14 ms·
I’m probably being overly pedantic but it’s not a secret
by simonbarker87 2y ago
I’m probably being overly pedantic but it’s not a secret
- timr 2y agoIt's not well known in America. Recent conversations on congestion surcharges in NYC regularly confused the charges in City of London (miniscule) with London as a whole (huge), and then tried to draw the comparison to the now-canceled charges in NYC, which would have affected more than half of Manhattan, and a large portion of the most significant commercial areas of NYC. People are either being completely disingenuous, or they don't understand that City of London is a relatively insignificant portion of greater London. This fact alone illustrates how absurd the comparison actually is: > As of the 2011 census, the City of London has a population of 8,072 and area of 1.12 square miles. (For context, Manhattan has a population of 1.65 million people, with about 73,000 people per square mile. Even setting aside that lower Manhattan is more densely populated than upper, and that a lot of people commute in from the outer boroughs, the congestion pricing scheme would have affected at least 800k resident people, or about 10% of NYCs total population.)
- pledg 2y agoThe London congestion charge is a much larger area than the City https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/congestion-charge/congestion-charge-zone https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/congestion-charge/congestio...
- timr 2y ago[flagged]
- lores 2y agoIt's a fraction by area, but it's by far the densest and busiest part of the city. Comparisons to half of Manhattan are not unwarranted.
- timr 2y agoOnly if you don't know anything about Manhattan other than "density". The now-canceled project would have affected, at a minimum, about 10% of New York's entire resident population (~800k). A lot of New Yorkers actually live in Manhattan south of 60th. That's part of why it's dense. A more reasonable comparison to the current London congestion area would be midtown -- the small area in the middle of Manhattan with the obvious skyscrapers, as well as Times Square, theaters, throngs of tourists, and the bulk of finance.
- casta 2y agoIt's not canceled. They paused the plan.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- chgs 2y agoIt’s about 8 square miles - in Manhattan that would be about the area below 42nd street
- timr 2y agoYou can't compare land areas directly. London is twice the size of New York. Population density, land uses, etc. are completely different. For example, only about 140k people [1] live in the London area. Easily 800k live in the Manhattan area, and probably more (population density is higher on the lower half of the island, due to things like Central Park). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge#Present_scheme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge#Prese...
- chgs 2y agoSo higher density means fewer cars per person and more reason to have a congestion charge
- timr 2y agoYou're quibbling. The portion covered by the congestion charges is a tiny, tiny portion of the whole of London, comprising mostly business and entertainment areas. The point I am making is that Americans use the naming confusion to draw the fundamentally misleading comparison.
- CPLX 2y agoWhat are you talking about the London congestion charge is analogous to the NYC one, covering the core central business district.
- timr 2y ago[flagged]
- lores 2y agoResidents would largely not have to pay, if they follow the London model. The London congestion zone covers ~150K residents, but above 1 million commuters, not counting trade and tourists.
- timr 2y agoSensible, but unfortunately, that's not how it was going to work in NYC. Any car entering the zone below 60th would be covered, regardless of residency. Taxis, ride shares, deliveries, etc., were all covered as well. The area in NYC was little more than a new tax on residents, disguised as congestion pricing. I'd personally have little problem with a fee that made carve-outs for the people who actually live here (and I say that as someone who doesn't own a car). Thanks for the numbers on residents in the London area.
- CPLX 2y agoYou’re just wrong. I live in NYC right next to the congestion zone and it would affect me greatly. I also have lived temporarily in London with a car. They’re very much similar plans. You clearly don’t like the NYC one which is fine, but that wasn’t the topic. As for the NYC one it’s a fee for using a car, not a tax on residents. Those are two different things. Also you’re factually wrong, as the east/west side highways were exempted. So you very much could transit the area, or from the Brooklyn Bridge to upstate or the Battery Tunnel to Washington Heights, for example.
