|
World cities
Hi
I've been following the various threads entitles something like "Should I go to X ?... It seems to me there are cities, and there are "world cities". From my experience, world cities are - San Francisco Sydney London Berlin Seoul Tokyo Cairo Paris Rome Rio In order of number of letters ! Of course this is subjective, Any comments ? Peter |
Re: World cities
"mpprh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]... > Hi > > I've been following the various threads entitles something like "Should I go > to X ?... > > It seems to me there are cities, and there are "world cities". > > From my experience, world cities are - > > San Francisco Sydney London Berlin Seoul Tokyo Cairo Paris Rome Rio > > > In order of number of letters ! > > Of course this is subjective, > > Any comments ? > > Peter > I think Barcelona should be in your list and, to a lesser extent, Amsterdam. I suppose New York should be there, or did you just include places that might be nice to visit? Steve Martin. -- www.smartco.clara.co.uk |
Re: World cities
I espied that on 17 May 2002, mpprh <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi > > I've been following the various threads entitles something like "Should I go > to X ?... > > It seems to me there are cities, and there are "world cities". > > From my experience, world cities are - > > San Francisco Sydney London Berlin Seoul Tokyo Cairo Paris Rome Rio > > In order of number of letters ! > > Of course this is subjective, > > Any comments ? > > Peter > Hmmmm.......I can't imagine that any list of world cities can possibly exclude New York. My list -- which is unabashedly western-centric; is the view of an town planner/urban designer; isn't meant to be comprehensive; and doesn't account for some overlap begween groups -- would be divided into a greater number of categories. Group 1A -- world cities due to age, culture, size and economics London, Paris, New York, Moscow, Tokyo, Rome Group 1B -- world cities due purely to size and economic importanace Mexico City, Seoul, Rio, Sydney, Hong Kong Group 2 -- regional cities, but important in more than just their own region Chicago, San Francisco, Amsterdam, Berlin, Stockholm Group 3 -- nice places, but of true economic importance only in their own region Toronto, Frankfurt, Auckland, Munich, Milan, Edinburgh It's possible to continue with more groups, but I'll resist the temptation...... -- Cheers, Harvey |
Re: World cities
mpprh <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've been following the various threads entitles something like "Should I go > to X ?... > > It seems to me there are cities, and there are "world cities". > > From my experience, world cities are - > > San Francisco Sydney London Berlin Seoul Tokyo Cairo Paris Rome Rio > > Any comments ? I guess when I think World Cities I think of those with the greatest combination of far-ranging cultural and/or economic weight, plus a healthy helping of actual urban oomph. New York, London, Paris, Cairo, Bombay, Tokyo, Hong Kong. Some of these are great places to be (others aren't necessarily). I'd say many of the most pleasant cities to actually be in fall in the next level down: San Francisco, Sydney, Amsterdam, Kuala Lumpur, Istanbul, etc. miguel -- Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu |
Re: World cities
Harvey V <[email protected]> wrote:
> Group 1B -- world cities due purely to size and economic importanace > > Mexico City, Seoul, Rio, Sydney, Hong Kong > > Group 2 -- regional cities, but important in more than just their own region > > Chicago, San Francisco, Amsterdam, Berlin, Stockholm Somehow I just don't see Sydney in list 1B rather than 2 (or even 3). It's a nice place (heck, I lived there for two years), but it's not that large and frankly doesn't have that much economic significance. > Group 3 -- nice places, but of true economic importance only in their own region > > Toronto, Frankfurt, Auckland, Munich, Milan, Edinburgh Likewise I'd demote Auckland right off the bottom (and promote Frankfurt). It's dull by comparison to other cities in NZ, let alone places like Edinburgh, Munich, and Milan. > It's possible to continue with more groups, but I'll resist the temptation...... Fun, isn't it, though? miguel -- Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu |
Re: World cities
Harvey V <[email protected]> wrote:
> Group 1A -- world cities due to age, culture, size and economics > > London, Paris, New York, Moscow, Tokyo, Rome If you include Moscow, you can't really exclude Cairo, surely? Yes, weak on ecomonics, perhaps, but bursting on everything else. > Group 1B -- world cities due purely to size and economic importanace > > Mexico City, Seoul, Rio, Sydney, Hong Kong > > > Group 2 -- regional cities, but important in more than just their own region > > Chicago, San Francisco, Amsterdam, Berlin, Stockholm Stockholm is surely below Amsterdam, no? :) > It's possible to continue with more groups, but I'll resist the temptation...... Oh no- go ahead! :) David -- David Horne- www.davidhorne.co.uk Composer in Association- RLPO david (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk |
Re: World cities
I espied that on 17 May 2002, [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
> Harvey V <[email protected]> wrote: -snip- >> It's possible to continue with more groups, but I'll resist the temptation...... > > Fun, isn't it, though? It's basically a fool's mission, but then again.....the shoe certainly seems to fit me.....wonder why...... :) -- Cheers, Harvey |
Re: World cities
On Fri, 17 May 2002 22:58:38 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne) wrote:
>Harvey V <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Group 1A -- world cities due to age, culture, size and economics >> >> London, Paris, New York, Moscow, Tokyo, Rome > >If you include Moscow, you can't really exclude Cairo, surely? Yes, weak on >ecomonics, perhaps, but bursting on everything else. > >> Group 1B -- world cities due purely to size and economic importanace >> >> Mexico City, Seoul, Rio, Sydney, Hong Kong >> >> >> Group 2 -- regional cities, but important in more than just their own region >> >> Chicago, San Francisco, Amsterdam, Berlin, Stockholm > >Stockholm is surely below Amsterdam, no? :) > >> It's possible to continue with more groups, but I'll resist the temptation...... > >Oh no- go ahead! :) > Suggestion for a sub-group - "Places that once were world cities but no longer are. But they still look and feel like world cities". That way Vienna gets on the list. Keith Bristol UK Remove NSP to reply |
Re: World cities
I espied that on 17 May 2002, [email protected] (David Horne) wrote:
> Harvey V <[email protected]> wrote: >> Group 1A -- world cities due to age, culture, size and economics >> >> London, Paris, New York, Moscow, Tokyo, Rome > > If you include Moscow, you can't really exclude Cairo, surely? Yes, weak on > ecomonics, perhaps, but bursting on everything else. Like I said in response to Miguel, it's basically a fool's mission, this... ;) I probably still rank Moscow for old times' sake; it's probably shifted down to Group 2 over the past 10 years. I think I'd probably put Cairo in Group 2, as well: world-level in terms of culture and size, but otherwise of regional rather than world- level importance. Where should one place Istanbul? -- Cheers, Harvey |
Re: World cities - Moscow etc.
Harvey V wrote:
> I espied that on 17 May 2002, [email protected] (David Horne) wrote: > > Harvey V <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Group 1A -- world cities due to age, culture, size and economics > >> > >> London, Paris, New York, Moscow, Tokyo, Rome > > > > If you include Moscow, you can't really exclude Cairo, surely? Yes, weak on > > ecomonics, perhaps, but bursting on everything else. > > Like I said in response to Miguel, it's basically a fool's mission, this... ;) > > I probably still rank Moscow for old times' sake; it's probably shifted down to > Group 2 over the past 10 years. No, Moscow should *definitely* still be in group 1A. It's the biggest city in Europe (9-15 million inhabitans), capital of a former superpower (which still is the biggest and one of the most important countries in the world), economic centre of the whole CIS, and still a very important cultural and historic city. > > > I think I'd probably put Cairo in Group 2, as well: world-level in terms of culture > and size, but otherwise of regional rather than world- level importance. > > Where should one place Istanbul? > Probably group 2. > > -- > Cheers, Harvey //Emil Jelstrup |
Re: World cities
Harvey V <[email protected]> wrote:
> Where should one place Istanbul? Below Cairo? HTH. :) David -- David Horne- www.davidhorne.co.uk Composer in Association- RLPO david (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk |
Re: World cities
I espied that on 17 May 2002, Keith Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote: -snip- > Suggestion for a sub-group - "Places that once were world cities but no longer are. > But they still look and feel like world cities". That way Vienna gets on the list. > I like it -- it answers my question as to where to put Istanbul. (And Prague?) -- Cheers, Harvey |
Re: World cities
Berlin in Group 2? Thats a little off, IMHO. Definitely somewhere in Group
1."David Horne" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:1fccoq7.vqsry31dmfrrzN%[email protected]... > Harvey V <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Where should one place Istanbul? > > Below Cairo? HTH. :) > > David > > -- > David Horne- www.davidhorne.co.uk Composer in Association- RLPO david (at) > davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk |
Re: World cities
I espied that on 17 May 2002, [email protected] (David Horne) wrote:
> Harvey V <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Where should one place Istanbul? > > Below Cairo? HTH. :) Keith Anderson's sub-category -- "Places that once were world cities but no longer are. But they still look and feel like world cities" -- fits better, don't you think? -- Cheers, Harvey |
Re: World cities
Harvey V <[email protected]> wrote:
> I espied that on 17 May 2002, [email protected] (David Horne) wrote: > > > Harvey V <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Where should one place Istanbul? > > > > Below Cairo? HTH. :) > > Keith Anderson's sub-category -- "Places that once were world cities but no > longer are. But they still look and feel like world cities" -- fits better, don't > you think? It's a great category for Istanbul, but I'd still place Cairo above it! David -- David Horne- www.davidhorne.co.uk Composer in Association- RLPO david (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk |
Re: World cities
On Fri, 17 May 2002 21:47:28 GMT, Harvey V
<[email protected]> wrote: >I espied that on 17 May 2002, mpprh <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi >> >> I've been following the various threads entitles something like "Should I go >> to X ?... >> >> It seems to me there are cities, and there are "world cities". >> >> From my experience, world cities are - >> >> San Francisco Sydney London Berlin Seoul Tokyo Cairo Paris Rome Rio >> >> In order of number of letters ! >> >> Of course this is subjective, >> >> Any comments ? >> >> Peter >> > > >Hmmmm.......I can't imagine that any list of world cities can possibly exclude >New York. > >My list -- which is unabashedly western-centric; is the view of an town >planner/urban designer; isn't meant to be comprehensive; and doesn't account for >some overlap begween groups -- would be divided into a greater number of categories. > > >Group 1A -- world cities due to age, culture, size and economics > > London, Paris, New York, Moscow, Tokyo, Rome > > >Group 1B -- world cities due purely to size and economic importanace > > Mexico City, Seoul, Rio, Sydney, Hong Kong > > >Group 2 -- regional cities, but important in more than just their own region > > Chicago, San Francisco, Amsterdam, Berlin, Stockholm > > >Group 3 -- nice places, but of true economic importance only in their own region > > Toronto, Frankfurt, Auckland, Munich, Milan, Edinburgh > > >It's possible to continue with more groups, but I'll resist the temptation...... SFX: Muffled sobs I suppose Los Angeles is just...out there somewhere... -- Polar |
Re: World cities
In article <[email protected]>, Polar
<[email protected]> wrote: > >My list -- which is unabashedly western-centric; is the view of an town > >planner/urban designer; isn't meant to be comprehensive; and doesn't account for > >some overlap begween groups -- would be divided into a greater number of > >categories. > > > > > >Group 1A -- world cities due to age, culture, size and economics > > > > London, Paris, New York, Moscow, Tokyo, Rome > > > > > >Group 1B -- world cities due purely to size and economic importanace > > > > Mexico City, Seoul, Rio, Sydney, Hong Kong > > > > > >Group 2 -- regional cities, but important in more than just their own region > > > > Chicago, San Francisco, Amsterdam, Berlin, Stockholm > > > > > >Group 3 -- nice places, but of true economic importance only in their own region > > > > Toronto, Frankfurt, Auckland, Munich, Milan, Edinburgh > > > > > >It's possible to continue with more groups, but I'll resist the temptation...... > > > SFX: Muffled sobs > > I suppose Los Angeles is just...out there somewhere... > Los Angeles has the largest air cargo airport in the world and its passenger airport is 3rd in the world. Its port is the top 2 or 3 in the world. What about Shanghai ? jay Fri, May 17, 2002 mailto:[email protected] -- Legend insists that as he finished his abject... Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move." |
Re: World cities
|
Re: World cities - Moscow etc.
Emil Jelstrup <[email protected]> wrote:
> No, Moscow should *definitely* still be in group 1A. > > It's the biggest city in Europe (9-15 million inhabitans), capital of a former > superpower (which still is the biggest and one of the most important countries in > the world), economic centre of the whole CIS, and still a very important cultural > and historic city. Mexico City is the biggest city in North America but being realistic, its global signficance is trivial compared to even such second-rate towns as Washington DC, let alone New York. Size alone doesn't mean much. Is Russia one of the most important countries in the world? That's a big question! miguel -- Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu |
Re: World cities - Moscow etc.
