London is officially 'filthy'

[Blib]

Vaud said:

Blib said:

San Francisco is my favourite us city. However, it really can't compare to London. Where does it exceed what London has to offer? Fog? As for Washington. Not even Trump wants to live there.

SF Moma. The Bay. Trams. A more compact "downtown". A different diversity of restaurants than London (more Asia/Pacific).

Much more friendly and chilled people.

I you want the best "city" then I'd also look at Portland, Seattle, Boulder and Austin. All relatively low-rise, nice size, good food, etc.

If I had to move tomorrow then I'd probably pick Boulder. None are anything like London which is an overgrown, overpriced, dirty hole of a city.

Ah, there's your truth. You don't challenge my assertion. You just slag off London. Fair enough.

You're working to a totally different set of criteria. SF is a wonderful city. But, that's not my point. It can't match London on what it gives to the planet.

Its an anomaly, that has less affect on the rest of the world than the cities that surround it. London drives Western culture. SF doesn't any longer.

[julian64]

FourWheelDrift said:

boxxob said:

Similar to Paris!

London is the 7th biggest French city by population. So we can blame the French for this.

Huh, london seven million give or take, paris two millon give or take. Not sure I understand what you are saying

[Blib]

julian64 said:

FourWheelDrift said:

boxxob said:

Similar to Paris!

London is the 7th biggest French city by population. So we can blame the French for this.

Huh, london seven million give or take, paris two millon give or take. Not sure I understand what you are saying

It's not the 7th biggest city by population, it's the 6th biggest.

Wiki.....

The number of French nationals now living in London makes it France's sixth biggest city in terms of population, according to the latest estimates. The French consulate believes there are between 300,000 and 400,000 citizens residing in the English capital, exceeding the inhabitants of Bordeaux, Nantes or Strasbourg

[Vaud]

Blib said:

Ah, there's your truth. You don't challenge my assertion. You just slag off London. Fair enough.

You're working to a totally different set of criteria. SF is a wonderful city. But, that's not my point. It can't match London on what it gives to the planet.

Its an anomaly, that has less affect on the rest of the world than the cities that surround it. London drives Western culture. SF doesn't any longer.

I've travelled an awful lot. London is great for commerce. It is good for museums (but not the best in the world). It has history. Restaurants are way better than 20 years ago.

It is polluted, you get a funny look if you talk to someone on the train, it's overpriced, the level of customer service is stuck in the 1970s compared even to Paris...

As a place to have to live, I have a long list above London.

It wouldn't be bottom, but I place higher weighting on views, pollution levels, the time it takes me to get out and into the country over the over dimensions that you highlighted. Personal weighting of what's important... I don't deny it has the points you suggest. I just want different things from a city and place different priorities.

My list would be something like (from places that I have spent some time in)...

Boulder
Portland
San Francisco
Seattle
Barcelona
Geneva
London
Paris
Amsterdam
Rome or Milan

[Blib]

Vaud said:

I've travelled an awful lot. London is great for commerce. It is good for museums (but not the best in the world). It has history. Restaurants are way better than 20 years ago.

It is polluted, you get a funny look if you talk to someone on the train, it's overpriced, the level of customer service is stuck in the 1970s compared even to Paris...

As a place to have to live, I have a long list above London.

It wouldn't be bottom, but I place higher weighting on views, pollution levels, the time it takes me to get out and into the country over the over dimensions that you highlighted. Personal weighting of what's important... I don't deny it has the points you suggest. I just want different things from a city and place different priorities.

My list would be something like (from places that I have spent some time in)...

Boulder
Portland
San Francisco
Seattle
Barcelona
Geneva
London
Paris
Amsterdam
Rome or Milan

We can each make a list of nice places to visit.

However, views don't make a world city. Nor does pollution. We are talking at odds here. It's not about where I want to go on holiday. It's all about the GRAVITY of the place. What affect the city has on the rest of the planet.

I would suggest the Boulder and its 'views' does not really make it a more rounded , complete city than London.

[Vaud]

Blib said:

We can each make a list of nice places to visit.

However, views don't make a world city. Nor does pollution. We are talking at odds here. It's not about where I want to go on holiday. It's all about the GRAVITY of the place. What affect the city has on the rest of the planet.

I would suggest the Boulder and its 'views' does not really make it a more rounded , complete city than London.

There's no need to be so passive aggressive.

You have criteria that make London a rounded, complete city.

I have mine, they are clearly quite different. I'm not trying to convince you that my list of places to live (not visit) is better than yours, I'm just sharing my perspective and weighting of what works for me in my little brain

[Blib]

Vaud said:

There's no need to be so passive aggressive.

You have criteria that make London a rounded, complete city.

I have mine, they are clearly quite different. I'm not trying to convince you that my list of places to live (not visit) is better than yours, I'm just sharing my perspective and weighting of what works for me in my little brain

I've had far better people than you attempt to patronise me.

You asked me to describe my criteria. I did so. You suggest that Boulder is more of a world city than London. I dispute this and you patronise me.

Nowt as queer as folk.

[Vaud]

Blib said:

I've had far better people than you attempt to patronise me.

You asked me to describe my criteria. I did so. You suggest that Boulder is more of a world city than London. I dispute this and you patronise me.

Nowt as queer as folk.

I'm not patronising you.

To be fair I had evolved the question to what made a great city rather than a world city.

