Skyscrapers are ALL about getting lots of floor space in a small footprint. Also, dick wagging, but mostly the former. I fail to see how that’s a point against NYC.
I didn’t say it was a point against NYC. Did I? If I did that’s not what I was trying to say, so I apologise. I was just trying to say it wasn’t a major point for or against IMO - just a coincidence of geography. There was never really a need or desire for it in London (and there are legislative barriers to doing so).
I’d agree it has more recently become pure status to some - Middle Eastern countries determined to build the tallest building in the world.
Between London and New York? Absolutely London. Counter to some people here, when I (all too briefly) lived in London, I really felt in the middle of things in a way I don’t in New York. London feels more outward looking, more truly global, whereas New York is so self-absorbed it can be very, very provincial. London also feels more diverse, has a better location, and is just the all around more interesting city (though I should dock some points in that regard to correct for the exoticism factor).
New York has been my home for some years now and it certainly has its good points (the most significant in this comparison game being that it’s slightly cheaper and - the big one - that its subway runs 24 hours). But there’s no question in my mind which is the true Capital of the World.
The subway in London doesn’t run 24 hours?!
I demand that you take away the subway point from London immediately. That is ridiculous.
I know!! IIRC, it’s for some technical reason, though, because London’s system is older.
Oldest in the world. Some of the tunnels and stations are 148 years old. It shuts down for maintenance, basically. The NYC subway only has more stations because it’s counting a network that includes lines which never go underground at all - it’s basically all the trains in NYC; a fairer comparison would be to include the DLR and within-London overground trains.
<Brownie Points>
Chicago, its where Cecil’s from. What can compete with that?
</Brownie Points>
Financial Capital? Probably New York.
Capital Capital…probably London.
Berlin tried being the capital of the world. It ended…badly.
I have to vote for London. From an NYC perspective, the rest of the world is so B&T.
New York has the UN. So that’s something.
Washington, DC has the World Bank and IMF.
But the manufacturing capital is Shenzhen, I believe.
:shrugs:
England gave us Dr. Who and Winston Churchill. How is this even a debate?
Plus British accents are way cooler …
Although in the interest of fairness, Winston was half American - his mother, Jeanette Jerome, was born in Brooklyn :eek: So we’ll have to split the point there…
And Doctor Who is “made in Wales by gays”, as I think Caitlin Moran put it (with tongue in cheek, I hasten to add).
I’m not sure how valid it is to give London the points for “more international visitors/air traffic” - the UK is a geographically small country with a lot of small countries nearby. No wonder that Heathrow gets a lot of international traffic. If you hop over the channel from Brussels to London, that’s “international”. Meanwhile, you can fly thousands of miles to NYC on a domestic flight, and the only other country nearby is Canada.
I suppose this may slightly contradict my earlier point about London being situated closer to more of the world’s population, but at least I don’t think that factor should be counted twice.
Trust me when I say the Germans wouldn’t want Berlin to be considered the Capital of the World - they prefer to let others have that honor. That said, nobody seems to care about this in Europe when they come to Berlin looking for a financial hand out. Still, Berlin isn’t in the running and I am sure they are quite happy about that.
“I’ve been bombed by a better class of bastard.” -London resident in the wake of the 2005 terrorist attack
New York. Reason: The Americanization of the world. We are posting this on an American invention and no matter where you are in the world, chances are you’re not too far from somewhere you can buy McDonald’s and a Coke, or Starbuck’s (unless, maybe, you live on a mountain in the Himalayas or something) and even if you didn’t speak a word of English, you would be far more likely to recognize a picture of, say, Elvis or Michael Jackson, than you would the Beatles or David Beckham. I had a Yugoslavian friend in high school who learned English as a child not from school but from watching MTV in Serbia.
If you know a place in Mongolia where they have a chain of restaurants selling scones and steak and kidney pie, then we’ll talk London. 
But you typed all that in English. 
That said - we’re talking about the individual cities, not the countries.
And the Internet, on which we are having this discussion, was invented by a Brit. A London lad, in fact.
No one person “invented the internet”, and I would say that most of the important work was done in the USA.
The December issue of National Geographic included a ranking of the most influential cities, considering a variety of factors including political engagement, cultural experience, business activity, human capital, and information exchange. New York just edged London for the top spot, beating them in business activity and political engagement (London did better in human capital and cultural experience, but not enough to make up the difference in the other two categories).
I don’t have a link for the NetGeo chart, but they pulled the rankings from here, the 2010 Global Cities Index.