On Fri, 17 May 2002 23:24:39 GMT, [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
> Size alone doesn't mean much. Well, now we know :) |
Re: World cities - Moscow etc.
Miguel Cruz wrote:
> > > Is Russia one of the most important countries in the world? That's a big question! Yes, Russia *is* one of the most important countries in the world! It's the biggest country in the world (covers almost a half of Europe and the whole Northern Asia) - it still has military control over Central Asia (a strategically important region at the moment), it's a member of the G8 and a lot of other organizations, and a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Which countries should otherwise be the most important in the world if not Russia is one of them? I would say that the USA is the most important country, then the EU (well, it's not a country), then Russia, China - and which other countries? > > > miguel > -- > Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu //Emil Jelstrup |
Re: World cities - Moscow etc.
Emil Jelstrup <[email protected]> wrote:
> Miguel Cruz wrote: >> Is Russia one of the most important countries in the world? That's a big question! > > Yes, Russia *is* one of the most important countries in the world! It's the biggest > country in the world (covers almost a half of Europe and the whole Northern Asia) Australia and Canada are both tremendously huge countries geographically but I would continue to dispute any assertion that it catapults them to top player status. > - it still has military control over Central Asia (a strategically important region > at the moment), it's a member of the G8 and a lot of other organizations, and a > permanent member of the UN Security Council. Many of their memberships are historical artifacts and you can see that in the way they behave and the way other nations behave towards them. > Which countries should otherwise be the most important in the world if not Russia > is one of them? USA, China, UK, India, Japan. And in a certain, possibly transient, way, Israel and Pakistan. Important countries are the ones where things happen and decisions are made that have ongoing regional and/or global impact. miguel -- Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu |
Re: World cities
Harvey V <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>... > I espied that on 17 May 2002, mpprh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi > > > > I've been following the various threads entitles something like "Should I go to > > X ?... > > > > It seems to me there are cities, and there are "world cities". > > > > From my experience, world cities are - > > > > San Francisco Sydney London Berlin Seoul Tokyo Cairo Paris Rome Rio > > > > In order of number of letters ! > > > > Of course this is subjective, > > > > Any comments ? > > > > Peter > > > > > Hmmmm.......I can't imagine that any list of world cities can possibly exclude > New York. > > My list -- which is unabashedly western-centric; is the view of an town > planner/urban designer; isn't meant to be comprehensive; and doesn't account for > some overlap begween groups -- would be divided into a greater number of > categories. > > > Group 1A -- world cities due to age, culture, size and economics > > London, Paris, New York, Moscow, Tokyo, Rome > > > Group 1B -- world cities due purely to size and economic importanace > > Mexico City, Seoul, Rio, Sydney, Hong Kong > > > Group 2 -- regional cities, but important in more than just their own region > > Chicago, San Francisco, Amsterdam, Berlin, Stockholm > > > Group 3 -- nice places, but of true economic importance only in their own region > > Toronto, Frankfurt, Auckland, Munich, Milan, Edinburgh > > > It's possible to continue with more groups, but I'll resist the temptation...... wow! does this mean you think Sydney is the fourth most important city in terms of size and economic importance? |
Re: World cities
mpprh wrote:
> > Hi > > I've been following the various threads entitles something like "Should I go > to X ?... > > It seems to me there are cities, and there are "world cities". > > From my experience, world cities are - > > San Francisco Sydney London Berlin Seoul Tokyo Cairo Paris Rome Rio > > In order of number of letters ! > > Of course this is subjective, > > Any comments ? London? Vienna? > > Peter > > -- > Posted via http://britishexpats.com |
Re: World cities
"mpprh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]... > Hi > > I've been following the various threads entitles something like "Should I go > to X ?... > > It seems to me there are cities, and there are "world cities". > > From my experience, world cities are - > > San Francisco Sydney London Berlin Seoul Tokyo Cairo Paris Rome Rio > > > In order of number of letters ! > > Of course this is subjective, > > Any comments ? > > Peter You certainly left off many I think of as cities of interest to the entire world! I would have left off San Francisco and added New York, for a start. Seoul, but not Venice? Berlin but not Paris? Too many disagreements to adequately approach here. For me, all cities are worth a look. St Petersburg, for example, with incredible art and physical beauty. Peking, Shanghai, Hong Kong, even. Marakech and Madrid, Barcelona, Vienna, Budapest...my list is a whole lot longer than yours. |
