# NY & London: A Tale of Two Cities



## LLoydGeorge (Jan 14, 2006)

Is London the New New York? Or Is It the Other Way Around?
New York & London: Tale of Two Cities

By JILL GARDINER - Staff Reporter of the Sun
September 5, 2006

It's a city of nearly 8 million where Mayor Bloomberg owns a townhouse. Paul McCartney, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Madonna all own homes here, too. It competed to host the 2012 Olympic Games. Architects Daniel Libeskind, Norman Foster, and Richard Rogers are all working here or have recently completed buildings. Rupert Murdoch owns a big, conservative, tabloid newspaper here. The art scene is sizzling, real estate is super-pricey, and sushi-lovers can choose from at least two Nobu restaurants. The business world revolves around a big stock market and lots of new hedge funds.

The list of parallels between New York and London has always been long, but lately, with booming economies in both cities and trendy restaurants moving into old industrial neighborhoods, the two are looking more like mirror images.

Some say the two have more in common than any other international cities on the planet, making them both allies and, increasingly, competitors in the global economy.

In the past few years, both have been terrorist targets, competed for the 2012 Olympics (London won), and passed smoking bans for bars, pubs, and restaurants. London's ban, which is modeled after New York's, is scheduled to go into effect next year.

Academics, financial analysts, restaurateurs, art gallery owners, architects, and people who've lived in both cities say while London is still blatantly British in personality, its finance, restaurant, and art industries look more like New York's now than they did five to 10 years ago.

The financial sector in London has seen a flurry of new hedge funds and leverage buyout firms investing in European companies and using the city, which offers Americans access to Europe with no language barrier, as a home base. Simultaneously, new restaurants and art galleries have sprouted in neighborhoods that have little or no industry any more — in the same way they have in places like TriBeCa here.

"London is by far the closest city to New York on almost every scale," the deputy mayor for economic development in the Bloomberg administration, Daniel Doctoroff, said. "In terms of the number of people, the percentage of people who are foreign born. It's arguable that there is no city that is more similar to New York than London anywhere."

The cities are both in the midst of construction booms, with building permits for commercial and residential development breaking records. For those who thought looking for an apartment in New York was a blood sport, realtors in London say prices for "flats" have shot up 17% this year.

"Last year, everyone was convinced that the market was going to fall," a broker at Hamptons International in the Islington section of London, Rowena Jones, said. "But then the bonuses started coming in, and people began thinking we've got to buy, buy."

The architect Daniel Libeskind, who created the master plan for the World Trade Center site and who designed a building for London Metropolitan University, said that as both cities have construction crews transforming, or adding to, their skylines, they are aware of good architecture. Londoners, he said, are more concerned with preserving history with new building. New Yorkers are more willing to be bold.

He said the two-year-old "Gherkin Building" that Norman Foster designed in London, which looks like a giant glass pickle, has broken the image "of what London used to be." Lord Foster's addition to the Hearst Building on West 57th Street in Manhattan has a similar glass and grid exterior.

For London, beating out New York for the 2012 Olympics was a major triumph.With six years to prepare for the games, the city is planning more than $7 billion in development, including athletic venues, housing, and retail.

While some in New York have suggested "congestion pricing" in Manhattan to reduce traffic in Midtown during the week, London started using the system in 2003. That city charges drivers for bringing cars into the center of the town. The initiative, which was pushed by London's mayor, Ken Livingstone, has drastically cut back on traffic.

Mr. Bloomberg has said the idea is not on the table here. Instead, he has proposed reinstating the commuter tax, which was repealed in 1999.

Shows regularly go back and forth between theater districts in London and New York. The latest swap was the "History Boys," in New York for "Avenue Q" in London.The two were hugely successful in their original cities and are drawing big crowds in their new locations.

There has even been talk of the British department stores Harrods or Harvey Nichols opening up in the New York landmark Plaza Hotel, while the Financial Times this weekend reported that Barneys New York will open its first overseas store in West London. Virgin Megastores sells music in Times Square and Union Square in Manhattan and at Piccadilly and Kensington in London.

There are differences between the two cities. The director of the Rothermere American Institute at Oxford University, Paul Giles, said London does not have the same "service culture" that New York and America has. He said stores close early, and the city is more spread out than New York, making it more difficult to get around.

