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

[okgo]

Pit Pony said:

With what I have seen, that is correct. All spivs and chavs.

Despite the fact that London has the VAST majority of high earners in professional careers? They're all chavs are they?

What a ridiculous thing to come out with.

[MarshPhantom]

okgo said:

Pit Pony said:

With what I have seen, that is correct. All spivs and chavs.

Despite the fact that London has the VAST majority of high earners in professional careers? They're all chavs are they?

What a ridiculous thing to come out with.

Perhaps he's referring to the Royal Family?

[WreckedGecko]

XJ Flyer said:

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'.

It's nice to know I'm not actually living in London. Somebody should tell TFL. Do you know that the west side of Richmond Park is SW14? Thats pretty London to me... Probably shouldn't exclude that...

What about Wimbledon? Is that London in your view? What about Kew?

Chiswick?

Going the other way, Barking? Is that London?

I'm just trying to understand what you class as London. Or is it just some imaginary boundry made up of tall buildings and the City?

Also, have a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Borough_of_Ric...

It's the London bit thats the giveaway.

Edited by WreckedGecko on Wednesday 23 July 15:48

[okgo]

Greater London is a fairly good definition of what is London and what is not.

I think these places happen to fall into zones 1-6.

[kingston12]

lamboman100 said:

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...

I don't think that will happen in our lifetimes. As we have seen just on this thread, there is a lot of snobbery running both ways about what is in London and what is outside of it.

Most of the people I have met from Esher and Weybridge would feel very negatively if London swallowed up that area and they'd like to think of it very much as Surrey. The balance of opinion might change with all of the Russians and Chinese moving into that area now.

There was another article this morning (City AM freesheet) about how many dollar millionaires there are in London and they freely admitted including areas as far out as Guildford and St Albans as 'London' because that is where high earners from those places tend to earn their money.

All of these places are not in London, but their desirability would be severely reduced if it was not in easy commuting distance.

[fido]

I know this topic has been discussed several times but I still can't think of Kingston/Surbiton as London even if it geographically part of London. I guess it means different things to different people. For me it's still Inner London, or at least a London postcode. Though with the example of Richmond Park above, even the postcode doesn't seem entirely relevant!

[kingston12]

fido said:

I know this topic has been discussed several times but I still can't think of Kingston/Surbiton as London even if it geographically part of London. I guess it means different things to different people. For me it's still Inner London, or at least a London postcode. Though with the example of Richmond Park above, even the postcode doesn't seem entirely relevant!

Yeah, everyone will have a different view.

For me, 'London' is contained within the London Boroughs, but that breaks down into 3 distinct parts:

Central London - just zone 1
Urban London - on the SW stretch this is down to Wandsworth/Putney
Suburban London - on the SW stretch this includes places like Richmond, Kingston, Wimbledon

In terms of the original question, I think that there are awesome and rubbish parts of all of those London areas.

[Pickled]

fido said:

I know this topic has been discussed several times but I still can't think of Kingston/Surbiton as London even if it geographically part of London. I guess it means different things to different people. For me it's still Inner London, or at least a London postcode. Though with the example of Richmond Park above, even the postcode doesn't seem entirely relevant!

Well we get to vote for who becomes mayor and pay for the (London) olympics

[Blib]

fido said:

I know this topic has been discussed several times but I still can't think of Kingston/Surbiton as London even if it geographically part of London. I guess it means different things to different people. For me it's still Inner London, or at least a London postcode. Though with the example of Richmond Park above, even the postcode doesn't seem entirely relevant!

I live in SW14 & Master Blib goes to school in Kingston. East Sheen is definitely in London. Kingston isn't.

[kingston12]

Blib said:

I live in SW14 & Master Blib goes to school in Kingston. East Sheen is definitely in London. Kingston isn't.

To me, they are just both parts of the suburban area of London - same style housing, surburban high streets, similar type/length of commute into town etc.

Of course, East Sheen is posher and more expensive than Kingston, but then so is Esher, and I don't think anyone would argue that is part of London.

Edited by kingston12 on Friday 25th July 10:01

[fido]

Pickled said:

Well we get to vote for who becomes mayor and pay for the (London) olympics

Indeed and that is for being part of a Greater London Borough. I just find it funny when you ask someone "where do you live?" and they say 'London' and then you say "oh whereabouts?" and they reply "Sutton" .. erm, okay, that's not what I had in mind .. so maybe it is the posher/snobbery thing that is coming into play?

Edited by fido on Friday 25th July 10:17

[kingston12]

fido said:

Indeed and that is for being part of a Greater London Borough. I just find it funny when you ask someone "where do you live?" and they say 'London' and then you say "oh whereabouts?" and they reply "Sutton" .. erm, okay, that's not what I had in mind .. so maybe it is the posher/snobbery thing that is coming into play?

Edited by fido on Friday 25th July 10:17

I agree. The only time that I would ever say I lived in 'London' would be if I was abroad or talking to someone from another part of the country where a few miles doesn't make any difference.

I am not sure it is all about snobbery, because that definitely works both ways when it comes to London. My experience of Kingston is that most of the people who have lived here for years think of it as Surrey and it is mainly people moving in (usually from London) who refer to it as London.

A lot of the older residents seem proud of it being Surrey, but I expect most (like me) don't really care either way.

