London = Awesome / Rest of UK = Rubbish... Discuss...

[nogginthenog]

XJ Flyer said:

Or yet more confirmation of the ideas of wannabee Londoners.In that the only way they can justify living in the urban dump,is by taking in and/or referring to the remaining non urban inner city aspects of what was and/or still is actually Surrey not London.

The fact is 'London' proper is and always was nothing but an over developed urban hell in which reference to the 'beyond' is actually all about taking in it's surrounding counties.IE you either like the reality of London being nothing but an urban sprawl or you don't.The idea of trying to justify the reality,of what is by definition,nothing more than an over developed urban sprawl,with a quality of life to match,by 'also' including what remains of the rural character of what was/is the surrounding counties like Surrey,such as Richmond Park,Bushey Park or the remaining Green Belt and AONB areas etc etc,is a contradiction.

IE a liking for big City life in a place like 'London' is mutually exclusive to a liking for the rural/semi rural aspects,of what remains of,the character of the surrounding counties like Surrey etc.In which case your comparison won't look so good 'if' that erroneous inclusion is removed from the equation.Being that such areas,being seen as a convenient get out clause,for those 'claiming' to like City life,is as bad as them also being seen as a land resource for London's further expansion.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 12th July 21:01

Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 12th July 21:08

It's difficult to know where to start because you seem to have a strange keyboard malfunction, or are typing in a weird hybrid of English and nonsense. But am I to take it that I am a 'Wanabee Londoner' because I live about 6 miles from the centre, and like to get out of London occasionally from the 'urban hell' for a bike ride in Richmond Park?

[DaveCWK]

I live near London. I like visiting the place on the train for the occasional night out, would hate to live there though. The amount of money you need to have a quality of life equal to that here in bucks is mental. The peers I know who live there all pay through the nose to live in grotty house shares and have no space. The driving isn't much fun in the city either

[XJ Flyer]

nogginthenog said:

XJ Flyer said:

Or yet more confirmation of the ideas of wannabee Londoners.In that the only way they can justify living in the urban dump,is by taking in and/or referring to the remaining non urban inner city aspects of what was and/or still is actually Surrey not London.

The fact is 'London' proper is and always was nothing but an over developed urban hell in which reference to the 'beyond' is actually all about taking in it's surrounding counties.IE you either like the reality of London being nothing but an urban sprawl or you don't.The idea of trying to justify the reality,of what is by definition,nothing more than an over developed urban sprawl,with a quality of life to match,by 'also' including what remains of the rural character of what was/is the surrounding counties like Surrey,such as Richmond Park,Bushey Park or the remaining Green Belt and AONB areas etc etc,is a contradiction.

IE a liking for big City life in a place like 'London' is mutually exclusive to a liking for the rural/semi rural aspects,of what remains of,the character of the surrounding counties like Surrey etc.In which case your comparison won't look so good 'if' that erroneous inclusion is removed from the equation.Being that such areas,being seen as a convenient get out clause,for those 'claiming' to like City life,is as bad as them also being seen as a land resource for London's further expansion.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 12th July 21:01

Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 12th July 21:08

It's difficult to know where to start because you seem to have a strange keyboard malfunction, or are typing in a weird hybrid of English and nonsense. But am I to take it that I am a 'Wanabee Londoner' because I live about 6 miles from the centre, and like to get out of London occasionally from the 'urban hell' for a bike ride in Richmond Park?

Not at all.
What I'm describing is the idea of those who try to make a positive case that London ( by definition being a large sprawling urban area/City ) is a good place to live.By using references to areas which have no connection with that definition because they have/had nothing whatsoever to do with the character of 'London' being an urban metropolis,but everything to do with the surrounding counties,which aren't.

[Foppo]

A true Londoner is a Cockney in my opinion.Do they still exist.>

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Foppo said:

A true Londoner is a Cockney in my opinion.Do they still exist.>

Born within the sound of Bow Bells, St Mary Le Bow church in Cheapside, EC2. Given the increase of tall buildings since that criteria was set, which lessen the distance the sound will travel, and the fact that most people are born in hospital now and there are none within range, I should think the number of true cockneys must be under 100 and falling with the passing years.

