A recent
NY Times op-ed
comparing New York's virtues to the world's great cities sparked a debate amongst friends on how The Big Apple compares to London.
I've been in London for all of seven weeks now, but here are some observations:
- Conversations in London are a lot more interesting, possibly due to the quality of the education system and high-brow media (i.e., Fox vs. BBC, or FT vs. WSJ); definitely a higher general level of awareness of what's happening around the world in London
- Food is surprisingly good and more reasonably priced than expected in London, probably due to the still favorable exchange rate of the U.S. dollar. However, New York probably has the edge here.
- Tap water is not as good in London, and Brita filtering only partially addresses its shortcomings (I came from the San Francisco Bay Area and Hetch Hetchy spoiled me)
- Tube vs. Subway: both aren't much fun; the Tube is more bearable and impressive in terms of its reach; central London is also surprisingly walkable so i rarely take the tube. London also has a nifty bike rental program.
- (Very subjective) Music is more to my liking in London; my first trip to the gym was greeted with an Armin van Buuren live set, something I don't think I've ever heard at a U.S. gym.
- Livability: London is definitely more livable than NY, and not just because the buildings are shorter. London's less densely populated and the weather is better. Nooks and crooked streets lend character; ample green space for dog lovers, and you can take your dog on public transports; citizens are trusted to drink alcohol in public, etc.
- Timing: it's a fascinating time to be in London with what's happening in Europe, although perhaps the same could soon be true for U.S.
While they both have their respective strategic advantages, here are some of London's: more cosmo/international experience
sans empire. The Brits, with their global history, are a little more at home around the world than Americans, and arguably the rest of the world feels more at home in London than in NY. London perhaps also has a geographic/time zone advantage over New York: in the morning you can trade with Asia, and in the afternoon you can trade with America. Also, many of the world's most fastest growing financial products (currencies, derivatives, gold, etc.) are heavily traded or headquartered in London, not NY. Overall, London is more international than NY.
 |
| 'la romantique' |
In terms of NY vs. other worldly cities, with the U.S. still in the throes (and largely in denial) of its relative decline, living in NY could have the bittersweet feeling of being on location of what was until just recently the world's center of gravity. NY is obviously still good. But to use the metaphor of a great social event, you know you arrived late as the party is clearly fading. In fact, I believe NY's zenith probably was in 1962. Cities like London and Paris (
here's a cute New York vs. Paris blog), which have had plenty of time to come to terms with their loss of empire, may perhaps feel more comfortable in their downsized shoes.
If you're looking for the world's the most up-and-coming dynamic places right now, then Shanghai, Singapore, Sydney, Cape Town, Dubai, Hong Kong and Mumbai would trump both New York and London. I also agree with the
NY Times author that Chicago, which seems to be doing relatively well in terms of popularity, is the quintessential American city.
What do you think?
