In living memory London was blasted to absolute shit by the Nazis. That’s real fucking stuff-of-nightmares Nazis in thousands of actual purpose-built planes, armed to the teeth, not to mention hundreds of VI and VII rockets. London also got bombed to shit by the IRA over the course of thirty years, who managed to fuck up at least one skyscraper. And then Al Qaeda had a go too. And when these things happen, everybody just goes to the pub and makes jokes about them: for decades London has been saying “come and have a go if you think you’re hard enough”.
Aliens
Terminator 2
Your point has been countered.
London’s buildings are old, not tall. Not an island like Manhattan, y’know!
But if you really wanna play the terrorism card - man, London has seen its share. It really has.
I think playing the 9/11 card is kinda tasteless. We’re being nice to each other here.
I voted for London. For one, there are fewer New Yorkers in London, so that’s a point in its favour.
When it comes to its worldliness, my guess is that most everyone thinks of Manhattan more so than the whole of NYC. Nobody in their right mind would bother to go to Staten Island. Brooklyn has things going for it. Queens is a bit nasty. The Bronx has a baseball team, but beyond that, not much. London is massive and has many regions to it, and on the whole outranks New York. But if we were arguing Manhattan versus the City of London, or West London, or North London, or wherever, I’d pick Manhattan. Also, I think the disdain that many Americans have for NYC is proportionally greater than that of Englanders have for London.
What about international image, famous icons?
How many people who’ve never been in either city would know:
The Statue Of Liberty
The World Trade Centre (RIP)
The Empire State Building
The Chrysler Building
Central Park
Time Square
Manhattan Skyline
etc.
Versus:
Westminister
Tower Bridge
The Gherkin
The Queen’s Guard
Hyde Park (specifically Speaker’s Corner)
The Beefeaters
St. Paul’s
etc.
I’m sure there’s a more exhaustive list to be found of such icons.
London’s located in Paris?
Where’d you pluck Paris from?
Paris is #8. New York is #6. London is #1 (with nearly twice that of New York).
http://blog.euromonitor.com/2011/01/euromonitor-internationals-top-city-destinations-ranking.html
New York wins, hands down.
In terms of silhouettes we have Big Ben but nothing else that I think would be instantly recognisable, globally. Not even the Eye. NYC has about half a dozen that say “New York” unambiguously.
London’s been located in Paris for years. We hid it for safekeeping in the one place no Parisian would ever think of looking: a charm school. 
Geographically speaking, the most logical choice is Jerusalem. Right in the middle between Europe, Africa and Asia. A sociopolitical, cultural, historical and religious nexus. Of course, it carries neither the reputation nor the money to be weightier than NY or London, but that’s the age-old “Philadelphia vs. DC” argument. If we wanted to pick a DC for the world, the logical choice would be Jerusalem.
From France, that’s where they put it. But,also from this: Tourism - Wikipedia
Which you must know, since your cite is the only ref in the London wiki page for the claim of most visited city (by international visitors) in the world. BTW, if you go to the Paris page, the same claim is being made, but this time with the backing of actual figures from the Paris tourism office*. Do you contribute to the London wiki page, Candyman?
Cause maybe you could tell them that a blog site from early 2011, analysing the 2008-2009 season is a bit lacking in seriousness for such a claim. I dont know what were the real numbers for Paris that particular season, but if I was to go with your numbers, that would mean Paris doubled its number of visitors in just one year. Something I’ve failed to notice.
*which apparently only records visits made in Paris intra muros, not a very large zone.
That’s where I found the claim, yep.
Wikipedia’s not the best source, but it’s convenient at least. More solid data is always welcome in this thread!
No. Why?
I’ve no idea - just went by the report mentioned on the page. I’ve no reason to doubt them in the absence of contrary information. But at least someone’s digging up data - makes the debate more interesting!
I’d add Buckingham Palace, St. Paul’s Cathedral, Trafalgar Square, Tower Bridge, Westminster Palace, Downing Street, the O2, and Wembley Stadium.
Since the UN is headquartered in NYC, if you’re looking for a capital of the world, this would be NYC
Like Wagga Wagga.
My gut says New York. I think in many people’s minds, New York has wormed into their subconscious as the number one city in the world. It’s a given at this point, a default assumption gathered and reinforced their whole lives that statistics can’t dislodge.
It’s unfair, objectively speaking, but what are you going to do. I think a world capital would need that certain je ne sais quoi star quality. It’s the difference between the mathematically optimal and the inexplicably beautiful.
I loved London but never got the sense it was the “capital of the world.” It never would have crossed my mind.
When I went into New York for the first time my very first thought was “This is the center of human civilization.”
Neither American nor British here.
You know that most of those point for London are bullshit, right? You’re counting the entire music scene of each city by one arena? Hah!
It’s like saying that the Yankees are worth more than Arsenal (owned by an American, btw), so NYs sports are better. Then you’re discounting Chelsea (Russian…), Fulham (Egyptian), etc. Same with broadcasting.
Olympics? Yeah, London last hosted them last 63 years ago. I’m not sure why hosting the Olympics is prestigious anyway.
A famous person? Really?
Bigger subway? New York had a bigger statue. New York has 17 buildings taller than the tallest building in London.
New York had just about twice as many billionaires than London. New York has nearly triple the GDP of London.
Central Park is larger than Hyde Park.
New York’s subway has more track (London has more passenger track) and more stops. We can call this a wash.
Stopping because I’m bored.
Updated list:
London
[ol]
[li]“Financial Capital of the World”[/li][li]Airport Traffic[/li][li]West End[/li][li]Tourism[/li][li]O2[/li][li]BBC[/li][/ol]
NYC
[ol]
[li]UN[/li][li]Statue of Liberty[/li][li]Yankees[/li][li]Central Park[/li][li]Skyscrapers[/li][li]GDP[/li][/ol]
It’s just a bit of fun!
[/quote]
Music arena, not music scene. You’re welcome to dig up stats for the latter!
Cool. I’ve no issue with you counting that for a point for NY. I’m glad to see someone arguing it’s case!
The statue of Liberty is counted twice, though. It’s under World Heritage Sites ( London 4, NY 1). You can’t separately call it in under “statues”, too. 
(Hmmm… did I forget to include WHSs? I thought I did. If so, my bad! I definitely thought it!)
I’ll counter that one with London has X (dunno how many, but many) buildings older than those in NY (age is as relevant as height, I’d say - specially since the latter is a feature that happened to be forced by the size of an island).
A good, solid point. Not gonna argue with that one!
Why the tall buildings in Chicago? If you count age, then London pretty much has to win by default. Well, if you count age, then neither NYC nor London would be in the running, I think.
Chicago’a different again. Things happen for different reasons in different places.