Just watched ITV News. Peston pointed out that as people have been fined for attending that party, it was by definition illegal. So whomever it was on here earlier dancing on a pinhead about things being legal just received a little prick.
Boris Johnson is doing it this way, because it allows him to look tough, without anything actually happening. Rather than going to Article 16, this means he can stick two fingers up at the EU, knowing that the Lords will amend the legislation to death, and that he can shrug his shoulders and say "Bloody Upper House". (And hopefully this means he can keep the Brexit was going into 2024.)
That's exactly the same pattern Eurosceptics have used over the EU. It's no leap at all to imagine that there's a project underway to strip away all reservoirs of power other than wealth. The attacks on multiple institutions are linked, as far as I'm concerned. Media, judiciary, civil service, even the church. Not only do we need this government to fall, we need to repair the institutional damage.
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
Have I menshed how nice Sivota is? It’s so wonderfully chilled. It’s like a sleeping cat, unconsciously purring in the sun. Curled around the marina
I may never come back to London. Fuck it
Do you really, truly, in your heart of hearts still like London? I get the blustering about it but deep down ... do you? My suspicion is that you don't?
So why not live abroad, or spend most of your time abroad? I've done it lots in my life and they have mostly been the most exhilarating times of my life, free as you suggest from all the crappy stresses of the UK, which are only getting worse.
I’m certainly getting to the stage where I can consider moving away. Having adored it all my life
Ideally of course I’d want both, the London flat and a little bolthole somewhere sunny
However I have kids yet to grow up. A few more years and we will see. I still have a ton of friends in London, which is great. I’d be loathe to lose them
Loath, not loathe.
Don't do it. Whilst I'm a big advocate for rural life, it's not for someone like you. You'd get bored very quickly.
Yeah, maybe. And I am living an unreal life these recent weeks. Drifting agreeably from sunny country to sunny country, seeing fabulous things and meeting the odd interesting person, with lots of booze and seafood throughout, from oysters in New Orleans to red mullet in the Sivota tavernas
If I ever actually settled, it would be one or the other, for all time. Red mullet might begin to bore
Maybe I should just be a nomad. A modern hunter gatherer!
On topic, probably worth filing in the same drawer with that almost wholly yellow map of the UK in Charlie Kennedy's heyday showing the Lib Dems would win 224 seats if people thought "(we) could win here".
Just watched ITV News. Peston pointed out that as people have been fined for attending that party, it was by definition illegal. So whomever it was on here earlier dancing on a pinhead about things being legal just received a little prick.
A work meeting that turned into a party after the pm left, may be one way you are wrong. At least that will be the weasel words the met use.
Boris Johnson is doing it this way, because it allows him to look tough, without anything actually happening. Rather than going to Article 16, this means he can stick two fingers up at the EU, knowing that the Lords will amend the legislation to death, and that he can shrug his shoulders and say "Bloody Upper House". (And hopefully this means he can keep the Brexit was going into 2024.)
I think he's fighting the last war.
What people want is economic competence, an end to the culture wars, and solid delivery.
That's why Hunt should be evicting Boris now, if the Tories want to win again, but won't because the Tory party backbenches and selectorate have dived off the deep end.
Just watched ITV News. Peston pointed out that as people have been fined for attending that party, it was by definition illegal. So whomever it was on here earlier dancing on a pinhead about things being legal just received a little prick.
If Professor Preston is saying that then you must have realised you're in the wrong surely?
Someone can be fined for breaking the law even at a legal event. The fact that they investigated it and Boris wasn't fine surely implies the opposite so can be cut both ways.
If Starmer isn't fined but someone else is, does that mean that Starmer is a lying liar who lied when he said he thought the rules were followed?
Just watched ITV News. Peston pointed out that as people have been fined for attending that party, it was by definition illegal. So whomever it was on here earlier dancing on a pinhead about things being legal just received a little prick.
A work meeting that turned into a party after the pm left, may be one way you are wrong. At least that will be the weasel words the met use.
If you really want to cause trouble, you let someone use those weasel words, then drop something else.
I am a huge fan of inner city living, however I want to own the flat in the tower block, rather than merely lease it. I want a say in how it's maintained, and I want managing agents and service charges to be regulated, with strong protections for residents to prevent over-charging for maintenence and service, with the right to change service providers enshrined in law.
Until then, I'm out. Give me a low rise and a garden I actually own, over a flat I "lease" yet am liable for unlimited charges.
Yes to all this. (I had a previous bad experience with leasehold, and am now in a freehold house and would never buy leasehold again.) On the other hand, some of leasehold's problems are inherent to being in a shared building whatever the legal structure. If you're in a block of 10 flats but the guy in flat 3 is refusing to pay their share of the service charges and then the roof needs fixing you're probably stuffed regardless, for instance. And you need to get group agreement to at least some extent to get anything done, which is always going to slow things down: and the stronger the protections against overcharging the more delay and admin costs involved. Want to get that guttering leak fixed before it damages the wall? Oops, need N quotes and an X week consultation period first...
If money was no object I'd love to live in the Barbican -- but I'd probably rather rent it so I could walk away if I had to...
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
Where are you thinking of moving TO?
Most places will be less appealing than Hampstead, within London, unless you are desperate for the urban buzz of the centre or keen to hang out with Chelsea types. Or maybe you want the artistic vavavoom of Shoreditch and Hoxton?
Just watched ITV News. Peston pointed out that as people have been fined for attending that party, it was by definition illegal. So whomever it was on here earlier dancing on a pinhead about things being legal just received a little prick.
A work meeting that turned into a party after the pm left, may be one way you are wrong. At least that will be the weasel words the met use.
Just watched ITV News. Peston pointed out that as people have been fined for attending that party, it was by definition illegal. So whomever it was on here earlier dancing on a pinhead about things being legal just received a little prick.
A work meeting that turned into a party after the pm left, may be one way you are wrong. At least that will be the weasel words the met use.
...so it was it his stunt double that was at the party in the picture?
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
For future value, think about how it fits in with working from home.
For a 1 bed flat, I can see the ones that are 70sq m+ rising much faster than the
And a complicating factor is Prime London can sometimes for long periods be uncoupled from the mainstream market. Eg it didn't rise with the rest in recent times but is now seeking to make up for that. All the buyers in it are cash and chain free and oblivious to the "Cost of Living Crisis". Then there's the foreign angle.
Just watched ITV News. Peston pointed out that as people have been fined for attending that party, it was by definition illegal. So whomever it was on here earlier dancing on a pinhead about things being legal just received a little prick.
A work meeting that turned into a party after the pm left, may be one way you are wrong. At least that will be the weasel words the met use.
...so it was it his stunt double that was at the party in the picture?
There's no party in the picture.
Unless you think what Starmer was at was a party. 🤷♂️
I see that BR is still trying to say "whats the difference between this and Starmer". Without wasting everyone's time as he will keep repeating the same guff and ignore everyone else, remember that the Starmer case is that campaigning events were legal in April 21. There was no similar legal allowance for leaving parties etc in November 20.
Putting things very bluntly, what will absolutely fuck him is the string of lies to Parliament. Not only did Allegra Stratton describe this kind of thing and get angrily fired for doing so, Bonzo told everyone he too was very upset.
As he told the Commons: “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”. Now a provable lie as here he is at the very same party. No "its only a cake" excuses here. He was there. At a party. Then said "I have been told there was no party".
Liar. Resign. (he won't, but now we have to watch "I'll say anything for money" Tory MPs soil themselves on TV trying to claim otherwise)
What we know is:
Boris has not been fined for attending any party
Anything that Boris attended that was a party was officially legal for him
And therefore, him saying there weren't any (illegal) parties is not a provable lie.
Utterly wrong, where on earth are you getting "officially legal for him" from? From plod's decision not to FPN?
Exactly. No FPN = officially legal.
Hang on: so if John is discovered shot, and the evidence suggest that Bill did it, but it's not enough to convict, then no murder took place?
If there's no conviction then, officially, Bill is not a murderer.
I don't believe one would say "well, given the lack of a conviction, Bill's actions were officially legal". One might say "he's been found not guilty, and that should be the end of it", but unless one were high of rather strong hallucinogens, I don't think you would use the phrase "officially legal".
It depends what Bill's defence was. If it was self-defence, then yes, I think I would.
"I was quaffing wine in self defence."
Actually, given the tediousness of some in No10, he might just go with that...
Appalled at the illegal gathering I'd burst in upon whilst working late on the priorities of the British people, I wrested a glass of illicit cava from the hand of one of the revellers. Holding it aloft to prevent the miscreant from snatching it back, I remonstrated severely with the group, leaving them in no doubt of the grave nature of their actions, when the common, salt of the earth people of Britain were cowering under the jackboot of Covid. It was at this point that somebody seems to have snapped me with their camera phone, and frankly, any other interpretation of these events says more about the mucky cynicism of the British press than it does about me.
Very good, but you should also add "I was so angry, all memory of the event and my own fury was erased from my mind".
The obvious question would be what happened after Boris left. If I had to guess, it is what has happened repeatedly, Boris gives everybody the nod and the wink to let off a bit of steam, he leaves and then they get absolutely smashed.
In the terms of the plod / fines, perhaps they judged that raising a glass to a colleague leaving and give a few mins speech was borderline, but there was dancing on the tables with your tie around your head until 2am and that was clear case for a FPN.
Re your last paragraph BBC have just come to the same conclusion
BigG. You were outraged just three weeks ago of Starmer's egregious breach of the rules, and yet you agree this is a slam-dunk work event.
I do think the whole FPN thing is a red herring to the great white shark of hypocrisy and lying to parliament but I must admit to being fair flabbergasted by Johnson only getting the one when you see all the stuff he got up to.
In order of likelihood I would have had:
Getting fined for parties other than cakegate, but not cakegate Cleared of cakegate and everything else Fined for cakegate and everything else What has actually happened
Yes. It's the optimum result for him since 100% cleared would have looked like an obvious fix.
I usually have no truck whatsoever with conspiracy theories but ... ???
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
Just watched ITV News. Peston pointed out that as people have been fined for attending that party, it was by definition illegal. So whomever it was on here earlier dancing on a pinhead about things being legal just received a little prick.
