There is a noticeable lack of quality of service from the Eastern European immigrants. If you're incapable of smiling, you shouldn't be working as a bartender.

High-rise living will become increasingly common in London due to the large population growth, astronomical property prices and limited availability of development sites. There isn’t any real skyscraper ‘core’ due to London’s diffused development and consolidation of skyscrapers amongst transport hubs and away from the sight-lines, but the Vauxhall corridor is emerging as an interesting environment with several big projects. Development at Canary Wharf meanwhile has shifted away from office to residential. London currently has 16 towers over 150m+, but there are 29 towers (of which 12 are 200m+) which are either u/c, approved or proposed. Factoring in the aforementioned issues and it is likely that figure will rise even higher in the years ahead.

The majority of development however remains in the 10 storey region in vast projects such as Nine Elms, Stratford, King’s Cross, Greenwich Peninsula, etc… which each have thousands, tens of thousands of units.

Congestion across the London transport network in the years ahead is a legitimate concern; according to the Office for National Statistics, the city’s population expanded by 104,000 (to 8.3mn) in the year to mid-2012, and is expected to expand past 9mn in just over half a decade and 10mn by 2030. The capacity gains from the extensive Tube upgrade, Crossrail and Thameslink are thus likely to be short-lived requiring additional major engineering projects to cope with future passenger flows.

To highlight the issue, previous projections for Bond Street, Tottenham Court Road and Farringdon stations in Central London post-Crossrail was a combined 185mn passengers each year; yet a recent Arup report detailed that when factoring in population growth and the growing demand for public transport, the actual figure was to be north of 250mn; that’s a forecast deviation (in under a decade) of an additional 200,000 passengers each day on top of the future projected volumes.

The South East and East of England regions surrounding London are also experienced strong combined population growth (119,000 in the year to mid-2012) which puts further strain on the commuter lines into London.

Immigration in the UK is a bit of a paradox; the majority of people don’t have an issue with immigrants, but they do have an issue with immigration and certain negative elements, e.g. female genital mutilation, Sharia law, arranged marriages, lack of interaction with other communities, foreign criminals, etc… There aren’t many issues with Eastern Europeans, but there are concerns over Roma migration due to their aggressive begging practices (including the uncomfortable use of children) and limited appetite to integrate.

Ironically I haven’t been on the London Eye, but I don’t think too many people would agree with the view that is an embarrassment. Quite the opposite; it has become yet another globally recognised London landmark that is visited by millions each year and spurred on other cities to replicate its (to various degrees of) success. It is also an engineering marvel that revolutionised the dated ferris wheel concept by cantilevering the wheel over the Thames to produce unimpeded views, whilst introducing self-motorised pods for a smoother ride. It also provides the rather spectacular backdrop to London’s New Years Eve.

• Video Link

Eh, the London Eye is definitely a bit silly and a tourist trap. It's not exactly going to reach the iconic status that the Eiffel Tower (originally built for a World's Fair and initially reviled by Parisians) has.

That said London's skyline is certainly unique, even though unlike New York or Chicago, few people see it from this sort of angle (which must have been taken from the big ugly Holiday Inn on Cromwell Rd):

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7328/9...63b88192_b.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jpn/9469919915

Yup. The Wheel is awful. Their skyscrapers are generally of high quality however.

Just look at the Eye in the photo above. It's not bad in its own right, but when it's in the same frame as Big Ben, St Paul's, the Natural History Museum, the Victoria & Albert Museum, and even the Shard and the other modern highrises in the City, it looks completely out of place.

London is perhaps the ultimate example of highrise construction booms coinciding with the general decline of the city in terms of influence and relevance in the world economy and global politics.

:sly:

If London's highrise boom had occurred in the 1950s-70s, sure.

Regardless of the UK's relative importance, London's wealth and influence are most certainly growing. It's probably the most important city in the Arab world, after all. ;)

Greater London, like NYC, is at its peak historical population now. Central London is less populated, but that's to be expected when families are no longer crammed into one room apartments (again, much like Manhattan's population is currently well below its peak around 1920):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_London



(btw, there was a lot of construction in the 1950s-70s obviously, but that was post-war rebuilding and modernization)

^ take out the asset-stashing function of London real estate, and how does it compare with Seoul, Shanghai, the Bay Area, Munich, Osaka in terms of economic importance?

Apologies to the Economist, but the correct metrics for measuring a city's importance (it's "ascent") are about R&D and its application to new products, business investment, market share growth, etc being accomplished by a city's corporate sector. Here, London is not doing that great.

High rise real estate growth is a misleading metric. Share of financial flows, and role as an immigration hub is overrated.

The population is growing, the city is becoming wealthier, and its role as a hub for the global elite is only increasing.

When it comes to real estate development, all that is required is wealth. You don't need elaborate structures to conduct R&D. You do need them to maximize the value of very expensive land.

And honestly, are you suggesting that Munich is a more important economic center than London? I love Munich, but come on. Munich is a village compared with London.

^ if roles as a hub for a migratory global elite and lots of residential construction makes a city influential, Miami or Panama City or Vancouver would rank very highly. But nobody thinks they are: why should similar developments in London ascribe the city increased stature?

Only in the globalized anglo-saxon perspective served up by the Economist is London doing well.

From a Chinese or Korean or (nativist) American or Gaullist French point of view the city is in decline:

The indigenous population is being forced to move out, ownership of real estate is transferring to foreigners, and few new worldbeating companies are emerging to bring capital into the city that's not related to real estate and financial markets.

You could say the same about NYC then, which is dominated by its financial markets. But they also share growing populations, thriving cultural scenes, and an improving quality of life. Yes the middle and lower classes are being displaced from central London, but the same is true of Manhattan and prime Brooklyn.

From a French point of view London is in decline? That's funny, since they're all moving here to escape their clown of a president.

Seoul is exciting but Korea is plateauing economically (see Japan). China's importance will continue to grow, as one would expect from a country with 1.3 billion fucking people, but I'd still live in London before Shanghai (or Beijing of course).

:koko:

Nr 2 in the world and nr 1 in the world.

Are you arguing that London is an innovative city on par with Seoul or Stuttgart or SF? Clearly it isn't.

..for elites in developing countries stashing their stolen wealth in London. Ah, how glorious.

Korea (see the other thread) produces 10x more patents per capita than the UK. Plateauing?

France is a special case, the leadership is holding the country back. First a ring wing clown, then a left wing clown.

This is an anglo-saxon conundrum, in some sense the best of times, in others, the worst of times.

I always read on Forbes and hear on the news that London is rising in influence and relevance. Always the comparisons to NYC on how its a better city for economics, politics, and living. Is London really declining?

"Clearly" it is. Just because you are ignorant of it, as you are of so many things, doesn't mean it isn't so.

Boring...

Canary wharf is better and growing faster. The 'city' CBD will look much better in a few years and when the growing surrounding clusters merge with it. Still I think canary wharf and nine elms will look the most impressive

No of course it's not. Why would you even entertain such a thing based on a troll comment? :)



Anyway, back to skylines. London's to be specific...
(and yes dc_denizen this is your cue to stop trolling)

^ yes let's get back to discussing eastern European customer service attitudes, immigration and ferris wheels - that's not off topic but the correlation between highrises and a city's "ascent" is.

I disagree. It adds some fun and modernity to a city that strives to show how up-to-date it is, while also keeping its history and tradition.

And it's helped draw tourists to the south bank. This is helpful for that area, and also helpful for the West End which benefits from other places helping disperse the tourist hordes a bit.