Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2015 18:35:46 GMT -5
I prefer London because I've been to London
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2015 18:57:53 GMT -5
I've visited both London and Manchester.
In terms of Music, they both have their fair share of great bands but Manchester gave me three of my all time favourites, in Oasis, The Smiths and The Stone Roses.
London contains Westminster, so it loses points there and I suspect also harbours more wankers per capita than Manchester, due to the head offices of tabloid newspapers and banks.
London also has more Tory MPs than Manchester so it loses points for that.
I have relatives that live in London so that's a plus.
Neither city has any football team which I particularly like, although I do have a soft spot for Brentford.
Property prices are higher in London and rent is more expensive.
Drinks prices in London are generally higher than in Manchester.
Honestly, I think I would rather live in Manchester.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jun 10, 2015 20:27:49 GMT -5
London, innit. Best city in the world. Seriously.
|
|
|
|
Post by glider on Jun 10, 2015 21:19:25 GMT -5
Manchester because it's the birthplace of the Stone Roses, Oasis, and yes the Smiths  |
|
|
|
Post by mimmihopps on Jun 11, 2015 1:56:50 GMT -5
London is one of the most expensive cities in the world, even more expensive than Tokyo.
I've lived in London for a while when I was younger and I still visit the city once in a while.
I have good friends in Manchester and been there twice.
These cities are great to visit, but to live is an another story.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mean Mrs. Mustard on Jun 11, 2015 2:03:05 GMT -5
London is one of the most expensive cities in the world, even more expensive than Tokyo. I've lived in London for a while when I was younger and I still visit the city once in a while. I have good friends in Manchester and been there twice. These cities are great to visit, but to live is an another story. You've lived there? That is so cool! I've been to London and love it. I'm probably going again in October. It's a shame it's so huge and expensive otherwise I would love to stay there a bit longer, for work or something. Have never been to Manchester so can't really say anything about it |
|
|
|
Post by globe on Jun 11, 2015 2:18:04 GMT -5
Lived in London for a while in the 90's. Great place but full of arseholes (see 4 posts above). Manchester is a brilliant place.
|
|
|
|
Post by sgtpeppr on Jun 11, 2015 3:05:44 GMT -5
lived in london and ive learned from my mistake. its no place to live. the general public are total @rseholes.
as for being expensive...try living in australia. then youll know what expensive is.
i still voted for london tho, 'cos manchester is full of mancs...
|
|
|
|
Post by theyknowwhatimean on Jun 11, 2015 5:58:11 GMT -5
Manchester for the people and the culture, London for the money it's had pumped into it.
|
|
|
|
Post by beentherenow on Jun 11, 2015 7:27:37 GMT -5
If I had to choose I'd have London having visited both more times than I can count but neither are my favourite UK cities to visit,
Liverpool, Birmingham and Leeds are all better nights out and you don't get the pretention you get with some areas of London and increasingly Manchester,
Manchester seems to have developed this superiority complex over other cities which seems to stem from its music heritage rather than the city itself. Capital of the North my arse
|
|
|
|
Post by leak4ever on Jun 12, 2015 10:12:36 GMT -5
Manchester and Birmingham are both terrible second cities. Yes, the city centres are respectable, but venture a few miles outside and they're both utter dumps. I've lived in both and frankly wouldn't want to go back to either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2015 10:16:52 GMT -5
According to Wikipedia (yes, I know), all these cities have had candidacy for second city status:
Belfast
Birmingham
Cardiff
Dublin
Edinburgh
Glasgow
Leeds
Liverpool
Manchester
|
|
|
|
Post by lamboasis on Jun 12, 2015 13:53:23 GMT -5
Manchester isn't that good. I'm often in Florence, so I have high standards. London is my favourite city in the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Crimson Rambler on Jun 12, 2015 18:49:53 GMT -5
I prefer London because I've been to London What a terrible reason - I've been to Stoke-On-Trent, but it doesn't mean I'm going to start comparing it to other cities I haven't been to and proclaim I prefer the former simply because I've visited it. How can you possibly compare? It's a poor comparison anyway. London is a major, major world city and would be far more fairly compared with Paris, New York or the likes. London dominates the country by such a significant proportion, nothing in the UK comes remotely close to it. Manchester's a nice city but London wins hands down - not even remotely close. |
|
|
|
Post by sgtpeppr on Jun 13, 2015 17:43:55 GMT -5
I prefer London because I've been to London What a terrible reason - I've been to Stoke-On-Trent, but it doesn't mean I'm going to start comparing it to other cities I haven't been to and proclaim I prefer the former simply because I've visited it. How can you possibly compare? It's a poor comparison anyway. London is a major, major world city and would be far more fairly compared with Paris, New York or the likes. London dominates the country by such a significant proportion, nothing in the UK comes remotely close to it. Manchester's a nice city but London wins hands down - not even remotely close. it depends on what your criteria for 'best' is? bigger dont mean better... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2015 17:53:33 GMT -5