Whoever, and wrong in substance. there is frinstance the logical possibility that it was OK for Bojo cos he was at home and illegal for everyone else because they weren't.
Anyone who says "Peston pointed out" clearly missed the coverage of the Lab leadership election in 2010 with Peston pointing out David Miliband's victory.
Boris Johnson is doing it this way, because it allows him to look tough, without anything actually happening. Rather than going to Article 16, this means he can stick two fingers up at the EU, knowing that the Lords will amend the legislation to death, and that he can shrug his shoulders and say "Bloody Upper House". (And hopefully this means he can keep the Brexit was going into 2024.)
Similar model to "Pinko lawyers stopping Rwanda" then. It's credible.
I see that BR is still trying to say "whats the difference between this and Starmer". Without wasting everyone's time as he will keep repeating the same guff and ignore everyone else, remember that the Starmer case is that campaigning events were legal in April 21. There was no similar legal allowance for leaving parties etc in November 20.
Putting things very bluntly, what will absolutely fuck him is the string of lies to Parliament. Not only did Allegra Stratton describe this kind of thing and get angrily fired for doing so, Bonzo told everyone he too was very upset.
As he told the Commons: “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”. Now a provable lie as here he is at the very same party. No "its only a cake" excuses here. He was there. At a party. Then said "I have been told there was no party".
Liar. Resign. (he won't, but now we have to watch "I'll say anything for money" Tory MPs soil themselves on TV trying to claim otherwise)
What we know is:
Boris has not been fined for attending any party
Anything that Boris attended that was a party was officially legal for him
And therefore, him saying there weren't any (illegal) parties is not a provable lie.
Utterly wrong, where on earth are you getting "officially legal for him" from? From plod's decision not to FPN?
Exactly. No FPN = officially legal.
Hang on: so if John is discovered shot, and the evidence suggest that Bill did it, but it's not enough to convict, then no murder took place?
If there's no conviction then, officially, Bill is not a murderer.
I don't believe one would say "well, given the lack of a conviction, Bill's actions were officially legal". One might say "he's been found not guilty, and that should be the end of it", but unless one were high of rather strong hallucinogens, I don't think you would use the phrase "officially legal".
It depends what Bill's defence was. If it was self-defence, then yes, I think I would.
"I was quaffing wine in self defence."
Actually, given the tediousness of some in No10, he might just go with that...
Appalled at the illegal gathering I'd burst in upon whilst working late on the priorities of the British people, I wrested a glass of illicit cava from the hand of one of the revellers. Holding it aloft to prevent the miscreant from snatching it back, I remonstrated severely with the group, leaving them in no doubt of the grave nature of of their actions, when the common, salt of the earth people of Britain were cowering under the jackboot of Covid. It was at this point that somebody seems to have snapped me with their camera phone, and frankly, any other interpretation of these events says more about the mucky cynicism of the British press than it does about me.
He can save that one for the next set of snaps.
I had hoped that my fatherly remonstrance would be enough to shame the offenders into dispersing immediately, but surveying the scene more fully, I quickly realised that substances far worse than wine and Co-op nibbles were being offered as part of this smorgasboard of depravity. Knowing that I had to act quickly, not only to prevent the breaking of Covid regulations, but to prevent inevitable scenes of drunken, undistanced debauchery from ensuing, like lightening, I grasped a half full bottle of Bombay Sapphire, and knowing not how, swallowed the contents in one. The burning, totally aloen sensation of a neat spirit was nearly intolerable to me, but I bore it with fortitude, inspired by our great Monarch who had committed herself to the covid regulations with nearly as much zeal as myself. Steeling myself, and muttering a prayer, I folllowed the gin with some Tequila, a bottle of red wine, and what remained of a dozen vodka jelly shots. But though I went about my task with vigour, I realised that to consume all the loathsome nectar myself was a near impossible task. It was then, selecting the few others in the room whom I knew to have the same standards of moral probity as myself, I fiercely enjoined them to follow my example, and rid Number 10 of this moral hazard once and for all. My repeated cries of 'see it off' and 'drink drink drink' in this video recorded on someone's mobile phone are proof of this intention, and any other interpretation placed on my actions says far more about the grubby cynicism of the British press than it does about me.
Just watched ITV News. Peston pointed out that as people have been fined for attending that party, it was by definition illegal. So whomever it was on here earlier dancing on a pinhead about things being legal just received a little prick.
A work meeting that turned into a party after the pm left, may be one way you are wrong. At least that will be the weasel words the met use.
...so it was it his stunt double that was at the party in the picture?
There's no party in the picture.
Unless you think what Starmer was at was a party. 🤷♂️
I believe Starmer did technically breach the rules from the evidence I have read and will get a fixed penalty notice. The evidence is they had their meal, with a beer after work, they were not socially distanced and there were too many people at the event.
You may be right and Johnson was not at a party and therefore he did not mislead Parliament. The Met agree with you. Ruth Davidson on Channel 4 News does not.
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
I never lived in Hampstead, but avoided the crepe van for the same reason.
And frankly, why queue for mediocre crepes? The only reason I can think of is that food offer in Hampstead is generally dire.
I am a huge fan of inner city living, however I want to own the flat in the tower block, rather than merely lease it. I want a say in how it's maintained, and I want managing agents and service charges to be regulated, with strong protections for residents to prevent over-charging for maintenence and service, with the right to change service providers enshrined in law.
Until then, I'm out. Give me a low rise and a garden I actually own, over a flat I "lease" yet am liable for unlimited charges.
Yes to all this. (I had a previous bad experience with leasehold, and am now in a freehold house and would never buy leasehold again.) On the other hand, some of leasehold's problems are inherent to being in a shared building whatever the legal structure. If you're in a block of 10 flats but the guy in flat 3 is refusing to pay their share of the service charges and then the roof needs fixing you're probably stuffed regardless, for instance. And you need to get group agreement to at least some extent to get anything done, which is always going to slow things down: and the stronger the protections against overcharging the more delay and admin costs involved. Want to get that guttering leak fixed before it damages the wall? Oops, need N quotes and an X week consultation period first...
If money was no object I'd love to live in the Barbican -- but I'd probably rather rent it so I could walk away if I had to...
Yep, agree with the above - there are always troubles as you describe. However the rest of the world seems to manage with commonhold / condominium style living where people actually have a say in the management of their building, as opposed to the UK system where you are a leaseholder who doesn't own a brick, yet is liable for every bill the unelected and un-fireable managing agent puts in front of you.
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
Also, a crepe is a crepe…. is a crepe
Nice but not life-changing
This is true of all Hampstead. It lacks really impressive restaurants, which is odd, given the wealth of the area (this is also true of Camden & Primrose Hill, tho Camden has the market which now has fantastic street food)
In similarly wealthy parts of west or central London, or the trendy bits of the East like Shoreditch and Spitalifields, the restaurants are excellent. Maybe this is all the fault of people like @Kinabalu - affluent lefties who are self-confessed philistines about food
Boris Johnson is doing it this way, because it allows him to look tough, without anything actually happening. Rather than going to Article 16, this means he can stick two fingers up at the EU, knowing that the Lords will amend the legislation to death, and that he can shrug his shoulders and say "Bloody Upper House". (And hopefully this means he can keep the Brexit was going into 2024.)
Similar model to "Pinko lawyers stopping Rwanda" then. It's credible.
According to the Mail today, “Up to 10” asylum seekers may have been put off coming to the UK.
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
For future value, think about how it fits in with working from home.
For a 1 bed flat, I can see the ones that are 70sq m+ rising much faster than the
And a complicating factor is Prime London can sometimes for long periods be uncoupled from the mainstream market. Eg it didn't rise with the rest in recent times but is now seeking to make up for that. All the buyers in it are cash and chain free and oblivious to the "Cost of Living Crisis". Then there's the foreign angle.
I expect Dubai will overtake London as the main hub for global "investors" hiding their assets from their own authoritarian regimes. Already happened with Russian ones for obvious reasons, and the Chinese are starting to become more confident in it too.
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
Also, a crepe is a crepe…. is a crepe
Nice but not life-changing
This is true of all Hampstead. It lacks really impressive restaurants, which is odd, given the wealth of the area (this is also true of Camden & Primrose Hill, tho Camden has the market which now has fantastic street food)
In similarly wealthy parts of west or central London, or the trendy bits of the East like Shoreditch and Spitalifields, the restaurants are excellent. Maybe this is all the fault of people like @Kinabalu - affluent lefties who are self-confessed philistines about food
Shoreditch is young. Hampstead is old. That is why Shoreditch has the better places to go out by far.
I would just say that for all the arguments on here, and the rights and wrongs forcefully debated, the important aspect of this is the public believe he lied and he should resign
The bigger question is do his mps agree, or do they think that this is already baked into public opinion and once mps return after Whitsun break they can take on the cost of living and move the dial forward
The only problem in this argument is that it will be resurrected when Durham police report in July and Starmer is the centre of controversy
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
Also, a crepe is a crepe…. is a crepe
Nice but not life-changing
This is true of all Hampstead. It lacks really impressive restaurants, which is odd, given the wealth of the area (this is also true of Camden & Primrose Hill, tho Camden has the market which now has fantastic street food)
In similarly wealthy parts of west or central London, or the trendy bits of the East like Shoreditch and Spitalifields, the restaurants are excellent. Maybe this is all the fault of people like @Kinabalu - affluent lefties who are self-confessed philistines about food
Rich people in the English speaking nations have crap taste.
That’s why you need to go to the places you mention, because the younger aspiring class is where it’s all at.
It’s not just Hampstead. Richmond, Wimbledon etc … the model is one shit outpost of Côte and a good but grotesquely oversubscribed gastropub.
Are the number of fatal dog attacks increasing? Seems like a regular BBC News story.
I was out running a few days ago and got jumped at by someone's dog: "he's just friendly". Well I don't fucking know that, and now I'm covered in mud you knob.
Not a dog person so don't appreciate the attention at all.
Dog owners do seem to have a remarkable lack of awareness that runners might be targets for their pets.
Are the number of fatal dog attacks increasing? Seems like a regular BBC News story.
