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

[MarshPhantom]

Bill said:

MarshPhantom said:

Paris is a short drive away for many millions of Europeans. 15 Million go to EuroDisney every year. A quick Google shows France (80 million per year) gets loads more tourists than the UK (30 million), yet 70% of UK visitors go to London while a third of visitors to France go to Paris.

London wins over UK and Paris.

And the rest of France wins over London. We need a better measure

Rest of France wins over rest of UK.

[okgo]

Bill said:

And the rest of France wins over London. We need a better measure

What bearing does visits have on anything?

If they didn't have that corrugated iron tower nobody would bother anyway.

[Bill]

None. Hence the

[XJ Flyer]

kingston12 said:

XJ Flyer said:

kingston12 said:

XJ Flyer said:

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.

But aren't you forgetting about the unfashionable subset of people (like me!) who actually like living in the suburbs. I know you are not supposed to admit it, but a lot of people who live around Kingston actually seem quite happy with it.

For my part, I love spending time in central London during the week, mostly for work, but going to theatres, bars and restaurants as well.

I often spend time there on the weekends as well, but if I am honest I probably prefer mooching around Richmond Park, eating and drinking locally most weekends. Kingston is over-populated and the housing developments are ugly compared to, say, Dorking, but there wouldn't be the variety of things to do if there were not the amount of people to do them.

I appreciate that it is not for everyone, though.

Edited by kingston12 on Monday 14th July 10:38

My point is that it's the 'demands' of those with that view which are the problem.Assuming our local authorities had done historically,what I'm calling on them to finally do now,your ideas would obviously have to stop within the old LCC boroughs because there just wouldn't be enough housing capacity to house both Surrey's residents and London's.Unless you like living in massive Chinese type high rise development

My argument is simply that of saying those who want to live in London should live there 'if' that's what they really want.But in general it's too often a case of them 'saying' that they like and want to live 'in London' and then calling on Surrey to build them the housing on our fields and gardens etc etc in the form of high density housing and flats and/or green field housing estate development,to do it.

Which is more or less the exact stand off which exists now.Between the pro development further London expansionist lot.As opposed to those of us who want our local authorities in Surrey to finally call a halt in the form of much tighter and stronger development rules concerning garden grabbing,flats being put on sites where pubs and houses were and guarantees which would stop the continuing calls to build on the green belt etc etc and the land speculation turning countryside into potential development land.So yes if you really like London live there but get used to the realities of the over priced high rise living that inner city living means.Assuming that is our local authorities finally wake up and say enough.Surrey is no longer prepared to keep sacrificing the character and borders of the county to house those who who'd like to think they like London.

Although,as has historically been the case,it's obvious where the main political Parties,which make up the government,stand on that issue.All based on the lie that it's 'good for the economy' to keep using the surrounding counties to house London's unsustainable population growth.

I see where you are coming from, but I think it is much more about general over population than just about people liking London living or not. I am sure that a lot of people would like to go to somewhere like Guildford and live in a £2m house on an acre of garden, but few will be able to afford it. More will be able to afford to live there if it was knocked down and 4 terraced houses built in it's place, and more still if a block of 20 flats.

I don't think it is anything to do with wanting to live a 'London' lifestyle so far out of London, but it is the best that a lot of people can afford.

I definitely don't think that is right, and we should definitely be preserving the character of this type of area, but successive governments have favoured high immigration and benefits policies that encourage British people to have as many children as possible, so clearly they are going to do anything they can to get more people housed.

This government's dream economy seems to be one where we survive on selling over-priced houses to one another and they seem to have run out of ideas for anything else. A lot of people, both inside and outside London will share your view, but the government will be dead against it unfortunately.

The problem is,that even allowing for our mad immigration policies,too often both the indigenous UK population and those immigrant communities choose to force their demands on ( what they often erroneously ) regard as 'the London area'.In this case it's probably fair to say that erroneous view has now expanded from the existing Greater London urban areas to the M25 and even beyond.

