London vs. Zurich - a fierce debate in the Financial Times

28 Jun 2006

Read this amusing and informative extract of a heated debate in the Financial Times, published between March 18 and April 14, 2006.

---

It's slow going far too often, even in the fast lane

By Tyler Brule
Published: March 18 2006 03:00 | Last updated: March 18 2006 03:00

Tyler Brule - It might be the mid-March blahs. It could be that I'm suffering through a ridiculous, seemingly unshakeable cold. There's a chance that it's all part of being 37. Or perhaps it's just that I have little patience for things that slow me down. Is it just me or do you get the feeling that everything is coming to a grinding, screeching, toe-curling halt? Worse. Do you have a sense that no one really cares?

If you're reading this over a nice basket of toast and preserves in a more mobility-friendly place (Munich, Melbourne, Copenhagen, Helsinki, greater Zurich, Barcelona all come to mind) count yourself lucky. If you're reading this in London or one of its surrounding communities you probably don't have time to get to the bottom of this paragraph because you're already cutting into the travel time that requires you to add an extra 90 minutes to every journey to ensure you get to your destination within a politely acceptable time frame. That means no time for one more espresso, no expanding your mind with the FT, no bonus minutes in bed, no kicking the ball around with the kids in the garden, no quality of life.

Some weeks ago at Davos I sat in on a breakfast hosted by a UK cabinet minister whose department is charged with getting foreign businesses to spend as much money as possible in the UK. He went on at considerable length about how successful his team had been at wooing foreign companies to set up shop and how 2005 was a record year for inward investment in the UK. For a brief moment I almost found myself reaching into my pocket to buy a ticket for his campaign bus but quickly realised there was little point because, if it was setting off from London, it wouldn't be getting very far. Instead I asked the minister if he really thought this was sustainable given the country's shoddy infrastructure? Would foreign companies continue to invest in the UK if their visiting chief executives had to wait in queues over Heathrow for 40 minutes, then stand in an immigration line for half an hour and then sit in traffic for 90 minutes en route to a presentation that was going to tell them why they should be spending in the UK's south-east rather than Bavaria? The minister agreed that there were some infrastructure issues that required attention but said they were in hand and that much was being done to ensure the UK would have a world-class infrastructure. My neighbour, the steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal, wasn't convinced. He shook his head about the poor road connections and then went on to give the minister a grilling about missed opportunities in India.

I'd like to work out how many work/leisure hours are lost by delays, queues and other assorted obstacles that no one seems too concerned about getting under control, let alone improving.

I sometimes play a little game when I enter or exit the UK and pretend I'm one of those chief executives with billions to invest in a new semiconductor plant in Wales or an auto assembly facility in the Midlands. On some journeys through Heathrow my name is Mr Park and I'm working for Hyundai. Other times I might be Mr Matsuda working for Kyocera. From the time I leave the centre of London to the moment I settle down in my seat on the aircraft, I assess how well London measures up as a city with an efficient infrastructure, competent management and a spirit for getting things done swiftly and efficiently. Having been a participant in this game for a few years now the situation has moved from almost passable to completely unacceptable. Any potential foreign investor who has had to endure the new security procedures at Heathrow must surely report back to head office that there are some alarming infrastructure issues in the UK that make it a less than attractive place to deploy funds and manpower.

I recently asked some senior officials at BAA, the airports operator, what they were doing about the appalling queues at the airport and why they weren't in control of the situation. Did they realise the negative impact this was having on UK businesses and foreign companies who use London as their base? Their response? We were taken by surprise by the traffic volumes and the passenger flow. "That's funny," I said. "You see all those planes out there that are coming and going? They all operate on daily schedules that passengers, travel agents, air traffic controllers, pilots and flight attendants are all perfectly aware of. Those planes belonging to Iberia, Air France and Malev don't just show up by surprise, they operate to a timetable. So why is it a revelation that there are waves of passengers?" The rebuttal almost doesn't bear repeating. "We didn't think this many people would want to travel at this time of year and we were caught off guard by the school holidays." Three weeks on there's little improvement. I fear that Mr Park and Mr Matsuda will not be recommending the UK as a land of opportunity.

tyler.brule@ft.com

More columns at www.ft.com/brule


 
FT.com

Joys of switching from lousy London to zingy Zurich

From Ms Catherine D. Henry.

Sir, How curious to find a shining endorsement of the City of London as the ultimate capitalist paradise ("The new City", FT Special Report, March 27) shortly after a lambasting by your columnist, Tyler Brule ("It's slow going far too often, even in the fast lane", FT Weekend, March 18/19).

