London's population set to decline for first time since 1988

[Alcibiades]

London is an amazing city, I’d go every year if I could, but yeah not surprising. There’s really no point in living in a city when everything good is shut.

It really isn't. Not even the best city in the UK.
(That honour, of course, goes to Hereford!)

Maybe I’m biased because I’m a native of the place, but London is a fantastic city with so much to do. In the school holidays, I sometimes used to take a tube into central London and just wonder around for the whole day, and I would never get bored of it. I don’t think it’s really possible to compare it to anywhere else in the UK, because it’s so much larger than all of them.

London is fine. I spent a semester living there and it definitely has a lot to offer, but I've always thought it isn't an objectively great city--at least not how its inhabitants think. London thinks it is one of the great hubs of the world but compared to New York or Tokyo or Hong Kong or even Paris it can just seem small and rather provincial. It doesn't have the energy and grandeur of some of its peer cities.

Just my two cents.

I’m not really sure what you mean by “provincial” - London is a hugely cosmopolitan, diverse city, much more so than Paris, Tokyo or Hong Kong, and probably with a higher foreign-born population than NYC. It has a fundamentally international outlook. If you do want to make a case for an oddly provincial, small world city, it would surely be Paris, with its insular, cliquish social and cultural elite. I know the energy and feel of a place is rather subjective, but I’ve never felt London is lacking in this. The concrete jungle of Manhattan has a certain magnetism, but London is a more architecturally interesting city. I wonder if your being underwhelmed in London was coloured by living there as a student - I’ll admit, it is certainly not a great student city.

[parochial boy]

London is an amazing city, I’d go every year if I could, but yeah not surprising. There’s really no point in living in a city when everything good is shut.

It really isn't. Not even the best city in the UK.
(That honour, of course, goes to Hereford!)

Maybe I’m biased because I’m a native of the place, but London is a fantastic city with so much to do. In the school holidays, I sometimes used to take a tube into central London and just wonder around for the whole day, and I would never get bored of it. I don’t think it’s really possible to compare it to anywhere else in the UK, because it’s so much larger than all of them.

London is fine. I spent a semester living there and it definitely has a lot to offer, but I've always thought it isn't an objectively great city--at least not how its inhabitants think. London thinks it is one of the great hubs of the world but compared to New York or Tokyo or Hong Kong or even Paris it can just seem small and rather provincial. It doesn't have the energy and grandeur of some of its peer cities.

Just my two cents.

Funny, I would have said that applies far more to Paris than to London actually.

London has a strength in it sheer multiculturality. It and New York are genuinely the only two cities where you can come across people from literally anywhere in the world. It also has a strength in arts, theatre, sport, food, anything creative essentially, that easily equal or surpass any of the other cities you have listed (admittedly, with the restaurants, there are also a lot of crap ones, its Britain after all).

A decade ago it would have been at top of the list easily, but the fallout of brexit (eg, the dark future of the financial sector), as well as things like the mismanagement of the housing crisis, pretty woeful public utilities and services, the inconsistent public transport (some of it is great - eg the overground, a lot is awful - eg any other trains) does give a little bit of the impression of a city that is barely holding it together at the seams.

On the other hand, Paris just feels more and more like toy town - people only really live there performatively; the cultural output is pretty meh - anything creative comes from the banlieues really; food is predictable; often it just seems a little bit tacky.

I agree with Lechasseur re the Hauts-de-Seine too. Apart from having a bling-bling name attached, Neuilly is basically an upscale neighbourhood of Paris, but a little bit further away, and completely the wrong side of town for the more interesting sides of what the city has to offer.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I'm surprised there are fairly substantial Latin American communities in London. You learn something new every day...

[CumbrianLefty]

From the Guardian

London’s population is set to decline for the first time in more than 30 years, driven by the economic fallout from the coronavirus pandemic and people reassessing where they live during the crisis, according to a report.

