Thread: London Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028788
Posted by argona (# 14037) on
:
London is a vibrant, creative world city, while the rest of the country slides up its own arse in nostalgic xenophobia.
London is a monstrous parasite, sucking the regions dry.
Extremes of a spectrum, but I hear both ends of it. What do people think?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
London is the bestest place in England.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
London is a city under occupation, which has been stolen from its people by the global super-rich and the forces of neo-liberal capitalism.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
It's easy to be ambivalent about London. I've always held the views that a) you can buy anything in London, if you know where to look and you have the money, and b) vibrant it may be but it never seems a cheerful city.
If you want culture, it's the place to head. It's got more art galleries and museums than any other city in England, and an unparalleled music and theatre scene. You can have a great time in London, if you have the budget.
Londoners and commuters do complain about the public transport but actually compared to what some of us get in the provinces it's pretty damn good. We don't all have frequent buses, let alone an underground tube network that doesn't usually make you wait more than 5-6 minutes for the next train. Sometimes it might be one bus every Tuesday morning to the nearest big town.
It's a bit of a trade-off. Rural life can be much more connected to the seasons, and move at a slower pace (except for the cars on country roads, but that's another story). I'm glad London's there, but I wouldn't now want to live in it - way overpriced and the time it takes to cross from one side of London to another is roughly equivalent to the time you could spend travelling out of London, to, say, Cambridge, Oxford or Bath.
However, it has been seminal in modern culture with its iconic landmarks. You only have to flash up a picture of a Routemaster or Big Ben and people the world over will associate these with London. Stonehenge, the Blackpool Tower, Birmingham's canals, the Brighton Pavilion come much further down the list. London symbolizes England, though it isn't a true representation.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
Of the top 230,000 square kilometres to be found in the British Isles. London contains nearly 1500.
I've always found it slightly disappointing. Buckingham Palace exterior pretty much sums it up. You have one beautiful view (along the Mall?), but move 100 metres from that line and it fades.
I can see why it's worse going the other way though. The fact it has very comprehensive public transport helps a lot towards that.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
It's both and. It's the very fact that the main museums are there, the galleries are there, this that and the other are there, that makes London the place to be if you can stomach it, and a pain in the arse if you can't and want to live elsewhere, because you either have to hold your nose and live there, or do without those things and live elsewhere.
The problem is that the culture and the opportunities and all that come at a price that is too high for some of us to bear - living in a metropolis, far from the parts of the country we actually value. I'm glad I escaped (I only ever got as far in as Watford, perhaps that's outside the Event Horizon) because if I were in London the Peak District would be a day's travel away, rather than visible from the main road, and the Dales and Lakes very distant. But it's a right pain that to see the NH Museum or the Science Museum (truth be told there are only three cultural icons in that London that interest me - those two and the London Aquarium.) involves a trip into an alien environment where everything costs three times as much.
Fortunately the NRM is in York.
The thought of there being nothing but roads, concrete, houses, offices, urban parks and whatnot (parks are not countryside. They just aren't) for miles in any direction is not unlike my concept of Hell. It's like being shut in a cupboard. For that reason I'd hate to live there (and the fact that if I sold my house here I'd be able to buy a cardboard box in the street there).
AO is completely wrong. The best place in England is Borrowdale.
[ 25. October 2014, 14:53: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
Karl and I pretty much agree on this point.
I like London. It's a wonderful place... to visit.
But no way would I live there. Maybe when I was younger and wanted the buzz of city living then yes, but not now.
And the bestest, bestest place for me is walking the ridge between Lose Hill and Mam Tor, in March before the tourists start to clog it up too much.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
London is the essential vibrant beating heart of the country, that Londoners often think is complete without the remainder of the body and those outside of it often think is a drain on them rather than a feed to them.
It's a human tribal trait to confine ourselves into parochialism.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
London is the essential vibrant beating heart of the country, that Londoners often think is complete without the remainder of the body and those outside of it often think is a drain on them rather than a feed to them.
It's a human tribal trait to confine ourselves into parochialism.
Of course, we could test that theory quite easily. A large wall built on the inner perimeter of the M25 should do it. We also, for the sake of completeness, ought to cut off all electricity, gas and water supplies from the rest of the country going into the walled off area.
Let's see how the heart beats then.
I think the 90% of the country outside the wall will be okay. Not sure about the 10% inside after say five or six years.
It would be a nice experiment don't you think?
Crueller people than I may make comment about filling it with water after building the wall, but I would ask that they don't. It's not nice.
Posted by Kitten (# 1179) on
:
I'm glad London is there and I don't mind the occasional short visit but I'd hate to have to live there
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I think the problem is that there are careers that only happen there, or are severely limited elsewhere. I'm told publishing is like that. So many national companies have their head offices there. Where's the Halifax Building Society based now? Clue - not in Halifax.
To the extent that it therefore draws people from the rest of the country if their career choices force them to move there, it does leach the rest of the country.
But then again, in some ways we're better off without high flyers. If no-one can afford a half million pound semi then they won't sell for half a million, which is a Good Thing.
Incidentally, can someone define "vibrant"? In what way is it not a euphemism for "loud, busy and crowded"?
[ 25. October 2014, 15:30: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
K:LB: quote:
The best place in England is Borrowdale.
I had to google that. It does look lovely.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I do love London, and have been here for 45 years, although I also live in the country for some of the time. It would be boring to itemize all the things I like in London; anyway, we live near the river, in a very green area, so there are tons of walks and we are near a bird reserve.
Of course, there are negative things. But I miss it a lot when I am away for any length of time. I think I miss all the variety of people more than most things. As I say to my wife, when we visit Kings Lynn, which is a bit dull for me, I'm craving a sight of some Rastas, Orthodox Jews, Muslim women in headscarves, and so on.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
The biggest problem with London is that the rest of England (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland rather less so these days) is governed as if it were an extension of London. If something's a problem in London, it's deemed to be a problem in the rest of the country. If something isn't a problem in London, the rest of the country can go hang.
A case in point is the current Labour proposal for a "mansion tax" on homes valued over £2million. As soon as it was announced, the cry went up, "But those are quite average houses in London!" Possibly true: but it's also true that you could probably buy about half of Accrington for the same.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
We've all got an ambivalent relationship with that London. Mine's been ambivalent since I first starting visiting it regularly for art galleries and so on from my native South Wales. I still get a pang of excitement and foreboding whenever I pull in on the train ... initially Paddington, of course, later King's Cross (when I lived in Yorkshire) and now Euston ...
I worked there 2 days a week for some months in 2012 and loved it - but then, I was lucky enough to get some great accommodation where I was working ...
Last year, I drove across it - north, south, east and west - for some mystery shopping exercise I did through my freelance work. I had to call into all the London branches of a particular chain of stores and buy (or not) some items. It struck me how vast it was and how diverse - the outer eastern reaches are a completely different world to the wooded Surrey hills the other end.
Normally, though, I'm in Bloomsbury and the studenty bits - or visiting friends out towards Wimbledon or Richmond. There's more than one London. There are lots of Londons. Hoxton is different to Clerkenwell, Southwark different again.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
London is useless. It has been turned into Dubai with better buildings. We need a proper capital: I suggest Huddersfield.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
AO is completely wrong. The best place in England is Borrowdale.
You can have that - it's the Cotswolds for me, and I don't mean the noted tourist spots, I mean those bits off the beaten track that you discover by accident.
(Having said that, Chipping Campden is still a jewel, even if it is full of tourists.)
[ 25. October 2014, 17:21: Message edited by: Ariel ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
London is a city under occupation, which has been stolen from its people by the global super-rich and the forces of neo-liberal capitalism.
Albertus, and Adeodatus, pinpoint the nub of the debate. Everything else is about personal preference: do you like living in cities or the country?
I loved the 10+ years I spent living in London. I always enjoy trips back there. And I'm glad I live in another vibrant (albeit smaller and poorer) city. But the distortions imposed on London, and hence on the rest of the country, by the great toad of capitalist greed, make life increasingly less tolerable for those on the edge. And that includes the vast army of low-paid workers who struggle to keep essential services going for the rich.
