# Is Manchester as nice as London ?



## horcruxe333 (May 29, 2013)

Just want to have some opinions about those cities...


----------



## dessiato (May 29, 2013)

London is better than Manchester. I've only been to Manchester three or four times, and never enjoyed it.


----------



## discokermit (May 29, 2013)

i only recently discovered manchester. i like it a lot.


----------



## CharlieChaplin (May 29, 2013)

Never been to Manchester. I'm not particularly keen on London though.


----------



## horcruxe333 (May 29, 2013)

I heard that the northern quarter was great, also housing in Manchester seems to be much cheaper.


----------



## horcruxe333 (May 29, 2013)

dessiato said:


> London is better than Manchester. I've only been to Manchester three or four times, and never enjoyed it.


I guess you prefer bigger cities ?


----------



## dessiato (May 29, 2013)

horcruxe333 said:


> I guess you prefer bigger cities ?


 
I like bigger cities, yes. My absolute favourite place though is Miami. I love a city by the beach.


----------



## lazythursday (May 29, 2013)

Manchester is a brilliant city - different to London though. London has so many different urban centres with lots going on in each - outside of the city centre a lot of Manchester is either dull or quite deprived, with a few desirable exceptions like Chorlton. I'd move back to Manchester - not sure I'd ever move back to London and I could never afford to anyway.

Lots going on in terms of culture. Best thing about Manchester is its closeness to the Pennines / Peak District / nice bits of Cheshire - much easier than London to get out of the city. And you can get to two other pretty decent cities (Liverpool and Leeds) in less than an hour.


----------



## horcruxe333 (May 29, 2013)

dessiato said:


> I like bigger cities, yes. My absolute favourite place though is Miami. I love a city by the beach.


Never to the USA, just some cities in Europe but I'm sure it is wonderful. I still need to improve my english.


----------



## dessiato (May 29, 2013)

horcruxe333 said:


> Never to the USA, just some cities in Europe but I'm sure it is wonderful. I still need to improve my english.


 
There's a lot of grammar police here who will quickly put you right!


----------



## horcruxe333 (May 29, 2013)

lazythursday said:


> Manchester is a brilliant city - different to London though. London has so many different urban centres with lots going on in each - outside of the city centre a lot of Manchester is either dull or quite deprived, with a few desirable exceptions like Chorlton. I'd move back to Manchester - not sure I'd ever move back to London and I could never afford to anyway.
> 
> Lots going on in terms of culture. Best thing about Manchester is its closeness to the Pennines / Peak District / nice bits of Cheshire - much easier than London to get out of the city. And you can get to two other pretty decent cities (Liverpool and Leeds) in less than an hour.


Thanks for the tips, I am currently living in Paris but I need some fresh air.


----------



## Fez909 (May 29, 2013)

lazythursday said:


> Manchester is a brilliant city - different to London though. London has so many different urban centres with lots going on in each - outside of the city centre a lot of Manchester is either dull or quite deprived, with a few desirable exceptions like Chorlton. I'd move back to Manchester - not sure I'd ever move back to London and I could never afford to anyway.
> 
> Lots going on in terms of culture. Best thing about Manchester is its closeness to the Pennines / Peak District / nice bits of Cheshire - much easier than London to get out of the city. And you can get to two other pretty decent cities (Liverpool and Leeds) in less than an hour.


 
I agree with most of that, except saying it's different to London. It's much more like London than most other UK cities, probably due to the size of the place and the sprawl. It means you do get the odd pockets of other things going on, like Chorlton, and Didsbury and Heaton Chapel, etc. The north of the city is how you describe it, though.

The central part is really large, so there are sub-divisions, which you don't get as much in other cities. In Leeds, for example, there's the centre of Leeds and that's it. The grouping of restaurants, bars etc is much tighter, so you just refer to streets when trying to direct someone. In Manchester, there's whole areas which are still part of "the centre": Castlefield, Deansgate, Northern Quarter, Picadilly, etc.

I got a similar feel when walking around Birmingham with the major difference that Birmingham seems to have none of the interesting aspects of a city that size. Manchester is big, with lots going on, and lots to do. A mini-London, IMO.


----------



## Firky (May 29, 2013)

I know where this thread will head.