Re: World cities
"Polar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]... > On Fri, 17 May 2002 21:47:28 GMT, Harvey V > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >I espied that on 17 May 2002, mpprh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi > >> > >> I've been following the various threads entitles something like "Should I go to > >> X ?... > >> > >> It seems to me there are cities, and there are "world cities". > >> > >> From my experience, world cities are - > >> > >> San Francisco Sydney London Berlin Seoul Tokyo Cairo Paris Rome Rio Peter > >Hmmmm.......I can't imagine that any list of world cities can possibly exclude > >New York. > >Group 1A -- world cities due to age, culture, size and economics > > > > London, Paris, New York, Moscow, Tokyo, Rome > > > > > >Group 1B -- world cities due purely to size and economic importanace > > > > Mexico City, Seoul, Rio, Sydney, Hong Kong > > > > > >Group 2 -- regional cities, but important in more than just their own region > > > > Chicago, San Francisco, Amsterdam, Berlin, Stockholm > > > > > >Group 3 -- nice places, but of true economic importance only in their own region > > > > Toronto, Frankfurt, Auckland, Munich, Milan, Edinburgh > > > > > >It's possible to continue with more groups, but I'll resist the temptation...... > > > SFX: Muffled sobs > > I suppose Los Angeles is just...out there somewhere... > > > -- > Polar Well, yes, because as a CITY it fails to hold together. It is so disorganized that hardly anyone knows where the center is, let alone actually goes there. LA feels like the world's largest collection of suburbs to me. |
Re: World cities
I espied that on 18 May 2002, [email protected] (Helen A.) wrote:
> Harvey V <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:<[email protected]>... -snip- >> Group 1B -- world cities due purely to size and economic importance >> >> Mexico City, Seoul, Rio, Sydney, Hong Kong >> -snip- > > wow! does this mean you think Sydney is the fourth most important city in terms of > size and economic importance? > Nah: just that I suspected that, in terms of the world economy, it probably has some pull by virtue of its proximity to Asia. (I should have labelled this group as "due purely to size and/or economic importance".) I could be wrong about Sydney, of course........indeed, one poster pulled it out of that group really quickly...... ;) -- Cheers, Harvey |
Re: World cities
I espied that on 18 May 2002, [email protected] (Luca Logi) wrote:
> Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> What about Shanghai ? > > > A list that forgets places like Beijing and Bombay cannot be serious For my part, the list wasn't really serious at all! More in the nature of "this is how I'd structure such a list, and how it might look from one person's western-European-centred viewpoint". It's interesting how much reaction this sort of classifying generates, but in the end it depends on subjective criteria. (A for classifying of places, I like the way that local newspapers in boring suburban towns invariably play up those "liveability" surveys in which their backwater winds up as the finest locale in the nation. They tend not to point out that such surveys often don't allow for the excitement of big, complex and historic urban places, because they couldn't be measured quantitatively.....) -- Cheers, Harvey |
Re: World cities
I espied that on 17 May 2002, "Gus" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Berlin in Group 2? Thats a little off, IMHO. Definitely somewhere in Group 1. Hmmm. I'm not sure. It's undoubtedly reclaimed importance since reunification, but I just don't see it as standing up there in group 1A with London, New York, Paris and Tokyo. As for putting it in 1B, it doesn't have the sheer size of places like Mexico City or Rio. As the capital of the largest of the common currency zone countries, so its status seems to me to lie with the other "non-great" European capitals. -- Cheers, Harvey |
Re: World cities
mpprh wrote:
> there are cities, and there are "world cities". > > From my experience, world cities are - > > San Francisco Sydney London Berlin Seoul Tokyo Cairo Paris Rome Rio I live in one and have visited four of the others. How can you have omitted Manhattan? You have not given us your definition of "world city" so maybe Manhattan doesn't qualify. I would include many other wonderful cities, many of them in North America, as worthy of the world's attention in the sense of being great places to visit and, perhaps even, to live. __________________________________________________ ___________ ICONO CLAST -- A San Franciscan in 47.335 mile² San Francisco http://geocities.com/dancefest/ IClast at SFbay Net |