In which case,unlike the example which you've given,it's more often the case that reasonable density housing in nice green belt areas gets targeted by the developers.In the form of them firstly deciding to wipe out the gardens and putting up a high density small housing estate or flats where once a few nice affordable houses with nice gardens stood.When they've done all that they then start looking to the green field/green belt land around them which then gets bought up as potential development land.All helped by a planning policy that allows them to do it.

As opposed to the type of policy in other parts of the country where only footprint and original height development is allowed and the green belt is also 'washed over' the gardens thereby protecting them from being seen by developers as a way to increase densities.Which then leaves the question of guarantees being put in place for the greenbelt to stop the issue of land speculation in our countryside.

It's obvious that the continuing situation,of the counties outside London,being viewed as a development resource for the expansion of London,is what's causing the affordability issues in those counties.In which case houses with good gardens aren't valued as single houses with gardens and countryside isn't valued as countryside.But as high density development land for the further expansion of London.Which isn't helped by those who continue to fuel the greed of the developers by thinking that a house bought within or near to the M25 is in 'London'.Just as happened through history in the case of those areas which are now a part of Greater London being viewed by government,developers and property buyers/tenants as part of London when London's borders were only those areas within ( what was ) the area of the LCC.

IE in general 'London' as it stands is in large part a big property development scam put in place by the developers saying that a house built in Surrey is in London.Which is helped to continue by the government and buyers who say that they want to live 'in London' but who can't because there isn't and never has been enough room there to house them all and they probably wouldn't even want to live there even if they could find somewhere to live.The result being the paradox of those who would like to think that they want to live in London putting their demands on the surrounding counties.

With the result that those counties then get turned into London and no longer the place where their original inhabitants want to stay nor those who 'thought' they like 'London' but who really don't.At least when the reality arrives in the form of places like the Cambridge estate in Kingston.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 14th July 17:26

[FiF]

Can't find it now but around the time of 2014 local and Euro elections a study by ??? (hence can't find it) showed that the combined effects of recent immigration and house price inflation was causing a large and unmanageable shift in housing demands and future commuting demands which would be likely to overwhelm transport infrastructure. If find it will post link and or host pdf.

[kingston12]

XJ Flyer said:

kingston12 said:

XJ Flyer said:

kingston12 said:

XJ Flyer said:

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.

But aren't you forgetting about the unfashionable subset of people (like me!) who actually like living in the suburbs. I know you are not supposed to admit it, but a lot of people who live around Kingston actually seem quite happy with it.

For my part, I love spending time in central London during the week, mostly for work, but going to theatres, bars and restaurants as well.

I often spend time there on the weekends as well, but if I am honest I probably prefer mooching around Richmond Park, eating and drinking locally most weekends. Kingston is over-populated and the housing developments are ugly compared to, say, Dorking, but there wouldn't be the variety of things to do if there were not the amount of people to do them.

I appreciate that it is not for everyone, though.

Edited by kingston12 on Monday 14th July 10:38

My point is that it's the 'demands' of those with that view which are the problem.Assuming our local authorities had done historically,what I'm calling on them to finally do now,your ideas would obviously have to stop within the old LCC boroughs because there just wouldn't be enough housing capacity to house both Surrey's residents and London's.Unless you like living in massive Chinese type high rise development

My argument is simply that of saying those who want to live in London should live there 'if' that's what they really want.But in general it's too often a case of them 'saying' that they like and want to live 'in London' and then calling on Surrey to build them the housing on our fields and gardens etc etc in the form of high density housing and flats and/or green field housing estate development,to do it.