Having escaped London two years ago for Zurich, I fully concur with Mr Brule's assessment of London as a filthy, congested, difficult city. I was born and raised in New York, and have the credentials that would allow me to work in any financial capital. London is little more than a series of villages strung together by broken train rails and supported by a miserable infrastructure.

In London, I headed a unit that was responsible for business development across Europe and am still galled by the amount of time I spent commuting to and from London airports (not to mention circling daily over Heathrow waiting for a slot). Getting to work on the Tube was a daily harassment and the public transport system is filthy and dilapidated.

Zurich is truly in the centre of Europe: commuting to and from the airport to the centre takes only 15 minutes and the trains travel regularly across Europe. Anyone who has spent even an hour in Zurich knows that trains in Switzerland are so punctual one can literally set one's (Rolex) watch by them - and the system, like the city, is impeccably clean and pleasant. The best part, of course, is not getting out of Zurich, but returning home to a city where the emphasis on civilization is definitely on "civil".

While I continue to work between London, Hong Kong, Paris and Zurich I finally settled here because I can combine a fantastic career and be water-skiing on the lake just minutes after work.

Zurich is an expensive city and while rents are not much cheaper than London, the quality of housing, schooling, medical care and other services is incomparable. And, I can go out to eat - or drink - with friends well past 11pm.

It's good to be an adult in Switzerland. I wish I could say the same for London.

Catherine D. Henry,

Global Relationship Management, Team Head,

Man Investments,

Pfaffikon, SZ 8808, Switzerland

March 28, 2006

 
FT.com

Switzerland - in perfect working order but so boring

By Jennifer de Luca-Iverson
Published: March 30 2006 03:00 | Last updated: March 30 2006 03:00

From Ms Jennifer de Luca-Iverson.

Sir, I read with interest the comment sent by Catherine D. Henry, who claims to have "escaped" London for Zurich (Letters, March 29). I, too, am American, lived in New York and thought I had "escaped" London when I moved to Switzerland . . . only to find out after five years that I had made a gross mistake. I can cite a long, long list of professionals that came to various cities in Switzerland looking for a better life, only to leave after five or so years because they could not take it any more.

Indeed London has an awful transport system, it is dirty and the crime rate is inching higher. I have seen well-dressed traders vomiting on the sidewalk at 8pm near Liverpool Street station. My apartment in Pimlico was broken into. I was cheated by two landlords. It is also true that Zurich is a very livable city, as is Geneva and Lugano, where I live. I am two and a half hours from the Ligurian coast, four hours from the heart of Tuscany, a couple of hours from St Moritz and have a beautiful lake to enjoy in the summer as well as lots of sunshine. I have an apartment I could never afford in London and am in the office after a nice 15-minute walk in the morning. I agree wholeheartedly with Ms Henry. However . . .

I would give Ms Henry a few more years to see if she changes her opinion slightly after having her trash and paper recycling looked into by her neighbours, her personal financial/legal records searched on the internet by her colleagues, sighting her colleagues driving slowly by her house to see where she lives (and making estimates as to how much she makes), and having a cashier make a line of 10 people wait while you look for that 5 cents missing from the bill instead of saying, "Don't worry about it".

Everything works here like a dream, really. But you pay for that by being surrounded by pathetically boring people and no culture.

The Swiss make rules for everyone else, but they themselves are exempt as and when they please. They are as stingy with their emotions as they are with their pocketbooks.

I, too, have worked in Paris, London, New York, Milan and traveled extensively, but hardly find Zurich, nor anywhere else in Switzerland, to be paradise.

Long live London!

Jennifer de Luca-Iverson,

6900 Lugano, Switzerland

 
FT.com

London knocks the stuffing out of Zurich's self-satisfied social scene

By CHRIS LARMOUR

From Mr Chris Larmour.

Sir, While not wishing to dispute the characterization of London's infrastructure as described by your well-credentialed water-skiing correspondent Catherine D. Henry (Letters, March 29), it is quite difficult to imagine a country that has tried harder than Switzerland not to be at the centre of anything to do with Europe.

Beyond this, being "clean and pleasant" is not necessarily the apogee of civilization. I would venture a guess that the diversity of vibrant cultural influences and traditions to be found in the filthy, ill-mannered backstreets of London would knock the stuffing out of Zurich's stuffy, self-satisfied social scene.

