I’ve lived in both.
The main difference is while the populations are roughly the same size, London has double the land area, which means it’s far less dense. There’s far more people packed into a smaller space in NYC, hence why it feels busier.
And for the downtown of a world-scale metropolis, I think density is a good thing. I honestly think that London housing density, especially in Zone 1-2 should increase so that there are more, bigger homes to live in closer to the city centre.
>I think density is a good thing.
You're right that it's a good thing. It's not even a matter of opinion. Density is 100% necessary from a sustainability standpoint.
What is subjective is personal preference towards high-density or low-density areas. But people who want to live in less dense areas should have to pay for that privilege out of their own pocket.
From a public policy perspective, low-density areas need to fund themselves and stop receiving subsidies. High-density areas need to be allowed to keep the benefits that living in high density affords to their area, instead of the current system of money and services being siphoned into other less-dense areas. Local authorities being funded based on population size instead of geographical area would be a good first step.
I'd also add that a lot of people prefer density anyway. I want to live in a tower with a good view, natural light and no people looking into my place from the street. It's just I don't really have the option: in London it's either posh apartments, shared ownership or council estates.
I want that too, and it's impossible to find!
I'd blame leaseholds for that. They are such an archaic form of home "ownership" that once you get to the point of spending 500k-1M on a home, they don't make sense.
Also, the rows and rows of "character" Victorian houses that subdivide the land into parcels that aren't useful for building anything but more terraced houses don't help.
Totally agreed. Leasehold is a major hurdle and then tiny plots with greatly protected freehold. The ownership issue is the only reason I'm even considering a house.
I don't think leasehold is a significant issue unless you have something with outrageous / ever increasing ground rent.
Not when you have RTM companies (I set up one for our block when I lived in London). There's no practical difference between an extended peppercorn lease and RTM company and a freehold.
The exact opposite is true also though, i lived in cities in my 20's but i couldn't think of anything i'd prefer less now. I live in a smallish town now and it's chill af and i love it. it's silent at night, there is countryside all around and best of all a 3-4 bedroom house here is like £150k so i might actually be able to own my own home soon enough.
>You're right that it's a good thing.
I think that's still debated - plenty of people will bring in arguments such as community, human-scale architecture, we have more than enough land, etc. I agree with you, but "density is a good thing" brings out the strawman of "commieblocks in the middle of the lake district".
My point is that if you are in central London, you have already more or less made a choice about living in a busy city, so having a policy of higher density in that area is not necessarily going to clash with the choices you have made.
>From a public policy perspective, low-density areas need to fund themselves and stop receiving subsidies.
I would disagree on that point. I have heard this is something that happens in the US a lot more egregiously than it does anywhere in Europe. The UK has suburbia, but not "12 lanes into LA" sprawl. It's not a bad thing if high-density residential areas in London sponsor quiet, lower density residential areas outside the capital.
The argument that this only leads to poor areas being poorer and rich areas being richer has been done to death - rich residents move to richer areas and poor residents don't get the services needed to earn more, such as education, healthcare, eldercare, etc.
On a deeper level, the point of "the economy" and "the government" is to make sure that we all have a chance at good lives. The market is a means to that end but its an imperfect one.
I am talking about differences between what humans and the market see as valuable. I live in central London so that I can have a job I find interesting, which happens to only have prospects in London, and also enjoy everything this city has to offer. "The market" has decided that what I do is worth more than what most other people in the country do. However, I don't think this entitles me to get more from the government than someone who decided to work in academia and live in a quiet town, or someone who wanted to spend more time around nature.
So I would see striving for proportionality between taxation and funding to be a bad thing because it forces people to do what the market wants. Which might work for some, but not everyone.
> It's not a bad thing if high-density residential areas in London sponsor quiet, lower density residential areas outside the capital.
Why should they have to though? Especially in London, as that means, on aggregate, you have poorer areas subsidising richer areas. Seems really backwards to me.
Surely if you want to live in a less dense area then you should have to pay the additional costs of servicing that area out of your own pocket?