"You'll go into either London and New York and you'll find a Virgin Megastore and a you'll find Starbucks, but I think on a deeper level London is still a microcosm of England," he said. He said most international cities now look more like one another than the small towns that surround them.

But the similarities are growing, and hard to ignore.

The general manager for BBC America, Kathryn Mitchell, said more American talent agencies are scouting in Britain and elsewhere to find the next television hit like "The Office," which prompted an American spinoff.

"We've got a lot in common — originally because you came from us," she said.


----------



## sydney_lad (Dec 6, 2005)

Good read!


----------



## AndySocks (Dec 8, 2005)

LLoydGeorge said:


> "London is by far the closest city to New York on almost every scale,"


Wrong. Yonkers is the closest city to New York :cheers:


----------



## AndySocks (Dec 8, 2005)

LLoydGeorge said:


> "You'll go into either London and New York and you'll find a Virgin Megastore and a you'll find Starbucks, but I think on a deeper level London is still a microcosm of England," he said. He said most international cities now look more like one another than the small towns that surround them.


And New York City isn't at all a microcosm of America on "a deeper level"?

No, seriously. This is a really dumb article.


----------



## LLoydGeorge (Jan 14, 2006)

Do you seriously think that NYC is a microcosm of the US?


----------



## bob23 (Jul 23, 2005)

I don't understand why a lot of people say London is like New York. It's more like New York is like London. London's the original. Some other stuff just doesn't make sense. Dumb article...


----------



## Brice (Sep 11, 2002)

London likes to compare itself to NY, while NY doesn't even give a shit to London.


----------



## spyguy (Apr 16, 2005)

LLoydGeorge said:


> "We've got a lot in common — originally because you came from us," she said.


What the...?


----------



## aquablue (Mar 18, 2006)

^^ Hahaha, you are misguided....Most londoners don't give one damn about NYC, don't flatter yourself. I am sorry but you are delusional in thinking that you are somehow the "best city on the planet" and your arrogance is appalling.


----------



## Christoforo (Mar 26, 2006)

bob23 said:


> I don't understand why a lot of people say London is like New York. It's more like New York is like London. London's the original. Some other stuff just doesn't make sense. Dumb article...


According to your logic, London is more like Rome than anything...
London isn't the "original" anything...there were large cities in place before London, sorry to break it to you.


----------



## Mesh22 (May 5, 2006)

EHhh whatever.

Bad comparison.

London is stubborn and elegant. New York is arrogant and brash.

The two cities are nothing alike. One represents the new world, the other the old. 

London has a soul mate and its not NY; it's Paris that London is most alike of any city on the world.

(NOTE: not only did Paris join NY and London in the 2012 Olympic race, but it ranked second behind London. New York came in fourth behind Madrid)


----------



## BenL (Apr 24, 2006)

I think it is wrong to paint New York as a really new and cutting edge city. Arguably, if we look at architecture, it is London (save for the Freedom Tower and surrounding projects) which is being far more inventive. New Yorkers, like Londoners, find it difficult to build new in cities with such brilliant older architecture. 

New York and Paris are two of my favourite cities and as a Londoner, I am sure my fellow citizens would believe New York is the "greater" city of our two biggest rivals - whether they feel closer to either, I do not know. I couldn't say.


----------



## nothingman (Jul 3, 2005)

Although there are obvious similarities, the two cities are really different. Of course, they're both big, bustling, cosmopolitan, full of tourists, have a Starbucks on every corner, world class museums, extensive subway systems, but so do most megacities. I'd actually say that as far as appearance goes, NY looks more like Tokyo while London looks more like Paris or Berlin.

London has a looooooooooong way to go to ever have the same skyline as NY too.

I don't think you can really compare such huge/unique world cities....if you're in NY, you *know* you're in NY and same goes for London.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

bob23 said:


> I don't understand why a lot of people say London is like New York. It's more like New York is like London. London's the original. Some other stuff just doesn't make sense. Dumb article...


