LONDON

bigmat

Peat wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

What makes everybody pile up in a few square miles of it? So it used to be that we needed to be together to work together but that's becoming less and less necessary. So are big cities (like high streets I was hearing today) doomed? Why will they exist?

I think they will. I think generally most people like other people.

i say i 'think'. I certainly can't empathise though.

Culture. There's very little out in the sticks, if you're honest. I don't take nearly enough advantage of it, but I could go to a different gallery every week, a different theatre show, see a different band every night, hundreds - no, thousands of sights of historical and cultural significance. There is possibly nowhere in the world you can see more landmarks than standing on Waterloo Bridge. Throw in the unbelievable cultural diversity (pick a country, any country, they'll be represented somewhere in London). There is nowhere else in the UK that comes anywhere near, not within a country mile.

daviesee

My work here is done. :twisted:

meanredspider

BigMat wrote:

Culture. There's very little out in the sticks, if you're honest. I don't take nearly enough advantage of it, but I could go to a different gallery every week, a different theatre show, see a different band every night, hundreds - no, thousands of sights of historical and cultural significance. There is possibly nowhere in the world you can see more landmarks than standing on Waterloo Bridge. Throw in the unbelievable cultural diversity (pick a country, any country, they'll be represented somewhere in London). There is nowhere else in the UK that comes anywhere near, not within a country mile.

London, maybe. Birmingham (less so - especially historically)? Shanghai?

And are these things enough to keep cities "glued" together? Or would one good epidemic (Bird Flu type thing) or nasty terrorist incident create enough of a crack to see them fall?

Headhuunter

meanredspider wrote:

BigMat wrote:

Culture. There's very little out in the sticks, if you're honest. I don't take nearly enough advantage of it, but I could go to a different gallery every week, a different theatre show, see a different band every night, hundreds - no, thousands of sights of historical and cultural significance. There is possibly nowhere in the world you can see more landmarks than standing on Waterloo Bridge. Throw in the unbelievable cultural diversity (pick a country, any country, they'll be represented somewhere in London). There is nowhere else in the UK that comes anywhere near, not within a country mile.

London, maybe. Birmingham (less so - especially historically)? Shanghai?

And are these things enough to keep cities "glued" together? Or would one good epidemic (Bird Flu type thing) or nasty terrorist incident create enough of a crack to see them fall?

Cities will always exist. I suppose in theory we could all live in the country and work on wireless internet connections etc except in practice that doesn't work. The City for example thrives on human contact, people socialising in pubs with others. When I headhunt salespeople for investment banks they often want to be based in London as that's where the traders are based and direct face contact with traders is very useful. Around that there are all sorts of support industries that support the various banks, hedge funds and investment companies. They all need to be based close to each other so that clients can met efficiently and easily. My own job, headhunting relies on me being physically close to clients and candidates and being able to meet them frequently, I couldn't effectively headhunt in London based out in the sticks somewhere. Not to mention transport links, international businesses need to be located close to major airports. Basically certain industries will always need to cluster together which in turn means that people are obliged to cluster in cities

davmaggs

meanredspider wrote:

So I was in NYC weekend before last and, looking back at Manhatten from the Staten Island ferry, I was wondering what's the point of cities in the modern world. The USA, for instance, is huge. What makes everybody pile up in a few square miles of it? So it used to be that we needed to be together to work together but that's becoming less and less necessary. So are big cities (like high streets I was hearing today) doomed? Why will they exist?

It's the cluster effect, and cities are far more efficient.

If anything cities are getting better and better for mankind. The nasty plagues and crippling pollution of yesteryear are gone so that even Londoners live to receive their pension now.

meanredspider

davmaggs wrote:

It's the cluster effect, and cities are far more efficient.

If anything cities are getting better and better for mankind. The nasty plagues and crippling pollution of yesteryear are gone so that even Londoners live to receive their pension now.

Efficient in what way? I wonder how much time (and money) your average Londoner spends getting to work and back vs (for example) your average Invernesian. Co-located? Fine - there 1200 people work at my place of work - is 1200 a big enough number? I find it difficult to believe that a number much higher than that is efficient from a colocation point of view - after all, you can interact face-to-face with only so many people in a day. There has to come a tipping point where the size of the city becomes an issue - where you are employing resources to overcome the problems caused by so many people living on top of each other.

BigLights

The additional irony is that, whilst the image of country living is wholesome and planet friendly, in actual fact living in a city is far kinder to the environment. Supermarkets/food distribution is infinitely more efficent, most people commute by mass transit (the lemmings that is, the others cycle...), heating is far more efficient in smaller, denser dwellings, so actually us big city folk are, well sort of, saving the planet. etc.

meanredspider

BigLights wrote:

The additional irony is that, whilst the image of country living is wholesome and planet friendly, in actual fact living in a city is far kinder to the environment. Supermarkets/food distribution is infinitely more efficent, most people commute by mass transit (the lemmings that is, the others cycle...), heating is far more efficient in smaller, denser dwellings, so actually us big city folk are, well sort of, saving the planet. etc.