[Tiggsy]

I live in Reading and Camden......If I was seeing a client in Kingston I'd think "surrey"......Camden is clearly London as I can see the Gherkin from the window! but Reading is half hour away.....so outside the UK I just say thats London too!

[okgo]

I think it would be much easier if London was known as zones 1 and 2 and the rest was just something else. The look and feel between zones 3-6 is negligible really. I don't really see a difference between Sheen and Teddington yet they are 3 zones apart and one is more expensive than the other.

And even in saying that, some parts of z2 feel very leafy and remote despite being only a few miles from Central, to me the look and feel of proper London is only really felt in z1 and a few bits of 2.

[Pickled]

Tiggsy said:

Camden is clearly London as I can see the Gherkin from the window!

Being able to see a landmark isn't really proving a point, can go up to Epsom downs and see all of London, from the Wembley arch to Canary Wharf.





Anyway, even though I live in a London borough, I never say I live in London

[BJG1]

okgo said:

I think it would be much easier if London was known as zones 1 and 2 and the rest was just something else. The look and feel between zones 3-6 is negligible really. I don't really see a difference between Sheen and Teddington yet they are 3 zones apart and one is more expensive than the other.

And even in saying that, some parts of z2 feel very leafy and remote despite being only a few miles from Central, to me the look and feel of proper London is only really felt in z1 and a few bits of 2.

This is nonsense really. You're trying to turn one of the most culturally, geographically and archaeologically diverse cities into the world into an homogenous blob because of your own flawed interpretation of what London is.

I live in Battersea - it's pretty leafy here, we have a massive park and it feels completely different from, say, Soho - it could literally be on the other side of the world from some other parts of London for all the similarities they share but it isn't - it's in London.

[Hackney]

WreckedGecko said:

I'm just trying to understand what you class as London. Or is it just some imaginary boundry made up of tall buildings and the City?

Also, have a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Borough_of_Ric...

It's the London bit thats the giveaway.

Edited by WreckedGecko on Wednesday 23 July 15:48

Handy that you posted the link, it shows how much of the "London" borough, doesn't have a London postcode. The postal town being Twickenham.
You also neglect to mention that addresses show "Richmond Upon Thames, Surrey" rather than RoT, London.

So basically, if you're in Surrey, you're not in London.
Anyway, be proud of living in Surrey, it's nice, you've easy access to the countryside. Why would you want to pretend you're in London when where you are has so much going for it?

[okgo]

BJG1 said:

This is nonsense really. You're trying to turn one of the most culturally, geographically and archaeologically diverse cities into the world into an homogenous blob because of your own flawed interpretation of what London is.

I live in Battersea - it's pretty leafy here, we have a massive park and it feels completely different from, say, Soho - it could literally be on the other side of the world from some other parts of London for all the similarities they share but it isn't - it's in London.

Nearly all of what London is famous for is in zone 1 isn't it? A quick search of London landmarks throws up things that are mainly in z1. There are a few exceptions of course, Battersea Power Station for example (although that might sneak into 1 too?)

It just feels like that everything beyond 1 and some of 2 is just much for muchness until it stops with pockets of lovely/awful interwoven.

There is a HUGE stigma attached to London living, and its prevalent in all age groups, I find it pathetic. If I had a £1 for every time someone said "thats miles away" when I told them where I live, I'd be a rich man. The amusing thing is that everyone ends up doing the same thing eventually as very few can afford to live long term in z1/z2.

[BJG1]

okgo said:

Nearly all of what London is famous for is in zone 1 isn't it? A quick search of London landmarks throws up things that are mainly in z1. There are a few exceptions of course, Battersea Power Station for example (although that might sneak into 1 too?)

It just feels like that everything beyond 1 and some of 2 is just much for muchness until it stops with pockets of lovely/awful interwoven.

There is a HUGE stigma attached to London living, and its prevalent in all age groups, I find it pathetic. If I had a £1 for every time someone said "thats miles away" when I told them where I live, I'd be a rich man. The amusing thing is that everyone ends up doing the same thing eventually as very few can afford to live long term in z1/z2.

I don't disagree with anything you're saying here but I don't understand the conclusion at which you arrive. Is a city limited to just the famous bits in your head? Wandsworth not having a famous landmark means it isn't a part of London?

[kingston12]

Hackney said:

Handy that you posted the link, it shows how much of the "London" borough, doesn't have a London postcode. The postal town being Twickenham.
You also neglect to mention that addresses show "Richmond Upon Thames, Surrey" rather than RoT, London.

So basically, if you're in Surrey, you're not in London.
Anyway, be proud of living in Surrey, it's nice, you've easy access to the countryside. Why would you want to pretend you're in London when where you are has so much going for it?

Technically all of the areas that we are talking about are in London, but they are right on the edge, so some people will never see them as London and vice versa. It is interesting to see where different people draw the line, though!

I wouldn't say that I would be proud to live where I live because it is nominally London or Surrey, more happy to live there because of where it is. I can finish a beer on the South Bank and be opening my front door 25 minutes later, perhaps an extra 10 minutes if I watch a show in the West End.

Other nights I might prefer to walk in the parks and countryside locally.

Most importantly, I can do all of that using the £1,000+ a month that I have saved living in the 'burbs rather than anywhere I would find remotely acceptable in zones 1/2.

I could do the middle ground and live in zone 3, but then the commute and feel of the place would be much more similar anyway (and still probably cost me another £500 a month!)

Works for me, but I can see why it wouldn't for others.