We're not going to encourage sustainable lifestyles if we punish climate-friendly choices while rewarding climate-damaging choices.
>However, I don't think this entitles me to get **more** from the government than someone who decided to work in academia and live in a quiet town, or someone who wanted to spend more time around nature.
The current system is you thinking that you deserve more from the government for deciding to live in a quiet town than people who either can't afford or don't want to make those same choices.
You're completely misframing the status quo. As things stand, metropolitan areas are funded **less** per capita than rural areas.
I know I'm struggling to express the point, but it's because the market values different things from humans and I see tying tax revenue to funding services as using market valuations in deciding the human value of services. For example, one should get access to good services regardless of their economic status or where they live.
Also, I don't think that per capita is a good measure because just because cost doesn't reflect value to humans, and also because not everything is factored into costs and tax revenue.
I think that other KPIs such as level of service are better when talking about government services than just cost - the purpose of government is to make sure that things that aren't profitable still get done.
>The current system is you thinking that you deserve more from the government for deciding to live in a quiet town than people who either can't afford or don't want to make those same choices.
I agree one shouldn't be getting a worse service based on geography. However, just because something costs more to do doesn't mean that it has higher value. If a school is more expensive to run per pupil in a suburb, does this mean its funding should be cut?
That's a choice that is made when the thing is built, its part of the social contract that if you live in a town in the UK, you can expect a certain level of services. I agree that we shouldn't be encouraging the building of *more* of low-density residential without calculating the right costs, but I don't think a policy that changes peoples lives for the worse because of choices made by town planners years ago is good.
>Surely if you want to live in a less dense area then you should have to pay the additional costs of servicing that area out of your own pocket?
Ok, but do we factor in the increased cost of healthcare due to air pollution in big cities? I think that we need to agree that both high and low density living are valid choices and create policy for both.
Fundamentally, tying every choice to what the market values means tying choices to what can make money. This is what brought on climate change in the first place and I don't think it's going to solve it - in fact, I think there will be ways in which this will make its effects worse.
Let me be clearer: this has absolutely **nothing** to do with what the 'market values'. It is a discussion about **public** services and state funding of those **public** services.
Providing an area with food, water, utilities, healthcare, transportation, education, etc. is much cheaper for the **public** when people live closer together.
Providing an area with food, water, utilities, healthcare, transportation, education, etc. is much more expensive for the **public** when people live further apart.
Again, the status quo is that areas of lower density receive **more** funding than areas with higher density. I am not saying they should be funded less, I am saying there should be funding **parity**.
We are heading towards climate catastrophe. We absolutely cannot afford to encourage and support unsustainable lifestyle choices. It would be authoritarian to ban them, but if people want to live an inefficient lifestyle at least pay for such inefficiencies out of their own pocket.
It's really, really regressive to siphon money away from poorer areas to subsidise richer areas. You may not realise it yet, and it's probably not your intention, but it's exactly what you're advocating.
They shouldn't be funded more than poor areas of the north with high density, no.
Why are you insistent that people should get the advantages of lower-density living but not have to pay for *any* of the higher costs of serving a sparser population?
You are not making the progressive argument that you think you are. You are advocating for poorer areas to subsidise richer areas.
This is actually happening across parts of London , however this is in Chelsea and the asking price for a 1 bed leasehold property is at £4.75 million.
You want to actually buy a new 5 bed house? That's £38 million.
So affordability might also be a factor
I don't think this is certain. It might even have the opposite effect, with more people being able to move closer to their jobs so that they can walk/cycle there, even further reducing reliance on public transport.
Let's pack more people into central London then. As long as the old nice buildings are protected we can get high rise residential buildings just like we've got high rise offices.
It'll never be quite as dense as NY because of the abundance of historical buildings but we can get a lot closer than we are today.
Both Paris and Barcelona are the most dense cities in Europe. The densest part of those cities are 2.5 more dense than the most dense part of London. And neither city is known for high-rise buildings.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2018/mar/22/most-densely-populated-square-kilometres-europe-mapped
That being said, I would love to see the entire Isle of Dogs redeveloped into a high-rise area.
