London is considered the 7th most expensive city in the world. NYC is way down on the list at 27th.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/31/real...ost_expensive/
Maybe that´s an indication of why on the Economist Intellegenc Unit "Quality of Life Index" Great Britain is ranked a sorry 29th.... the US 13th.
Italy 8th.... even with Berlusconi.
I´m telling you guys, you need leaders like him. Gold chains and bikini underwear.
http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:...&ct=clnk&cd=13
Last edited by Fabrizio; April 25th, 2006 at 11:50 AM.
Exactly my point.Originally Posted by MidtownGuy
I've heard during my travels people all over the world describing London as "Unecessarily Expensive".
It is expensive, and for what? One of the worlds most goddamn ugly skylines. Hong Kong's expensive too, and so is Tokyo, and Moscow, but at least you get something interesting and good food too (yes, just look at the Moscow ladies).
There is a good reason why there was so much immigration from the UK 300 years ago to the present day.
Tenenbaum
Last edited by Gregory Tenenbaum; April 26th, 2006 at 02:31 AM.
If cost was everything then you shouldn't be in New York cause thats far from being the cheapest city around: you're contradicting yourself!
And yes salaries do bridge the gap - its no coincidence that salaries across finance are now higher in London and I'd take figures over perceptions simply because perceptions don't cover such a vast issue when figures do.
Interestingly when I was having a discussion with one of Londonlawyer's aliases over at SSC it became apparent that if London was considered to have a metro area of around 13mn it turned out that per capita people were richer than in the New York metro per capita. So there is some ground behind this.
Fabrizio - If you actually took into account the methodology you'll understand a few things about the QoLI with indicator and the actual variable measured in brackets:
- Material wellbeing (gdp per capita)
- Health (life expectancy)
- Political stability and security (political stability and security rankings)
- Family life (divorce rate)
- Community life (church attendance and trade-union membership)
- Climate and geography (lattitude)
- Job security (unemployment rate)
- Political freedom (Freeodom House political & civil liberties ranking)
- Gender equality (ratio of male and female earnings)
The problem here is that church attendance has collapsed in the UK because people have learned that church is old-fashioned, out of touch with the needs of a modern society (eg gay marriages which are now a fact of life in the UK) and connected to paedophiles and the likes. In this ranking, the UK would be ranked down because of this although most would note that greater independence and freedom of thought away from the word of the Church is a positive thing.
Another problem is that Britain has a more loose society and greater individual financial freedoms meaning people can divorce far more easily than in other countries where people either don't have the right to divorce or are tied down in old-socity arranged marriages, yet these bad things would be viewed as a good thing! And not only that, but that divorce would be weighted similar to material wellbeing.
Also if a country has a high lattitude it is a disbenefit, even though some of the most successful societies are in Scandanavia. In other words deserts where no water is good, but snow capped mountains is bad.
Apart from these, the UK compared to the EU has a higher GDP per capita, longer life expectancy, lower unemployment rate, greater political freedom and gender equality. If you take away the above 'odd measures' you'd probably see the UK shoot up the rankings without much doubt.
The main point is that this is a highly subjective ranking by The Economist and anyone with any analytical capability would note this.
Gregory Tenenbaum - Ironic it is then that one of the largest immigrant groups to London is none other than New Yorks: simply because London is where the dominant financial markets are now located.
I'm unsure how you can define a skyline as being ugly - London's dominated by church spires with the odd office tower here and there. Personally though I don't just got to cities to see the skyline and to be honest I'd rather have a streetscape which is welcoming to the pedestrian (thank you Congestion Charge), actually lit by natural light and blends old and new.
Nick: I'm hoping that NYC will instigate a "congestion charge".
In your experience what are the major changes that you've noticed in London since the practice was put into effect?
Finance salaries may be high, but people in other industries don't fare as well. London is a fantastic city, I want to make my opinion of that clear. There is one thing, though, which cannot be denied, and that is the climate. Grey is not my favorite color for skies.
Every year I marvel at the number of sun-deprived British crowding into Greece to get a bit of golden warm sunshine.
"The main point is that this is a highly subjective ranking by The Economist and anyone with any analytical capability would note this."
The Economist is one of the most authoratative publications in the world.
If the UK loses out in quality of life because it´s more secular... funny that Switzerland, Norway and Sweden are in the top 5. If high latititute is a disbenefit, interesting that Italy, a very mountainous country ranks so high. In the Economists words the UK´s, "performance on health, civil liberties, and political stability and security is also below the eu-15 average."
---------------------------------
"I'm unsure how you can define a skyline as being ugly - London's dominated by church spires with the odd office tower here and there."
And now by the odd cucumber and ferris wheel.....er...ah... the odd "observation" wheel.
Last edited by Fabrizio; April 25th, 2006 at 03:42 PM.