As above. I'm not sure it is. It would be fine if everyone could (afford to) live near their place of work like most of the people I work with do (average commute is probably under 5 miles - possibly a lot less). I'm also not sure distribution through the congestion is particularly efficient. I'm really only talking about the really big cities - Inverness is, after all, a city

warreng

ex-Scouser living in Surrey working in London here.

Love Liverpool, Surrey and London. Not many places I don't like.

I couldn't live in central London full-time without getting out to the country for some space - in the same way I couldn't live in the country without coming back to the city for all the joys it can provide

I've been lucky to travel all over with work and London, for me, is one of the best places on earth

notsoblue

I actually really like cycling in London compared to cycling anywhere else in the UK. It feels safe to me because vehicles in central London are more likely to expect cyclists, and more often than not you're cycling at the same speed as the traffic. For all the perceived aggro thats part of the day to day commute, I think its one of the most convenient and pleasant places for cycling.

There, I said it. That feels better.

DonDaddyD

London is a great City. I find that a lot of people take it for granted.

It's like an iPhone it just works.

jzed

notsoblue wrote:

I actually really like cycling in London compared to cycling anywhere else in the UK. It feels safe to me because vehicles in central London are more likely to expect cyclists, and more often than not you're cycling at the same speed as the traffic. For all the perceived aggro thats part of the day to day commute, I think its one of the most convenient and pleasant places for cycling.

There, I said it. That feels better.

+1.

iPete

JZed wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I actually really like cycling in London compared to cycling anywhere else in the UK. It feels safe to me because vehicles in central London are more likely to expect cyclists, and more often than not you're cycling at the same speed as the traffic. For all the perceived aggro thats part of the day to day commute, I think its one of the most convenient and pleasant places for cycling.

There, I said it. That feels better.

+1.

+1

Country lanes give me the heebie-jeebies.

davmaggs

meanredspider wrote:

BigLights wrote:

The additional irony is that, whilst the image of country living is wholesome and planet friendly, in actual fact living in a city is far kinder to the environment. Supermarkets/food distribution is infinitely more efficent, most people commute by mass transit (the lemmings that is, the others cycle...), heating is far more efficient in smaller, denser dwellings, so actually us big city folk are, well sort of, saving the planet. etc.

As above. I'm not sure it is. It would be fine if everyone could (afford to) live near their place of work like most of the people I work with do (average commute is probably under 5 miles - possibly a lot less). I'm also not sure distribution through the congestion is particularly efficient. I'm really only talking about the really big cities - Inverness is, after all, a city

There are decades (probably centuries) of studies on this topic, it is a well worn fact of geography studies. Bar farming just about every other task of work is more efficient in cities.

edit; typos

meanredspider

davmaggs wrote:

There are decades (probably centuries) of studies on this topic, it is a well worn fact of geography studies. Bar farming just about every other task of work is more efficient in cities.

Regardless of how big the city gets?

I'm sure people used to think that high streets were efficient for shopping. Just because it used to be true, it doesn't mean that it always will be.

tgotb

meanredspider wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

There are decades (probably centuries) of studies on this topic, it is a well worn fact of geography studies. Bar farming just about every other task of work is more efficient in cities.

Regardless of how big the city gets?

I'm sure people used to think that high streets were efficient for shopping. Just because it used to be true, it doesn't mean that it always will be.

No, they're slowly being replaced by more efficient superstores, where the products are packed more densely, which can handle a larger number of shoppers, and where everything you need is available in a single store...

cyclingprop

DonDaddyD wrote:

London is a great City. I find that a lot of people take it for granted.

It's like an iPhone it just works.

Apart from the maps. They're crap.

rjsterry

meanredspider wrote:

BigMat wrote:

Culture. There's very little out in the sticks, if you're honest. I don't take nearly enough advantage of it, but I could go to a different gallery every week, a different theatre show, see a different band every night, hundreds - no, thousands of sights of historical and cultural significance. There is possibly nowhere in the world you can see more landmarks than standing on Waterloo Bridge. Throw in the unbelievable cultural diversity (pick a country, any country, they'll be represented somewhere in London). There is nowhere else in the UK that comes anywhere near, not within a country mile.

London, maybe. Birmingham (less so - especially historically)? Shanghai?

And are these things enough to keep cities "glued" together? Or would one good epidemic (Bird Flu type thing) or nasty terrorist incident create enough of a crack to see them fall?

Er, on the evidence of large parts of London (and many other cities for that matter) being reduced to rubble during the war, and smaller bits blown up at intervals thereafter, no it'd take a lot more than that. London has also seen off innumerable riots, the Black Death, and many other outbreaks of plague, and the Great Fire.

willhub

I was frustrated today, had to go to Kings Cross and the traffic is mental, I'm pretty happy with my 16-17mph average on the route what my Garmin Says as it's so stop and start and full of road works and bits of road where land mines have being set off (that's what it looks like), then traffic lights on red for 10 minutes none stop.