I was out running a few days ago and got jumped at by someone's dog: "he's just friendly". Well I don't fucking know that, and now I'm covered in mud you knob.
Not a dog person so don't appreciate the attention at all.
Dogs are khunts
What "pet" dogs are for, other than the production of dogshit, is a total mystery to me. And yes fatalities do seem to be on the up.
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
Also, a crepe is a crepe…. is a crepe
Nice but not life-changing
This is true of all Hampstead. It lacks really impressive restaurants, which is odd, given the wealth of the area (this is also true of Camden & Primrose Hill, tho Camden has the market which now has fantastic street food)
In similarly wealthy parts of west or central London, or the trendy bits of the East like Shoreditch and Spitalifields, the restaurants are excellent. Maybe this is all the fault of people like @Kinabalu - affluent lefties who are self-confessed philistines about food
Pancakes are delicious, cheap and easy to make. There's really no need to be paying someone else a lot of money to make one for you when you are within a couple of miles of your own frying pan. Not least because the correct answer to 'how many pancakes would you like' is rather more than one. If I was in Hampstead and feeling peckish then conceivably I might get a crepe from a van. But that's because I don't live anywhere near there.
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
Where are you thinking of moving TO?
Most places will be less appealing than Hampstead, within London, unless you are desperate for the urban buzz of the centre or keen to hang out with Chelsea types. Or maybe you want the artistic vavavoom of Shoreditch and Hoxton?
Not sure yet. The mental picture is French Windows beyond which a lawn slopes gently down to the river and that river is the Thames.
To work with Boris Johnson is to encounter something dark, sinister and totally without soul. It is a destructive experience that makes you doubt your very sanity. Sympathy therefore for the good people of Whitehall. I found that the only salvation is to tell what you've seen.
Just watched ITV News. Peston pointed out that as people have been fined for attending that party, it was by definition illegal. So whomever it was on here earlier dancing on a pinhead about things being legal just received a little prick.
Whoever, and wrong in substance. there is frinstance the logical possibility that it was OK for Bojo cos he was at home and illegal for everyone else because they weren't.
Anyone who says "Peston pointed out" clearly missed the coverage of the Lab leadership election in 2010 with Peston pointing out David Miliband's victory.
Just happened to be Peston - do I not keep saying don't shoot the messenger?
Only problem with the "he was at home" argument is that it wasn't legal to organise a party at your house either.
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
Also, a crepe is a crepe…. is a crepe
Nice but not life-changing
This is true of all Hampstead. It lacks really impressive restaurants, which is odd, given the wealth of the area (this is also true of Camden & Primrose Hill, tho Camden has the market which now has fantastic street food)
In similarly wealthy parts of west or central London, or the trendy bits of the East like Shoreditch and Spitalifields, the restaurants are excellent. Maybe this is all the fault of people like @Kinabalu - affluent lefties who are self-confessed philistines about food
Shoreditch is young. Hampstead is old. That is why Shoreditch has the better places to go out by far.
You have to be able to tolerate their approach to punctuation though,,,
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
Also, a crepe is a crepe…. is a crepe
Nice but not life-changing
This is true of all Hampstead. It lacks really impressive restaurants, which is odd, given the wealth of the area (this is also true of Camden & Primrose Hill, tho Camden has the market which now has fantastic street food)
In similarly wealthy parts of west or central London, or the trendy bits of the East like Shoreditch and Spitalifields, the restaurants are excellent. Maybe this is all the fault of people like @Kinabalu - affluent lefties who are self-confessed philistines about food
A nice looking, colourful little crepe shop opened around the corner from me:
Unfortunately the opening happened a few weeks before the first COVID lockdown and now the retail unit is up for tender again. I felt massively sorry for them. They'd obviously made a real effort.
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
Where are you thinking of moving TO?
Most places will be less appealing than Hampstead, within London, unless you are desperate for the urban buzz of the centre or keen to hang out with Chelsea types. Or maybe you want the artistic vavavoom of Shoreditch and Hoxton?
Not sure yet. The mental picture is French Windows beyond which a lawn slopes gently down to the river and that river is the Thames.
Boris Johnson is doing it this way, because it allows him to look tough, without anything actually happening. Rather than going to Article 16, this means he can stick two fingers up at the EU, knowing that the Lords will amend the legislation to death, and that he can shrug his shoulders and say "Bloody Upper House". (And hopefully this means he can keep the Brexit was going into 2024.)
Similar model to "Pinko lawyers stopping Rwanda" then. It's credible.
According to the Mail today, “Up to 10” asylum seekers may have been put off coming to the UK.
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
I never lived in Hampstead, but avoided the crepe van for the same reason.
And frankly, why queue for mediocre crepes? The only reason I can think of is that food offer in Hampstead is generally dire.
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
Also, a crepe is a crepe…. is a crepe
Nice but not life-changing
This is true of all Hampstead. It lacks really impressive restaurants, which is odd, given the wealth of the area (this is also true of Camden & Primrose Hill, tho Camden has the market which now has fantastic street food)
In similarly wealthy parts of west or central London, or the trendy bits of the East like Shoreditch and Spitalifields, the restaurants are excellent. Maybe this is all the fault of people like @Kinabalu - affluent lefties who are self-confessed philistines about food
I refer the honorable Gentleman to the answer I gave two moments ago - Jin Kichi.
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
Yes, it's one of those things where the idea of it beats the reality by a distance.
Just watched ITV News. Peston pointed out that as people have been fined for attending that party, it was by definition illegal. So whomever it was on here earlier dancing on a pinhead about things being legal just received a little prick.
A work meeting that turned into a party after the pm left, may be one way you are wrong. At least that will be the weasel words the met use.
...so it was it his stunt double that was at the party in the picture?
There's no party in the picture.
Unless you think what Starmer was at was a party. 🤷♂️
I believe Starmer did technically breach the rules from the evidence I have read and will get a fixed penalty notice. The evidence is they had their meal, with a beer after work, they were not socially distanced and there were too many people at the event.
You may be right and Johnson was not at a party and therefore he did not mislead Parliament. The Met agree with you. Ruth Davidson on Channel 4 News does not.
The challenge for the Met is that other people have been fined for being at this party. So it was a party and was illegal. And the "I was at home" defence doesn't work either - especially as we know that Bonzo was the organiser - as hosting a party at home was also illegal.
We know why the Met fined the attendees but not the organiser...
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
Also, a crepe is a crepe…. is a crepe
Nice but not life-changing
This is true of all Hampstead. It lacks really impressive restaurants, which is odd, given the wealth of the area (this is also true of Camden & Primrose Hill, tho Camden has the market which now has fantastic street food)
In similarly wealthy parts of west or central London, or the trendy bits of the East like Shoreditch and Spitalifields, the restaurants are excellent. Maybe this is all the fault of people like @Kinabalu - affluent lefties who are self-confessed philistines about food
Pancakes are delicious, cheap and easy to make. There's really no need to be paying someone else a lot of money to make one for you when you are within a couple of miles of your own frying pan. Not least because the correct answer to 'how many pancakes would you like' is rather more than one. If I was in Hampstead and feeling peckish then conceivably I might get a crepe from a van. But that's because I don't live anywhere near there.
You wouldn't, because you could walk to Camden in the time it would take to queue for the crepe van.
Just watched ITV News. Peston pointed out that as people have been fined for attending that party, it was by definition illegal. So whomever it was on here earlier dancing on a pinhead about things being legal just received a little prick.
Whoever, and wrong in substance. there is frinstance the logical possibility that it was OK for Bojo cos he was at home and illegal for everyone else because they weren't.
Anyone who says "Peston pointed out" clearly missed the coverage of the Lab leadership election in 2010 with Peston pointing out David Miliband's victory.
Just happened to be Peston - do I not keep saying don't shoot the messenger?
Only problem with the "he was at home" argument is that it wasn't legal to organise a party at your house either.
Well, why introduce the messenger in the first place, then? You started it.
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
Also, a crepe is a crepe…. is a crepe
Nice but not life-changing
This is true of all Hampstead. It lacks really impressive restaurants, which is odd, given the wealth of the area (this is also true of Camden & Primrose Hill, tho Camden has the market which now has fantastic street food)
In similarly wealthy parts of west or central London, or the trendy bits of the East like Shoreditch and Spitalifields, the restaurants are excellent. Maybe this is all the fault of people like @Kinabalu - affluent lefties who are self-confessed philistines about food
I refer the honorable Gentleman to the answer I gave two moments ago - Jin Kichi.
Currently closed until August for refurbishment according to the website.
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
Yes, it's one of those things where the idea of it beats the reality by a distance.
I see that BR is still trying to say "whats the difference between this and Starmer". Without wasting everyone's time as he will keep repeating the same guff and ignore everyone else, remember that the Starmer case is that campaigning events were legal in April 21. There was no similar legal allowance for leaving parties etc in November 20.
Putting things very bluntly, what will absolutely fuck him is the string of lies to Parliament. Not only did Allegra Stratton describe this kind of thing and get angrily fired for doing so, Bonzo told everyone he too was very upset.
As he told the Commons: “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”. Now a provable lie as here he is at the very same party. No "its only a cake" excuses here. He was there. At a party. Then said "I have been told there was no party".
Liar. Resign. (he won't, but now we have to watch "I'll say anything for money" Tory MPs soil themselves on TV trying to claim otherwise)
What we know is:
Boris has not been fined for attending any party
Anything that Boris attended that was a party was officially legal for him
And therefore, him saying there weren't any (illegal) parties is not a provable lie.
Utterly wrong, where on earth are you getting "officially legal for him" from? From plod's decision not to FPN?
Exactly. No FPN = officially legal.
Hang on: so if John is discovered shot, and the evidence suggest that Bill did it, but it's not enough to convict, then no murder took place?
If there's no conviction then, officially, Bill is not a murderer.
I don't believe one would say "well, given the lack of a conviction, Bill's actions were officially legal". One might say "he's been found not guilty, and that should be the end of it", but unless one were high of rather strong hallucinogens, I don't think you would use the phrase "officially legal".
It depends what Bill's defence was. If it was self-defence, then yes, I think I would.
"I was quaffing wine in self defence."
Actually, given the tediousness of some in No10, he might just go with that...
