Official: London is Europe's best capital
By Lech Mintowt-czyz, Evening Standard
19 October 2004
London today emerged as the best European capital city to live in, according to wide-ranging research.

London, the biggest of Europe's cities with a population of 7.2 million, also gets more sun than Paris and less rain than Brussels.

And despite London's reputation in Britain, even the crime rate is relatively low.

Taken as a whole, the analysis of statistics from across the European Union has also confirmed London's place as the only city in Europe able to compete on the world stage with places such as New York and Tokyo.

The results, based on figures from 2001, come from the EU's official statistical body Eurostat which produces the comparison every five years.

They reveal London's population dwarfs that of its competitors standing at double Berlin's 3.4 million, 2.5 times Madrid's three million and 3.5 times Paris's 2.1 million.

In fact there are almost more people living in London than in Rome, Paris, Vienna and Brussels put together.

The capital also boasts a third of its area as green space and has double the number of theatres of Madrid and Berlin.

The size of the capital does mean London's commuters have the longest average journey into work - 43 minutes- - compared to half an hour in Madrid, Berlin and Stockholm.

Londoners also have to cope with having only 0.6 GPs per 1,000 people while almost every other capital can boast two.

Despite this, the capital appears to have good healthcare provision with the lowest mortality rate for the under 65s from heart attacks among the EU's 15 member states.

Although London came out as the second worst capital for car theft - 8.7 such crimes per 1,000 people - overall the city compared well with others for recorded crime.

While Londoners reported 61.9 crimes per 1,000 population the residents of Berlin experienced 168.9 while 146.7 of every 1,000 Parisians were hit.

London was the second worst city for murders but still only has three for every 100,000 people.

Most surprisingly perhaps was London's 4.7 hours of recorded sunshine per day which beat Paris on 4.4 hours and Berlin on 4.1 hours. Athens was best with 7.6 hours.

London was also relatively dry with 163 days of rain a year compared with 246 in Dublin and 199 in Brussels.

Other figures from 1999 also show London is the overall richest city in the European Union, with an economic output 2.4 times the EU average.

Paris trailed in fifth.


>> Can someone find the study on Eurostat, cannot find it, typical of this maze link website.

>> Can someone find the study on Eurostat, cannot find it, typical of this maze link website.

I don't think you'll find this study on Eurostat. The "best" city mean nothing and it isn't the kind of stats that Eurostats make. "Best" is subjective and not objective so it cannot be mesured. I think the journalist who wrote this article picked up some stats from Eurostat (crime, sun day per year, etc) and claimed that London is the best city to live in. Also, you can claim that any city is the 'best' by picking up the good stats. If you like rain, you just need to pick up the city that have the most rain a year and claim it's the best city. You can tell anything with numbers.

The guardian also reported the story, quoting Eurostat as well.

As far as statistics are concerned, I guess you're right in some ways. I'd like to see for myself how their ranked cities and the criteria before slapping the report.

The guardian also reported the story, quoting Eurostat as well.

It maybe comes from Reuters or AFP. Usually newspapers use these sources without checking when it's not an important piece of news.

The climate assertion makes this study a bit unreliable imo.

ya! ;)
just want to check, have u found any link ?

This article is so dumb and embarrassing. The very fact that they repeatedly reference Paris' totally unrepresentative official population for comparison shows how unserious it is. The official "city" of Paris is tiny in area compared to what is counted as to the city of London (50 sq km for official Paris versus 1,500 sq km for official London). Paris is probably equally or more densely populated over the same area. And oh please...4.7 hours of sunshine per day versus 4.4 in Paris and 4.1 in Berlin- bigggg difference and actually who care's nobody moves to any of those cities for the "good" weather.
I seriously wonder if a 5 year old wrote this sh!t....so London has double the theaters of Berlin or Madrid...wow just brilliant but wait London also has more than twice the population of both cities.... Madrid (population 3.5 million) also has far more theaters than Bonn (pop. 300,000), wowwwwww what a suprise :)

PS: The so-called ummmm "study" is not from Eurostat (at least the article does not say so) it was just piled together using Eurostat statistics by somebody.

Nick Taylor has been revealed as the official source.... ;)

The climate assertion makes this study a bit unreliable imo.No the climate stats are accurate. London gets less rainfall than Paris and has fewer rainy days as well. London is actually one of the driest capitals in Europe.

Nick Taylor has been revealed as the official source.... ;)

Glad to see you aren't defending this crap Monkey. I love London and think it leaves every Euro city except Paris in the dust in most fields because of its size and wealth but this article makes it sound like every other metropolis in Europe is an Anatolian village with mule-drawn carriages as public transport.
Europe has plenty of grand cities and although London has its advantages the others also have a few things London could learn from. Just hope it did not sound like I was dissing London :)

^ According to Asipoo European cities are villages!! Did you know that Istanbul alone has more skyscrapers, shopping malls, and fast food outlets than the whole of Italy? :laugh:

LOL!
That would be one of those instances that Asimov was uncharicaristically funny (but not intentional).

Nick Taylor has been revealed as the official source.... ;)?????????

^ :poke: :rofl: :hahaha: :lol: :runaway:

I don't think you'll find this study on Eurostat. The "best" city mean nothing and it isn't the kind of stats that Eurostats make. "Best" is subjective and not objective so it cannot be mesured.

I totally agree with you!
Btw, Paris'metropolitain area is far more then 7,2 mil of inhabitants....(you cant consider only the City of Paris, which is only a relatively small political entity! But socially and culturally, Paris is made up as well of its suburbs.

