London: culture capital of Europe

[princealbertofb]

NYC: cultural capital of the world

I'd tend to agree with Emiliano, but then both London and New York City are said to be World or Global Cities or Alpha++ Cities ... even Planet cities.

What [MENTION=21405]meridannight[/MENTION] said could be true about Paris, but [MENTION=20933]LJay[/MENTION] says we have a reputation for not dealing with foreigner well? I don't think you'd find many French people these days who hadn't studied at least some English for a few years. Therefore we are (although badly rated in the foreign language skills chart) probably better at speaking English than your average Brit or American would be at a foreign language. (Now I know French has a reputation of being quite difficult to learn, which I understand). Moreover, I have to remember that probably more Americans than we know are at least bilingual, since there are so many recent immigrants from other countries living there. Brits, however, could do with being more European or worldwise and make language learning compulsory in their schools, which it only is to a very minimal level, as a compulsory subject. How many people on this planet speak Chinese?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city
Classification of the cities in order of economic importance here :
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2012t.html

[princealbertofb]

Long live Londinium!! Queen Elizabeth beats every beheaded king/queen for all that I care ..

Can they still be king or queen without their heads?

[princealbertofb]

Fortunately we live in a free society (for the moment) and everyone has a right to their personal opinion. I just quoted the article without expressing my personal opinion.. Paris I agree, has many charms even with my limited French.

I'm thanking you, [MENTION=18457]LONDONER[/MENTION], for your courtesy even though I personally don't like Paris very much (as a place to stay or live).

[princealbertofb]

It is the sheer variety of cultural offerings that make it come out on top. There is literally something for everyone's taste. Not so long ago Google published the fact that more people logged in to London for culture than any other city in Europe.

I think the language effect might be quite a strong incentive here... for all people concerned around the world.

[LONDONER]

I'm thanking you, [MENTION=18457]LONDONER[/MENTION], for your courtesy even though I personally don't like Paris very much (as a place to stay or live).

Paris, as cities go, can be very beautiful at times. The Parisiens can, like many people in large cities, be very rude at times.

A short time ago I sent to a friend of mine in Burbank CA., a copy of the local newspaper where I am living at the moment, that listed all the cultural events within this comparatively small area. He wrote back that he weas green with envy. Now imagine all the events in Greater London.

[princealbertofb]

And the French have a terrible reputation dealing with anyone who does not speak French.

Londoner, I know they are trying hard on behalf of the fish & chips sellers and the pubs, but the article is blatant promotion. Travel is simply a matter of preference if not for business and the nice people behind the article want us to prefer London.

For those of you who may have experience in such, which has the worse traffic? Rome? Paris? Madrid? Boston? Washington, D. C., or London?

Interesting question, [MENTION=20933]LJay[/MENTION]. My knowledge of the subject will be limited as I have not set foot in Paris for a while, nor in Boston, actually. I don't know Rome nor Washington D.C. so I won't even go there, though I think Rome has a bad reputation for traffic.
In London these days, it is still difficult to go by car, but people can get by quite easily from neighbouring towns and villages through quite a complex range of means of transport. Trains, the Tube (subway), bicycles, buses and taxis are run effectively to reduce the city's car and lorry traffic. It's better than it used to be, however the trains can't always be relied on since they've been denationalised. London has been handed back to pedestrians and that's not bad even though in surface area London is much more extended than Paris, so you'd have to walk a good deal further into the suburbs even.
Means of transport in Britain and in London remain quite costly. What I liked about Madrid was that the traffic wasn't as bad as one might expect, but it is also a much smaller city than both Paris and London (about half the number of inhabitants). The transport systems in Spain are good, buses and taxis are very cheap, and you can get many rides in Madrid for the price of one ride in Paris or London. Many people don't hesitate to take public transport when it is effective and cheap. I hear that Paris remains quite engorged at times and I would not like to have to deal with the city's rush hour (which, in effect is getting pretty hopeless even in provincial areas like Lyons, Marseilles, Grenoble or Geneva.

What I remember of Boston goes back to the 1980s and it wasn't terrible, but it wasn't great either at the time. You did what you could to avoid the rush hours. When on holiday, that's no too hard to manage. Maybe Boston has also invested in a more ecological infrastructure for people to get about on bikes that you can rent. Lyons has gone that way, and I think Grenoble has too. Since you can't drive very fast in such crowded cities, nor find space to park (or at least the parking will cost you a packet) then the solution of the bike seems a good one if you don't have many miles to cover. It's pretty fast and it's quite effective. I've seen kids and adults on scooters that can get away very efficiently.

[princealbertofb]

The study seems a little biased...
"London received 31.5 million visits from all over the world in 2015 including 12.9 million tourists from Great Britain. Research from London & Partners shows that 80 per cent of British visitors who have travelled to the capital in the last two years, agree that London is the best city in the world for culture. "

One good third of the visitors come from Britain alone. Do we know if they have any way of comparing their capital city to other capital cities they've visited? Including New York?

While it is true that any big city of culture (and capitals are generally that,) should have quite a wide offer of things to do, it is also true that people don't go to one city expecting to find exactly the same offer in another city. To some extent, you might say that they are not comparable.

Americans might go and have a walk in the streets of Paris with just as much fun or enjoyment as taking a walk through the streets and parks of London, but would they bother to go and see a film at the cinema in France? They probably only would if they understood the language well enough.

I see some smaller internationally known cities like my neighbouring Geneva as offering (almost?) all the attractions that a great capital would, excluding the large population, bustle and traffic jams of bigger cities. While more sedate, and shops are closed at night in Switzerland (true), this small-ish city has much to offer on all sorts of levels and even in languages that many people can understand. English and American films are available at cinemas with French and German subtitles. There are museums here, there is good quality music, there's art, there's shopping (even luxury items), there's a lake, there are mountains not far, there's a good airport, the public transport system is tops (but expensive), there are plenty of fine places to eat and rest too. There are parks, there's sport, there are concerts and plays and operas to attend, not to mention conferences.... Strangely, Geneva is not the capital of Switzerland, and its sister Zurich (slightly larger) is not either. Bern has a good deal of more culturally charged things to offer but remains quite a provincial town in the end.

[Keith]

earth, the culture capital of the known world. LOL

[princealbertofb]

earth, the culture capital of the known world. LOL

I like your thinking, [MENTION=19896]Keith[/MENTION]. :biggrin:

[meridannight]

Can they still be king or queen without their heads?

Pardon my French, but England needs a set of balls (i.e. a king) for a change.