I'm a New Yorker now, and believe me, there's no comparison between the Big Apple and Kalamazoo, no similarity at all. New York City's hectic, always in fast-forward, and Kalamazoo's more laid-back, smaller, slower.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I personally don't even try to compare New York and L.A. To me, they are just way too different.
There are a lot of interesting differences between Boston and New York in general, and I think they're sort of heightened in Long Island.
New York is a much more bourgeois city, more of a tourist attraction than a muscular metropolis. It's lost moxie and a rough energy, while gaining grace and friendliness. I love both versions of the city, but I wish the prosperous Manhattan would become a little easier for young people to afford.
There is more sophistication and less sense in New York than anywhere else on the globe.
Mumbai is home, so there's no comparison. But then again, New York's a lot like Mumbai, which is why I choose to live there. It's fast, crowded (in a good way), the people are friendly and it's full of color and race, like Mumbai. Unfortunately, the traffic's also just as bad.
It's fascinating to see how versatile New York City is. It lends itself to being so many different places!
New Yorkers have their own way of speaking, their own tempo, and Texans are a lot like that. As much as you think Texas is one thing and New York is another, they're very much the same.
Hip-hop is bigger than the South; hip-hop is bigger than New York.
The world's major metropolitan cities are more or less the same.
To me, the difference between New York and London is that things are boring and staid in London.