Appalled at the illegal gathering I'd burst in upon whilst working late on the priorities of the British people, I wrested a glass of illicit cava from the hand of one of the revellers. Holding it aloft to prevent the miscreant from snatching it back, I remonstrated severely with the group, leaving them in no doubt of the grave nature of their actions, when the common, salt of the earth people of Britain were cowering under the jackboot of Covid. It was at this point that somebody seems to have snapped me with their camera phone, and frankly, any other interpretation of these events says more about the mucky cynicism of the British press than it does about me.
Just watched ITV News. Peston pointed out that as people have been fined for attending that party, it was by definition illegal. So whomever it was on here earlier dancing on a pinhead about things being legal just received a little prick.
Whoever, and wrong in substance. there is frinstance the logical possibility that it was OK for Bojo cos he was at home and illegal for everyone else because they weren't.
Anyone who says "Peston pointed out" clearly missed the coverage of the Lab leadership election in 2010 with Peston pointing out David Miliband's victory.
Just happened to be Peston - do I not keep saying don't shoot the messenger?
Only problem with the "he was at home" argument is that it wasn't legal to organise a party at your house either.
And the PM told parliament rules were followed at No 10 at all times. Not just that he followed the rules (which he didn't either.....).
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
Yes, it's one of those things where the idea of it beats the reality by a distance.
To work with Boris Johnson is to encounter something dark, sinister and totally without soul. It is a destructive experience that makes you doubt your very sanity. Sympathy therefore for the good people of Whitehall. I found that the only salvation is to tell what you've seen.
I think I am less offended by Johnson's behaviour than the Met. Police intervening and then taking virtually no action against Johnson and no action against Case. Either by cock-up or conspiracy their action saved Johnson.
Those who cooperated with Gray were banged to rights, those who didn't got off scott free. On what did the Met. spend their £460,000?
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
Also, a crepe is a crepe…. is a crepe
Nice but not life-changing
This is true of all Hampstead. It lacks really impressive restaurants, which is odd, given the wealth of the area (this is also true of Camden & Primrose Hill, tho Camden has the market which now has fantastic street food)
In similarly wealthy parts of west or central London, or the trendy bits of the East like Shoreditch and Spitalifields, the restaurants are excellent. Maybe this is all the fault of people like @Kinabalu - affluent lefties who are self-confessed philistines about food
I refer the honorable Gentleman to the answer I gave two moments ago - Jin Kichi.
Currently closed until August for refurbishment according to the website.
Guess it will have to be Côte, after all.
What's embarrassing about Hampstead is that Côte is always heaving. Because there's nowhere else.
Côte is simply average. The food is acceptable. The prices merely high rather than utterly egregious.
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
Yes, it's one of those things where the idea of it beats the reality by a distance.
Are the number of fatal dog attacks increasing? Seems like a regular BBC News story.
I was out running a few days ago and got jumped at by someone's dog: "he's just friendly". Well I don't fucking know that, and now I'm covered in mud you knob.
Not a dog person so don't appreciate the attention at all.
Dog owners do seem to have a remarkable lack of awareness that runners might be targets for their pets.
Great win for Raducanu in the tennis. The Canadian born player started inconsistently and the Romanian heritage US Open champion lost the first set on the tie break. Then the plucky and courageous Brit won the next two sets.
Are the number of fatal dog attacks increasing? Seems like a regular BBC News story.
I was out running a few days ago and got jumped at by someone's dog: "he's just friendly". Well I don't fucking know that, and now I'm covered in mud you knob.
Not a dog person so don't appreciate the attention at all.
Dogs are khunts
What "pet" dogs are for, other than the production of dogshit, is a total mystery to me. And yes fatalities do seem to be on the up.
I wouldn't be quite that negative, but unfortunately it seems that quite a lot of the worst owners (with, naturally, the worst dogs) like to allow them to wander loose and make a nuisance of themselves or worse. And, inevitably, if the animal decides to bother you then it is always your fault, not theirs.
Nowadays, when I'm running out of town on the local tracks and footpaths I always go with a group. A member of my club went out on her own and had the misfortune to encounter a negligent dog walker with a disturbed animal, and suffered quite nasty bites for her trouble. If I had anything at all to do with it then I'd push for legislation to force owners of pet dogs to keep them on leads in public at all times, so if the things do decide to be aggressive you can be reasonably confident of getting away from them.
Just watched ITV News. Peston pointed out that as people have been fined for attending that party, it was by definition illegal. So whomever it was on here earlier dancing on a pinhead about things being legal just received a little prick.
A work meeting that turned into a party after the pm left, may be one way you are wrong. At least that will be the weasel words the met use.
...so it was it his stunt double that was at the party in the picture?
There's no party in the picture.
Unless you think what Starmer was at was a party. 🤷♂️
I believe Starmer did technically breach the rules from the evidence I have read and will get a fixed penalty notice. The evidence is they had their meal, with a beer after work, they were not socially distanced and there were too many people at the event.
You may be right and Johnson was not at a party and therefore he did not mislead Parliament. The Met agree with you. Ruth Davidson on Channel 4 News does not.
The challenge for the Met is that other people have been fined for being at this party. So it was a party and was illegal. And the "I was at home" defence doesn't work either - especially as we know that Bonzo was the organiser - as hosting a party at home was also illegal.
We know why the Met fined the attendees but not the organiser...
Link that he organised it and also that he was not working
I would just say that for all the arguments on here, and the rights and wrongs forcefully debated, the important aspect of this is the public believe he lied and he should resign
The bigger question is do his mps agree, or do they think that this is already baked into public opinion and once mps return after Whitsun break they can take on the cost of living and move the dial forward
The only problem in this argument is that it will be resurrected when Durham police report in July and Starmer is the centre of controversy
So yes, the guiltier Starmer means Johnson becomes exponentially less guilty.
Just watched ITV News. Peston pointed out that as people have been fined for attending that party, it was by definition illegal. So whomever it was on here earlier dancing on a pinhead about things being legal just received a little prick.
A work meeting that turned into a party after the pm left, may be one way you are wrong. At least that will be the weasel words the met use.
...so it was it his stunt double that was at the party in the picture?
There's no party in the picture.
Unless you think what Starmer was at was a party. 🤷♂️
I believe Starmer did technically breach the rules from the evidence I have read and will get a fixed penalty notice. The evidence is they had their meal, with a beer after work, they were not socially distanced and there were too many people at the event.
You may be right and Johnson was not at a party and therefore he did not mislead Parliament. The Met agree with you. Ruth Davidson on Channel 4 News does not.
“ You may be right and Johnson was not at a party and therefore he did not mislead Parliament. The Met agree with you.”
I am challenging you on that Pete. I am asking you to supply evidence to support you claim the police saw these photos before leaked today. All we have so far is Downing Street insisting the police had “access” to the photo’s… and police silence. You currently have zero evidence to support that claim in your post.
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
Yes, it's one of those things where the idea of it beats the reality by a distance.
Like mulled wine.
You have clearly never tasted my mulled wine.
Mulled wine is great. For one glass only when the temperature is -5 or less. A couple of times a year. More than that or warmer and hugely overrated.
To work with Boris Johnson is to encounter something dark, sinister and totally without soul. It is a destructive experience that makes you doubt your very sanity. Sympathy therefore for the good people of Whitehall. I found that the only salvation is to tell what you've seen.
I think I am less offended by Johnson's behaviour than the Met. Police intervening and then taking virtually no action against Johnson and no action against Case. Either by cock-up or conspiracy their action saved Johnson.
Those who cooperated with Gray were banged to rights, those who didn't got off scott free. On what did the Met. spend their £460,000?
Jubilee Honours list is the one to watch. The corrupt little fucks involved aren't going to want to hold long term Boris promises, they'll want cash on the barrelhead.
I would just say that for all the arguments on here, and the rights and wrongs forcefully debated, the important aspect of this is the public believe he lied and he should resign
The bigger question is do his mps agree, or do they think that this is already baked into public opinion and once mps return after Whitsun break they can take on the cost of living and move the dial forward
The only problem in this argument is that it will be resurrected when Durham police report in July and Starmer is the centre of controversy
The lying should matter. If we can't trust our leaders to tell us the truth, we're stuffed as an electorate.
Unfortunately, that ship has not only sailed, but has made it to international waters where canapes are being set out for tonight's cocktail reception.
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
Also, a crepe is a crepe…. is a crepe
Nice but not life-changing
This is true of all Hampstead. It lacks really impressive restaurants, which is odd, given the wealth of the area (this is also true of Camden & Primrose Hill, tho Camden has the market which now has fantastic street food)
In similarly wealthy parts of west or central London, or the trendy bits of the East like Shoreditch and Spitalifields, the restaurants are excellent. Maybe this is all the fault of people like @Kinabalu - affluent lefties who are self-confessed philistines about food
I refer the honorable Gentleman to the answer I gave two moments ago - Jin Kichi.
Currently closed until August for refurbishment according to the website.
Guess it will have to be Côte, after all.
What's embarrassing about Hampstead is that Côte is always heaving. Because there's nowhere else.
Côte is simply average. The food is acceptable. The prices merely high rather than utterly egregious.
That it is permanently full is a stain on NW3.
I have zero tolerance for Côte. The food is blah. The whole thing is ersatz.
Yep, agree with the above - there are always troubles as you describe. However the rest of the world seems to manage with commonhold / condominium style living where people actually have a say in the management of their building, as opposed to the UK system where you are a leaseholder who doesn't own a brick, yet is liable for every bill the unelected and un-fireable managing agent puts in front of you.
Not *completely* un-fireable -- part of my leasehold nightmare I alluded to above was foolishly volunteering to lead the effort by residents to buy the freehold of the block. We did eventually succeed and were then able to install our own managing agents -- but of course the sinking-fund kitty was empty and so we didn't have much money to make improvements. By that time I had moved out years before and only still owned the flat because I didn't feel I could walk away while we were mid-buyout. Once we'd got it through I sold the flat (at a net loss from buying it 10 years earlier) and felt myself well out of it.