The accountancy firm PwC said the number of people living in the capital could fall by more than 300,000 this year, from a record level of about 9 million in 2020, to as low as 8.7 million. This would end decades of growth with the first annual drop since 1988.

---

I actually thought London's population was overestimated for a while now, even before the lockdowns etc. Its peer cities have been losing population over the same decade: New York was revised down from 8.6 million in 2016 to 8.3 million in 2019, and is likely below 8 million now, and Paris has dropped to "only" 2.1 million .

Interesting. It's been losing parliamentary seats since the 1970s. The abandoned parliamentary review was the first one since then where it was going to gain seats, with this information I doubt that will remain the case. The government will be pleased...

Updated figures for GE electorates are now out, and the short answer is - yes, Greater London is going to gain a couple of seats in the coming review.

(lets recall that quite a few who have left recently wouldn't have been entitled to vote in one anyway)

[Lechasseur]

Funny, I would have said that applies far more to Paris than to London actually.

London has a strength in it sheer multiculturality. It and New York are genuinely the only two cities where you can come across people from literally anywhere in the world. It also has a strength in arts, theatre, sport, food, anything creative essentially, that easily equal or surpass any of the other cities you have listed (admittedly, with the restaurants, there are also a lot of crap ones, its Britain after all).

A decade ago it would have been at top of the list easily, but the fallout of brexit (eg, the dark future of the financial sector), as well as things like the mismanagement of the housing crisis, pretty woeful public utilities and services, the inconsistent public transport (some of it is great - eg the overground, a lot is awful - eg any other trains) does give a little bit of the impression of a city that is barely holding it together at the seams.

On the other hand, Paris just feels more and more like toy town - people only really live there performatively; the cultural output is pretty meh - anything creative comes from the banlieues really; food is predictable; often it just seems a little bit tacky.

I agree with Lechasseur re the Hauts-de-Seine too. Apart from having a bling-bling name attached, Neuilly is basically an upscale neighbourhood of Paris, but a little bit further away, and completely the wrong side of town for the more interesting sides of what the city has to offer.

Yeah I agree with this. Paris feels much more "provincial" than London. London truly has a more cosmopolitan and "big city" vibe than Paris. Well, tbf, France in general feels very "provincial" (not in a negative way, just in a "stating what I see" way).

I also agree with what you say about Paris, I think it's very much a city on the decline as well. It's the banlieues taking over now as we've already discussed, as middle class people can no longer afford to live in Paris. Now, Paris is obviously still Paris and still has something to it, but I don't find it has the same charm as it did 10-15 years ago.

Even though I am of the opinion if I had to choose between living in Paris and living in London, I would pick Paris any day simply because I think it's a much more liveable city than London. That being said, even though I prefer Paris for sentimental reasons (born here, having connections here, currently living here), from an "objective" standpoint, I actually think London is arguably more interesting to visit, in the sense it's incredibly different from any other European city for one (it's basically NYC European version as has been said elsewhere in this thread), and you also kind of have two cities for the price of one (Westminster and the City), while I find Paris on the Rive Droite (North of the Seine) to be pretty underwhelming except for the area around the Opéra Garnier and the Boulevard Haussmann, and the areas immediately bordering the Seine. The parts of Paris I like are the Rive Gauche (South of the Seine) and the Ile-de-la-Cité and Ile-St-Louis. I absolutely love the Rive Gauche and for me it's what "makes" Paris. Without the Rive Gauche, imo Paris isn't much to write home about. And if I could afford to live anywhere I wanted to in Paris, I'd live in the 5th, 6th or 7th arrondissements.

For London I generally like Westminster and West London in general best, but honestly I think the Rive Gauche in Paris beats it by quite a bit.

Tbf though, the last time I went to London (or the UK period) was in 2013. My opinions stated here could very well change if I went to visit again in order to compare.

