If I don't move, he will leave me....

Toto

freeisgood wrote: »

Really Daisiegg?


Because i thought even moving to hertfordshire would kill any prospect of evenings in central London, and i thought driving in from hertfordshire to north London meant hellish traffic. Do you find it a very quiet life, do you find there is a nice community where you are? I am scared i would be bored stiff and feel cut off.

We live in Hertfordshire. My house is a 5 minute walk to the train station which is then 20 minutes on the train into Kings X. We rarely go out for an evening in Herts, town to us means London. We also drive in if we want to go somewhere like westfield or bluewater. No problem at all with hellish traffic.


Oh, and my little girl's primary school has been rated by Ofsted as in the top 5% of schools


I used to live in Angel so I understand the pull living in London has, but although I was worried about missing out on being in the thick of the action I really don't miss it at all.

Tamara_2

We moved out of London about twenty four years ago. Having both loved it when we were younger, the excitement had worn off by the time we hit our early thirties. We now live in Shropshire, but not the most rural part - we chose the village we bought in carefully, knowing that we wanted good transport links and good facilities within the village eg doctors' surgery, railway station, library etc. The key was, we both wanted the same things and we love it here. I get the impression from the thread that you agreeing to move will only be the start of a long process during which you will need to argue your corner if he wants rural isolation and you want somewhere with a bit more 'life'. You can't compromise on everything or you will be miserable. Hope this works out for you.

stardoman

daisiegg wrote: »

You know a detached house does not need to be completely isolated!

I live in a detached house. My next door neighbour is 3 metres away!

System

I genuinely do not see a problem. I can understand the issue but in reality there are many areas that could be considered 'rural' that are within commuting distance of London from all sides.


Parts of Kent, Hertfordshire, Berkshire, South Bucks and Essex all have areas which are rural yet within touching distance of towns. Truly rural for me would be places like Shropshire where you can drive and drive and it is just field after field.

Buzzybee90

Walcott wrote: »

I genuinely do not see a problem. I can understand the issue but in reality there are many areas that could be considered 'rural' that are within commuting distance of London from all sides.


Parts of Kent, Hertfordshire, Berkshire, South Bucks and Essex all have areas which are rural yet within touching distance of towns. Truly rural for me would be places like Shropshire where you can drive and drive and it is just field after field.

It's like that in some parts of those counties, but I get your point.

System

I get this sort of thing from my husband all the time. He starts off on one of his rants about how screwed up the country is and says he is going to emigrate.


'Good luck to you then' I say to him but he never does anything about it.


Good job really because if he did, I'd have to go with him.

Looby_Lou

Two years ago we moved from the North East to Hertfordshire as my DH had a new job. I felt that being a family was more important than where we lived (and after DH spent 6months doing a mon - fri commute I was determined that we would live together) We had some flexibility in where we lived so we all made a list as to what we wanted.

Our kids wanted to be able to continue with scouting, a school they could walk to, a garden to play in and a park near by. I wanted to be close enough to be able to walk to local shops / library, a good school for the kids, to be able to join groups for my hobbies etc.

Eventually we came up with a list of areas that fitted our criteria within a reasonable commute from my husbands work and we now live in Welwyn Garden City. I would try to suggest a compromise with your husband, look at commuting times and find areas that will fit all your requirements. Moving whilst the kids are little is a lot easier than when they are in secondary (also its easier to meet other mums in the playground). If you try compromising you may find that your husband will also compromise in how far away from London he wants to go.

Morglin

I think a compromise would be best, because if one person is unhappy about where they live, it affects everything.

I was "lucky" in that I loathed living in the countryside, hated everything about it, but it didn't cause conflict, because practicalities meant we had to come back home to London.

But, we did choose our area carefully - and we live in a pleasant, leafy suburb, with all good links, but near to grass and fields, for 'im indoors.

And, I keep quiet when we go to deep rural spots for holidays..

Lin

neverdespairgirl

ringo_24601 wrote: »

The standard of living is so much nicer. My kids are surrounded by beautiful countryside and when they are older we'll take them on the cycle paths around the woods near us.

Frankly, i'd kill for a 35 minute commute. Mine typically takes an hour to 90 minutes but i pass the time on the train reading or watching films.

Depends on what you value in standard of living, it's not an absolute.

We live in central London, and love it. Our 8 year old gets to go to world-class museums, and the tours and lectures they run, easily and often (last weekend OH took him to a lecture at the Wallace Collection on Sat, and we all went to Kensington for the museum experience on Sunday, and that's pretty normal for a weekend).

OH and I are both a stroll away from work, and don't spend 120 to 180 minutes a day commuting, which is a lot of time to spend doing things which are more fun. I can, and often do, get home to see our son when he gets back from school, because I can nip into work later to collect papers, for example, instead of waiting for them.

thorsoak wrote: »

You have always lived in London and the buzz of it, the close proximity of theatres/museums/cafes etc are, you think, necessary to your well-being. But how often do you take your children to the museums/ art galleries/theatres etc? Every week? Every school holiday?

At least every week, in our case. We live near the Barbican, and can and do easily pick up last-minute tickets for fantastic films (often not shown in many places) or the theatre. London is a wonderful place for children, IMO.

And you don't need to get in the car every time you want to go anywhere, as you often do living in the back of beyond.

duchy wrote: »

Schools have a far better retention rate of staff -London schools go through teachers like water -no-one stays more than a couple of years, It's a massive educational benefit to have a stable staff in a school.

"No-one" is a massive, entirely untrue, generalisation. At my son's school, the head's been there since before I was born, let alone my son. I'm only aware of two teachers having left the whole primary since my now year-4 son started there, both after having children.

neverdespairgirl

Horace wrote: »

Living in London is not that great, it is overly expensive, dirty and dangerous. You go on about art galleries and museums - well they have these in other parts of the country too.

There are bad things about every place, but nowhere in the UK can possibly compare itself favourably with London in terms of the sheer breadth and depth of galleries and museums in London.