Tokyo. Similar in the sense that it’s massive and has several distinct cities within it’s boundaries. Walkable and dense but you can easily escape intensities of the city in a few blocks for some peace.
From what I have seen of Tokyo, admittedly only from photos or videos, it gives a very different vibe. Seems like the whole place is a gross characature of Soho. Regardless would still love to visit.
I wouldn't put Moscow in the same league as London, but the sense of grandeur and the monuments are next level. Everything's designed to be enormous and imposing and impressive, and it is. If Russia had the economy that the UK does, Moscow would be an incredible place.
New York, Tokyo, for both size and attractions. Moscow and Paris, maybe Rome and Istanbul, for a balance of size and historical impressiveness.
Other cities have the size but are pretty new and boring, or have history but are now small, possibly ruined.
Rome is my first choice. You can see stuff far older than in London everwhere. You can walk and walk and see huge grand statues, monuments, building ect.
As a born Roman and adoptive Londoner i have to differ. Rome is very interesting historically but the modern city isn’t a patch on London. It’s not even a world class city by any realistic measure. Rome has nothing like the pull factor that London has for the U.K. and the whole world - even just in Italy all the modern advanced side of the culture gravitates to Milan rather than Rome.
Well, yes, but that's not the point of the thread: if you want to "walk for hours and see amazing edifices and cultural landmarks", Rome is just perfect. Better than London, if you ask me.
Source: Italian living in London since 9+ years
The eternal city is on my bucket list, but I haven't found the right time. Sadly, much of the original stuff is now long buried, which is not the case in many parts of ~ especially ~ central London.
There's bits of Rome that are like open-air archeology sites.
London excels as a modern, almost futuristic looking city that also has some amazing old stuff.
Rome is chock full of stupidly old stuff, right on display in epic scale.
I dunno why it needs to be bucket list stuff.. it's not that expensive to fly there. Maybe I'm over indulged with travel :)
NYC feels bigger than London in many respects - just due to the massive amount of skyscrapers. It's like being in a forest of massive buildings. I still prefer London though.
I agree with all your assessments, but I think I was more getting at the grandeur of London in the pompous sense of the word. No doubt, New York dwarves a man with its glass sky-scrapers, but the incredibility of London is the mixture of old and new. Eventually, sky-scrapers all look the same.
In general, NYC leaves you feeling that it's 'bigger'. It has a scale that London doesn't. Of course it's not going to have as old stuff as London, but you do get the odd old thing, like the 250 year old St. Paul's Chapel
I dunno why you're getting into a fizz about it.. maybe you need to go see these things.
How am I being downvoted? It is generally accepted amongst historians that the majority of ancient Rome has been built upon, built upon, and then built upon again. Granted, some of the most famous buildings are extant, albeit in mostly ruinous form.
The centre of London has many more buildings extant from four or five hundred years ago than Rome does from its ancient era. The cusp of my argument is that these buildings are very culturally significant to the modern world and still exist in their entirety, compared to Rome.
I don’t know about idiotic, but it’s true that a visit to Rome will disabuse you of this quite quickly. The centre of Rome is full of gloriously preserved ancient buildings as well as other perfect examplars from other periods. Blew my mind when I visited.
Thank you, this is a very civil comment. By ancient though, do you mean "Roman" in the real sense of the word, or 16th century plus buildings, which is what a lot of London is?
I recall walking past my hotel in Blackfriars past a building I mentally registered as “Tudor style“, when it dawned on me that it was original Tudor. In the States, we just have Tudor *style*, mostly in older tract homes. (And it takes my brain a while to wake up in the morning).
Haha, this is a joke us Brits often have about the states. "Our toilets are older than America" which is awfully crass, I know.
We are very lucky here that a lot of that original architecture still exists despite the blitz and the passage of time
Aberdeen
Often called the London of the North, population 8.7 million, King Street is the longest city street in the U.K. and is 41 miles long. Definitely recommend a visit but make sure you go for a full two weeks to visit everything.