For restaurants though, obviously Paris beats out London. You can get great food and service for very reasonable prices in Paris. The only city in the world that beats Paris in terms of gastronomy imo is Lyon (there's a reason it's the gastronomical capital of France. I can promise you that a restaurant experience in Lyon is very much worth it).

[Battista Minola 1616]

I don't know if I am the out of touch one or you are, but I am utterly, totally, completely unable to relate to anyone describing London or Paris as "provincial" or "small".

[Beet]

Population isn't everything. Mexico City is one of the world's largest cities yet it is hardly considered a world city like London.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't know if I am the out of touch one or you are, but I am utterly, totally, completely unable to relate to anyone describing London or Paris as "provincial" or "small".

Tiresome globe-emoji cock-waving, best ignored.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

My issue with London is to me--it never lives up to the reputation it sets for itself. Just look at this thread. It's portrayed as one of the two great poles of the Western world, coequal with New York, the heart of cosmopolitanism and business in Europe. And for me--especially as an American raised where Manhattan essentially defines what a city is supposed to be--it just doesn't measure up.

Manhattan's population density is 70,000/square mile. Inner London's is 29,000. New York has 290 skyscrapers. London has just 25. When you're on Fifth Avenue or in Central Park you feel like you're in the center of the world. Being at Oxford Street or Hyde Park just seems underwhelming by comparison--which is fine. But London is so insistent on calling itself the flashy and bustling "capital of the world" and it just doesn't feel that way. The only cities that can measure up to the grandiosity and sheer impressiveness of New York are in East Asia and they don't have the same multiculturalism and diversity.

Meanwhile, European cities like Paris are--in some categories--really better than the rest of the world. It isn't like America or Asia have a response to Haussmann's boulevards or the Louvre or the cuisine. Other European cities--Madrid and Milan being the most immediate examples--are similar. But London? It's fine, but it isn't as beautiful as much of Continental Europe and it isn't as impressive as much of America. It's just okay.

[Alcibiades]

My issue with London is to me--it never lives up to the reputation it sets for itself. Just look at this thread. It's portrayed as one of the two great poles of the Western world, coequal with New York, the heart of cosmopolitanism and business in Europe. And for me--especially as an American raised where Manhattan essentially defines what a city is supposed to be--it just doesn't measure up.

Manhattan's population density is 70,000/square mile. Inner London's is 29,000. New York has 290 skyscrapers. London has just 25. When you're on Fifth Avenue or in Central Park you feel like you're in the center of the world. Being at Oxford Street or Hyde Park just seems underwhelming by comparison--which is fine. But London is so insistent on calling itself the flashy and bustling "capital of the world" and it just doesn't feel that way. The only cities that can measure up to the grandiosity and sheer impressiveness of New York are in East Asia and they don't have the same multiculturalism and diversity.

Meanwhile, European cities like Paris are--in some categories--really better than the rest of the world. It isn't like America or Asia have a response to Haussmann's boulevards or the Louvre or the cuisine. Other European cities--Madrid and Milan being the most immediate examples--are similar. But London? It's fine, but it isn't as beautiful as much of Continental Europe and it isn't as impressive as much of America. It's just okay.

The fact that comparatively few people live in Central London is more a reflection of English living habits (namely that, compared to the US or Continental Europe, far more people live in single-family houses than in flats), and I don’t think this makes it “underwhelming” in any way.
I can understand why the skyscrapers of Manhattan give off gravitas, but I personally find London more pleasant (because the buildings are less oppressive) and interesting (because there is greater architectural diversity) to navigate because it lacks this quality.

Any way you look at it, London is a “world city”: it is a financial centre, a cultural capital, with a leading theatre and arts scene and the best selection of museums anywhere in the world, and is unrivalled in its diversity and multiculturalism.

When I stand on the South Bank, look at the city from Waterloo Bridge, or approach St Paul’s from the Millennium Bridge, I hardly feel underwhelmed. Of the examples you mention, Oxford Street is a hellishly busy chain shopping drag, but Hyde Park leads to another of the great things about London, that it has more green space than any other city of its size.