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
Also, a crepe is a crepe…. is a crepe
Nice but not life-changing
This is true of all Hampstead. It lacks really impressive restaurants, which is odd, given the wealth of the area (this is also true of Camden & Primrose Hill, tho Camden has the market which now has fantastic street food)
In similarly wealthy parts of west or central London, or the trendy bits of the East like Shoreditch and Spitalifields, the restaurants are excellent. Maybe this is all the fault of people like @Kinabalu - affluent lefties who are self-confessed philistines about food
I refer the honorable Gentleman to the answer I gave two moments ago - Jin Kichi.
Currently closed until August for refurbishment according to the website.
Guess it will have to be Côte, after all.
What's embarrassing about Hampstead is that Côte is always heaving. Because there's nowhere else.
Côte is simply average. The food is acceptable. The prices merely high rather than utterly egregious.
That it is permanently full is a stain on NW3.
Why wouldn't the business model of somewhere like the Fat Duck apply in Hampstead? I guess no places to stay, but Hampstead is far more interesting otherwise.
There clearly is at least one good reason, but I don't see it. (Simple cost of space?)
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
Also, a crepe is a crepe…. is a crepe
Nice but not life-changing
This is true of all Hampstead. It lacks really impressive restaurants, which is odd, given the wealth of the area (this is also true of Camden & Primrose Hill, tho Camden has the market which now has fantastic street food)
In similarly wealthy parts of west or central London, or the trendy bits of the East like Shoreditch and Spitalifields, the restaurants are excellent. Maybe this is all the fault of people like @Kinabalu - affluent lefties who are self-confessed philistines about food
I refer the honorable Gentleman to the answer I gave two moments ago - Jin Kichi.
Yes, I’ve been there! Good fun, but a bit tiny and crowded
It’s still an unimpressive display for a burb as phenomenally wealthy and “sophisticated” as NW3
I would just say that for all the arguments on here, and the rights and wrongs forcefully debated, the important aspect of this is the public believe he lied and he should resign
The bigger question is do his mps agree, or do they think that this is already baked into public opinion and once mps return after Whitsun break they can take on the cost of living and move the dial forward
The only problem in this argument is that it will be resurrected when Durham police report in July and Starmer is the centre of controversy
And either Sir Keir is exonerated, or he isn't and resigns. Neither great for BJ.
I wonder if we are possibly all so inured to this, that we are underestimating the possibility of a Boris defenestration? Could the hairline cracks suddenly break open and chunks of masonry start showering down?
Just watched ITV News. Peston pointed out that as people have been fined for attending that party, it was by definition illegal. So whomever it was on here earlier dancing on a pinhead about things being legal just received a little prick.
A work meeting that turned into a party after the pm left, may be one way you are wrong. At least that will be the weasel words the met use.
...so it was it his stunt double that was at the party in the picture?
There's no party in the picture.
Unless you think what Starmer was at was a party. 🤷♂️
I believe Starmer did technically breach the rules from the evidence I have read and will get a fixed penalty notice. The evidence is they had their meal, with a beer after work, they were not socially distanced and there were too many people at the event.
You may be right and Johnson was not at a party and therefore he did not mislead Parliament. The Met agree with you. Ruth Davidson on Channel 4 News does not.
The challenge for the Met is that other people have been fined for being at this party. So it was a party and was illegal. And the "I was at home" defence doesn't work either - especially as we know that Bonzo was the organiser - as hosting a party at home was also illegal.
We know why the Met fined the attendees but not the organiser...
Link that he organised it and also that he was not working
Quite right Big G, we must take the PM at his word, he is after all an honourable gentleman, and there are too few of those in public life in these barbaric times.
Keir on the other hand has questions to answer and should probably be horsewhipped regardless.
I would just say that for all the arguments on here, and the rights and wrongs forcefully debated, the important aspect of this is the public believe he lied and he should resign
The bigger question is do his mps agree, or do they think that this is already baked into public opinion and once mps return after Whitsun break they can take on the cost of living and move the dial forward
The only problem in this argument is that it will be resurrected when Durham police report in July and Starmer is the centre of controversy
So yes, the guiltier Starmer means Johnson becomes exponentially less guilty.
The point I am making is that just when the conservatives may have hoped to change the narrative it will become headline news in July when Durham Police report on beergate
I have said on several occasions that if Starmer can prove he was working he will be cleared
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
Also, a crepe is a crepe…. is a crepe
Nice but not life-changing
This is true of all Hampstead. It lacks really impressive restaurants, which is odd, given the wealth of the area (this is also true of Camden & Primrose Hill, tho Camden has the market which now has fantastic street food)
In similarly wealthy parts of west or central London, or the trendy bits of the East like Shoreditch and Spitalifields, the restaurants are excellent. Maybe this is all the fault of people like @Kinabalu - affluent lefties who are self-confessed philistines about food
I refer the honorable Gentleman to the answer I gave two moments ago - Jin Kichi.
Yes, I’ve been there! Good fun, but a bit tiny and crowded
It’s still an unimpressive display for a burb as phenomenally wealthy and “sophisticated” as NW3
I bet it's cavernous compared with Maguro in Little Venice - which is really quite good too.
In the early 1990s, I spent a few months living in Skenfrith House, a tower block on the Old Kent Road. The flat I shared was pleasant; the environment around the block less so.
The four towers on the estate were built to a similar design to Ronan Point, the tower block that partially collapsed in 1968 after a gas explosion. In a safety audit done after the Grenfell Tower disaster, it turned out the alterations to strengthen the building to fix the issues shown in the Ronan Point collapse had not been performed on these towers.
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
Also, a crepe is a crepe…. is a crepe
Nice but not life-changing
This is true of all Hampstead. It lacks really impressive restaurants, which is odd, given the wealth of the area (this is also true of Camden & Primrose Hill, tho Camden has the market which now has fantastic street food)
In similarly wealthy parts of west or central London, or the trendy bits of the East like Shoreditch and Spitalifields, the restaurants are excellent. Maybe this is all the fault of people like @Kinabalu - affluent lefties who are self-confessed philistines about food
I refer the honorable Gentleman to the answer I gave two moments ago - Jin Kichi.
Currently closed until August for refurbishment according to the website.
Guess it will have to be Côte, after all.
What's embarrassing about Hampstead is that Côte is always heaving. Because there's nowhere else.
Côte is simply average. The food is acceptable. The prices merely high rather than utterly egregious.
That it is permanently full is a stain on NW3.
Why wouldn't the business model of somewhere like the Fat Duck apply in Hampstead? I guess no places to stay, but Hampstead is far more interesting otherwise.
There clearly is at least one good reason, but I don't see it. (Simple cost of space?)
Because old, rich people eat any old shit. There’s no point paying the high-ish rent.
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
Yes, it's one of those things where the idea of it beats the reality by a distance.
Like mulled wine.
Or sex with a Playboy bunny.
I'll have to take your word for that one. And I do!
But on the mulled wine I speak from experience. It ALWAYS disappoints.
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
Yes, it's one of those things where the idea of it beats the reality by a distance.
Like mulled wine.
You have clearly never tasted my mulled wine.
Mulled wine is great. For one glass only when the temperature is -5 or less. A couple of times a year. More than that or warmer and hugely overrated.
I’d say -5 is a fairly impractical temperate to serve it, though the alcohol might stop it actually freezing.
To work with Boris Johnson is to encounter something dark, sinister and totally without soul. It is a destructive experience that makes you doubt your very sanity. Sympathy therefore for the good people of Whitehall. I found that the only salvation is to tell what you've seen.
Lots of people have divided the world into two groups- those who BoJo has betayed and those he will betray.
The more interesting classification is threefold. Those who accept they have been betrayed, those who haven't realised it yet, and the ones in the middle. Those who, deep down, know they have been had but don't quite want to admit it.
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
Also, a crepe is a crepe…. is a crepe
Nice but not life-changing
This is true of all Hampstead. It lacks really impressive restaurants, which is odd, given the wealth of the area (this is also true of Camden & Primrose Hill, tho Camden has the market which now has fantastic street food)
In similarly wealthy parts of west or central London, or the trendy bits of the East like Shoreditch and Spitalifields, the restaurants are excellent. Maybe this is all the fault of people like @Kinabalu - affluent lefties who are self-confessed philistines about food
I refer the honorable Gentleman to the answer I gave two moments ago - Jin Kichi.
Currently closed until August for refurbishment according to the website.
Guess it will have to be Côte, after all.
What's embarrassing about Hampstead is that Côte is always heaving. Because there's nowhere else.
Côte is simply average. The food is acceptable. The prices merely high rather than utterly egregious.
That it is permanently full is a stain on NW3.
I have zero tolerance for Côte. The food is blah. The whole thing is ersatz.
The cheese is Reblochon FFS!
Cote is somewhere I would go and eat, at a pinch, in a provincial British city. Reading or Sunderland or Portsmouth or Edinburgh
Hampstead?? Why aren’t there 12 great restaurants and gastropubs? Houses cost £5m FFS, and people really live there, it’s not some buy to let zombieland. Quite peculiar
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
Also, a crepe is a crepe…. is a crepe
Nice but not life-changing
This is true of all Hampstead. It lacks really impressive restaurants, which is odd, given the wealth of the area (this is also true of Camden & Primrose Hill, tho Camden has the market which now has fantastic street food)
In similarly wealthy parts of west or central London, or the trendy bits of the East like Shoreditch and Spitalifields, the restaurants are excellent. Maybe this is all the fault of people like @Kinabalu - affluent lefties who are self-confessed philistines about food
I refer the honorable Gentleman to the answer I gave two moments ago - Jin Kichi.
Currently closed until August for refurbishment according to the website.
Guess it will have to be Côte, after all.
What's embarrassing about Hampstead is that Côte is always heaving. Because there's nowhere else.
Côte is simply average. The food is acceptable. The prices merely high rather than utterly egregious.
That it is permanently full is a stain on NW3.
Why wouldn't the business model of somewhere like the Fat Duck apply in Hampstead? I guess no places to stay, but Hampstead is far more interesting otherwise.
There clearly is at least one good reason, but I don't see it. (Simple cost of space?)
Because old, rich people eat any old shit. There’s no point paying the high-ish rent.
Yes, but Hampstead is rather nicely within reach of a civilised evening out for people in London, Bray involves a long ride home. I take your points, but don't think you (or anyone) has got to the bottom of the conundrum.