Which is more or less the exact stand off which exists now.Between the pro development further London expansionist lot.As opposed to those of us who want our local authorities in Surrey to finally call a halt in the form of much tighter and stronger development rules concerning garden grabbing,flats being put on sites where pubs and houses were and guarantees which would stop the continuing calls to build on the green belt etc etc and the land speculation turning countryside into potential development land.So yes if you really like London live there but get used to the realities of the over priced high rise living that inner city living means.Assuming that is our local authorities finally wake up and say enough.Surrey is no longer prepared to keep sacrificing the character and borders of the county to house those who who'd like to think they like London.

Although,as has historically been the case,it's obvious where the main political Parties,which make up the government,stand on that issue.All based on the lie that it's 'good for the economy' to keep using the surrounding counties to house London's unsustainable population growth.

I see where you are coming from, but I think it is much more about general over population than just about people liking London living or not. I am sure that a lot of people would like to go to somewhere like Guildford and live in a £2m house on an acre of garden, but few will be able to afford it. More will be able to afford to live there if it was knocked down and 4 terraced houses built in it's place, and more still if a block of 20 flats.

I don't think it is anything to do with wanting to live a 'London' lifestyle so far out of London, but it is the best that a lot of people can afford.

I definitely don't think that is right, and we should definitely be preserving the character of this type of area, but successive governments have favoured high immigration and benefits policies that encourage British people to have as many children as possible, so clearly they are going to do anything they can to get more people housed.

This government's dream economy seems to be one where we survive on selling over-priced houses to one another and they seem to have run out of ideas for anything else. A lot of people, both inside and outside London will share your view, but the government will be dead against it unfortunately.

The problem is,that even allowing for our mad immigration policies,too often both the indigenous UK population and those immigrant communities choose to force their demands on ( what they often erroneously ) regard as 'the London area'.In this case it's probably fair to say that erroneous view has now expanded from the existing Greater London urban areas to the M25 and even beyond.

In which case,unlike the example which you've given,it's more often the case that reasonable density housing in nice green belt areas gets targeted by the developers.In the form of them firstly deciding to wipe out the gardens and putting up a high density small housing estate or flats where once a few nice affordable houses with nice gardens stood.When they've done all that they then start looking to the green field/green belt land around them which then gets bought up as potential development land.All helped by a planning policy that allows them to do it.

As opposed to the type of policy in other parts of the country where only footprint and original height development is allowed and the green belt is also 'washed over' the gardens thereby protecting them from being seen by developers as a way to increase densities.Which then leaves the question of guarantees being put in place for the greenbelt to stop the issue of land speculation in our countryside.

It's obvious that the continuing situation,of the counties outside London,being viewed as a development resource for the expansion of London,is what's causing the affordability issues in those counties.In which case houses with good gardens aren't valued as single houses with gardens and countryside isn't valued as countryside.But as high density development land for the further expansion of London.Which isn't helped by those who continue to fuel the greed of the developers by thinking that a house bought within or near to the M25 is in 'London'.Just as happened through history in the case of those areas which are now a part of Greater London being viewed by government,developers and property buyers/tenants as part of London when London's borders were only those areas within ( what was ) the area of the LCC.

IE in general 'London' as it stands is in large part a big property development scam put in place by the developers saying that a house built in Surrey is in London.Which is helped to continue by the government and buyers who say that they want to live 'in London' but who can't because there isn't and never has been enough room there to house them all and they probably wouldn't even want to live there even if they could find somewhere to live.The result being the paradox of those who would like to think that they want to live in London putting their demands on the surrounding counties.

With the result that those counties then get turned into London and no longer the place where their original inhabitants want to stay nor those who 'thought' they like 'London' but who really don't.At least when the reality arrives in the form of places like the Cambridge estate in Kingston.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 14th July 17:26

You are definitely right about the planning rules being different in the counties surrounding London, but this is a product of overall demand, itself a product of the immigration and birth policies as well as a complete failure of the government to stimulate the economy and job market outside of London.

The other factor of course is the government's continued commitment to keeping house price growth so high as a way of making economic recovery look stronger than it actually is.