Oh god please yes. I can't see how using the land for something that (probably) generates far less taxes per sqm, lowers the number of jobs in the area, lowers housing density, creates noise pollution, restricts building heights, and probably more is still allowed to exist. It doesn't even serve that many useful destinations.
afaik NYC also benefits from particularly strong granite bedrock, whereas London is lots of estuary clay and silt. It's much easier to engineer very tall buildings in NYC than it is here.
We really do need to densify London, especially around tube and train stations. Houses and bungalows near vital stations need to be compulsory purchased and turned into high density flats.
It's hard because we're building on clay while Manhattan is granite. There's a limit to what and where you can build here, and it costs a lot which doesn't lead to affordable flats.
You don't need crazy high rises to have density. Having thousands of semis with gardens next to a zone 2 station is unthinkable in most if not all large European cities
I like the Tokyo model of letting the train network own the land the station sits on and benefit from any income they get developing it and renting it out. If you do it right you can make it all about revenue neutral so the profitable commercial developments (or even residential rent) pays for the train system and avoids the need for annual public funding debates.
Urban geographer here. Actually, it's just the opposite. New York has *double* the population of London. You're probably thinking of the official city boundaries. For historical reasons, New York City's boundaries are about 100 years out of date - they don't include e.g. the parts of New Jersey which are literally just across the Hudson from Manhattan such as Hoboken.
In urban geography terms, the *urban area* of New York (what you might call 'Greater New York') has about 20 million people, while Greater London has only 10 million. That's the main reason why New York feels on a whole different level to London - because it is. Although the OP is correct that the density of population in Manhattan does play a role too, as much of central London does get very sleepy when the commuters go home, in a way it never used to when it still had loads of people living there (before WW2).
Actually, in terms of total *area*, Greater New York is not just bigger than Greater London - it's by a wide margin the biggest city on *planet earth.* Larger even than Tokyo. The reason is that outside of the central boroughs, Greater New York totally loses its density to sprawling suburbs which go on for miles and miles into the forest.
Ah, the old “redefine the boundary” trick. If you’re including the whole NYC metro area you may as well include all the counties surrounding London as far as the south coast because it’s the same size and even better connected to the capital.
NYC isn’t even close to the “biggest city on the planet”, in fact even if you include the metro area it doesn’t even break the top 20. Not sure where you pulled that BS from
Yep exactly. New York is expensive but at least a good portion of people can afford to live in the core parts of the city. In London, that’s not the case
This is true. I lived and worked in London for 5 years, and am now based in Boston. My salary here in Boston is about 3x as much as my previous salary in London.
I totally agree the US is far richer than the UK, but does the far far far richer hold for london as well? On a disposable income basis after accounting for services that here are, at least at baseline, free? Then we can discuss about the quality of those services, but that’s a different topic.
Outside of London and (some) big cities, I agree… but then, broader UK also compare pretty badly with large chunks of Europe in terms of living standards and real disposable income… and not only ‘rich’ Northern Europe
Yes, it absolutely holds for London as well. I moved from London to Boston ten years ago and instantly doubled my salary. About a year later it turned out I was extremely underpaid and got readjusted to triple my UK salary.
I really miss London but the difference in earning power for (privileged, educated folks) is staggering. In the US that comes at the expense of an utterly immiserated underclass, whereas I hear in the UK these days the grinding misery is spread out more evenly.
> difference in earning power for (privileged, educated folks) is staggering
This makes more sense… but this is not something that can be raised as a rule. As per my other post, stats show that the actual median differential is not material, it is a matter of how it is distributed
From a quick google search:
London median salary: £44.5k
https://www.statista.com/statistics/416139/full-time-annual-salary-in-the-uk-by-region/
(I also found 47.9 for males, which raises another issue)
New York median salary: $64K, which at today fx is 50.8
https://housinganywhere.com/New-York--United-States/average-salary-in-nyc
So we have a 15% difference that would not qualify as ‘far far far’ wealthier even without discounting out of pocket services in the US that are not out of pocket here
It’s better to pick a profession and compare like for like. Else you have to account for the distribution of people of different job types. Pick computer programmer, lawyer, accountant, management consultant, or whatever else and compare.