----------



## Part 2 (May 29, 2013)

horcruxe333 said:


> Just want to have some opinions about those cities...


 
What are you looking for in a place to live? What sort of things do you like doing?


----------



## marty21 (May 29, 2013)

I have been to Manchester a couple of times and liked it - I have lived in London for 24 years and like it

HTH


----------



## Yelkcub (May 29, 2013)

Both great cities. Manchester is great in that you're never far from the centre of town and everything happens there. London is great because it's got so many 'centres' with so much going on. 

Manchester used to be a great city for a night out, I'm guessing it still is. London is also and has the advantage that the whole world is here. Whatever type/nationality of person you've never met, you'll meet them in London....


----------



## Glitter (May 29, 2013)

It depends what you want. I like visiting London but would never live there in a million years. I love visiting Manchester and would happily move back there. 

If you like peas on your chips, football and have your dinner between 12-2 I'd go for Manchester. If you prefer to pay five quid for a pint and pronounce fuck with an A I'd move down South


----------



## Jackobi (May 29, 2013)

Having lived in both cities, I would choose Manchester over London without a second thought. I found London overcrowded and claustrophobic, Manchester is busy but not to the same extent, the air is fresher and the climate cooler which suits me better.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 29, 2013)

IMHO Manchester is the best city in the UK.


----------



## horcruxe333 (May 29, 2013)

Chip Barm said:


> What are you looking for in a place to live? What sort of things do you like doing?


I like walking around cities, nice cafés with chill people. I live around a bohemian quarter in Paris, I would like to find the same vibes and to me, big cities in Britain are more easy going than in France.


----------



## horcruxe333 (May 29, 2013)

Jackobi said:


> Having lived in both cities, I would choose Manchester over London without a second thought. I found London overcrowded and claustrophobic, Manchester is busy but not to the same extent, the air is fresher and the climate cooler which suits me better.


I am used to busy cities since I live in Paris. I will be fine, thanks for your reply.


----------



## Part 2 (May 29, 2013)

horcruxe333 said:


> I like walking around cities, nice cafés with chill people. I live around a bohemian quarter in Paris, I would like to find the same vibes and to me, big cities in Britain are more easy going than in France.


 
I could see how the northern quarter might appeal then. Manchester is probably more easy going than London. I live here so probably take too much for granted tbh.


----------



## The39thStep (May 29, 2013)

Manchester is head and shoulders above London mainly because it hasn't been infected that much with bohemians and their ilk. . There is  the Northern Quarter/Chorlton hipster axis but get out of that and there is a small universe to discover in the surrounding GM boroughs full of real people.


----------



## friedaweed (May 29, 2013)

London is poo, Manchester is a bit poo, Chester is where it's at


----------



## Fez909 (May 29, 2013)

horcruxe333 I hope you're at least going to visit these places before deciding to live there! London is only a short train journey/flight away and Manchester is only 2.5 hours on the train from London.

Another thing to consider is employment: while Manchester has a decent amount of jobs, it's nothing compared to London and the south east of England. There's far more work available in London and the pay is much higher (along with living costs, of course).


----------



## lazythursday (May 29, 2013)

Much as I love Manchester, I think Liverpool is in many ways a more interesting city to mooch around. And neither hold a candle to Glasgow, which I really fell in love with when I visited - I love the bombastic architecture in the centre and the completely different genteel feel of the West End. 

It does sound as though the northern quarter would appeal to you. I think its lost its way a bit personally - crossed the line from eclectic and interesting into wankiness. But perhaps that's just cos I've passed 40.


----------



## teuchter (May 29, 2013)

horcruxe333 said:


> I am used to busy cities since I live in Paris. I will be fine, thanks for your reply.


 

You think Paris is "busy"?? It's pretty much the most lethargic capital in Europe.

If you like big cities that are rewarding to walk around then go for London. After 10 years in London there will still be (interesting) parts that you've not yet seen, and some of those which you have already visited will have changed drastically in that time. You'd not get this in Manchester.


----------



## ruffneck23 (May 29, 2013)

im a Londoner, but spent 3 years in Manc, loved it. Would move back in a shot


----------



## killer b (May 29, 2013)

lazythursday said:


> It does sound as though the northern quarter would appeal to you. I think its lost its way a bit personally - crossed the line from eclectic and interesting into wankiness. But perhaps that's just cos I've passed 40.


the cool interesting stuff has all moved out to salford now.