As an example, take someone who might have bought a comfortable 5-bed detached house in Guildford 5 years ago for £1m. I am sure that they wouldn't have bought it to live a 'London lifestyle', probably quite the opposite, but most people who can afford that type of house do tend to have a London salary as there are not that many local jobs at that level.

Now in 2014 that house is £1.5m, but salaries are likely to have gone up much less, so now a new buyer with the same salary either has the choice of buying something smaller in Guildford or moving even further out and saddling themselves with an even longer commute. A lot will choose the smaller house.

It is the same with me. I like unfashionable Surbiton for the reasons explained above, but I'd really like to live in one of the fabulous Victorian townhouses that defined the area years ago, or even one of the more standard semis that became the norm in the 1930's. I can't, so I live in a 'London style' flat in the area, but not because I am kidding myself I am living a London lifestyle, but just because it is the best I can afford in the area I want to live.

Surrey has been a dormitory for London for decades, and I think the only way to stop that would be to stop the train services going into town every morning, but I think that is actually the reason why a lot of people live there in the first place.

It is actually the few areas that are exempt from this that are probably an equal cause for concern. The St. Georges Hill estate in Weybridge and parts of Esher have had a lot of comfortable detached houses torn down and replaced with McMansions built for footballers and Russians. This has changed the character of Surrey just as much.

[XJ Flyer]

kingston12 said:

You are definitely right about the planning rules being different in the counties surrounding London, but this is a product of overall demand,

Surrey has been a dormitory for London for decades, and I think the only way to stop that would be to stop the train services going into town every morning, but I think that is actually the reason why a lot of people live there in the first place.

It is actually the few areas that are exempt from this that are probably an equal cause for concern. The St. Georges Hill estate in Weybridge and parts of Esher have had a lot of comfortable detached houses torn down and replaced with McMansions built for footballers and Russians. This has changed the character of Surrey just as much.

Those points sum the situation up well.In all cases the whole issue would be sorted by our local authorities changing the planning rules as I've outlined.Wether it be tearing down a reasonable sized semi or a detached house to put a small housing estate or flats on it's garden space,or a much bigger house than what stood previously or redevelopment in small towns making them bigger ones or regarding green belt countryside as potential development land.

All of that would be stopped by the simple ideas which apply in other chosen parts of the country.As it stands I don't think they've got a choice they either do it or lose it piece by piece in the long term.Just as happened in the case of Middx.The defining difference in outlooks then simply being the difference between those living in what remains of the county who'd be running from that situation by moving away,as opposed to those who are happy to move in.

[kingston12]

XJ Flyer said:

Those points sum the situation up well.In all cases the whole issue would be sorted by our local authorities changing the planning rules as I've outlined.Wether it be tearing down a reasonable sized semi or a detached house to put a small housing estate or flats on it's garden space,or a much bigger house than what stood previously or redevelopment in small towns making them bigger ones or regarding green belt countryside as potential development land.

All of that would be stopped by the simple ideas which apply in other chosen parts of the country.As it stands I don't think they've got a choice they either do it or lose it piece by piece in the long term.Just as happened in the case of Middx.The defining difference in outlooks then simply being the difference between those living in what remains of the county who'd be running from that situation by moving away,as opposed to those who are happy to move in.

Yep. I do think it would be a shame to completely change the character of another whole area based on what could be a temporary phenomenon.

I think it is predominantly the same type of people moving from London to Surrey that it has always been - middle to high earning professionals either moving because they are tired of London or just to get more space.

The difference is that people earning £100k can only afford a small place in Surrey now rather than the much bigger one that people earning the equivalant amount could have bought a few years ago. The market and the planners are reacting to that.

The government would have us believe that these price rises are all down to higher demand, but really it is also down to three other factors:

1. Cheap & plentiful debt
2. Demand from Russian/Chinese investors in central London creating a larger ripple effect outwards.
3. The relative success of the London economy meaning more internal migration from people who need to live in or near it for work.

