Living in New York vs. London

[SobaAddict70]

You've forgotten Union Square Park, Madison Square Park, and Washington Square Park to name a few. Also Bryant Park. They're none of them as good as CP of course, but they each have their own charms.

Flushing Meadows Corona Park -- the U.S. Open, for those of us who like tennis and such.

Prospect Park -- is the CP of Brooklyn, and has the Brooklyn Botanical Gardens to boot.

True, city parks rely overly much on government financing for their upkeep and tend to fall by the wayside in lean times (witness the underfinancing and poor upkeep of Madison Square Park in the early 1990s, but on the whole the state of NYC parks isn't as dismal as it used to be. Pity Henry Stern's departure though.)

SA

[macrosan]

Parks:  I am not going to take the claims for London parks seriously unless the case for New York parks is made properly.  Get out of Manhattan and look around.  There are vast nature reserves out there, apart from parks which are much larger, and arguably much more beautiful than old Central Park.

I don't want to remain off-topic for too long but I don't accept your implicit definiton of what constitutes a good public park. If you want nature reserves or large natural areas, go out into the countryside, for heaven's sake. A city park is, and should be, a beautiful artifice based on a theme of flora, which inevitably then attracts fauna to provide a further point of natural interest.

I think that St James Park is exquisite and would be difficult to better. Epping Forest (which was mentioned earlier) is not a park, it's a forest.

Edit: Mustn't allow Wilf to jump on previous bad syntax

Edited January 10, 2003 by macrosan (log)

[Wilfrid]

If you have to leave Manhattan to get to them then the whole concept of public parks is taken less seriously than in London

Er, it may be something to do with the fact that Manhattan is located on a small, very valuable, island.

GJ: thank you for explaining the basis for your conclusions.

(I must think of something nice to say about London soon; I do love the place.)

Macrosan: I don't disagree, and wasn't offering to define it. I was just reacting to the various posts which were comparing all London parks with only Central Park. You have to address the other New York parks, if only to reject them.

Edited January 10, 2003 by Wilfrid (log)

[SobaAddict70]

Does this not prove the point?

If you have to leave Manhattan to get to them then the whole concept of public parks is taken less seriously than in London

S

So are you saying that the outer boroughs are for tourists? (j/k)

SA

[SobaAddict70]

Turning the topic back to food, one can argue that NYC is famous for at least three things, food-wise:

1. Bagels.

2. Pizza.

3. Jewish food in general (i.e., Katz's, Second Avenue Deli, Carnegie Deli)

4. Ethnic food of other stripes. (Perhaps this is less true in recent years.)

5. An overabundance of famous chefs and places. (Maybe this is less of an issue and more of an overreach.)

Besides cheese and pub food, what's there about London? Teach me, somebody. I seem to remember an up and coming British chef named Gary-something from the mid 1990s, who had a penchant for spiky hair. Is he still around?

SA

[Wilfrid]

Gary Rhodes is still around.

You would certainly go to London for ethnic cuisine of various kinds ahead of just about any other city on that continent, especially Chinese ad Indian foods. Game in season cannot be overlooked. Other than that, there are some very good restaurants there, but they are preparing a version of international haute cuisine which is not significantly different in kind than that which you'd find in New York.

[Simon Majumdar]

Game in season cannot be overlooked.

I have just been out to buy

Two Mallard

Two red Legged Partridge

1lb of Wild Boar sausages

1lb of Venison in Red Wine sausages

1lb of thick cut Gloucester Old Spot bacon

1/2 of Boar blood sausage

You have not, nor could you

This was at a local butcher, not a specialty store and cost a mere £20

I know where I would rather be right now

S

Edited January 10, 2003 by Simon Majumdar (log)

[SobaAddict70]

It's funny that Bon Appetit (when I was still subscribing to that magazine) devoted not one, but two issues (over the space of five years) on what a hot new property that dining out in London had become. "Far above and away from your crusty standard meat pies and tasteless boiled vegetables" was how they put it. Then (and this is c. 1997, so things may have changed as it was about then that I stopped subscribing to BA), London was fast becoming a dining destination in much the same way that Chicago, New Orleans, SF and NYC are.

I won't be making a trip to London anytime soon (at least a year) while my finances get sorted out, but it's cool to know that some things haven't changed.

SA

[Wilfrid]

Game in season cannot be overlooked.

I have just been out to buy

Two Mallard

Two red Legged Partridge

1lb of Wild Boar sausages

1lb of Venison in Red Wine sausages

1lb of thick cut Gloucester Old Spot bacon

1/2 of Boar blood sausage

You have not, nor could you

This was at a local butcher, not a specialty store and cost a mere £20

I know where I would rather be right now

S

Lucky bugger. But I may pick up some bison testicles tomorrow morning.

[JJS]

Not that I want to bring things back to a completely non-food topic, but I have to say that event to attempt to argue that NY can match London in terms of parks is faintly nonsensical. Both cities have different visions of urban planning which in themselves have brought distinct characters, and thus distinct strengths and weaknesses. The very essence of NY compared to London is a slightly more raw urban edge in feel and look. If you want to pick a city to stroll in a relaxed manner through a myriad of beautiful parks you simply will not choose NY. Whether we talk about Central Park or those further afield, the whole point is that wherever you set your boundaries and whatever your definitions, NY has far less variety both in the type of park that it can offer and the experiences that these spaces can provide. NY has many advantages over London, some that come principally throught the difference in its growth and history, yet these came at a cost of a plentiful supply of green open spaces. How anyone can argue differently I do not know.