Chris Larmour,

80798 Munich,

Germany

March 29, 2006

 
FT.com

Zurich set against the repulsiveness of London.

By PETER QUAYLE

From Mr Peter Quayle.

Sir, Catherine D. Henry offers a compelling argument extolling the attractiveness of Zurich set against the repulsiveness of London.

Alas, she overlooks one essential fact. Zurich is a quaint, dull, smug, homogenous village. London, by contrast, is the giant, cosmopolitan, entrepreneurial, anarchic, multinational capital of Europe and the Continent's only global city. However, it is true, as she notes, that the water-skiing is poor.

Peter Quayle,

London NW11 8BJ

March 29, 2006

 
FT.com

Size is a critical factor in the city boredom stakes

By KASPAR PROBST

From Mr Kaspar B. Probst.

Sir, Having read your readers' positive and negative views about Swiss cities compared with London (Letters, March 29 and 30) I think some of them forgot to consider the dimension of size. Jennifer de Luca-Iverson lives in Lugano, a city with a population of 43,276 - based on a 2002 estimate I found online - and complains about "being surrounded by pathetically boring people and no culture". Well, can anyone name any city of a similar size, say in the UK or the US, with more culture and fewer pathetically boring people?

I live in Geneva (population 177,535) and also consider it a rather boring and stuck-up place, despite being a bit cosmopolitan with its 45 per cent foreign residents (most of whom are complaining about boredom). But then, I have always explained the boredom of Geneva by its lack of a critical size rather than by accusing the Swiss people, culture and character.

Which brings us back to Zurich. With its population of 342,518, but 1,080,728 including the agglomerations, it is the only Swiss city that can reasonably be compared to other "big cities".

Zurich certainly offers a fantastic quality of life for people ready to live at a slightly slower pace than they would in London. And in any case, Europe's more vibrant cities are only an hour's flight away.

Kaspar B. Probst,

1205 Geneva, Switzerland

March 31, 2006


 
FT.com

Culturally richer than the average village

By MICHAEL SINGER
From Dr Michael Singer.

Sir, The letters in response to Catherine D. Henry's comments on the attractiveness of Zurich have dismissed that city as quaint, dull, smug and devoid of culture.

Of course, Zurich lacks London's liveliness and vibrancy, and much else. Nonetheless, the last time I was in Zurich, I saw a rather good modern art exhibition that was by no means quaint. I attended a fine performance of Der fliegende Hollander which, regardless of whether one appreciated its Regietheater approach, could not reasonably be described as dull or smug. I heard the legendary Kurt Sanderling conduct Bruckner's seventh symphony in a superb performance that sticks in my memory. All this within a few days. The cleanliness of the streets along which I walked to reach these events did not diminish my enjoyment of them.

If, as one of your correspondents claims, Zurich is merely a village, it certainly offers a richer cultural range than the average village.

Michael Singer,

Senior Research Fellow,

School of Law,

King's College London,

London WC2R 2LS, UK

LOAD-DATE: April 2, 2006


 
FT.com

How Zurich kept a creative spirit alive

By TOM BROWN

From Mr Tom Brown.

Sir, As a former resident of Zurich I have followed the London v Zurich correspondence with interest. Your correspondents prove beyond doubt that any comparison between two cities of totally different size, geographic location and history is invidious to both.

A comparison of Zurich with Southampton or Leeds might be fairer, and highlight the relative successes and failures of urban societies of similar sizes better. However, by any standard, Zurich can be proud of its cultural scene, as a glance through the April program for the Schauspielhaus theatre shows, with a bewildering variety of mainstream, workshop and fringe drama, including Chekov, Vallejo, Shakespeare, Schiller and new works by Simon Stephens and Edna Mazya, recalling that Zurich was the city which kept the creative spirit of German literature alive during the dark years of the Nazi era. Zurich cinemas are a true showcase of global cinema, with foreign films exhibited in the original language, in contrast to the ghastly dubbing which is the norm in Germany and France.

A city that has counted James Joyce, one of the most startling innovators of 20th century literature, among its residents cannot be that boring!

Tom Brown,

Head of Leveraged Finance - Risk Management,

WestLB London,

London EC2V 5HA

April 2, 2006


 
FT.com

Swiss poll winner

By Nicky Samengo-Turner
Published: April 5 2006 03:00 | Last updated: April 5 2006 03:00

From Mr Nicky Samengo-Turner.

Sir, The recent "London versus Zurich" debate in the letters column should be broadened to consider which elements of Switzerland would enhance the British way of life.