Just watched ITV News. Peston pointed out that as people have been fined for attending that party, it was by definition illegal. So whomever it was on here earlier dancing on a pinhead about things being legal just received a little prick.
A work meeting that turned into a party after the pm left, may be one way you are wrong. At least that will be the weasel words the met use.
...so it was it his stunt double that was at the party in the picture?
There's no party in the picture.
Unless you think what Starmer was at was a party. 🤷♂️
I believe Starmer did technically breach the rules from the evidence I have read and will get a fixed penalty notice. The evidence is they had their meal, with a beer after work, they were not socially distanced and there were too many people at the event.
You may be right and Johnson was not at a party and therefore he did not mislead Parliament. The Met agree with you. Ruth Davidson on Channel 4 News does not.
The challenge for the Met is that other people have been fined for being at this party. So it was a party and was illegal. And the "I was at home" defence doesn't work either - especially as we know that Bonzo was the organiser - as hosting a party at home was also illegal.
We know why the Met fined the attendees but not the organiser...
Link that he organised it and also that he was not working
Quite right Big G, we must take the PM at his word, he is after all an honourable gentleman, and there are too few of those in public life in these barbaric times.
Keir on the other hand has questions to answer and should probably be horsewhipped regardless.
It is others who are accusing him of organising the gathering when there is no evidence he did
We do not use 'lynch mobs' in this country and I have no axe to grind for Boris as I really do not care whether he stays or goes
I would just say that for all the arguments on here, and the rights and wrongs forcefully debated, the important aspect of this is the public believe he lied and he should resign
The bigger question is do his mps agree, or do they think that this is already baked into public opinion and once mps return after Whitsun break they can take on the cost of living and move the dial forward
The only problem in this argument is that it will be resurrected when Durham police report in July and Starmer is the centre of controversy
So yes, the guiltier Starmer means Johnson becomes exponentially less guilty.
The point I am making is that just when the conservatives may have hoped to change the narrative it will become headline news in July when Durham Police report on beergate
I have said on several occasions that if Starmer can prove he was working he will be cleared
At least we now know, why the Tory focus was on beer.
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
Where are you thinking of moving TO?
Most places will be less appealing than Hampstead, within London, unless you are desperate for the urban buzz of the centre or keen to hang out with Chelsea types. Or maybe you want the artistic vavavoom of Shoreditch and Hoxton?
Not sure yet. The mental picture is French Windows beyond which a lawn slopes gently down to the river and that river is the Thames.
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
Also, a crepe is a crepe…. is a crepe
Nice but not life-changing
This is true of all Hampstead. It lacks really impressive restaurants, which is odd, given the wealth of the area (this is also true of Camden & Primrose Hill, tho Camden has the market which now has fantastic street food)
In similarly wealthy parts of west or central London, or the trendy bits of the East like Shoreditch and Spitalifields, the restaurants are excellent. Maybe this is all the fault of people like @Kinabalu - affluent lefties who are self-confessed philistines about food
I refer the honorable Gentleman to the answer I gave two moments ago - Jin Kichi.
Currently closed until August for refurbishment according to the website.
Guess it will have to be Côte, after all.
What's embarrassing about Hampstead is that Côte is always heaving. Because there's nowhere else.
Côte is simply average. The food is acceptable. The prices merely high rather than utterly egregious.
That it is permanently full is a stain on NW3.
I have zero tolerance for Côte. The food is blah. The whole thing is ersatz.
The cheese is Reblochon FFS!
Cote is somewhere I would go and eat, at a pinch, in a provincial British city. Reading or Sunderland or Portsmouth or Edinburgh
Hampstead?? Why aren’t there 12 great restaurants and gastropubs? Houses cost £5m FFS, and people really live there, it’s not some buy to let zombieland. Quite peculiar
Edinburgh is good for food. I presume that was put in there deliberately to rile the Scot Nat contingent.
Sunderland is the worst city I’ve ever visited, food-wise. Literally the worst.
Are the number of fatal dog attacks increasing? Seems like a regular BBC News story.
I was out running a few days ago and got jumped at by someone's dog: "he's just friendly". Well I don't fucking know that, and now I'm covered in mud you knob.
Not a dog person so don't appreciate the attention at all.
Dogs are khunts
What "pet" dogs are for, other than the production of dogshit, is a total mystery to me. And yes fatalities do seem to be on the up.
I wouldn't be quite that negative, but unfortunately it seems that quite a lot of the worst owners (with, naturally, the worst dogs) like to allow them to wander loose and make a nuisance of themselves or worse. And, inevitably, if the animal decides to bother you then it is always your fault, not theirs.
Nowadays, when I'm running out of town on the local tracks and footpaths I always go with a group. A member of my club went out on her own and had the misfortune to encounter a negligent dog walker with a disturbed animal, and suffered quite nasty bites for her trouble. If I had anything at all to do with it then I'd push for legislation to force owners of pet dogs to keep them on leads in public at all times, so if the things do decide to be aggressive you can be reasonably confident of getting away from them.
Why so tolerant, if that happened to someone you know?
You are right about "disturbed" animals though. There is a massive scam going on where there's a thriving and highly profitable second hand dog market, only buying a used dog is rebadged as "re-homing" a "rescue" dog for a "re-homing fee". The reality is, the dog has been dumped because it is dangerous/shitty/uncontrollable and badly in need of a bullet, but the suckers buying the things think they are acquiring Really Lovely People status as part of the deal.
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
Yes, it's one of those things where the idea of it beats the reality by a distance.
Like mulled wine.
You have clearly never tasted my mulled wine.
Mulled wine is great. For one glass only when the temperature is -5 or less. A couple of times a year. More than that or warmer and hugely overrated.
I’d say -5 is a fairly impractical temperate to serve it, though the alcohol might stop it actually freezing.
If you heat it up, and drink it quickly, no problem! A staple of Ukranian winter markets.
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
Also, a crepe is a crepe…. is a crepe
Nice but not life-changing
This is true of all Hampstead. It lacks really impressive restaurants, which is odd, given the wealth of the area (this is also true of Camden & Primrose Hill, tho Camden has the market which now has fantastic street food)
In similarly wealthy parts of west or central London, or the trendy bits of the East like Shoreditch and Spitalifields, the restaurants are excellent. Maybe this is all the fault of people like @Kinabalu - affluent lefties who are self-confessed philistines about food
I refer the honorable Gentleman to the answer I gave two moments ago - Jin Kichi.
Currently closed until August for refurbishment according to the website.
Guess it will have to be Côte, after all.
What's embarrassing about Hampstead is that Côte is always heaving. Because there's nowhere else.
Côte is simply average. The food is acceptable. The prices merely high rather than utterly egregious.
That it is permanently full is a stain on NW3.
Why wouldn't the business model of somewhere like the Fat Duck apply in Hampstead? I guess no places to stay, but Hampstead is far more interesting otherwise.
There clearly is at least one good reason, but I don't see it. (Simple cost of space?)
Because old, rich people eat any old shit. There’s no point paying the high-ish rent.
Yes, but Hampstead is rather nicely within reach of a civilised evening out for people in London, Bray involves a long ride home. I take your points, but don't think you (or anyone) has got to the bottom of the conundrum.
It’s not just Hampstead.
It’s also Highgate, Richmond, Wimbledon, Ealing, Chiswick etc.
They usually have one or two good gastropubs, which are always fearfully over-subscribed, and then a string of chain restaurants like Côte or Pizza Express that cater to a “middle class” clientele.
It is because old British people are food philistines.
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
Yes, it's one of those things where the idea of it beats the reality by a distance.
Like mulled wine.
You have clearly never tasted my mulled wine.
Mulled wine is great. For one glass only when the temperature is -5 or less. A couple of times a year. More than that or warmer and hugely overrated.
I’d say -5 is a fairly impractical temperate to serve it, though the alcohol might stop it actually freezing.
If you heat it up, and drink it quickly, no problem! A staple of Ukranian winter markets.
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
Also, a crepe is a crepe…. is a crepe
Nice but not life-changing
This is true of all Hampstead. It lacks really impressive restaurants, which is odd, given the wealth of the area (this is also true of Camden & Primrose Hill, tho Camden has the market which now has fantastic street food)
In similarly wealthy parts of west or central London, or the trendy bits of the East like Shoreditch and Spitalifields, the restaurants are excellent. Maybe this is all the fault of people like @Kinabalu - affluent lefties who are self-confessed philistines about food
I refer the honorable Gentleman to the answer I gave two moments ago - Jin Kichi.
Currently closed until August for refurbishment according to the website.
Guess it will have to be Côte, after all.
What's embarrassing about Hampstead is that Côte is always heaving. Because there's nowhere else.
Côte is simply average. The food is acceptable. The prices merely high rather than utterly egregious.
That it is permanently full is a stain on NW3.
I have zero tolerance for Côte. The food is blah. The whole thing is ersatz.
The cheese is Reblochon FFS!
Cote is somewhere I would go and eat, at a pinch, in a provincial British city. Reading or Sunderland or Portsmouth or Edinburgh
Hampstead?? Why aren’t there 12 great restaurants and gastropubs? Houses cost £5m FFS, and people really live there, it’s not some buy to let zombieland. Quite peculiar
Edinburgh is good for food. I presume that was put in there deliberately to rile the Scot Nat contingent.
Sunderland is the worst city I’ve ever visited, food-wise. Literally the worst.
You’re half right. i did put it in to provoke Nats, tho it is also true, to an extent. I’ve never eaten well in Edinburgh - to me it has been like Hampstead. Wealthy, beautiful, full of tourists, not great food. Not terrible just not great
Sunderland is interesting. Could you not find decent ethnic food? They are usually the saviour of British cities. Wherever you are, you can generally get decent Indian, and probably Chinese and Thai as well. This is no small thing. It means you can eat well almost anywhere in the UK, it just won’t be “British” food
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
Also, a crepe is a crepe…. is a crepe
Nice but not life-changing
This is true of all Hampstead. It lacks really impressive restaurants, which is odd, given the wealth of the area (this is also true of Camden & Primrose Hill, tho Camden has the market which now has fantastic street food)
In similarly wealthy parts of west or central London, or the trendy bits of the East like Shoreditch and Spitalifields, the restaurants are excellent. Maybe this is all the fault of people like @Kinabalu - affluent lefties who are self-confessed philistines about food
I refer the honorable Gentleman to the answer I gave two moments ago - Jin Kichi.