H G Wells's vision of an underground population of exploited workers (in the Time Machine) is not too much of a fantasy.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I only return to London about once a decade (living as I do in the US). I was startled, this last trip, to see how many foreign nameplates plaster everything all over town. Guys, is it cool to have so much of your stuff financed from Dubai? It does make for yummy schwarma, but I wonder about the larger implications for your polity.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
London strikes me as far too densely populated, and too many cars. Otherwise a good place to visit for the upthread-mentioned museums. I also like churches and plays. But most of all to see my daughter.
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
I lived in central London for all of my 20s, and I mean central, I lived on City Road at one point. I wasn't a rich capitalist either, I was a nurse living in a nurses' home
I loved living there, at the weekends I would walk to the west end and go window shopping, visit the art galleries and museums, people watch from cafes and would often explore the beautiful architecture of the City of London (lovely at the weekend when it was empty). My church was in Bishopsgate so I got to know the City well and we used to drink in a Sixteenth century coaching inn at London Bridge after the service. The social life and partying was amazing.
I left when I got married though, as I suspected my bipolar disorder would be easier to manage in a calmer place and I was right. But I do miss the diversity, at one point I lived in Bethnal Green and worked at Bow and the population was so vibrant and interesting. My husband to be lived in South London and his church was a great mixtures of races and classes. Cambridge is unbelievably white middle class and I found that quite odd when I moved here, especially as my background is working class.
On cars, very few of my friends actually had cars, my husband and I both could not drive when we left London and I still cannot. With such a great transport system there was no need for us to drive.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
I currently live in a very white and middle-class area, and struggle a bit with that - if nothing else, I'd appreciate more diversity of food/takeaways available! I like living around different types of people, it makes life more interesting.
However, you don't need to live in London for diversity, and while I enjoy spending time in London the smaller UK cities (Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Cardiff etc) are just as diverse and much nicer to spend time in I think.
I agree with Angloid and Adeodatus.
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
I guess I'm like many here: I do like visiting London, in fact it's one of my favourite places to visit. As much as anything, I just like wandering around the city seeing stuff without too much of a fixed plan of what I'm going to do (in fact, that's one of my favourite things to do in most cities: I spent an academic year in Madrid and quite regularly did huge long walks all around the place).
But living there? Probably not, if I could help it. Maybe I'd get used to it, but I think it'd get too much. And I say that as someone who likes living in cities.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
As an American who have never visited London, my opinion is of questionable value. Why haven't I visited there? As I understand it, London is one of the most expensive cities in the world for a tourist. If I were to visit London for a week, I might spend as much on lodging, meals and transportation as I might spend elsewhere in the U.K. in a fortnight.
For much the same reason, I've never been to New York city either. I'm sure I would enjoy a visit to either place, until I got the bill.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Accommodation is expensive in London, but transport is not (if you're organised and have an Oyster card) and food is almost certainly cheaper than it is in most rural areas, though probably not as cheap as other major cities.
As you can probably guess from my location cities are not my thing. Glasgow is more than oppressive enough for me and I rarely have to spend more than a few hours to a day there. London I've visited, as often for demonstrations as anything else. The tube has a certain novelty value, and I feel a certain sense of achievement at navigating my way across the city without getting lost. In general though I can't stand the place. I turned down an offer from UCL for my undergrad almost entirely because I realised I didn't at all like the idea of having to live in London for 4 years. I pity the poor souls whose work leaves them little option but to live in the Great Wen. In many ways I feel about London much the same way as I feel about sewage works or landfill sites. I understand why it's there, I can even admit that it is necessary and useful, but I can't for the life of me fathom why anyone would want to go near it unless they absolutely had to. I rejoice that I live somewhere with clean air, beautiful beaches, more sunshine than anywhere else in the UK and 3 bedroom houses on 1/3 of an acre to be had for less than 150k.
[ 25. October 2014, 21:03: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
I live in the U.S. and I've only visited London once. It had some wonderful things and all of the little bits that I picked up from reading books and watching movies. It was also noisy, crowded and expensive. To me vibrant does mean those things but there's also a pace. London moves at a faster pace than New York but both move more quickly than most other places.
The museums were wonderful, I ended up finding a sweet spot between the theaters, bookstores and restaurants.
Like New York, I suspect a lot of the old interesting bits have been wiped out in the intensification of development. That's the price of a city continuing to grow. A very few cities have continued to grow over many decades and there is always an ongoing loss of old interesting bits.
It was also expensive (although the theater is cheaper than New York) and noisy and had too many lines. That's the price of being where everyone wants to be.
For those who prefer the countryside uncluttered by tourists, isn't London performing the essential task of holding all the tourists so that your favorite spots are not cluttered?
I like the old idea of the season where you go to London and spend the nicer weather in places where the natural landscape can be appreciated.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
I was brought to London by my parents in early childhood, from the North-Westernmost place in England, and I've been here ever since, almost 60 years. While I'm proud of my Cumbrian roots, I love London with a passion I couldn't put into words. To spend a day walking from Victoria Station to Liverpool St, taking in churches, museums, galleries and a pub or restaurant or two, there's no other place on earth quite like it. Next year I'll be coming to retirement and may have to downsize away from my beloved city. But I'll always come back for as long as I'm able bodied enough to do so. I've visited quite a few capital cities in Europe, Paris, Rome, Berlin, Warsaw, Prague, Brussels and Lisbon. They all have their beauty and attractions, which I've enjoyed in all of them, but there's only one London. King of them all.
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on
:
I adore my adopted city. You can do something different every day for years and never do everything. And lots is free too.
But people don't live 'in London'. They live in their little area. I live about half an hour by tube from Victoria, and yet locals talk about 'going to London' on the rare occasions they do.
I can't go to the shops without seeing at least four people I know. I stop for chats with local market stallholders. There is a thriving community - people look after each other.
I don't really do 'outside' anyway, and if I want to, Kew Gardens is down the road.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
That's a good point. London is villagey, or some parts of it are. For example, I live near Barnes, which has a village pond, with ducks on it! This is also right next to the river, so there are some great walks to be had. Of course, Barnes is very affluent now, so there is that problem.
I have lived in other places which also seem villagey, e.g. Highgate.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
I've lived in London, and enjoyed it. I wish I'd spent more time than I did in all the museums. Now I have kids, I'm glad I live somewhere with more space.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I would love to live there for a while. Not forever, since I can't possibly afford it. But for, say, six months.
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
In London where I live there is much noise where they have hospital carrying people and also near me they have been making a place for teenagers who love in learning after secondary school - also noisey!
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
Worked in Central London for 6 months once (commuting in) and it was refreshing to be able to wander around and find unexpected charm and things I didn't expect (e.g. Suttons' Seeds Shop for my allotment). I also saw most of the galleries in the British Museum in that time.
I lived in suburban South London for 18 months and it was horrible! A 6 mile drive to work took an hour -- he fastest I ever did it was I think, walking, on the day after the great storm of October 1987. Unfriendly people (even in churches), fixated by material stuff.
Posted by Abigail (# 1672) on
:
London is my home. Always has been. I still live in the same area I was born in (it's not a particularly nice area – in fact it's one of the most deprived parts of London.) Moving away is something that has never been possible for me and not really something I would have considered if it had been. London is HOME. This is something most people don't seem to take into account. I don't live here because of the job opportunities, the diversity of the population, the national monuments, the theatres or the museums. I live here because it's my home.
Yes it can be noisy and dirty and crowded but only if you're used to something different – otherwise it's just normal – and there are green spaces (small ones and huge ones) within a short bus or tube ride (or even walk.) Not just the central London parks that tourists and visitors know about but many, many others. And despite everybody's constant moaning the public transport is excellent (I admit to being slightly biased here because now I've reached the magic age of 60 it's also free!)
This is in no way a criticism of anything anybody else has written above, but I do feel frustrated and hurt when people don't seem to realise that there is another side to London. Sorry if I'm a bit incoherent, this is something that’s important to me but I find it hard to put into words.
Posted by Signaller (# 17495) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Abigail:
London is my home. Always has been. I still live in the same area I was born in...