I really, really don't like the way the giant wheel looks. It's just too carnivalesque.
However, with some of the attractive new projects coming up, the London skyline may yet be redeemed.
London's Full of Carnies
Yes, but its prettier than most of the other high rise buildings in London. Carnivalesque? (nice adjective there!). You are right, have you tried walking accross the bridge lately?
A carnie lady (there's a group of about 5 of them) will try to put a poppy on your clothes with a smile, and then try to extract 5 pounds from you for her unsolicited "gift".
*WELCOME TO LON-DON* (with Michael Caine Accent).
The wheel (London Eye) is the least of London's problems. The high rise buildings in that city are horrendous.
There is a good reason why the english have erected these buildings. The English suffer a collective angst going back to their lack of self sufficiency during war and loss of empire. They suffer for example, from New York envy (hence the tall buildings).
In fact, talking to a lot of englishmen, many want to move here, Hong Kong, Australia, Thailand, anywhere.
There is one good reason to live in England, cheap flights. Not a good enough reason for most people however.
lofter1 - Well for a central core that is based around roads that date back 2,000 years the Congestion Charge was a miracle.
From first hand account the air is better (you can definately smell the difference) because there are less cars around. Not only that but historical buildings won't receive as much punishment from the corrosive elements and stains emitted from cars.
You can now cross roads like the Strand without weaving in and out of stationary cars. With smaller flows of traffic, London has been able to reclaim roads that you couldn't previously. Trafalgar Square used to be an island amongst road lanes. Now its been pedestrianised to the north (no major feat due to the problems of trying to re-direct traffic throughout the local area) and various other roads have been totally pedestrianised. Quite simply people have reclaimed the streets and this is the way it should be.
To add to this positive aspect of pedestrianisation, road accidents have fallen and fewer people have been hurt or killed, while deliveries to Central London stores and couriers has become more efficient. Effectively although the Congestion Charge makes only a few million, the knock-on effects are creating billions in London's favour either by new business or FDI.
The other big point is the bus network. In New York, the bus network isn't particularly large, but in London its the other way around with 6mn people using the system each day. Journeys across Central London used to be long and tiresome. Now speeds have increased due to less congestion, buses are given more priority due to more bus lanes and the flow of people is now more efficient. The result is 100mn new trips on London Buses each year. The average speed of traffic is now finally higher than it was in 1920.
The other point is that the revenue is actually being used to modernise public transport: modernisation of trains and stations, new buses, etc... The result is that London's transport network has become more efficient, quicker, more accessible, cleaner and more modern.
MidtownGuy - According to an analysis of London in its 'New City' report of 27/03/06, finance, banking and insurance is the largest employment sector in London (at 1.2m). Manufacturing for example employs only 200,000 and these are people employed in high-tech industries or R&D, not low-end show manufacturing.Government-related jobs are also some of the highest paying, while the average tube driver gets well in excess of $60,000 for around 4 days driving.
It might be overcast, but London gets far less rain than the likes of Rome, New York, Sydney, Chicago, Paris, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc...
The London Eye might look like a carnival attraction but its so much more than that - its basically re-invented a dated concept and modernised it: a peice of architectural modernity and engineering skill (it hangs over the Thames). Hell its started a trend for other cities around the world to consider observation or ferris wheels. A trend-setter in wheels it would appear!
Fabrizio - But that affects its ranking in relation to other countries. Bible-bashing Texans for example are viewed as a good thing.
Latitude is completely different to altitude. LOL!
Interestingly though how Freedom House states the opposite in regards to civil liberties (You've seen the figures for that already). So if you took out divorce rate, latitude and church-going as measures that would reduce the total measures to 6 and although Britain wouldn't be the top country, its ranking would change significantly upwards - probably 10-15th place.
London's skyline is more than that - its not the skyscrapers that dominate London, its the church spires that are far more frequent and far more numerous. It'll only be thanks to the new batch of skyscrapers that their presence becomes more noticable around London.
Gregory Tenenbaum - You get those sort of people everywhere in any city and you'd be deluded to think otherwise.
The current batch other than SwissRE might not be brilliant, but they aren't as bad as mot of the skyscrapers in New York. There is for example no monolithic gravestone overlooking London as there is with the MetLife in New York and while New York is still controlled by boxes, the next batch of London skyscraper at least go for the quality of a variety of different shapes other than boxes
New York envy? What fun. There were tall buildings around the world long before New York. Hell this is going to really hurt some, but I guess if this is turning into a little match, might as well bring out the old 12lb for show....London has nothing to envy from New York in regards to skyscrapers and tall buildings. Especially as the 'mother' of skyscrapers was funnily enough built in the UK back in 1797....http://www.bbc.co.uk/shropshire/hist...ration_2.shtml(prepares for the ultimate of all fall-outs
Yet more New Yorkers come to London than Londoners that go to New York! Also more Australians are coming to Britain than Brits are going to Australia. Britain is an immigration destination, hence why the likes of London is absorbing more than 2x the amount of immigrants that New York is and more than Los Angeles.