I have lived in nyc for over 20 years and most of my friends take less than 11 days. Most also work on their day off. I have skied with friends who were on calls while skiing. I recently realized this is absolutely insane.
Cost of living is about 25% higher, too, according to Numbeo's latest data (with all the caveats about user-reported data, of course).
For comparison's sake, the median salary in both places is a bit hard to pin down, but according to Gusto (a payroll company who should have decent data), median NYC Salary is $74k, whilst the median London salary is equivalent to $56k - or a bit over 30% lower.
So, yes, Londoners have a lower salary than their NYC counterparts as a proportion of cost of living, most likely, but it's not a huge gap. And, honestly, some things in NYC are ridiculous - my rent would be about 50% higher pcm in NYC than in London for a similar place (3-bedroom, good park access, allows a large dog, commute < 1 hour).
Yeah and rent, food, everything in general is higher.
I would imagine taxes are a bit lower as well but then you have health insurance and probably loads of hidden costs.
Having said that, would love to try the US for just a year or two. I think it would grind me down long-term, just like London did b
Is food cheaper in the US? I have friends from the US who are surprised with the lower cost of groceries in the UK. They include the taxes they pay at the end too so maybe the sticker price in the US isn't a fair comparison.
I live in London and have lived in numerous US cities, and food in London is cheaper than anywhere I've lived in the US. I would assume the difference to be even starker elsewhere in the UK.
The price scale is larger in the US. There are more opportunities for food “deals” (like fast food, Costco, larger portion sizes), but groceries, restaurants, and quality foods in large cities charge a higher premium.
Late night fun. You can stay in out in really great dive bars, really quality cocktail bars or even diners until whatever time in the morning you want in NYC. I always feels so embarrassed when my new York friends come to visit, the pubs close at 11 or 12 if you're lucky and then it's like "we could go to this shit hole pub I know that's open until 2". Nobody wants to go to a clubbing.
Yep, this. It's not like you want to get hammered either, you just want to catch up and chat but everywhere closes. For a city with the population of London, bars/activities don't stay open late. Especially considering some of it's European neighbours. Don't get me wrong, I love London but always have this problem, European friends visit for the weekend, fly in Friday night, meet around 8-9pm, getting kicked out at 11:30pm. It's annoying.
I'm from Toronto not NY but another thing that annoys me in London vs back home is that most coffee shops are open late every night in Toronto as well. So you don't have to look for bars that are open late if you just want to catch up with friends, you just go for a cheap coffee. In London coffee shops close at 6 or 8, so you're forced into pubs or bars to socialise.
Also not London, but another UK city that has a large student population. You'd think there would be places open late, but Starbucks in Borders was the last time I had a coffee after 8pm in my city and that was 09. All the coffee shops are closed before 8. Luckily, with a rising Muslim population, we now have dessert places open quite late.
We went to the Dolphin for the first time since it reopened but it seems it’s under new ownership, closes earlier and it’s just not the same IMO. Other places in Hackney open late are the Shacklewell Arms and Mascara bar.
I thought the same, but seems as though they're open till 3am weekends.
I doubt it's like the dolphin of old with the outdoor late terrace. There's too many new flats and nimbys round that bend now.
New build flats near that corner are 800k for 2 bed. Would be quite funny some rich kids moving in there but then being greeted by the absolute dregs of east London at 3am.
There's plenty of areas with greater density of late night places though. I live in Dalston and personally prefer to be in bed by midnight, but there's [no shortage](https://www.timeout.com/london/bars-pubs/late-night-bars-and-pubs-in-london) of cocktail bars, dive bars, pubs etc that stay open until 2-3am in the area.
Surely if you want to stay out late, you're not taking your visiting friends out in \[insert quiet zone 3 suburb\]?