One hundred years ago New York strove to be like London. Like it or not, the opposite is happening now, hence this rather breathless article from what I assume is a British tabloid. It is a kind of "Gosh Golly Gee! we're so much like them!!" feel that just seems so "un-British". In the past decade or so I have seen a great transformation in London to become more Americanised and more like New York. I am not making a judgement on that, but it is true. Part of the dreadfully named "Cool Britannia" movement was to break away from the past culture and become more modern and aggressive. Britain's strong backing of the war in Iraq has drawn the two cultures even closer together. I think New York is so established and comfortable with itself that it no longer has a desire to be like any other city on earth. They are comfortable in their own skin.
If I were to make a personal observation I would have to say I preferred the old London that unmistakeably LONDON, with all its inconveniences and quirks. I'm not sure the world needs another NYC, but then I am not living in London either. Maybe the citizens prefer the New London to the old one. 
By the way, when London adopts no smoking laws, it is not basing them on New York City's. These laws have been in effect for decades in California. We are all emulating California in this respect, including NYC.


----------



## BenL (Apr 24, 2006)

I don't think modernisation necessarily means trying to imitate New York... Similarly, I don't think the vastly unpopular decision to send our country to war makes us feel any closer to America than Spain does: If anything, it increases anti-American sentiment. It would seem we are less in awe of the United States than we were fifteen years ago. Whilst the article was written by a Sun journalist, I think the biggest point she was making was that London in the last ten years has firmly asserted itself as on par with New York. A decade ago, (and 9/11 could have something to do with this) NYC was a cut above and London, Paris and Tokyo were in a league below.

What do you prefer about this "old London?"


----------



## monkeyronin (May 18, 2006)

Most of the points mentioned in this article just seem so trivial and superficial. I've never been to London, but aside from the two cities arguably being the most world class cities on earth, they really seem nothing alike.


----------



## BenL (Apr 24, 2006)

But surely that is what makes them alike? They're the only two cities where you get an amazing buzz on a similar scale of "this is where the world is at".


----------



## bob23 (Jul 23, 2005)

Christoforo said:


> According to your logic, London is more like Rome than anything...
> London isn't the "original" anything...there were large cities in place before London, sorry to break it to you.


calm down...I agree with you. I just meant that between New York and London, London was the "original"


----------



## centreoftheuniverse (Nov 16, 2005)

aquablue said:


> I am sorry but you are delusional in thinking that you are somehow the "best city on the planet" and your arrogance is appalling.


Oh yes, and we all know how modest Londoners themselves are. :sleepy:


----------



## Zenith (Oct 23, 2003)

> Originally Posted by *centreoftheuniverse*
> 
> Oh yes, and we all know how modest Londoners themselves are.


Oh deary me. The article maybe be many things but its being positive about both great cities. Yet this thread seems to be wholly negative.....I would have thought we could rejoice at these two great cities.

*BenL* put it well when he said :



> But surely that is what makes them alike? They're the only two cities where you get an amazing buzz on a similar scale of "this is where the world is at".


----------



## LLoydGeorge (Jan 14, 2006)

Mesh22 said:


> EHhh whatever.
> 
> Bad comparison.
> 
> ...


Your statements are ill-informed and demonstrate a lack of knowledge. Hong Kong and Shanghai are brash. NY, along with London, is the world's most cosmopolitan city with a cultural life beyond comparison. 

PS: Paris and London are hardly soul mates. Londoners and Parisians could not be any more different.

PPS: Like NY, the overwhelming majority of what one sees when walking through London (or for that matter cities on the continent) was developed during the 19th century when cities (and economies) boomed.


----------



## BenL (Apr 24, 2006)

Not sure if I agree with these views but it might fuel the debate. This (British) website compares various features of the two cities and whilst it's wrong to compare cities on the basis of their underground systems or parks, it is quite fun.


----------



## dom (Sep 11, 2002)

Actually a large amount of central London was constructed by the landed estates in the 1700s when New York was very much in its infancy. 

For example Bloomsbury was developed in the 1600s and 1700s by the Dukes of Bedford and Southampton. 

Most of the stuccoed terraced houses in Bayswater, Kensington and Chelsea et al were built in the 1700s, preceding New York by a fair way. 

I am not meaning to be disparaging, as the bulk of the London suburbs were constructed in the 1920s and 1930s (and are not particularly attractive or architecturally distinguished) but if you are talking about the inner city (zone 1-3) it dates back a fair old way.