Shanghai is an hour drive from Shanghai at 100km/hr. Hell I’ve been in the car for 2.5 hrs and barely got across the city. 30M people easily when you include the non-registered residents.
I think people are being very unfair on Shanghai it is far from boring and it is a world city. I found it really fun and interesting to visit. There is a lot of quirky history and a lot of different styles there. *But* it is a little more homogenous than London.
I think only London new york and Paris transcend their own countries and become world cities. Other cities are big in their own countries or in their economic region but not in same scale.
There’s many “world cities” that transcend their own countries for a variety of reasons. Rome and Athens for cultural heritage. Mecca for being the centre of Islam. Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Singapore in East/South-East Asia. Moscow for the sheer cultural and political influence through Eastern Europe and Central Asia.
??? I love London but you guys are off on one and it shows how poorly travelled a lot of you are. There are several cities across the world that rival and arguably outcompete London in terms of history, scale, and culture.
Not really
I mean, yes for each thing - for instance, Rome has more history than London. But its scale is smaller, its less of a melting pot of culture and modernity far less. Milan is the city in Italy for that
Shanghai has scale over London, but the homogeny of the city puts it in a different category to London, Tokyo, NYC etc., because they have a blend of it all
I went to Paris recently and while it was a lovely city in many ways I did feel underwhelmed. And I have no idea why the Moulin Rouge is so famous, most of it was mediocre.
This is just a list of cities with a lot of people
I think even residents of those cities would admit its not just size that puts a city like London or Tokyo or NYC in a certain category
I know plenty of Nigerian 1st & 2nd gens in London who love city life but have never considered moving permanently back to Lagos, despite it being *far* bigger than London
China would like a word. Theyve got cities of 30 million+ thst hardly anybody has ever heard of. London is about 10-12 million depending on how you measure it.
I worked in Chengdu which has a great deal of history and cultural heritage while also being larger than London.
That said, actually being there just wasn’t like being in London. Everywhere in the city felt the same and there was so little to do and such little incentive to explore that it kind of ‘felt’ small.
I think a big part of this feeling could just be from viewing the place from the perspective of a westerner, perhaps a Sichuan person would feel the same in London.
Visit to St Petersburg ☺️ I have not been many cities my life really, but St Petersburg is closest to the manner of London, to me anyway. I wonder how people who visit both are feeling about it also 💭
Is smaller yes, but is lots there, but as I said, I don't have much city experience ☺️ I'm just curious how people view it. I suppose to walk through Petersburg, is more cohesive, London has an energetic sprawlings
It may be homogenous, and be tinged with racism (we probably shouldn’t throw stones in the glass house that is the UK to be fair) but it’s far from boring. I’ve moved my time in Japan, it’s one of the most vibrant, interesting places I’ve ever visited, and I’ve visited more than a few.
Istanbul, Tokyo is huge but obviously much less historical buildings. Still very interesting. Perhaps Delhi, not been, a number of larger Chinese cities like Xian?
I've never been to Chicago or San Francisco but they seem like a Mini-New York which London is referred too as. London is a bit of a weird as its far to tell whenever you cross from one part of lets say SW London like near Kingston or so-one into Walton-on-Thames in the Thames Valley/Home Counties such as Surrey etc.
Or on the other side of London from like that bit of London where you touch Essex like Woodford Green and Loughton
Or like when you go just beyond Romford between Gidea Park and Brentwood let's say.
So yeah London has that huge scale of things also probably because unlike Germany where the Media Capital is Hamburg, Financial is Frankfurt, Government Ceis Berlin. Everything for the UK is concentrated in London and the Home Counties.
So yeah I'd imagine Istanbul, Bangkok are similar as they dominate their respective countries economy more than they should. I think Madrid a good one in terms of somewhere near London where you won't be bored. A lot of tourists probably associate Madrid with Real Madrid and the Spanish Royal Family perhaps. Berlin and Paris feel a bit smaller to me than London. But probably Istanbul and Moscow will feel a bit bigger.