- 2y ago
- markoman 2y agoYes the City of London has a population of around 10,000 but employs nearly 1 million by some estimates since the legal and financial capitals exist within it.
- timr 2y agoSo, it's midtown Manhattan, which is a small portion of the area NYC proposed to meter.
- crimsoneer 2y agoThe congestion charge in London has absolutely nothing to do with the City.
- notahacker 2y agoAside from the points others have made that the congestion charge introduced by the mayor of the large urban area of London which covers the whole of central London[1] doesn't really have anything to do with the City of London boundaries or administration, I don't think "it's not well known in America" justifies the use of "secret" The jurisdictions of San Mateo and Santa Clara aren't particularly well known in the UK but I'd still think any journalist referring to them as "secret" was being ludicrously hyperbolic... [1]an area with approximately 17x the population of the City of London, and I suspect the ULEZ emissions charge which now covers all 9 million London residents also gets dragged into the US debate...
- timr 2y agoI never said anything about it being a "secret", nor did I even use the word. You seem to be having an argument with the title of the piece, not with me.
- keiferski 2y agoI’ve read this exact factoid at least a few hundred times. I’m mostly just amazed that it continues to surprise people.
- Ylpertnodi 2y agoObligatory xkcd: 10,000.
- denton-scratch 2y agoYup. I stopped reading when I got to the bit where they explained that the "secret city" was the City of London. That's tabloid crap.
- actionfromafar 2y agoBut it’s such an unexpected power structure in a modern democracy some people don’t really believe it even when told.
- chrisjj 2y agoThey are right to disbelieve.
- dventimi 2y ago[flagged]
- foldr 2y agoThe article you link to is using the 'City of London' to refer to London's financial sector, which is primarily located in the City of London (rather like the use of 'Washington' to refer to the US government). It's not talking about anything shady that the institutions of the City of London itself are doing.
- dventimi 2y agoRelevance? I haven't said whether I'm talking about the City of London's government or its financial institutions (as if there's a difference). None of which has to do with "secrecy" which is arguably the relevant topic. On that subject, whether it's the government or the financial institutions or both, if they're engaged in money laundering, which is more likely: They keep those matters secret, or they don't keep those matters secret?
- foldr 2y agoThe article we're all commenting on is talking about the City of London in the sense of the geographic area administered by the City of London Corporation. The article you linked to is talking about the shenanigans of the UK's financial sector (mostly concentrated in the City of London). The UK financial sector is regulated by the FCA. Corporations headquartered in the City of London are subject to English law just like corporations headquartered in any other part of the country. So the role that the City of London Corporation plays in money laundering is relatively minor and indirect. Of course, there may well be corruption that is worth investigating and exposing. Unfortunately, the idea of the City of London as some kind of extraterritorial legal island within the UK is catnip to conspiracy theorists of various stripes. It is complete nonsense. However, that is not to say that the City of London Corporation is not in need of reform.
- dventimi 2y ago
- OtherShrezzing 2y agoI'd go with something more like "secretive" than explicitly "secret". It's a weird & immensely powerful place in the UK, with some abstruse governing structures, hidden entirely in plain sight.
- dventimi 2y agoThat's defensible.
- BillEllson 2y agoSecretive? As in run by Committees that meet in public with agendas and minutes published on the City's website in accordance with the Local Government Act 1972.
- xhkkffbf 2y agoPlease. I've read Dan Brown's novels and I know that those are just phony and for confuse the proles. But just how the Priory of Sion is involved is still not clear to me.
- epolanski 2y agoI'm gonna add that it is not super super well explained why did it stay that way either which was the curious part for me.
- qingcharles 2y agoWell, it's not now! p.s. the first rule of London is we don't talk about London...
- temporarely 2y agoThe secret isn't that the city of london has existed for centuries. Articles like this are designed to elicit your response. The secret is to what extent the social-political order in the West determined by the Finance and the extent to which they exercise power over nominally sovereign entities.
- dang 2y agoYou get a pass; the title was being overly gratuitous.