London is HORRIBLE

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Like so many other cities (for a variety of reasons), there’s lots of good immigrant food. Eat that.

I visited London a year ago and LOVED every second of it.
Great food everywhere!! Even at Sainsbury's found good cheap take-out meals. Tons of ethnic restaurants, great bakeries, incredible food, far cheaper than in DC.
I went for the museums and theater, which are spectacular. There is no better English language theater in the world. And the museums, well, if you can't find something you love in London's museums, hmmmm.....
The weather is meh, so maybe that's what's getting you down, OP?
I stayed with a friend who lives in a chic part of London, very family-friendly, close to a park, clean, lovely. We walked everywhere, took tube at all hours, felt safe. Wonderful shopping everywhere. I felt completely at home in London.
I don't live there, and my friend did complain about having to purchase new appliances for her rental apartment (which was very nice, BTW), but it's hardly the hellhole OP is describing.
It's like big cities anywhere, problems, crime, etc., but loads of advantages.
I happen to love the culture in London, so for me, London is fabulous. I can't wait to go back and visit again later this year!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I take it you did not previously travel to London before you moved there? It's been going down hill since before Brexit.

No

Never traveled to London before living here

We are here until q3 2025 😭

I can empathize! I lived there for less than a year of a supposedly permanent move. I HATED it. The winters are the worst too! So dark at 4pm and always overcast.

Like much of the northern US in winter...

No way. No comparison. Boston might get snow. It might have snow. But there are also blue skies during winter. The sun does not shine in England between October and March.

Just like Chicago and Minneapolis.
But not as cold. It's damp in London, but you can fly to the Caribbean on short order.
Grow up, OP. What a whiner.

[Anonymous]

How does it compare to New York?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll be honest, I’m sort of enjoying the dopes who are so insecure they’ve been mesmerized by London and assume it’s intrinsically superior. The accents!!

Probably the only time you ever left the US.

The food is objectively trash. Yes, there are a handful of good restaurants; no sh&t, it’s a global financial center with 10 million people. But many, many “nice” restaurants serve bland, boiled produce. Beans (plain) are a breakfast staple. The leading condiment by a good margin is mayonnaise. Get the hell out of here with London being a food Mecca.

NHS is trash. Granted I’m rich, but US health care and even godawful US medical insurance are models of innovation and efficiency by comparison.

Immigration has gotten to a level that is gross and dangerous. (We’re catching up on this one, admittedly.)

The tube is OK as far as public transportation goes—it’s insanely crowded and hot as hell, but you can get anywhere. But here’s the rub: I don’t want to take public transportation. And driving (or being driven) is an absolute nightmare.

Buildings and hotel rooms and offices and restrooms have all manner of outdated (but affixed!) gadgetry, plugs that don’t work, visible piping, doors and lifts and carpets that haven’t been replaced in decades, the paint on buildings is cracked, garden walls and sidewalks in varying stages of disrepair. You’ll just be walking down the street and here’s a defunct valve sticking out of the wall with signage from pre-WW2. Ho-hum.

Guess that’s “chic”?

I love a lot of things about the USA too, and of course it is perfectly okay to have preferences and to like some things more than others or even to hate London, but, as a Londoner, I really think you’ve just not experienced London properly.

+1

PP is someone who thinks a house built a century ago is "old" and one built 200 years ago is "trash."

Don't bother trying to convince this wealthy troglodyte.

PP, go back to your gilded 1980s palace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are right on about the quality of British “professionals.” I work at an international company and the Brits produce high school level work. It’s so frustrating. And these are graduates of Oxford. I guess those schools accept anyone.

FFS
I work with some Oxbridge grads, and they are sharper than most of us from the US's "elite" schools. They are not pointy-headed nerds, nor are they workaholics, but they are completely professional and very hard working. I admire their erudition and broad-minded thinking. They are excellent colleagues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And many employed Brits who don’t have private health care would still choose NHS over paying for health insurance. As a young healthy person, I definitely would (though I did have private health insurance through work). No question at all that American healthcare is better than the NHS, but if you’re young and healthy, it’s nice not to have to pay anything for health care and still know you’ll have access to it if needed. I think many employed Americans would choose that if they could

It’s also great to have NHS if you’re polder and not rich. Ofc NHS isn’t perfect but I know many older UMC people who are very happy with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted earlier about having lived in both London and DC. You can't really meaningfully compare your experience vacationing in a place with living there. If you haven't had to work in a place, pay taxes there, hire a plumber, or try to find a decent school for your kid, you dont really know it.

