23, back from travelling, and can't afford a house in London

Filo25

Herzlos wrote: »

Sort of, but you're suffering from the converse - you live in London with people who are presumably well off and like living in London. You think living outside of London is only for those who can't afford to live in London, as clearly London is the best because it's the most expensive. Some people just don't feel like it's worth it, and don't fancy the idea regardless of the money.

I'm fairly sure I could afford to live in London if I had a suitable job, but I'd never consider it because I don't actually like London. It's far too busy and not actually that nice. I mean, I like visiting London (you've got a lot of attractions) but I don't think I'd want to go there for the sake of being there.

I can appreciate some people love London, for the nightlife, theaters, restaraunts etc. I'm at the stage in life where none of that appeals to me. There are plenty of attractions up here I can go to anyway.

If money was really no object, I would live somewhere like Primrose Hill or Hampstead, which I think would handily fall into the category of being extremely nice and not massively crowded (unless its a warm summer's weekend day in Primrose Hill park).

You can't really generalise too much about London anymore than you can about living anywhere else, I do however feel no great compunction to leave the place myself, I may do in retirement to free up some funds if I need to, but would quite happily see out my days here.

Each to their own though and it would be a pretty tedious world if we all liked the same thing.

I will say though, that if you do like City living I don't think many places in the UK compare favourably to London.

Herzlos

Filo25 wrote: »

Each to their own though and it would be a pretty tedious world if we all liked the same thing.

I will say though, that if you do like City living I don't think many places in the UK compare favourably to London.

Well said.

Though I have to admit, if I wanted city living and money wasn't a problem I'd likely take Berlin over London any day.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

economic wrote: »

There should be no denying that on average northerners are poorer then those in the SE. Now you got to ask yourself if money was no option, where would people prefer to live? I'm willing to bet it would be the SE for by far most people.

It is those who are stupid or do not have any option (no decent job, no social housing options, low wealth) who would chose to live up north. Why do you think poor people who get to live in council houses still live in London? by your argument shouldn't they just move up North?

London has the best paying jobs, best career progression, best amenities and the best in terms of things to do and see.

I personally have enjoyed living in London, but it's really silly, even by this board's dogmatic standards, to assume it has everything for all lifestyles. People live around the UK for all sorts of reasons; jobs, family, health, lifestyle interests (eg Sheffield is a great city for sport, the North West is good if you're into rugby).

I'd love to own a horse one day; even if money were no object I wouldn't stay in the SE; much more limited choice of livery yards, massive tracts of London clay meaning most yards don't offer winter turnout due to fields turning into seas of mud for six months of the year, much more limited open countryside to ride in, much worse air pollution and traffic. I've had the North East recommended for horsey types; vastly cheaper land and excellent beach rides along the coast.

westernpromise

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

I've had the North East recommended for horsey types; vastly cheaper land and excellent beach rides along the coast.

But think of the commuting costs from civilisation, and then try to find a decent meal or a well-mixed martini. It can't be done.

westernpromise

LydiaJ wrote: »

You're not reading what I put. I'm not suffering from sample bias - I'm acknowledging that although many of the people I know feel like me, I'm aware that there are many others who feel differently. You are the one who won't accept that people who don't want to live in London must be deceiving themselves out of a lack of imagination.

Anyway, it's not true that I only know people who can't afford to live in London. On the contrary, my immediate family of origin consists entirely (apart from me) of people who lived in London as young adults to try to get a foot on the career ladder, and then moved somewhere nicer after a few years. One of my brothers now chooses to live in rural Lincolnshire, having moved from London to Nottingham, and then grabbed the chance to get out of the city as soon as his kids had left school and their wasted time travelling to and from school was no longer a consideration. Another brother admittedly decided, after living in London as a student, that Yeovil was too much of a backwater for him, but then moved not to London but to Bristol, and not long afterwards got Airbus to second him to Toulouse where his family enjoy the open air lifestyle that the Toulouse climate permits. Finally, my most un-London brother has spent his working like moving ever Northwards. He started in London, in the Civil Service. It was fun for a while, but after a while he hated the hassle of it - the endless commuting, the traffic, the lack of space, the distance from any decent hill walking. As soon as he heard that the Department of Health was relocating to Leeds, he got a transfer to the DoH so he could move to Leeds. He quite liked Leeds, and stayed for several years, but eventually decided he'd prefer to work in Edinburgh and have a not too bad commute in from a tiny Midlothian village with miles and miles of open countryside where his kids, dog and cats can roam free. Several years later, the opportunity came to apply for a Civil Service post in Inverness, and he grabbed it. Could he afford to live in London? Sure - he's easily high up enough in the CS to do that if he wanted. Would he ever consider it - not on your life!

