New York, because the future is consumerism and dystopia, and baby, we got 'em.
According to their respective Wikipedia pages, New York beats London on population:
New York 8,175,133
London 7,825,200
Also a bigger metro area:
New York 18,897,109
London 13,945,000
Everything else I can possibly think of has already been posted. London’s a great city, but it hasn’t been capital of the world for a while now. Some pointed out that New York isn’t the capital of the country or even its state, but that just keeps it free of the unnecessary baggage that gets in the way of being capital of everything.
How is NYC in any way a “dystopia”?
If you want to go based on dystopian feel and population, then Sao Paulo, Brazil wins.
I’ve seen that ‘300’ quote elsewhere, and always wondered why they pitch it so low - I’ve taught in a London school that had just short of 400 languages. And obviously there’s a difference between the number of languages spoken in state schools and the languages spoken just by people in London.
And I’m really, really not impressed by those stores. I have a wider variety of restaurants within a ten-minute stroll of my place, without even counting the shops.
I still kinda tend towards New York as being the capital of the world, but I’ve frequently seen people claim that New York is way more diverse than London, and it’s a ridiculous claim to make.
I’m a complete putz who hasn’t been to either city, but I’m fascinated by both.
To me, New York is the embodiment of the United States. It is relatively new, eclectic, towering, it’s absolutely astounding in its scale.
London’s main attraction for me is its age. I would like to sit down and have a beer in a pub that’s older than my country.
London.
- History
- Architecture
3, Monarchy - Guns illegal
- Weather (yes, the weather; I like foggy and rainy)
- Proximity to Scotland and Europe (BTW: I’ve heard that Brits do not consider England to be a part of Europe and I like that snobby attitude)
I was born in America but I’m an Anglophile.
New York, not even close, after all, London is only one square mile.
You win the most bizarre comment of the thread award!
Well, it’s technically correct.
Boris will be gutted.
I voted for Rome. NYC isn’t even the capital of the USA let alone the world. My hometown of Fredonia, NY and Rome would be the two places I wouldn’t always subconsciously mentally orient myself relative to something while I was there. London is too far away from Europe to be the center of it, if I were there I’d always think of myself as being in the “Northwest”. NYC is too far away from my hometown so I’d think I’m east of my hometown. But if I was in Rome I wouldn’t have to orient myself to anything, because I’d already be in Rome.
Huh? It’s exactly zero miles from Europe, being, like, in it and all.
If being geographically central is important, then London shouldn’t be the capital of Britain, and DC shouldn’t be capital of the US. There can’t be many capital cities centrally placed.
Add in the Brooklyn Bridge & Yankee Stadium.
Actually no. Just no. New York was started by the Dutch and retained a strong Dutch feeling for years under the Irish, Italians, Jewish and etc. reshaped the city. That Dutch legacy in fact is what unleashed the greatest New Yorker onto the World. Theodore Roosevelt. His cousin wasn’t too bad either. All London really contributed to NY was oppressive rule and a name change.
- History I’ll give you
- Architecture, that’s a toss, I’m not sure you know NYC that well, it is way more then Glass Boxes and the Chrysler Building tops anything London offers.
- No Monarchy is better
- Guns Illegal, I guess that’s a point but not really a major one at this point.
- Weather, I’ll take many other cities over either but between them a toss and NY in June and at Christmas is so good that they sing about it.
- Hey NY has even closer proximity to New Jersey and that top being vaguely close to Scotland and France.
So obviously I voted for the city of my birth New York, New York. If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere.
NY is taller, larger, deeper, stronger and has the UN Building as so many have mentioned.
This expert poll list NYC #1 and London a close #2. and they’re Brits.
London is the world’s financial capital (not saying this as a patriotic thing, as a Brit I think the country would be better off if the city was nuked, concreted over, and then nuked again for good measure). In fact, in some markets like ForEx there’s more money running through London than through New York and Tokyo combined (Economist article from a few weeks ago). I suspect most Brits don’t even understand quite how much money is flowing through London.
Languages isn’t much of a criteria for this argument. If it was, you’d have to include Toronto in the discussion, but I don’t think anyone would claim Toronto was the capital of anything…other than the Peoples Socialist Republic of Ontario.
I think by making lists of points you’re missing the point. Sure, New York has finances, Los Angeles is film and big in the west, then you have older more culturally significant cities, or diverse ones. But when the legislators get together to come up with laws for everyone, they do it in DC. London has a lot of points, yes, but when the UNSC is making a vital global decision, it’s the UK representative that goes to New York to vote, not the other way around. Other nations may hold some of the courts or other facilities, but New York is home to the only global organization with any teeth, as flawed and small as those teeth may be. Being home to the UN General Assembly, UNSC, UN Headquarters, so on and so forth makes it the head, the capital, of the global community, and given everyone shows up there they pretty much acknowledge it.
As a quickie, the UN site in NY is actually built on the bombed out remains of Bristol.
When the Liberty ships unloaded their cargoes in Bristol during the second world war they were filled again with ballast to ensure their stability. The easiest source for this was building rubble as a result of Luftwaffe damage inflicted on the city.
The only cite I can give you would be my great grandfather who was a port manager in the war but he passed away in 1975.
Anyway my personal vote is for London, third Olympic games coming up, beat that!
Peter
Apologies for resurrecting this dying thread but I’ve just discovered a new piece of knowledge that must surely put this debate in a whole new light:
Starbucks Count
London: 237
New York: 231
I’ll leave it to the community to decide which city should benefit from such a statistic.
I voted London, but I recently came acrossthis article by A. T. Kearney. It’s mostly about the trend of emerging cities, but it gives the full ranking for all cities. New York is listed as number one for the past 3 years.
London is recognized as more culturally diverse but New York comes out on top in the following categories: political, information exchange, and business activity.