Re: World cities
Le Sat, 18 May 2002 02:47:33 -0700, Icono Clast <[email protected]> a écrit :
>> there are cities, and there are "world cities". >> >> From my experience, world cities are - >> >> San Francisco Sydney London Berlin Seoul Tokyo Cairo Paris Rome Rio > I live in one and have visited four of the others. How can you have omitted > Manhattan? Perhaps because Manhattan isn't a city, it's a burough (did I spell that correctly ?). -- Desmond Coughlan |****#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38 desmond @ noos.fr |BONY#48 ANORAK#11 http://mapage.noos.fr/desmond/ Clé Publique : http://mapage.noos.fr/desmond/pgp/pubring.pkr |
Re: World cities
Any special reason for missing out New York (and if SF, why not Chicago and Los
Angeles?)...?! Seoul looks like a bit of an outlier in this company. PJW On 17 May 2002 20:20:16 GMT, mpprh <[email protected]> wrote: > >From my experience, world cities are - > >San Francisco Sydney London Berlin Seoul Tokyo Cairo Paris Rome Rio |
LA "International" airport (was Re: World cities)
I espied that on 18 May 2002, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
-snip- > Los Angeles has the largest air cargo airport in the world and its passenger > airport is 3rd in the world. 3rd in terms of what? Physical size, passenger movements, or aircraft movements? (And if it's the latter, does that include local hobby flying?) The reason I ask is that I've been to LAX twice -- to change planes going from London to Auckland -- and found it woefully underserviced from the standpoint of international passenger facilities, certainly if you're in transit. A couple of bars and restaurants were about it - - and even some of those were closed because it wasn't the middle of the day. And the sockets for electric shavers in the washrooms -- in the international zone, mind you -- were US-only rather than those kind that accommodate all kinds of shaver plugs that I'm used to in hotels. (Mind you, I had the same problem with the shaver socket in a large international chain hotel near the airport -- I rented a room to sleep during the 8-hour stopover -- so "international" isn't the first word which springs to my mind to describe LA airport.) On my return the last time I changed at Chicago, which was a *lot* better in terms of necessary services. -turn on rant mode- And where in LA do they get those guys on the passport examination desks? From some Institute for the Incurably Thick? Changing planes, I knew that they would need to question me about the purpose of entering the US and length of stay. So I present my passport, itinerary and the boarding pass for the next leg of the journey (leaving in 3 hours.) He seems to look closely at all of the documents. Me, trying to help: I'm in transit from Auckland to London. Him: What is the purpose of your visit to the United States? Me, after a slight pause: To change planes. (Me thinks: "I thought it was the jet-lagged one of us that was supposed to have problems adding 2 and 2 together.) Him: How long do you plan to stay in the United States? (Me thinks: some vague acknowledgement that you've actually got this information in written and verbal form would be pleasant.) Me: Just long enough to change planes. Him: Are you intending to extend your visit? (Me thinks: only if you decide to confiscate my boarding pass, mate.) Me (pleasantly, not sarcastically, honest): No, I'm just changing planes. Him: Passes documents back without comment. (Me thinks: what a fun guy. Maybe he's insulted that I have no desire to stay in his country. Or maybe he knows how boring this airport is, and can't believe that someone wouldn't get out of it as quickly as possible......) -turn off rant mode- -- Cheers, Harvey |
Re: LA "International" airport (was Re: World cities)
On Sat, 18 May 2002 10:06:50 GMT, Harvey V
<[email protected]> wrote: <snip> Reminds me of the story Bill Bryson wrote about arriving at Logan Airport in Boston - "As I approached the last immigration official, he said to me "Any fruit or vegetables?" I considered for a minute. "Sure, why not" I said, "I'll have four pounds of potatoes and some mangoes if they're fresh" Instantly, I could see that I had misjudged my audience and that this was not a man who ached for banter. He looked at me with one of those slow, dark, cerebrally challenged expresions that you never want to see in a uniformed official, but especially in a US Customs and Immigration officer because, believe me, these people have powers you really do not want to put to the test. If I just mention the words "strip search" and "rubber gloves" I think you will latch on to my meaning. When I say they have the right to interrupt your passage, I mean it in every possible sense. Luckily, this man appeared to conclude that I was just incerdibly thick. "Sir", he enquired more specifically, "are you carrying any items of a fruit or vegetable nature?" "No sir, I am not", I answered at once and fed him the most respectful and grovelling look I believe I have ever mustered. "Then keep moving please" he said. I left him shaking his head. I am sure for the rest of his career he will be telling people about the knucklehead who thought he was a greengrocer. (Bill Byson, "Notes from a Big Country") (PS - if anyone construes this as an "Americans are thick" posting, I hasten to add that I have met equally thick officials in the UK). Keith Bristol UK Remove NSP to reply |