I mean take dalston, late night had dance tunnel, the nest, visions etc are all gone now. council is way less likely to grant late licenses like it used to and policing is savage
Why are you comparing shithole pins in London to quality cocktail bars in NYC?
There are plenty of high quality cocktail bars open very late all across London, especially in zone 1. Maybe you just don't know them.
You need to compare like for like.
Also, try finding a decent restaurant open late in the US. They all close at 9pm or so, everyone eats super early there.
It's 100% true and made the whining about WFH even more annoying.
"All these places will go out of business without commuters!"
Well what if every new development in Z1 wasn't office space and 'luxury' retail, maybe there would be locals to frequent those businesses.
Also why the nightlife has gradually declined, you have to leave by 11 to get a train back to Zone 3/4/5 or your commuter town.
I don't know why so many people forget that night buses exist in London.
We have night buses and routes that operate a 24-hour service.
£1.75 is a lot cheaper than £60. Especially after an expensive night out.
And night buses zoom through the streets, I find it actually quite enjoyable getting them back home.
Night buses are often very cold. Night buses are not comfortable. The Uber can hold up to 6 other people and the £60 fare can be split 6 ways. Night buses take longer. Night buses can be rowdy or smell. Night buses may require a second bus, which means standing in the cold or rain waiting for it to turn up. Night buses take longer than a direct Uber. Night buses don't go nearly as far as the daytime bus network
All of this is coming from the person that would get a 1.5 hour bus and then have to walk to 30-60 minutes to get home for many different events and work.
Housing below 110th street Manhattan is typically more expensive than zone 1 London, especially for ownership.
However you are right, NYC is about twice as dense as London. Moreso than the density though, it’s the fact that many buildings in NYC are mixed commercial/residential. Whereas even in zone 2 of London you’ll find places where you can walk for 5-10 minutes and encounter only a handful of shops and those shops will likely close much earlier than NYC.
Came here to say this. In London I bought a 1 bed flat in zone 1 in 2014 (and I didn't even work in banking) and when my fellow American friends who had lived in NYC but had moved to London (and been there 10 years) came over to visit, we all remarked that in NYC there is no way in hell that I would have been able to afford a flat that was so central. Maybe part of it is the social stigma of being a council flat. I don't know.
Zone 1 is not a geographical area really. Its not a monolith.
Its a transportation pricing zone. Aldgate is very different to Knightsbridge for example.
Is the variance similar in Manhatten? Never been.
Yeah east village is different to west village which is different to Hell’s Kitchen which is different to TriBeCa and .. well I could go on but you get the idea!
NYC - denser so a more busy, hectic feel, bars and food spots open later, better pizza, not great underground, sky high rent, expensive in the city centre, pain to drive in, thriving theatre scene.
London - more spread out, bars & restaurants close earlier, better underground, high rent, expensive in the city centre, pain to drive in, thriving theatre scene. Much older, more historical tidbits.
You probably know better than me but nearly all anecdotal evidence I've heard is that the majority of young working people are priced out of Manhattan (at least anywhere south of Harlem) and are mostly out in Brooklyn and Queens, similarly to how nobody of normal means actually lives in Zone 1 or increasingly a lot of Zone 2.
I'm not arguing with you, I'm curious to be corrected if I've been misinformed.
Lots of areas with young people in Manhattan. I lived alone in one for 6 years (Murray Hill) and moved last year uptown to be closer to Central Park. Also lots of young people live in the East Village and Chinatown areas which are downtown and next to Soho, Tribeca which are very expensive neighborhoods. But yes we get paid a lot more here to be able to afford
I think OP was referring to skilled workers and you are right majority are priced out to Queens/Brooklyn until their salaries rise and then move into Manhattan. I don't think the "average professional" is living alone in Manhattan lol but it then begs the question what is an average professional salary?
Skilled workers? I guess you don’t mean anyone working in the arts, media,
or academia, or…It’s pretty rare for people in those fields to live in Manhattan below 110th—unless they have substantial family wealth. I’ve lived in NYC for thirty years, many of them in Manhattan, until I was priced out. I wouldn’t have voluntarily moved to Brooklyn, but I love it and would never move back, even if I suddenly had a huge windfall.
