London, the world's best city?
Jul 6th, 2007, 11:15 PM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
London, the world's best city?
London, great city, great people..but prices that can make u weep!
Here's what u get for yer dollar:
http://www.travellingbazaar.com/london%201.html
World's best city?..well, I'd put it up there along with Istanbul as one of my favourites.
Bob
Here's what u get for yer dollar:
http://www.travellingbazaar.com/london%201.html
World's best city?..well, I'd put it up there along with Istanbul as one of my favourites.
Bob
Jul 6th, 2007, 11:43 PM
#4
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 9,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said, Bob, "best" is far too subjective. What makes a city the best for me may not be important to you at all.
As I said, I think London is a great city. I also think New York, Paris and Chicago are great cities. I think San Francisco is a beautiful city. As is Quebec City. And I love Washington, DC. I'm also a big fan of New Orleans. In my opinion, they're all the "world's best" in their own particular way!
Again, subjective -- depends what's important to you.
As I said, I think London is a great city. I also think New York, Paris and Chicago are great cities. I think San Francisco is a beautiful city. As is Quebec City. And I love Washington, DC. I'm also a big fan of New Orleans. In my opinion, they're all the "world's best" in their own particular way!
Again, subjective -- depends what's important to you.
Jul 7th, 2007, 12:34 AM
#6
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree totally.
What triggered my provocative question, was a British Bulldog article I stumbled upon by the Times:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle1503880.ece
Just thought I'd ask the travelling community for their thoughts
bob
What triggered my provocative question, was a British Bulldog article I stumbled upon by the Times:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle1503880.ece
Just thought I'd ask the travelling community for their thoughts
bob
Jul 7th, 2007, 12:55 AM
#7
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,018
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The article you refer to is calling London the capital of the world. This is an interesting variation of the idea of the "capital of the century." I think the idea was started by a German writer, Walter Benjamin who referred to Paris as the capital of the nineteenth century.
In this vein, Los Angeles has often been called the capital of the twenty-first century. I think the idea is the city is supposed to represent the spirit of the age. I'm not sure if London would qualify, if that's the criteria.
In this vein, Los Angeles has often been called the capital of the twenty-first century. I think the idea is the city is supposed to represent the spirit of the age. I'm not sure if London would qualify, if that's the criteria.
Jul 7th, 2007, 01:10 AM
#8
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The article you quote is hardly worth discussing. It simply states self-evident facts
London is light years ahead of any competitor as the place the world's richest people choose to live and where the world's businesses raise money. It's also several light years ahead of anywhere else as the dwelling of preference among the world's affluent, mobile young.
Insular villages like New York or Tokyo have been left well behind in this.
No-one in the article drew any implication about "greatest city". It is, of course, but it would be unEnglish to make such an assertion. And the article - like Londoners - was unconcerned about what attracts tourists. That's the kind of minor industry we're more than happy to leave to Europe's theme park cities.
London is light years ahead of any competitor as the place the world's richest people choose to live and where the world's businesses raise money. It's also several light years ahead of anywhere else as the dwelling of preference among the world's affluent, mobile young.
Insular villages like New York or Tokyo have been left well behind in this.
No-one in the article drew any implication about "greatest city". It is, of course, but it would be unEnglish to make such an assertion. And the article - like Londoners - was unconcerned about what attracts tourists. That's the kind of minor industry we're more than happy to leave to Europe's theme park cities.
Jul 7th, 2007, 01:43 AM
#10
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>London is light years ahead of any competitor as the place the world's richest people choose to live .... the dwelling of preference among the world's affluent, mobile young. <
Sounds like just the sort of place I would want to avoid.
Sounds like just the sort of place I would want to avoid.
Jul 7th, 2007, 09:59 AM
#14
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I do indeed love London, even flanneruk has to admit it's awfully awfully expensive given the current strength of the pound...can you imagine paying $8 for a single ride on the tube (even with an oyster card, it's $3...in New York we pay $2).
As far as restaurants and eating, there is no comparison between New York and London....and shopping....well my friends from London come to visit me in NY and are amazed at how cheap everything is.
I'll take New York any day of the week and twice on Sunday (incidentally, the home of the rich and famous is Monte Carlo not London).
As far as restaurants and eating, there is no comparison between New York and London....and shopping....well my friends from London come to visit me in NY and are amazed at how cheap everything is.
I'll take New York any day of the week and twice on Sunday (incidentally, the home of the rich and famous is Monte Carlo not London).
Jul 7th, 2007, 10:55 AM
#17
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New York IS insular, and is getting more and more so. The difference is, the primary civic functions in the US are divided up among several cities -- there's no government worth mentioning in New York, for instance. But no one would call Washington "the world's greatest city". And Los Angeles is the media capital. Technology is all over the place. New York still rules in finance, but American finance is dramatically less important than it used to be (especially since Bush has destroyed the dollar).
The Asian giants are contenders for the future, but they're not there yet. Not Dubai -- Dubai is a house of cards, a real estate speculation, a bubble. Retired pop and soccer stars may be transfixed by their artificial lagoon, but it will never be a serious destination for any global activity besides skin cancer. Abu Dhabi is more likely to be an important center in twenty years. Shanghai or Beijing, maybe, but that depends on another thirty years of 10% growth for China, and for their massive investment in the US government to not go sour on them.
The "theme park" cities Flanner refers to are Paris and Rome, where one can admire the lifestyle and the charming remnants of distant centuries, but where nothing of cultural or economic importance can ever come.
London has it all: the media (though British media tends not to travel far, at least not in its original state), finance (still on top, even more so than before), a government that's probably in the best shape of any in the G8, and most importantly a vibrancy, an energy, the kind of city where 12 million exciting things are all happening at once, and everyone is a part of it.
40% of London is foreign born -- I'm sure New York is similar in this regard. That translates into energy and ideas. London is the global marketplace, the global bazaar, the meetingplace for the ideas that will define the century. And they speak English, which is probably an insurmountable advantage over Asian competitors.
The Asian giants are contenders for the future, but they're not there yet. Not Dubai -- Dubai is a house of cards, a real estate speculation, a bubble. Retired pop and soccer stars may be transfixed by their artificial lagoon, but it will never be a serious destination for any global activity besides skin cancer. Abu Dhabi is more likely to be an important center in twenty years. Shanghai or Beijing, maybe, but that depends on another thirty years of 10% growth for China, and for their massive investment in the US government to not go sour on them.
The "theme park" cities Flanner refers to are Paris and Rome, where one can admire the lifestyle and the charming remnants of distant centuries, but where nothing of cultural or economic importance can ever come.
London has it all: the media (though British media tends not to travel far, at least not in its original state), finance (still on top, even more so than before), a government that's probably in the best shape of any in the G8, and most importantly a vibrancy, an energy, the kind of city where 12 million exciting things are all happening at once, and everyone is a part of it.
40% of London is foreign born -- I'm sure New York is similar in this regard. That translates into energy and ideas. London is the global marketplace, the global bazaar, the meetingplace for the ideas that will define the century. And they speak English, which is probably an insurmountable advantage over Asian competitors.
Jul 7th, 2007, 01:44 PM
#19
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 9,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Munich! There a a few other interesting places on the planet (incl. London, too many people, too much stress, too loud, so expensive) so it's not really worth living there. I would move if I'd find anything better, but until today not a chance!