This is in no way a criticism of anything anybody else has written above, but I do feel frustrated and hurt when people don't seem to realise that there is another side to London. Sorry if I'm a bit incoherent, this is something that’s important to me but I find it hard to put into words.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
I'm right with you there. I've spent my whole life in the same part of (outer) London, and I get twitchy if I have to spend more than two weeks beyond walking distance from an Underground station.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Abigail:
London is my home.
...
This is in no way a criticism of anything anybody else has written above, but I do feel frustrated and hurt when people don't seem to realise that there is another side to London. Sorry if I'm a bit incoherent, this is something that’s important to me but I find it hard to put into words.
Not incoherent that's how it should be for you.
The shires are my home and I feel much the same way about them. Even to the point that actually it's in London I notice the lack of foreign voices/faces (despite the numbers theoretically being against it).
The thing is I shouldn't be forced to feel the same way about London, and that's reinforced by our museum artifacts being pinched for the London museum and all the little things like that.
Even the public transport is based around the idea that I should want to go to London not my county town. And hence that they shouldn't do too many plays, etc...
Whereas there's not really much the other way.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
London is strange in that it is a series of villages and small towns that all grew in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to become the massive metropolis it is now. Ask any native born Londoner where they're from and it's unlikely they'll say "London" but rather the area of London they're from. Apart from travelling into central London, most Londoners tend not to stray far from their own area, and whichever side of the river you're from, the other side is like a foreign country. In many ways, London is rather like a small country rather than a city or even a county.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
That's very true. I dread going to north London now, although I used to live there. I am ensconced now near the river, and south west London is my domain. Finsbury Park - where the hell is that?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
London is strange in that it is a series of villages and small towns that all grew in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to become the massive metropolis it is now. Ask any native born Londoner where they're from and it's unlikely they'll say "London" but rather the area of London they're from. Apart from travelling into central London, most Londoners tend not to stray far from their own area, and whichever side of the river you're from, the other side is like a foreign country. In many ways, London is rather like a small country rather than a city or even a county.
Aren't all cities like that?
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
I'd have thought most were. Definitely counties are. The West Midland's and Northern group still have very strong identities at 'city' level as well.
Though London does have an element of inside outness which benefits it, I think from Westminster,Southwark & London expanding from so close. The 'center' isn't really in either but joins them up. Whereas I think most of the other cities don't do that to that extent, either the gap is too large or one proto-city dominated.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
London is strange in that it is a series of villages and small towns that all grew in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to become the massive metropolis it is now. Ask any native born Londoner where they're from and it's unlikely they'll say "London" but rather the area of London they're from. Apart from travelling into central London, most Londoners tend not to stray far from their own area, and whichever side of the river you're from, the other side is like a foreign country. In many ways, London is rather like a small country rather than a city or even a county.
Aren't all cities like that?
Possibly, but to a lesser extent.
Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on
:
With all due deference to those who live there and think London wonderful, I tend to agree with my father, who remarked that everybody should live in London at some time in their life, because only that way would they really appreciate living somewhere else.
I lived somewhat outside London (Egham) for 4 years. That was quite close enough, thank you very much. And this from somebody who was dragged up on the edge of the West Midlands conurbation.
I recall spending a weekend with friends living in Blackheath. The overriding memory is one of claustrophobia - the feeling of being imprisoned by mile upon mile of houses. And, no, parks and gardens do not make any difference. Where I was brought up, from our front windows I could see the ridge of farmland at Ounty John Lane, less than a mile away and the start of genuinely open country. Where I live now, there are no houses behind us, just the open valley stretching away towards Rhymney. I just cannot cope with being enclosed by houses.
As to the effect of London on the rest of the country, I think it was said very well up-thread: if it's a problem in London, it's a problem, if it isn't a problem in London, it doesn't exist.
Posted by St. Gwladys (# 14504) on
:
As Darllenwr said, we were at university at Egham, about 20 miles out of London, and a pleasant small town. As we werwe so close, I went into London several times, and my overwhelming memory is of how dirty it was - I'd come back with dirt in my eyelids.
A good friend of mine moved to London shortly after leaving school, and moved back to our town about 4 years ago. I asked her if she missed living in London - she said that of course she missed the art galleries and the culture, but she did't miss the noise and unfriendliness. We live in a town, not in the depths ofthe countryside, but generally, there's not a lot of noise at night - no screaming sirens or people shouting!
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I lived in London (St John's Wood) for 4 years and loved it.
But I think it's a young person's city. I can't imagine being old and trying to get around it.
I live on the edge of a town now, right next to many country parks, woods, moors, lakes and rivers - I wouldn't swap for the world!
[ 26. October 2014, 14:24: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That's very true. I dread going to north London now, although I used to live there. I am ensconced now near the river, and south west London is my domain. Finsbury Park - where the hell is that?
Finsbury Park is where I live ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
- I was born and brought up in (the other end of) Islington. I love London and sometimes I detest it. I love going to visit my friend in the country, where it is cleaner and has many attractions, but the transport can be diabolical - if the miss the, say, 4pm bus to XX, you can't get home. It has its irritations but my local transport is terrific, on the whole.
I love the cinemas, theatres and galleries. My friend has hardly any of these where she lives.
But what enraged me the other day was seeing adverts for houses just around the corner, going for over £1,000,000 ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Complete and obscene lunacy! No wonder my kids can't afford to live here.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
London is strange in that it is a series of villages and small towns that all grew in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to become the massive metropolis it is now. Ask any native born Londoner where they're from and it's unlikely they'll say "London" but rather the area of London they're from. Apart from travelling into central London, most Londoners tend not to stray far from their own area, and whichever side of the river you're from, the other side is like a foreign country. In many ways, London is rather like a small country rather than a city or even a county.
Aren't all cities like that?
Possibly, but to a lesser extent.
Hmmm, how many other big cities have you lived in, and for how long? Given I can name small towns where people will tell you the end of the town they're from rather than the town...
As with many things, Powell & Pressburger nailed London in 1943:
"a long street, with every house a different kind of sadness"
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Hmmm, how many other big cities have you lived in, and for how long? Given I can name small towns where people will tell you the end of the town they're from rather than the town...
I've lived in three capital cities, and had family in London. It might be a generalization but cities often seem to fall into two halves - north v south or east v west. Within those there are the districts, and these do tend to have their own characters. Some originate from villages that were subsumed into the metropolis, others might be predominantly ethnic or religious areas.
It's just the way things are: historically, during periods of immigration, the later arrivals would usually want to be near earlier ones who spoke their own language, had speciality shops that sold familiar produce that wasn't native to the country they were now in, etc etc.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That's very true. I dread going to north London now, although I used to live there. I am ensconced now near the river, and south west London is my domain. Finsbury Park - where the hell is that?
Finsbury Park is where I live - I was born and brought up in (the other end of) Islington. I love London and sometimes I detest it. I love going to visit my friend in the country, where it is cleaner and has many attractions, but the transport can be diabolical - if the miss the, say, 4pm bus to XX, you can't get home. It has its irritations but my local transport is terrific, on the whole.
I love the cinemas, theatres and galleries. My friend has hardly any of these where she lives.
But what enraged me the other day was seeing adverts for houses just around the corner, going for over £1,000,000 Complete and obscene lunacy! No wonder my kids can't afford to live here.
Where I live, houses are 2/3 million, eek. I'm not sure how I ended up in one. I actually go through Finsbury Park quite frequently, and it is a buzz, a real mix of nations and styles and eccentricity.
I have to get out of London periodically, and go and stare at empty fields and skies, but like a drug, it pulls me back.
"Earth hath not anything to show more fair:
Dull would he be of soul who could pass by
A sight so touching in its majesty
This City now doth, like a garment, wear
The beauty of the morning; silent, bare,
Ships, towers, domes, theatres and temples lie
Open unto the fields, and to the sky."
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
I did my PGCE year at University of London King's College in the mid-60s and enjoyed living more-or-less downtown.
But that year cured me of ever wanting to live in a city again.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I'm still struggling to work out what "vibrant" and "buzz" mean in this context. And, if I can establish what they are, I'd want to examine why they're Good Things.
Incidentally, how often do you Londoners go to these theatres and museums? It's not exactly as if I go to every play at the Pomegranate as it is*; I'm not sure how having more theatres would be much different! Where do you find the time? My time is already full without having them so I just don't see what the benefit would be.
