3 ms·

As someone who went to Uni in Durham and loves the countryside; (but still loved his two year stay in London), I can give you another reason: The sheer variety

by gman99 13y ago

As someone who went to Uni in Durham and loves the countryside; (but still loved his two year stay in London), I can give you another reason: The sheer variety in cheap cultural things to do. I'm not saying Newcastle lacks decent culture, just that it's not cheap. When living in London, I used to make frequent trips to The Globe (£7 tickets), National Theatre (£12), Sadler's Wells (£15), Museums (free) plus other great Opera's, plays, contemporary dance, etc all over the city, all for around £15 (usually a lot less) or free. I've since moved out of London as I started missing the countryside, but don't be so quick to dismiss everyone who does not make the same choices as you do. The grime, overcrowding, noise & smoke of the city is more than compensated for by the amazing public transport and world class cultural events (again, for <£15 -- Newcastle has great cultural venues but even if they are of the same standard I could not afford to go regularly as it was more than twice as expensive) I would never have discovered my love for Classical music, Ballet or Opera if the opportunities weren't so numerous and the tickets so cheap.

simonbarker87 13y ago
Fair enough, that is something I hadn't considered (nor realised how cheap it could be) - although I would counter to say that I wouldn't have discovered road biking or surfing (with a hefty wet suit mind you!) if I wasn't in the north east's easy access to both - 10 minutes on the bike and I am in the countryside. It's swings and roundabouts I guess.
- gman99 13y ago
  I completely agree. I would not have discovered the joys of hiking and hillwalking if it wasn't for my four years at Durham (and "relatively" easy access to the Lake District). Overall, my love of the countryside trumps cheap access to live plays/concerts/public transport/museums/etc; that's why I moved out. My point is just that there are definitely reasons why people would choose to live in the city (reasons I did not fully appreciate until I lived in London) Swings & roundabouts, as you say :)
rdouble 13y ago
I've found the same thing is true about NYC. There are loads of free and cheap things to do. Especially during the summer. Much more so than most other US cities, where everything is pay-to-play and you have to pay for driving and parking as well.
VLM 13y ago
I believe you are missing a substantial scalability issue. From an article in The Telegraph "the Globe has played to 480,000 people this year". It seems to seat somewhere around 2000, so I am willing to believe that they have about 200 performances per year. Living in the US I'm well aware of urban sprawl and the near inability to define imaginary borders. However for the sake of argument, wikipedia claims a bit over 8 million inhabitants in London. Some long division and making the HUGE assumption that The Globe only permits admittance to locals (LOL I'm guessing its probably 90% rich tourists like myself) then the average local can only visit The Globe once every 16 years rather than your "frequent trips". If my estimate of 90% tourist statistics is correct, then the average London resident can only physically visit The Globe once every 160 years. Of course the average lifespan of a london resident probably does not approach 160 years. And there are more cultural activities than just The Globe. But lets say you want to do something every weekend... Personally I'd take the train and live somewhere else, but if you can find 160*52 = 8352 other equally cheap and worthy cultural activities then it would scale. "I would never have discovered my love for Classical music, ... if ... the tickets so cheap." For me it was free audio rentals at the public library. Back when they used vinyl and magnetic tape. They freely loan CDs now, there is a limit but its ridiculous like 10 loaned at a time. I used to visit my local library every week, but the local symphony only plays something like 8 different performances per year, so do the math there. In this modern era its trendy to claim people only want someone elses streaming selections rather than having a mp3 of their own and making their own selection decisions, regardless of how ridiculous that is, its also more or less free. I live on what amounts to a very small landed estate technically in the suburbs, but somewhat rural. I visit Chicago roughly annually and soak in some culture. I'm glad I don't live there, so I can trivially afford to visit, and my tourist dollars are crowding the locals out of the very cultural activities they supposedly pay $3000/month to live nearby, while I pay about a third that to live in a vastly superior location about 100 miles away. You'd be surprised what a couple extra thousand dollars per month adds up to in the long run.
- justincormack 13y ago
  It is actually pretty easy to find another 8000 cultural activities in London. There are probably 1500 permanent art galleries, largely free for a start. But we are getting to one of those points where more of the benefits of a city should be transferable remotely. I would like to live outside London but the developer community is a massive draw. As well as culture. Also I am a native Londoner so it is home. But the cost of property is a huge issue.

by gman99 13y ago

simonbarker87 13y ago

Fair enough, that is something I hadn't considered (nor realised how cheap it could be) - although I would counter to say that I wouldn't have discovered road biking or surfing (with a hefty wet suit mind you!) if I wasn't in the north east's easy access to both - 10 minutes on the bike and I am in the countryside. It's swings and roundabouts I guess.

gman99 13y ago
I completely agree. I would not have discovered the joys of hiking and hillwalking if it wasn't for my four years at Durham (and "relatively" easy access to the Lake District). Overall, my love of the countryside trumps cheap access to live plays/concerts/public transport/museums/etc; that's why I moved out. My point is just that there are definitely reasons why people would choose to live in the city (reasons I did not fully appreciate until I lived in London) Swings & roundabouts, as you say :)

rdouble 13y ago

I've found the same thing is true about NYC. There are loads of free and cheap things to do. Especially during the summer. Much more so than most other US cities, where everything is pay-to-play and you have to pay for driving and parking as well.

VLM 13y ago

I believe you are missing a substantial scalability issue. From an article in The Telegraph "the Globe has played to 480,000 people this year". It seems to seat somewhere around 2000, so I am willing to believe that they have about 200 performances per year. Living in the US I'm well aware of urban sprawl and the near inability to define imaginary borders. However for the sake of argument, wikipedia claims a bit over 8 million inhabitants in London. Some long division and making the HUGE assumption that The Globe only permits admittance to locals (LOL I'm guessing its probably 90% rich tourists like myself) then the average local can only visit The Globe once every 16 years rather than your "frequent trips". If my estimate of 90% tourist statistics is correct, then the average London resident can only physically visit The Globe once every 160 years. Of course the average lifespan of a london resident probably does not approach 160 years. And there are more cultural activities than just The Globe. But lets say you want to do something every weekend... Personally I'd take the train and live somewhere else, but if you can find 160*52 = 8352 other equally cheap and worthy cultural activities then it would scale. "I would never have discovered my love for Classical music, ... if ... the tickets so cheap." For me it was free audio rentals at the public library. Back when they used vinyl and magnetic tape. They freely loan CDs now, there is a limit but its ridiculous like 10 loaned at a time. I used to visit my local library every week, but the local symphony only plays something like 8 different performances per year, so do the math there. In this modern era its trendy to claim people only want someone elses streaming selections rather than having a mp3 of their own and making their own selection decisions, regardless of how ridiculous that is, its also more or less free. I live on what amounts to a very small landed estate technically in the suburbs, but somewhat rural. I visit Chicago roughly annually and soak in some culture. I'm glad I don't live there, so I can trivially afford to visit, and my tourist dollars are crowding the locals out of the very cultural activities they supposedly pay $3000/month to live nearby, while I pay about a third that to live in a vastly superior location about 100 miles away. You'd be surprised what a couple extra thousand dollars per month adds up to in the long run.

justincormack 13y ago
It is actually pretty easy to find another 8000 cultural activities in London. There are probably 1500 permanent art galleries, largely free for a start. But we are getting to one of those points where more of the benefits of a city should be transferable remotely. I would like to live outside London but the developer community is a massive draw. As well as culture. Also I am a native Londoner so it is home. But the cost of property is a huge issue.