Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › London/NYC area comparisons, comment on accuracy.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

London/NYC area comparisons, comment on accuracy.

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 
post #2 of 18
Looks wrong to me on many levels. The massive "Queens" section is the most inaccurate IMO. "Westside" is not a NYC neighborhood or borough so it's hard to gauge - is it meant to be the West Village, Chelsea or the Upper Westside ? I would never think of Chelsea (in London) as the equivalent of the UES in NYC (closer to the Village IMO); and Camden's equivalent in NYC is somewhere between Lower East Side and SoHo.

All in all, I don't think you can draw large sections of London like this and try to compare to NYC neighborhoods or entire borough as is the case on this map
post #3 of 18
Upper East should be more like Belgravia/Mayfair/Kennsington, Holland Park at the ouside (maybe that's Carnegie Hill). Definitely not Bayswater.

Upper West, I guess they are trying to make the "Bloomsbury" association decisive. I suppose it is not a terrible comparison, because of the Museum, but it seems a bit dated. Besides, Woolf's Bloomsbury is more akin to Reed's Village anyway.

"Downtown" is a tough one. As I understand it, the Square Mile is still London's financial district (along with Canary Wharf) whereas the Wall Street area in NY really is not any more. The biggest banking cluster now is Park from 46th to 59th.

Also, "downtown" means many things in NY: not just the financial district, but also seedy clubs, chic restaurants, converted lofts, etc. Is the City really all that?

The biggest flaw, which shows why these comparisons are futile, is that there is no Midtown. And frankly there is no strict London analogy to Midtown, which is one of the things thank makes London great.

The boroughs cannot be categorized so easily. As for NJ, well, it's a big state.
post #4 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gdl203 View Post
Looks wrong to me on many levels. The massive "Queens" section is the most inaccurate IMO. "Westside" is not a NYC neighborhood or borough so it's hard to gauge - is it meant to be the West Village, Chelsea or the Upper Westside ? I would never think of Chelsea (in London) as the equivalent of the UES in NYC (closer to the Village IMO); and Camden's equivalent in NYC is somewhere between Lower East Side and SoHo.

All in all, I don't think you can draw large sections of London like this and try to compare to NYC neighborhoods or entire borough as is the case on this map

Where would you say is the closest comparison to the Upper East in London is.

I did it quickly, and want to see where the issues are, I've not spent a lot of time over it... So such comments are appreciated.

The massive 'Queens' is perhaps a jaded Londoner who has always lived north of the Thamess' view. The reason I classed most of South London as Queens, is because of the fact that there is really not much worth going to in both places.

Soho in NYC has a lot of nice shops, and unique luxury. Camden really does not have luxury, even if it can be had very nearby in Hampstead and Primrose Hill.

Amongst the most accurate IMO, is The City as Downtown (meaning Wall St. area), and West London as New Jersey.

Chelsea (London) may have been like The Village in the late 90's but now the area is far too expensive to be compared. Perhaps SoHo (NYC).

By Westside, I was referring to all three areas that you mentioned, but perhaps most so Midtown West/Upper West.
post #5 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
Upper East should be more like Belgravia/Mayfair/Kennsington, Holland Park at the ouside (maybe that's Carnegie Hill). Definitely not Bayswater.

Upper West, I guess they are trying to make the "Bloomsbury" association decisive. I suppose it is not a terrible comparison, because of the Museum, but it seems a bit dated. Besides, Woolf's Bloomsbury is more akin to Reed's Village anyway.

"Downtown" is a tough one. As I understand it, the Square Mile is still London's financial district (along with Canary Wharf) whereas the Wall Street area in NY really is not any more. The biggest banking cluster now is Park from 46th to 59th.

Also, "downtown" means many things in NY: not just the financial district, but also seedy clubs, chic restaurants, converted lofts, etc. Is the City really all that?

The biggest flaw, which shows why these comparisons are futile, is that there is no Midtown. And frankly there is no strict London analogy to Midtown, which is one of the things thank makes London great.

The boroughs cannot be categorized so easily. As for NJ, well, it's a big state.