But most people would consider themselves cockneys if they were born in inner East London, Stepney, Whitechapel, Poplar, Bow, Bethnal Green, that kind of area.

[vescaegg]

XJ Flyer said:

Not at all.
What I'm describing is the idea of those who try to make a positive case that London ( by definition being a large sprawling urban area/City ) is a good place to live.By using references to areas which have no connection with that definition because they have/had nothing whatsoever to do with the character of 'London' being an urban metropolis,but everything to do with the surrounding counties,which aren't.

I would agree with others that you seem to be slightly mental.

You have a very massive chip on your shoulder for some reason. People living in many of the places you deem to be outside of London, consider themselves as living and working in London. Tooting is close to the centre of town and certainly part of the London 'urban sprawl' but also accessible to other places such as nice parks and countryside. . You seem to have such a massive problem with suburbs for some reason? Many people live in such places and love all the benefits which come with them. You don't have to live right in the centre of town to say you enjoy living 'in' London. There is no such thing as 'city definition' police.

[XJ Flyer]

vescaegg said:

XJ Flyer said:

Not at all.
What I'm describing is the idea of those who try to make a positive case that London ( by definition being a large sprawling urban area/City ) is a good place to live.By using references to areas which have no connection with that definition because they have/had nothing whatsoever to do with the character of 'London' being an urban metropolis,but everything to do with the surrounding counties,which aren't.

I would agree with others that you seem to be slightly mental.

You have a very massive chip on your shoulder for some reason. People living in many of the places you deem to be outside of London, consider themselves as living and working in London. Tooting is close to the centre of town and certainly part of the London 'urban sprawl' but also accessible to other places such as nice parks and countryside. . You seem to have such a massive problem with suburbs for some reason? Many people live in such places and love all the benefits which come with them. You don't have to live right in the centre of town to say you enjoy living 'in' London. There is no such thing as 'city definition' police.

I think I've made it clear that the areas which I 'deem' as being 'outside' London and part of,what remains of, the surrounding counties,are exactly that outside it bearing in mind London's actual borders.

'In addition' to which I've 'also' pointed out the contradiction between,the idea of,anyone supposedly 'liking' the type of urban environment that characterises London,including it's so called 'suburbs',as opposed to those remaining areas which characterise/d the make up of the surrounding counties.

In which case forget the idea of including places like Richmond Park.Let alone anywhere near Dorking.In any comparison that's trying to paint a positive quality of life picture of urban London living because in all cases they aren't a reflection of 'London' at all.As I said they reflect the surrounding counties.In this case what was/is the provincial nature of Surrey not London.

As for the 'definition police' that's exactly what at least this county needs,if London isn't to be allowed to get away with calling the M25 it's new boundary as part of the next stage in it's outward expansion.No doubt helped by,at least some of,those living within it,who'd like to think that they are 'living in London'.

[Los Endos]

Is it just me or all people living outside of London ( South East ) think this debate about what constitutes London / Suburbs rather sums up nicely why we are rather happy where we are, which is not crap ( as the OP suggested )

Sunny Northerner with open empty roads, no congestion, a 10 min country drive to his office, a brace of tickets to local concerts I want to go to, living in a nice house that doesn't cost 5million, less than 5 mins run down to a costal country park that if I kept running for 30 mins would end up me bumping into Tiger Woods next week
Of course I'm also only 35min from a race track and 25 mins away from some of best roads in the UK ( not the m25 )

[FiF]

Agreed with this it seems strange to me. Years ago visited some ex uni friends who classed themselves as living in London and due to the cost of housing were house sharing. Bear in mind this was in the 70s a few housing booms ago.

Fair enough they all worked in zones 1 and 2 in today's terms, but when they sent me address and directions they lived in Addlestone ffs.

