Is London living cost affordable?

PasturesNew

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Another plus for living in London is the reassuring ease with which you should be able to find another job if you need to. In a smaller town I'd always be worried about the smaller pool of potential employers (having been made redundant once this sort of fear never leaves you).

Having been brought up in the countryside, then moving to the seaside, this is valid. There are less jobs, a lot less ... hardly any really - and money's !!!!!!. Then, add in that you'll age too and suddenly you can find that there's "nothing for you" there.

Nothing.

Nothing.

It's where I'm at.

milliebear00001

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Yes, I'm well aware that people who bang on about how great London is can be quite tiresome. Worse, IMO though, are those who live here and whine about it rather than doing something sensible like moving away if it's that bad.

I can only talk about me personally and what I like to do in my free time. I know other cities have thriving arts scenes, it's just that the West End is the best for that in the country. Can you seriously get to see as many big-name productions in Manchester? This is what's currently on here: http://www.londontheatre.co.uk/londontheatre/whatson/drama.htm Do things like Wildlife Photographer Of The Year go on tour, or is it only on at the Natural History Museum?

As I said, I go to the races a lot and from where I live in Zone 3 can easily get to several by public transport, including two of the nation's best dual-purpose tracks. The North West is surprisingly lacking in racecourses; from Manchester I'd be limited to Chester, Haydock and Aintree, which actually don't have many meetings.

Another plus for living in London is the reassuring ease with which you should be able to find another job if you need to. In a smaller town I'd always be worried about the smaller pool of potential employers (having been made redundant once this sort of fear never leaves you).

So I'm afraid you haven't sold Manchester to me!

Having lived in both cities for a long time, I can safely say there is less choice in Manchester, and you won't get the same calibre of productions/exhibitions by and large, BUT, and it's a big but...London is just over two hours away from Manchester by train. I take my kids on regular weekends to the museums there, and two children in my class just spent their birhtday there (on a Saturday) to see a West End musical and go shopping.

If you spend all your free-time in galleries and museums and theatres, then you may struggle in Manchester, but then, we also have Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield etc within easy reach - all with their own cultural attractions. This equally applies to jobs. I can travel to any of those cities in under an hour if I need to get a job in one of them. The pool will never be as great as it is in the capital, but the working conditions seem much nicer (IME).

I can't comment on the races as that's not an interest of mine, but my mum and dad regularly go to York races from Manchester as well as the ones you mention.

Procrastinator333

Not read the whole thing, so apologies if repeating.

I just don't get why people have to live so far in. It makes so little sense to me.

A 2 Bed flat in clapham might be £1,300 a month.

A 2 bed flat in Sutton is probably £750 a month.

Sutton is just an example. It ain't the best, by far, but there are plenty of nice enough parts, zone 5 and you get to London Bridge or Vicotria in 35 mins and Clapham in 20 mins.

So basically you are paying £550 a month to live 20 mins closer to central London. So that is 3.5 hours a week, or roughly 2 working days a month. So you are spending £550 of your net pay just to get an extra 14 hours a month!

Sutton is just an example I know, there are plenty of places that are 30 mins in to London, Zone 5 or 6.

I even know 1 person who pays the extra to live closer in, but then because he is nowhere near a tube stop has a 40 min bus ride at the start and end of his day and actually has a longer commute than if he did live in Zone 5. Madness!

MiserlyMartin

Cleaver wrote: »

.

I guess it's a lot about lifestyle choices - pretty much all of my London friends pay a lot of money to live in a flat with a bunch of other poeple because they love living in London.

Now I have friends in London, I visit a lot. I would never live there if you paid me but if I did live there it would be me who paid. It is dirty, noisy, unfriendly, too busy, too much traffic, overpriced, overcrowded, too much crime & full of foreigners. Sure there are a few tourist attractions but its easy to see those from 4 hours away and then you can leave the place and its problems behind.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

I'm acutely aware that I may be becoming somewhat shrill and boring on this subject, but it is close to my heart as I get seriously annoyed by those that assume people choosing to live and work in London are impaired in some way. I happen to LOVE living here. I grew up in a dreary semi-rural area with rubbish public transport, limited jobs and the same old-same old generic High St shops plus out of town leisure centre. It's left me with a real horror of English suburbs and provincial towns.

The reason I don't live somewhere cheaper like Sutton is that I much prefer to live in leafy Zone 3 where I have the options of overland trains to Waterloo every 3-5 minutes plus two Tube lines and a decent Night Bus service, where I can walk to two cinemas (one independent), plenty of shops and the green expanses of Wimbledon Common and Putney Heath. Minicabs to Gatwick or Heathrow are reasonable for early flights, and are cheaply accessible through public transport throughout the day. Living more centrally means it's easier to meet up with friends living all around town (I have noticed that those who move out to the suburbs "where you get more for your money" hardly ever socialise any more). There is a spontanaeity about living centrally; I can meet mates for drinks after work anywhere in town at a moment's notice without worrying about missing the last train home. I can "pop into" Oxford St. I can wander into the West End to see if there are any cheapo last minute tickets, see a show, and be back home within 45 mins.

I'll shut up about it now, but just wanted to reiterate that London is a chunting great place to live if you choose to embrace it.

blueboy43

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

I know other cities have thriving arts scenes, it's just that the West End is the best for that in the country. Can you seriously get to see as many big-name productions in Manchester? This is what's currently on here: http://www.londontheatre.co.uk/londontheatre/whatson/drama.htm

How many big name productions do people in London watch ? I had the impression that it was mostly tourists. Doubt is the availability of "We will rock you" would influence many people choice of location.

Where London does score for me is the range of public subsidised theatre and independent cinemas.

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Do things like Wildlife Photographer Of The Year go on tour, or is it only on at the Natural History Museum?

It tours nationwide. In Manchester at the end of this month.

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

As I said, I go to the races a lot and from where I live in Zone 3 can easily get to several by public transport, including two of the nation's best dual-purpose tracks. The North West is surprisingly lacking in racecourses; from Manchester I'd be limited to Chester, Haydock and Aintree, which actually don't have many meetings.

Lingfield & Kempton ?
Does anyone actually go and watch all-weather racing? I always assumed it was betting shop fodder like the dogs.
There is nothing like Aintree ladies day before the national - many a sight for jaded eyes.

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Another plus for living in London is the reassuring ease with which you should be able to find another job if you need to. In a smaller town I'd always be worried about the smaller pool of potential employers (having been made redundant once this sort of fear never leaves you).

A huge plus.

What London doesn't have for me is;

1) Decent sports facilities - whether its municipal pools or golf courses.

2) Easy access to decent countryside for walking.

chewmylegoff

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

Not read the whole thing, so apologies if repeating.

I just don't get why people have to live so far in. It makes so little sense to me.

A 2 Bed flat in clapham might be £1,300 a month.

A 2 bed flat in Sutton is probably £750 a month.

Sutton is just an example. It ain't the best, by far, but there are plenty of nice enough parts, zone 5 and you get to London Bridge or Vicotria in 35 mins and Clapham in 20 mins.

So basically you are paying £550 a month to live 20 mins closer to central London. So that is 3.5 hours a week, or roughly 2 working days a month. So you are spending £550 of your net pay just to get an extra 14 hours a month!

Sutton is just an example I know, there are plenty of places that are 30 mins in to London, Zone 5 or 6.

I even know 1 person who pays the extra to live closer in, but then because he is nowhere near a tube stop has a 40 min bus ride at the start and end of his day and actually has a longer commute than if he did live in Zone 5. Madness!

but where you live isn't simply a time vs. money decision, is it. when i was a bit younger all i cared about was living near my friends and having decent nightlife on the doorstep so i didn't have to travel at weekends. i could have saved money by living further out but it would have been pretty dull, so i lived in clapham and paid extra.

also, whilst it may seem odd to pay so much extra to get 14 hours extra a week, it really depends how much free time you have. i have a 45 min commute and work 8am to 8pm most days.

if i worked 9-5, then i would be prepared to have a much longer commute, but given my current situation there is no way i am going to move any further away than a 45 minute commute, so i'll pay the premium to live where i am.

Cleaver

MiserlyMartin wrote: »

Now I have friends in London, I visit a lot. I would never live there if you paid me but if I did live there it would be me who paid. It is dirty, noisy, unfriendly, too busy, too much traffic, overpriced, overcrowded, too much crime & full of foreigners. Sure there are a few tourist attractions but its easy to see those from 4 hours away and then you can leave the place and its problems behind.

I don't agree. I think London is an absolutely amazing city and surely one of the best places in the world to live if city living is your bag. However, I fully understand that it isn't for everyone. For example, I wouldn't want to live in a village, as it just isn't my thing. But I can fully understand why people want to. Horses for courses and all that.

Cleaver

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

I'll shut up about it now, but just wanted to reiterate that London is a chunting great place to live if you choose to embrace it.

I know we've debated this subject over the past few days, but hopefully I was clear that I agree with you on this. London is ace. Not for everyone of course, but it's a brilliant city.

olly300

blueboy43 wrote: »

What London doesn't have for me is;

1) Decent sports facilities - whether its municipal pools or golf courses.

There are you just haven't travelled to the right bits. The majority of sporting facilities are on the outskirts.

blueboy43 wrote: »

2) Easy access to decent countryside for walking.

I've walked both around Manchester and London. You have to travel out of the city both times.

In London it's actually easier to get a train out to a station to go on a walk.