*Actually, I'm not sure when I last went. Probably years ago.
[ 27. October 2014, 11:58: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
When I was young and single in London I went to a museum or art gallery most Saturdays. I also went to the theatre regularly, though some of this was helped out by working at a small hospital near the Barbican (they fill empty seats by giving free tickets to local hospitals!). But I also bought tickets to shows, I made an effort to visit the Royal Opera House and the ballet, for instance, as they were entirely new to me due to my upbringing. I used my free time in London to explore cultural experiences that I'd never had the chance to before. I loved it.
I see 'vibrant' as meaning interesting and lively and also associate it with the mixing of cultures.
Posted by Badger Lady (# 13453) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Incidentally, how often do you Londoners go to these theatres and museums? It's not exactly as if I go to every play at the Pomegranate as it is*; I'm not sure how having more theatres would be much different! Where do you find the time? My time is already full without having them so I just don't see what the benefit would be.
*Actually, I'm not sure when I last went. Probably years ago.
Pretty often. I try to as I didn't want to live in London (been hear 8 years) and never exploit that fact. So Last week I went to the hear the
Roll of Honour read at the Tower of London poppy installation (it's amazing, I'd recommend any one in London takes a trip to Tower Hill to see them).
This week I'm going to the Science Museum Late Night Opening (press all the buttons! Without kids! For free!).
Over the summer I try and make it to the BBC Proms . I do theatre and stuff too (generally when I have visitors).
In case it isn't obvious, I love living in London.
[ 27. October 2014, 12:35: Message edited by: Badger Lady ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, in my young and salad days, I was a complete culture vulture. We went to the cinema probably twice a week; went to every major art exhibition; theatre quite a lot, and so on. So London was a kind of groaning table laden with baked meats.
I have slowed down now, but still try to keep up with the exhibitions, although they tend to be expensive. At the moment, for example, there is Rembrandt, Turner, Malevich, Egon Schiele, William Morris, Constable, the Gothic imagination, Rossetti, pause for breath.
Also, my wife often visits artists in their studios and homes, which I don't do.
I was out several weeks ago photographing archaeopteryx in the Science Museum, in case any creationist should try to mug me. And I packed in a visit to the National Gallery to have a look at their paintings by Pieter de Hooch, one of my favourites. Both of these visits were free.
Of course, not everybody is into this stuff. But London is the knibs if you are.
[ 27. October 2014, 12:50: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Last week I went to a talk at the Imperial War Museum on Tuesday, discussion about the exhibition of WW1 art and we got a private view and on Friday was at the BBC for recording of Counterpoint with the return of Paul Gambaccini. I missed two recordings on Sunday and Monday because I was too late out of work.
I was in Huddersfield over the weekend (and met balaam and LRP on Saturday night).
This week, I'm about to go to the Science Museum and want to go to the National Gallery (probably tomorrow between two recordings). I've got tickets to the Young Chorister of the year in St Paul's on Friday.
In addition to premiere tickets to a recording of A Christmas Carol and some other free stuff I've got tickets to Sir Gawain and the Green Knight at the Globe in a couple of weeks.
BTW, I don't actually live in London, but just outside.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
I think London gets a terribly bad press. I had an absolutly great time growing up in its suburbs (within the GLC boundary but without a London postcode). On my occasional visits, it still strikes me as a good place to live. One is less reliant on a car. There are lots of things for children to do. The schools, so I'm told, are amongst the best in the UK. And if you are into multiculturalism, it is one of the best places in the world. It deserves its worldwide reputation as a 'happening' place.
The drawback is that it is expensive, but it seems to me that it is still possible to find a decent job and get paid well for doing it. While property prices are expensive, on a median income-to-price ratio, it compares very favourably to many other big cities.
I think the increasing view that London is a sort of leech ignores the fact that a lot more goes on there than public admistration and stock market speculation. And even with regards to the financial sector: all economies need financial and legal services; London provides them, and they earn a lot of money for the UK.
Where I concede London's detractors have a point is that London does tend to dominate the UK's culture and politics. However, the UK's political system means that the solution is in the hands of the rest of the UK. If local people feel their elected representatives do not uphold the interests of their localities, they should elect people who do.
[ 28. October 2014, 01:32: Message edited by: Cod ]
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on
:
We go to a show at least once a month. Hugal will meet me after work and it's about 10.minutes on the bus to the Leicester Square half price ticket booth. Or we will use theatre tokens in advance - we were given £200 of theatre tokens because I helped out a friend's church with worship. With those, we've managed to see 5 shows - so average price £20 a ticket. We have a Tastecard to get 2 for 1 meals so food doesn't have to be expensive either.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I used to live in London and felt very bereaved when I move away. Even if we didn't go to museums etc. all the time, it was good to know they were there (especially in the winter).
We do go occasionally to a ballet performance or a concert (went to a Prom in July), but the costs mount up: £60 at least for the train fares, a meal out, a cup of coffee or a drink afterwards, plus the tickets - that's easily £200+ which is not a little money!
We do have some decent stuff on locally, mind: in the last month we have had an excellent concert by Matthew Ford and his Big Band, contemporary dance from the Jasmin Vardimon company, and there's often good classical music at Snape Maltings ... but one does have to anticipate and plan a bit more!
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
I love visiting London, partly for the culture (yay free museums!) and partly for the shopping. OTOH I have no desire to live their anymore. First of all, it is *huge* compared to other European capitals (obviously Paris is the one I know best). I am done with spending an hour each way on the transport any time I want to go anywhere.
I also disagree about London transport being affordable. Compared to Paris, it is outrageously expensive. A zone 2 London travel card will set you back £1256 a year, and bearing in mind the price of accommodation many people are forking out a whopping £1472 for zone 3. In Paris, a zone 2 travel card is 64€ a month, or 768€ (about £600) a year, half of which is covered by your employer (this is a legal requirement), so you only actually pay 384€/£300. And while I concede that the Paris transport is crowded, dirty and smelly, I still find it on the whole more efficient and reliable than the tube.
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
In younger days I used to go to art galleries and the theatre every week if possible. Nowadays it's not so frequent but we do try. And I'm a volunteer usher at our local theatre so I get to see things for free there ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
.
It can get terribly expensive though, and plays get sold out almost immediately if a star name is featured - I refused to book up for Benedict Cumberbatch as Hamlet over a year in advance!
Going back to the London property market I still think it lunacy that houses around the corner (we're not yet Highbury or Canonbury) are now costing over £1 million.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
I am currently experiencing London - under favourable conditions of wonderfully fine weather. Yes, transport is fast and efficient, but I seem to be sharing it with an awful lot of people who look as they are travelling the circles of Hell rather than the Piccadilly Line.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I am currently experiencing London - under favourable conditions of wonderfully fine weather. Yes, transport is fast and efficient, but I seem to be sharing it with an awful lot of people who look as they are travelling the circles of Hell rather than the Piccadilly Line.
It only seems fast because you actually think that a tube train from Picadilly Circus to, I don't, know, London Bridge actually goes from one to the other.
It doesn't.
The tube network is only 200m across, under the Thames. When you go down the hole in the ground at Picadilly Circus, you walk for miles and miles through underground tunnels to the platform, under the river. Then you get on a series of trains which go about 50m. Then you get out and walk miles and miles through underground tunnels until you emerge at your destination station, miles from where you started. But you walked most of it. The points where you got on and off the trains were only a few metres apart.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
That would work so much better if you'd used Great Portland Street and Regents Park tube stations, which are a long tube journey apart but can be seen one from the other, or Bank and Monument where the underground tunnels do join two stations, or whatever happens at Waterloo to connect it to the Jubilee line (there's a travelator that's really cool). Piccadilly and London Bridge stations not so much.
And there are a couple of foot tunnels under the Thames - Woolwich and Greenwich - which are really long and spooky. Fun to take kids through.
I tend to get out at nearest stop on the line in and start walking rather than changing on the tube, like most Londoners. It's the tourists that use the tube rather than feet and buses in the centre, other than the boring commute in.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I quite often to go Finsbury Park from Vauxhall. Wow, I just have time to get out my copy of Boys' Own Annual, and read the front page, when I'm there!