Most Americans would be horrified at the condition of rental apartments in the UK (run-down, no clothes dryers, no garbage disposals), much in the same way that Londoners would be horrified to discover the number of important US cities that are wholly inaccessible by public transit.

Most Americans would also be frustrated by the need to be on hold for 40 minutes starting at 8 am to get one of the NHS appointment slots available that day at your local surgery, with its 10000 person patient docket. They would also be shocked to hear the NHS mammogram lady say, "See you in 4 years." On the flip side, Americans would also be pleasantly surprised when their NHS mammogram, scheduled for 10:30, actually takes place at 10:30, something that you could be sure wouldnt happen in the US.

All European cities have small apartments with few amenities - it comes with being old and crowded... why pick on London?

Munich, Zurich, Frankfurt, Vienna, Hamburg, Lyon, Amsterdam, Madrid for example have much better building construction, insulation, and plumbing in their homes

American homes are cheap but insulated well and have good plumbing for the most part

Swiss, German, Austrian and northern Italian homes are built out of good materials, insulated, good plumbing but cost to salary ratio is high

uk is unique in being expensive vs incomes with uniquely poor conditions

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/english-homes-more-expensive-and-in-worse-condition-than-most-developed-nations-report-12976858

https://www.pbctoday.co.uk/news/planning-construction-news/english-housing-is-worst-in-europe-report-finds/133243/

Sure. I’d happily live in London again but having just finished expensive repairs on my Victorian terrace house, I totally agree the housing is often of a poor standard. I don’t think anyone disputes that, do they? As pointed out in the report, most of the housing is much older than what you find in other European cities. This is to be expected as London’s wealth and growth meant it developed into a large metropolis much earlier than many other places. The curse of developing earlier is what might have been cutting edge infrastructure or construction at the time can be quite difficult to adapt many years later. Hence, the sewage system is now sub par, tunnels in the tube are too narrow to fit air conditioning onto train carriages, etc. Materials and building standards have changed a lot since the late 1800s when many of these places were built.

The most obvious solution is to knock it all down and build new modern efficient housing (if anyone had the money). Of course the irony is the old style of architecture is what lends London and many British towns and villages much of their charm. It’s all a trade off.

The lack of knowledge is astounding. What makes you believe that London developed earlier than other major continental cities? This is patently false. Prague is an example of that. Vienna would be an example of that too had they not modernized their housing stock in the mid 1800s to allow for taller ceilings, more daylight, broader streets and other comforts (as did Paris). London just didn’t think it was a priority. I love London but Prague has older and better quality housing stock.

[Anonymous]

Lived there 2007-2013 and can confirm OP’s post. We lived in Holland Park in a “fancy” flat and one day the flat above us had flooding which poured down into our foyer straight through the light fixture.

London is fun to visit but DC is so much better in terms of living standards.

And that’s saying nothing of the glorious climate we have in DC!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I take it you did not previously travel to London before you moved there? It's been going down hill since before Brexit.

No

Never traveled to London before living here

We are here until q3 2025 😭

I can empathize! I lived there for less than a year of a supposedly permanent move. I HATED it. The winters are the worst too! So dark at 4pm and always overcast.

Like much of the northern US in winter...

No way. No comparison. Boston might get snow. It might have snow. But there are also blue skies during winter. The sun does not shine in England between October and March.

Just like Chicago and Minneapolis.
But not as cold. It's damp in London, but you can fly to the Caribbean on short order.
Grow up, OP. What a whiner.

From London one can easily go to one of the Canary islands - very short flight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lived there 2007-2013 and can confirm OP’s post. We lived in Holland Park in a “fancy” flat and one day the flat above us had flooding which poured down into our foyer straight through the light fixture.

London is fun to visit but DC is so much better in terms of living standards.

And that’s saying nothing of the glorious climate we have in DC!

It's because housing and the infrastructure in London is *a lot* older than in DC.

[Anonymous]

Welp! Say what you’d like but I’m taking my son for spring break and we are thrilled to go.

[Anonymous]

We just got back yesterday and loved it! It has a fascinating history, culture, art, and the vibrancy of a world class city. And the flowers just started blooming. Parks are beautiful. Cannot wait to go back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted earlier about having lived in both London and DC. You can't really meaningfully compare your experience vacationing in a place with living there. If you haven't had to work in a place, pay taxes there, hire a plumber, or try to find a decent school for your kid, you dont really know it.