What a terrible reason - I've been to Stoke-On-Trent, but it doesn't mean I'm going to start comparing it to other cities I haven't been to and proclaim I prefer the former simply because I've visited it. How can you possibly compare? It's a poor comparison anyway. London is a major, major world city and would be far more fairly compared with Paris, New York or the likes. London dominates the country by such a significant proportion, nothing in the UK comes remotely close to it. Manchester's a nice city but London wins hands down - not even remotely close. it depends on what your criteria for 'best' is? bigger dont mean better...Exactly. Anyway, what's important is the girth, not the length. |
|
|
|
Post by The Crimson Rambler on Jun 13, 2015 18:00:44 GMT -5
What a terrible reason - I've been to Stoke-On-Trent, but it doesn't mean I'm going to start comparing it to other cities I haven't been to and proclaim I prefer the former simply because I've visited it. How can you possibly compare? It's a poor comparison anyway. London is a major, major world city and would be far more fairly compared with Paris, New York or the likes. London dominates the country by such a significant proportion, nothing in the UK comes remotely close to it. Manchester's a nice city but London wins hands down - not even remotely close. it depends on what your criteria for 'best' is? bigger dont mean better... Sure, but size is hardly the only thing London has over the rest over other UK cities. Likely the only reason Manchester has as many votes as it has is because we're on a music forum (even more specifically we're on a forum whose fanbase largely listens to Manchester originated bands such as Oasis, The Stone Roses, The Smiths, etc.) and Manchester based football clubs, Man Utd and somewhat weirdly Man City are the largest supported club on the forum ( Link). As a whole London smokes all UK based competition without breaking a sweat. |
|
|
|
Post by sgtpeppr on Jun 13, 2015 18:08:10 GMT -5
it depends on what your criteria for 'best' is? bigger dont mean better... Sure, but size is hardly the only thing London has over the rest over other UK cities. Likely the only reason Manchester has as many votes as it has is because we're on a music forum (even more specifically we're on a forum whose fanbase largely listens to Manchester originated bands such as Oasis, The Stone Roses, The Smiths, etc.) and Manchester based football clubs, Man Utd and somewhat weirdly Man City are the largest supported club on the forum ( Link). As a whole London smokes all UK based competition without breaking a sweat. my point was that everyones idea on what makes one city better than another is different. you believe london smokes all other UK cities. fair enough. i cant stand london and prefer the smaller rural areas of england...or bristol. neither of us are wrong. or right. its 100% subjective... |
|
|
|
Post by The Crimson Rambler on Jun 13, 2015 18:35:29 GMT -5
Sure, but size is hardly the only thing London has over the rest over other UK cities. Likely the only reason Manchester has as many votes as it has is because we're on a music forum (even more specifically we're on a forum whose fanbase largely listens to Manchester originated bands such as Oasis, The Stone Roses, The Smiths, etc.) and Manchester based football clubs, Man Utd and somewhat weirdly Man City are the largest supported club on the forum ( Link). As a whole London smokes all UK based competition without breaking a sweat. my point was that everyones idea on what makes one city better than another is different. you believe london smokes all other UK cities. fair enough. i cant stand london and prefer the smaller rural areas of england...or bristol. neither of us are wrong. or right. its 100% subjective... That's fine and true. I'm follow 1 or 2 big architecture forums where urban discussion is of frequent debate so I base a lot of my thoughts on that. Not only this but cold, hard stats, the endless wealth of history and my own personal experiences - I love the place! I'd disagree that it's quite 100% subjective, as I doubt many of those commenting have experienced the two cities to the very maximum and are in a good position to answer such a brutally broad question as 'London vs Manchester'. A question so broad and unrefined suggests (to me) a comparison of all aspects of the cities, hence why I feel so strongly that London is the only winner here. Had the question been more specific however I'd more happily give, and consider the thread more a personal affair. (Personally I've lived 95% of my life in a small village in rural England, so quite frankly I'm sick of the place and the countryside in general - ha. Bristol is one of the few cities I've yet to visit, but I've heard plenty of very good things about it.) |
|
|
|
Post by sgtpeppr on Jun 13, 2015 19:08:28 GMT -5
of course its all subjective?! architecture/history may be important to you when deciding, but mean sh!t all to someone else. the stats you take into consideration are stats on topics that will influence you in your choice. i may choose different stats on different categories.
the fact that the topic criteria is so broad actually makes it even more subjective...if it was specific we could make specific points. since its not, the question itself can mean different things to different people. the point that most havent got the necessary experience to make a qualified judgement also speaks to the subjectivity of the question.
and yeah, bristol is wicked. highly recommend it.
|
|
|
|
Post by LightsOffInside on Jun 13, 2015 19:18:20 GMT -5
I have an extreme hatred for London, as every time I've been there it's been overcrowded at every turn, far too expensive, vastly overrated and full of intensely rude people. Each time. I've been there for nights out, dinners, business, travel, visiting friends, day trips, drinking, everything, multiple times, all around it, and It's the same experiences.
But I've never been to Manchester so I suppose it's difficult to say whether I'd prefer it, but it would only have to be slightly decent to be preferable to London to me.