^ London's metropolitan population is also much bigger than 7.2 million.

that article is a joke. What a ruddy joke. Sounds about as informed as Mira Bar Hillel normally is. That figure of 7.2 is supposed to be around 7.8 now, and that is in the Greater London area that is covered by the GLA and 32 Boroughs. Ive heard that Paris has something like 9million people within what is their equivalent of the greater metropolitan area (its a much much more dense city and is very big). Anyway, besides all the 'my penis is bigger than yours' stuff, these surveys and comparisons just dont make sense. Does anyone remember when, bout a year ago there was a quality of life survey that put Vancouver at number one over and above evry other city in the world! I mean, its understandable that its clean, safe, pretty, cheap and probably has great weather... but what about other factors? And numbers dont tell the whole story, I think vigo80 has got the idea.

I agree with what was said before!
There is NO "BEST" city! It's subjective, and depends on the person. Any studies that are trying to say otherwise, and push upon us that there IS one greatest city, is full of bullshit.

I agree with what was said before!
There is NO "BEST" city! It's subjective, and depends on the person. Any studies that are trying to say otherwise, and push upon us that there IS one greatest city, is full of bullshit.Simmer down iMariah. It's not a study. It's just an attention grabbing headline for a tabloid newspaper. I don't think it's meant to be taken too seriously.That figure of 7.2 is supposed to be around 7.8 now, and that is in the Greater London area that is covered by the GLA and 32 Boroughs. Ive heard that Paris has something like 9million people within what is their equivalent of the greater metropolitan area (its a much much more dense city and is very big).Yeah Paris is more densely populated within a given area but then it doesn't spread out as much as London.

.Yeah Paris is more densely populated within a given area but then it doesn't spread out as much as London.
Ok Londons commuter area may be more important, Paris has also a lot of commuters outside the 9 million urban continuous built up area and outside Ile-de-France. The difference is not that big.

^ I think this topic has been covered before - many times!!

I like London, but I HATE one thing about it, its Underground. It is EXPENSIVE and really shitty standard! Where are the escelators? Lifts etc? People with that have wheelchairs are not welcome. AND if you are traveling to and from the airport with the Underground and have heavy luggage keep in mind that you should be FIT so you can carry your luggage(s) up and down the stairs at the stations! (atleast install lifts for Gods sake!) :)

^ I think this topic has been covered before - many times!!
:cheers: Yes I know!

I like London, but I HATE one thing about it, its Underground. It is EXPENSIVE and really shitty standard! Where are the escelators? Lifts etc? People with that have wheelchairs are not welcome. AND if you are traveling to and from the airport with the Underground and have heavy luggage keep in mind that you should be FIT so you can carry your luggage(s) up and down the stairs at the stations! (atleast install lifts for Gods sake!) :)

:lol: It's not that bad. There are plenty of escalators on the main rises, just the short ones usually don't have them, but they were designed quite a long time ago.

There is only one airport connecting directly to the underground, and that's Heathrow. But you also have the option of using the high speed rail link to Paddington, which seems to have quite good escalator access.

It is expensive if you have to cross some of the suburban zones, but for tourist use in the central city is quite fair in price.

^ yes a travel card cost only 6 pounds for one day zone 1 (9 euro),
however if your hotel is near the airport the travelcard is 12 pounds per 1 day
(18 euro circa)
how cheap, I can travel a week in most EU cities underground with the money I'd spend one day for a London tube card :)
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/fares-tickets/2005/one-day/travelcard-day.shtml

PS: the wheelchair access on the tube is practically impossible, unless you only use part of the Jubilee line or a couple of stops on the piccadilly... for that price they should install lift for wheelchairs everywhere.

PS: the wheelchair access on the tube is practically impossible, unless you only use part of the Jubilee line or a couple of stops on the piccadilly... for that price they should install lift for wheelchairs everywhere.

Well they're working on that in fact... although it's not going to be possible in a lot of the stations.

^ hopefully we will see more lifts soon then.

^ yes a travel card cost only 6 pounds for one day zone 1 (9 euro),
however if your hotel is near the airport the travelcard is 12 pounds per 1 day
(18 euro circa)
how cheap, I can travel a week in most EU cities underground with the money I'd spend one day for a London tube card :)
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/fares-tickets/2005/one-day/travelcard-day.shtml

As said, when travelling around the outer suburbs it can get a bit dear. But that would be the price to pay also for getting a hotel near the airport. There are plenty of affordable hotels in central london, and if you travel off peak, you can bargin down the price quite low.

I went in January once and bargined two different hotels from £150 a night to £50 a night both in central London and four star (kensington and Bayswater). Then we only had to buy the cheaper 2 zone travel card which is quite fair considering the amazing amount of sites within those zones.

You maybe able to get cheaper cards in other European cities, but with the exception of Paris, how many has so many things as London within the first two zones to see?

It was published where? The Evening Standard? Oh, I get it then. :laugh:

And the Tube is unreasonably expensive. Like pretty much everything else in London. It drains my wallet more than New York ever did...

You maybe able to get cheaper cards in other European cities, but with the exception of Paris, how many has so many things as London within the first two zones to see?


ROME, PRAGUE, MADRID, MOSCOW...
with 94 euro per month in MILAN you can travel with the S-lines, the Metro, the Trams, the filobus, and buses up to 120KMS from the city in every directions
that includes the lakes regions, and practically every corner of Lombardy
http://www.trasporti.regione.lombardia.it/documentazione/pubblicazioni/All/S/Tagliavini.pdf
with 71 pounds (over 90 euro) you can travel in LONDON zone 1 only, for a month...
in London zone 1 to 6 cost £151.70 per month (over 200 euro)
and for a similar coverage area (still smaller than Lombardy though)
from zone 1 to D it's £226.60 meaning over 300 euro per month for a smaller area and an area which includes less kms of railways than the whole of Lombardy... http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/fares-tickets/2005/season/travelcard-2.shtml
I think the fact that London transport is bloody expensive cannot be hidden...