DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Amoniustauns** · 03-03-2006, 01:09 PM

That immigration chart is slightly skewed as London freely takes immigrants from the entire EU while NYC takes far less immigrants because of US Immigration policy.

If I had to choose I'd probably say NYC would be "greatest" although I don't even know where to begin to describe the criteria.

London I'd give credit to as the metropolis of the great British Empire of which us Americans are essentially a spawn of. Historically speaking NYC can't even compete with the influence of London save for the last few decades.

I think you are all forgetting one city....ROME.

The heart of everything western no other city had such impact on the world. Roman (well often techincally Greek) architecture is prominent in every gov't building in both London and New York. That's not even scratching the surface as Rome had sanitation and water systems 2000 years ago that were better than NYC's in the 1900s.

To me "greatness" means "might" and Rome, London, and New York are the great cities of the world's (former and current) empires. Think about if NYC had remained the capital of the US, no city could ever rival that kind of power.

Indeed, London has absorbed many people from the EU as its essentially becoming (or could be argued as already being) the primate city. Since the EU enlargement to include 10 new states back in early 2004, around 200,000 have made their way to the UK (Between the 1 May 2004 - 1 May 2005 this was around 130,000) from the 10 new EU member states alone. Two-thirds of which are locating in London. The thing is though, I wouldn't personally consider the likes of Poland to be a state similar to California due to all the numerous differences the UK and Poland have compared to New York + California states.

London though has developed a niche in immigration by harbouring multiple small communities, rather than several larger groups as seen in New York. It also helps that London is at the centre of the global aviation crossroads meaning connections to home nations is more viable than in other world cities. London is also growing at a faster rate than New York due to greater absorbtion of people than at any time in its history.

London
2001: 7,172,091
2004: 7,421,228
3 Years: 249.137
= 83,045

Revised New York City
2000: 8,008,278
2004: 8,168,338
4 Years: 160,060
= 40,015

Population changes aside, I don't believe there is a greatest city, but rather a collection of great cities through humanitys' existence. This isn't to be confused with world cities which are present-day cities and are a completely different issue.

Wow, it must mean that London is better.

Honestly, I cannot go a week without meeting a Britisher who wants to move to the USA, or somewhere warm like Thailand or Australia.

Was that chart supposed to mean something to us?

In respect of property prices, big deal. Literally, Big Deal.

Especially in London, its a Big Deal for the agents who are getting rich.

The increase is an aberration based on the fact that people can borrow more money more cheaply; sellers therefore will ask a higher price. It doesn't mean anything.

From another perspective, would you prefer to live in London, or say, a tropical paradise like Bora Bora?

Property is much cheaper in Bora Bora, and you have a lot more beach too.

High prices on paper don't mean anything except for people who own property and think that they can justify borrowing more to finance cars, holidays and other consumables just because there is a bubble.

Where did I state that because of higher immigration, that it made London better?

Also what exactly is a Britisher?

Bora Bora is a lovely place, but its a holiday destination rather than a permanent lifestyle like that which could be found in New York or London!

Meanwhile, the number of Australians migrating to Britain is actually now larger than Brits moving to Australia. Infact I believe an investigation was undertaken to try and understand why there had been this reversal. You'll be happy to know also that New Yorkers form a large group of migrants to London, specifically those in the finance sector.

03-03-2006, 01:09 PM	#15
Amoniustauns Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 395 Senior Member	That immigration chart is slightly skewed as London freely takes immigrants from the entire EU while NYC takes far less immigrants because of US Immigration policy. If I had to choose I'd probably say NYC would be "greatest" although I don't even know where to begin to describe the criteria. London I'd give credit to as the metropolis of the great British Empire of which us Americans are essentially a spawn of. Historically speaking NYC can't even compete with the influence of London save for the last few decades. I think you are all forgetting one city....ROME. The heart of everything western no other city had such impact on the world. Roman (well often techincally Greek) architecture is prominent in every gov't building in both London and New York. That's not even scratching the surface as Rome had sanitation and water systems 2000 years ago that were better than NYC's in the 1900s. To me "greatness" means "might" and Rome, London, and New York are the great cities of the world's (former and current) empires. Think about if NYC had remained the capital of the US, no city could ever rival that kind of power. Indeed, London has absorbed many people from the EU as its essentially becoming (or could be argued as already being) the primate city. Since the EU enlargement to include 10 new states back in early 2004, around 200,000 have made their way to the UK (Between the 1 May 2004 - 1 May 2005 this was around 130,000) from the 10 new EU member states alone. Two-thirds of which are locating in London. The thing is though, I wouldn't personally consider the likes of Poland to be a state similar to California due to all the numerous differences the UK and Poland have compared to New York + California states. London though has developed a niche in immigration by harbouring multiple small communities, rather than several larger groups as seen in New York. It also helps that London is at the centre of the global aviation crossroads meaning connections to home nations is more viable than in other world cities. London is also growing at a faster rate than New York due to greater absorbtion of people than at any time in its history. London 2001: 7,172,091 2004: 7,421,228 3 Years: 249.137 = 83,045 Revised New York City 2000: 8,008,278 2004: 8,168,338 4 Years: 160,060 = 40,015 Population changes aside, I don't believe there is a greatest city, but rather a collection of great cities through humanitys' existence. This isn't to be confused with world cities which are present-day cities and are a completely different issue. Wow, it must mean that London is better. Honestly, I cannot go a week without meeting a Britisher who wants to move to the USA, or somewhere warm like Thailand or Australia. Was that chart supposed to mean something to us? In respect of property prices, big deal. Literally, Big Deal. Especially in London, its a Big Deal for the agents who are getting rich. The increase is an aberration based on the fact that people can borrow more money more cheaply; sellers therefore will ask a higher price. It doesn't mean anything. From another perspective, would you prefer to live in London, or say, a tropical paradise like Bora Bora? Property is much cheaper in Bora Bora, and you have a lot more beach too. High prices on paper don't mean anything except for people who own property and think that they can justify borrowing more to finance cars, holidays and other consumables just because there is a bubble. Where did I state that because of higher immigration, that it made London better? Also what exactly is a Britisher? Bora Bora is a lovely place, but its a holiday destination rather than a permanent lifestyle like that which could be found in New York or London! Meanwhile, the number of Australians migrating to Britain is actually now larger than Brits moving to Australia. Infact I believe an investigation was undertaken to try and understand why there had been this reversal. You'll be happy to know also that New Yorkers form a large group of migrants to London, specifically those in the finance sector.
	Quote