Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Britain's Second City?
Comments
-
That’s my experience from moving to Lancashire 3 years ago. Better standard of living than being in London suburbs and can be in central London in two hours on the train when I want to. Added to that getting around the rest of the country is so much easier as you don’t have to navigate round or through a big city full of traffic.bobmunro said:ShootersHillGuru said:I’ve got feet in both camps here. Lived all my life in London until two and half years ago when I moved to West Yorkshire. London, and by London I mean central London is one of the best cities in the world. Without doubt. Once you start moving out of that wonderful centre into the burbs and Greater London then it really doesn’t have more to offer than anywhere else. The big downside is for me the traffic and there really are just too many people. Housing costs are astronomical. I can see why someone who spends a decent amount of time in central London would find it irresistible but the average suburbanite pays over the odds for just about everything with no real benefits greater than anyone living anywhere.Couldn't agree more, Shooters.Central London is breathtaking as a city and along with New York they are probably joint world capitals. Move out of that centre and the only thing going for it is proximity to the centre!We've been up t'north (if you can call Cheshire north!) for 15 years now and I wouldn't go back south. I love the space, easy accessibility to wonderful parts of the UK, being able to move around without being stuck in endless traffic, and a slower pace of life (maybe that's an age thing) without everyone rushing around too busy to even pass the time of day with you.The only real downside is I can't get down to The Valley that often - but maybe that's a good thing.1 -
Birmingham is a massively underrated city, has been on the up since the massive investment in the Bullring, and has many other areas which are excellent. Manchester is the Capital of the north and Burnham as Mayor has helped that along, but they are two very good cities. Britain's real problem is that the other second tier cities in the country aren't as productive say as their equivalents in Germany or France.0
-
I reckon that people who move to some northern city and then tell you how good it is are just trying to convince themselves. Facts don’t lie, more people live in London than any other city in the country because it’s the best city in the country.It’s odd to say the “London’s suburbs aren’t as good as the city centre” - of course they aren’t, that’s how cities work. Jamaica in NYC isn’t as good as the Lower East Side. Your proximity to the centre of one of earths great cultural capitals (maybe the greatest) is entirely part of the attraction. You won’t get that in bloody Accrington, Rotherham or Stoke.1
-
Hands up - it was the formerHastingsRed said:
Guess your taking the piss but some do have usernames of where they use to live or where they were born (so maybe a genuine question)....I'm now in Hastings.SporadicAddick said:HastingsRed said:ShootersHillGuru said:I’ve got feet in both camps here. Lived all my life in London until two and half years ago when I moved to West Yorkshire. London, and by London I mean central London is one of the best cities in the world. Without doubt. Once you start moving out of that wonderful centre into the burbs and Greater London then it really doesn’t have more to offer than anywhere else. The big downside is for me the traffic and there really are just too many people. Housing costs are astronomical. I can see why someone who spends a decent amount of time in central London would find it irresistible but the average suburbanite pays over the odds for just about everything with no real benefits greater than anyone living anywhere.ShootersHillGuru said:
Going by your username I lived down the road from you....Well Hall Rd....1998-2005.I’ve got feet in both camps here. Lived all my life in London until two and half years ago when I moved to West Yorkshire. London, and by London I mean central London is one of the best cities in the world. Without doubt. Once you start moving out of that wonderful centre into the burbs and Greater London then it really doesn’t have more to offer than anywhere else. The big downside is for me the traffic and there really are just too many people. Housing costs are astronomical. I can see why someone who spends a decent amount of time in central London would find it irresistible but the average suburbanite pays over the odds for just about everything with no real benefits greater than anyone living anywhere.
Where do you live now?