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
You do =not= know how lucky you are. I live in Washington DC, where the subway systems are roughly 1/10 as elaborate and developed as they are in London. It is utterly pathetic.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
Couldn't easily live, work, play and worship anywhere else. It's in the blood.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
In younger days I used to go to art galleries and the theatre every week if possible. Nowadays it's not so frequent but we do try. And I'm a volunteer usher at our local theatre so I get to see things for free there .
It can get terribly expensive though, and plays get sold out almost immediately if a star name is featured - I refused to book up for Benedict Cumberbatch as Hamlet over a year in advance!
Going back to the London property market I still think it lunacy that houses around the corner (we're not yet Highbury or Canonbury) are now costing over £1 million.
£5 groundling tickets for the Globe are a brilliant way to see a star name on the cheap - as long as you're fit enough for standing for the whole performance.
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
Ah, there you have it - my knees and feet just can't stand up for any length of time these days, although I did queue to see Laurence Olivier play Othello in 196* .... 2/- (or maybe 2/6, can't quite recall) standing.
At the Globe Mr Marten and I always sit, as he can't stand for long periods either. But being old codgers we do enjoy having Freedom passes ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I stand at the Globe, only went a few times this summer (pneumonia) but went lots last summer.
There are a lot of other theatre deals if you can queue at the right times. (Or there are the Time Out deals - which is how I saw Annie Gets Her Gun and Spamalot)
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
I used to queue to sit on the floor of the gallery at the proms, in those days it was only about £6. We used to take a picnic.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Proms are still only £6.
I'll post some other cheap deals after I've been paid on Friday and have booked the things I want to see.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
I daresay all you say of the Tube is true, but my mind was running more on Blake -
I wander thro' each charter'd street,
Near where the charter'd Thames does flow.
And mark in every face I meet
Marks of weakness, marks of woe.
In every cry of every Man,
In every Infants cry of fear,
In every voice: in every ban,
The mind-forg'd manacles I hear
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I always think that by 'mind-forg'd manacles' Blake was partly referring to the church, and its repressive role.
Posted by Signaller (# 17495) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Proms are still only £6.
£5, actually. Best value anywhere. And great for we middle-aged who want to prove we can still stand up for a whole chunk of Wagner.
And then go home and fall over.
[ 29. October 2014, 09:30: Message edited by: Signaller ]
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
My parents fled London in search of the Good,(farm),Life in late 40s. They left friends and relatives there, consequently our family used to visit London regularly throughout the 60's and 70's. I also currently live with someone who was a Londoner born and breed and left in 75. So all in all I do have a feel for the place.
Does the OP didn't leave scope for those who feel nostalgic about London itself?
Let's say it does in which case I'd put my tick in the box of saying it's become a Global plaything of the super-rich and will continue to change beyond all recognition until such time as the Thames rises and submerges the place. This may also be the time when uKIP will build a new capital on Bodmin moor, or reinstate Tintagel castle, or something like that.
I'm sure if I were to now spend an Autumn week in London, with limitless holiday fund, it would be most enjoyable.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I've lived in London. It's fine if you're young, gifted and broke, or older, wiser and handsomely paid (and/or ideally with a foot on the property ladder). But if you're neither, it's just a fascinating city for visiting.
More importantly, I do worry that London has sucked the energy out of the rest of the country. This was less apparent in the past, when the regions had strong industries that acted as a counterbalance to the self-importance of London. But now that those industries have seriously declined, the govt. only seems interested in promoting London as the source of the country's economic vigour.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, I think that's one reason that the Scottish independence vote was a shock to Westminster. Here was this distant region of the UK, which was saying, hey, you may think you can neglect us, but we would like to neglect you, or something like that.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I daresay all you say of the Tube is true, but my mind was running more on Blake -
I wander thro' each charter'd street,
Near where the charter'd Thames does flow.
And mark in every face I meet
Marks of weakness, marks of woe.
In every cry of every Man,
In every Infants cry of fear,
In every voice: in every ban,
The mind-forg'd manacles I hear
As always, Blake is perceptive and prophetic. But he was a Londoner who was unhappy out of the city. There are two sides of the coin.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I daresay all you say of the Tube is true, but my mind was running more on Blake
Blake had a point, as always, but my first thought upon reading that was Wordsworth:
Earth has not anything to show more fair:
Dull would he be of soul who could pass by
A sight so touching in its majesty
[ 29. October 2014, 15:33: Message edited by: Gwai ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Boo hoo, boo hoo. I knew nobody reads my posts - I quoted that on the first page.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
And Wordsworth of course was a country man who rarely ventured to London. Probably a bit of the 'grass is greener on the other side' syndrome in both cases.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
Both Blake and Wordsworth were viewing a pre-industrial metropolis, one without railways, buses, the Thames embankment or much in the way of civil infrastructure. The London of 1800 was big - one million - for 1800, but nothing like today's city.
It chanced that as I was coming back on the train yesterday, I got into conversation with a senior manager of the London Tube. His views on the expansion of mass transit were, as you may suppose, interesting. A certain aspect of them could be summed upas 'The engines cannae take it, Cap'n!'
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Boo hoo, boo hoo. I knew nobody reads my posts - I quoted that on the first page.
Sorry! Thought someone had, but then I couldn't find it. My bad!
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
I miss London.
I was at university there and walked a lot to save money on transport so glimpsed all sorts of hidden jewels as I came and went.
Then after I married we spent five years living in South London whilst my husband commuted to the city. Two of our children were born there.
My mother and my brothers all now live there and three of my four daughters have lived there, youngest still does.
The eldest daughter was mugged seven times in ten years- enough to put one off but oh how she misses London town now she is living in rural New Zealand, wonderful though that is in its own way.
For me it is enough to visit when I can- I still get excited as the train pulls into the station.
It's something about the sense of possibilty.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
T S Eliot sums it up for me:
"Unreal City,
Under the brown fog of a winter dawn,
A crowd flowed over London Bridge, so many,
I had not thought death had undone so many.
Sighs, short and infrequent, were exhaled,
And each man fixed his eyes before his feet."
I turned down a job in the City some years ago which would have paid considerably more than I'm currently on. I make it a principle to arrive well in time for an interview and to get an idea of the locale before going in - if you're going to be working somewhere you want to know what's in the vicinity and what will be available to you at lunchtimes. The answer was, hardly any shops, tall grey buildings and a gritty wind. All the seasons would look the same.
And that realization, somehow, clinched it for me. No green spaces, no birds to be seen or heard, no creatures other than fellow commuters; a feeling of being completely divorced from the natural world, and 20 minutes walk before you could find one single tiny green square which was crowded with office workers on their lunchbreak, before returning to artificial light and no view from the window except other office buildings. This was not my world, and I didn't want it to be.
I thought of that the next day as I went on my way to my usual job, past fields, streams, trees, farms; the sight of sheep and cows grazing, the birds being their usual vocal little selves; life. I still believe I made the right decision.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
True. It's not that there aren't pleasant bits in London, even central London, but I often meet a friend for lunch who works in the vicinity of St Paul's, in a Lubyanka of a place.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Ariel: whatever rocks your boat I suppose. But what you and Eliot describe is not London. I imagine if 'the City' was removed to an idyllic valley in the Cotswolds it would still have the same grey mindset and still oppress people.
London is a microcosm of the world, which is why I love it. And why it is exhausting.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
The City is the oldest and the original part of London, though. It may have been extensively rebuilt over the centuries but it still has a lot of layers and resonances of the past that the other parts don't have.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I turned down a job in the City some years ago which would have paid considerably more than I'm currently on...The answer was, hardly any shops, tall grey buildings and a gritty wind. All the seasons would look the same.
While some of the City is absolutely awful (I thinking largely of anything build in the 1960s - 70s) there are also some stunningly beautiful buildings there. Wren's churches spring to mind as an obvious example.
quote:
No green spaces, no birds to be seen or heard, no creatures other than fellow commuters; a feeling of being completely divorced from the natural world, and 20 minutes walk before you could find one single tiny green square which was crowded with office workers on their lunchbreak, before returning to artificial light and no view from the window except other office buildings.