I'm actually tempted to get up at 4-5am on Sunday to get out on quiet roads.

http://app.strava.com/activities/25301462

That's the route I took today.

rubertoe

willhub wrote:

I was frustrated today, had to go to Kings Cross and the traffic is mental, I'm pretty happy with my 16-17mph average on the route what my Garmin Says as it's so stop and start and full of road works and bits of road where land mines have being set off (that's what it looks like), then traffic lights on red for 10 minutes none stop.

I'm actually tempted to get up at 4-5am on Sunday to get out on quiet roads.

http://app.strava.com/activities/25301462

That's the route I took today.

You do realise that you can get out of London and essentially from anywhere you are no more than 20 miles at most from the countryside?

willhub

So I've got to do 60 miles just to get in 20 miles of country, so need to do 80 miles because 20 miles is not enough country. Takes long trying to find all the ok roads to cycle on to get out.

I'll do Richmond Park before I venture out.

Anyone around sometime Sunday?

meanredspider

TGOTB wrote:

No, they're slowly being replaced by more efficient superstores, where the products are packed more densely, which can handle a larger number of shoppers, and where everything you need is available in a single store...

Mostly "out of town"....

dhope

willhub wrote:

So I've got to do 60 miles just to get in 20 miles of country, so need to do 80 miles because 20 miles is not enough country.

Yes, this is how distance works. If it's any consolation, I have to do 60 miles to do 20 miles starting from something that's 20 miles away from me too.

Kieran_Burns

dhope wrote:

willhub wrote:

So I've got to do 60 miles just to get in 20 miles of country, so need to do 80 miles because 20 miles is not enough country.

Yes, this is how distance works. If it's any consolation, I have to do 60 miles to do 20 miles starting from something that's 20 miles away from me too.

I go about 300 yards to get out of the village I live in, to get out into the country.

If it makes you feel any better, it's quite a steep hill.

willhub

Manchester - 3-6miles
Selby - Instant

So when I come to London and find it's 10-20 miles, it's proper depressing, especially as the traffic intensity is much higher.


Is there any night rides? I'm wanting to go for a ride Friday night and wondering if there is anywhere where friendly welcoming cyclists meet up for a blast.

kelsen

willhub wrote:

So when I come to London and find it's 10-20 miles, it's proper depressing, especially as the traffic intensity is much higher.

Sounds to me like your mindset is all wrong. My 12 miles commute each way into the City is the highlight of my sh*tty working day.

roger_merriman

willhub wrote:

Manchester - 3-6miles
Selby - Instant

So when I come to London and find it's 10-20 miles, it's proper depressing, especially as the traffic intensity is much higher.


Is there any night rides? I'm wanting to go for a ride Friday night and wondering if there is anywhere where friendly welcoming cyclists meet up for a blast.

Plenty use the parks, though need good lights since it's unlit plus Richmond and Bushy Parks have Deer.

Your strava ride was never going to be that quiet headed that way, i don't know East London that well, But quiet roads that is not going to be.

This is my commute.

as others have said once you know the area it is a lot better, on the odd days off I do roll along the embankment to the Tower of London have coffee/cake watch tourists etc.

recently i went to Crystal Palace to explore and look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Palace_Dinosaurs

there is a lot of *stuff* in london.

I personal love living on the outer reaches of london, I can get into or out of London very quickly.

willhub

Here is my ride I might do tomorrow night:



Optional choice to add 14 miles and go into Richmond Park. The dual carriage way along the river looks quite pleasant.

rick_chasey

You're mad not to be going through Richmond park if you're heading that way.

Though you're mad for wanting to go SW from where you are anyway.

meanredspider

Parks are all well and good and a nice facility if you're in an urban environment but my experiences of Windsor Great Park (which I'm assuming are reasonably typical of big London parks) aren't great. People using the roads (and they are roads with a 38mph speed limit) are oblivious with dogs, toddlers, small kids on scooters all on the loose across the road.

In the time-to-the-country stakes, I'm literally in it. Woods to one side, field (of sheep right now) at the back, and village sign to the other side. 13 miles to Inverness which takes 13 minutes in the car with not a single set of lights on the way. Less than 5 minutes to the sea (with dolphins and seals), snow-capped mountains in the view from the living room, skiing 40 minutes away, and a job working for a blue-chip multinational. The airport is 15 minutes away, with parking 2 minutes from the check-in desk and Gatwick 1hr20m away with 4 flights a day. And all the cycling anybody could ever want with a purpose-build MTB trail centre 5 miles away (can cycle there almost entirely off-road), plenty of cafe stops everywhere, no bikes thieves (that I've heard of) and so on. Coming from Cambridge, the only thing I miss is the culture - but that's a very small price to pay.