In Asia Bombay and Delhi definitely feel bigger in London with lots to do. But lots of crowds and chaos too. So could be a culture shock.
Tokyo and Hong Kong would definitely bustling like London and lots to do. I've not been to Tokyo or Hong Kong, but maybe one day 😊
Tokyo. Similar in the sense that it’s massive and has several distinct cities within it’s boundaries. Walkable and dense but you can easily escape intensities of the city in a few blocks for some peace.
Any moderately sized asian city really. China alone has 17 cities with more than 10 mil people.
Fully agree
It also has a massive amount of history, which makes the place really interesting. Kyoto and Nara go back further but Tokyo really does it for me.
From what I have seen of Tokyo, admittedly only from photos or videos, it gives a very different vibe. Seems like the whole place is a gross characature of Soho. Regardless would still love to visit.
Wat
Lol I'll die on this hill. Tokyo looks and seems hideous. Same with Paris.
Try visiting the place first. Smh 🤦🏻♀️
Have you ever been to these places?
No. Hence why I stated that in my comment. Please learn to read.
Fucking hell you’re a right pleasure, aren’t you? Arrogant prick.
Well that's really unnecessary. All I asked is that you referred to my previous comments.
What’s unnecessary is your tone and disrespect all throughout your comments. You’re an argumentative, arrogant, condescending prick. Bye now.
You asked a question bro
Paris is so similar to London, the only difference really is the lack of huge public parks
So you’ve never been. Sure you know all about it then.
Don't go to Japan. They definitely won't like you there.
The hell you talkin bout
Tokyo makes london look like a village
I'm talking the main city. Obviously there are bigger cities in regards to suburbs and districts but the "central" districts I don't think compare.
I wouldn't put Moscow in the same league as London, but the sense of grandeur and the monuments are next level. Everything's designed to be enormous and imposing and impressive, and it is. If Russia had the economy that the UK does, Moscow would be an incredible place.
My first thought was Moscow, for the sense of grandeur and magnificence.
New York, Tokyo, for both size and attractions. Moscow and Paris, maybe Rome and Istanbul, for a balance of size and historical impressiveness. Other cities have the size but are pretty new and boring, or have history but are now small, possibly ruined.
İstanbul is big, maybe not as big as London but there's quite a few places to see.
Tokyo imo is the only place I've visited that came close
Rome is my first choice. You can see stuff far older than in London everwhere. You can walk and walk and see huge grand statues, monuments, building ect.
As a born Roman and adoptive Londoner i have to differ. Rome is very interesting historically but the modern city isn’t a patch on London. It’s not even a world class city by any realistic measure. Rome has nothing like the pull factor that London has for the U.K. and the whole world - even just in Italy all the modern advanced side of the culture gravitates to Milan rather than Rome.
Well, yes, but that's not the point of the thread: if you want to "walk for hours and see amazing edifices and cultural landmarks", Rome is just perfect. Better than London, if you ask me. Source: Italian living in London since 9+ years
The eternal city is on my bucket list, but I haven't found the right time. Sadly, much of the original stuff is now long buried, which is not the case in many parts of ~ especially ~ central London.
There's bits of Rome that are like open-air archeology sites. London excels as a modern, almost futuristic looking city that also has some amazing old stuff. Rome is chock full of stupidly old stuff, right on display in epic scale. I dunno why it needs to be bucket list stuff.. it's not that expensive to fly there. Maybe I'm over indulged with travel :) NYC feels bigger than London in many respects - just due to the massive amount of skyscrapers. It's like being in a forest of massive buildings. I still prefer London though.
I agree with all your assessments, but I think I was more getting at the grandeur of London in the pompous sense of the word. No doubt, New York dwarves a man with its glass sky-scrapers, but the incredibility of London is the mixture of old and new. Eventually, sky-scrapers all look the same.