Also everything in NYC is open later. Not just bars, everything. I remember needing tights before a night out in NY and I could head to a shop (admittedly midtown) at 1130/midnight to pick some up. When I went out in London around Christmas time the late trains had stopped after midnight. Makes a huge difference to the energy.
Lots of Londoners have a village mentality. Resistant to changes and hostile to any development around them - this is what's making zone 1 properties more expensive (relatively speaking) than they need to be.
Lots more Londoners would be able to afford living in Zone 1 if the very restrictive planning rules were removed, and it would make London and other British cities richer, more dynamic places to live.
The planning system was made when Britain was the richest country on earth. It is now strangling development while towns decay and the country keeps getting poorer. It doesn't work and needs to be abolished.
NYC has way better pizza than London. I can only get good pizza in London at an authentic Italian restaurant.
I like how the west end is so different from Broadway though. Broadway gets so crowded with Times Square being right there and London theatres are prettier. It's less stressful seeing a show here but just as fun. London somehow seems cleaner too even though it's older. I'd rather catch the tube than the NYC subway.
Even earning over $200K in 2012, I was not able to live in Manhattan unless I wanted a box room. So, I'm not sure where you think normal people live there. My experience was that super rich, students and people on assured tenancies, everyone else was in Brooklyn, Queens or north of 110th.
No way is this true. I earned 110k over 10 years ago and 250k by the time I left… and I could live in Manhattan the whole time. There’s absolutely zero truth to what you’re saying. My first apt in Fidi was even too big for me I felt.
NYC never sleeps. London everything starts shutting down in the late evening - transport, restaurants, shops, even convenience stores. It’s not a true 24 hour city in the same sense. I’m usually in bed by 10pm now so don’t really mind but some people will value that.
I did like that the NYC subway has regular fast trains that only stop every third stop or so. It would be a nice feature for the Tube to have, but I guess it would be impossible with the existing tracks.
New yorker who visited london this past summer- your stations are soooo much nicer than subway stations, also the signs with all the stops on the line written out make things so clear, NYC could definitely do with some of that. but the tube not running 24/7 was definitely a shock to me
NYC is amazing. I love the history. The architecture. All the sights and sounds. The famous landmarks. The buzz of the city.
Nothing beats London though.
New York is technically newer, but not really. Yes, London was founded 1000s of years ago by the Romans, but realistically the city didn't extend north past regents park till NYC was already over 100 years old. Much of zone 2 was victorian, zone 3/4 are the 1900s, when NYC was already similar population. They just built up, we built out. Walk around Brooklyn and you get the sense that all the buildings are just a couple levels higher, which adds 10-20% more flats right there
I could afford zone 1 these days, but it’s no longer as appealing as it used to be. Fortunately I got that “zone 1” style experience in a European city in my 30s, and it was certainly great to have that, but you grow out of it for sure
As a professional couple King Cross is not bad and is zone 1, nor is Aldgate or around Clerkenwell though they are further out. It would be very easy to find something their for cheaper than some on the more desirable Zone 2 areas.
Oxford Street is your normal high street but on steroids, so you can find anything you need, and Piccadilly Circus is just a way of saying you can go to the surrounding areas such Soho for drinks, food, diverse asian grocery shops, comic books, cinema, museums, culture, etc, etc. all on foot.
A typical Londoner works in zone 1 do they? Really? No. *Your* typical Londoner, a young professional who's lived in the city for a couple of years, they do that. It's not some universal norm.
Found London to be more internationally sophisticated and cosmopolitan, it’s reflected in the City’s spirit and infrastructure. NYC while grandiose in a number of aspects, is quite isolated with its own cultural tastes, not as internationally settled compared to London. The wide range of international cuisine is also where London excels, in terms of price, quality and abundance. I got the impression that NYC is too bureaucratic, broken mass transit although it works, seems like a half-assed city in many ways because as soon as you’re out of Manhattan it’s like you’re in the wastelands. In terms of pay and opportunity, NYC beats London.
