Is London or New York a more attractive place to live?

It really depends on what rocks your boat whether you would prefer one city rather than the other - both a similar in some respects and vastly different in many others. I can't offer any valid "pro and con" comments as I am familiar with only one of them and it isn't New York City.

Both cities are extremely cosmopolitan and diverse, and both are huge tourist magnets. For many international tourists London is easily the most accessible for the simple reason that it is so much closer to other large centres of population, cetainly to the rest of Europe, and even to parts of Africa and western parts of Asia. However with the € being such a strong currency a Transatlantic trip over to NYC is such an easy option which is why so many Europeans are virtually stripping bare the stores of Manhattan. The BBC recently featured a radio report from NYC in which native New Yorkers were beginning to get pissed off with the "European invasion" and many of them now wish they "could get their own city back for themselves". Now they know how Londoners feel, especially now that the € has pretty much soared against the £. The sooner we Brits ditch the £ and join the rest of the EU by adopting the €.

London as compared with New York - well, the two cities are worlds apart in so many ways, not least of all historically. History in London goes back to the days of Londinium, 2000 years ago, when the Romans started it all off by developing a settlement on the north bank of the River Thames. This settlement was surrounded by fortifications, in the form of a wall, and sections of this wall, officially called London Wall, are still clearly visible today, in what is now the City of London, the independent heart of the whole Metropolis of Greater London.

Since then London has become one very exciting city, and the words of Dr Samuel Johnson way back in the 18th century are every bit as valid today when he said "He who is tired of London is tired of life". If you can find anything that interests you in London then you must have died already.

LONDON PRIDE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-pYvloAADg

LONDON TOWN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3rFMUn7olc

The first link features an old Noel Coward song - London Pride actually being the name of a small but very pretty little flower which flourishes in urban areas. Coward was on his way up to North Wales in May 1941 and as he was waiting in Paddington train station he composed the entire song in his head as he watched all the Londoners scurrying and hurrying off to work amongst all the bomb damage all around following a heavy air raid the previous night. He was impressed by the cheerfulness and defiance shown by all these people in spite of the terrible circumstances at the time and he took Pride in being a Londoner, which indeed he was.


The second link is much more up to date musically, so quite a contrast but it still reflects the nature of London as a city.

Now to New York City - another very exciting city in so many ways - and with a character that so obviously reflects the New World, and quite a contrast to London in its own way.

NEW YORK CITY BOY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOIKzdrsOGc

ONLY IN NEW YORK
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz1V5nJJiQU

I'd love to visit New York, and I know for sure I will before very much longer.

However, if I was forced to choose between them for permanent residence - well, it's no contest really - Londres pour moi. I also love Paris and that is SO much closer than NYC.

Damien, when Samuel Johnson said to be tired of London was to be tired of life, he was talking about an 18th century city that was culturally English. I doubt he would feel anything other than disgust at the multicultural cesspit London has become. The city has been colonised by Arabs, Pakis, assorted Negroes, etc and is truly dreadful. One could easily get tired of that, but not be tired of civilised life.

Based on your climate statistics, New York is only 5 degrees (F) colder than London in winter. It's certainly warmer in summer, though. In fact, I'd hate to spend the summer in the NY metropolitan area without A/C.

Having been in both cities, NY and London, I must confess that London is way nicer and better than NY. Besides the way people speak in London is so charming and sophisticated. NY people speak that horrible and vulgar accent that I hate to hear. Perhaps is becuase of those terrible movies from the 70s or I don't know what. For NYorker, it's the height of sophistitcation to drive a Cadillac or a Lincoln Continental, and all those horrible tankers. Londoners drive classy European small cars.

>> Based on your climate statistics, New York is only 5 degrees (F) colder than London in winter. <<

Well, I compared July and December. However January is a different story. January is actually the coldest month in all 3 cities. London and Seattle are only 1 degree colder in January (46/35 and 45/35). But the low in New York averages below freezing January: the low in New York in January is a full 9 degrees colder: average temp 38/26. And, in London, snow is relatively uncommon, particularly because heat from the urban area can make London up to 9 degrees hotter than the surrounding areas in winter. Because of London's mild climate, London has a USDA plant hardiness zone of 9! ("The hardiness zones are effective to the extent that extremes of winter cold are a major determining factor in whether a plant species can be cultivated outdoors at a particular location" (1). "Owing to the moderating effect of the Gulf Stream on the Irish and British temperate maritime climate, Britain, and Ireland even more so, have rather milder winters than their northerly position suggests." (2) London has a hardiness zone of 9, which is the same as places like Phoenix, AZ, and San Antonio, TX, and New Orleans, LA. By contrast, New York has a hardiness zone of only 7, which is considerably lower.

