/civilrights/20060323/3/1796

MrSpice
March 23rd, 2006, 10:56 AM
London is an easier place to protest publicly, despite all the security. Anti-war demonstrators are virtually camped out 24 hours a day on the sidewalk directly across from the entrance to Parliament, unthinkable these days either at City Hall or at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. During the world-wide protests at the start of the Iraq War in February 2003, demonstrators in London had the run of the town and paraded right past the Houses of Parliament. In New York, the police department prevented marchers from going past the United Nations and even from joining the demonstration on the side streets to which it was restricted.

When I was in London, I passed a peaceful anti-war vigil of about 40 people in Trafalgar Square one evening. There were no police in sight. In New York a few months ago, by contrast, a small picket of housing activists working for home rule on rent regulation laws was not only prevented from marching past the home of Mayor Michael Bloomberg on East 79th Street, but there were swarms of cops and virtually everyone in the demonstration was photographed and videotaped by a police unit.



This is such nonsense. The official residences of ministers and Prime Minister at 10 Downing Street are very well protected. There's a huge gate that prevents anyone from coming close to them and a bunch of police with automatic weapons guard the gates all day. Secondly, the US has the 1st Amendment, constitutional right to protest and say whatever you want. UK on the hand, has several laws on the books that on the sufice are supposed to limit only hate and other objectionable speech but in reality can be used to limit free speech: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4673301.stm

I see a lot of protests and demonstrations happening without any police presense in New York - for example on Union Square. And I think it's a good thing that major can go home without being harrassed by protesters. This is his private home for which he paid with his own money. Protesters can demonstrate before the City Hall where Major Bloomberg works and they often do. This article is an attempt to present New York as a city that's inferior to London in terms of human rights and I think it's not really the case.

ZippyTheChimp
March 23rd, 2006, 11:21 AM
This is such nonsense. The official residences of ministers and Prime Minister at 10 Downing Street are very well protected. There's a huge gate that prevents anyone from coming close to them and a bunch of police with automatic weapons guard the gates all day.did the article state official residences or 10 Downing St, or was it Parliament?

If you think it is so easy to protest at City Hall, try it and let me know what happens.

czsz
March 23rd, 2006, 12:34 PM
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11768176/site/newsweek/

Goodbye, Manhattan
London has turned hot for international banking.

By Rana Foroohar
Newsweek

March 20, 2006 issue - Ten years ago the British gave up investment banking, selling off financial-services firms one by one to American behemoths. Ever since, the conventional wisdom has been that London would always play second fiddle to Manhattan as a global investment capital. But some surprising figures for 2005 are forcing investors to think again. Not only did London overtake New York as the market of choice for international IPOs, but Europe (led by London) surpassed the United States in terms of the value of all new listings.The numbers say a lot about the changing nature of global finance.

For starters, growth is coming from emerging markets—and many emerging- market companies are heading to London to raise money. The trend is largely due to Sarbanes-Oxley, the complex corporate regulatory regime put in place by the U.S. government in 2002 after the Enron debacle. "Sox" reporting standards are so arduous they are scaring away many foreign companies that might have chosen to list in New York. Individual companies are reluctant to state their Sox aversion on the record, for fear of being seen to play regulatory arbitrage. But in a London Stock Exchange survey of international firms that went public last year, 90 percent said the demands of Sarbanes-Oxley made listing in London more attractive. The result was a record year for international listings in London, including whoppers like the $1.6 billion IPO of the online gambling site PartyGaming.

At the same time, the LSE is aggressively marketing the City as the world's "true" global financial capital, pointing out it does the most international equity trading, has the largest pool of international funds and is the world's leading cross-border lender. "There's $700 billion worth of institutional capital here invested in foreign equities," says Tracey Pierce of the LSE.

London's claim to be the capital of global finance is a bit cheeky, given that the market caps of both the New York and Tokyo Stock Exchanges are larger than the LSE's. But it has one surprising edge. Among the big three financial capitals, London is the only exporter of financial services. While the United States runs a $6.82 billion trade deficit in financial services, and Japan runs a $610 million deficit, Britain enjoys a $32.6 billion surplus, according to 2004 IMF figures, the latest available.

How is it that Japan, with its notoriously protectionist system, and the United States, with its enormous financial industry, can be importers of financial services? A lot has to do with one of the least sexy sectors of the money trade, far from the hedge-fund sharks and private-equity barons: insurance. The United States runs a $17 billion surplus in banking services, but that's more than erased by an insurance deficit of nearly $24 billion, much of which is provided by Europe.

Insurance is less important to the U.K.'s export surplus, accounting for about one third of the total. Banking provides the rest. While the United States and Japan boast large home markets, the British market is only about one fifth the size of America's, and its bankers have had to go abroad to prosper. London has gained ground in key growth areas of banking, particularly as the European markets have consolidated there. Europe's share of the global financial market is increasing: for example, Europe now accounts for 63 percent of the international commercial-bank market, compared with just 17 percent in the United States.

