3 ms·
London is dirtier and just as inflicted with "undesirables", unless you're willing to continue paying SF rent prices, or live in zone 3 or beyond.
by 2019-nCoV 6y ago
London is dirtier and just as inflicted with "undesirables", unless you're willing to continue paying SF rent prices, or live in zone 3 or beyond.
- DXA9zE 6y agoI don't find London to be dirtier than SF. Also I get the sense that it's a much bigger city in general, and of course your Stratfords will differ significantly from your Westminsters, although this can be said about basically every city. Also I think London is slightly cheaper. Still, working remotely from London proper is probably a terrible idea given the extent of public transportation. Just live in Croydon and catch overground to London when necessary IMO.
- baby 6y agoBad luck, I moved from London to SF a bit more than a year ago and: * no, London is much much cleaner than SF. I'd rather take a stroll in London. * there's very little amount of homeless compared to SF. Again, I'd rather take a stroll in London. I was paying 1300GBP (so around 1500USD) for a one bedroom apartment in Battersea (so zone2). I am now paying 3350USD for a small one bedroom in Castro.
- 2019-nCoV 6y agoBattersea and Castro aren't comparable. Inner areas East of Shoreditch or north of Regent's Canal are consistently dirtier than SF's worst.
- ikeyany 6y ago> London is dirtier and just as inflicted with "undesirables" Are we talking about the same London and the same SF? I went a whole week in London riding the subway several times a day without seeing anything gross.