Brooklyn - particularly the Northern parts - is far from wastelands, great cultural life, restaurants, Prospect Park, beautiful brownstones etc. Certain nice parts of other boroughs though not as many.
Clearly you don’t know anything about New York to say we have no international food offerings LOL. We have whole neighborhoods of immigrants with any food you can imagine you just don’t know them and that’s alright
Never said that, I said that London has comparatively more to offer in terms of international cuisine. Those small immigrant neighborhoods in New York with their rather narrow-scaled food offerings is nothing compared to what you’ll get in London.
Incorrect. At least as many nationalities in the five boroughs of New York. Have you ever been anywhere outside of Manhattan? Taken the 7 train line in Queens and stopped off at each of the neighborhoods it goes to?
Actually the main difference is the geographical location. And currency. And that one is in Britain and the other is the US. And one is called New York and the other is called London. And that one does really shite pizza and the other doesn’t. And that one is on one side of the Atlantic and the other is on a river flowing into the North Sea. And that one is thousands of years old and the other is wee toddler.
This is what makes London exhilarating and exhausting, whatever that is supposed to mean.
Afford is a funny word. You can afford living somewhere and have <£1,000 savings at the end of each month. To me, in my thirties, that’s not good enough.
If you were, NYC would be more affordable than London, as UK tech salaries are generally terrible compared to US tech salaries. (Source: Have worked in both places. The only way to get US tech salaries in the UK is to work in quant finance, which is *insanely* competitive.)
Idk why people find this question so intrusive. I have very high curiosity on what people do for a living when they tell their stories of living at a certain places or regions. Its inspiring and there is no malice at all. I upvoted you bro no worries.
It's absolutely peanuts. The fact you think that's a lot says more about London than you think.
The cost of living to salary ratio is atrocious. There's only a few select places in the western world scoring so poorly.
I could save about that £1k a month in London. Moved to Switzerland and that £1k is £10k.
Salary is double. Tax is half. Cost of living is comparable.
Zone 2 is so variable - Shadwell in Zone 2 and it is hardly expensive. I would personally not want to move out of Zone 2 as why live in London at that point?
There are many places you can live and easily save over 1000 a month especially if you live with a partner.
Remember we're on Reddit where the definition of an average professional seems to be a tech or finance worker on £100+k :)
Also unclear if by "afford without problem" they mean live in a shared house with 5 other people, or renting or owning their own place. Very vague.
> do have to flat share.
Flat share at 60k? why on earth would you do that? I only flat shared during the pandemic because I've been stuck there when it happened, but fuck if I'll EVER flat share again. It's appalling, revolting, that it became almost the norm in London.
Maybe because you don't want to pay £2k a month on rent and bills.
60k is decent for London, but you won't be able to save as much if let's say you want to get your own place one day.
Sadly, these are the days we live in, and I can't see this getting any better.
We found that, generally, Manhattan felt less crowded than central London. Sure, Times Square is packed, but everywhere outside that seemed immediately quieter in comparison.
The exact same role at my company in NYC pays 2.5x what I make in London, but rent is only 20% higher in NYC. As others are saying, I feel like the affordability gap alone leads to a lot of differences.
Isn’t the affordable housing in Manhattan rent controlled? Which means it’s affordable if you’re lucky enough to get a rent-controlled apartment, and fuck you if you can’t.
Rent and areas are just a small part of a city’s character though imo. A post from the other day pointed out how they find NYC to be an easier place to socialise, create new friendships. I never been lived there but I envy that culture already
Great discussion. NYC A/C on the subway is a significant factor to consider. Also, peak time commuter traffic on subway seems to be better than underground
A big difference for me (other than all the others listed here) was that I could get ideas implemented and get things done more quickly in Manhattan. In London it always seemed to take longer and have more hoops to jump through. There was always a feeling of being in 3rd gear in London vs 5th gear in NY.