To be fair, you could probably get a similar experience in Milton Keynes, or Doncaster, or Leicester or any many other provincial cities.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
My point was though that the grey 'unreal' City as described by Eliot is not so much the architecture or the environment, as what Blake called the 'mind-forged manacles'; the oppression of 'the City' as shorthand for its financial oppression of the people. All of which of course is expressed in the architecture.
But for a really warm and human (and warts and all) appreciation of London as a whole, you could do much worse than read the late Ian Nairn's 'Nairn's London', recently reissued by Penguin.
[ 01. November 2014, 21:41: Message edited by: Angloid ]
Posted by Philip Charles (# 618) on
:
Being an expert on London, I spent a week there 50 years ago, I support the suggestion that the UK capital be moved to Huddersfield. Moving the commercial centre to Bristol could also be considered.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But for a really warm and human (and warts and all) appreciation of London as a whole, you could do much worse than read the late Ian Nairn's 'Nairn's London', recently reissued by Penguin.
Thanks for the tip. I've only seen a clip of Nairn on the internet, talking about Northampton, I think, but he was fascinating. I'll look this up.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
You could also do worse than get hold of a copy of Peter Ackroyd's fascinating "Biography of London" for an alternative view on the city's history.
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
Nairn's Britain is regularly on iPlayer and is wonderful, especially for his melancholy persona. I must read his London book.
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
Has anyone quoted William Dunbar yet?
LONDON, thou art of townes A per se.
Soveraign of cities, seemliest in sight,
Of high renoun, riches and royaltie;
Of lordis, barons, and many a goodly knyght;
Of most delectable lusty ladies bright;
Of famous prelatis, in habitis clericall;
Of merchauntis full of substaunce and of myght:
London, thou art the flour of Cities all....
...and so on ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
By Stanza 7 he's clearly having a prophetic vision of Boris Johnson.
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
...... I'm craving a sight of some Rastas, Orthodox Jews, Muslim women in headscarves, and so on.
Come to Leeds.
Leeds has lots of London-type things with the added bonus of proper countryside around. I'm talking Ilkley Moor, Otley Chevin, Hardcastle Craggs. What's around London? - a forty minute drive to a bit of Forestry Commission land?
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
No green spaces, no birds to be seen or heard, no creatures other than fellow commuters; a feeling of being completely divorced from the natural world, and 20 minutes walk before you could find one single tiny green square which was crowded with office workers on their lunchbreak, before returning to artificial light and no view from the window except other office buildings. This was not my world, and I didn't want it to be.
Very few office workers are in the midst of a natural wood when they exit the building in any part of the UK, I would imagine.
There are lots of very large green spaces in London - Regent's Park, Hyde Park, Green Park, Greenwich Park, Victoria Park, Richmond Park, St James' Park, Clapham Common, Blackheath...
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I think the problem is this:
Not countryside; nice enough, but no substitute for the real thing:
http://patricetodisco.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/img_6931.jpg?w=717&h=477
Real Countryside:
http://www.wharfedale-nats.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/228_15.jpg
If you're thinking of the latter when you talk about open spaces, the former just doesn't work. It's a bit like real coffee and instant. Or hand-pulled real ale and fizzy lager. Or blow up dolls and... you get the point.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
I'm clear on the difference between a city park and the countryside but "no green spaces, no creatures other than commuters" is categorically false. Or else I'm imagining that I live next to a park that's home to herons and geese.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I used to live in Leeds and yes, it's great for that ... you've got lots of 'London-like' things but in half an hour you can be in the Dales.
These days I live near Stoke-on-Trent. You can be on the Staffordshire Moorlands or lovely parts of Shropshire within 30 minutes.
Unfortunately, it doesn't have the stuff that Leeds has ... but it has lots of interesting ceramics ...
On the green spaces thing, to be fair to London it does have a surprising amount. It's true that you have to go a fair way to find some real countryside but Surrey's pretty bosky, the Chilterns are fabulous and there are even some surprisingly good pockets out in Essex.
Ok, so you have to look harder and it's not dramatic scenery as you find 'oop north' ...
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Having come back home from a weekend in Finchley, I am definitely missing the range of ethnicities in London, and just the range of things to do. And you know, the Iranian sweet shop on my friend's local high street. There are plenty of free or cheap things to do in London, much more than in other places and certainly more than in the countryside.
I did just have the best curry of my life in Finchley too (Rani, a veggie Indian buffet, packed full of Indian families too and selling Diwali sweets), and I've had curries in Bradford, Birmingham and Manchester. To die for. Also a lamb doner kebab made with slices of meat rather than mince! I think it may be worth moving to north London just for the food.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Very few office workers are in the midst of a natural wood when they exit the building in any part of the UK, I would imagine.
It doesn't have to be a wood. You might be surprised how rural some offices are. Out-of-town developments do sometimes give you a view of fields and farms or open countryside.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Very few office workers are in the midst of a natural wood when they exit the building in any part of the UK, I would imagine.
It doesn't have to be a wood. You might be surprised how rural some offices are. Out-of-town developments do sometimes give you a view of fields and farms or open countryside.
Sure, but your previous post was based on presumably the most congested most central part of London. Obviously if you put a very rural office against Centre Point, the former is going to be much more green and peaceful.
If you couldn't find more than a small green patch of grass in a 20 minute walk in London, you either walk quite slowly or you weren't looking very hard! I grew up outside of New York City and London is practically rural in comparison, when it comes to green and natural spaces.
Seems you are simply not a city person, London isn't really to blame for that.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
If you couldn't find more than a small green patch of grass in a 20 minute walk in London, you either walk quite slowly or you weren't looking very hard!
How well do you know Moorgate/Guildhall? I located the office where I was to have the interview and went for a short walk (without a map of the area) to fill in the time beforehand. I speak as I find and that was what I found.
I've lived in three capital cities and enjoyed each one. I always used to prefer city life, but now I'm a lot older, and my preferences have changed.
[ 03. November 2014, 14:36: Message edited by: Ariel ]
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
You could have been at Gray's Inn Fields in about 20 minutes walking from Guildhall. Finsbury Square is at Moorgate and it is small. Although it's worth remembering that the City of London is literally the first part of London that was urbanized, so has been built up and over for more than a thousand years.
If you get out of central London it's very easy to find open spaces.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
I've stayed in Lancaster Gate, from where it's possible to walk into parts of Hyde Park from which you can see no building. Nothing but old trees, weedy riverbank and grassland. And rats. That was how you knew that, contrary to appearances, you were in an intensely populated space.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Having come back home from a weekend in Finchley, I am definitely missing the range of ethnicities in London, and just the range of things to do. And you know, the Iranian sweet shop on my friend's local high street. There are plenty of free or cheap things to do in London, much more than in other places and certainly more than in the countryside.
Over the weekend, we went to the fireworks display at the Midland Railway Centre; on Sunday morning I did a 40 mile ride with the Bolsover and District Cycle Club. I spent a good hour or so trying to puzzle out Room of Roots on guitar; this evening after Boy #2's piano practice we'll be setting his telescope up to try to find the Andromeda nebula. I have quite enough to do as it is, plenty of things I'd like to do that I can't fit in (it's been far too long since I last did a good long walk in the Peak) and the last thing I need is yet more things to do! I don't know where you Londoners get your elastic time from.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Having come back home from a weekend in Finchley, I am definitely missing the range of ethnicities in London, and just the range of things to do. And you know, the Iranian sweet shop on my friend's local high street. There are plenty of free or cheap things to do in London, much more than in other places and certainly more than in the countryside.
Over the weekend, we went to the fireworks display at the Midland Railway Centre; on Sunday morning I did a 40 mile ride with the Bolsover and District Cycle Club. I spent a good hour or so trying to puzzle out Room of Roots on guitar; this evening after Boy #2's piano practice we'll be setting his telescope up to try to find the Andromeda nebula. I have quite enough to do as it is, plenty of things I'd like to do that I can't fit in (it's been far too long since I last did a good long walk in the Peak) and the last thing I need is yet more things to do! I don't know where you Londoners get your elastic time from.