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardiness_zone#U.S._Cities
2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London#Climate

The euro must be doing well; I was surprised by how many Europeans I saw in Yellowstone this summer! I wonder what they thought of it, and of the weather -- I personally would have rather visited it in the fall or winter, because I like the cold. Also, apparently the geothermal steam is much more spectacular in colder weather. And there are a lot fewer people!

Correction to my last post.

Amend:
***If you can find anything that interests you in London then you must have died already***

To:
"If you can NOT find anything that interests you in London then you must have died already".

That of course makes a whole lot of difference to the meaning, and i only just found the error.

Yes, the € doing very well indeed. I currently hold about £200in € notes and coins and they are appreciating quite nicely, thanks!

Not only London, but many parts of the UK, including Edinburgh here, believe this or believe it not but it is true, receive less rainfall in the course of a year than do many American cities, and both London and Edinburgh, with annual rainfal totals of 600mm and 630mm respectively and in some years appreciably less. London's annual total is roughly equivalent to that of San Francisco, but in London it falls in much smaller quantities and on far more days than it does in SF.

London's mean January temperature is +5C and July +18C. Central London is warmer than the suburbs all the year round due to the "urban island effect.

Global warming has brought about a noticeable climate change to the UK generally - winters have become noticeably milder over the past couple of decades, and snowfall has declined, especially over the past 10/15 years. There have been winters in the past when snow has covered the ground in London for 2/3 months - rarely, admittedly, but it has happened, the last such occasions being 1946/47 and 1962/63. In 1881 a 60 hour blizzard left snowdrifts in the streets of London over 3m deep.
Under present trends such conditions are certain never to re-occur, in London or any other UK city. In the Highlands of Scotland, yes, maybe, but not in any lowland areas, that's for sure.

In the winter of 1683/84 ice floes floated down the east coast of Scotland, and an Eskimo kayak was found in the ice covered harbour at Aberdeen, in NE Scotland. What happened to the Eskimos themselves was never known.

PS: What is the correct plural for an "Eskimo"? Or is it irrelevant now that they wish to be called Innuit? What is the plural of "Innuit" anyway? Monday's poser.......

The official plural form for the Euro is actually Euro, not Euros, but to many people that is just being pedantic.

Much of Eastern Britain - Eastern Scotland and Eastern and South Eastern England are relatively dry, with annual rainfall totals below 700mm, and in some areas below 600mm. Both Edinburgh and London fall within these regions. Days of dull gey skies and mizzly drizzle producing only small amounts of measureable rain only give the impression of wetness in excess of actuality.

This is due to prevailing westerly/south westerly winds and the mountains of Western and North Western Britain acting as a sort of shield and causing a rain shadow effect. Some areas in the mountainous West and North West, with some spots such as loch Quoich, in the Highlands of Scpotland, and Snowdonia in North West Wales, and the Lake District in North West England.

It's the climate of Britain that gives our beautiful countryside its extremely green lushness, even more so for the past two years because all seasons have been a lot wetter than normal in all parts of the UK. Britain's countryside is currently unbelievably green and lush. John Constable would have a field day if he still had a pulse.

Another cock up of mine....I didn't finish this sentence...it should read:

Some areas in the mountainous West and North West, including such places as Loch Quoich - in the Highlands of Scotland, Snowdonia in North West Wales, and the Lake District in North West England receive some of the highest annual rainfall totals in Europe, let alone the UK itself....sometimes over 5000mm in all.

London is boring.

>> London's annual total is roughly equivalent to that of San Francisco, but in London it falls in much smaller quantities and on far more days than it does in SF. <<

However, the constant clouds and drizzle make London's climate seem quite different. San Francisco has 260 clear days a year, and 5 months out of the year receive > 1 cm of rainfall, with some receiving no rainfall at all. Also, the only time that London is hotter than San Francisco is during the summer months, although London is within 2-5 degrees C of San Francisco all year round.

I love sunny blue days with white clouds. That is the most fabulous weather anywhere in the world.

Eskimos is correct, and Inuit is both plural and singular.

Whoever said it doesn't snow in NYC is a jackass. Last year it snowed at least 2-3 dozen times, and during most of the winter the ground was covered in disgusting black snow. It'll probably start snowing again during the usual time, December or so.

London was an obscure, provincial city up until the 90s when it was turned into an international financial center. New York City was an international city from its founding in the 1600s. So, NYC is definitely the more international and diverse city... London has some catching up to do in that department, but it doesn't matter if you don't really care about that kind-of thing.

Anyway, the dollar is gaining in strength again against the pound sterling and the euro, so this whole European invasion thing is a short lived trend. The US economy is starting to recover while Europe and the UK are going to be worse hit than the US ever was.