At the end of the day, though, this is all a matter of taste.

[Old Man Willow]

"London" doesn't exist anymore.

[Battista Minola 1616]

"London" doesn't exist anymore.

Because it's called Londonistan now amirite?

[Alcibiades]

"London" doesn't exist anymore.

Indeed, I’m typing this from deep within ISIS-controlled territory with scary brown people trying to break in.

[Storebought]

Population isn't everything. Mexico City is one of the world's largest cities yet it is hardly considered a world city like London.

That's also a function of how large the economy of the city is. Large high income cities have more status and cachet than large middle income ones like Mexico City, to say the least of destitute population sinks like Karachi or Lagos. There aren't that many high-income megacities to begin with, so the ones that are greatly stand out.

There is also the phenomena of cities that seem to punch below their weight. In the US, Philadelphia is a good example. Internationally would be Sao Paulo -- the largest city of the Americas and the southern hemisphere, and yet, there it is.  

[Battista Minola 1616]

"London" doesn't exist anymore.

Indeed, I’m typing this from deep within ISIS-controlled territory with scary brown people trying to break in.

You see, in SOTW's fantasy world all poor oppressed White Christians are escaping Londonistan for Hungary.

[Former President tack50]

Manhattan's population density is 70,000/square mile. Inner London's is 29,000. New York has 290 skyscrapers. London has just 25. When you're on Fifth Avenue or in Central Park you feel like you're in the center of the world. Being at Oxford Street or Hyde Park just seems underwhelming by comparison--which is fine. But London is so insistent on calling itself the flashy and bustling "capital of the world" and it just doesn't feel that way. The only cities that can measure up to the grandiosity and sheer impressiveness of New York are in East Asia and they don't have the same multiculturalism and diversity.

This is a deliberate strawman argument on my part; but if population density was the end-all argument about what city is greatest; L'Hospitalet de Llobregat would beat all of Paris, London and any other EU city; peaking at roughly 85000 people / square mile; and with no skyscrapers!

In reality, L'Hospitalet isn't even a city in its own right in many aspects and just acts as part of the Barcelona metro area.

[Battista Minola 1616]

Manhattan's population density is 70,000/square mile. Inner London's is 29,000. New York has 290 skyscrapers. London has just 25. When you're on Fifth Avenue or in Central Park you feel like you're in the center of the world. Being at Oxford Street or Hyde Park just seems underwhelming by comparison--which is fine. But London is so insistent on calling itself the flashy and bustling "capital of the world" and it just doesn't feel that way. The only cities that can measure up to the grandiosity and sheer impressiveness of New York are in East Asia and they don't have the same multiculturalism and diversity.

This is a deliberate strawman argument on my part; but if population density was the end-all argument about what city is greatest; L'Hospitalet de Llobregat would beat all of Paris, London and any other EU city; peaking at roughly 85000 people / square mile; and with no skyscrapers!

In reality, L'Hospitalet isn't even a city in its own right in many aspects and just acts as part of the Barcelona metro area.

I was thinking the same with various skyscraper-free residential central neighbourhoods of Naples (Avvocata, Montecalvario, Pendino, and especially San Lorenzo).
San Lorenzo peaks at 90,000 people per square mile!

And central Naples is, uhm, much closer to "world city" than L'Hospitalet de Llobregat.

[Former President tack50]

Manhattan's population density is 70,000/square mile. Inner London's is 29,000. New York has 290 skyscrapers. London has just 25. When you're on Fifth Avenue or in Central Park you feel like you're in the center of the world. Being at Oxford Street or Hyde Park just seems underwhelming by comparison--which is fine. But London is so insistent on calling itself the flashy and bustling "capital of the world" and it just doesn't feel that way. The only cities that can measure up to the grandiosity and sheer impressiveness of New York are in East Asia and they don't have the same multiculturalism and diversity.