None of this means Wall Street is suffering. The American markets are still the most liquid in the world. And since Margaret Thatcher's deregulation in the 1980s, American banks have dominated the City. Likewise, many American venture-capital firms like Benchmark have big offices in the City, which expects to add thousands of jobs.

A raft of new deals in 2006 will ensure they do. Europe now does more M&A deals by volume than the United States, and that trend is likely to continue. Increasing privatization on the Continent will further fuel business in London. A recent Morgan Stanley report says Arab oil windfalls are flowing to London as well, because Middle Eastern investors have trouble buying in the United States. London has become so popular for emerging-market investors that some fund managers are calling for tighter rules to ward off dodgy outsiders.

Recently, the Corporation of London, which represents the city's financial district, opened offices in Beijing and Shanghai to promote financial ties between China and the U.K. Britain's financial-services companies may not be strictly British—but as long as the money keeps coming, few in the City seem to care.

nick-taylor
March 23rd, 2006, 02:11 PM
This is such nonsense. The official residences of ministers and Prime Minister at 10 Downing Street are very well protected. There's a huge gate that prevents anyone from coming close to them and a bunch of police with automatic weapons guard the gates all day. Secondly, the US has the 1st Amendment, constitutional right to protest and say whatever you want. UK on the hand, has several laws on the books that on the sufice are supposed to limit only hate and other objectionable speech but in reality can be used to limit free speech: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4673301.stm

I see a lot of protests and demonstrations happening without any police presense in New York - for example on Union Square. And I think it's a good thing that major can go home without being harrassed by protesters. This is his private home for which he paid with his own money. Protesters can demonstrate before the City Hall where Major Bloomberg works and they often do. This article is an attempt to present New York as a city that's inferior to London in terms of human rights and I think it's not really the case.There didn't use to be a gate: you could freely walk in, but when the IRA decided to introduce a mortar launcher to the equation things unfortunately changed. I suspect if New York had a similar political entity and a similar incident happened, then you'd probably get the same reaction like you would anywhere. That said, you get 'closer' to Blair's home than you do Bush's.

Also I'm unsure why you bring up 10 Downing Street anyway - its pretty much like the White House, but there isn't anything similar to it in New York.

nick-taylor
March 23rd, 2006, 02:26 PM
I should also add that 10 Downing Street is also where the Cabinet sits - ie where the PM and heads of government departments (treasury, foreign office, health, education, transport, etc...) come together.

Gregory Tenenbaum
January 12th, 2007, 06:32 AM
Nick,

Sorry to tell you this.

But with the terrorism, airports, traffic and the people, London is a hole. I used to fly through London; I like Cathay Pacific - 4 flights a day to/from Hong Kong and you cant go wrong.

But now I fly with Scandinavian through Copenhagen and thank god I can avoid going through that dangerous dirty labrinthine airport called Heathrow and the City of London.

Sorry, it's just not a great city if you aren't interested in the royals.

GreenwichSE10
January 19th, 2007, 10:29 AM
Im sure we will manage to struggle on without you in our lives.:D

Gregory Tenenbaum
January 19th, 2007, 11:29 AM
Don't mind me.

Actually if it weren't for the Royals I wonder how much tourism there would be in the UK.

But then I suppose you do have the London Eye. Very impressive.

Fabrizio
January 19th, 2007, 11:39 AM
Gregory, I hate to break this to you...

http://goofyblog.net/china-builds-the-worlds-largest-ferris-wheel/

OmegaNYC
January 19th, 2007, 12:45 PM
I wonder if the wheel is going to have a giant "Made in China" logo on it. :rolleyes:

ablarc
January 19th, 2007, 12:45 PM
Maybe we could call a moratorium on all this Britain-bashing --even if nick keeps sticking his chin out.

Monrose
January 19th, 2007, 01:40 PM
Heyy i dont read the whole Thread but i think a great City is the city were i am from an this is Cologne. Cologne is a beatiful City with many atrations.

wjfox2007
January 19th, 2007, 08:28 PM
I think London and New York are tied for 1st place, with Paris a very close 2nd.

Monrose
January 20th, 2007, 09:55 AM
Number3 is Cologne the biggest Metrpole in Europe

nick-taylor
January 20th, 2007, 05:10 PM
Gregory, I hate to break this to you...

http://goofyblog.net/china-builds-the-worlds-largest-ferris-wheel/

Now that is a pity considering that the London Eye isn't even a ferris wheel because its an observation wheel:
- Supported from only one side
- Pods are attached to the superstructure instead of hanging like in ferris wheels
- Ferris Wheel cabs move with gravity, each observation wheel pod moves mechanically


http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/2485/londoneyejan20065qa.jpg


http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/7268/aeriallondon20gk.jpg




The ones for Las Vegas, Shanghai, Singapore, Beijing, etc... aren't observation wheels - they are ferris wheels. ;)

Fabrizio
January 20th, 2007, 05:41 PM
Gregory: sorry for the false alarm.


BTW: That water looks so filthy... whats the deal there?

Gregory Tenenbaum
January 20th, 2007, 06:01 PM
Gregory, I hate to break this to you...

http://goofyblog.net/china-builds-the-worlds-largest-ferris-wheel/

I was being sarcastic for once. What is so impressive about the London Eye anway?