----------



## LLoydGeorge (Jan 14, 2006)

dom said:


> Actually a large amount of central London was constructed by the landed estates in the 1700s when New York was very much in its infancy.
> 
> For example Bloomsbury was developed in the 1600s and 1700s by the Dukes of Bedford and Southampton.
> 
> ...


I live in London. Most of what one sees in London today was developed during the 1800's. Of course, there is a lot from the 1700s, but Boston, Philadelphia (and to a lesser degree NY) have many buildings from that period too. Nonetheless, I wouldn't call Philadelphia ancient. 

At any rate, my point is that to suggest that NY is in the same league historically as Houston or Orlando is absurd.


----------



## ReddAlert (Nov 4, 2004)

god, you people are so arrogant. Then again, we are talking about London and New York City here--two of the most arrogant cities in the world along with Paris. 

And New York is the original Skyscraper City...London and all those other European and Asian cities are following New Yorks lead. Show me a picture of London, Paris, Tokyo, Shanghai, or Sao Paulo that looks like this pre-WWII? New York set the standard for high rise living and working. Something London and the rest of these cities seem to be trying to do with projects like London Bridge Tower, the Gherkin, Burj Dubai, and all that crazy shit in Russia, Korea, and Dubai.


----------



## BenL (Apr 24, 2006)

But no one has mentioned skyscrapers thus far, ReddAlert. New York's skyline is world class and considerably better than London's but:
1) This does necessarily not make it a better city.
2) Just because London was the first city to reach 1 million inhabitants in modern times it does not make it the biggest now: London and Paris defined what it was to be a huge, world class city in the 19th century but were lagging behind New York by the middle of the 20th century. A city must adapt and in Britain we are slowly learning that it is more important what you are now than what you were.


----------



## ReddAlert (Nov 4, 2004)

BenL said:


> But no one has mentioned skyscrapers thus far, ReddAlert. New York's skyline is world class and considerably better than London's but:
> 1) This does necessarily not make it a better city.
> 2) Just because London was the first city to reach 1 million inhabitants in modern times it does not make it the biggest now: London and Paris defined what it was to be a huge, world class city in the 19th century but were lagging behind New York by the middle of the 20th century. A city must adapt and in Britain we are slowly learning that it is more important what you are now than what you were.


but skyscrapers are important--especially on here. New York influenced the world when it came to high rises and high rise living. I guess it could be said that it is an influence to all these world cities--which are only recently seeing a skyscraper boom. Even forumers on here are starting to try to compare certain skyscraper areas of their cities as becoming "Lower Manhattan like" or things of that nature. Some of the responses did not touch on that and I know that skyscrapers do not make a city better than another. If that were the case then Milwaukee or Calgary would put Vienna or Athens to shame.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

City vs. City re-visited.


----------



## xInfamuzPunjabix (Jul 29, 2006)

London is like New Yorks daddy, but eventually daddys do get old and sons get older, right now is when london is the old daddy and new york is the angry young son


----------



## LLoydGeorge (Jan 14, 2006)

:runaway:


pottebaum said:


> City vs. City re-visited.


I agree. NY and London are both superb. The purpose of the article was simply to discuss similarities -- not to say which is better. Let's keep this civil.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

BenL said:


> I don't think modernisation necessarily means trying to imitate New York... Similarly, I don't think the vastly unpopular decision to send our country to war makes us feel any closer to America than Spain does: If anything, it increases anti-American sentiment. It would seem we are less in awe of the United States than we were fifteen years ago. Whilst the article was written by a Sun journalist, I think the biggest point she was making was that London in the last ten years has firmly asserted itself as on par with New York. A decade ago, (and 9/11 could have something to do with this) NYC was a cut above and London, Paris and Tokyo were in a league below.
> 
> What do you prefer about this "old London?"


No... modernisation does not necessarily mean emulating New York, but as an outsider I can say I believe that is exactly what London has been doing in the past 15 years. If you are too young to know what I mean by "old London" then I apologise but there is little point trying to point out the subtle and not so subtle Starbucksisation of the city. For those who live there now, perhaps the new London is a better place to live.. I hope that is true. To me it has less individualistic character than it used to. I love New York, and I love London... but I love them to be themselves and not some merging hybrid.


----------



## elkram (Apr 1, 2006)

London strikes me as being solid whereas NYC put together feebly. NYC`s crumbling.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

elkram said:


> London strikes me as being solid whereas NYC put together feebly. NYC`s crumbling.