----------



## lazythursday (May 29, 2013)

killer b said:


> the cool interesting stuff has all moved out to salford now.


 
interesting, I didn't realise (and Salford used to be my stamping ground many years ago). You mean the Kings Arms, Islington Mill, that sort of thing?


----------



## killer b (May 29, 2013)

aye, the manc end - went over a few weeks ago for the sounds from the other city festival, it was brilliant. and islington mill is fantastic atm.


----------



## lazythursday (May 29, 2013)

teuchter said:


> You think Paris is "busy"?? It's pretty much the most lethargic capital in Europe.
> 
> If you like big cities that are rewarding to walk around then go for London. After 10 years in London there will still be (interesting) parts that you've not yet seen, and some of those which you have already visited will have changed drastically in that time. You'd not get this in Manchester.


 
London is such a vast size it's not really comparable to other cities in the UK. I liked Will Alsopp's concept of the northern supercity stretching from Liverpool to Hull on the M62 corridor - there are lots of interesting cities and towns within that belt that you could easily be exploring for 10 years.


----------



## teuchter (May 29, 2013)

You'd not get from Manchester to Hull in an hour or so on a day travelcard though.


----------



## lazythursday (May 29, 2013)

teuchter said:


> You'd not get from Manchester to Hull in an hour or so on a day travelcard though.


 
true, but you'd get to Liverpool / Lancaster / Bradford / Huddersfield / Leeds within an hour and similar price. People don't, much, though - I'm always surprised by how people seem to stick to their own towns and cities when it's relatively easy to travel around the north.


----------



## discokermit (May 29, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Manchester is head and shoulders above London mainly because it hasn't been infected that much with bohemians and their ilk. . There is the Northern Quarter/Chorlton hipster axis but get out of that and there is a small universe to discover in the surrounding GM boroughs full of real people.


do you dislike everyone who isn't like you, dresses like you, does things you don't like, listens to music you don't understand? it would surely be a pretty boring world if we were all the same.


----------



## _angel_ (May 29, 2013)

Manchester, London, which is worse? Seriously do not know.


----------



## Frances Lengel (May 29, 2013)

discokermit said:


> *do you dislike everyone who isn't like you,* dresses like you, does things you don't like, listens to music you don't understand? it would surely be a pretty boring world if we were all the same.


 
Never mind isn't _like_ me, I dislike anyone who isn't me.


----------



## The39thStep (May 29, 2013)

discokermit said:


> do you dislike everyone who isn't like you, dresses like you, does things you don't like, listens to music you don't understand? it would surely be a pretty boring world if we were all the same.


 
It surely would be but I am not sure why you are asking me all these questions.


----------



## The39thStep (May 29, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> horcruxe333 I hope you're at least going to visit these places before deciding to live there! London is only a short train journey/flight away and Manchester is *only 2.5 hours on the train from London.*
> 
> Another thing to consider is employment: while Manchester has a decent amount of jobs, it's nothing compared to London and the south east of England. There's far more work available in London and the pay is much higher (along with living costs, of course).


 
2hrs 8 mins and our beer is better and cheaper, also there are less Man Utd fans up here


----------



## killer b (May 29, 2013)

the train's mental fast now innit? i went to london last week and it took less time than it often takes me to get to leeds...


----------



## The39thStep (May 29, 2013)

killer b said:


> the train's mental fast now innit? i went to london last week and it took less time than it often takes me to get to leeds...


 
1 hour when the high speed is completed. Frightening.


----------



## killer b (May 29, 2013)

the high speed won't be for the likes of us, so it doesn't really effect things too much


----------



## The39thStep (May 29, 2013)

killer b said:


> the high speed won't be for the likes of us, so it doesn't really effect things too much


 
I will be on  one of those senior citizen rail passes by the time that comes in.


----------



## horcruxe333 (May 29, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> horcruxe333 I hope you're at least going to visit these places before deciding to live there! London is only a short train journey/flight away and Manchester is only 2.5 hours on the train from London.
> 
> Another thing to consider is employment: while Manchester has a decent amount of jobs, it's nothing compared to London and the south east of England. There's far more work available in London and the pay is much higher (along with living costs, of course).


