I prefer the Wholefoods Market myself. But there isn't one in Tunbridge Wells.

Didn't they just buy out Fresh and Wild? F&W was a fairly rubbish shop (unless you're a marginally unstable woman working in the media in north or West London).

Yes, no different than the Fresh & Wild of old, apart from the logo. Still has that healthshop smell.

Wholefoods Market doesn't have the choice it used to have either.

I think the big one in Kensington is a bit disappointing. It's huge and well presented but I still prefer the Selfridges and Harrods food halls or Fortnum & Mason. I don't think it's much better than a good Waitrose. The Waitrose in Canary Wharf is especially good. It has a sushi bar, oyster/champagne bar, etc.

Waitrose in Harrogate isn't particularly good; too small to compete really. Not much bigger than the M&S Supermarket in Moortown.

Hmm, can't argue with that I guess. Being from the South-East myself, I know that it's pretty farcical to suggest that people from there can't access great countryside,

I think the difference is that great countryside is actually on the doorstep of cities in the north, rather than a long journey there. Infact, not only is lush rolling hills and greenery on ones doorstep.. but for many, they actually live within these green areas, with the quality of life that goes with them, but are still only 10 minutes away from the city centre of a major UK city with all its associated infrastructure and amenities.

For many londoners, to attain the same kind of quality of life, they basically have to live as far away from london as possible, in the home counties - areas that involve a long commute for many, and are financially out of reach for the overwhelmng majority of londoners.

I think a lot of you have got it all wrong too. Yes, one can live in a place that means you have the potential to visit X, Y, Z. But this ability is only fractionally important compared to how people live their daily life on a daily basis. It is this daily quality of life that is actually a thousand times more important, and the reality is, numerous northern cities offer this much more so than london does. Just to give an example of what I mean, yes London has some great museums for example.. but once you have visited them (whether a tourist, or as a londoner yourself) thats it.. they dont actually enhance your daily quality of life. Your quality of life can be very good depending on what you want in life.. you may want a stunning city centre pad close to all the action, or you may want a countryside-retreat type of living and associated lifestyle with rolling lush greenery.. The key difference is that whatever you want it is much more accessible to masses up north, you dont have to earn much to get these lifestles. In london, you do, and both are reserved for a small minority.

^ That's simply not true. Loads of young people with ordinary salaries live the big city lifestyle in central London. They're not all loaded. I know because I rent flats to them (it's my business) and I know the kind of jobs they have. People persist with this idea because it justifies their own lifestyle choices, but it's a total myth.

My home town has a Waitrose. My mum and dad miss their Morrisons (not local when I was a lad). Having visited one (of the latter), I can sympathise.

Rotisserie! Brill.

^ That's simply not true. Loads of young people with ordinary salaries live the big city lifestyle in central London. They're not all loaded. I know because I rent flats to them (it's my business) and I know the kind of jobs they have. People persist with this idea because it justifies their own lifestyle choices, but it's a total myth.

really? A basic 15k salary for say a 20 year old in a northern city can allow you to live in a city centre pad, overlooking the waterfront, close to all the action, a few minutes walk from work, and still leave enough cash to buy nice clothes each week, and go out frequently to cinemas, theatre, clubbing, and restaurants.

In London, the equivelant means living in a house-share in a grotty crime area in somewhere like inner east london such as mile end or stratford. If you want you want your own place it would mean a 1 bedroom flat in a converted terraced house in romford, miles out of london.

Likewise, people on modest incomes of 18-25k can get their own 3 bed semi in tree lined suburbs, or even live in a rural village type area with its associated lifestyle, low crime, great schools, no traffic, rolling hills and lush greenery, and be 10 minutes from the city centre.

If someone wants the same lifestyle and living in london they need to be on a hell of a lot more, and that means a lot more than london weighting equivelent salaries.

I don't like Morrisons, too many fat people buying biscuits for their fat kids.

Morrison's own brand budget range of milk-chocloate digestive buscuits are lovery, and only 38p or something.

I don't like Morrisons, too many fat people buying biscuits for their fat kids.

7:30 every evening at Morrisons:


"WE ARE NOW SERVING REDUCED ITEMS IN THE BAKERY AREA"


Oh my how the fat families flock to the bakery to buy the ever-so-slightly cheaper biscuits and cakes... :ohno:

I just hang around there to buy cheap tear and share bread for my houmous, and cheap brioche, obviously :D

really? A basic 15k salary for say a 20 year old in a northern city can allow you to live in a city centre pad, overlooking the waterfront, close to all the action, a few minutes walk from work, and still leave enough cash to buy nice clothes each week, and go out frequently to cinemas, theatre, clubbing, and restaurants.

In London, the equivelant means living in a house-share in a grotty crime area in somewhere like inner east london such as mile end or stratford. If you want you want your own place it would mean a 1 bedroom flat in a converted terraced house in romford, miles out of london.

Likewise, people on modest incomes of 18-25k can get their own 3 bed semi in tree lined suburbs, or even live in a rural village type area with its associated lifestyle, low crime, great schools, no traffic, rolling hills and lush greenery, and be 10 minutes from the city centre.

If someone wants the same lifestyle and living in london they need to be on a hell of a lot more, and that means a lot more than london weighting equivelent salaries.Rubbish. You can get a small room in a decent flat here in Bayswater for £160pw (£8320per annum) which means that even people on £15k have plenty left over to enjoy themselves. You can get a massive room in a smart central area for less than 10k per year. Those prices include all bills and taxes by the way. And when you bear in mind that even PAs in London can earn £50k then I don't see what the problem is.

if you think £160 pw is a good rent, you're living in cloud cuckoo land! I had a double ensuite room in a 2 bedroom duplex apartment with parking in Central Leeds for £75pw. If I ever get a job in London in the future like I hope to one day, I'll be commuting along the C2C line!

if you think £160 pw is a good rent, you're living in cloud cuckoo land! I had a double ensuite room in a 2 bedroom duplex apartment with parking in Central Leeds for £75pw. If I ever get a job in London in the future like I hope to one day, I'll be commuting along the C2C line!Yeah but you're living in Leeds! I'm sorry but the city's not as good and neither are the salaries. The salary difference alone would cover the difference in rent.

7:30 every evening at Morrisons:


"WE ARE NOW SERVING REDUCED ITEMS IN THE BAKERY AREA"


Oh my how the fat families flock to the bakery to buy the ever-so-slightly cheaper biscuits and cakes... :ohno:

I just hang around there to buy cheap tear and share bread for my houmous, and cheap brioche, obviously :D

The one in the Marrion Center? :banana:

Rubbish. You can get a small room in a decent flat here in Bayswater for £160pw (£8320per annum) which means that even people on £15k have plenty left over to enjoy themselves. You can get a massive room in a smart central area for less than 10k per year. Those prices include all bills and taxes by the way. And when you bear in mind that even PAs in London can earn £50k then I don't see what the problem is.

So you are saying you can get a massive 1 bedroom apartment in a smart place in london for 200pw which also includes all bills :rofl:

Wow thats cheaper than leeds, infact its cheaper than bradford too, or wakefield :nuts:

im sorry but you are talking out of your behind there



-----------

The reality is, a house share (bed-sit) in a grotty area of outer london is not much less than that.

take a grotty and quite dodgy council area in london with one of the highest levels of deprivation in the UK...

Here is a list of 1 bedroom flats within 1 mile of All Saints Station, east london

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/find.html?locationIdentifier=STATION%5E161&sortByPriceDescending=true&minBedrooms=1&maxBedrooms=1&displayPropertyType=flats&radius=1.0&oldDisplayPropertyType=flats&includeLetAgreed=true&_includeLetAgreed=on


As you can see there is well over 1000 results. Even shitty bedsit places over dodgy phone shops cost well over what you stated, let alone "massive apartments"

The salary difference alone would cover the difference in rent.

Firstly, I'd like to say that London is not all its cracked up to be.

Secondly, the salary difference really isn't enough to cover the difference in rent. At all. And I think most people living in the capital would also agree with that. Once council tax, exorbitant bills and travel costs are factored in, plus a morning commute from hell it's really not worth it. It's for that very reason that I'll be leaving here very soon after four years.

Added to that, London is an incredibly dreary place to live compared to cities elsewhere. Everybody seems to walk around the place as if the world owes them something; nobody smiles. London also has a strange 'aroma', and I can't stand the black snot.

Subliving.

London also has a strange 'aroma', and I can't stand the black snot.Oh god, yes - I'd forgotten all about that! They used to say that living in London was the equivalent of smoking at least 10 cigarettes per day.

And they say that the North is grimy! :lol:

I really enjoyed living in London when I was there, but I was very glad when it came time to get back to sanity.

Same for me. I loved the first 3 years I was here. But once the novelty wears off, it's just a nuisance.

Subliving.

haha the black snot. yes i remember that on my commute on the tube every morning, and every day back home packed in like sardines, all swetty. You'd come home and have a layer of grime on your face and need a shower, and your hair would smell.

I used to think 35 minute commute was, or 45 minutes from door to office was great! Now I can be from door to office in 11 minutes :)

As for salaries... even looking at the most london-centric type of employment, Lawyers, who, due to much higher fees earnt in london, earn much higher wages than the regional lawyers.. average starting salaries for the top firms in London is aroun 50k. In the regions this is 40k. Does the extra 10k a year cover the extra costs of living? A lawyer in Leeds living in a 5 bedroom family home in a leafy rolling hill lush and extremely affluent area would have a house costing 500k, and a heafty mortgage that would be easily payable. To get the equivalent living in london, they would have to live very far out of London in the home counties in a quaint village, and would pay over 1.5 millon for the same house in the same type of area. would the extra 10k lawyer's salary cover this? lol. Not to mention the extortionate and lengthy commute each day. :)

Yes, london provides scope to earn much higher wages as the top end is much longer, but for the majority of people, the wages are quite similar. If you work in a call centre, in a bank, as basic office staff, as a data inputter, in tescos, or in an accountancy firm, the wages are either the same, or not much different. Yes, if you are one of the 1% of accountants who work in a top prestigous firm then yes the salaries will be higher, but not for the masses.

Its why all sources point to greater disposible income in the north, whether we like it or not.

yes i remember that on my commute on the tube every morning, and every day back home packed in like sardines, all swetty. You'd come home and have a layer of grime on your face and need a shower, and your hair would smell.

I used to think 35 minute commute was, or 45 minutes from door to office was great! Now I can be from door to office in 11 minutes :)


The grime thing really annoys me. I have a shower in the morning before work, feel dirty by the time I arrive, and desperate for a shower when I get home. Horrid, horrid, horrid! I smoke for fresh air!

Subliving.

Tunbridge Wells has a Waitrose.

Wigan has Netto Plus

And that smell in London,its that sooty smell thats very prominant on the tube

Most subways have a funky smell for some reason. I love it though:)

Most subways have a funky smell for some reason. I love it though:)

I have been in a few tubes/subways now and was just trying to think what my favourite was? Maybe Berlin for it's efficiency and names of stations like RosaLuxemburg platz (or something like that).

Milan was the best I've been on, by far the cheapest I've ever seen, MASSIVE trains, easy to get around even though I speak little Italian, great station layout.

Subliving.

I have been in a few tubes/subways now and was just trying to think what my favourite was? Maybe Berlin for it's efficiency and names of stations like RosaLuxemburg platz (or something like that).

I loved subways when I was young. I found them fascinating. I used to force my mum to take me on it every time we went to the city. We'd end up going on pointless journeys from one end of Buchanan Street to the other:lol:

The London Underground is probably my favourite.

So you are saying you can get a massive 1 bedroom apartment in a smart place in london for 200pw which also includes all bills :rofl:

Wow thats cheaper than leeds, infact its cheaper than bradford too, or wakefield :nuts:

im sorry but you are talking out of your behind there



-----------

The reality is, a house share (bed-sit) in a grotty area of outer london is not much less than that.LOL. My business is renting large rooms in massive flats, typically in Victorian mansion blocks, to well-off students or young professionals in London. Yes you can get a massive room in a good-conditioned flat in a smart area of West/Central London for £200 per week. That includes all bills, taxes, and wifi internet. You also get a large kitchen, a massive lounge, at least two bathrooms, etc. I know the prices like the back of my hand. You do not. You're ignorant. You talk out of your arse. I speak from daily experience. This is my business. This is what I do.

Firstly, I'd like to say that London is not all its cracked up to be.

Secondly, the salary difference really isn't enough to cover the difference in rent. At all. And I think most people living in the capital would also agree with that. Once council tax, exorbitant bills and travel costs are factored in, plus a morning commute from hell it's really not worth it. It's for that very reason that I'll be leaving here very soon after four years.

Added to that, London is an incredibly dreary place to live compared to cities elsewhere. Everybody seems to walk around the place as if the world owes them something; nobody smiles. London also has a strange 'aroma', and I can't stand the black snot.

Subliving.Firstly London is the greatest city in the world. I've lived and worked in Paris, Sydney, and Melbourne and travelled to almost every one of the world's leading cities in 50 countries across every habited continent of the globe. London kicks serious arse. I don't think there's a city anywhere that matches London's total offering. New York, Paris, and Tokyo come closest but even they have less. London's kick-arsedness is precisely why hundreds of thousands of people from every corner of the world gravitate here, and that global mix in turn is part of London's appeal.