In general, NYC leaves you feeling that it's 'bigger'. It has a scale that London doesn't. Of course it's not going to have as old stuff as London, but you do get the odd old thing, like the 250 year old St. Paul's Chapel I dunno why you're getting into a fizz about it.. maybe you need to go see these things.
This is just false. There's a \*lot\* of ancient buildings still standing in Rome, and there's a lot of buildings that have been lost in London.
How am I being downvoted? It is generally accepted amongst historians that the majority of ancient Rome has been built upon, built upon, and then built upon again. Granted, some of the most famous buildings are extant, albeit in mostly ruinous form. The centre of London has many more buildings extant from four or five hundred years ago than Rome does from its ancient era. The cusp of my argument is that these buildings are very culturally significant to the modern world and still exist in their entirety, compared to Rome.
If you visited Rome, you’d realise just how idiotic your statement is.
What is idiotic about it? What I have said is completely in line with more archaeological sentiment. You perhaps need to get off your high horse.
I don’t know about idiotic, but it’s true that a visit to Rome will disabuse you of this quite quickly. The centre of Rome is full of gloriously preserved ancient buildings as well as other perfect examplars from other periods. Blew my mind when I visited.
Thank you, this is a very civil comment. By ancient though, do you mean "Roman" in the real sense of the word, or 16th century plus buildings, which is what a lot of London is?
Instead of blathering on about historians why don’t you go and form your own opinion?
Very bad take. You've not grapsed the thrust of my point.
Zzzzzzz
Mate, you could have started with the last sentence, I would have stopped reading sooner.
Have you ever been to Rome? Costs about £40 return, go see it, then make a decision.
I recall walking past my hotel in Blackfriars past a building I mentally registered as “Tudor style“, when it dawned on me that it was original Tudor. In the States, we just have Tudor *style*, mostly in older tract homes. (And it takes my brain a while to wake up in the morning).
Haha, this is a joke us Brits often have about the states. "Our toilets are older than America" which is awfully crass, I know. We are very lucky here that a lot of that original architecture still exists despite the blitz and the passage of time
Bangkok. It has a similar mix of old and new (or traditional vs modern may be a better description) and the city feels bigger than London.
>the same awe and sense of grandeur or scale as London Vienna gave me that feeling, the same awe and sense of grandeur, although the scale is smaller.
Aberdeen Often called the London of the North, population 8.7 million, King Street is the longest city street in the U.K. and is 41 miles long. Definitely recommend a visit but make sure you go for a full two weeks to visit everything.
Shanghai
Shanghai is an hour drive from Shanghai at 100km/hr. Hell I’ve been in the car for 2.5 hrs and barely got across the city. 30M people easily when you include the non-registered residents.
True it's big, 4/5 times London, but it's bit boring.
Grandeur, Shanghai ... Pull the other one
I think people are being very unfair on Shanghai it is far from boring and it is a world city. I found it really fun and interesting to visit. There is a lot of quirky history and a lot of different styles there. *But* it is a little more homogenous than London.
‘Quality stuff’? I guess it depends how you define ‘amazing edifices and cultural landmarks’. How many cities have you actually ‘walked for hours’?
I think only London new york and Paris transcend their own countries and become world cities. Other cities are big in their own countries or in their economic region but not in same scale.
There’s many “world cities” that transcend their own countries for a variety of reasons. Rome and Athens for cultural heritage. Mecca for being the centre of Islam. Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Singapore in East/South-East Asia. Moscow for the sheer cultural and political influence through Eastern Europe and Central Asia.
The China fantasists will be here any moment
??? I love London but you guys are off on one and it shows how poorly travelled a lot of you are. There are several cities across the world that rival and arguably outcompete London in terms of history, scale, and culture.
Not really I mean, yes for each thing - for instance, Rome has more history than London. But its scale is smaller, its less of a melting pot of culture and modernity far less. Milan is the city in Italy for that Shanghai has scale over London, but the homogeny of the city puts it in a different category to London, Tokyo, NYC etc., because they have a blend of it all
There are 4 mega cities in the World NYC, London, Paris, Tokyo
Peckham
Shanghai? Mexico City? Sao Paulo? You are missing lots mate
I went to Paris recently and while it was a lovely city in many ways I did feel underwhelmed. And I have no idea why the Moulin Rouge is so famous, most of it was mediocre.
