Living in London

[Walsingham]

I know I've said many times I'd never live in London, but a position has come up on short contract at a very considerable whack based in that felonious stink pit. I thought I'd pitch in here and get some ideas on how to live in London cheaply-ish. e.g. at less than 50 quid a day.

[Gorgon]

Pitch a tent in hyde park and learn ju jitsu to fight off the vagrants.

 

 

yeah, I got nothing.

[Gorth]

e.g. at less than 50 quid a day.

 

Sorry

 

B&B and begging a few coins "for the bus" regularly is all I can think of there.

[Walsingham]

I like the tent plan. Maybe I could hire one of those galapagos turtles? Ride around on his back all night.

[Syraxis]

Get a seasonal pass for trains and live a short distance outside of London.

 

 

Hey, it works for NYC.

 

[I want teh kotor 3]

Quid? Brits definitely have the best-named currency system in the western world.

[Hurlshort]

Looking on Craigslist, I realized I have no idea what the heck a quid is. Still, looked like some decent stuff on there.

[Walsingham]

My favourite is that monkey means

[Monte Carlo]

Get a seasonal pass for trains and live a short distance outside of London.

 

 

Hey, it works for NYC.

 

I suspect this is the crux of it, although being fabulously wealthy I don't have to concern myself with such trifles.

[Calax]

Why does it always seem like cities are kind of "only the rich live there" for the city proper, but as you leave the area the poverty level plummets before coming back up to be "well to do" back in the suburbs.

 

like this, but with the downward push much deeper:

 

 

 

That said, your best bet is to do what was suggested above. Get a place that's outside the city proper and use public transit to get in. Keeping a car in the city can probably add more bills than it's worth because you have to pay for parking, the gas, the upkeep, and deal with the aggravation of the traffic.

[Nepenthe]

Why does it always seem like cities are kind of "only the rich live there" for the city proper, but as you leave the area the poverty level plummets before coming back up to be "well to do" back in the suburbs.

 

like this, but with the downward push much deeper:

 

 

 

That said, your best bet is to do what was suggested above. Get a place that's outside the city proper and use public transit to get in. Keeping a car in the city can probably add more bills than it's worth because you have to pay for parking, the gas, the upkeep, and deal with the aggravation of the traffic.

That's a lot less prominent in Europe than in the U.S., white flight and all that.

 

But there's definite merit in the model, Chicago School wrote a lot of interesting stuff on that (I'd link to wikipedia, but since I apparently need to follow scientific referencing standards on this board, you'll just have to look it up yourself)

Edited December 5, 2010 by Nepenthe

[Tigranes]

Calax: Because that space is often utilised by the poorest arrivals who are trying to get as close as possible to the source of jobs and urban amenities without actually paying the unaffordable city rates.

 

While the suburbia thing may be more American, Nepenthe, I'd say such outlying areas exist all over the world these days, including many European countries.

[Monte Carlo]

Stuff about Chicago School

 

Blimey, this takes me back to Sociology 'A' Level. I failed. by the way, by virtue of not actually turning up to the exam. Sociology has been successfully and succinctly described as 'The study of people who don't need studying by people who do.'

 

Anyhoo, Chicago school in a nutshell, despite being written in the 30's turns a lot on anomie theory. That is the poor and dispossessed, scorned by the mainstream, will invariably adopt their own value system that nonetheless mirrors that of the mainstream. Rap culture, with it's bling and hyper-materialistic values, is a classic example.

 

The other stuff worth looking at is the Human Biogrammar by right-wing sociologists (a contradiction in terms normally) Tiger & Fox. These guys were presaging the stuff we increasingly know via advances in genetics by using anthropolical techniques thirty years ago.

 

As for London, Wals just send me a freaking PM and I'll sort it out.

[Nepenthe]

To say that I view sociology in general with extreme scepticism is an understatement, but having been forced to study it as a part of more advanced legal studies (and modern legal theory has more than a passing connection with sociology), I've picked up some stuff that's interesting, some stuff that's amusing. Of course, I'm not sure if most people when running into somebody absolutely FABULOUS would generally find the situation amusing from the point of view of the practical application of the secondary deviance theory, I do.

 

(The concept being that when certain stereotypes become associated with a subculture, people who identify themselves as being part of that subculture tend to start projecting those stereotypes, as well.).

Edited December 5, 2010 by Nepenthe