Re: World cities
In article <[email protected]>, Harvey V
<[email protected]> writes >Group 1B -- world cities due purely to size and economic importanace > > Mexico City, Seoul, Rio, Sydney, Hong Kong I'd have added Los Angeles to this group. -- congokid Eating out in London? Read my tips... http://congokid.com |
Re: LA "International" airport (was Re: World cities)
"Harvey V" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[email protected]... > I espied that on 18 May 2002, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote: > > Los Angeles has the largest air cargo airport in the world and its passenger > > airport is 3rd in the world. > > 3rd in terms of what? Physical size, passenger movements, or aircraft movements? > (And if it's the latter, does that include local hobby flying?) You may find the answer on > http://www.airports.org/traffic/index.html > The reason I ask is that I've been to LAX twice -- to change planes going from > London to Auckland -- and found it woefully underserviced from the standpoint of > international passenger facilities, certainly if you're in transit. Actually I've the same experience, the airport was somewhat run-down. Real unpleasant was the fact non-ticketed passengers (was 1998) were allowed inside the departure area as long as they passed the security checks. Some of them walking around asking for money to various projects. L.P |
Re: LA "International" airport (was Re: World cities)
On Sat, 18 May 2002 10:06:50 GMT, Harvey V
<[email protected]> wrote: >The reason I ask is that I've been to LAX twice -- to change planes going from >London to Auckland -- and found it woefully underserviced from the standpoint of >international passenger facilities, certainly if you're in transit. Same is true of the international terminal in Boston, Logan airport. In the summer, always crammed beyond capacity. The arrival hall is a joke--luggage belt OK for a 727 maybe, *not* a 747. Weary travelers stand three deep around that belt for an hour, can easily wait another hour in line just to reach customs. A disgrace. A truly cool book: The World Is Already Yours Conscious living in the real world www.alreadyyours.com (sample chapter, etc...) |
Re: LA "International" airport (was Re: World cities)
Harvey V wrote:
> > (Me thinks: what a fun guy. Maybe he's insulted that I have no desire to > stay in his country. Or maybe he knows how boring this airport is, and > can't believe that someone wouldn't get out of it as quickly as > possible......) Possibility #1: He was illiterate? Possibility #2: He didn't speak English? (Although the U.S. is SUPPOSED to be an English-speaking country, and few of our native-born citizens speak anything else, it appears to be "discrimination" if employers insist upon fluency in English, when hiring people who will be dealing with the public.) Possibility #3: He'd been told to ask those questions, and by God he was going to ask them, whether he already had the answers in front of him or not! (Most airport "security" personnel work for minimum wages - for that, you're lucky to get a warm body - you want intelligence, too?) > > -turn off rant mode- > > -- > Cheers, Harvey |
Re: World cities
Judith wrote:
> > > Well, yes, because as a CITY it fails to hold together. It is so disorganized that > hardly anyone knows where the center is, let alone actually goes there. LA feels > like the world's largest collection of suburbs to me. Probably because it IS! When I first came here, the San Fernando Valley and Orange County were rural areas with many small towns, separated by agricultural enterprises. (Orange County had not only the citrus "ranches" from which it took its name, but dairy farms - the "Valley" was more given over to cattle, plus other food crops). Now there's just one big urban sprawl, from San Diego to Santa Barbara. Some of the small communities allowed themselves to become officially (politically) part of Los Angeles, others retain their individual "city" governments although surrounded by "Los Angeles" on all sides. It's "unique", certainly, but as a "world class" city, I'd have to agree with Judith. |
Re: LA "International" airport (was Re: World cities)
Keith Anderson wrote:
> > > (PS - if anyone construes this as an "Americans are thick" posting, I hasten to add > that I have met equally thick officials in the UK). Perhaps it's just a case of "petty officialdom is thick"? > > Keith Bristol UK Remove NSP to reply |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 6:53 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.