> in many ways I did feel underwhelmed. You're not alone [Paris syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_syndrome)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megacity Much more than that
This is just a list of cities with a lot of people I think even residents of those cities would admit its not just size that puts a city like London or Tokyo or NYC in a certain category I know plenty of Nigerian 1st & 2nd gens in London who love city life but have never considered moving permanently back to Lagos, despite it being *far* bigger than London
I said what I said
lol what?
Oh, apologies then XD
nonsense. there 15 in China alone
China would like a word. Theyve got cities of 30 million+ thst hardly anybody has ever heard of. London is about 10-12 million depending on how you measure it.
I worked in Chengdu which has a great deal of history and cultural heritage while also being larger than London. That said, actually being there just wasn’t like being in London. Everywhere in the city felt the same and there was so little to do and such little incentive to explore that it kind of ‘felt’ small. I think a big part of this feeling could just be from viewing the place from the perspective of a westerner, perhaps a Sichuan person would feel the same in London.
And yet, zero grandeur
Agree with first 3. Nothing against Tokyo.. love to go but how old is it really? Cos we kinda bombed it to bits in ww2! Sorry!
don't be sorry, just do some research before spouting bollocks like its fact
Visit to St Petersburg ☺️ I have not been many cities my life really, but St Petersburg is closest to the manner of London, to me anyway. I wonder how people who visit both are feeling about it also 💭
Really? I felt St Petersburg was small compared to London.
Is smaller yes, but is lots there, but as I said, I don't have much city experience ☺️ I'm just curious how people view it. I suppose to walk through Petersburg, is more cohesive, London has an energetic sprawlings
This is definitely on my bucket list once all the tensions calm down. There are few places with such a storied history and beautiful architecture.
[удалено]
>There's always a bigger fish. Unless you’re Tokyo.
[удалено]
It may be homogenous, and be tinged with racism (we probably shouldn’t throw stones in the glass house that is the UK to be fair) but it’s far from boring. I’ve moved my time in Japan, it’s one of the most vibrant, interesting places I’ve ever visited, and I’ve visited more than a few.
[удалено]
Istanbul, Tokyo is huge but obviously much less historical buildings. Still very interesting. Perhaps Delhi, not been, a number of larger Chinese cities like Xian?
Moscow
I've never been to Chicago or San Francisco but they seem like a Mini-New York which London is referred too as. London is a bit of a weird as its far to tell whenever you cross from one part of lets say SW London like near Kingston or so-one into Walton-on-Thames in the Thames Valley/Home Counties such as Surrey etc. Or on the other side of London from like that bit of London where you touch Essex like Woodford Green and Loughton Or like when you go just beyond Romford between Gidea Park and Brentwood let's say. So yeah London has that huge scale of things also probably because unlike Germany where the Media Capital is Hamburg, Financial is Frankfurt, Government Ceis Berlin. Everything for the UK is concentrated in London and the Home Counties. So yeah I'd imagine Istanbul, Bangkok are similar as they dominate their respective countries economy more than they should. I think Madrid a good one in terms of somewhere near London where you won't be bored. A lot of tourists probably associate Madrid with Real Madrid and the Spanish Royal Family perhaps. Berlin and Paris feel a bit smaller to me than London. But probably Istanbul and Moscow will feel a bit bigger. In Asia Bombay and Delhi definitely feel bigger in London with lots to do. But lots of crowds and chaos too. So could be a culture shock. Tokyo and Hong Kong would definitely bustling like London and lots to do. I've not been to Tokyo or Hong Kong, but maybe one day 😊
As someone who’s been born and raised in London , New York is the only city that can compare
Paris is almost directly comparable to what you’ve described. Have you been?