Secondly I was being overly generous when I suggested that London's higher salaries would cover the difference in rent. For most jobs they will make far more than that difference.

Thirdly London has some of the cleanest air of any major city in the world. If you're not aware of that then you need to travel more. Now perhaps it's better in a provincial city but I dare say it's better again in a small town and better again in a country village, and best of all in the remote Highlands. But I don't want to live in those places. I want to be in the centre of the action and that's in London.

Erm, hate to burst your bubble, but I'm pretty sure that's Wiggley's job too from what he's said in the past...

Can you send me a link to your company? I'd love to see a large central London flat for £200 p/w! I think I'd move in straight away, out of this cupboard in zone 2.

For the record, I'm looking at a 1200 sq ft flat with 2 10x30 balconies in Bradford B1 (not as bad as some say!) for only a little more per month than you're saying flats are in London per week. If you can match that, I'll stay in London.

As for your points, London is 2 hours on the train from Leeds. If I want a night out in Soho, it's not that difficult. However I find nightlife in Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool to be far and away better than that in London. I couldn't give two hoots about pollution vs Shanghai or Singapore because I am never going to live in these places. And apart from sheer size, which cannot be denied, what can London *really* offer that Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool can't provide? You'd have to find something really out-there to find an answer. In fact, of all the things I use, Clive Christian's fragrances are the only things I an think of that I can't get anywhere else in the UK. And they only have one outlet in London.

As for disposable income. As I said, match that price for a flat and I'd be happy. I'm being offered a 5% raise to take a job in Leeds. Travel time from that flat to the new job would be 30 minutes. Where I live in Camden to where I work in Kensington is a commute of 45 minutes plus each morning. Not the lifestyle I aspire to.

Subliving.

As for salaries... even looking at the most london-centric type of employment, Lawyers, who, due to much higher fees earnt in london, earn much higher wages than the regional lawyers.. average starting salaries for the top firms in London is aroun 50k. In the regions this is 40k. Does the extra 10k a year cover the extra costs of living? A lawyer in Leeds living in a 5 bedroom family home in a leafy rolling hill lush and extremely affluent area would have a house costing 500k, and a heafty mortgage that would be easily payable. To get the equivalent living in london, they would have to live very far out of London in the home counties in a quaint village, and would pay over 1.5 millon for the same house in the same type of area. would the extra 10k lawyer's salary cover this? lol. Not to mention the extortionate and lengthy commute each day. :)Rubbish. Firstly £10,000 will more than make the difference. And when you compare salaries of lawyers after twp years, five years, ten years, etc then the London salary advantage opens up further - much further. You can have a detached house with a large garden and good schools in the London suburbs (I mean a London borough - not the wider commuter belt) for £500k. Nothing you have said is true. You're doing exactly what I suggested earlier - telling lies and myth-making to justify your own decisions. If you want to live in Leeds or whatever then fine by me. It's a free country and you can live where you like. However don't tell lies about London to justify your decision.

Erm, hate to burst your bubble, but I'm pretty sure that's Wiggley's job too from what he's said in the past...

Can you send me a link to your company? I'd love to see a large central London flat for £200 p/w! I think I'd move in straight away, out of this cupboard in zone 2.

For the record, I'm looking at a 1200 sq ft flat with 2 10x30 balconies in Bradford B1 (not as bad as some say!) for only a little more per month than you're saying flats are in London per week. If you can match that, I'll stay in London.

Subliving.I said a large room in a large flat. I didn't say a large flat. And maybe it's Wiggley's job up in Leeds but he obviously doesn't know what the f*** he's talking about in London. And I won't link to my website for reasons of privacy.

PM me the link if you would. Wiggley's from London, by the way.

Don't get me wrong, I think London's great. It's amazing in fact. It's just not as all-conquering as people from the city seem to think it is and there are other options.

Subliving.

Spunks is talking about a room in a shared flat. A room. That's all.

In the flat will be a random collection of all manner of oddballs, drifters, failures and society's lost ones in general. What would have been called a flop house decades ago. Oh, and Langur is there as well (he sublets).

When I was for a period in such a place a decade ago. Nice area, big house, large rooms, Tooting Common outside. I once woke up at the sound of commotion and, in what I will assure you is a very rare instance of physical bravery on my part, had to wrench a knife out of the hand of and restrain a mentally-ill housemate who had senselessly decided to launch an enthusiastic physical attack on a very pleasant girl who also unfortunately dwelled there. "Why don't you fuck off back to the Isle of Wight, you fucking bitch!"

Welcome to London. It's shit. The squirrel's been there. Young people note.

^ Tooting Common is not central London. No one in any of my flats is a failure, drifter, or oddball.

And get this: the following day, after a night in Wandsworth nick, the attacker was dropped back by the Met to our house. Luckily, Clare had ironically taken the advice and was indeed back on the Isle of Wight.

Happy days.

^ You may have struck unlucky, and indeed wierd flatmates can be a problem, especially in cheaper flats, in which case just move on or up because most flats are fine. My flat is really cool and I choose cool flatmates to go with it.

First night in London for me...

I did not drink as I was designated driver, unfortunately. Paid £25 to go to () club to see one of my favourite djs. At 11:30 the club was shut due to a stabbing incident. Okay, fair enough you may say. Went to club number 2, Heaven. Still no drink. Stayed there 'til about 4 in the morning, mainly because we had paid £10 to get in. Drinks were ridiculously over priced. On the walk to where we had left the car a group of hoodies decide to say hello, in not such a friendly manner. I end up getting beaten up, in hospital, unable to drive home. Might as well have had a drink.

£35 quid for tickets each
£20 quid for non-alcoholic drinks
£4 per bottle of water

Welcome to London.

Subliving.

^ Oh for goodness sake! Are we going to hear a bunch of whinges at how uncivilised London is? In my experience London's the only major city centre in Britain where you can escape from vomitting chavs spoiling for a fight, and hideously fat sluts tottering drunkenly on their stillettos, and wearing, even in the depths of winter, repulsively revealing miniskirts/boob tubes/spare-type-overhanging etc.

I was in Manchester once for a job interview with one of the big accountancy firms (incidentally the starting salary was much lower than in London). Like any recent graduate, I was dressed in my immaculate new suit. I was crossing a street when a van pulled around the corner and nearly ran me over. The girl on the passenger side (ring-through-nose, coloured hair, tattoos, etc) yelled "snob" at me. Sorry but that's just provincial (and I mean provincial in the derogatory sense here).

Well no offense Langur but you are a snob:lol: It's not necessarily a negative quality though.:)

^ Oh for goodness sake! Are we going to hear a bunch of whinges at how uncivilised London is? In my experience London's the only major city centre in Britain where you can escape from vomitting chavs spoiling for a fight, and hideously fat sluts tottering drunkenly on their stillettos, and wearing, even in the depths of winter, repulsively revealing miniskirts/boob tubes/spare-type-overhanging etc.

You obviously have a lot of London to discover then. Clearly never been to Croydon.

Well no offense Langur but you are a snob:lol: It's not necessarily a negative quality though.:)What makes you say that? Because I wear a suit to an interview? Because I think London life is better?? You don't know me. I'm not a snob. None of the things I like about about London are inaccessible or undemocratic. Any of you can move to London and any of you can have those things. This is your country, London is your capital, it all belongs to you. That's why I don't have much time for provincial resentment of London. Resentment is a form of envy, and if you envy London then you think it's better, and if you think it's better then why not just go there? The people I judge most harshly are stick-in-the-muds who have enough brains to know better.

Rubbish. Firstly £10,000 will more than make the difference.

Please stop lying, its quite funny.

To take an example. Someone on 40,000 per annum in Leeds can put 10% deposit down and get a mortgage on a £500,00k six bedroom countryside house with 3 garages, with rolling hills on your doorstep in a quaint village, 25 minutes from Leeds city centre, and will pay £2,500 per month on his mortgage (based on 4.5% interest rate, 90%LTV, 25 years repayment). That totals to £30,000 paid towards the mortgage each year.

Earning 50,000 in london (the equivelent london lawyer starting salary), and attempting to get an equivelent would be impossible. To get an equivelent six bedroom coutryside villa with 3 garages and rolling hills in an affluent commuter village around greater london will cost at a minimum 1.2million. This works out at £6,000 per month on the mortgage, and equates to £72,000 per year. :lol:


You can have a detached house with a large garden and good schools in the London suburbs (I mean a London borough - not the wider commuter belt) for £500k.

You can have that in Leeds for £200k, which means it is affordable to Jon & Sharon and their 1 child, despite them both working in a call centre on 18k each to live in an affluent tree lined suburb, with good schools, and posh cars lining the street.

To try to argue that London is as cost friendly as northern cities is ludicrous and futile. It is a well known and well sourced fact that people in the north have a higher disposible income, and it well known that london is one of the most expensive cities in the world in indices that take into account earning against the cost of living.

And even taking your example of renting one bedroom within an all-inclusive flat-share for 800pcm (like a bedsit!) - the equivelent young professionals on starting salaris in Leeds will be not be spending 800pcm on shared acomodation in a flat, they can rent their own 3 bedroom semi for that, or 2 bedroom river front apartment :)

You obviously have a lot of London to discover then. Clearly never been to Croydon.Actually I know Croydon well. I grew up in the borough next door (LB Sutton), my school was in Wallington, I worked in a nightclub in Croydon for a while, and also in an office there for six months. Yes it can be chavvy and it resembles a provincial city in that respect. However note that I did specify "city centre". Central London is not chavvy. By the way there's a fantastic tapas restaurant in Croydon, Galicia, at 269-275 High St. :)

Envy of London? No! Pity for people who don't know better. I came, saw what was on offer, and didn't see how it enhanced my life in any way. So I'm off! Back to the land of the living.

In the words of the great lyricist, Duffy, whose voice is beauty and subtlety, "I want to live, not merely survive..."

Subliving.

p.s. Duffy can go shoot herself in the throat, but that quote has a good point.

^ What makes you say that? Because I wear a suit to an interview? Because I think London life is better?? You don't know me. I'm not a snob. None of the things I like about about London are inaccessible or undemocratic. Any of you can move to London and any of you can have those things. This is your country, London is your capital, it all belongs to you. That's why I don't have much time for provincial resentment of London. Resentment is a form of envy, and if you envy London you think it's better, and if you think it's better then why not just go there? The people I judge most harshly are stick-in-the-muds who have enough brains to know better.

Most people wear suits to interviews. No, its your negative attitude to northern English cities that does it. I love London, but its not worth living there if I don't have the money to enjoy its expensive lifestyle.

Please stop lying, its quite funny.

To take an example. Someone on 40,000 per annum in Leeds can put 10% deposit down and get a mortgage on a £500,00k six bedroom countryside house with 3 garages, with rolling hills on your doorstep in a quaint village, 25 minutes from Leeds city centre, and will pay £2,500 per month on his mortgage (based on 4.5% interest rate, 90%LTV, 25 years repayment). That totals to £30,000 paid towards the mortgage each year.

Earning 50,000 in london (the equivelent london lawyer starting salary), and attempting to get an equivelent would be impossible. To get an equivelent six bedroom coutryside villa with 3 garages and rolling hills in an affluent commuter village around greater london will cost at a minimum 1.2million. This works out at £6,000 per month on the mortgage, and equates to £72,000 per year. :lol:

You can have that in Leeds for £200k, which means it is affordable to Jon & Sharon and their 1 child, despite them both working in a call centre on 18k each to live in an affluent tree lined suburb, with good schools, and posh cars lining the street.

To try to argue that London is as cost friendly as northern cities is ludicrous and futile. It is a well known and well sourced fact that people in the north have a higher disposible income, and it well known that london is one of the most expensive cities in the world in indices that take into account earning against the cost of living.

And even taking your example of renting one bedroom within an all-inclusive flat-share for 800pcm (like a bedsit!) - the equivelent young professionals on starting salaris in Leeds will be not be spending 800pcm on shared acomodation in a flat, they can rent their own 3 bedroom semi for that, or 2 bedroom river front apartment :)So £500k has suddenly become £200k right? Lol!! :laugh:

And you'd have to choose the poshest Surrey villages to pay £1.2 million. You could pay less than that, live further in, and in boroughs with some of the best schools in the country. I can't be bothered to argue about the salaries. For goodness sake PAs can earn more than £50k in London!!

Most people wear suits to interviews. No, its your negative attitude to northern English cities that does it. I love London, but its not worth living there if I don't have the money to enjoy its expensive lifestyle.I have a negative attitude to one northern English city, Manchester. Scousers are a bunch of self-pitying nostalgics with an overdeveloped sense of shared victimhood (the basis of their tribal identity) but generally I don't mind them. I actually quite like Liverpool. Your city, Glasgow, is great. It's like Liverpool but with more backbone. Having said that I don't think any of the provincial cities can match the lifestyle offerings of London, and that's hardly an unusual opinion. You can call it snobbery if you like but I think it's just honesty.

I had a better lifestyle up North on a part-time shop worker wage than I do in London, working 45 hours a week on a London-weighted salary.