As for me, I can get to open countryside in 5 minutes' walk, but I can also get to my job in the centre of town in 20min in the car or a bit longer on my bike. That's ideal for me. If I want to see one of my friends, it's easy to get there - none of them lives more than 15 minutes away. I've never been particularly interested in "nightlife" and shopping, or really any of the other things that London does better than other places. Even when I lived in close proximity to such things in the city where I grew up, or the other city where I went to uni, I rarely bothered with them because they bore me. Theatres - occasionally, and I don't mind travelling to one when I do want to go. Restaurants - we do have those outside London, you know, and they aren't all Harvesters. I have plenty of interests, but they lie elsewhere.

[X-posted with Herzlos]

All very interesting but the market value of the local property tells you who agrees with you.

westernpromise

Herzlos wrote: »

clearly London is the best because it's the most expensive.

If other places are so great why are they cheap? Answer: because nobody wants to live there because they aren't great.

Some people just don't feel like it's worth it, and don't fancy the idea regardless of the money.

This assertion would carry more weight if you could point to significant numbers of people who've chosen to live in the sticks even though they could afford not to. There aren't any; just footballers, really.

I can appreciate some people love London, for the nightlife, theaters, restaraunts etc. I'm at the stage in life where none of that appeals to me. There are plenty of attractions up here I can go to anyway.

Well yes, there's the bowling alley, the dog track, the Vue, the Harvester...

LydiaJ

westernpromise wrote: »

All very interesting but the market value of the local property tells you who agrees with you.

:rotfl:
There are just under 9 million people squeezed into nearly 16 sq km of London.

The other 57 million people in the UK have more than 240 sq km to spread out over. Naturally there is much less competition for living space.

Property prices are high in London because it is only a single city, and there are more people who want to live there than it has capacity for. That is very different from saying that most people want to live there.

westernpromise wrote: »

If other places are so great why are they cheap? Answer: because nobody wants to live there because they aren't great.

This assertion would carry more weight if you could point to significant numbers of people who've chosen to live in the sticks even though they could afford not to. There aren't any; just footballers, really.

Perhaps if you talked to some of those 57 million people, you would discover that plenty of them are neither poor nor footballers. Those of us who live among them keep telling you that there are plenty of such people.

Malthusian

westernpromise wrote: »

But think of the commuting costs from civilisation, and then try to find a decent meal or a well-mixed martini.

Who on earth needs to go out to find a well-mixed martini? Hearts full of beauty, hearts full of truth, six parts gin to one part vermouth.

London is the sort of place where people are so unimaginative and tedious they would actually go out to a cocktail bar and order a boring martini and think it the height of sophistication. After paying £15 for a double shot of Gordon's and a squirt of Cinzano.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

westernpromise wrote: »

But think of the commuting costs from civilisation, and then try to find a decent meal or a well-mixed martini. It can't be done.

When I move out of London, it's going to be for all the things I definitely can't get here (fresh air, minimal traffic, fewer neighbours, open countryside right nearby, wildlife etc). I don't see the point of going to the suburbs, where you have no culture, but no real rural lifestyle either.

Another major drawback of London and the SE is the amount of time (and proportion of income) we spend commuting. An awful lot of people are happy to earn less elsewhere if it means they spend more time with friends and family and fewer hours squished onto a stinking sweltering delayed train. To return to my equestrian lifestyle comparison, as I live quite modestly I could actually afford a horse at a Surrey livery yard, but couldn't sensibly fit in a morning or evening yard visit around a commute into central London.

Herzlos

westernpromise wrote: »

But think of the commuting costs from civilisation, and then try to find a decent meal or a well-mixed martini. It can't be done.

Again, you're giving away your bias.
What makes London so civilized? Hadrians wall hasn't existed for centuries, the barbians crossed it a long time ago.

Also, there are plenty of well regarded restaurants and bars up North. Maybe not full of celebrity chefs now that Jamie Olivers chain isn't doing well.
Ditto for everything else you regard as being part of civilisation; theaters, ballet, opera, museums, bars that charge a fortune for drinks. We've even got country houses, estates, castles, the lot.

Only rarely do I feel like I'm missing out being up here, but there's nothing stopping me popping on a plane or train down to go to an event. With what I save living up here, I could easily afford to visit London every weekend.