Currently closed until August for refurbishment according to the website.
Guess it will have to be Côte, after all.
What's embarrassing about Hampstead is that Côte is always heaving. Because there's nowhere else.
Côte is simply average. The food is acceptable. The prices merely high rather than utterly egregious.
That it is permanently full is a stain on NW3.
Why wouldn't the business model of somewhere like the Fat Duck apply in Hampstead? I guess no places to stay, but Hampstead is far more interesting otherwise.
There clearly is at least one good reason, but I don't see it. (Simple cost of space?)
Because old, rich people eat any old shit. There’s no point paying the high-ish rent.
Yes, but Hampstead is rather nicely within reach of a civilised evening out for people in London, Bray involves a long ride home. I take your points, but don't think you (or anyone) has got to the bottom of the conundrum.
It’s not just Hampstead.
It’s also Highgate, Richmond, Wimbledon, Ealing, Chiswick etc.
They usually have one or two good gastropubs, which are always fearfully over-subscribed, and then a string of chain restaurants like Côte or Pizza Express that cater to a “middle class” clientele.
It is because old British people are food philistines.
I was trying to think of really good places in the residential band - the only one I came up with was the River Cafe. Not sure how good it is these days, but it certainly was once very good.
Just watched ITV News. Peston pointed out that as people have been fined for attending that party, it was by definition illegal. So whomever it was on here earlier dancing on a pinhead about things being legal just received a little prick.
A work meeting that turned into a party after the pm left, may be one way you are wrong. At least that will be the weasel words the met use.
...so it was it his stunt double that was at the party in the picture?
There's no party in the picture.
Unless you think what Starmer was at was a party. 🤷♂️
I believe Starmer did technically breach the rules from the evidence I have read and will get a fixed penalty notice. The evidence is they had their meal, with a beer after work, they were not socially distanced and there were too many people at the event.
You may be right and Johnson was not at a party and therefore he did not mislead Parliament. The Met agree with you. Ruth Davidson on Channel 4 News does not.
The challenge for the Met is that other people have been fined for being at this party. So it was a party and was illegal. And the "I was at home" defence doesn't work either - especially as we know that Bonzo was the organiser - as hosting a party at home was also illegal.
We know why the Met fined the attendees but not the organiser...
Link that he organised it and also that he was not working
Quite right Big G, we must take the PM at his word, he is after all an honourable gentleman, and there are too few of those in public life in these barbaric times.
Keir on the other hand has questions to answer and should probably be horsewhipped regardless.
It is others who are accusing him of organising the gathering when there is no evidence he did
We do not use 'lynch mobs' in this country and I have no axe to grind for Boris as I really do not care whether he stays or goes
You were a one man lynch mob about Keir, though. Day after day you assured us he had questions to answer.
Info on some new weapons provided to Ukraine by Western allies below. I spent today at the frontline near Izyum with Ukraine’s 93rd Mechanized Brigade and was impressed by their grit. But every soldier I met said they need more arms and munitions. And definitely air defense. https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1528787644259475456
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
Also, a crepe is a crepe…. is a crepe
Nice but not life-changing
This is true of all Hampstead. It lacks really impressive restaurants, which is odd, given the wealth of the area (this is also true of Camden & Primrose Hill, tho Camden has the market which now has fantastic street food)
In similarly wealthy parts of west or central London, or the trendy bits of the East like Shoreditch and Spitalifields, the restaurants are excellent. Maybe this is all the fault of people like @Kinabalu - affluent lefties who are self-confessed philistines about food
I refer the honorable Gentleman to the answer I gave two moments ago - Jin Kichi.
Currently closed until August for refurbishment according to the website.
Guess it will have to be Côte, after all.
What's embarrassing about Hampstead is that Côte is always heaving. Because there's nowhere else.
Côte is simply average. The food is acceptable. The prices merely high rather than utterly egregious.
That it is permanently full is a stain on NW3.
I have zero tolerance for Côte. The food is blah. The whole thing is ersatz.
The cheese is Reblochon FFS!
Cote is somewhere I would go and eat, at a pinch, in a provincial British city. Reading or Sunderland or Portsmouth or Edinburgh
Hampstead?? Why aren’t there 12 great restaurants and gastropubs? Houses cost £5m FFS, and people really live there, it’s not some buy to let zombieland. Quite peculiar
Mustique syndrome. I have spent a couple of nights there as a visiting yachtsperson, and there's one decent bar (Barry's? Larry's?) and two shit restaurants on the whole island. My theory is, being seen in a restaurant is an admission that you haven't been invited to Mick's barbeque that evening, so nobody goes to them.
Just watched ITV News. Peston pointed out that as people have been fined for attending that party, it was by definition illegal. So whomever it was on here earlier dancing on a pinhead about things being legal just received a little prick.
A work meeting that turned into a party after the pm left, may be one way you are wrong. At least that will be the weasel words the met use.
...so it was it his stunt double that was at the party in the picture?
There's no party in the picture.
Unless you think what Starmer was at was a party. 🤷♂️
I believe Starmer did technically breach the rules from the evidence I have read and will get a fixed penalty notice. The evidence is they had their meal, with a beer after work, they were not socially distanced and there were too many people at the event.
You may be right and Johnson was not at a party and therefore he did not mislead Parliament. The Met agree with you. Ruth Davidson on Channel 4 News does not.
The challenge for the Met is that other people have been fined for being at this party. So it was a party and was illegal. And the "I was at home" defence doesn't work either - especially as we know that Bonzo was the organiser - as hosting a party at home was also illegal.
We know why the Met fined the attendees but not the organiser...
Link that he organised it and also that he was not working
Quite right Big G, we must take the PM at his word, he is after all an honourable gentleman, and there are too few of those in public life in these barbaric times.
Keir on the other hand has questions to answer and should probably be horsewhipped regardless.
I was reporting what they said on the news. Something that my friend Big_G uses as defence all the time. Hacks have been told by people who know that the PM organised the leaving piss-up for Cain. Its a leaving do. Its not work. Has anyone claimed it was work...?
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
Yes, it's one of those things where the idea of it beats the reality by a distance.
Like mulled wine.
You have clearly never tasted my mulled wine.
Have you patented a way of preventing the 4th mouthful being just too cooled down and with an odd taste now coming through?
Because that would be truly special. Unique in fact.
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
Also, a crepe is a crepe…. is a crepe
Nice but not life-changing
This is true of all Hampstead. It lacks really impressive restaurants, which is odd, given the wealth of the area (this is also true of Camden & Primrose Hill, tho Camden has the market which now has fantastic street food)
In similarly wealthy parts of west or central London, or the trendy bits of the East like Shoreditch and Spitalifields, the restaurants are excellent. Maybe this is all the fault of people like @Kinabalu - affluent lefties who are self-confessed philistines about food
I refer the honorable Gentleman to the answer I gave two moments ago - Jin Kichi.
Currently closed until August for refurbishment according to the website.
Guess it will have to be Côte, after all.
What's embarrassing about Hampstead is that Côte is always heaving. Because there's nowhere else.
Côte is simply average. The food is acceptable. The prices merely high rather than utterly egregious.
That it is permanently full is a stain on NW3.
I have zero tolerance for Côte. The food is blah. The whole thing is ersatz.
The cheese is Reblochon FFS!
Cote is somewhere I would go and eat, at a pinch, in a provincial British city. Reading or Sunderland or Portsmouth or Edinburgh
Hampstead?? Why aren’t there 12 great restaurants and gastropubs? Houses cost £5m FFS, and people really live there, it’s not some buy to let zombieland. Quite peculiar
Edinburgh is good for food. I presume that was put in there deliberately to rile the Scot Nat contingent.
Sunderland is the worst city I’ve ever visited, food-wise. Literally the worst.
You’re half right. i did put it in to provoke Nats, tho it is also true, to an extent. I’ve never eaten well in Edinburgh - to me it has been like Hampstead. Wealthy, beautiful, full of tourists, not great food. Not terrible just not great
Sunderland is interesting. Could you not find decent ethnic food? They are usually the saviour of British cities. Wherever you are, you can generally get decent Indian, and probably Chinese and Thai as well. This is no small thing. It means you can eat well almost anywhere in the UK, it just won’t be “British” food
Pippa Crerar @PippaCrerar · 32m Tory MP Roger Gale tells Times Radio PM should quit over "damning" new pics.
"It's absolutely clear there was a party, that he attended it, that he was raising a toast to glass one of his colleagues. Therefore, he misled us from the despatch box. Honorably there is one answer".
4. London is low-rise compared to international norms.
"The Greater London metropolitan area contains the second most skyscrapers of a city in Europe. There are 33 skyscrapers in Greater London that reach a roof height of at least 150 metres (492 ft),[1] with 57 in Moscow, 21 in the Paris Metropolitan Area, 17 in Frankfurt, 16 in Warsaw, 6 in Madrid, 5 each in Milan and Rotterdam, and 4 in Manchester."
London has quite a few tall buildings but is generally low rise. I urge you to go overseas to see it yourself, or do some googling if you prefer.
Almost every residential area in the world is generally low rise. For very good reason, people prefer low rise by and large.
For the small minority who want high rise, good luck to them, they should be able to get it. For everyone else, they should be able to get what they want too.
Most New Yorkers live in Long Island not Manhattan for a reason.
Is it because Long Island is 1,401 square miles in size while Manhattan is 22 square miles?
(It is also worth remembering that 1.6 million people commute into Manhattan each day.)
Precisely my point. Long Island has the space so people have spread out to live there, as they'd rather use the space than go up into the sky as GW proposes.
Approximately as many people commute into Manhattan every day as the entire population of Manhattan (including children and pensioners) who live there. So it seems reasonable to believe that even most workers in Manhattan have chosen not to live there.
Surely "have chosen" need to be caveated by "cannot afford to"?