I presume thats why the number of people returning after leaving has increased, why significant quantities of people are emigrating to Britain and why Britain is a more attractive destination for foreign students.
Latitude...altitude...atitude...dude, it´s all the same when you´ve been drinking.
The FIRST skyscrapered city was Italian. When this was built ....you guys were still living in caves:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lessi/123734370/
^^^Only 14 of SanGimignano´s towers survive today...but the city had 72 such towers (!) in the 1300´s.
The inspiration for the World Trade Centre:
http://goeurope.about.com/library/ph...a_towers_1.htm
-----------------------
"Also more Australians are coming to Britain than Brits are going to Australia. Britain is an immigration destination, hence why the likes of London is absorbing more than 2x the amount of immigrants that New York is and more than Los Angeles."
Would you please post the statistics on this. Thank you.
Last edited by Fabrizio; April 26th, 2006 at 09:18 AM.
Not a Giant Wheel. Not a Ferris Wheel.
It's an Observation Wheel.
Maybe a One-Armed Ferris?
Semi Ferris...Not Quite a Ferris...New Improved Ferris...The Anti Ferris?
Isn't it called the London Eye? I wonder if that makes Marksix nervous.
I don't think being drunk is an excuse for your responses.
Yet none of those admittedly amazing towers were the basis for the engineering behind skyscrapers - the Ditherington Flax Mill is believe it or not. Also to rain on your parade....Lincoln Cathedal was the world's first building to be built taller than the Great Pyramid at Giza and held the world tallest record between 1300 until 1549 (it had been under construction in various stages since 1092) when the spire was destroyed by a hurricane.
It was 160m tall and the world's first building built above 150m. Had the spire not been destroyed, it would have remained as the tallest structure on the planet until the Washington Monument was finished in 1884. Yet although it was only the tallest building between 1300-1549 it is still the longest holder of tallest structure in the world after only the Great Pyramid.
Unfortunately the other two spires were taken down due to stability issues but there is a movement to see the spires re-installed to the exact same designs back before 1300 but with modifications to ensure they stay up for longer.
Next time you might want to do some reseach before coming out with half arsed comments about my ancestors somehow living in caves when those towers were already eclipsed by the tallest structure in the world even before it was a quarter finished.
Lincoln Cathedral - still 83m tall despite missing its spires, possibly to be re-installed to gain its original height of 160m:
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images...edral_pic9.jpg
I'll try and find the document - I've got it on my laptop and the Australian goverment were so perplexed by this that they have begun an investigation which got a few of the Australians annoyed over at SSC .
If you NOTICED I did not claim world´s first skyscraper...or even world´s tallest... I said skyscrapered city. And that first city of tall structures was SanGimignano. Not a one-off tall building (the Egyptians as you mentioned created the pyramids beating all of us) but Italy had a culture that created an entire city of tall buildings. Also interesting to note that most of these tall buildings were not built by the church, but were buildings built by private merchants... trying to outclass one another. A very modern concept of building.
Here is the creator of the Sears Tower talking about his inspiration:
"Tall buildings are man-made. Towers have historically been not only the pride of their temporary owners, but of their cities as well. So the Sears Tower, one more mountain, was created for this city on the plains. Sears is very direct in its structural solution, a new concept of cluster tubes, originally fifteen, reduced to nine when the hotel was eliminated from the plan. The Sears Tower itself is much like the idea behind San Gimignano, but unlike most tall buildings in New York, it is a tower of the people, not the palace of a bank."
Bruce Graham of SOM
As for:
"....half arsed comments".
Gregory Tenebaum is right...you are a potty mouth.
I hope they mark that down on your ID card.
--------------------------------------------
Last edited by Fabrizio; April 26th, 2006 at 10:33 AM.
Fabrizio - The only people that claim that I have got a potty mouth are those that seem to be the most unstable and/or seem to be confused (eg altitude>latitude) about simple things.
I however never stated that you had made a claim for those being the first skyscrapers. I did however reflect that the Ditherington Flax Mill is behind skyscrapers and countered your argument that the people on the British Isles were somehow cave-dwelling people even though they had finished the tallest building on the planet! There is nothing modern about building something else to outclass someone else, its been going on for millennia; the only difference being the height, scale and proportions have increased through time.
Its a pity Bruce didn't take a hint from his inspiration - Sears from certain angles is a coffin and lacks any of the warmth of the towers you illustrated.
Nick... we´re just not gonna buy this business that the father of the skyscraper is a flax mill. Sorry.
So, you don´t like the Sears Tower, but you do like the Ferris Wheel and the cucumber...
As they they say in New York:
Go figure.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks