Flight from London

[Deleted User]

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Most middle income psuedo middle class (which I include myself as) people's goal is to move out of London and also score a job where they dont have to commute in there either.

I scored a 'work from home' job and quickly moved to the extreme outer edge of the M25 (I can walk to a bridge that crosses it). It is very white. Its also not very young either. Actually, it broadly represents the 'average' of the UK, rather than the London ethnic blend.

Not commuting is nice, but working from home DRIVES YOU INSANE!

vivatifosi

Is it worth pointing out that neighbourhoods can also become more white over time? Take for example Notting Hill. The carnival grew out of the area because it had such a vibrant West Indian community. Now there are far more white people there. Of course this has happened over a long period of time.

The gentrification of an area means that it is far harder for immigrants to put down roots there, whatever the history of the area.

wymondham

chucknorris wrote: »

Depends on what you want, I lived there for over 15 years, it is great for rapid career progression (providing you work hard), property equity growth (providing you buy and sell smartly). But awful for quality of life (at my age mid 50's but obviously much better for younger people who appreciate a vibrant city existance).

EDIT: What are you expecting from London?

My impression of London is mixed. I love visiting it. If you live in London the pace of life is much higher (not always a good thing?) - the wages are higher but then are the housing costs. From this board it looks like the wages are further behind housing than elsewhere so the housing becomes a big issue.

Living outside London you loose the 'buzz' I suppose, but you regain your life back as you're not working purely to fund your housing.....??

Generali

michaels wrote: »

Is there another sort?

Flat and wet.

My view is that this is an extension of 1,000 years of London history. For almost a millennium, people have come to London to seek their fortune and then move out either once they've succeeded or perhaps once their kids have made enough to move on.

All that's changed now is the scope of where people are moving in from. Don't forget that up until the mid-C19th, someone from Yorkshire or Shropshire would be as alien to a Londoner as someone from Ulan Bator today.

wotsthat

Generali wrote: »

All that's changed now is the scope of where people are moving in from. Don't forget that up until the mid-C19th, someone from Yorkshire or Shropshire would be as alien to a Londoner as someone from Ulan Bator today.

In my city there's an area that has been the landing point for immigrants since the 1850's. In fact my ancestors were immigrants (from the South-West) who arrived to work on the railway. The pattern has continued with the only difference being the ethnicity of the arrivals ranging from Jamaicans, Pakistanis, Indians and lately Eastern Europeans (and a lot of Kurds for some reason).

Immigrants usually look for the cheapest part of town to live and these tend not to be areas that people don't aspire to live so it's no surprise that people move out when they can afford to.

Moby

I've lived and worked in London for 25 years and I originally come from rural Wales. My eperience of it is of a truely international city with a huge diversity of race culture, food etc. How you experience that and how you value that depends on your own views of the world and attitudes to life. Immigrants tend to work and establish themselves in the centre and then gradually radiate outwards towards suburbia as they become richer....leaving pockets of poor and disadvantaged groups in sink estates. The thing I notice about London is that there are pockets of rich and poor very close to each other....there are few areas which are totally ghettoised. Every borough seems to have both good and bad areas.

padington

All my friends were gutted to leave London and just moved for better schools. One turned up the other day from Sheffield in a state of tears on the door step saying how much she misses London. Mate in Brighton is always coming up to have a proper night out in the big smoke and marriage went to !!!! In Brighton. Friends in oz forever complaining of bad company and lack of culture and on Skype all day. Friends moving to St Albans right now are doing it totally reluctantly and gutted to be moving out of crouch end. All of the them moved for the kids not themselves.

princeofpounds

Don't forget that up until the mid-C19th, someone from Yorkshire or Shropshire would be as alien to a Londoner as someone from Ulan Bator today.

Too right, all those yorkshiremen coming and stealing our jobs!

Actually, whilst I agree with your point, I do think there is a difference now. Whilst there always have been waves of people moving to London (huguenots, jews etc) the scale of the changes have rarely been this fast, or this different in terms of culture.

Does anyone thing that pace of change and 'degree of foreigness' of incomers matters? Whilst I'd love to think that it doesn't, and that people are just people, I must admit I would conclude that the city and its people would probably not be better off if all restrictions were removed and we were to give free visas to anyone from any country.

MS1950

padington wrote: »

All my friend were gutted to leave London and just moved for better schools. One turned up the other day from Sheffield in a state of tears on the door step saying how much she misses London. Mate in Brighton is always coming up to have a proper night out in the big smoke and marriage went to !!!! In Brighton. Friends in oz forever complaining of bad company and lack of culture and on Skype all day. Friends moving to St Albans right now are doing it totally reluctantly and gutted to be moving out of crouch end. All of the them moved for the kids not themselves.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2184338/London-schools-class-GCSE-results-despite-high-poverty-largest-number-non-native-English-speakers.html

"London's comprehensive schools have become among the best in the country, according to a new analysis of pupils' examination results.

Schools in the capital have completed a startling turnaround, with children from some of the city's poorest areas now outperforming others in some of the country's most affluent boroughs, a survey shows.



According to the findings, in 2006 London was the fourth-placed region out of nine for GCSE results. By 2011 the city was comfortably in first place".

the_flying_pig

IMO London's great for [ignoring the mega-rich, because it's always good for them]:

• young singles;
• childless couples; and
• couples with babies;

For couples with primary school aged children it's oftewn good provided you're near to a good school [which most are IMO], awful otherwise.

For couples with secondary school aged children it's rarely good. Whilst many are good, most state secondary schools are bad, with some awful.

IMO it's great for couples with children who've flown the nest.

But, of course, not everyone likes the same thing. If long country walks, or swimming in the sea, or going for long pleasurable drives, are your main hobby then London's a dreadful place.

Having grown up in Yorkshire & seen a fair bit of the country other places really pale in comparison... shops/restaurants etc are in the main [on the rare occasions that they're actually open] useless [most obviously restaurants selling 'foreign' food] & no cheaper, the people are, in the main, Daily Mail reading morons, the public spaces [parks etc] are inferior, etc...