bassnation
the abyss
Yep. And South London obviously.
nah, the south is the place that has heart. that hideous wasteland they call north london, now thats different.
lol
Yep. And South London obviously.
I miss the self-absorption and small mindedness many Londoners display.
Yeah, I'd say that that's right."and the reason Berlin or Rome don't have the same relationships to Germany and Italy, is surely due to the historical state structure of those countries, only unified in 1871/61. By contrast, London and Paris have grown into their roles over centuries, the gap between they and other cities widening with every century, I'd have guessed."
Quite hard to walk out from the centre to the countryside isn't it? I always plan to do that some time - just walk from London to, say, Oxford where my girlfriend lives, think it would be really weird going through the wastelands of North West London where it's all commercial parks and storage firms."I'd say yes, probably*. As for countryside, London certainly has that, as much as New York or Paris for example! Kent, Surrey, Sussex etc are all incredibly verdant - you can take a train out of Victoria or Waterloo and be in the countryside in no time."
as it goes, Slothrop definitely has a great point imo. i don't doubt Rich about the Budapest/Hungary cleavage but, on the other hand, there are other countries where the cleavage isn't as stark as it is in the UK (or Ireland for that matter), where the capital and/or largest city (because, tbf, OTOH i am using Canada and the USA and Brazil as my examples, so i am not taking Ottawa or D.C. or Brasilia as an example, i'll take the largest in those cases, ie TO, NYC and SP) isn't that much ahead of lots of other large great cities they have, eg Vancouver and Montreal, or San Francisco and Chicago, or Rio and Salvador.
whereas in the UK, Edinburgh is certainly lovely, and the large provincial English cities are all good (Cardiff too), and Cambridge rocks etc etc etc but they're all a huge way behind London in terms of general grooviness. whereas, say, Boston is not much less buzzing than New York.
i see Baboon has made some excellent points, well said. also you're all using European examples which shows a good grasp of history. my Americas ones might be a bit redundant given the relative newness of all modern settlements there.
Quite hard to walk out from the centre to the countryside isn't it? I always plan to do that some time - just walk from London to, say, Oxford where my girlfriend lives, think it would be really weird going through the wastelands of North West London where it's all commercial parks and storage firms.
On the other hand London has absolutely loads of greenery inside it. Regents Park and Hyde Park are huge for example and there are loads of bits of park near me (Victoria Park, London Fields, Haggerston Park) giving it a feel, in some bits, as though the green bits surround the houses rather than the other way round.
Interesting points of comparison with the Americas though. I know nothing about Canada really....as to the US and Brazil, they seem to have developed along lines of state identification, allowing for different centres to emerge, perhaps?
Interesting to take Boston as an example though! I know quite a few people who really dislike it.
On the other hand London has absolutely loads of greenery inside it. Regents Park and Hyde Park are huge for example and there are loads of bits of park near me (Victoria Park, London Fields, Haggerston Park) giving it a feel, in some bits, as though the green bits surround the houses rather than the other way round.
south london is even greener - crystal palace, brockwell park, norwood park, clapham common.... the list goes on. there is also sydenham wood which is the last remaining chunk of one of londons oldest forests, the great north wood that once stretched from deptford to selhurst.
sydenham wood is lovely, one of my favourite places in london. and the hugeness of wimbledon common of course - i really like that the fact that there's big patches of untamed nature in the middle of the city. even bits of Hyde park feel a bit wild, rather than typically park-like.
i quite like living in the suburbs of the city. i'm in gipsy hill now which is a hell of a trek to anywhere really, especially as i walk everywhere. i agree with the previous poster who said in order to really appreciate london, find a part where you feel comfortable, get to know the area and the locals, and go into central london as little as possible, which is pretty much what i do.
Yeah, I know that, I just picked Oxford as a target. It would be an almost perversely ugly walk in parts but I'd like to think it would be interesting. I think I was expired by seeing that one-man play about a guy who morris-danced from London to Norwich."But I don't know of any cities where that would be practicable (and there's miles of countryside between London and Oxford)."
Such a terrible shame it's on the wrong side of the river ha ha... actually, went down to Peckham on the weekend and it's pretty nice round there, feels like there is a lot going on. Was in that art gallery thing in the multi-storey car park."south london is even greener"
my favourite feature of brockwell park is the lido, affectionately known as the "brixton beach". possibly the only open air swimming pool where the smell of skunk in the air is omnipresent.
Yeah, I know that, I just picked Oxford as a target. It would be an almost perversely ugly walk in parts but I'd like to think it would be interesting. I think I was expired by seeing that one-man play about a guy who morris-danced from London to Norwich.
Such a terrible shame it's on the wrong side of the river ha ha... actually, went down to Peckham on the weekend and it's pretty nice round there, feels like there is a lot going on. Was in that art gallery thing in the multi-storey car park.