I find it strange that you mention Kensington as a comparison to the Upper East, but not Hampstead or St. John's Wood. I did, however, mean to include Holland Park, that was a mistake. West Kensington and South Kensington are not really desirable residential areas, South Kensington is very transient, like Bayswater, and West Kensington is akin to Ealing. Whilst the entirety of the North-west corridor, which I have labeled London's Upper East contains most of London's most desirable housing. At last count, excluding foreign embassies there were only 55 private individual dwellings (i.e. full homes, not flats) in Mayfair (area bordered Piccadilly, Park Lane, Oxford Street, Regent Street).

You are right about London's finance industry; mostly around Canary Wharf and the City (although still more so the City). With the exception of a few elitist Hedge Funds in Mayfair and St. John's Wood. I was unaware that Manhattan's had moved north, what tends to be around Wall Street now?

By NJ, I'm referring to the area that people move out of 'the city' to, when they have a family.
post #6 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bouji View Post
Where would you say is the closest comparison to the Upper East in London is.
Mayfair, Belgravia, maybe some areas around Regent Park? Not Notting Hill, not South Kensington and not Chelsea. UES is synonymous with old money, not with areas that have gentrified or appreciated in value or status in the last 15 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bouji View Post
Soho in NYC has a lot of nice shops, and unique luxury. Camden really does not have luxury, even if it can be had very nearby in Hampstead and Primrose Hill.
What I mean is that it was a bit edgy like the Lower East Side but has become more commercial and mainstream (not unlike the way NYC's Soho evolved from the 70's to now)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bouji View Post
Chelsea (London) may have been like The Village in the late 90's but now the area is far too expensive to be compared. Perhaps SoHo (NYC).
The West Village is more expensive than Soho actually. Chelsea is greener than NY's Soho, it's close to the river. That's why I'd say Chelsea (Ldn) is maybe akin to NYC's West Village
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bouji View Post
By Westside, I was referring to all three areas that you mentioned, but perhaps most so Midtown West/Upper West.
There is no way you could lump of of western Manhattan like this. West Village, Chelsea, Hell's Kitchen, Midtown West and UWS are completely different areas with very different demographics. Also, I wouldn't throw London's SoHo in this mix either.
post #7 of 18
To speak very broadly, the UES divides at 3rd Ave. West of that is the Gold Coast, Belgravia/Mayfair. East of that is more middle class, older people with (by UES standards) limited incomes and younger, more transient people. The mid-20s scene on the east East Side reminds me of Kensington and Chelsea, and also Sloane Square.

In NY, when people need space, and they can't afford more space in the city, they either move to Westchester, Long Island, or to Jersey. I would say, at risk of making someone mad, in that order of desirability.
post #8 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gdl203 View Post
Mayfair, Belgravia, maybe some areas around Regent Park? Not Notting Hill, not South Kensington and not Chelsea. UES is synonymous with old money, not with areas that have gentrified or appreciated in value or status in the last 15 years.

All areas around Regent's Park except Camden. Apart from that I agree, Notting Hill, Chelsea, and South Kensington are not the UES.

Quote:
What I mean is that it was a bit edgy like the Lower East Side but has become more commercial and mainstream (not unlike the way NYC's Soho evolved from the 70's to now)

True.

Quote:
The West Village is more expensive than Soho actually. Chelsea is greener than NY's Soho, it's close to the river. That's why I'd say Chelsea (Ldn) is maybe akin to NYC's West Village

I did not know that the West Village was more expensive than Soho. As far as I remember there is very little (in terms of restaurants/shops etc.) in the West Village, Chelsea (London) on the other hand has plenty of shops and restaurants.

Quote:
There is no way you could lump of of western Manhattan like this. West Village, Chelsea, Hell's Kitchen, Midtown West and UWS are completely different areas with very different demographics. Also, I wouldn't throw London's SoHo in this mix either.

I have limited experience with West Manhattan, so I admit my mistake here.
post #9 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
The mid-20s scene on the east East Side reminds me of Kensington and Chelsea, and also Sloane Square.

I can see a good comparison there.
post #10 of 18
The West Village has become one on the most active neighborhoods for restaurants. The whole area west of 7th Ave South (including the part west of Hudson St) is full of restaurants and boutiques. The WV portion of Bleecker St has great shopping too
post #11 of 18
Thread Starter 
This basically translates that its been too long since I've been to NYC. The dollar rate on top of that makes it all the more attractive.
post #12 of 18
The West Villiage is very restaurant rich.