Nah, not gonna convince anyone on here, I think.

Subliving.

I was in Manchester once for a job interview with one of the big accountancy firms

You were in Manchester for a job interview?

I assume you didn't get the job, which probably contributed to your hatred for Manc.

Thank god they saw sense.


incidentally the starting salary was much lower than in London

Then why didn't you go for a job in your precious Landan?


I was crossing a street when a van pulled around the corner and nearly ran me over.

Shame it was only nearly. You do know that cars in Manc drive over the Central Landan speed limit of 5mph don't you? And have you heard of pedestrian crossings or the Green Cross Code?

The girl on the passenger side (ring-through-nose, coloured hair, tattoos, etc) yelled "snob" at me. Sorry but that's just provincial (and I mean provincial in the derogatory sense here).

And there was us thinking you Landanars are 'tolerant' to all type of people.

Anyway, better to be called 'snob', than be a victim of 'stab', which is a typically 'capital' offence.

And also, if Landan is meant to be a capital city, why is it full of provincial people.

pro·vin·cial (pr-vnshl)
adj.
3. Limited in perspective; narrow and self-centered.

Langur = Provincial.

I had a better lifestyle up North on a part-time shop worker wage than I do in London, working 45 hours a week on a London-weighted salary.

Nah, not gonna convince anyone on here, I think.

Subliving.Many of the London forumers moved here from somewhere else. Why not ask them if they want to move to Leeds or wherever? I'm unusual in being a London forumer that pays any attention to provincial cities. Most Londoners simply don't give a damn. Places like Leeds are, I'm sorry to say, an irrelevance to them. Most foreigners who move here don't give a damn about them either. They move to London in hundreds of thousands but would never consider living in Leeds. I don't blame them. An EU passport offers you London, Paris, Rome, Barcelona, Berlin, Prague, etc by right and with zero paperwork or restrictions. The best part of this wonderful continent of Europe is your oyster. So why choose Leeds? :dunno:

EU passport offers you Paris, Rome, Barcelona, Berlin, Prague, etc by right and with zero paperwork or restrictions. The best part of this wonderful continent of Europe is your oyster. So why choose London? :dunno:

:)

Most Londoners simply don't give a damn.

pro·vin·cial (pr-vnshl)
adj.
3. Limited in perspective; narrow and self-centered.

You were in Manchester for a job interview?

I assume you didn't get the job, which probably contributed to your hatred for Manc.

Thank god they saw sense.

Then why didn't you go for a job in your precious Landan?I did. I found a better paid and more interesting job in London so I rejected the one in Manchester.And also, if Landan is meant to be a capital city, why is it full of provincial people.

pro·vin·cial (pr-vnshl)
adj.
3. Limited in perspective; narrow and self-centered.

Langur = Provincial.It isn't. London's the least provincial place on earth, and I'm not provincial at all.

:)

Because the whole world is on your doorstep.

:)Because it's the biggest, fastest, freest, most diverse, and most exciting city in Europe/the world. It offers the best opportunities in both career and culture.

There's more overseas destinations from Manchester than Heathrow.

And you can get a train to London in 2 hrs anyway, hardly a lifetime.

The majority of the UK is accessible to the world and vice-versa, this is the 21st century after all.

I could have a Latte in Italy, a Tapas in Spain and a Full english in my local cafe anyday of the week.

^ When he says "the whole world is on your doorstep" I think he's talking about London itself - the most culturally diverse city on earth.

^ Thats right.

Earth is the most culturally diverse location in the known inhabited universe, but it doesn't stop us looking elsewhere.

Anyway, as a good traveller knows, the best finds and real gems are where you least expect to find them, off the beaten track and not overrun with tourists.

And don't forget, the rest of the UK is on your doorstep, where various accents, landscapes, cuisines, architecture, history and culture exist.

We were a mongel nation, long before London was capital.

^ I'm not trying to dictate people's choices. Everyone's free to live where they want. However I object to people making up myths about London. One of the most common myths is that London's lifestyle is unaffordable to all but a tiny elite (most of whom aren't so elite) earning the megabucks in the City. Sorry but that's just bollocks.

That's true,

There isn't a London 'lifestyle' as such, as long as you live a sensible lifestyle, you can live anywhere, you can just be a bit more eccentric with megabucks I guess.

But people make up myths about many places. You included. Now you know how we feel.

^ Fair enough, but this is the city-bashing thread. ;)

Now where's that article about the chimneys they want to build at Manchester airport? :laugh:

So tall, they'll put the Burj Dubai to shame. :)

Go on then, continue if you must!

^ When he says "the whole world is on your doorstep" I think he's talking about London itself - the most culturally diverse city on earth.

Not strictly true. Leicester is apparently the most diverse place in the UK, more diverse than London. Therefore the most diverse place on Earth?

http://www.raceforhealth.org/resources/case_studies/leicester_city

;)

Subliving.

^ Having the majority of people from non-white backgrounds does not make Leicester more diverse than London - especially given that most of the non-whites come from one large group with the same cultural background (ie British Indians). They did a survey of London's schoolchildren a few years ago and found that they spoke more than 300 languages. That's diverse.... :)

400 actually. But I was being cynical. Apparently the title for most diverse place on earth is between Toronto, NYC, LA and London. No one can make up their mind. Meh, Who cares. The UK in general is probably the most culturally integrated country in the world, that's surely all that matters.

Subliving.

^ The 300 figure is all over Google but not 400. Where did you get that from?

I didn't think you'd argue with that one!

Found it on a couple of search pages when I was looking for the most culturally diverse city on Earth. ;) Thought it might bring a smile to your face.

Alternatively, wiki suggests it's as low as 55 living languages.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_different_languages_are_spoken_in_London

Subliving.

You can't go down the multi-cultural route. Most of urban Britain is very multi-cultural. Its incredibly provincial, parochial and just ignorant to think London is the exception here. In Manchester (these are the only stats i could find) there are 130 languages spoken in schools. Inner city Manchester is probably less than 50% white British.

http://www.rss.org.uk/rssadmin/uploads/580325_HtC%20John%20Bradley%20presentation.pdf

I said a large room in a large flat. I didn't say a large flat. And maybe it's Wiggley's job up in Leeds but he obviously doesn't know what the f*** he's talking about in London. And I won't link to my website for reasons of privacy.

Bit pointless having a website if you don't want anyone to log on to it. :dunno:

^ I'm not trying to dictate people's choices. Everyone's free to live where they want. However I object to people making up myths about London. One of the most common myths is that London's lifestyle is unaffordable to all but a tiny elite (most of whom aren't so elite) earning the megabucks in the City. Sorry but that's just bollocks.


you object to people making up myths... o dear, just brilliant that one mate.

Milan was the best I've been on, by far the cheapest I've ever seen

Heh, you've never been on the Shanghai Metro then - dirt cheap!

I found Barcelona's Metro to be pretty clean, efficicent and cheap. I did notice though that you have to go in specific entrances to get to specific platforms- if you go down the wrong side then you can't get out to go back in to the other platform because it thinks you're passing the ticket over the barrier for someone else to use.

I also have noticed the distinct lack of escalators on other metro networks- is it only London where escalators are present on nearly every station?

I also have noticed the distinct lack of escalators on other metro networks- is it only London where escalators are present on nearly every station?

From what I remember, most stations of the Budapest metro had escalators, except for Line 1 (which is the second oldest underground line in the world), which only had stairs. cool stations though

I also have noticed the distinct lack of escalators on other metro networks- is it only London where escalators are present on nearly every station?

As somebody who frequently has to lug heavy wheeled cases about, I always find the London Underground to be absolutely ATROCIOUS in providing escalator/lift access all the way to the surface - Shanghai and Hong Kong were fantastic for this. It's pretty bad that disabled people can only use a tiny handful of Underground stations because so many of them don't have a lift. Even more annoying that lots of stations have escalators up to a certain level, but then the last leg is just steps!

britain is not a racially diverse country. fuck sakes, your country is more than 90% "white". and the fact that you all argue about which of your cities has a larger collection of quaint ethnics is just plain disgusting. you are treating them like animals in a zoo, or your pokemon collection.

truly integrated places just carry on their business without patting themselves on the back everytime they encounter a punjabi, mexican, filipino, or kenyan.

britain/europe are more along the likes of chicago, nyc, and boston, where whites go around bathing in self-righteousness for the mere fact that they rode in the same elevator as a black guy, or because they bought some pastries from a turkish vendor on their way home. i wonder if you lot could ever try not noticing somebody's race, and treat them like an individual.

Britain is a very racially diverse country.

How can you look at groups as individuals? Why is it wrong to notice groups as different and appreciate that?

britain is not a racially diverse country. fuck sakes, your country is more than 90% "white". and the fact that you all argue about which of your cities has a larger collection of quaint ethnics is just plain disgusting. you are treating them like animals in a zoo, or your pokemon collection.

truly integrated places just carry on their business without patting themselves on the back everytime they encounter a punjabi, mexican, filipino, or kenyan.

britain/europe are more along the likes of chicago, nyc, and boston, where whites go around bathing in self-righteousness for the mere fact that they rode in the same elevator as a black guy, or because they bought some pastries from a turkish vendor on their way home. i wonder if you lot could ever try not noticing somebody's race, and treat them like an individual.

this discussion is about multi-cultural, not multi-racial, environments. hence the emphasis on languages spoken. as langur says, having more 'non-whites' (as in Leicester) doesn't equate to a more culturally diverse landscape. many of london's migrants are white - italian, poles, estonians, albanians, aussies, argentines etc. the colour of someone's skin is unimportant here. it is YOU who has this sudden interest in the "racially diverse", generalising about whole populations by talking about "you lot" or "where whites go around" . it seems that you are the one with the unhealthy interest in race. :ohno:

so as we say in England. piss off. racist. :)

From what I remember, most stations of the Budapest metro had escalators, except for Line 1 (which is the second oldest underground line in the world), which only had stairs. cool stations though

and Moscow. Liverpool's tiny underground has escalators, and where these are not available, lifts, like the old deep stations on the east end lines in London.

britain is not a racially diverse country. fuck sakes, your country is more than 90% "white". and the fact that you all argue about which of your cities has a larger collection of quaint ethnics is just plain disgusting. you are treating them like animals in a zoo, or your pokemon collection.

truly integrated places just carry on their business without patting themselves on the back everytime they encounter a punjabi, mexican, filipino, or kenyan.

britain/europe are more along the likes of chicago, nyc, and boston, where whites go around bathing in self-righteousness for the mere fact that they rode in the same elevator as a black guy, or because they bought some pastries from a turkish vendor on their way home. i wonder if you lot could ever try not noticing somebody's race, and treat them like an individual.

good points.. the tick box mentality of PC-ness, as engendered by nulabour over recent years.

britain is not a racially diverse country. fuck sakes, your country is more than 90% "white". and the fact that you all argue about which of your cities has a larger collection of quaint ethnics is just plain disgusting. you are treating them like animals in a zoo, or your pokemon collection.

truly integrated places just carry on their business without patting themselves on the back everytime they encounter a punjabi, mexican, filipino, or kenyan.

britain/europe are more along the likes of chicago, nyc, and boston, where whites go around bathing in self-righteousness for the mere fact that they rode in the same elevator as a black guy, or because they bought some pastries from a turkish vendor on their way home. i wonder if you lot could ever try not noticing somebody's race, and treat them like an individual.You are wrong. Britain is more than 10% non-white. The English countryside is indeed overwhelmingly white and British, but most of inner London is either foreign or ethnic minority. London's minority populations alone are double the entire population of Hawaii. London's airports handle 140 million passengers per year (far more than 2nd ranked New York) and 90% of the traffic is international (again that is orders of magnitide ahead of, say, New York or LA). This is the most globalised and diverse city on earth.

It's still shit though.

^ No it's not. It's beautiful, magnificent, incredibly varied, rich in history, thrilling, and alive. The opportunities to make money or pursue culture are unparalleled. That's why it's the greatest city on earth.

Fucking hell. I was there last Friday. It that's the best city, I'm relocating to Emmerdale Farm.

^ No it's not. It's beautiful, magnificent, incredibly varied, rich in history, thrilling, and alive. The opportunities to make money or pursue culture are unparalleled. That's why it's the greatest city on earth.

It also has 650,000 children living in poverty, a much greater percentage than the English average.

It also has 650,000 children living in poverty, a much greater percentage than the English average.Oh bullshit. What definition of poverty is that? Is it one of those ridiculous measures whereby if you/your family has less than a certain percentage of the local average then you're somehow "poor"? :|

Oh bullshit. What definition of poverty is that? Is it one of those ridiculous measures whereby if you/your family has less than a certain percentage of the local average then you're somehow "poor"? :|

http://213.86.122.139/

This is reality, not the phoney, archetypical nonsense reinforcing guff peddled by Enfield, and clearly swallowed hook, line and sinker by gullible people like you.

^ It's not "reality" at all. It's exactly what I suspected. I clicked your link and within seconds I found that it indeed defines poverty relative to an average. That means that if a group of billionaire Russian tycoons or Arab sheikhs move to London they automatically increase the child poverty rate. What total arsewipe!

:toilet: :toilet: :toilet:

Complain to the author, not me. It's there for all to see.

London's airports handle 140 million passengers per year (far more than 2nd ranked New York) and 90% of the traffic is international (again that is orders of magnitide ahead of, say, New York or LA). This is the most globalised and diverse city on earth.

The amount of people using an airport does not equal diversity...

The amount of people using an airport does not equal diversity...Not by itself, but it does accurately measure a city's "connectedness" to the outside world. Busy international air traffic consists of people after all. Of course many are Britons doing business or going on holiday (though that itself indicates one form of global "connectedness") but it also counts foreign businessmen, tourists, students, migrants, visiting relatives (whether coming or going), the whole shebang! There are a huge number of foreigners passing through London at any given time. It is the crossroads of the world, and of course that contributes substantially to its status as the world's most globalised, diverse, and internationally connected city. I was at Heathrow just this morning. It's seems like half the world is passing through there.

^ It's not "reality" at all. It's exactly what I suspected. I clicked your link and within seconds I found that it indeed defines poverty relative to an average. That means that if a group of billionaire Russian tycoons or Arab sheikhs move to London they automatically increase the child poverty rate. What total arsewipe!

:toilet: :toilet: :toilet:

Just like the average wage in London for the majority is pretty much the same as the rest of the england. It is just that a small but significant number of tycoons, millionairs, and city bankers skew the averages. If you get a job working at Barclays bank in greater london, or Barclays Leeds, you'll be getting the same wage. The difference is in London, living costs are twice as much, and so your quality of life is half as good :( - The ability to have a much larger home, in a safer more affluent and greener environment, with good schools, low crime, and low deprivation means much more than being 30 minutes away from the national history musuem (which you'll only visit one, or twice in your life anyway). :)

Theres no National History Museum in London.

Just like the average wage in London for the majority is pretty much the same as the rest of the england. It is just that a small but significant number of tycoons, millionairs, and city bankers skew the averages. If you get a job working at Barclays bank in greater london, or Barclays Leeds, you'll be getting the same wage. The difference is in London, living costs are twice as much, and so your quality of life is half as good :( - The ability to have a much larger home, in a safer more affluent and greener environment, with good schools, low crime, and low deprivation means much more than being 30 minutes away from the national history musuem (which you'll only visit one, or twice in your life anyway). :)I find your museums argument totally bizarre. Is that really the only advantage you can can see to living in London over Leeds? :dunno:

I find your museums argument totally bizarre. Is that really the only advantage you can can see to living in London over Leeds? :dunno:

no... I see many small advantages.. but none of them outweighs the one that affects you every day, your overall quality of life which tallies with disposible income. Moreover, a list things that are accessible by proximity is also meaningless. For example, london may have the 5 most expensive restaurants in the UK, but it bears no effect on my daily quality of life. Yes, if I lived in london, I will have "access" to them.. but how many of the 10 million people in london have actually visited those 5 restaurants. :)

Yes, if you live in london you have access to an array of cultural offerings in the city centre that surpasses the regional cities, but do they effect your daily life. If having musuems and some top restaurants 25 minutes away means moving from a 250k detatched home with extensive gardens, tree lined streets, in an affluent area, with jags and porshes lining the street, with great schools and low crime and low deprivation thats 8 minutes away from a bustling city centre with all its amenities, to move to a 250k terraced house in a deprived multi-ethnic area of greater london, with high crime, poor schools, high deprivation, and a 40 minute commute to work - then you can keep it :) It is why the rich who work in London move as far away from london as possible and live in the home counties.

It is subjective though. For some, living in london and having access to such cultural offerings, and being in a city with people from all around the world (and the associated vibrancy that offers) is worth the sacrifice on quality of life. But for me, it is not. It is only when you do get a chance to experience a better quality of life that you find you really wouldnt want to give that up. You have to have lived in London, and then lived in a northern city with its associated greater disposible income to appreciate this. This is one reason why uk-resident british nationals are actively moving to places like Leeds and Manchester, whilst moving out in their droves in London.

Depends what job you do, but for normal people London weighting on salaries isn't THAT much more (e.g. a teacher earns about £4k more in London, all of which will be going towards making up for the higher cost of living). Mates of mine in graduate jobs in things like insurance, Deloitte etc prefer to pay for an overpriced rail ticket and commute than have to live somewhere crap in London for a hell of a lot more money.

no... I see many small advantages.. but none of them outweighs the one that affects you every day, your overall quality of life which tallies with disposible income. Moreover, a list things that are accessible by proximity is also meaningless. For example, london may have the 5 most expensive restaurants in the UK, but it bears no effect on my daily quality of life. Yes, if I lived in london, I will have "access" to them.. but how many of the 10 million people in london have actually visited those 5 restaurants. :)

Yes, if you live in london you have access to an array of cultural offerings in the city centre that surpasses the regional cities, but do they effect your daily life. If having musuems and some top restaurants 25 minutes away means moving from a 250k detatched home with extensive gardens, tree lined streets, in an affluent area, with jags and porshes lining the street, with great schools and low crime and low deprivation thats 8 minutes away from a bustling city centre with all its amenities, to move to a 250k terraced house in a deprived multi-ethnic area of greater london, with high crime, poor schools, high deprivation, and a 40 minute commute to work - then you can keep it :) It is why the rich who work in London move as far away from london as possible and live in the home counties.

It is subjective though. For some, living in london and having access to such cultural offerings, and being in a city with people from all around the world (and the associated vibrancy that offers) is worth the sacrifice on quality of life. But for me, it is not. It is only when you do get a chance to experience a better quality of life that you find you really wouldnt want to give that up. You have to have lived in London, and then lived in a northern city with its associated greater disposible income to appreciate this. This is one reason why uk-resident british nationals are actively moving to places like Leeds and Manchester, whilst moving out in their droves in London.You have a completely suburban mentality and no appreciation of urban life. "The rich who work in London" do not all live in the home counties. What about central areas like Mayfair, Belgravia, St James's, Kensington, Knightsbridge, Chelsea, Notting Hill, Holland Park, Bayswater, Marylebone, Fitzrovia, Bloomsbury? What about people who live in wealthy inner suburbs like Hampstead, Highgate, Swiss Cottage, St John's Wood, Maida Vale, Earl's Court, Fulham, Chiswick?? You claim to be from London originally but your knowledge of it seems remarkably poor. And dining in a Michelin starred restaurant (of which there are 40-something in London) can cost as little as £25 per head, about the same as many chain restaurants. Now if London weighting gives you an extra 4k for teaching, and that's swallowed up by London's higher living costs (as I believe it is), then that leaves you on level pegging in terms of disposable income with a teacher in Leeds, and yet in London you get to enjoy one of the greatest cities in the world and not, well, Leeds. Professionals moving out of London are normally going only as far as the home counties. They do that when they have kids and have tired of city life. Sadly you seem to have this middle-aged mentality even though you're still young and unmarried.

Suburbs are the most urban part of the city as they were created by the city itself.

You have a completely suburban mentality and no appreciation of urban life. "The rich who work in London" do not all live in the home counties. What about central areas like Mayfair

6 bedroom town houses in mayfair cost a hell of a lot more than 6 bedroom detatched homes in home county commuter village. Those who live in 6 bedroom houses in mayfair are not "the rich", they are the uber rich, and most likely foreign too.

Now if London weighting gives you an extra 4k for teaching, and that's swallowed up by London's higher living costs (as I believe it is), then that leaves you on level pegging in terms of disposable income with a teacher in Leeds

:lol: No my friend, the extra £4k contributes just a small amount to the higher living costs. I've already given you plenty of examples, that show the equivelent house and area with associated lifestyle costs more than twice as much, meaning your wage would have to be twice as much, not £4k lol.

Professionals moving out of London are normally going only as far as the home counties. They do that when they have kids and have tired of city life. Sadly you seem to have this middle-aged mentality even though you're still young and unmarried.

you're missing the point here. In northen cities you can have the best of both worlds. Suburbia and tranquility away from city life is only 5-10 minutes away from the city centre, meaning you can enjoy the best of both worlds - live minutes from a large urban centre with all its amenities, pace, and buzz, but also be in surroundings that are only possible when you live quite far out of london in the home counties. And if you do want total city centre urban life.. with your own 1 bedroom apartment, overlooking the riverfront, and minutes from your work, and minutes from all the entertainment, again, you can do that on a call centre wage...(such apartments rent for 450pcm), not having to be on 50k per year (such waterfront apartments rent for +2000pcm)

The vast majority of London streets are quiet and tranquil, the vast majority of London is suburbia, from Parson's Green to Golder's Green, Denmark Hill to Shooter's Hill and here overlooking the Heath on Highgate Hill.

^^

The issue of contention was that there are those who escape london and city life by moving to the home countines to quiet commuter villages, not just to "escape city life" but actually get somewhere that meets their livability requierments without costing 7 million pounds for a 5 bedroom home in a mayfair. Yes, they'll get the same in hampstead for just 1.5 million, but they could also get the same in a home county commuter village for 1 million. Even those on low wages, who dont want to make sacrifices to their living standards and house share in a deprived area may find themselves commuting from harold hill, or upminster where they have their own 3 bed semi in a decent area.

And to go back to the 4k London weighting for teachers. Just to give an example of why 4k doesnt cut it..

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh78/danlad/hampstead.jpg

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh78/danlad/roundhay.jpg

And at street level,

The Roundhay street:
http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh78/danlad/roundhay2.jpg

Hampstead home; that street doesnt look too bad if you ignore the council tower block in sight..
http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh78/danlad/hampstead2.jpg

but look what is on the other side of the road
http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh78/danlad/hampstead3.jpg

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh78/danlad/hampstead3.jpg[/IMG]

It's not pretty, but it isn't automatically a rough council estate. It's probably just sheltered accommodation for old folks.

i agree... it wont be "rough".. it will be old people, but its not pretty, and I certainly wouldnt want to be working 60 hours a week in a managerial position, on 75k a year, whilst my partner worked as a teacher full time too, both of us still struggling to afford the mortgage payments for such a 1.5 million quid home, with little time or cash to raise kids, or enjoy london's cultural offerings. I'd rather take a cut in wages, do the same managerial job in leeds, on just 50k.. my partner can quit her teaching drop completely as their would be no financial neccesity. My own hours at work wouldnt be as demanding either, dropping down to 40 hours. And we'd have the same type of house as we would have had in hampstead.. altho arguabley nicer, given the photos. We'd also have much more free time, and much more free cash to enjoy a better quality of life, and my commute to work would be quicker too. And when we were bored of spending all this extra free time enjoying the attractions and entertainment in Leeds, we'd actually have the time and money to afford weekends away, in hotel rooms, sometimes even in London ;)

Upminster and Harold Hill are in London

Upminster and Harold Hill are in London

exactly.. the furthest points out of central london, eastwards, and actually in essex, right out in the sticks.

from harold wood, 35 minutes on the train just to london liverpool street. And then around a further 30 minutes faffing from the train, to the underground part, to pick up a tube, and reach the desired work area within central london via tube.

An hour and 5 minutes commute. That's the same travelling time as leicester to st pancreas :ohno:

exactly.. the furthest points out of central london, eastwards, and actually in essex, right out in the sticks.


They're in London, get a One Railway or a C2C train. most people who live there work in the City, and walk to Liverpool St or Fenchurch St.

They're in London, get a One Railway or a C2C train. most people who live there work in the City, and walk to Liverpool St or Fenchurch St.

As already said.. they are the furtherst points out of central london, in essex ( yes they may be administered by havering London borough, but most people appreciate administrative boundaries to not always bear resemblance to what people idenitfy as localities). Either way, it doesnt detract from the point asserted.

You'll also find most people who live in places like romford actually work in romford or the surrounding area. Over 95% of people who live in havering borough do not work in central london, be it the city, or canary wharf. Infact most people within greater london work, live, and play within the crappy local CBD of their area they live in, only occasionally going into central london. Have a look at TTWA commuting patterns for the boroughs. Its quite shocking how unconnected greater london is in terms of commuter flows.

Anyway, looking at romford.. a not salubrious area by all accounts, £400k gets a 4 bed detatched too... but its vile :(

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh78/danlad/romford.jpg

That said.. the cheapest 4 bedroom detatched on rightmove located in Hackney (one of the most deprived areas in the UK) goes for 550k. Rather you than me.

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh78/danlad/hackney.jpg

This arguments pathetic. London is clearly a far better place to live than Leeds. Id take the crap parts of London over the best parts of Leeds anyday just to be in London ahead of Leeds. London has everything (and more) anybody could ever want in a city. Leeds is... Leeds. Its shit.

And clearly many millions of people choose London over Leeds.

wiggley you're only really looking at the number of bedrooms! A dilapidated 4 bedroom house with no plumbing, electricity and crumbling damp walls in Leeds is likely to be cheaper than a 4 bedroom house just refurbished with designer kitchen, bathrooms etc in W1... let's face it


I disagree Pompey77, on the grounds that you probably haven't visited Leeds! There are some lovely and horrible parts to live in both cities.