Well, I suggest you were struck a tad too hard. Or... not quite hard enough. It can only be wishful thinking to see NYC as crumbling.


----------



## SE9 (Apr 26, 2005)

Taller said:


> No... modernisation does not necessarily mean emulating New York, but as an outsider I can say I believe that is exactly what London has been doing in the past 15 years. If you are too young to know what I mean by "old London" then I apologise but there is little point trying to point out the subtle and not so subtle Starbucksisation of the city. For those who live there now, perhaps the new London is a better place to live.. I hope that is true. To me it has less individualistic character than it used to. I love New York, and I love London... but I love them to be themselves and not some merging hybrid.


Yes London is changing, and for the better. The city has been changing for over 2000 years now, as has every other city in the world. No city can continue living by its past, when it has to strive for a more prosperous future. A reinventive city is better than a stagnant one, and this applies for most cities.

It may have a less individualistic character to you, but many people see these changes as making the city more unique. I don't see how, over the past 15 years, London has been trying to 'emulate' New York. Of course some similarities between the two cities have come up in the last 15 years, but emulate?


Anyway, I'm now living in London, and I've visited New York many times (my parents lived there for a couple' decades) and they're the two cities closest to me, and two undoubtably great cities.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Taller said:


> One hundred years ago New York strove to be like London. *Like it or not, the opposite is happening now, hence this rather breathless article from what I assume is a British tabloid*. It is a kind of "Gosh Golly Gee! we're so much like them!!" feel that just seems so "un-British". In the past decade or so I have seen a great transformation in London to become more Americanised and more like New York. I am not making a judgement on that, but it is true. Part of the dreadfully named "Cool Britannia" movement was to break away from the past culture and become more modern and aggressive. Britain's strong backing of the war in Iraq has drawn the two cultures even closer together. I think New York is so established and comfortable with itself that it no longer has a desire to be like any other city on earth. They are comfortable in their own skin.
> If I were to make a personal observation I would have to say I preferred the old London that unmistakeably LONDON, with all its inconveniences and quirks. I'm not sure the world needs another NYC, but then I am not living in London either. Maybe the citizens prefer the New London to the old one.
> By the way, when London adopts no smoking laws, it is not basing them on New York City's. These laws have been in effect for decades in California. We are all emulating California in this respect, including NYC.


Actually, your point there is rather defeated by the fact that this article is written by an American (a New Yorker) from an American newspaper. By sun, they were referring to "the New York Sun", not the larger UK paper.
http://www.nysun.com/ (Jill Gardener is a reporter from the NYSun)

So, if your point is that _"Gosh Golly Gee! we're so much like them"_, then it is a New Yorker who is saying they are so much like London.


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

I've always felt a strong connection between the two cities. London is more international than any other city, as is New York.


----------



## Newcastle Guy (Jul 8, 2005)

about the skyscraper thing, didn't London have the first official skyscraper (150m+)? The original st Pauls was that tall, which I believe is taller than the great pyramids


----------



## LLoydGeorge (Jan 14, 2006)

samsonyuen said:


> I've always felt a strong connection between the two cities. London is more international than any other city, as is New York.


I agree.


----------



## nick_-_taylor (Sep 6, 2006)

Newcastle Guy said:


> about the skyscraper thing, didn't London have the first official skyscraper (150m+)? The original st Pauls was that tall, which I believe is taller than the great pyramids


The first building to be built taller than the Pyramid at Giza (146m) was Lincoln Cathedral in England - it had a height of 160m (might have been higher) - the first building ever on the planet above 150m. It held that record from around 1300-1549 when the central spire was struck by lightning and blown to peices.

The current St Paul's is actually the fourth St Paul's. The third which was finished in 1314 had a spire that reached up to 150m. Unfortunately it too was blown to bits by lightning in 1561 (12 years after the same had happened at Lincoln). The rest of the church was destroyed in 1666 in the Great Fire of London and hence we now have the fourth domed version.




*Lincoln Cathedral without its three spires*












*The Old St Pauls Church*


----------



## LLoydGeorge (Jan 14, 2006)

Nice picture. Approximately what year is depicted? It's funny to see all the empty land. Is that Primrose Hill in the background?


----------