Once again, I caution you about over generalizing the UES. It is large, and varied.

5th Ave (until about 105th street) is all zillion dollar apartments and museums. And Mount Sinai Hospital

The side streets between 5th and Mad are mostly very large and very expensive townhouses converted to flats, some still intact.

Madision is luxury shopping plus apartments.

The blocks between Madison and Park are also houses, a little less grand than those to their west.

Park is apartment buildings that equal or surpass the splendor of 5th.

Blocks between Park and Lex, more houses, still less grand, but still very nice.

Lex is a service avenue, some apartments, but many more mundane shops.

3rd ave is where the glass box apartment building takes over.

The UES progressively drops off from 3rd to 2nd, 2nd to 1st, 1st to York. The townhouses give way to tenements. The avenues get more mundane. At the river in the 80s, you have a really nice elegant enclave at East End Ave, but it's isolated.

Also, the major side streets -- 72nd, 79th, 86th, 96th -- have really grand apartment buildings that continue much further east than their side street surroundings would indicate.

In other words, it's complicated.
post #13 of 18
Also, East 57th Street east of Lex feels like it is part of the UES, as do Sutton Place, Beekman Place, and East 52nd and 51st east of 1st to the River.
post #14 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
The West Villiage is very restaurant rich.

Once again, I caution you about over generalizing the UES. It is large, and varied.

5th Ave (until about 105th street) is all zillion dollar apartments and museums. And Mount Sinai Hospital

The side streets between 5th and Mad are mostly very large and very expensive townhouses converted to flats, some still intact.

Madision is luxury shopping plus apartments.

The blocks between Madison and Park are also houses, a little less grand than those to their west.

Park is apartment buildings that equal or surpass the splendor of 5th.

Blocks between Park and Lex, more houses, still less grand, but still very nice.

Lex is a service avenue, some apartments, but many more mundane shops.

3rd ave is where the glass box apartment building takes over.

The UES progressively drops off from 3rd to 2nd, 2nd to 1st, 1st to York. The townhouses give way to tenements. The avenues get more mundane. At the river in the 80s, you have a really nice elegant enclave at East End Ave, but it's isolated.

Also, the major side streets -- 72nd, 79th, 86th, 96th -- have really grand apartment buildings that continue much further east than their side street surroundings would indicate.

In other words, it's complicated.

But then again, so is the area, which I labeled London's UES in my initial drawing.

Starting at Chelsea by the embankment, it is mostly pretty large villa style housing, that are mostly individual private residences. There are also a few 1980's apartment blocks with river views that are pretty luxurious, if dated.
As you move further north towards the King's Road, its pretty much all townhouses converted into apartments. Pretty much no individual private dwellings except west of Edith Grove.
From here if you go east, the building style changes to Victorian red-brick, around Sloane Square; apartments are smaller, but they command greater premiums, further east Belgravia, which, to be quite honest is mostly inhabited by the British Royal Family than anyone else. Some very nice apartments to be had on Eaton Square, and east of Sloane Street at the Knightsbridge end. (Cadgoan, Lowndes)
Knightsbridge is equivilant to NY's Park Avenue. This trend continues northwesterly on Park Lane.
Moving north-east from Knihtsbridge, we hit Mayfair, which needs no introduction.
North of Mayfair, Marylebone, where in bygone days the price was less than Mayfair. These days it is not; yet it does not, and will not have the old money charm of Mayfair.
North of Marylebone (and a touch east) St. John's Wood. Avenue Road is London's most expensive street. Prince Albert Road has massive, very luxurious apartments overlooking the park. And the inner streets are filled with high quality villa housing.
Up the hill to Hampstead, and the houses get bigger, it gets more green, and once you hit Hampstead Heath you're officially in the suburbs.
post #15 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bouji View Post

The massive 'Queens' is perhaps a jaded Londoner who has always lived north of the Thamess' view. The reason I classed most of South London as Queens, is because of the fact that there is really not much worth going to in both places.


Seriously? Queens is probably the most ethnically diverse area in the city. If you are into things "ethnic" then there is a lot going on in Queens that's worth going there for. Not to mention, the Mets are in Queens. After Manhattan, Queens is probably the place in the city that I visit most often (that is, when I do decide to leave my less than desirable NJ )
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › London/NYC area comparisons, comment on accuracy.