I'm not a Londoner so I'm not sure why I'm being included here, but certainly not having children frees up a lot of time. Young unmarried people and retired empty-nesters are probably the ones doing the most things. Also I wouldn't be doing any of the things you listed, I would be doing different things so I'm not sure it's about doing more, just doing other things.
Also my emphasis was on the amount of things that are free or cheap to do. I mean I realise walking and cycling aren't expensive but they're not really accessible for everyone. I do find that cities are more disabled-friendly and better for those with chronic illness.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Also a lamb doner kebab made with slices of meat rather than mince! I think it may be worth moving to north London just for the food.
Oi! The kebab shop round the corner from our church here in Suffolk does them!
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Also a lamb doner kebab made with slices of meat rather than mince! I think it may be worth moving to north London just for the food.
Oi! The kebab shop round the corner from our church here in Suffolk does them!
Suffolk is not really known for being a hub of the Turkish community, in my defence - and north London is! But that's great to know if I do ever visit Suffolk (nearest encounter has been camping with the Norfolk and Suffolk District Association).
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
You could have been at Gray's Inn Fields in about 20 minutes walking from Guildhall.
Precisely my point. In practice most people don't really want to spend 40 minutes of their lunch hour walking to and from somewhere to eat their sandwiches, assuming they haven't also had to queue up in a shop somewhere along the way to buy them. It's not as if you could just pop out at lunchtime and sit on the grass in front of the office on a summer's day, or even, failing that, a bench where you could stare at the passing traffic.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Precisely my point. In practice most people don't really want to spend 40 minutes of their lunch hour walking to and from somewhere to eat their sandwiches, assuming they haven't also had to queue up in a shop somewhere along the way to buy them. It's not as if you could just pop out at lunchtime and sit on the grass in front of the office on a summer's day, or even, failing that, a bench where you could stare at the passing traffic.
Your point is that you were in the most urbanized built up part of London, and complaining that it's a concrete jungle. I don't need a park that close to my office because I live next to a park. Most people who work in central London live outside of it and likely see green spaces in their own neighborhoods.
Anyway Hyde, Regent's, Green, and St James' Park are all in central London as well. Lots and lots of people work within 10 min or less walk of those places.
[ 04. November 2014, 07:58: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Most people who work in central London live outside of it and likely see green spaces in their own neighborhoods.
Mebbe. Mebbe no. It's equally possible to spend your life leaving your gardenless flat in Hammersmith, say, spend your 40 minutes on the Tube (from which little in the way of burgeoning greenery is visible) go to your City workplace, spend your hurried lunch break in shops or the office, after work go to a pub with colleagues, Tube home, in and put the telly on. And do that day in, day out. And weekends, go the shopping centre and the cinema complex or a restaurant. Don't tell me millions don't live this life.
No one is saying London has absolutely no greenery - but you have to track it down, and really work at deriving from a few fume, noise, litter and rat encroached acres the kind of peace and beauty that real countryside just flings at you in armfuls.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Funny you should mention litter, Firenze. Because it's one of the first things that comes into my mind with the word "city". Grime and litter. Parks, well, better than sitting on the central reservation of Prince of Wales Road, obviously, but we've been known to visit a park and go scrambling in the Peak on the same day, because visiting the countryside and visiting a park are different in kind, not just in degree. Less dogshit and more sheepshit in the real countryside, for starters.
it's wonderful that there's a spot in Hyde Park where you can't see any buildings or traffic, but it's a bit like the X marked on the floor of a hi-fi fanatic's house where you get the perfect stereophonic effect. By comparison, I know places I can walk for miles without seeing traffic or any buildings bar the odd barn.
[ 04. November 2014, 08:41: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
Again - people are complaining that London doesn't have green spaces as if this is unique to London. Cities are by their nature built up and have fewer open spaces. London is greener than many other large global cities in its peer group.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
It's equally possible to spend your life leaving your gardenless flat in Hammersmith, say, spend your 40 minutes on the Tube (from which little in the way of burgeoning greenery is visible) go to your City workplace, spend your hurried lunch break in shops or the office, after work go to a pub with colleagues, Tube home, in and put the telly on. And do that day in, day out. And weekends, go the shopping centre and the cinema complex or a restaurant. Don't tell me millions don't live this life.
That's their choice though. There are enough parks in Hammersmith and Fulham that if someone lives a life like this, it's because they prefer to spend their time indoors.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I don't need a park that close to my office because I live next to a park.
Obviously we're arguing from different perspectives. Living next door to a park doesn't have much of an impact when you have to spend 8-9 hours a day elsewhere where it's just built-up greyness. That may not matter much to you, but it's the kind of lack that makes me feel stifled and, for want of a better word, un-grounded.
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
That's their choice though. There are enough parks in Hammersmith and Fulham that if someone lives a life like this, it's because they prefer to spend their time indoors.
Sometimes it's a choice dictated by financial necessity. I've lived in some horrible places basically because I needed to move quickly within reasonable travelling distance of my job and could not afford to either move further away or else closer.
Parks vary, also. My father used to work near Soho Square, which looked quite pleasant on the face of it but was at the time actually a well-known haunt for drug users.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
By comparison, I know places I can walk for miles without seeing traffic or any buildings bar the odd barn.
quote:
It is my belief, Watson, founded upon my experience, that the lowest and vilest alleys in London do not present a more dreadful record of sin than does the smiling and beautiful countryside....
Think of the deeds of hellish cruelty, the hidden wickedness which may go on, year in, year out, in such places, and none the wiser.
[Arthur Conan Doyle, The Adventure of the Copper Beeches ]
I lived the first thirteen years of my life in bleak, lonely countryside while my father scratched a living as a farm labourer. No deeds of hellish cruelty to report, but these days I'll stick with the city, thanks very much.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Obviously we're arguing from different perspectives. Living next door to a park doesn't have much of an impact when you have to spend 8-9 hours a day elsewhere where it's just built-up greyness. That may not matter much to you, but it's the kind of lack that makes me feel stifled and, for want of a better word, un-grounded.
Your premise seems to be that, unless there is a park in immediate proximity to one's place of work, then it's too much trouble to find green space in London, therefore London is bad.
The reality is that people who want to or need to live in London, and also prioritize spending time in open spaces, do so.
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Sometimes it's a choice dictated by financial necessity. I've lived in some horrible places basically because I needed to move quickly within reasonable travelling distance of my job and could not afford to either move further away or else closer.
It could be, but now you are talking specifically about someone who works in central London (but not in the West End/Victoria/Marylebone/Mayfair where there are several very large parks) and who lives in another part of London where there are also no parks within walking distance and cannot afford to move and has no free time to ever go to a park.
(And I'll ignore the suggestion that London parks are full of drug users...)
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
No, I think Ariel's premise is that because she couldn't find green space readily she didn't like London. I don't think anyone's saying "London's Bad", but plenty of us are saying "We'd rather eat our own ear wax than live there, and this is why..." - in my case, hundreds of miles from proper hill country and it'd be hard to even ride out of my village and straight into rolling farmland.
For me, the most irritating thing about London, and cities in general, is the way some of their inhabitants cannot apparently understand this. For some of us, cities are an unfortunate necessity. I work in one. I'm terribly glad I don't live in it (would be more expensive, dirtier, and more crime) and can ride home 15 miles, about half of it through countryside. Not a park.
[ 04. November 2014, 11:50: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
By comparison, I know places I can walk for miles without seeing traffic or any buildings bar the odd barn.
quote:
It is my belief, Watson, founded upon my experience, that the lowest and vilest alleys in London do not present a more dreadful record of sin than does the smiling and beautiful countryside....
Think of the deeds of hellish cruelty, the hidden wickedness which may go on, year in, year out, in such places, and none the wiser.
[Arthur Conan Doyle, The Adventure of the Copper Beeches ]
I lived the first thirteen years of my life in bleak, lonely countryside while my father scratched a living as a farm labourer. No deeds of hellish cruelty to report, but these days I'll stick with the city, thanks very much.
It's not about wicked deeds or hellish cruelty though; it's about the fact I'd rather see the Derwent slowly making its way down dale from Curbar Edge than any city buildings, no matter how architecturally significant. I'd rather scramble past Taylorgill Force onto Great Gable than wander around any art gallery.