This is a deliberate strawman argument on my part; but if population density was the end-all argument about what city is greatest; L'Hospitalet de Llobregat would beat all of Paris, London and any other EU city; peaking at roughly 85000 people / square mile; and with no skyscrapers!

In reality, L'Hospitalet isn't even a city in its own right in many aspects and just acts as part of the Barcelona metro area.

I was thinking the same with various skyscraper-free residential central neighbourhoods of Naples (Avvocata, Montecalvario, Pendino, and especially San Lorenzo).
San Lorenzo peaks at 90,000 people per square mile!

And central Naples is, uhm, much closer to "world city" than L'Hospitalet de Llobregat.

Actually I mentioned L'Hospitalet because it holds the densest square km in all of the EU, at least according to this map and its associated article. I always find it funny how the densest square km is not some part of downtown Paris, Berlin or London but a random lower income ""suburb"" of Barcelona (L'Hospitalet is one of those towns that is basically the same as Barcelona proper, but the city lines don't reflect that despite being pretty much no difference at the border between the 2)

https://dancooksonresearch.carto.com/u/dancookson/viz/49ca276c-adf9-454a-8f64-0ccf0e46eed0/embed_map

Also, I guess L'Hospitalet itself may not be a "world city", but Barcelona (of which L'Hospitalet is a  suburb of) is probably much more fitting of the title than Naples

[Battista Minola 1616]

Manhattan's population density is 70,000/square mile. Inner London's is 29,000. New York has 290 skyscrapers. London has just 25. When you're on Fifth Avenue or in Central Park you feel like you're in the center of the world. Being at Oxford Street or Hyde Park just seems underwhelming by comparison--which is fine. But London is so insistent on calling itself the flashy and bustling "capital of the world" and it just doesn't feel that way. The only cities that can measure up to the grandiosity and sheer impressiveness of New York are in East Asia and they don't have the same multiculturalism and diversity.

This is a deliberate strawman argument on my part; but if population density was the end-all argument about what city is greatest; L'Hospitalet de Llobregat would beat all of Paris, London and any other EU city; peaking at roughly 85000 people / square mile; and with no skyscrapers!

In reality, L'Hospitalet isn't even a city in its own right in many aspects and just acts as part of the Barcelona metro area.

I was thinking the same with various skyscraper-free residential central neighbourhoods of Naples (Avvocata, Montecalvario, Pendino, and especially San Lorenzo).
San Lorenzo peaks at 90,000 people per square mile!

And central Naples is, uhm, much closer to "world city" than L'Hospitalet de Llobregat.

Actually I mentioned L'Hospitalet because it holds the densest square km in all of the EU, at least according to this map and its associated article. I always find it funny how the densest square km is not some part of downtown Paris, Berlin or London but a random lower income ""suburb"" of Barcelona (L'Hospitalet is one of those towns that is basically the same as Barcelona proper, but the city lines don't reflect that despite being pretty much no difference at the border between the 2)

https://dancooksonresearch.carto.com/u/dancookson/viz/49ca276c-adf9-454a-8f64-0ccf0e46eed0/embed_map

Also, I guess L'Hospitalet itself may not be a "world city", but Barcelona (of which L'Hospitalet is a  suburb of) is probably much more fitting of the title than Naples

Wow, 53000 people in that one square kilometre! And many close ones with more than 40000 people. Naples gets destroyed.

But I'm not sure that's an optimal metric, as mine own city demonstrates:
The densest square kilometre is shown to be one in the east, but I'm extremely sure that the downtown area + the Umberto I neighbourhood immediately above, more in the west, are sizably denser and cover one square kilometre. The only problem is, this area is rectangular-shaped and not aligned with the cardinal directions.

Well you're right about Barcelona and Naples. Naples is just too poor in comparison I think.