This is coming from someone who lives in Glasgow, and from my lifetime of experiences here, it's nothing like the above characteristics I've experienced in London.
So for the benefit of the doubt, I'll say Manchester
|
|
|
|
Post by The Crimson Rambler on Jun 13, 2015 19:41:21 GMT -5
of course its all subjective?! architecture/history may be important to you when deciding, but mean sh!t all to someone else. the stats you take into consideration are stats on topics that will influence you in your choice. i may choose different stats on different categories. the fact that the topic criteria is so broad actually makes it even more subjective...if it was specific we could make specific points. since its not, the question itself can mean different things to different people. the point that most havent got the necessary experience to make a qualified judgement also speaks to the subjectivity of the question. and yeah, bristol is wicked. highly recommend it. Lets agree to disagree then, as I maintain that as subjective a subject it can be, it's not 100% subjective. The broader the subject matter the wider the ignorance is as far as I'm concerned. People concentrate on smaller, trivial aspects which appeal to their limited knowledge and background. The question 'London Vs Manchester' is so massive I think the best way I'd deal with it is to restrain my own opinions, accept my limited knowledge and compare best I can with that in mind. Architecture/History/Whatever may not be important for most but I was simply mentioning them as personal highlights, I wasn't proclaiming London was better for those reasons, I was comparing the two trying to consider every aspect. Not simply basing it off stuff like, oh I don't like London because it's too busy/the tube is really crowded/there is too much pollution/whatever. Sure I don't like any of that rubbish, but I'm taking myself out of that and trying to look at the big picture. Maybe you'd disagree but with that perspective somethings are just better.
Here's an example/comparison of how I think the question should be read (due to it's lack of context):
I support Derby County and I love them. I think they're a great club, with proper history and they're going places. However no matter what I personally think of them, there are a lot of teams out there who have had better players, have better history, a bigger ground and fanbase and are more important in the world of football. Derby vs Real Madrid (not in a football match sense) is a no brainer and isn't 100% subjective as far as I'm concerned. I like Derby over any over club in the world, but 'Which is better Derby County or Real Madrid?' It's Real Madrid and I'm fine with that. If it was a fairer fight, say 'Derby County vs Leicester City' that's a far more subjective issue, but 'London vs Manchester' has a lot, lot more in common with the former comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by sgtpeppr on Jun 13, 2015 20:59:55 GMT -5
i think your definition of subjective may be different to mine...
but sure. i can agree to disagree. thats kinda my whole point. we all have different benchmarks.
|
|
|
|
Post by joladella on Jun 14, 2015 5:56:36 GMT -5
I've been to London a few times now and like the city, from a touristic point of view of course, because I have never lived there or anywhere in UK. Not the hotel rooms though, you get in my budget class. But it's OK if it is only for a few nights. Daylight really is overrated ...  But I spent a whole week in Manchester last year and without really knowing why I felt totally happy there. As with so many things it is a purely emotional thing. Of course it might have helped that I'm madly in love with part of its music history. Or that I have some fascinating memories of Manchester, like getting totally lost at night, after having had the brilliant idea to go looking for a specific street while slightly drunk (now I know that I'm unable to read maps while under the influence of alcohol), or being driven around the city in Craig Gill's yellow van discussing football, of all things. And I would not want to have missed my friends' facial expression when I told them that the best part of last years' UK trip for me was in fact Manchester. "Manchester???"  Or that lovely Welsh girl's expression I met this year in Sicily, when I told her that my favorite cities in UK so far are her hometown Cardiff and Manchester. "Cardiff, fair enough, but, Manchester???" Oh, and for the same price per night as in London in Manchester I had a beautiful, big hotel room with a view to that charming "dangerous building" from my profile picture, which I quite perversly liked as well, that contrast. |
|
|
|
Post by beentherenow on Jun 15, 2015 9:31:15 GMT -5
Manchester and Birmingham are both terrible second cities. Yes, the city centres are respectable, but venture a few miles outside and they're both utter dumps. I've lived in both and frankly wouldn't want to go back to either. I agree with this to an extent,
I personally love Birmingham City Centre (especially what they've done in the past 5-10 years) but you're right, venture outside the centre 2-3 miles and good luck! Same with Manchester (although it's harder to navigate I find)
For far too long England was too London-centric which has created one mega city with no real rival. This 2nd city bollocks is exactly that, bollocks. England has no second city, it has London and then several much smaller cities which are like towns in comparison to the behemoth that is London.
Manchester and Birmingham are undoubtedly larger than say Liverpool, Sheffield, Newcastle etc but there's not much to draw you in, it's all very generic once you leave London. A day/night in any of those cities in all likelihood would involve the same things.
If you compare that to Oz where I lived for a number of years, each City seems to have it's own cultural identity despite being so much newer. Melbourne has it's European, cool coffee culture vibe, whereas Sydney is more American in its architecture and approach and Brisbane is completely different again,
Perhaps Geography plays its part but I believe there's more to it.
|
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5