London obviously wins on culture, but, when it comes to things like going shopping... is Morrisons/Marks and Spencer any better in London than it is in Leeds? Not really. A supermarket's a supermarket. Leeds has most of the big name high street shops that London has so shopping for clothes/gadgets isn't really any different. Is the toilet paper smoother in London or something? The bacon tastier? The tap water nicer?

I really don't see the problem with living in Leeds in a modern city centre apartment and getting the train down to London for cultural events. If you want to live in a council house on the outskirts of London for the same purpose then go for it - but I wouldn't!

This arguments pathetic.

erm, if you say so.

London is clearly a far better place to live than Leeds.


keep beleiving the hype. When you've lived in london for 15 years, and lived in a regional city for 10 years, you get to appreciate the advantages and disadvantages.

Id take the crap parts of London over the best parts of Leeds anyday just to be in London ahead of Leeds.

exactly.. just to say "i live in london". Despite a severe decrease in liveability and quality of life. You sound like my Dad. "Why dont you come back to London.. what are you doing up north in the middle of nowhere.. london is the centre of the world, you should be back here! The heart of London is just up the road, you dont wanna stay in some shitty small town up north"!. What my dad doesnt seem to understand is that he lives in Ilford, in east london / essex, which has its own small CBD. He lives in ilford, he works in ilford, he and his friends usually go out round town in Ilford, or to restaurants in ilford. Yes, central london may be 35 minutes away on the train/tube... but so what if 95% of your life doesnt involve going there. Ilford is a deprived multi-ethnic inner east london area.. with rows and rows of terraced houses (that cost about 350k each!), much of which has been converted into bed sits for people who beleive the roads are paved of gold in london (of which my dad rents many of these out to these people who sadly end up living in these converted bedsit flats miles out of central london as it is all they can afford comparative to their job in London. And incidently, one guy, who has the basement lives there with his wife, and he is a doctor! Still, at least they can say they live in London.

London has everything (and more) anybody could ever want in a city. Leeds is... Leeds. Its shit.

Very true.. london has everything.. but very few are in a position to have all of that everything. But that doesnt matter.. you may live in a shit tip, with a long commute, in some of the most deprived areas of the country, and cant afford or have the time to take advantage of all the extra things london offers over regional cities.. but who cares.. at least its there ;)

And clearly many millions of people choose London over Leeds.

According to ONS figures, Leeds saw higher population growth than London. Leeds & Manchester grew the highest out of the regionals. Obviously somethings a miss with ONS figures, but on reading the methodology, ONS figures dont take into account migrant workers who have stayed less than a year, and so really the figures only look at UK nationals with UK residence. What it does show is that out of those people, London's population fell.

Cities such as Leeds and manchester have a population increase of people from other areas of the UK moving to the city. London had a population decrease.

Incidently.. I went up to Leeds uni (like many do - Manchester & Leeds are the most popular uni choices in the UK).. whilst many of my mates stayed at London unis. When I used to go down to visit them.. we'd go out, hit the west end, clubbing.. and well it just lacks the vibe you get from more compact and much more high-proportionate university cities where whole city centre districs become crammed with uni students hitting town on a night out.

:sleepy:

I'll settle this debate since everyones fed up of it.

Sheffield kicks both Londons and Leeds butts!

Shhh... Portsmouth doesn't exactly have a great reputation itself!

Sheffield kicks both Londons and Leeds butts!

Who's Sheffield? :dunno:


;)

Shhh... Portsmouth doesn't exactly have a great reputation itself!

Well I’m not desperate to convince people its better than London. I’m just saying Leeds isn’t.

Can I see the stats that London has seen a population decrease please?

The tap water nicer?

Tap water in London is terrible; there is a definite difference. I expect people who have lived in London all their life don't notice it, but having lived in several parts of the UK, I can taste a massive difference between Yorkshire water and London water. The water quality in the north is significantly better than in the south.

The best tap water is in Birmingham and our teeth are the best too because of the flouride in it.

Actually the Tap water in Leeds was some of the worst tasting stuff I've ever, err. tasted. Maybe I just like it soft. Or hard, I can never remember how it works..

The stuff in London was always 'warm' :shifty:

I prefered the tap water back in london. I think it is too soft here or something, because.. well, it doesnt wash of certain things that get stuck on your body :shifty: it tends to make those certain things go all sticky and globule like rather than just washing it off :shifty: Sorry, but its true!

Yorkshire water is very soft in general, nowhere near as good as that in Scotland, but still beautiful. I always make sure I take a big bottle of it (for my skincare routine) back to London when I've been for a visit!

Subliving.

Here we go! Who's soft and who's not:-

http://www.stormwaterproofing.com/STROMMAP.jpg

http://www.water-softening.org.uk/images/hard_water_map.gif

I'm confused, so if Leeds is in a soft water bit, ie less calcium and stuff in it, how comes it tastes funny?

You're probably just not used to the taste maybe? It took me ages to get used to London water, and when I go to Scotland, even though its softer it tastes weird to me.

Subliving.

I'm confused, so if Leeds is in a soft water bit, ie less calcium and stuff in it, how comes it tastes funny?

coz it tastes of water and the very subtle hint of natural earth, rather than chlorine and chemical shit like in london :dunno:

i personally dont notice any diference. but then drink lots of bottle water.

Buy it.


http://www.thenibble.com/REVIEWS/nutri/snacks/images/san-pellegrino-230.jpg

You won't drink tap water ever again.

Costco Wholesale. 12 bottles for £8. Normally £1 at Tesco's, Asda, etc.

is that the fizzy one?

is that the fizzy one?

I Wiggs. You won't feel bloated like you do from the other cheaper carbonated waters. I go through a case a week. Love it. Best served cold or chilled. Served in all the best Italian restaurants.

i always used to drink that.. coz its the only one that aint carbonated. its naturally fizzy (lightly sparklin).

i always used to drink that.. coz its the only one that aint carbonated. its naturally fizzy (lightly sparklin).

Correct that man. :cheers:

so next time im out round mancs, and i spot a geezer drinking that stuf, it wil be youuuu :)

Harrogate Spa Water is ph 7.0 dead on. Most water is not quite 7. I don't think water in this area has much of a taste- which is good; water should be tasteless. And although I have become used to it now, I still noticed its better quality when I moved from the South.

Well I’m not desperate to convince people its better than London. I’m just saying Leeds isn’t.

And I'd agree. Wiggley gets little crusades going in his head sometimes though ;)

San Pellegrino? Rip off!!

Can I see the stats that London has seen a population decrease please?It hasn't. It has grown. However the British population has decreased as people move to the suburbs beyond. It reflects the higher age profile of the British population more than anything else.

The rest of Wiggley's points are ridiculous. He finds an ugly overpriced house in Romford. Why not an attractive house in a nice ex-Surrey or ex-Kent suburb in Greater London? You could get one for the same price, or not much more, and in a nicer area with much better schools. I think prices are a very good measure. You get what you pay for. Houses costs less in Leeds because the city is not as good and neither are the opportunities to earn money. This talk of the 4k London weighting for a teacher's starting salary misses the point that average salaries for private sector jobs (ie the majority) show a much larger differential. And because there's a much higher turnover of staff through London offices, then promotion prospects in London are faster, and the upper limits much higher. There are loads of people with average degrees from average universities earning silly money in the City. His characterisation of wealthy areas in West or North London as "uber-rich" ignores the reality that most of the people that live there are young and not especially rich. They live in flatshares and apartments and enjoy a real cool urban lifestyle, something Wiggley obviously doesn't understand. This is especially evident when he talks of "all the amentities of a buzzing city". Is that his way of making central London and Leeds equal somehow? Because they both have a Gap, H&M, Zara, Ikea, Odeon cinema, Pizza Express, Zizzi etc all selling the same things? And the only difference is "culture" (defined as musuems or the theatre or whatever) which can be enjoyed equally well from Leeds by means of occasional excursions to London?? The truth is you're a dull cultureless suburbanite Wiggley. You don't appreciate cities or urban life. So off to Leeds with you. Whilst you're at it Wiggley, Australia has some even duller suburbs surrounding even duller cities. The houses are bigger and cheaper and the weather's better too. The kind of people who dream of life in those dull-arse suburbs and cities always struck me as being particularly unimaginative, uncultured, and boring. Why else would they actively seek out such a dull existance? "Living standards" is the universal answer. Call me old-fashioned, a snob, or whatever, but I happen to think that part of "living standards" includes things like cultural excitement, drama, stimulation, beauty etc. That's why you won't catch me swapping the thrills of London life for the drudgery of suburban Leeds or Perth.

And I'd agree. Wiggley gets little crusades going in his head sometimes though ;)

No one is "desperate to show leeds is better than london" - if you had some intelligence and read through my posts you would see this.

I was disagreeing with Langurs sweeping almost odious and patronizing statements that London is superior to provincial cities in every single way. The very factual reality is that provincial cities offer better quality of life and liveability and greater disposibal income, and most importantly they offer that to the massses( in just the same way as the reasons why people move to Oz). Having some great theatres, and a harrods 40 minutes away on the tube doesnt increase your quality of life if you have had to downgrade to living in lewisham and working in lewisham, with high crime, high deprivation, and in a crappy bedsit because you are priced out of anything else, whilst working in lewisham town centre CBD 5 days a week, and eating out in lewisham round the corner from work, going to bars round the corner from work too. This isnt the quality of life i'd ever want.

If showing that Langurs assertions are indeed wrong mean I am "desperate to proove Leeds is better than London" (which is quite frankly an absurd suggestion).. then more fool you for being a bit thick.

He finds an ugly overpriced house in Romford.

No, I found the ony 4 bed detatched property that was closest to £399,000 (the same as the Leeds property).


Why not an attractive house in a nice ex-Surrey or ex-Kent suburb in Greater London?

Because the cost more. A lot more, for ones in nice areas with much better schools.

You could get one for the same price, or not much more, and in a nicer area with much better schools. I think prices are a very good measure. You get what you pay for.

You have just contradicted yourself there. If you get what you pay for, attractive 4 bed detatched houses in surrey with better schools in much nicer areas will indeed cost more.

Houses costs less in Leeds because the city is not as good and neither are the opportunities to earn money.

No. Houses are disproportionately high in London because most people buying up property in london are very rich foreigners who will pay silly money. This has pushed prices up to unnatural levels in a very artificial way. As these properties and areas become full, this displaces the majority of middle earners.. u know, those who work in banks, as secrataries in offices, school teachers, call centre workers, book keepers, accountants, ie, the majority of workers in london, who find it much harder to compete with these rich foreigners when bidding for property. Moreover, saturated urban land, with little left for continued development will indeed push prices up as people compete for locations.

This talk of the 4k London weighting for a teacher's starting salary misses the point that average salaries for private sector jobs (ie the majority) show a much larger differential.

No they dont. Like for like jobs are actually shockingly the same wage, or just a little bit more. My mum is an accountant who worked in tower hill, and moved to leeds, now working on in st pauls place, wages are not too different. My mum is basically loaded now lol. Plus she has a nicer place, and goes away a lot on holidays. She only just took a year out travelling round south east asia and australia. When she lived in london, she worked longer hours, and all her cash went towards paying for a hefty mortgage.

*average* wages are higher in London because the span of wages in london includes many super high earners, and company directors who earn millions a year. These wages skew the average wages. A bank manager working at the hsbc Roundhay branch in Leeds, earns just a few thousand pounds less than a bank manager at the Hampstead branch.

You are also forgetting that the majority working in the service sector, and for the middle and lower portion of this sector, wages are generally low. Staff at tesco express in london branches earn the same as those in Leeds. All the 100s of thousands of staff in shops, cafes, bars, restaurants, earn very poor wages, that only just cover their bedsit. They'd be in city centre riverfront apartments for the same in northern cities. lol.

There are loads of people with average degrees from average universities earning silly money in the City.

Of course they are, but this only makes up a tiny proportion of the 10 million who live in london.

His characterisation of wealthy areas in West or North London as "uber-rich" ignores the reality that most of the people that live there are young and not especially rich.

No, the comparison was looking at 4 bedroom detatched homes. 4 Bed detatched homes in such areas will be uber-rich foreigners.

live in flatshares and apartments and enjoy a real cool urban lifestyle, something Wiggley obviously doesn't understand.

I understand very well. I'm just providing a reality check. What do these people with this cool urban lifestyle do? It's a bit of a fantasy. 90% of people on these forums, those who live in london too, will have taken a commute into work today, done their 8 hour shift... then come home, and stuck the telly on, or logged into SSC. At best, some will have had a couple of beers after work in the locality where they worked. 1, or 2, may arrange to be going for a movie tonight, most probably in their local area, not central london. Where is the cool urban lifestyle.. can you explain it to me? Because I suspect, the only way you can explain a cool urban lifestyle that by explaining a lifestyle based on asipration rather than the reality of most people.


you're a dull cultureless suburbanite Wiggley. You don't appreciate cities or urban life. So off to Leeds with you. Whilst you're at it Wiggley, Australia has some even duller suburbs surrounding even duller cities. The houses are bigger and cheaper and the weather's better too. The kind of people who dream of life in those dull-arse suburbs and cities always struck me as being particularly unimaginative, uncultured, and boring. Why else would they actively seek out such a dull existance? "Living standards" is the universal answer. Call me old-fashioned, a snob, or whatever, but I happen to think that part of "living standards" includes things like cultural excitement, drama, stimulation, beauty etc. That's why you won't catch me swapping the thrills of London life for the drudgery of suburban Leeds or Perth.

you have just unwittingley agreed with me here. London's offerings is only advantageous to *some* people.. those who want a certain kind of lifestyle, usually young transient groups, such as european immigrants such as italians who temporrarily want to experience a fast paced urban lifestyle, or just the young in general. As soon as people move on from that phase in their life.. london becomes much less favourable, and other cities offer what these people want more so. It is certainly something to try, as Subliving has done, who has now moved back up north.

I actually agree with Wingley on this one. If you're not a student or earning more that 60k per year stay away from London guys. Birmingham, Manchester,Leeds, Glasgow offer similar amenities (maybe not on the high end) as London and the money to actually use them.

No one is "desperate to show leeds is better than london" - if you had some intelligence and read through my posts you would see this.

I was disagreeing with Langurs sweeping almost odious and patronizing statements that London is superior to provincial cities in every single way. The very factual reality is that provincial cities offer better quality of life and liveability and greater disposibal income, and most importantly they offer that to the massses( in just the same way as the reasons why people move to Oz). Having some great theatres, and a harrods 40 minutes away on the tube doesnt increase your quality of life if you have had to downgrade to living in lewisham and working in lewisham, with high crime, high deprivation, and in a crappy bedsit because you are priced out of anything else, whilst working in lewisham town centre CBD 5 days a week, and eating out in lewisham round the corner from work, going to bars round the corner from work too. This isnt the quality of life i'd ever want.

If showing that Langurs assertions are indeed wrong mean I am "desperate to proove Leeds is better than London" (which is quite frankly an absurd suggestion).. then more fool you for being a bit thick.

There's no need to get testy. Both you and Langur have points, but it does get a bit tiresome to see you both flogging a dead horse!

In my line of work I'd probably onely get a few grand more in London, so I certainly prefer Leeds - I can go to nice bars here that don't cost nearly as much as they would in London, and the cost of living is rock bottom. Leeds doesn't have the same pull in terms of the whole package, but then if I did work in London I probably wouldn't be able to afford to live anywhere too decent and would live somewhere like Leigh-on-Sea (no bad thing its own right).

I actually agree with Wingley on this one. If you're not a student or earning more that 60k per year stay away from London guys. Birmingham, Manchester,Leeds, Glasgow offer similar amenities (maybe not on the high end) as London and the money to actually use them.

and even then, for students, northern cities offer more of fuller package. Student proportions much higher than london... lending to a great student vibe around the city centre in numerous distinct districts, of bars, restaurants, and clubs, teaming with a student vibe. Also the campuses are all in one, on the doorstep of the city centre. Student living in london is much more fragmented and dislocated, and lacking in nightlife-vibe. Here, smaller more compact cities, or even towns always have a better vibe.. just like ibiza :nuts:

That said, for international students, as in the many tens of thousands who come to the uk on student visas under the guise of learning english in bogus educational institutions, only to work on the side, most specifically to experience london with the dream of making it, then of course london is *the* place.

Birmingham, Manchester,Leeds, Glasgow offer similar amenities

All of those cities have much better nightlife than London too, by a massive margin.

Seriously? Have you SEEN the west end?

Full of tourists, overpriced, overrated. I don't enjoy going out to places where people have a constant scowl on their faces. Especially with DJ Fondu playing the cheesiest music known to man.

I'd like to think that this is my area of expertise. :D

Subliving.

^^ so where is more preferable for night life?

and what are the differences, can you provide some insight. clubbing isnt my forte, espeically these days :nuts:

as much as i love london, wiggley has made some excellent points. i also agree with him that most students are better placed if they avoid London. Because it is such a big city there really isnt much of a student 'scene' so if you want the stereotypical student experience - campus living, student pub crawls, input in societies and so on, go to one of the regional cities. personally i wasnt interested in that and found the student life in london far more rewarding than it wouldve been elsewhere. just riding the bus in the morning is an experience in itself and the range of people you meet is larger. if you are young, want excitement, to be at the centre of life and either a/ have money or /b are prepared to put up with some irritations then london is the place for you. for the vast majority of people they're better off living in a regional city. and if you are stuck in some dull (yet overcrowded) suburb with a long commute to the centre of town yet still miles from the countryside life will suck. i lived in Wallington for a few months with a friend when strapped for cash - it wasn't something i'd want to repeat. people in places like that seem to be quite divorced from the benefits of central london.

Not a fan of London nightlife - the prices make me choke!

^^ so where is more preferable for night life?

and what are the differences, can you provide some insight. clubbing isnt my forte, espeically these days :nuts:

Quality of djs, atmosphere, price and design. That doesn't mean a swanky place necessarily. Some of the best clubs in the UK are just big warehouses with enormous sound systems, great djs and a smile on everyone's face.

Sankey's in Manchester wins hands down, then Mission in Leeds (though its being caught up to by Victoria Works and My House), then Digital in Brighton.

Subliving.

^^ have you been to back door club, next door to mission on a saturday night? Its under 2 of the arches. It's basically homo but on a saturday, which is great if you dont fancy the whole metrosexual malarky at mission on saturday :nuts:

digital in brighton is a spin off from the original in newcastle, even copies some of the nights. in general though newcastle isnt really a clubbing city but more about pubs and bars. personally i think nightclubs are naff.

me too. The best bits about a night for me are going to all the bars before a club.. its the main time you get to chat to lots of new people, and mix, and enjoy company with your mates, and do some rampant flirting.

As soon as u get in a club, its just masses of pill heads bobbin up and down on a dance floor :(

That why good streetscape crammed with a good mix of bars is really important - something newcastle is known for.. (and leeds being hen night capital at the moment :ohno:). Although i would personally say even leeds is too 'big', with big chunks of void in different districts of the city centre at night. I've been out in wakey and donny before, and its like that lluandudno on the telly.. ram packed everywhere cos its such a small town centre with so many people out for the night.. great atmosphere, its just a bit too cheesy and tacky lacking in more upmarket bars tho,

Hackney Wick used to be good for the Grime/Junglist stuff before they knocked all the factories down.

Sankey's in Manchester wins hands down, then Mission in Leeds (though its being caught up to by Victoria Works and My House), then Digital in Brighton.

Subliving.


Not really a fan of Victoria Works. It's essentially just a vacant factory unit (even the toilets are portakabins outside). Went to see Soulwax/2manyDJs there once and the bars were far too small and understaffed, whilst the lack of any aircon made it preffty sweaty!

That place is all about the music. That's what makes it so good - not a glitterati style club such as Gatecrasher or the refurbished MoS.

Subliving.

Europe's biggest metropolitan areas from ESPON project, "Study on Urban Functions", which defines cities according to the concept of a functional urban area (core urban area defined morphologically on the basis of population density, plus the surrounding labour pool defined on the basis of commuting).

Greater London - 13,709,000
West Midlands (Birmingham) - 3,683,000
Greater Manchester - 2,556,000
Leeds - 2,302,000
Liverpool - 2,241,000
Tyneside - 1,599,00

http://www.espon.eu/mmp/online/websi.../index_EN.html

^^

interesting. But its just a meaningless university student project. I am much more inclined to go with the official ONS-affiliated Eurostat LUZ's that set a standard in measuring urban areas across europe.

1. London
2. Manchester
3. Leeds-Bradford
4. Birmingham

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larger_Urban_Zones

:nuts:

^^

interesting. But its just a meaningless university student project. I am much more inclined to go with the official ONS-affiliated Eurostat LUZ's that set a standard in measuring urban areas across europe.

1. London
2. Manchester
3. Leeds-Bradford
4. Birmingham

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larger_Urban_Zones

:nuts:


Interesting. I'm guessing the one Soul 13 sug up includes Coventry, whilst the EU one does not. It's probably fair to say that Coventry has enough gravity to be at least partially out of the orbit of Brum.

interesting. But its just a meaningless university student project. I am much more inclined to go with the official ONS-affiliated Eurostat LUZ's that set a standard in measuring urban areas across europe

^^:nuts::nuts: By far the most comprehensive report on defining metropolitan areas by using functional urban data (population density and surrounding labour pool defined on the basis of commuting). LUZ is a generic project with limited statistical value, more like the initial stage for more in depth reports like the ones from ESPON.

www.ESPON.eu

EUROPEAN SPATIAL PLANNING OBSERVATION NETWORK (ESPON)

Objectives
Applied research and studies on territorial development and spatial planning seen from a European perspective in support of policy development.

National, regional and local knowledge is partly already existing and available, although only covering smaller parts of the European territory. With the ESPON 2006 Programme and by addressing an enlarged EU territory and larger territorial entities, the Commission and the Member States expect to have at their disposal:

Diagnosis of the principal territorial trends at EU scale as well as potentials and imbalances within the European territory;
Impact analysis of EU policies and their influence on the territory and on cohesion;
European maps of major territorial structures and regional diversity within a wide range of themes important for the development of regions and larger territories;
Integrated, cross-sectoral analysis and spatial scenarios offering a European perspective on regions and larger territories and their development opportunities;
Indicators and typologies assisting a monitoring and setting of European priorities for a balanced and polycentric enlarged European territory;
Integrated tools and appropriate instruments (ESPON database, indicators, methodologies for territorial impact analysis and spatial analyses, mapping facilities) in order to improve the spatial co-ordination of sector policies.
In assuring the necessary research capacity for the applied research within ESPON a special effort is foreseen to build a supporting scientific community in the field of European territorial development which naturally will include a multitude of academic disciplines

Europe's biggest metropolitan areas from ESPON project, "Study on Urban Functions", which defines cities according to the concept of a functional urban area (core urban area defined morphologically on the basis of population density, plus the surrounding labour pool defined on the basis of commuting).

Greater London - 13,709,000
West Midlands (Birmingham) - 3,683,000
Greater Manchester - 2,556,000
Leeds - 2,302,000
Liverpool - 2,241,000
Tyneside - 1,599,00

http://www.espon.eu/mmp/online/websi.../index_EN.html

This confirms what many have contended in the past i.e. that the Liverpool area has a much larger population than the offical figure for Merseyside, which is an underbounded entity.

Indeed, if Wigan Met (300K) was included in Liverpool, rather than Manchester, then the relative positions of the two would be reversed. Wigan is equidistant from both cities, whilst Wigan's Anglican parishes and Roman Catholic parishes each belong the the Diocese and Archdiocese of Liverpool respectively.

So nothing has changed really. England's 3 largest cities are as they have been for the last century, London, Birmingham and Liverpool. All that hot air about recent claims to 2nd city status by an upstart, has been blown away in one icy gust of common sense.

I don't really consider Wigan part of the Manchester or Liverpool areas

I don't really consider Wigan part of the Manchester or Liverpool areas

Neither do the citizens of Wigan. However, isn't that also true of all citizens of every town that was forced into the Met Counties in 1974?

It's true. These towns have different cultures. Wiganers eat pies; Liverpudlians traditionally stew. Mancunians eat babies.

In Oldham we eat kebabs on a naan with mint yoghurt.

^^Christ that sounds good.

In Oldham we eat kebabs on a naan with mint yoghurt.

^^In that case:

Greater Manchester: 2,556,000 - 80,000 --- 2,476,000
Lahore: 12,420,000 + 80.000 ---- 12,500.000

easy peezy.... :cheers:

Neither do the citizens of Wigan. However, isn't that also true of all citizens of every town that was forced into the Met Counties in 1974?

Yes but Greater Manchester is rather unique as a Metropolitan County in terms of being centred on the biggest city in it, which of course the name reflects. Perhaps people in Wigan have been pressured to think they are part of the Manchester area, but I don't think you can say that the residents of Birkenhead were pressured to think they were part of the Liverpool area, or Wakefield part of Leeds because those metropolitan counties are based upon polycentric conurbations and agglomerations, which again, the names reflect.

1.5m for tyneside, i assume sunderland was included in that? bit stupid iyam as newcastle and sunderland are clearly distinct cities like leeds-bradford, though i suppose they both do constitute a metro area in the manner of dallas-forth worth. but a metropolitan area is different to a city.

^^I never said anything about cities don't get confused the report is talking about Metropolitan areas based on density and commuting figures.

Yes but Greater Manchester is rather unique as a Metropolitan County in terms of being centred on the biggest city in it, which of course the name reflects. Perhaps people in Wigan have been pressured to think they are part of the Manchester area, but I don't think you can say that the residents of Birkenhead were pressured to think they were part of the Liverpool area, or Wakefield part of Leeds because those metropolitan counties are based upon polycentric conurbations and agglomerations, which again, the names reflect.

Merseyside isn't based on a polycentric conurbation. Birkenhead barely has a town centre. It's part a of innercity Liverpool that grew up around some of the docks of the Port of Liverpool and its pleasant suburbs (Oxton, Prenton as so on) are suburbs of Liverpool. See also Bootle.

^eastisleast did

So nothing has changed really. England's 3 largest cities are as they have been for the last century, London, Birmingham and Liverpool.

except that neither of those reports puts liverpool 3rd ;)

One puts it 5th at least.

