Julian Fowler wrote:

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 22:14:36 -0000, "al"
wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...

In article , Imm wrote:

More tripe. As soon as those people no longer rely on the city
for there living, they get out sharpies to there £700K house.

Hmm. Roughly one person in 7 (23618/172808: 2001 census) in LB
Richmond is over 65. Most will be homeowners and could sell up and
buy a very nice place away from London. But for the most part they
haven't. Perhaps they realise that as you get older having shops and
friends within walking distance and public transport that runs every
day of the week beats being stuck in some lonely country cottage.


With you on that ... I like living in London because it's got some life.
Not some dead-end middle-of-nowhere country place with no restaurants, no
pubs, no clubs, no museums, no theatres, no public transport, no nightbus,
no open minded people ... etc. etc. etc.


Of which London has what to any appreciable level of quality?
Museums, yes; night buses, maybe. The others listed above have
exactly two characteristics: crap and ludicrously expensive.

The sad thing is that so few of those who live in London actually
realize what a third-rate city they are inhabiting (compared to, say,
Paris, or Berlin, or Rome, or Milan, or Madrid, or Lisbon, or NYC, or
San Francisco, or Boston, or Toronto, or Montreal, or Sydney, or
Melbourne ... to name a few).

OTOH I'm very glad that those who have this bizarre liking for London
prefer to stay there -- I'm sure it makes the rest of the country much
more pleasant for the rest of us :-)


I would not live in london unless I had a £2M budget for housing.

It IS possible to find a leafy backstreet without street crme and off
road parking, but boy, it costs.

The average terrace in e.g. Balham or somewhere is disgusting beyond
belief, and VERY expensive.

Id raher be poor here, than there.




Julian