I already visited London several times but there is still so much to see; I have not visited Manchester yet.


----------



## friedaweed (May 29, 2013)

horcruxe333 said:


> I already visited London several times but there is still so much to see; I have not visited Manchester yet.


Have you seen the graffiti in the Albert bogs?


----------



## horcruxe333 (May 29, 2013)

friedaweed said:


> Have you seen the graffiti in the Albert bogs?


Not at all...


----------



## friedaweed (May 29, 2013)

horcruxe333 said:


> Not at all...


You've seen nothing of London until you've been tagged in the Albert bogs


----------



## horcruxe333 (May 29, 2013)

Hahaha, ok I will keep that in mind.


----------



## Dillinger4 (May 30, 2013)

Manchester is rubbish.


----------



## Tom A (May 31, 2013)

As a comparison to those whom say that London has "things happening in multiple centres", in Manchester you have a large swathe of Northern England at your disposal within an hour's train or coach ride away, including: Leeds, Sheffield, Liverpool, and Chester. So if you do get bored of Manc you can easily head to somewhere else for a evening or two.

Also even within Greater Manchester you have interesting things going on outside the city, Bolton is an okay kind of town with events happening at the Albert Halls, Bury has the Met and is a pretty pleasant town itself, as is Stockport.

Also you can be in the open countryside within 15 minutes on the train. Can't say that about London.


----------



## Dillinger4 (May 31, 2013)

Tom A said:


> As a comparison to those whom say that London has "things happening in multiple centres", in Manchester you have a large swathe of Northern England at your disposal within an hour's train or coach ride away, including: Leeds, Sheffield, Liverpool, and Chester. So if you do get bored of Manc you can easily head to somewhere else for a evening or two.
> 
> Also even within Greater Manchester you have interesting things going on outside the city, Bolton is an okay kind of town with events happening at the Albert Halls, Bury has the Met and is a pretty pleasant town itself, as is Stockport.
> 
> Also you can be in the open countryside within 15 minutes on the train. Can't say that about London.


 

That's true. It amazes me every time driving north out of Manchester into the forest / trough of Bowland. It is properly empty, and only about half an hour away from Manchester.


----------



## killer b (May 31, 2013)

bowland is wonderful. some of the most beautiful countryside in the country.


----------



## Dillinger4 (May 31, 2013)

killer b said:


> bowland is wonderful. some of the most beautiful countryside in the country.


 

and it is so empty. It seems to be almost completely missed by tourists. There are villages there that it feels like time forgot. Properly beautiful. 

I go up there loads. I saw a pair of Eagle Owls up there once.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 2, 2013)

Tom A said:


> As a comparison to those whom say that London has "things happening in multiple centres", in Manchester you have a large swathe of Northern England at your disposal within an hour's train or coach ride away, including: Leeds, Sheffield, Liverpool, and Chester. So if you do get bored of Manc you can easily head to somewhere else for a evening or two.


Not entirely sure what the point of the comparison is, though, as you can also get to a large swathe of places around London "within an hour's train or coach ride", if that's where you're going to move your goalposts to.

However, one thing that London doesn't really have is quick access to properly open countryside, that much has to be conceeded. Although there is plenty of fairly pleasant contryside very easily accessible by public transport.


----------



## Tom A (Jun 2, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Not entirely sure what the point of the comparison is, though, as you can also get to a large swathe of places around London "within an hour's train or coach ride", if that's where you're going to move your goalposts to.


It takes three quarters of an hour to clear the M25 on the road from Victoria, though I acknowledge that the fastest trains make that a bit less of an obstacle, though you do pay for the privilege.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 2, 2013)

Tom A said:


> It takes three quarters of an hour to clear the M25 on the road from Victoria, though I acknowledge that the fastest trains make that a bit less of an obstacle, though you do pay for the privilege.


 

Are we comparing like with like, or not? If we are restricted to road transport only, then according to the National Express website it appears that none of Leeds, Sheffield or Chester are within an hour's ride by coach. So you would have to take the train. And the train will clear the M25 in les than half an hour and get you to Brighton for example in under an hour, for less than the cost of a train ticket from Manchester to Sheffield.