As I said, it's really not a case of "London Bad. Cities Bad". It's "Cities, and especially London, not for me, and here's why..."
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
I am no romanticist about the countryside. It's remote, muddy, and once night falls, bloody boring (and, my dears, absolute death to any decent skincare regime). There's a reason I've stayed in Edinburgh the last 30 odd years, despite the climate. It has a thumping great volcano in the middle for a start: sea to the north, hills to the south and countryside a bus ride away in pretty well any direction.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
When you've got kids, it's boring at night wherever you are, unless you have a waiting queue of babysitters.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
When I lived in Wales, I visited London relatively often. I had friends in Southall, and I usually stayed there. The multiculturality of that area is interesting of course. I like London, but I find it very expensive.
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
I often get wakened up by noise while I'm in bed at night sleeping. People speak a lot very loud on the road during the night and also birds sing a lot on the tree opposite me! London also has many noisy ones going to hospital near me and they are very noisy too.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
There are lots of things about the countryside that make it difficult to live in for particular groups of people. I'm thinking particularly of those with disabilities or chronic illness. If you're too ill to drive, and your bit of the countryside doesn't have a reasonable bus service, then you're screwed. My best friend's happiness and general health (she has CFS/ME) has improved tenfold since she moved from the countryside to a largeish town. Being able to walk a short distance to the local shop when before your village didn't even have a shop makes a huge difference to people who can't drive for whatever reason.
Edited to add that yes, cities are noisy. I live in a semi-rural area though, and am frequently woken up by an owl that sits in the tree outside my bedroom window...
[ 04. November 2014, 14:21: Message edited by: Pomona ]
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Edited to add that yes, cities are noisy. I live in a semi-rural area though, and am frequently woken up by an owl that sits in the tree outside my bedroom window...
I grew up in what we in America call the suburbs, but I suppose is the country in Anglo-speak. We had deer, chipmunks, and beavers wandering through the backyard and a farm down the road. And there was a woodpecker whose favorite spot was outside of my bedroom window early in the morning.
It's quieter where I live now!
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
It could be, but now you are talking specifically about someone who works in central London (but not in the West End/Victoria/Marylebone/Mayfair where there are several very large parks) and who lives in another part of London where there are also no parks within walking distance and cannot afford to move and has no free time to ever go to a park.
No, I wasn't. I was thinking about my own experiences of living in some dismal places in Oxford. I don't think cities are bad, but I do think that life in them is sometimes removed from what is natural, and has a more artificial quality to it, and I don't think that long-term with little or no break from it that's healthy.
quote:
(And I'll ignore the suggestion that London parks are full of drug users...)
Good, because I didn't make it and I don't believe it to be true. I used one example of a specific place, and I'm aware that time passes and things change. However, it does still happen in some public spaces across the world, and I daresay there are probably still some parks and gardens in London where this happens.
FWIW my first experience of life in the countryside bored me senseless. I hated it, and couldn't wait to move back to the city, away from the rain and the isolation. Of course some villages don't have much to offer - just houses, not always attractive ones, and the nearest shops are a car journey or bus ride away, and the surroundings may be flat, featureless fields of grain. It's not always ideal. But sometimes it's different. You know when you've found the place that's right for you. It resonates at more than one level, and it feels like home. If you get that from a city, fine; I used to get that from London but I think those days are over for me.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Perhaps I'm an outlier. Give me an isolated cottage in Eskdale or the Duddon Valley, put a town with shops an hour's journey away, put a real ale pub within a mile walk along the riverbank, then all I need is a reasonable internet connection and I'm sorted. Boredom is art galleries (sorry, but most art leaves me cold and what I do like doesn't occupy me for long) and of course bloody work.
If I could wave a magic wand and have the lifestyle I could, that'd be it. I suspect many people would hate it; that's fine because I don't want my dream lifestyle crowded with people so it's no better than the city.
I agree with what Ariel says about a place resonating. I get that a bit where I am at the moment, in a 2000 pop. village a couple of miles from a market town. I get it a lot more in Borrowdale, more still in Duddon. Yeah, it rains, but you can't beat listening to it beating on the roof in front of an open fire with a pint of Riggwelter.
In a city, by contrast, I'm like a nervous cat in a room full of other cats.
[ 05. November 2014, 07:03: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
It's very much an individual thing. I had a friend who used to live for going camping on the Brecon Beacons. She showed me some photos once: the magic of her experience completely failed to come across. Wild horses couldn't pay me enough to spend the night in a tent on a bleak rocky outcrop with nothing to look at in the morning but more barren, stony heights and the prospect of having to trudge across this for miles yet before you could get down to anywhere more habitable. Yet there are people who thrive on this sort of thing.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
You do need a few cans unless you're the sort of person who naturally starts drifting off to sleep at 8pm. I find wild camping a bit of a drag; you have to carry quite a heavy load and if it pisses down you can't really dry out. The payoff, of course, is being amongst what you think of as "bleak rocky outcrops"; you can't readily watch the sunset from the top of Helvellyn if you've got to get back to a hotel room in Patterdale while it's still light unless you're a very fast walker. But you know I'm the sort of weirdo who commutes to work on a bike, 15 hilly miles each way.
I have to say that when I read: "nothing to look at in the morning but more barren, stony heights " my first thought is "well what would you want to look at that would be better?" - the problem is only if it's turned manky overnight and you can't see the barren stony heights
[ 05. November 2014, 12:07: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Perhaps I'm an outlier. Give me an isolated cottage in Eskdale or the Duddon Valley, put a town with shops an hour's journey away, put a real ale pub within a mile walk along the riverbank, then all I need is a reasonable internet connection and I'm sorted. Boredom is art galleries (sorry, but most art leaves me cold and what I do like doesn't occupy me for long) and of course bloody work.
You're not an outlier. I didn't grow up in a city. In the long-term if I could live anywhere I wanted, I'd choose a smaller city than London but a city nonetheless. Partly because I'm an ethnic minority and so if I live in the US or Europe, a village means me and my family would be among the only people with dark faces. And the attendant inconveniences that come with this - where to get one's hair done, buy skin-tone appropriate make-up, ingredients to cook traditional cuisine.
In a broader sense, I love trying new restaurants and food trends, and this is difficult to do in the countryside as well. I'd read about Venezuelan arepas (a type of flatbread sandwich) and went to a food market in London that had three separate vendors offering them.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Perhaps I'm an outlier. Give me an isolated cottage in Eskdale or the Duddon Valley, put a town with shops an hour's journey away, put a real ale pub within a mile walk along the riverbank, then all I need is a reasonable internet connection and I'm sorted. Boredom is art galleries (sorry, but most art leaves me cold and what I do like doesn't occupy me for long) and of course bloody work.
If I could wave a magic wand and have the lifestyle I could, that'd be it. I suspect many people would hate it; that's fine because I don't want my dream lifestyle crowded with people so it's no better than the city.
I agree with what Ariel says about a place resonating. I get that a bit where I am at the moment, in a 2000 pop. village a couple of miles from a market town. I get it a lot more in Borrowdale, more still in Duddon. Yeah, it rains, but you can't beat listening to it beating on the roof in front of an open fire with a pint of Riggwelter.
In a city, by contrast, I'm like a nervous cat in a room full of other cats.
I don't think you're an outlier but you are lucky to be healthy enough to be able to cope with that. My best friend would love to live in such a place, but her illness means she would end up being miserable.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
The distant rural life is grand, for a certain period in your life. But you age out. When your hip goes south, the mountains are inaccessible. When you have to see a doctor twice a month, when you need specialized surgery to save your eyesight (and a specialized doctor to diagnose the condition in the first place) -- then, suddenly cities are great.
And if your ageing parents live out in the boondocks! Then guess who has to drive out into the mountains to fetch them to that surgeon, that knee doctor...
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Aye, I know. And I'm also painfully aware that the problems of living in the sticks (It's hardly the sticks really, 10 miles from Sheffield and 2 from Chesterfield, nothing like as remote as I'd like it to be) won't make me like cities any more even if I have to live in one one day.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0