In Oldham we eat kebabs on a naan with mint yoghurt.

I'm sure Wayne Rooney has munched on some minty nan's kebab. Is Boundary Park his next port of call?

Nasty, Creevy, nasty.

Ok so it's street racing season with Monaco on Sunday - this was the 4th out of 5 Formula 3000 races in Brum in 1989. No other city had ideas like this back then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LU2ivWxA1I

Ok so it's street racing season with Monaco on Sunday - this was the 4th out of 5 Formula 3000 races in Brum in 1989. No other city had ideas like this back then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LU2ivWxA1I

Thats boss, I used to watch that when I was younger.. i posted the Birmingham superprix in the Liverpool forum about a year ago advocating a similar race around our waterfront & tunnels

That would be amazing yoshi - the tunnel under the Mersey would be like the one at Monaco, while the waterfront could have lots of yachts moored too!

That would be amazing yoshi - the tunnel under the Mersey would be like the one at Monaco, while the waterfront could have lots of yachts moored too!

Exactly my thinking, here we have two cities, one with the Americane style towers and the other with the wierd and wonderful waterfront, spectacular venues for the sport, both being butchered in the 60s/70s by big concrete inner city motorways: put them to good use. If I recall correctly it nearly bankrupt Birmingham council running that though, so I don't hold up much hope of a Liverpool version anytime soon.

Ha Ha Wigan on Merseyside.

That's hilarious. Utterly wonderful.

Salfordians often exhibit a certain dynamism found in certain parts of Liverpool. Add them.

And hey those Stokies. Miserable yes, but they do sound a little like Liverpudlians.

Oh and rope in Dublin, the Isle of Man and Wales and Patagonia to boot.

And while we are here what about the Native Indian tribe that speaks Welsh. Various karoake bars in Japan doing der Beatles, like.

Get them in

Manic dreams of the displaced power broker and children.

I actually think the Brummie accent is a lot like Scouse. Birrrrmingehm.

Has Heaton been munching shrooms? :?

Has Heaton been munching shrooms? :?

Nah, he's just a crank.

I actually think the Brummie accent is a lot like Scouse. Birrrrmingehm.

I sound nothing like a Brummie! Their accent is one on the worst UK accents , mine is delightful.

You often find in American shows when characters try to do scouse accents (usually the Beatles) they come out rather Black countryish!

went out round manchester last night.. good night. I've not been over for a bit, but this time i tried to have a look at the buildings more in the context of SSC, and i have to say manchester's streetscape and urban fabric is fantastic. Its a complete level above places like leeds, liverpool, and brum. I dont think any other english city comes close at all.

manchester has a great city centre, but once you leave it...not so good, unlike in liverpool, where you enter arguably the best parts of the city in its georgian terraces victorian mansions and villas.

The contrast between Manchester's glass offices and the traditional red brick is really nice. The river/canal area was my favourite part of the city centre.:)

The contrast between Manchester's glass offices and the traditional red brick is really nice. The river/canal area was my favourite part of the city centre.:)

I was dissapointed by the river and canalside when I first went- thought Canal Street wasn't that great.

Elsewhere the streetscape is of high quality; I like Exchange Square, St. Peters Square- lots of other streets too. I don't think I could say a favourite though- a lot of the streetscapes are of a high standard but I'm not sure any of them stand out as extraordinarily more impressive than others.

I wouldn't put Manchester's streetscape above Glasgow's.

Whitworth Street was definitely my favourite, very imposing. Leeds has some fine streets too. I'm a big fan of Red Brick architecture since we don't really have much of it up here.

It depends where it's used. Some red brick architecture is good- usually when it's on prestiguous city centre buildings. Not a fan of it so much on terraced houses, churches, factories etc though.

You're right about glass working well with red brick. Not just the contrast with large offices and red brick, but when it's incorporated carefully into the same building:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2222/2436335551_e2ccb7b0be.jpg?v=0
http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/2694/kingstreet.jpg

Victorian red brick buildings, especially those buildings with a good mix of limestone, look miles better than majority of the modern day red brick buildings. Most of the modern stuff is very cheap and nasty looking. Having said that, most victorian red brick buildings in Liverpool are utilitarian, apart from the University and a few others.

Do you like the modern red brick at Granary Wharf?

Do you like the modern red brick at Granary Wharf?

Well I'll wait until its finished, but it looks ok so far. If done well, modern red brick stuff can look quite good, but more often than not it just has that basic, cheap and nasty look to me.

I find it alright; Granary Wharf has been done to a high standard. I don't see red brick used that often for modern buildings though- in recent years terracotta seems to have been preferred when developers have tried to make projects 'fit in'. Having said that, I like the limited use of it on The Carriageworks:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3614/3456392257_e22de78867.jpg?v=0

I generally don't think we should use red brick that much for new buildings. We have a lot of good red brick buildings that need renovating and they should be allowed to stand out. I would prefer to see modern buildings built using glass/steel/Portland Stone etc to contrast with materials of previous times.

I find it alright; Granary Wharf has been done to a high standard. I don't see red brick used that often for modern buildings though- in recent years terracotta seems to have been preferred when developers have tried to make projects 'fit in'. Having said that, I like the limited use of it on The Carriageworks:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3614/3456392257_e22de78867.jpg?v=0

I generally don't think we should use red brick that much for new buildings. We have a lot of good red brick buildings that need renovating and they should be allowed to stand out. I would prefer to see modern buildings built using glass/steel/Portland Stone etc to contrast with materials of previous times.

Also I don't like the way that all modern brickwork is supported by hidden strcuture. The best things about old brick strcutures are the arched brickwork/stone lintels, pillars etc.
Brickwork does not look right balancing on top of a window. Form I think should always follow function in masonry.
This is my biggest gripe with masonry use in modern strcutures

Well form used to follow function but it hasn't done in years (in most cases anyway), but I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing because it has allowed us to explore new architectural styles that aren't limited to the function.

went out round manchester last night.. good night. I've not been over for a bit, but this time i tried to have a look at the buildings more in the context of SSC, and i have to say manchester's streetscape and urban fabric is fantastic. Its a complete level above places like leeds, liverpool, and brum. I dont think any other english city comes close at all.Manchester has the greatest chimneyline in the whoooooole world - a chimneyscape! :)

Granary Wharf has been done to a high standard. I don't see red brick used that often for modern buildings though-

This is one of my favourite contemporary red brick buildings, One Piccadilly Gardens in Manchester by Allies and Morrison architects. Some of the details around the windows are similar to those on the Granary Wharf hotel, as shown in the last photo.

http://www.edwud.com/photos/one_piccadilly_gardens_offices_manchester.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/214/510663318_090664ee84.jpg?v=0

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/202/510685025_ab248db433.jpg?v=0

Photo credit to Gherkin.
http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt118/awaren8/leeds/DSCF1922.jpg

One Piccadilly is really disappointing, the location and wide space demanded better. that building could be placed anywhere in the city.

You seem to be judging it on the context of its setting, not the merits of its architecture and use of materials. I think its a fine example of a contemporary office building that has used red brick effectively.

You seem to be judging it on the context of its setting, not the merits of its architecture and use of materials. I think its a fine example of a contemporary office building that has used red brick effectively.

definitely. if it was elsewhere it would be a decent but bland building, certainly nothing special.

Certainly not iconic....no.

I quite like 1 Piccadilly, but they've made a right mess of Piccadilly Gardens. What should be one of the highest quality spaces in the city is actually one of the lowest. The wall is the worst part, but the bus interchange and tram lines don't help.

One thing i've noticed about Piccadilly gardens though is that they've done well with the placing of the paths, there's not one desire line cutting across the grass. Totally agree though. needs an overhaul.

Well the paths work well in that respect, but they also cut the space up alot.

I think rather than the fountains/bridge/wall, they would have been better to just grass across it all in a more traditional way with fountains taking up less space. There's no focus to the space in it's current state.

Piccadilly Square is a classic example of how regional cities decide to get some big shot, foreign architect in who then goes and makes a right royal mess of things because they don't understand the city or the context well enough. Tadao Ando's work may translate well following the natural forms of the landscape in his native, hilly Japan, but not here in the heart of Manchester's largest and busiest city square.

Piccadilly Square is a classic example of how regional cities decide to get some big shot, foreign architect in who then goes and makes a right royal mess of things because they don't understand the city or the context well enough. Tadao Ando's work may translate well following the natural forms of the landscape in his native, hilly Japan, but not here in the heart of Manchester's largest and busiest city square.

Too be fair I think Piccadilly Gardens was an almost impossible job to get right. The bus station along the length of the park, the tram lines cutting it off from the buildings on the west side, the buses going down the north side. How would you make that pleasant? The solution may seriously limit the usefulness of the gardens, but at least it hides the crap, meaning you can sit in them.

any pics of it?

I don't agree; Leeds' City Square has traffic on three sides of it- far busier roads than those around Piccadilly Gardens, but the square itself is a very high quality space. The hard and soft landscaping together help to cut out the traffic to create the enjoyable central space.

Too be fair I think Piccadilly Gardens was an almost impossible job to get right. The bus station along the length of the park, the tram lines cutting it off from the buildings on the west side, the buses going down the north side. How would you make that pleasant? The solution may seriously limit the usefulness of the gardens, but at least it hides the crap, meaning you can sit in them.

They should have extended the podium of Piccasilly Plaza right over the gardens as far as Market St/Piccadilly and put the gardens on the podium. They could have had a slope and steps leading up to the gardens and they could have had shops, buses and trams inside the podium.

Don't think that's the best idea- wouldn't be popular for public transport users. A raised area is good though- if the central space was just under a metre higher, then with trees/planters around the edge to cut out the trams/buses. A bit like how the raise grass area work in Sheffield's Peace Gardens.

Public transport users would just walk through it when they got off a bus or tram.

I'm really referring to waiting for a bus and a tram. People tend to prefer wide open spaces to enclosed spaces, especially if poorly lit (which they too often are; particularly bus stations).

I don't agree; Leeds' City Square has traffic on three sides of it- far busier roads than those around Piccadilly Gardens, but the square itself is a very high quality space. The hard and soft landscaping together help to cut out the traffic to create the enjoyable central space.

Well I don't actually remember what Leeds City Square looks like so I'll have to take your word for it. However I sincerely doubt that a mere road is as disruptive or unpleasant as a bus station as large, as busy and as open as Parker Street.

I'm not suggesting that Picc Gardens as it is is a particularly effective solution to the problems of its position, but I do believe that it would be very hard to develop a really effective solution without doing something as radical as Isaac proposes. Which would cost an absoloute fortune.

Putting shops in would pay for it. Build it in the style of the brick railway arches that are a feature of the city but glaze the arches and make the public transport area well lit. Lights aren't that expensive and put in a police station to deter the riff raff.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/181/425061370_992f897fc5.jpg?v=0
4 lanes of traffic on the south side, 2 on the north and east side.

4 barriers are between the centre and the road- the fountains, the planters, the marble walls and statues, then the continuous granite wall.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1213/542639689_695256a2ee.jpg?v=0

To be perfectly honest, i adore piccadilly gardens as it is, it's an incredibley urban space. ugly yeh, but exciting. it's pretty obvious what i'd do to it - stick signs and junk allover the buildings and enclose it more.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3591/3459838388_a99d8f428b_b.jpg

just a few more skyscrapers -

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3232/2890419957_084a7afc95_o.jpg

Good shout that kids, loads of screens, neon, glitter. Times Square style. I reckon it'd work a treat, look great at night.

that could be good too. Or make it a large paved square. But at the moment it's bits of park, bits of square and bits of entertainment venue in an untidy package.

that could be good too. Or make it a large paved square. But at the moment it's bits of park, bits of square and bits of entertainment venue in an untidy package.

I think that's the main problem with it. It tries to be many things and fails at all of them.

On the plus side, with 1 New York the view to the South West towards Beetham is really starting to look awesome.

The different elements can work if they respond to the surrounding buildings. At the moment, Piccadilly Gardens disregards the surround environment and tries to create new shapes which don't fit. The paths, structures, grass areas etc don't line up with anything, creating an awkward environment.

http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/manchester/piccadilly-gardens-c8659.jpg

I've always liked the buildings around it more than the space itself.

As have I.

Also, what is the point in that single line that goes from Market Street tram stop to Piccadilly Gardens tram stop? I mean, I see the route that it is serving, but why couldn't they have just put that line where the T junction is, like how there are two lines going round to Mosely Street?

The different elements can work if they respond to the surrounding buildings. At the moment, Piccadilly Gardens disregards the surround environment and tries to create new shapes which don't fit. The paths, structures, grass areas etc don't line up with anything, creating an awkward environment.

Yeah I agree. The architect has imposed his own design philosophy in a space that probably required a different solution. What you have is a trademark Tadao Ando creation in an inappropriate location.