I would rather go on Captain Spauldings Murder an' Monsters ride

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EONpkwA0sSA

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

Just to get some of his tasty fried chicken - it beats some uberprocessed food I've had in England.

ablarc
January 20th, 2007, 10:00 PM
Now that is a pity considering that the London Eye isn't even a ferris wheel because its an observation wheel ...
...and furthermore a Land Rover is not a car because it's an SUV.

ZippyTheChimp
January 21st, 2007, 07:12 AM
I remember when Land Rover was a true off-road vehicle, not something that divided its time between a Westchester driveway and the mall parking lot.

Fabrizio
January 21st, 2007, 07:41 AM
You really cant blame the Brits though...LandRover is owned by Ford...as are the Jag and Aston Martin. The MG is Chinese. Mini, Bentley and Rolls are German.

I might be wrong, but I think the only car companies still owned by the Brits are Hillman and Humber.

ZippyTheChimp
January 21st, 2007, 08:10 AM
I blame America for all SUVs.

It began in the late 70s with mandated fuel economy laws. Trucks were exempt from these rules. Off-roaders like the Cherokee were trucks.

The Big Three began to market them as alternatives to the minivan, developed by Chrysler and an outstanding concept for a family vehicle, bur boring for married men who missed the Road Runners and GTOs of their youth.

So macho became outdoorsy - sort of.

The rest of the world could not ignore the market.

ZippyTheChimp
January 21st, 2007, 08:29 AM
Anyway, looks like a ferris wheel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferris_wheel) to me.

Fabrizio
January 21st, 2007, 08:41 AM
I cant figure out if this is Ferris Wheel or an Observation Wheel (maybe Nick can clue us in) but as for STYLE-content goes, it puts everyone else to shame. (You can bet theres no snacking and cell-phones on this thing):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Ferris_ups.jpg


---

Gregory Tenenbaum
January 24th, 2007, 04:06 AM
I cant figure out if this is Ferris Wheel or an Observation Wheel (maybe Nick can clue us in) but as for STYLE-content goes, it puts everyone else to shame. (You can bet theres no snacking and cell-phones on this thing):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Ferris_ups.jpg


---

Nice one.

clubBR
January 27th, 2007, 06:26 AM
the worlds greatest city after new york is
Pyongyang, DPRK

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0c/PyongyangSat.jpg/800px-PyongyangSat.jpg
The capital of the most illegal country in the world

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/14/Pyongyang.jpg
Changwang Street in Pyongyang

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/MetroPyongyang.jpg
Pyŏngyang Metro.
Cars were made and bought from Berlin from between May 1996- May 1999. Length of track 22.5km.
It was rumored that the subway was used for the underground transportation of nuclear weapons.

http://www.travel-earth.com/dprk/pyongyang-day.jpg
Pyongyang Skyline

http://www.travel-earth.com/dprk/pyongyang-mansudae.jpg
The Man-Su Dae Modesty Monument

http://www.travel-earth.com/dprk/pyongyang-juche-tower.jpg
170 meter tall Juche Tower, built from 25550 stones for Kim Il-Sungs 70th birthday
http://www.travel-earth.com/dprk/pyongyang-ryugyong.jpg
The still unfinished Ryugyong Hotel, at 105 stories. It would have been the world's largest hotel

http://www.travel-earth.com/dprk/pyongyang-traffic.jpg
There are no traffic lights in Pyongyang

http://www.travel-earth.com/dprk/pyongyang-mangyongdae.jpg
Mangyongdae (meaning Mangyong Hill) is the birthplace of Kim Il-Sing, and so it is also one of the major sites of pilgrimage in North Korea. Everyday thousands of people congregate in Mangyongdae to study the modest conditions Kim Il-Sung grew up in. Mangyong Hill is a place of worship

http://www.travel-earth.com/dprk/pyongyang-metro.jpg
Pyongyang Metro

From: http://www.travel-earth.com/dprk/pyongyang/
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyong_Yang

ablarc
January 27th, 2007, 03:02 PM
the worlds greatest city after new york is
Pyongyang
That settles it.

Fabrizio
January 27th, 2007, 04:00 PM
So that makes it :

1- New York City
2- Pyongyang
3- Paris





4- London

ablarc
January 27th, 2007, 04:09 PM
^ Women's rights are high on their list of concerns.

ZippyTheChimp
January 27th, 2007, 04:50 PM
So I guess Pyongyang doesn't need a congestion charge.

haloperi
February 4th, 2007, 07:13 PM
Can't really give ranks... (because they're all so different)

NYC - Cultural/energetic/diverse

Tokyo - technological/energetic/unique
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo
---> Shibuya Ward (Harajuku)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibuya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harajuku

------> Although I'm in love with Kyoto because it's such a classic city... (it still holds many traditional values and you can still see some geisha in the streets of the Gion district) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisha
It's a really enriched city
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto

Lol, as you can see I'm a Japanophile

Paris - beautiful/art
(but only if you speak French, lol)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris

NYC244
February 24th, 2007, 02:34 PM
zagreb;)