----------



## Nice one (Jun 2, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Manchester is head and shoulders above London mainly because it hasn't been infected that much with bohemians and their ilk. . There is the Northern Quarter/Chorlton hipster axis but get out of that and there is a small universe to discover in the surrounding GM boroughs full of real people.


 
and they have better football teams


----------



## Tom A (Jun 2, 2013)

teuchter said:


> Are we comparing like with like, or not? If we are restricted to road transport only, then according to the National Express website it appears that none of Leeds, Sheffield or Chester are within an hour's ride by coach. So you would have to take the train. And the train will clear the M25 in les than half an hour and get you to Brighton for example in under an hour, for less than the cost of a train ticket from Manchester to Sheffield.


You can get from Manchester to Leeds or Liverpool in about an hour, even less than that at off peak times.


----------



## binka (Jun 2, 2013)

Tom A said:


> You can get from Manchester to Leeds or Liverpool in about an hour


not sure why you'd want to though.

just going to say in my impartial opinion that manchester is better than london for a variety of reasons


----------



## silverfish (Jun 2, 2013)

Manchester over London for me, but I'm a northern boy and spent many fine times visiting friends there when at university.
Ex lives there and I'd fly up every weekend from Plymouth, great place, big but not "fuck 3/4s of an hour on the tube" to get anywhere big

Someones gotta say it, a smaller friendlier London


----------



## teuchter (Jun 2, 2013)

silverfish said:


> Someones gotta say it, a smaller friendlier London


 

Why not just say, a different kind of place? This always happens in these threads, fans of Britain's provincial cities try and argue that they are like London except without all the characteristics that make London London.

The Scottish Highlands: a bigger, less populous and more mountainous London.


----------



## The Boy (Jun 2, 2013)

People comparing the relevant merits of Manchester and London on a thread where the OP asked about the relevant merits of Manchester and London, shocker.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 2, 2013)

[quote="lazythursday, post: 12272947, member: Cheshire - . And you can get to two other pretty decent cities (Liverpool and Leeds) in less than an hour.[/quote]

Pretty decent?


----------



## snadge (Jun 2, 2013)

Never buy drugs off a Manc, first thing you learn when going to Glastonbury pre stalug fence.


----------



## kittyP (Jun 2, 2013)

As others have said they are both great but totally different. 
In some ways Manchester has the good bits of London squeezed in to a smaller space but London has a lot more variation and options.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jun 2, 2013)

I liked Manchester as a student but got sick of it after I graduated. It's such a provincial backwater compared to London - just endless ugly identical suburbs full of boring people with no style and nothing to say. There are some interesting buildings in the centre, although nearly all the good bits are blighted by hateful '60s rain-streaked "white" concrete monstrosities. If I had to go back there I'd need to live right in the centre and hide from the locals by going to all the matinees at the Royal Exchange. Fuck the suburbs, fuck Stockport and Bolton and all the Cheshire monsters with their orange legs and their Range Rovers. In fact, bomb 99% of the Manchester metropolitan area so there's nothing left between Liverpool and the Peak District except Deansgate. Alternatively, never go closer to Manchester than Bollington. If I had to go back to a city in the North West I'd pick Huddersfield, Liverpool or Sheffield.

And bomb Stoke while you're at it. What a pointless, festering shithole. It's indistinguishable from most of Manchester.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 2, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> . If I had to go back to a city in the North West I'd pick Huddersfield, Liverpool or Sheffield.
> .



Except Sheffield and Huddersfield are in Yorkshire. And not a city in the case of Huddersfield.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 2, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> I liked Manchester as a student but got sick of it after I graduated. It's such a provincial backwater compared to London - just endless ugly identical suburbs full of *boring people with no style and nothing to say*. There are some interesting buildings in the centre, although nearly all the good bits are blighted by hateful '60s rain-streaked "white" concrete monstrosities. If I had to go back there I'd need to live right in the centre and hide from the locals by going to all the matinees at the Royal Exchange. Fuck the suburbs, fuck Stockport and Bolton and all the Cheshire monsters with their orange legs and their Range Rovers. In fact, bomb 99% of the Manchester metropolitan area so there's nothing left between Liverpool and the Peak District except Deansgate. Alternatively, never go closer to Manchester than Bollington. If I had to go back to a city in the North West I'd pick Huddersfield, Liverpool or Sheffield.
> 
> And bomb Stoke while you're at it. What a pointless, festering shithole. It's indistinguishable from most of Manchester.