[l354uge]

London - you either 'get' it or you don't.

I don't, but I'm from the deep west country and dislike (most) cities immensely (living in Coventry for 3 years has not helped)
Some friends from home love it there, and that's fair enough.
Some people enjoy the hustle and bustle, the buzz of all that culture and the history of the place.
I just see overpopulation, expensive restaurants and people too busy to be polite, Milan was the same, but I adore Edinburgh.

Regarding the actual original topic, of course a busy city has horrible air pollution: tall buildings, concrete, transport, industry, construction and the location (far-ish from sea). This really isn't anything new, look at the state of the place during Victorian and Tudor times, they just didn't understand how that filth affected mortality back then.

[oyster]

Rovinghawk said:

Blib said:

Best city on the world. Nowhere can match it. Not even close.

If you like dirt, overcrowding, obnoxious arrogant people, ludicrous prices, noise etc then it's wonderful.

This crops up on PH a lot aimed at London, but the truth is, it's nothing to do with London, it's just cities in general.

I love cleanliness, open spaces, friendly people, low prices and quiet just like you. Sometimes.
But other times I like busy bars, big shops, fancy restaurants etc.

It usually comes down to age. Old farts who visit a pub once a month for an overcooked Sunday roast plainly won't see the draw of a big city like London.

[BigLion]

Blib said:

Vaud said:

I've travelled an awful lot. London is great for commerce. It is good for museums (but not the best in the world). It has history. Restaurants are way better than 20 years ago.

It is polluted, you get a funny look if you talk to someone on the train, it's overpriced, the level of customer service is stuck in the 1970s compared even to Paris...

As a place to have to live, I have a long list above London.

It wouldn't be bottom, but I place higher weighting on views, pollution levels, the time it takes me to get out and into the country over the over dimensions that you highlighted. Personal weighting of what's important... I don't deny it has the points you suggest. I just want different things from a city and place different priorities.

My list would be something like (from places that I have spent some time in)...

Boulder
Portland
San Francisco
Seattle
Barcelona
Geneva
London
Paris
Amsterdam
Rome or Milan

We can each make a list of nice places to visit.

However, views don't make a world city. Nor does pollution. We are talking at odds here. It's not about where I want to go on holiday. It's all about the GRAVITY of the place. What affect the city has on the rest of the planet.

I would suggest the Boulder and its 'views' does not really make it a more rounded , complete city than London.

You can name any big capital centre as that appears to be the crux of your influencing view?

New York for example...

[FiF]

Another reason not to go into London http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/27/new-lon...

TL:DR 50% parking surcharge for diesel cars in Westminster, article suggests like all other money making schemes it will spread.

Mind you not all councils have the greed and mendacity of those in stty London.

[Countdown]

I go to London maybe twice a month. There is definitely a "buzz" but I think that's down to the overcrowding and everybody being in a mad rush to get everywhere. It's fun for a couple of days but I don't think I'd want to live there.

[King Herald]

If they think London is 'filthy' I'm surprised people aren't dropping dead in places like Manila and Mumbai. I lived near to Manila, never went there unless I really, really had to, but it always amazed how simply filthy everything was. It can't be hard to take a bucket of soapy water to the front of your shop premises and windows?

And the air, with smoke belching diesel trucks, buses and Jeepneys, plus open fires for cooking, burning tyres etc, I'd love to see a comparison with London air, just to see how the drama queens react!

[Pan Pan Pan]

King Herald said:

If they think London is 'filthy' I'm surprised people aren't dropping dead in places like Manila and Mumbai. I lived near to Manila, never went there unless I really, really had to, but it always amazed how simply filthy everything was. It can't be hard to take a bucket of soapy water to the front of your shop premises and windows?

And the air, with smoke belching diesel trucks, buses and Jeepneys, plus open fires for cooking, burning tyres etc, I'd love to see a comparison with London air, just to see how the drama queens react!

Not to mention the thousands upon thousands of mopeds and two stroke motor bikes, which seem to be the main form of transport in many countries. They are clean aren't they?

[King Herald]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Not to mention the thousands upon thousands of mopeds and two stroke motor bikes, which seem to be the main form of transport in many countries. They are clean aren't they?

Don't seem to see many two strokes bikes much more in Philippines, mainly four strokes now.

The smokers were officially banned in china about ten years ago, millions sent to scrap yards, no warning, no amnesty etc. Nobody manufactures them now.

[Crackie]

Blib said:

We influence the world in many ways. London's economy is huge. London's economy and tax revenues from the city enriche the lives of millions around the country and beyond.

No other city can match us.  London knocks any other city into a cocked hat.

Not everyone can make it on [b]the big stage. London can be overwhelming for people from less developed areas[/b]

It's all about the GRAVITY of the place.

London is a wonderful place but sadly, when you visit, you invariably have to endure the many deluded, odious, self obsessed, arrogant fools who live and work there......... it would make a pleasant change to have some class about the place.

The sections in bold are interesting ?

Edited by Crackie on Sunday 29th January 10:42

[V8 Fettler]

London is about money, the rest of the UK tags along for the ride:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/15/e...

[Vaud]

Whether we arrow or disagree with Blibs argument of it being the nexus of all mankind, either way it is a bloody unfriendly city to many.

Only rivalled by Paris and New York for "chips on shoulder"

Friendliest capital? In Europe Lisbon is lovely and I can only speak about 3 words of Portuguese.