How about neutrality, independence from the EU, an extension of democracy by referendums, banking secrecy laws, the attraction of foreign private capital and savings, immigration laws that actually work, superb public services, low taxation, an excellent transport infrastructure and an ability to attract the spending power of wealthy overseas citizens just for starters?

Can any reader seriously tell me that the above list, included in any UK political party's manifesto, would not result in a landslide (as opposed to an avalanche) victory at the next general election?

Nicky Samengo-Turner,

Hundon, Suffolk CO10 8EY, UK


 
FT.com

Wilde's dictum on permanent income must have referred to the Swiss

By Alexander Ineichen
Published: April 4 2006 03:00 | Last updated: April 4 2006 03:00

From Mr Alexander Ineichen.

Sir, The debate in your letters columns as to whether the Swiss are dull or Switzerland a paradise is missing the point. The two are not mutually exclusive but correlated. Being Swiss and having recently returned after eight years in London, I can judge.

The Swiss never had victories on battlefields to speak of, never had colonies, never had social upheavals or revolutions, never had social disasters. The Swiss, unlike their neighbours, do not even strike.

The Swiss have no poets, no composers, few philosophers, and hardly any painters and writers of international acclaim. No wonder the Swiss are dull.

However, when we measure wealth and quality of life not just as gross domestic product per capita but add some less tangible factors such as functionality of infrastructure, medical care and pension system, as well as level of education and safety of our children on their way to school, Switzerland actually is paradise. So wealth and dullness are not mutually exclusive, but potentially mutually inclusive.

Oscar Wilde must have been thinking of the Swiss when he said: "It is better to have a permanent income than to be fascinating."

Alexander Ineichen,

Oberaegeri, Switzerland



 
FT.com

Obsessively compulsive about forbidding

By Donald A Yerrill
Published: April 4 2006 03:00 | Last updated: April 4 2006 03:00

From Mr Donald A. Yerrill.

Sir, With reference to recent correspondence, perhaps Sir Peter Ustinov (a long-time resident in Switzerland) may be allowed the last word on the subject: "In Switzerland, practically everything is forbidden. What is not forbidden, is compulsory."

Donald A. Yerrill,

Newtonairds, Dumfries DG2 0JL


 
FT.com

Zurich tops expats' quality of life league

By ANDREW TAYLOR

Zurich provides the best quality of life for expatriate staff, according to a survey of more than 200 international cities.

The study conducted by Mercer Human Resource Consulting ranked cities on the basis of personal safety, health and education facilities, transport, other public services, social, economic, environmental and political factors. New York with a score of 100 was used as a base line.

Mercer said: "Moving abroad can be a big upheaval for expatriates and their families so international assignments tend to carry large price tags, particularly if they are in cities with low living standards facing political unrest or terrorist threats.

"When multinational companies set up expatriate assignments they have to provide attractive reward packages to compensate employees for any negative changes to their quality of living."

Continental European cities offered many of the best locations, occupying seven of the top 10 places. Zurich with 108.2 was only just ahead of Geneva which scored 108.1.

Vancouver, with 107.7, was third.

London and New York, which had suffered serious terrorist attacks in recent years were in 39th and 46th position respectively.

The cities also received lower marks owing to crime rates, air quality and traffic congestion, while UK and US relationships with some other countries, particularly in the Middle East, were poor.

Baghdad unsurprisingly was the least attractive city for expatriates with a score of just 14.5.

Zurich scored heavily on the quality of its banking services, internal stability, international relationships, low crime rate and good health facilities.

The only other British cities included the survey were Birmingham and Glasgow in joint 55th position. Dublin was in 24th place.

The standard of living in many eastern European cities is gradually improving, with the countries that have most recently joined the European Union attracting greater investment.

The scores of eastern European cities such as Budapest (74th), Prague (73rd) Ljubjlana (80th) Vilnius (84th) Warsaw (86th) and Tallinn (91st) had all risen,

Vancouver, Auckland (5th); and Sydney (9th) were the only non-European centres in the top 10.

Singapore, in 34th place with 102.5, was the top Asian city, one place ahead of Tokyo on 102.3.

The top-ranking city on the Chinese mainland was Shanghai (103rd with 80.1 points).

"Beijing and Shanghai are on the rise and should experience rapid improvements in quality of living in the coming years.

"This is mainly due to greater international investment driven by the availability and lower cost of labour and manufacturing expertise," said Mercer.

Cities in India, generally ranked lower than their Chinese counterparts, were also showing signs of development.