[Wilfrid]

New York simple has a much larger square mileage of such spaces than London. You might prefer London styles, as Macrosan does, but you can't overlook that New York has more big parks, and the big ones are much bigger.

Not that it matters particularly.

[JJS]

Is that actually true? Where do you get your information from? I find that very hard to believe.

[hollywood]

New York simple has a much larger square mileage of such spaces than London.  You might prefer London styles, as Macrosan does, but you can't overlook that New York has more big parks, and the big ones are much bigger.

Not that it matters particularly.

Los Angeles has Griffith Park which I think is the biggest park inside any U.S. city.

[g.johnson]

New York simple has a much larger square mileage of such spaces than London.  You might prefer London styles, as Macrosan does, but you can't overlook that New York has more big parks, and the big ones are much bigger.

Not that it matters particularly.

Los Angeles has Griffith Park which I think is the biggest park inside any U.S. city.

California doesn't count as it's full of Californians.

[Kikujiro]

Central Park: 843 acres.

The eight Royal Parks in London alone: 5000 acres. Not including commons, heaths, squares, etc. etc.

[Simon Majumdar]

Central Park: 843 acres.

The eight Royal Parks in London alone: 5000 acres. Not including commons, heaths, squares, etc. etc.

See Wilfrid, never make statements when someone like KikuJ is around. he has far too much time on his hands

S

[mogsob]

You've forgotten Union Square Park, Madison Square Park, and Washington Square Park to name a few.  Also Bryant Park.

Forgive me, but I nearly split my sides laughing. These are not really parks, but rather open space within the confines of a square block. London has hundreds, if not thousands of what NYers would deem "pocket parks."

That said, Central Park is the best of any urban park. It is central, huge, and of varying topography. Most people don't realize just how big Central Park is, but you could just about fit the entire Upper East and Upper West Sides within its borders. I would love to see the stats, but I would suspect that Central Park is larger than Hyde Park + St. James' Park + Green Park. Of course, while Central Park has gangs of wilding youths after dark, London's parks are filled with royals eating game from Simon's butcher.

[hollywood]

New York simple has a much larger square mileage of such spaces than London.  You might prefer London styles, as Macrosan does, but you can't overlook that New York has more big parks, and the big ones are much bigger.

Not that it matters particularly.

Los Angeles has Griffith Park which I think is the biggest park inside any U.S. city.

California doesn't count as it's full of Californians.

To be honest it's full of folks from the rest of the country who got fed up (or believed the hype), and lots of immigrants, legal and illegal. Hell, there's tons of Brits in Santa Monica and elsewhere. Good for the food.

[JJS]

For the record. NY has approximately 26,138 hectares of parkland, London has 30,205. These are official figures.

[Wilfrid]

New York City Parks Department manages 28,000 acres.

All about the parks right here.

[Kikujiro]

I would love to see the stats, but I would suspect that Central Park is larger than Hyde Park + St. James' Park + Green Park.

Yes, by about 9%. But if you want to compare the city centres, you should probably include Regent's Park, which brings the London group to 50% bigger than Central Park.

JJS, thanks. where did you find those figures? I was still looking

[g.johnson]

To get back on-topic. London parks have pre-processing venison. NYC parks have squirrels. Nothing more need be said.

Edited January 10, 2003 by g.johnson (log)

[Simon Majumdar]

JJS, thanks. where did you find those figures? I was still looking 

sad, sad, sad

And I include Wilfrid in that

S

[Wilfrid]

Could someone take a moment to explain to me why we are comparing one NYC park with eight London parks? I mean, with that approach, you'll find that sandwiches in London are bigger too.

[stellabella]

VISITING NYC vs. London:

London: pubs. the Wenlock. drinking pints all afternoon with strangers, screaming obscentities against the Dubyah and giant American cars. sitting outside the Calthorpe on a warm summer evening, long past last bell, because your friends know the guvnuh, because this is their pub, screaming obscenities at the people at the next table, head swivelling, nose seeking the source of the reefer aroma wafting through the still air. eating fried chicken livers in Covent Garden, accompanied by a bottle of wine, a brief respite from the gruelling task of perfume shopping. afterwards, a forbidden cigarette with Ray, because he offers and I love him. evening after evening of alcoholic surfeit. conversation more stimulating than at home.

NYC: a meatball hero in the Italian Market on Arthur Avenur, followed by an offal feast in Queens. walking in Williamsburg, Borough Park and Bensonhurst, pierogies in Greenpoint. window shopping in Soho. cupcakes at Cafe Spinoza in Gramercy Park. so many people living together. beautiful winter coats, jaunty scarves and recklessly conical fur hats. everythingbagelscallioncreamcheesetallwhitecoffee from the pick-a-bagel. sipping coffee in the Charbucks, because it's ass-blisteringly cold out, imagining that i live here. riding the Q back and forth between Brooklyn and Manhattan, smiling along with the natives at the skyline......

Edited January 10, 2003 by stellabella (log)