[Tintrlvr]

Manhattan's population density is 70,000/square mile. Inner London's is 29,000. New York has 290 skyscrapers. London has just 25. When you're on Fifth Avenue or in Central Park you feel like you're in the center of the world. Being at Oxford Street or Hyde Park just seems underwhelming by comparison--which is fine. But London is so insistent on calling itself the flashy and bustling "capital of the world" and it just doesn't feel that way. The only cities that can measure up to the grandiosity and sheer impressiveness of New York are in East Asia and they don't have the same multiculturalism and diversity.

This is a deliberate strawman argument on my part; but if population density was the end-all argument about what city is greatest; L'Hospitalet de Llobregat would beat all of Paris, London and any other EU city; peaking at roughly 85000 people / square mile; and with no skyscrapers!

In reality, L'Hospitalet isn't even a city in its own right in many aspects and just acts as part of the Barcelona metro area.

I was thinking the same with various skyscraper-free residential central neighbourhoods of Naples (Avvocata, Montecalvario, Pendino, and especially San Lorenzo).
San Lorenzo peaks at 90,000 people per square mile!

And central Naples is, uhm, much closer to "world city" than L'Hospitalet de Llobregat.

Actually I mentioned L'Hospitalet because it holds the densest square km in all of the EU, at least according to this map and its associated article. I always find it funny how the densest square km is not some part of downtown Paris, Berlin or London but a random lower income ""suburb"" of Barcelona (L'Hospitalet is one of those towns that is basically the same as Barcelona proper, but the city lines don't reflect that despite being pretty much no difference at the border between the 2)

https://dancooksonresearch.carto.com/u/dancookson/viz/49ca276c-adf9-454a-8f64-0ccf0e46eed0/embed_map

Also, I guess L'Hospitalet itself may not be a "world city", but Barcelona (of which L'Hospitalet is a  suburb of) is probably much more fitting of the title than Naples

Well, that's what you get when an authoritarian leader focuses on building dense apartment complexes.

Incidentally, there look to be a couple of blocks that rival it in the city of Barcelona as well. One of the densest ones I found is also the block that includes La Sagrada Familia, at 48,900/sqkm (which, considering La Sagrada Familia and the associated plazas take up three whole city blocks, would almost certainly win if it were not there).

[Former President tack50]

Actually I mentioned L'Hospitalet because it holds the densest square km in all of the EU, at least according to this map and its associated article. I always find it funny how the densest square km is not some part of downtown Paris, Berlin or London but a random lower income ""suburb"" of Barcelona (L'Hospitalet is one of those towns that is basically the same as Barcelona proper, but the city lines don't reflect that despite being pretty much no difference at the border between the 2)

https://dancooksonresearch.carto.com/u/dancookson/viz/49ca276c-adf9-454a-8f64-0ccf0e46eed0/embed_map

Also, I guess L'Hospitalet itself may not be a "world city", but Barcelona (of which L'Hospitalet is a  suburb of) is probably much more fitting of the title than Naples

Well, that's what you get when an authoritarian leader focuses on building dense apartment complexes.

Incidentally, there look to be a couple of blocks that rival it in the city of Barcelona as well. One of the densest ones I found is also the block that includes La Sagrada Familia, at 48,900/sqkm (which, considering La Sagrada Familia and the associated plazas take up three whole city blocks, would almost certainly win if it were not there).

Wtf I love fascism now!

In any case yeah, Barcelona has extremely an extremely dense population distribution, even by European standards due to several factors including geography (Barcelona city is surrounded by mountains), history (like you mention, though I will note that there are also non-fascist dense developments; both in modern democratic Spain and in the 19th century) and several others

Spain in general has some very peculiar settlement distributions in the country, with very dense developments across the board despite the space being there for sprawling out. The associated article to that map also included an analysis of how, while Spain has a fairly average population density, actually slightly lower than the EU average, if you only take the chunks of land where people live, Spain's population density is actually extremely high; 2nd highest in the EU behind Malta in fact.