 
Would've thought you'd have fitted right in then.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 2, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Would've thought you'd have fitted right in then.


 
Miaow!


----------



## horcruxe333 (Jun 6, 2013)

Thank you all for your comments, it was really helpful.


----------



## Part 2 (Jun 6, 2013)

horcruxe333 said:


> Thank you all for your comments, it was really helpful.


 
Who won?


----------



## Frumious B. (Jun 6, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Would've thought you'd have fitted right in then.


 
Fair comment.  Reminds me of the time I was in the queue to board the BA shuttle and my friend asked me what Manchester was like. I gave my honest opinion. The Mancunian behind us didn't take it well.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Jun 10, 2013)

kittyP said:


> ...In some ways Manchester has the good bits of London squeezed in to a smaller space but London has a lot more variation and options.


I agree with kittyP.

I've recently been extolling the virtues of Manchester to someone I know based in London who's a bit stressed out with the lack of affordable accommodation and trying to make ends meet financially down there.

I think the main decisive factor is probably going to be what field of work you're in, what kind of job you're looking for, or if you're studying, what subject, what level, etc... If you can make a move to Manchester make sense for you within those parameters, then it'd be great.

I'm biased, of course, as a northerner currently living in Manchester, but I'd recommend it over London for someone new to the UK. Lots of immigrants head for London, but you're competing for jobs with gazillions of other people there, and when you get a job, most of your money is going to be eaten up by accommodation and travel and living costs - unless you can find a cheap room to rent or a place in a squat. Or unless you're very qualified and experienced and can command a decent salary.

Kitty's right that Manchester has a lot of what London has, squeezed into a smaller space, so there's lots to see and do, and most places are easily accessible, in fact you can walk from one side of the city centre to the other in less than half an hour.

One of the practical differences is that if you work in Manchester city centre, you can nip into a bar with colleagues after work for a quick drink, before walking for 5-10 minutes across town to meet friends to go to the cinema, theatre or a restaurant for dinner, and providing you live somewhere central/south Manchester, you can get a night bus home fairly easily.

If you try to do the same thing in London, people who actually live in London tend not head into central London to meet friends and go out (too touristy), so you have after work drinks with colleagues and then at 9pm everyone's dashing off to catch the last train home to sticksville, or meeting up with other mates to carrying on involves a logistical and expensive nightmare involving tube journeys and taxis, or one memorable transport nightmare is the time I went for drinks with urbanites in Brixton when I was living in Hackney, I was enjoying myself and lost track of time a bit, missed the last tube by a couple of minutes, and then it took me about four night buses and *seven-fucking-hours* to get home to Hackney. From Brixton.

Having said that, I loved living in Hackney. It's somewhere I'd definitely consider living again. It's quite friendly and lively.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 11, 2013)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> If you try to do the same thing in London, people who actually live in London tend not head into central London to meet friends and go out (too touristy), so you have after work drinks with colleagues and then at 9pm everyone's dashing off to catch the last train home to sticksville, or meeting up with other mates to carrying on involves a logistical and expensive nightmare involving tube journeys and taxis, or one memorable transport nightmare is the time I went for drinks with urbanites in Brixton when I was living in Hackney, I was enjoying myself and lost track of time a bit, missed the last tube by a couple of minutes, and then it took me about four night buses and *seven-fucking-hours* to get home to Hackney. From Brixton.


 

This is not an accurate description of the level of difficulty typically involved in a night/evening out in London.


----------



## friedaweed (Jun 11, 2013)

teuchter said:


> This is not an accurate description of the level of difficulty typically involved in a night/evening out in London.


It was when I lived there and lived in the East End but socialised and studied in sarf London.


----------



## friedaweed (Jun 11, 2013)

Chip Barm said:


> Who won?


Liverpool


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Jun 11, 2013)

friedaweed said:


> Liverpool


Nah!


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Jun 11, 2013)

teuchter said:


> This is not an accurate description of the level of difficulty typically involved in a night/evening out in London.


Okay, so do a straw poll of most Londoners and if they're based in South London, ask them how often they socialise with their mates in North London, or East/West London or wherever. Or vice-versa.  Some of my mates based in Hackney rarely see friends who are now based in South London or West London, because transport is so expensive and such a pain, whereas it's easier for folks to meet centrally in Manchester.