The price per square foot in Manhattan is off the charts - perhaps $2,500/square foot (and that's just for apartments; for brownstones it's probably going to be even higher), while in Queen's, prices are going to be dramatically less. And if you head out to Riverhead, I reckon you can get a place for no more than $300/square foot.
"Good" London is £2k per square foot now. And most of "Fairly Good" London has broken the £1k mark.
I'm deep in this atm as a prospective buyer. The market is very hot.
I would be very nervous about jumping into London residential right now, given the rapidly slowing economy. (And I speak as an owner!)
Yes, I'm thinking of pressing pause and revisiting at a later point. There's some silliness afoot. A 20% drop is imo likelier than a 10% rise from here.
You'll miss Hampstead.
Yes, I know.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
I lived in Hampstead for ten years. In that time, I visited the crepe van exactly zero times.
The queues always put me off.
Also, a crepe is a crepe…. is a crepe
Nice but not life-changing
This is true of all Hampstead. It lacks really impressive restaurants, which is odd, given the wealth of the area (this is also true of Camden & Primrose Hill, tho Camden has the market which now has fantastic street food)
In similarly wealthy parts of west or central London, or the trendy bits of the East like Shoreditch and Spitalifields, the restaurants are excellent. Maybe this is all the fault of people like @Kinabalu - affluent lefties who are self-confessed philistines about food
I refer the honorable Gentleman to the answer I gave two moments ago - Jin Kichi.
Yes, I’ve been there! Good fun, but a bit tiny and crowded
It’s still an unimpressive display for a burb as phenomenally wealthy and “sophisticated” as NW3
Oh, I agree.
It is embarrassing.
And there's no real excuse for it. But it's not that uncommon. St John's Wood - number of good restaurants... zero. Richmond/Kew... one. Primrose Hill... zero.
My apartment on Shaftesbury Avenue has a dozen excellent restaurants within a five minute walk.
Comments
They are all supermarket wines, probably M&S. One of the reds is a Fleurie? The yellow label might be a Greek or Portuguese white
I can also see a Kiwi Sauv Blanc, but at the cheaper end, with a screw top?
So they are probably all in the £7-14 bracket, not hideous, by any means, but not exactly great Barolos, either
Not only do we need this government to fall, we need to repair the institutional damage.
When I should die, think only this of me, That there's some corner of a foreign field. That is forever the Hampstead crepe van.
If I ever actually settled, it would be one or the other, for all time. Red mullet might begin to bore
Maybe I should just be a nomad. A modern hunter gatherer!
What people want is economic competence, an end to the culture wars, and solid delivery.
That's why Hunt should be evicting Boris now, if the Tories want to win again, but won't because the Tory party backbenches and selectorate have dived off the deep end.
Someone can be fined for breaking the law even at a legal event. The fact that they investigated it and Boris wasn't fine surely implies the opposite so can be cut both ways.
If Starmer isn't fined but someone else is, does that mean that Starmer is a lying liar who lied when he said he thought the rules were followed?
If money was no object I'd love to live in the Barbican -- but I'd probably rather rent it so I could walk away if I had to...
Most places will be less appealing than Hampstead, within London, unless you are desperate for the urban buzz of the centre or keen to hang out with Chelsea types. Or maybe you want the artistic vavavoom of Shoreditch and Hoxton?
Unless you think what Starmer was at was a party. 🤷♂️
I usually have no truck whatsoever with conspiracy theories but ... ???
The queues always put me off.
Anyone who says "Peston pointed out" clearly missed the coverage of the Lab leadership election in 2010 with Peston pointing out David Miliband's victory.
You may be right and Johnson was not at a party and therefore he did not mislead Parliament. The Met agree with you. Ruth Davidson on Channel 4 News does not.
And frankly, why queue for mediocre crepes?
The only reason I can think of is that food offer in Hampstead is generally dire.
Also, a crepe is a crepe…. is a crepe
Nice but not life-changing
This is true of all Hampstead. It lacks really impressive restaurants, which is odd, given the wealth of the area (this is also true of Camden & Primrose Hill, tho Camden has the market which now has fantastic street food)
In similarly wealthy parts of west or central London, or the trendy bits of the East like Shoreditch and Spitalifields, the restaurants are excellent. Maybe this is all the fault of people like @Kinabalu - affluent lefties who are self-confessed philistines about food
Up to 10.
The bigger question is do his mps agree, or do they think that this is already baked into public opinion and once mps return after Whitsun break they can take on the cost of living and move the dial forward
The only problem in this argument is that it will be resurrected when Durham police report in July and Starmer is the centre of controversy
That’s why you need to go to the places you mention, because the younger aspiring class is where it’s all at.
It’s not just Hampstead. Richmond, Wimbledon etc … the model is one shit outpost of Côte and a good but grotesquely oversubscribed gastropub.
There's really no need to be paying someone else a lot of money to make one for you when you are within a couple of miles of your own frying pan. Not least because the correct answer to 'how many pancakes would you like' is rather more than one.
If I was in Hampstead and feeling peckish then conceivably I might get a crepe from a van. But that's because I don't live anywhere near there.
https://twitter.com/soniapurnell/status/1528784174701760512?s=21&t=BtNkKBhu4NsXR5pg5VxCTQ
To work with Boris Johnson is to encounter something dark, sinister and totally without soul. It is a destructive experience that makes you doubt your very sanity. Sympathy therefore for the good people of Whitehall. I found that the only salvation is to tell what you've seen.
Only problem with the "he was at home" argument is that it wasn't legal to organise a party at your house either.
https://creperieclub.com/
Unfortunately the opening happened a few weeks before the first COVID lockdown and now the retail unit is up for tender again. I felt massively sorry for them. They'd obviously made a real effort.
Grays even more so.
By a mile the best restaurant in Hampstead.
Like mulled wine.
We know why the Met fined the attendees but not the organiser...
Guess it will have to be Côte, after all.
Those who cooperated with Gray were banged to rights, those who didn't got off scott free. On what did the Met. spend their £460,000?
Côte is simply average. The food is acceptable. The prices merely high rather than utterly egregious.
That it is permanently full is a stain on NW3.
Nowadays, when I'm running out of town on the local tracks and footpaths I always go with a group. A member of my club went out on her own and had the misfortune to encounter a negligent dog walker with a disturbed animal, and suffered quite nasty bites for her trouble. If I had anything at all to do with it then I'd push for legislation to force owners of pet dogs to keep them on leads in public at all times, so if the things do decide to be aggressive you can be reasonably confident of getting away from them.
I am challenging you on that Pete. I am asking you to supply evidence to support you claim the police saw these photos before leaked today. All we have so far is Downing Street insisting the police had “access” to the photo’s… and police silence. You currently have zero evidence to support that claim in your post.
Unfortunately, that ship has not only sailed, but has made it to international waters where canapes are being set out for tonight's cocktail reception.
The food is blah. The whole thing is ersatz.
The cheese is Reblochon FFS!
There clearly is at least one good reason, but I don't see it. (Simple cost of space?)
It’s still an unimpressive display for a burb as phenomenally wealthy and “sophisticated” as NW3
I wonder if we are possibly all so inured to this, that we are underestimating the possibility of a Boris defenestration? Could the hairline cracks suddenly break open and chunks of masonry start showering down?
Keir on the other hand has questions to answer and should probably be horsewhipped regardless.
I have said on several occasions that if Starmer can prove he was working he will be cleared
In the early 1990s, I spent a few months living in Skenfrith House, a tower block on the Old Kent Road. The flat I shared was pleasant; the environment around the block less so.
The four towers on the estate were built to a similar design to Ronan Point, the tower block that partially collapsed in 1968 after a gas explosion. In a safety audit done after the Grenfell Tower disaster, it turned out the alterations to strengthen the building to fix the issues shown in the Ronan Point collapse had not been performed on these towers.
Residents had all gas immediately turned off.
Ooops.
https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/insight/the-ledbury-estate-building-safety-scare---what-happened-next-53418
There’s no point paying the high-ish rent.
But on the mulled wine I speak from experience. It ALWAYS disappoints.
Another eg - New Years Eve.
The more interesting classification is threefold. Those who accept they have been betrayed, those who haven't realised it yet, and the ones in the middle. Those who, deep down, know they have been had but don't quite want to admit it.
Hampstead?? Why aren’t there 12 great restaurants and gastropubs? Houses cost £5m FFS, and people really live there, it’s not some buy to let zombieland. Quite peculiar
We do not use 'lynch mobs' in this country and I have no axe to grind for Boris as I really do not care whether he stays or goes
I presume that was put in there deliberately to rile the Scot Nat contingent.
Sunderland is the worst city I’ve ever visited, food-wise. Literally the worst.
You are right about "disturbed" animals though. There is a massive scam going on where there's a thriving and highly profitable second hand dog market, only buying a used dog is rebadged as "re-homing" a "rescue" dog for a "re-homing fee". The reality is, the dog has been dumped because it is dangerous/shitty/uncontrollable and badly in need of a bullet, but the suckers buying the things think they are acquiring Really Lovely People status as part of the deal.
https://youtu.be/AkJ6IORDw14
It’s also Highgate, Richmond, Wimbledon, Ealing, Chiswick etc.
They usually have one or two good gastropubs, which are always fearfully over-subscribed, and then a string of chain restaurants like Côte or Pizza Express that cater to a “middle class” clientele.
It is because old British people are food philistines.
Sunderland is interesting. Could you not find decent ethnic food? They are usually the saviour of British cities. Wherever you are, you can generally get decent Indian, and probably Chinese and Thai as well. This is no small thing. It means you can eat well almost anywhere in the UK, it just won’t be “British” food
https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1528787644259475456
Because that would be truly special. Unique in fact.
Pippa Crerar
@PippaCrerar
·
32m
Tory MP Roger Gale tells Times Radio PM should quit over "damning" new pics.
"It's absolutely clear there was a party, that he attended it, that he was raising a toast to glass one of his colleagues. Therefore, he misled us from the despatch box. Honorably there is one answer".
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1528802315532214272
It is embarrassing.
And there's no real excuse for it. But it's not that uncommon. St John's Wood - number of good restaurants... zero. Richmond/Kew... one. Primrose Hill... zero.
My apartment on Shaftesbury Avenue has a dozen excellent restaurants within a five minute walk.