Despite most of the country being empty, the average Spanish city has very little sprawl, you go from huge appartment buildings or tight medieval row houses to empty countryside with very little transition. The only exception to this is the far north of the country, particularly Galicia, where the more usual "homesteading" approach is used and population is more sprawled out.

https://citymonitor.ai/fabric/these-maps-reveal-truth-about-population-density-across-europe-3625

PD: I will also note that the 1 square km block in question in L'Hospitalet includes a railway line and a public park, so it's not like it is fully made up of buildings. Here is how the square looks from above:

[CumbrianLefty]

"London" doesn't exist anymore.

I rather think it does, actually.

[Battista Minola 1616]

Actually I mentioned L'Hospitalet because it holds the densest square km in all of the EU, at least according to this map and its associated article. I always find it funny how the densest square km is not some part of downtown Paris, Berlin or London but a random lower income ""suburb"" of Barcelona (L'Hospitalet is one of those towns that is basically the same as Barcelona proper, but the city lines don't reflect that despite being pretty much no difference at the border between the 2)

https://dancooksonresearch.carto.com/u/dancookson/viz/49ca276c-adf9-454a-8f64-0ccf0e46eed0/embed_map

Also, I guess L'Hospitalet itself may not be a "world city", but Barcelona (of which L'Hospitalet is a  suburb of) is probably much more fitting of the title than Naples

Adding onto the problems of that map: I was hovering around the La Spezia area and I noticed that sometimes square kilometers containing some locally very recognizable hamlets in the mountains (places where likely hundreds of people live) are shown as being devoid of population.

[Conservatopia]

My issue with London is to me--it never lives up to the reputation it sets for itself. Just look at this thread. It's portrayed as one of the two great poles of the Western world, coequal with New York, the heart of cosmopolitanism and business in Europe. And for me--especially as an American raised where Manhattan essentially defines what a city is supposed to be--it just doesn't measure up.

Manhattan's population density is 70,000/square mile. Inner London's is 29,000. New York has 290 skyscrapers. London has just 25. When you're on Fifth Avenue or in Central Park you feel like you're in the center of the world. Being at Oxford Street or Hyde Park just seems underwhelming by comparison--which is fine. But London is so insistent on calling itself the flashy and bustling "capital of the world" and it just doesn't feel that way. The only cities that can measure up to the grandiosity and sheer impressiveness of New York are in East Asia and they don't have the same multiculturalism and diversity.

Meanwhile, European cities like Paris are--in some categories--really better than the rest of the world. It isn't like America or Asia have a response to Haussmann's boulevards or the Louvre or the cuisine. Other European cities--Madrid and Milan being the most immediate examples--are similar. But London? It's fine, but it isn't as beautiful as much of Continental Europe and it isn't as impressive as much of America. It's just okay.

The fact that comparatively few people live in Central London is more a reflection of English living habits (namely that, compared to the US or Continental Europe, far more people live in single-family houses than in flats), and I don’t think this makes it “underwhelming” in any way.
I can understand why the skyscrapers of Manhattan give off gravitas, but I personally find London more pleasant (because the buildings are less oppressive) and interesting (because there is greater architectural diversity) to navigate because it lacks this quality.

Any way you look at it, London is a “world city”: it is a financial centre, a cultural capital, with a leading theatre and arts scene and the best selection of museums anywhere in the world, and is unrivalled in its diversity and multiculturalism.

When I stand on the South Bank, look at the city from Waterloo Bridge, or approach St Paul’s from the Millennium Bridge, I hardly feel underwhelmed. Of the examples you mention, Oxford Street is a hellishly busy chain shopping drag, but Hyde Park leads to another of the great things about London, that it has more green space than any other city of its size.

At the end of the day, though, this is all a matter of taste.

This is spot on.  Stand on top of the Dome and tell me you feel "underwhelmed".

[King of Kensington]

Re: provincialism - fair to say Paris feels more "French" than London does "English"?