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 11, 2013)

Manchester is the only significant place in England I have never been. If it's anything like Liverpool I hope that doesn't change.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 11, 2013)

bi0boy said:


> Manchester is the only significant place in England I have never been. If it's anything like Liverpool I hope that doesn't change.


 
It's better than Liverpool. I know that's kinda damning with faint praise but there you go.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 12, 2013)

Manchester's shite these days. Liverpool's worse though =Liverpools proper scary.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 12, 2013)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> Okay, so do a straw poll of most Londoners and if they're based in South London, ask them how often they socialise with their mates in North London, or East/West London or wherever. Or vice-versa. Some of my mates based in Hackney rarely see friends who are now based in South London or West London, because transport is so expensive and such a pain, whereas it's easier for folks to meet centrally in Manchester.


 
I live in South London and I regularly socialise and do other things in other parts of London.
It does not take 7 hours to get from Brixton to Hackney at night unless you are extraordinarily incompetent.
It really is not difficult to get around London. The public transport is comprehensive. Most people who are working have a weekly or monthly travelcard to get between home and work. This means that extra travel in the evenings and at weekends is effectively free unless you are going way out into the suburbs. It is not necessary to use expensive taxis. I hardly ever use taxis.

On top of all this, you aren't comparing apples with apples, which is the mistake being made all through this thread. You talk about how it's easy to meet people within the small area that is central Manchester. Well it's also easy to meet people within the similarly small area that is, say, Brixton and surrounds. If you're going to start talking about the ease of getting around and meeting people within the whole of London, then compare that with the ease of getting around and meeting people within an area extending outwards from the centre of Manchester that include a similar population.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 12, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's better than Liverpool. I know that's kinda damning with faint praise but there you go.



On what basis lad - objective or otherwise?


----------



## killer b (Jun 12, 2013)

Eh? Liverpool is a great city. What's wrong with you people?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 12, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Manchester's shite these days. Liverpool's worse though =Liverpools proper scary.


 
Is it? I go there loads and I have never once been scared. 




killer b said:


> Eh? Liverpool is a great city. What's wrong with you people?


 
Init. Liverpool is brilliant. And it is getting even better all the time.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 12, 2013)

Dillinger4 said:


> Init. Liverpool is brilliant.* And it is getting even better all the time.*


 
Is this a deliberate Beatles-related pun?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 12, 2013)

Sorry, I wasn't slagging off the Liverpool people nor the place (even though it sounded like I was). There are fairly deep rooted gang problems in that city though. Which is what I was getting at when I said it was scary.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 12, 2013)

I loved Manchester for about ten years, from when I was 13 until I left when I had finished Uni. The few times I've been back it's never really felt the same. Interesting place though.


----------



## James ohara (Sep 22, 2016)

Londons nightlife is dying really fast the city centre has turned into a super rich ghost town 

Property developers are forcing out long established venues and events so that property developers from abroad can turn every sewer crevice into "luxury under archway apartments' the councils are complicit in allowing clubs to close - don't beleive me google 'closed London nightclubs' at this point you are far more likely to get a good night out in Manchester than London


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 22, 2016)

James ohara said:


> Londons nightlife is dying really fast the city centre has turned into a super rich ghost town
> 
> Property developers are forcing out long established venues and events so that property developers from abroad can turn every sewer crevice into "luxury under archway apartments' the councils are complicit in allowing clubs to close - don't beleive me google 'closed London nightclubs' at this point you are far more likely to get a good night out in Manchester than London



You can have a good night out without going clubbing, tbh. And London has so much else than nightlife to offer...


----------



## James ohara (Sep 22, 2016)

Only talking about specific nightlife here; massive swathes of the nightlife are getting shafted right now;



Check this out! The councils are revoking licenses to appease property developers all over the city it's mental


----------



## ska invita (Sep 22, 2016)

For all the closures there is still more to do and see and dance to in London than it is possible for one person to do. Inexhaustible amount of stuff going on. On that level its still the best in the world (for my tastes).