1 -
se9addick said:I reckon that people who move to some northern city and then tell you how good it is are just trying to convince themselves. Facts don’t lie, more people live in London than any other city in the country because it’s the best city in the country.It’s odd to say the “London’s suburbs aren’t as good as the city centre” - of course they aren’t, that’s how cities work. Jamaica in NYC isn’t as good as the Lower East Side. Your proximity to the centre of one of earths great cultural capitals (maybe the greatest) is entirely part of the attraction. You won’t get that in bloody Accrington, Rotherham or Stoke.I would refute that. But I agree that (central) London is the best city in the country, probably the world - and I can be at Euston in 90 minutes whenever I need my fix.Can't disagree in regards to Stoke!0
-
Yeah sorry - I realised the inclusion of Stoke looked passive aggressive after I wrote it!bobmunro said:se9addick said:I reckon that people who move to some northern city and then tell you how good it is are just trying to convince themselves. Facts don’t lie, more people live in London than any other city in the country because it’s the best city in the country.It’s odd to say the “London’s suburbs aren’t as good as the city centre” - of course they aren’t, that’s how cities work. Jamaica in NYC isn’t as good as the Lower East Side. Your proximity to the centre of one of earths great cultural capitals (maybe the greatest) is entirely part of the attraction. You won’t get that in bloody Accrington, Rotherham or Stoke.I would refute that. But I agree that (central) London is the best city in the country, probably the world - and I can be at Euston in 90 minutes whenever I need my fix.Can't disagree in regards to Stoke!0 -
Peterborough0
-
central london, for the most part, is my least favourite part of london, too busy, too corporate. Venture out and there are some top neighbourhoods with something always going on.bobmunro said:se9addick said:I reckon that people who move to some northern city and then tell you how good it is are just trying to convince themselves. Facts don’t lie, more people live in London than any other city in the country because it’s the best city in the country.It’s odd to say the “London’s suburbs aren’t as good as the city centre” - of course they aren’t, that’s how cities work. Jamaica in NYC isn’t as good as the Lower East Side. Your proximity to the centre of one of earths great cultural capitals (maybe the greatest) is entirely part of the attraction. You won’t get that in bloody Accrington, Rotherham or Stoke.I would refute that. But I agree that (central) London is the best city in the country, probably the world - and I can be at Euston in 90 minutes whenever I need my fix.Can't disagree in regards to Stoke!
But i think london has a good case for being the best city in the world imho.0 -
yeah. like Eltham..kentaddick said:
central london, for the most part, is my least favourite part of london, too busy, too corporate. Venture out and there are some top neighbourhoods with something always going on.bobmunro said:se9addick said:I reckon that people who move to some northern city and then tell you how good it is are just trying to convince themselves. Facts don’t lie, more people live in London than any other city in the country because it’s the best city in the country.It’s odd to say the “London’s suburbs aren’t as good as the city centre” - of course they aren’t, that’s how cities work. Jamaica in NYC isn’t as good as the Lower East Side. Your proximity to the centre of one of earths great cultural capitals (maybe the greatest) is entirely part of the attraction. You won’t get that in bloody Accrington, Rotherham or Stoke.I would refute that. But I agree that (central) London is the best city in the country, probably the world - and I can be at Euston in 90 minutes whenever I need my fix.Can't disagree in regards to Stoke!
But i think london has a good case for being the best city in the world imho.0 -
I think I had that view until I moved. I wouldn’t go back.se9addick said:I reckon that people who move to some northern city and then tell you how good it is are just trying to convince themselves. Facts don’t lie, more people live in London than any other city in the country because it’s the best city in the country.It’s odd to say the “London’s suburbs aren’t as good as the city centre” - of course they aren’t, that’s how cities work. Jamaica in NYC isn’t as good as the Lower East Side. Your proximity to the centre of one of earths great cultural capitals (maybe the greatest) is entirely part of the attraction. You won’t get that in bloody Accrington, Rotherham or Stoke.1 - Sponsored links:
-
I guess it depends on what you see as central london
- i see that as zone 1. I live in zone 2 north of the river and although it's expensive and terrible return on your money in terms of space, i love the lifestyle/activities on my doorstep 0 -
I don't mind Birmingham, but when comparing it to other UK cities the area is lacking in grandeur and history, it feels like a large town rather than somewhere "important".Rothko said:Birmingham is a massively underrated city, has been on the up since the massive investment in the Bullring, and has many other areas which are excellent. Manchester is the Capital of the north and Burnham as Mayor has helped that along, but they are two very good cities. Britain's real problem is that the other second tier cities in the country aren't as productive say as their equivalents in Germany or France.