4April 9, 2006



 
FT.com

In the search for the perfect city, size matters - but who cares?

HAIG SIMONIAN

By HAIG SIMONIAN

Recent debate on the "perfect city" has endeavoured to identify the right mix of career and lifestyle, culture and diversity, predictability and edge in the "ideal" urban environment of today. FT writers have aired the merits of London, Paris and New York. Readers have slugged it out in a more focused exchange on London and Zurich. This has taken place against the background of British politicians' declared aim of making London the world's best city by the 2012 Olympic Games.

Zurich has been portrayed by its zealots as near perfect; spotlessly clean, enviably safe and enjoying a public transport system punctual enough to set one's watch by. Lovers of London, meanwhile, have dismissed the Swiss city as deadly dull, hopelessly blinkered and irredeemably provincial.

Such debate, of course, is pointless - at least on one level. Banks and consultants spew out annual league tables purporting to show the relative merits of cities. Such pseudo-scientific studies can be useful for executives planning their next posting or negotiating relocation perks but are no more than rough guides.

London's apologists can never understand why the Swiss usually win hands down. Zurich and, to a lesser extent, Geneva are handicapped by their sky-high prices. But low crime, outstanding infrastructure and high quality of life lift them to the top of most such listings.

London, by contrast, usually features poorly. World-class theatre and music win accolades for culture, but the city is let down by its crumbling transport infrastructure and often sub-standard publicservices. Ethnic diversity and London's sheer scale and brio - virtually immeasurable and highly subjective - seldom count for much.

The latest study, just published by Mercer Human Resources Consulting, puts Zurich and Geneva predictably in first and second place. London comes 39th. Less controversially, Baghdad takes last place. The survey awards high marks to Sydney, Auckland and Vancouver (9th, 5th and 3rd respectively) - the only non-European entries in the top 10. It ranks Singapore top in Asia (and 34th worldwide) a sliver ahead of Tokyo.

Swiss cities do well because they are anomalies. Start with size. Zurich (population 360,000) and Geneva (185,000) are highly attractive towns, unscathed by wartime bombing, enjoying beautiful lakeside settings, with snowy peaks and idyllic countryside in easy distance. Their relatively small scale, combined with decades of spending on infrastructure, allow for reasonable access. And, as the big cities of a small, but internationally significant, country, both boast disproportionately large airports, as well as excellent road and rail links. Education is usually first class, medical care is top-notch and people on the street are by and large helpful and friendly.

But neither Swiss city can honestly be compared to London. Cramming 7m-odd people into a relatively small space is bound to create congestion. And a decades-long failure to invest enough in public services inevitably causes the transport misery that is a frequent talking point for commuters.

Yet, the sheer scale of a metropolis such as London - whose population is about the same as all of Switzerland - creates a buzz and flair that the Swiss can only envy - and often yearn to share, as packed weekend flights demonstrate. Add to that an ethnic mix reflecting a long colonial heritage and a relative openness to foreigners, and London presents a city without parallel in Europe - warts and all.

Which is "better" depends on one's personality, preferences and point in life. Today, with a young child and different priorities, I'm delighted to live in Zurich: 20 years ago, I would have been loath to leave London.

If Europe has any "perfect" cities, they share certain characteristics. A minimum population - say 1-1.5m - is necessary to ensure a sufficient range of services and activities. Many bigger places, such as Rome or Madrid, have their merits, but start to get out of hand.

Zurich and Geneva are exceptional for offering big city services in small town surroundings. Berlin and Athens are bigger. But the latter remains too chaotic, even after its Olympic facelift, while Berlin's glitter is marred by a moribund local economy and the fact that it is convenient for nowhere bar western Poland.

That highlights the importance of location. Hamburg has a proud maritime tradition, some fine architecture and an imposing setting along the Elbe and Alster. But it also rains a lot. Brussels is similarly challenged meteorologically. Many Germans portray Munich as Europe's "perfect" city, with its high quality of urban life and the appeal of lakes and mountains. It is just a shame about the Bavarians. I have always had an itch for Marseilles, but fear it could wane on closer acquaintance. Barcelona is not on the FT's map, or would have applied yesterday.

What makes the cities debate so engaging is the fact that European integration and globalisation have given so many of us the chance to experience the diversity for ourselves. Dr Johnson justifiably lauded London. But unlike the good doctor, our pontifications can be based on first-hand experience, not conjecture.

The writer is the FT's Switzerland correspondent

April 14, 2006

Print this story