Most Americans would be horrified at the condition of rental apartments in the UK (run-down, no clothes dryers, no garbage disposals), much in the same way that Londoners would be horrified to discover the number of important US cities that are wholly inaccessible by public transit.

Most Americans would also be frustrated by the need to be on hold for 40 minutes starting at 8 am to get one of the NHS appointment slots available that day at your local surgery, with its 10000 person patient docket. They would also be shocked to hear the NHS mammogram lady say, "See you in 4 years." On the flip side, Americans would also be pleasantly surprised when their NHS mammogram, scheduled for 10:30, actually takes place at 10:30, something that you could be sure wouldnt happen in the US.

All European cities have small apartments with few amenities - it comes with being old and crowded... why pick on London?

Munich, Zurich, Frankfurt, Vienna, Hamburg, Lyon, Amsterdam, Madrid for example have much better building construction, insulation, and plumbing in their homes

American homes are cheap but insulated well and have good plumbing for the most part

Swiss, German, Austrian and northern Italian homes are built out of good materials, insulated, good plumbing but cost to salary ratio is high

uk is unique in being expensive vs incomes with uniquely poor conditions

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/english-homes-more-expensive-and-in-worse-condition-than-most-developed-nations-report-12976858

https://www.pbctoday.co.uk/news/planning-construction-news/english-housing-is-worst-in-europe-report-finds/133243/

Sure. I’d happily live in London again but having just finished expensive repairs on my Victorian terrace house, I totally agree the housing is often of a poor standard. I don’t think anyone disputes that, do they? As pointed out in the report, most of the housing is much older than what you find in other European cities. This is to be expected as London’s wealth and growth meant it developed into a large metropolis much earlier than many other places. The curse of developing earlier is what might have been cutting edge infrastructure or construction at the time can be quite difficult to adapt many years later. Hence, the sewage system is now sub par, tunnels in the tube are too narrow to fit air conditioning onto train carriages, etc. Materials and building standards have changed a lot since the late 1800s when many of these places were built.

The most obvious solution is to knock it all down and build new modern efficient housing (if anyone had the money). Of course the irony is the old style of architecture is what lends London and many British towns and villages much of their charm. It’s all a trade off.

The lack of knowledge is astounding. What makes you believe that London developed earlier than other major continental cities? This is patently false. Prague is an example of that. Vienna would be an example of that too had they not modernized their housing stock in the mid 1800s to allow for taller ceilings, more daylight, broader streets and other comforts (as did Paris). London just didn’t think it was a priority. I love London but Prague has older and better quality housing stock.

“The UK has the oldest housing stock in Europe, and most likely in the world,” according to the BRE. “This is largely due to the legacy of dwellings built during the industrial revolution, which still form the backbone of our urban areas today.”

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/britains-old-housing-stock-emerges-key-emissions-problem-kemp-2021-12-02/

[Anonymous]

Just returned from London. We had a great trip but I can commiserate with op some. Gray skies every day and at least some drizzle. Everyone told us it’s been like that for months. I would definitely get a bad case of the blues if that was my normal.

Subway was super convenient, but also very dirty. London has the same grittiness as NY and that isn't everyone’s cup of tea.

We had some very good meals and some very mediocre ones. Budget wasn’t the issue. I think it’s fair to say that, on the whole, food scene much better in NY and Paris, where it’s hard to get a bad meal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I never want to hear people say how great London is or London is better than dc.

1. Housing is atrocious. We are living in a roughly 2 million pound flat in Mayfair and the plumbing is awful, the insulation/windows are awful and we are always cold (and we are used to Montana cold but homes in London are cold whereas in the us homes stay warm). Our colleagues here have homes anywhere between 500k to 6 million pounds here in various neighborhoods and they are all dumpy

2. The parks are overrated

3. People are mean

4. The tube and trains are mindblowingly expensive

5. Service is poor

6. British “professionals” have horrible work ethic without the “la dolce vita” attitude of Italians/southern euros. It’s the worst of both worlds - uptight, high expectations yet also poor work ethic/quality.

7. Food is awful

8. Social life is way too alcohol centric

There is literally nothing redeeming about this place. I’d rather live in Dallas and I think the south is 🤮 !

dc is 100x better than London

My cousin was born and raised in London - has same complaints. Literally just moved to the US for these reasons.