Pretty much their social life was centred round the area they lived in and all this talk of theatres concerts etc was just that, talk. Spare money was spent on motor sport and evenings in the pub.

One of them was in the Metropolitan police ffs. Could have worked where I was and had a lot more money for his competition vehicle.

Didn't get it then and don't get it now why they regarded themselves as Londoners.

[gibbon]

Moonhawk said:

You would of course get a "first home discount" - it wouldn't be at the full rate of capital gains like a second property is.


The current model means that even if you made no profit on your previous home (or have even made a loss) - you still have to pay a potentially huge sum of money just to move to a different house. This can make relocating with a job prohibitive.

Edited by Moonhawk on Saturday 12th July 19:53

Edited by Moonhawk on Saturday 12th July 19:55

We already do get a first home tax break, well, its a primary residence discount. What you are suggesting already exists. It appears that your real objection is with stamp duty. The issue with stamp duty is the bandings are not inflation or house price linked, so its gradually hitting more and more people for greater sums.

I think the idea of a stamp duty tax break for work relocation makes sense.

[BJG1]

Scuffers said:

wasn't suggesting there are not some nice restaurants in London, I was trying to say that michelin rated ones are not really relevant.

I would argue that Manchester has some of the best indian cuisine anywhere in the UK, but I don't want to live there either.

considering most people do not eat in restaurants that often, it seems an odd benchmark to use to rate where to live? I would argue I spend more time in Sainsburys.... should I be rating a place on it's Sainsbury's?

Of course Michelin star ones are relevant. Whilst you may find them mostly overpriced or pretentious, they're a pretty bloody god guide as to the quality of the food.

So what if most people don't eat out a lot? I don't think anyone's saying London is better than anywhere else regardless of your circumstance but if you can afford London, there's nowhere better IMO, especially when you're young and its restaurants are just a part of that.

[Scuffers]

on that basis, you should live in Tokyo as they have more Michelin starred restaurants than anywhere...

[BJG1]

Scuffers said:

on that basis, you should live in Tokyo as they have more Michelin starred restaurants than anywhere...

I said they were relevant, not a de-facto measure of how good a city is. Jesus, the standard of debate on PH has really taken a beating in the last year or two. This thread is fking embarrassing.

In summary...

I've lived in Suffolk, in the countryside, I really liked it

I've lived in York - it's a lovely small city and I really enjoyed it

I now live in London - it's fantastic fun and I have no desire to leave yet, having experienced living in another city and in the sticks.

When I get a bit older, I'll probably want a quiet life and will move back to the countryside in a nice big house.

People like different things - it's stupid to act like London cannot be an utterly fantastic place to live though. I've eaten better food than I would anywhere else, seen more great displays of performing arts than I can anywhere else in the world and slept with a far higher standard of woman than you northerners have

[Bill]

BJG1 said:

People like different things - it's stupid to act like London cannot be an utterly fantastic place to live though. I've eaten better food than I would anywhere else, seen more great displays of performing arts than I can anywhere else in the world and slept with a far higher standard of woman than you northerners have

It's also stupid to suggest that because, given enough money, living in London can be fantastic anything else is rubbish.

[BJG1]

Bill said:

It's also stupid to suggest that because, given enough money, living in London can be fantastic anything else is rubbish.

Have I said that? Who else has said that?

[Bill]

The op for starters. I was agreeing with you.

[alfaman]

Personally I'd rather live/work in Singapore than London having done both:

Better food, transport, climate, housing, lower income tax , much cleaner and less crime.

The survey is purely about attractiveness to tourists - which is different to living here (eg: Bangkok)

[alfaman]

BJG1 said:

slept with a far higher standard of woman

Singapore is light years ahead of London

[TheInternet]

alfaman said:

Personally I'd rather live/work in Singapore than London having done both:
Better food, transport, climate, housing, lower income tax , much cleaner and less crime.

You obviously like it, but it's utterly bland.

[NomduJour]

Singapore - modern, clean, bland, utterly soulless.