From Wikipedia
Tadao Ando's body of work is known for the creative use of natural light and for architectures that follow the natural forms of the landscape (rather than disturbing the landscape by making it conform to the constructed space of a building). The architect's buildings are often characterized by complex three-dimensional circulation paths. These paths interweave between interior and exterior spaces formed both inside large-scale geometric shapes and in the spaces between them.

salford contains all the mediocre stuff in the area so it leaves manchester with mostly good stuff. A lot of the stuff going up in manchester is of equal quality and often better than that built in the city of london.

manchester itself is way ahead in terms of architectural quality over the last 10 years than any of the major provincial cities. regardless of whether we talk in proportions or in absolute quantity.

What are these buildings that demonstrate being way ahead of all the other regionals

Wiggs.

From No1 Deansgate, to Urbis, to Beetham, to the Civil Justice Centre, to 2 Spinningfields Square, to Chips, to the IWMN, to the Lowry Centre, to the Pump House Museum.

show me other cities that can match that apart from London


those buildings..

No1 Deansgate
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Number_1_Deansgate.jpg/375px-Number_1_Deansgate.jpg

Urbis
http://edsphotoblog.com/wp-content/photos/800px/0312_urbis_centre_manchester.jpg

Beetham
http://www.rfreeman.net/manc06/images/DSCN1068.jpg

CJC
http://www.shehadco.co.uk/manchester.JPG

2 Spinningfields
http://www.ice-northwest.org.uk/northwest/images/Spinngfields.jpg

Chips
http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/pictures/595xAny/0/2/1/1203021_CR4033_13.jpg

Imperial War Museum
http://www.yourlocalweb.co.uk/images/pictures/01/15/imperial-war-museum-north-old-trafford-11380.jpg

Not the best pics for all of them clearly, but still, these buildings are not indicative that manchester far surparses all the other regionals in terms of architectural quality. Yes some of those are decent good arcitecture, but other cities have proportionately had decent stuff too. :dunno: Some of it looks like the small quirky unsusual and architecturaly good new stuff found in all regional cities down to even the big towns. Other stuff, such as some of the glass stuff, like 2 spinningfields, is similar to new out of town office park buildings.

By far the most important development in Manchester in the last decade is only just starting.

The trams expansion will ensure developments like Spinningfields and Piccadilly Place are not one off's, but part of a long list of major developments.

I think in 20 years time we will look back at the early 21st Centuary as a huge missed oppurtunity for most non-London cities, when you compare the developments in European cities over the last decade or so to help improve the quality of life for the citizens it is clear we have on the whole been left a very long way behind - that is why I am so glad we are finally - after 30 odd years - getting something that you would tend to associate with a large European city - i.e. a decent public transport system.

Lyon - very similar city population to Manchester (about 400k), similar urban population - about 2m is in a similar position to Manchester - massively dominated by a larger more important capital city - yet over the last 10 years Lyon has done MILES better than Manchester.

How? What leasons can be learnt?

When we bang on about Leeds financial sector maybe being larger than the one in Birmingham, or Manchester getting more media jobs than Liverpool we need to take a look across the seas and recognise just how woeful the 'developments' have been in our Northern cities when compared to places like Lyon over the last 20 years or so.

It's sad, very very sad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyon

this is true. uk cities always lag behind.

like 2 spinningfields, is similar to new out of town office park buildings.

It's pure quality! The materials used are second to none! An Armani flagship store is set to move into the bottom floor you know? Would they settle for shoddy business park quality? I doubt it very much.

Where's Leeds list of buildings then.

It's pure quality! The materials used are second to none! An Armani flagship store is set to move into the bottom floor you know? Would they settle for shoddy business park quality? I doubt it very much.

Where's Leeds list of buildings then.

well looking at similar glass clad buildings with a funky shape but non-descript nonetheless, it really isnt something exclusive to manchester, all the regionals have had similar stuff, leeds for example:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3546/3660156356_ed4df69e63.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3244/2975560970_83affc74f4_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3164/2848760515_3b7c907512.jpg

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh78/danlad/buildings/streets/new%20office/2847324973_0480665091.jpg?t=1247189113

Are you kidding?

some other stuff

RoseBowl

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3028/2806825290_fa8e9c3dbd_b.jpg

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh78/danlad/buildings/rosebowl.jpg



Broadcasting Place

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/6497/1204828fcbaleeds002.jpg

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/9954/broadcastingplacevidasm.jpg

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/3299/broadcastingplacejamesw.jpg



Clarence Dock

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh78/danlad/buildings/cd.jpg?t=1247188816



Bridgewater Place

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh78/danlad/buildings/BWP.jpg



Granary Wharf

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh78/danlad/buildings/granarywharf.jpg

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh78/danlad/buildings/granarywharf2.jpg

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh78/danlad/buildings/granarywharf3.jpg



Roberts Wharf

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g24/save_mejebus/Roberts%20Wharf%2023-06-07/RW003.jpg



Parde & Drive - Urban Splash

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v429/Kesaph/SkyScrapers/PDrender3a.jpg

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/apm22/14%20December%202008/14December2008015.jpg



Leeds Innovation Hub

http://www.brentwoodgroup.co.uk/images/portfolio_large/innovationCentre.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2011/1887937069_942c7099d1_b.jpg



Gateway

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/854TheGatewayEast_pic1.jpg



Echo

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/apm22/21%20September%202008/21September2008063.jpg

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/apm22/14%20December%202008/14December2008008.jpg

I repeat. Are you kidding?

Wiggs.

You show me another Uk City (I'm not having a pop at other cities, just answering Wigg's question) that has '5 interesting modern building's' of a similar standard and I'll hold my hands up and say fair enough.

BTW. You missed out the Lowry. Replace No1 Deansgate.

I'll have ago. One's that spring to mind.

Brum.

Selfridges.

http://club30plus.co.uk/brum-selfridges.jpg

Beetham.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/184/369189234_739478fca2.jpg

Leeds. To be honest, nothing else springs to mind.

Bridgewater Place?

http://www.picano.co.uk/newimages/bridgewater%20049.jpg

Newcastle.

Sage.

http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/1b/75/50/tyne-bridge-and-the-sage.jpg

Gasgow.

Exhibition Centre.

http://www.glasgowarchitecture.co.uk/jpgs/secc_glasgow_fosters_P4.jpg

Liverpool.

Echo Arena.

http://www.needeventstickets.co.uk/catalog/images/Echo%20Arena.jpg

Museum orf Liverpool.

http://aisforarchitecture.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/10122008082_a.jpg

Portsmouth has the Spinnaker and Cardiff has the Welsh assembly.

I repeat. Are you kidding?

i you really so blinded by your love for anything built in manchster that you really cant see that a generic glass clad building with a funky shape, is just that, and exists in many other cities :dunno: But oh no, bcoz its in manchester, its somehow diferent and special. ;)

Wiggs.

You show me another Uk City (I'm not having a pop at other cities, just answering Wigg's question) that has '5 interesting modern building's' of a similar standard and I'll hold my hands up and say fair enough.

Ahh, you've changed it a bit now. First, it was a list of buildings showing how the standard and architectural merit of buildings in manchester far surparses that of all the other regionals. You produced a list - a very questionable list, of which I have shown there are similar.

I'll have ago. One's that spring to mind.

ahh, now you are listing iconic type buildings that spring to mind when thinking of a particular city. This is something different again, and shows your subjective bias. Nothing on your list for manchester with the exception of beetham fits that category. You may think CHIPS or 2 Spinningfields are amazing and known nationally, but as shown, their are similar buildings in many other regionals. The CHIPS building, by urban splash, is of a similar vain to the Parde & Drive by Urban Splash in Leeds. That you think it should go in a list of iconic buildings such as the glasgow arena is delusions of grandeur. Its just a quirky unusual apartment development, just like the leeds urban splash one. lol

Rosebowl and broadcasting place, the only ones worth any mention/merit. Give or take! Some of the other one's though, I mean...seriously mate, you cant be! Some of them aren't even built yet are they?

Ahh, you've changed it a bit now. First, it was a list of buildings showing how the standard and architectural merit of buildings in manchester far surparses that of all the other regionals. You produced a list - a very questionable list, of which I have shown there are similar.

They are not similar though fella. Leeds packs tons of filler with out any flavour! :doh:

Wigs. I may have a love of Manchester, but I don't think it blinds me to anything. Certainly not its faults. But you're being ridiculous.

All the buildings on your list (with the possible exception of Bridgewater Place) are either crap midrise appartment blocks that we in Manchester would say "it's okay for the Quays I suppose" or a lower quality version of something that Manchester has that you haven't though worthy of including on your list.

If that's Leed's best then I feel sorry for you.

EDIT: Wigs, you think Chips by Will Alsop looks like Parde and Drive not by Will Alsop?

Wiggs. I've just seen your above post. Please stop taking the piss. If that was the case, I could add a multitude of Manchester new builds. Like.

Pump House extension

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3301/3517638629_d82eb2be40.jpg?v=0

MU Visitor/Conference Centre.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3373/3636524329_95fa257d4c.jpg

And so on.....

Ahh, you've changed it a bit now. First, it was a list of buildings showing how the standard and architectural merit of buildings in manchester far surparses that of all the other regionals. You produced a list - a very questionable list, of which I have shown there are similar.



ahh, now you are listing iconic type buildings that spring to mind when thinking of a particular city. This is something different again, and shows your subjective bias. Nothing on your list for manchester with the exception of beetham fits that category. You may think CHIPS or 2 Spinningfields are amazing and known nationally, but as shown, their are similar buildings in many other regionals. The CHIPS building, by urban splash, is of a similar vain to the Parde & Drive by Urban Splash in Leeds. That you think it should go in a list of iconic buildings such as the glasgow arena is delusions of grandeur. Its just a quirky unusual apartment development, just like the leeds urban splash one. lol

No Wiggs. They are all similar in merit and standard to those that are located in Manchester City Centre and Salford Quays. Would I stop to look at them and think they are exciting modern buildings? Yes I would.

Wigs. I may have a love of Manchester, but I don't think it blinds me to anything. Certainly not its faults. But you're being ridiculous.

All the buildings on your list (with the possible exception of Bridgewater Place) are either crap midrise appartment blocks that we in Manchester would say "it's okay for the Quays I suppose" or a lower quality version of something that Manchester has that you haven't though worthy of including on your list.

If that's Leed's best then I feel sorry for you.

The same is what I felt when I saw JRBs list.. apart from Beetham tower, nothing stood out was particularly "surpassing" of other regionals.. the only one that is great is CJC.

I mean what the hell is that awful imperial war museum thing. Its nothing special or surpassing of other regionals.. it looks no more quirky than Leeds innovation hub i posted a pic of. The CHIPS budget apartment block, i mean come on.. again, the same as the urban splash leeds equivalent. I wouldnt have stuck that in a list of buildings for leeds as acrhtctural merit, but i put it in to show the craziness of JRBs list and that similar dross exists in leeds, but for manchester it's classed as acrhitectural merit and surparsing lol ;)

i you really so blinded by your love for anything built in manchster that you really cant see that a generic glass clad building with a funky shape, is just that, and exists in many other cities :dunno: But oh no, bcoz its in manchester, its somehow diferent and special. ;)

if you can't see a difference in quality between those buildings in Leeds and those in Manchester you just posted you're quite clearly a mentalist. all that stuff you posted there is just generic, out-of-the-box crap.

Wiggs. I've just seen your above post. Please stop taking the piss. If that was the case, I could add a multitude of Manchester new builds. Like.

Pump House extension
..

erm, you *did* add that as your orginal list of examples to show that the calibre of manchester buildings far surparses all the regionals. I posted similar quirky buildings to show other cities have this stuff. Try looking at places like leicester, nottingham, or even medium sized towns for similar nice new unusual small buildings.

if you can't see a difference in quality between those buildings in Leeds and those in Manchester you just posted you're quite clearly a mentalist. all that stuff you posted there is just generic, out-of-the-box crap.

Erm ok. lol. Its crazy how blinded you are m8. Where is your quality developments like clarence dock, or granary wharf (which easily surpasses ISIS wharf). Whrere is your broadcasting place?

erm, you *did* add that as your orginal list of examples to show that the calibre of manchester buildings far surparses all the regionals. I posted similar quirky buildings to show other cities have this stuff. Try looking at places like leicester, nottingham, or even medium sized towns for similar nice new unusual small buildings.

I did add the Pump House extension. Going back to the original point. Quantity of modern and exciting new build's.

Erm ok. lol. Its crazy how blinded you are m8. Where is your quality developments like clarence dock, or granary wharf (which easily surpasses ISIS wharf). Whrere is your broadcasting place?

Wiggs. Your getting mixed up. We're not talking about area's or district's, we're talking about individual building's. Let's not stray.

PS. If we were. Where is your Spinningfield's? Where is you Mediacity/Salford Quays? Let's not go there.

EDIT: Wigs, you think Chips by Will Alsop looks like Parde and Drive not by Will Alsop?

CHIPS by urban splash, and Parade & Drive by urban splash, are both quirky apartment developments of a similar vain. That you see the manchester one as unique and amazing proving the calibre of machester buildings surparses all the other regionals shows delusion on your part. I see both as nothing more than the usual odd-type apartment developments that are all over uk cities. Ask someone objective, you'll find no one would say one shows superior acrhitectural merit than the other. They may have a preference for which they visually prefer, but appreciate they're of the same vain.