No dramatic buildings, such as a great castle or cathedral, or the University buildings of Oxford and Cambridge. No iconic sporting venues - the likes of Villa Park and Edgbaston are fine, but they don't have the international fame of Old Trafford or Anfield. Even culturally, there's no equivalent draw of say The Beatles in Liverpool.0 -
Right, but this thread is about cities. Which British city would you prefer to live in than London?ShootersHillGuru said:
I think I had that view until I moved. I wouldn’t go back.se9addick said:I reckon that people who move to some northern city and then tell you how good it is are just trying to convince themselves. Facts don’t lie, more people live in London than any other city in the country because it’s the best city in the country.It’s odd to say the “London’s suburbs aren’t as good as the city centre” - of course they aren’t, that’s how cities work. Jamaica in NYC isn’t as good as the Lower East Side. Your proximity to the centre of one of earths great cultural capitals (maybe the greatest) is entirely part of the attraction. You won’t get that in bloody Accrington, Rotherham or Stoke.0 -
se9addick said:
Right, but this thread is about cities. Which British city would you prefer to live in than London?ShootersHillGuru said:
I think I had that view until I moved. I wouldn’t go back.se9addick said:I reckon that people who move to some northern city and then tell you how good it is are just trying to convince themselves. Facts don’t lie, more people live in London than any other city in the country because it’s the best city in the country.It’s odd to say the “London’s suburbs aren’t as good as the city centre” - of course they aren’t, that’s how cities work. Jamaica in NYC isn’t as good as the Lower East Side. Your proximity to the centre of one of earths great cultural capitals (maybe the greatest) is entirely part of the attraction. You won’t get that in bloody Accrington, Rotherham or Stoke.
Edinburgh for me.
0 -
se9addick said:
Yeah sorry - I realised the inclusion of Stoke looked passive aggressive after I wrote it!bobmunro said:se9addick said:I reckon that people who move to some northern city and then tell you how good it is are just trying to convince themselves. Facts don’t lie, more people live in London than any other city in the country because it’s the best city in the country.It’s odd to say the “London’s suburbs aren’t as good as the city centre” - of course they aren’t, that’s how cities work. Jamaica in NYC isn’t as good as the Lower East Side. Your proximity to the centre of one of earths great cultural capitals (maybe the greatest) is entirely part of the attraction. You won’t get that in bloody Accrington, Rotherham or Stoke.I would refute that. But I agree that (central) London is the best city in the country, probably the world - and I can be at Euston in 90 minutes whenever I need my fix.Can't disagree in regards to Stoke!
I work there - I certainly wouldn't live there!!
0 -
Yorkse9addick said:
Right, but this thread is about cities. Which British city would you prefer to live in than London?ShootersHillGuru said:
I think I had that view until I moved. I wouldn’t go back.se9addick said:I reckon that people who move to some northern city and then tell you how good it is are just trying to convince themselves. Facts don’t lie, more people live in London than any other city in the country because it’s the best city in the country.It’s odd to say the “London’s suburbs aren’t as good as the city centre” - of course they aren’t, that’s how cities work. Jamaica in NYC isn’t as good as the Lower East Side. Your proximity to the centre of one of earths great cultural capitals (maybe the greatest) is entirely part of the attraction. You won’t get that in bloody Accrington, Rotherham or Stoke.1 -
a friend of mine once quoted ‘When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life itself’….
he’s now loving life in the countryside0 -
I loved living in London and was sure I would miss it loads when I left for Madrid, and originally thought I'd be back in a year as I would miss it so much. I do miss it a lot, and England in general but I just find it too big and too busy now as I've got used to a slower pace of life. I reckon if we ever come back now we'd live in a smaller city or big town, somewhere like Bristol, Bath or Cheltenham (these are the ones I know well, but others like these as well). Never would have thought that ten or fifteen years ago but it's true that lifestyle and priorities change.1
-
SheffieldRed said:a friend of mine once quoted ‘When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life itself’….
he’s now loving life in the countryside
You knew Samuel Johnson? ;-)
4 -
0
- Sponsored links:
-
That´s very true and Barcelona for example easily rivals Madrid here as well as an important world city. In the UK, London is so much more powerful and important than the next biggest cities and everything else does feel quite provincial.Rothko said:Birmingham is a massively underrated city, has been on the up since the massive investment in the Bullring, and has many other areas which are excellent. Manchester is the Capital of the north and Burnham as Mayor has helped that along, but they are two very good cities. Britain's real problem is that the other second tier cities in the country aren't as productive say as their equivalents in Germany or France.0