Any or all of these factors could change in the long term and could leave a lot of concreted-over areas that no one is that interested in any more. I can't see too many people being interested in a £2m flat in Woking in the future if they could live in a nice house in the Lake District for a fraction of that and still commute to a job that would pay the bills.

[lamboman100]

Elmbridge -- just inside the M25, and on-track to be incorporated into Greater London -- has recently been named the Beverly Hills of Britain:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2699746/We...

[Pit Pony]

The rest of the UK is Rubbish ? Yeah right. I'd be quite happy, living anywhere outside of the South East, as I can afford somewhere nice, with nice neighbours, close to the beach, or close to the countryside.

[Blib]

Pit Pony said:

The rest of the UK is Rubbish ? Yeah right. I'd be quite happy, living anywhere outside of the South East, as I can afford somewhere nice, with nice neighbours, close to the beach, or close to the countryside.

Absolutely! You make a terrific point.

Because one can't get 'nice' neighbours anywhere in the South East. It is utterly impossible because all Londoners are terrible neighbours. They're all bds.

Stands to reason.

[Blib]

Guam said:

Blib said:

Absolutely! You make a terrific point.

Because one can't get 'nice' neighbours anywhere in the South East. It is utterly impossible because all Londoners are terrible neighbours. They're all bds.

Stands to reason.

Especially those who cant focus a camera

[sniff] I am too busy being a bad neighbour to concern myself with such trivialities. [/sniff]

[oyster]

Mr_B said:

Any city where you can smell the pissed stained streets from inside a car aint that great. South London is mostly a dump filled with overly aggressive idiots in chavy BMWs with an inability to drive, only mad worse by Addison Lee clue-less cabs.
There are many great attractions in London, but such is the sheer pain in the arse and nastiness of visiting and using public transport, I find it takes a long time to want to go again after one days visit.

Are there any other 8m+ inhabitated cities in the world you've visited that have better transport and less aggressive drivers? I'm all ears.

[Pickled]

kingston12 said:

But aren't you forgetting about the unfashionable subset of people (like me!) who actually like living in the suburbs. I know you are not supposed to admit it, but a lot of people who live around Kingston actually seem quite happy with it.

For my part, I love spending time in central London during the week, mostly for work, but going to theatres, bars and restaurants as well.

I often spend time there on the weekends as well, but if I am honest I probably prefer mooching around Richmond Park, eating and drinking locally most weekends. Kingston is over-populated and the housing developments are ugly compared to, say, Dorking, but there wouldn't be the variety of things to do if there were not the amount of people to do them.

I appreciate that it is not for everyone, though.

Edited by kingston12 on Monday 14th July 10:38

Another happy Royal Borough resident here, and its not all suburban sprawl either, this is my view from the front, rear is similar.

[okgo]

Where is that then?

I thought it might be the Sewage works in Berrylands for a minute...

[Pickled]

okgo said:

Where is that then?

I thought it might be the Sewage works in Berrylands for a minute...

Malden Rushett, sewage works indeed!

[GetCarter]

oyster said:

Are there any other 8m+ inhabitated cities in the world you've visited that have better transport and less aggressive drivers? I'm all ears.

That is a bit like saying Herpes is better than Gonorrhea though

[okgo]

Pickled said:

Malden Rushett, sewage works indeed!

Yes, I think I'd rather live in Streatham than Chessington

[Pickled]

okgo said:

Yes, I think I'd rather live in Streatham than Chessington

Nearer Oxshott than Chessington

[fido]

okgo said:

Yes, I think I'd rather live in Streatham than Chessington

Ditto. Chessington is (was) cheap but completely soulless. It is handy for getting to the M25, but you're really stuck without a car round there. Also the train starts filling up with inbreds beyond Wimbledon. I am perhaps a bit biased but lived nearby in Epsom and just ended up hating the place.