Still shit loads of clubs and music venues


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 22, 2016)

ska invita said:


> For all the closures there is still more to do and see and dance to in London than it is possible for one person to do. Inexhaustible amount of stuff going on. On that level its still the best in the world (for my tastes).
> 
> Still shit loads of clubs and music venues



True - and you don't always have to leave the boroughs to enjoy yourself.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 22, 2016)

James ohara said:


> Only talking about specific nightlife here; massive swathes of the nightlife are getting shafted right now;
> 
> 
> 
> Check this out! The councils are revoking licenses to appease property developers all over the city it's mental



true but how about a list of the places that are open?
RA: Clubs in London, United Kingdom
and thats not an exhaustive list even (its a bit out of date too tbh)


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 22, 2016)

You can get around all the nightlifey bits of Manchester on public transport for a few quid and you don't have to buy a stupid fucking oyster card because Manchester is a real place with real people who just wanna be able to get on a bus and pay the fare using normal human money.


----------



## killer b (Sep 22, 2016)

You can walk between all the nightlifey bits of Manchester. It's a lot smaller than London.


----------



## mauvais (Sep 22, 2016)

I've never lived in London and almost certainly never will. But for the same job, even incorporating increased London pay rates, the massive difference in disposable income is surely going to mean you have a far better time somewhere like Manchester.


----------



## mauvais (Sep 22, 2016)

Thinking about this this afternoon, and there's three key things I like about Manchester.

- It's of a scale that means it sustains stuff - bars, gigs, museums, events, societies and meets - but is small enough to be completely knowable. I feel a bit like this about Paris, within the Peripherique, even though it took/would take a long time to understand each district. I don't feel like that at all about London, which goes on forever slowly fading into suburbia without any tangible limits or boundaries. Sure it means infinite possibilities but potentially always being a tourist,to some extent. Meanwhile a lot of smaller British cities just don't seem to have the critical mass, outside university communities, to do the same.

- Suburban countryside. You can be in 'the countryside' in minutes, and I don't mean a train to the Peaks or whatever. I mean you can wander into Kersal Moor, or anywhere along the Irwell outside the city centre, or along the Mersey near Chorlton or Parrs Wood, or out the back of Heaton Park - and aside from the odd tower block over the trees, you could be miles away. There's wildlife, stables, farmers, all sorts. The city's been pretty good at maintaining green space, for now anyway, and not just of the formal park variety.

- Tangible history. You could rattle off a big list of inventions and historical events and whatever, and that does matter, but more importantly a lot of it still exists. You can walk down through Deansgate Locks for instance and see canals, enormous iron bridges for the railway, big viaducts and so on, amongst buildings of the era (and some not) and feel like you understand something of a joined up history to the place, why things are as they are, or indeed why the place is there at all. It's not all faceless glass & steel office blocks. It's the same thing underneath, no doubt, but has a very different feel.

It's not unique. I reckon much the same can be said about Bristol, for example, and probably Glasgow/Edinburgh. But it's pretty good.


----------



## Shirl (Sep 22, 2016)

And Manchester is only 30 minutes by train to Hebden Bridge


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 23, 2016)

Shirl said:


> And Manchester is only 30 minutes by train to Hebden Bridge


Every city has its downside.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 23, 2016)

mauvais said:


> - Tangible history. You could rattle off a big list of inventions and historical events and whatever, and that does matter, but more importantly a lot of it still exists. You can walk down through Deansgate Locks for instance and see canals, enormous iron bridges for the railway, big viaducts and so on, amongst buildings of the era (and some not) and feel like you understand something of a joined up history to the place, why things are as they are, or indeed why the place is there at all. It's not all faceless glass & steel office blocks. It's the same thing underneath, no doubt, but has a very different feel.
> 
> It's not unique. I reckon much the same can be said about Bristol, for example, and probably Glasgow/Edinburgh. But it's pretty good.


The tangible history is what I like about Manchester. The Industrial Revolution is the underpinning of the city and as a lot of that infrastructure is still there it gives it a cohesive identity. 

It's surprising how many mills you can see as you walk around - including some still used for something like their original purpose (e.g. the rag trade) which is great.  Even though they'll be converted to flats eventually that's much better than seeing them demolished. 

It's my adopted home town so I'm a bit biased.


----------



## Shirl (Sep 23, 2016)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Every city has its downside.


cheeky!


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 23, 2016)

Shirl said:


> cheeky!


----------