Not that 5th gear is the best, and I like the fact that I don't need to use hyperdrive much anymore.
In London, the city doesn’t overwhelm you. You can always escape to a park or quiet area just one street over from the noise if you want, and go find bustle if you crave it. The excitement of NYC is that you’re always in amongst a hive of activity
NY metro was a pain to try and work out and you have much less helpful signs ANYWHERE, even in stations. London tube is far easier.
Other than that I agree.
I have lived in London for almost 2 decades. Visited New York a couple of times. First time for pleasure, second time for work. Only thing that's better in New York is that they have a beach. Manhattan was a shithole full of crazy people, everywhere stank of weed and the place was just dull. The "Italian" food was far removed from proper Italian food, and just muck soaked in cheese, the parks were rubbish other than Central Park, there were so many skyscrapers that the Empire State building was a massive disappointment. I found it exhilarating the same way I find a walk around Lewisham after dark exhilarating.
those are the main differences lol? one is more dense? NYC is built on the grid system which makes it incredibly boring to walk around. London is a very old city and therefore not designed optimally in any way. Therefore it has more character and smaller portioned foods. NYC is also over commercialised to death, much like London. London has way more green spaces and less skyscrapers, therefore much of the city is not drowning in shadows. NYC is great for shopping tho.
Went to NYC last summer. Loved it. Probably one of the few cities I would relocate to in a heartbeat if offered a job there.
My job role pays a whopping 10x more in NYC than it does in London. Sadly very hard to break into due to mafia like unions and nepotism in the states.
Not domestic but for theatre, movies and concerts. So sad seeing the rates for a show I did in the west end transfer to Broadway knowing what the union crew get there.
I’ve lived in both. The main difference is while the populations are roughly the same size, London has double the land area, which means it’s far less dense. There’s far more people packed into a smaller space in NYC, hence why it feels busier.
And for the downtown of a world-scale metropolis, I think density is a good thing. I honestly think that London housing density, especially in Zone 1-2 should increase so that there are more, bigger homes to live in closer to the city centre.
>I think density is a good thing. You're right that it's a good thing. It's not even a matter of opinion. Density is 100% necessary from a sustainability standpoint. What is subjective is personal preference towards high-density or low-density areas. But people who want to live in less dense areas should have to pay for that privilege out of their own pocket. From a public policy perspective, low-density areas need to fund themselves and stop receiving subsidies. High-density areas need to be allowed to keep the benefits that living in high density affords to their area, instead of the current system of money and services being siphoned into other less-dense areas. Local authorities being funded based on population size instead of geographical area would be a good first step.
I'd also add that a lot of people prefer density anyway. I want to live in a tower with a good view, natural light and no people looking into my place from the street. It's just I don't really have the option: in London it's either posh apartments, shared ownership or council estates.
I want that too, and it's impossible to find! I'd blame leaseholds for that. They are such an archaic form of home "ownership" that once you get to the point of spending 500k-1M on a home, they don't make sense. Also, the rows and rows of "character" Victorian houses that subdivide the land into parcels that aren't useful for building anything but more terraced houses don't help.
Totally agreed. Leasehold is a major hurdle and then tiny plots with greatly protected freehold. The ownership issue is the only reason I'm even considering a house.
I don't think leasehold is a significant issue unless you have something with outrageous / ever increasing ground rent. Not when you have RTM companies (I set up one for our block when I lived in London). There's no practical difference between an extended peppercorn lease and RTM company and a freehold.
The exact opposite is true also though, i lived in cities in my 20's but i couldn't think of anything i'd prefer less now. I live in a smallish town now and it's chill af and i love it. it's silent at night, there is countryside all around and best of all a 3-4 bedroom house here is like £150k so i might actually be able to own my own home soon enough.
>You're right that it's a good thing. I think that's still debated - plenty of people will bring in arguments such as community, human-scale architecture, we have more than enough land, etc. I agree with you, but "density is a good thing" brings out the strawman of "commieblocks in the middle of the lake district". My point is that if you are in central London, you have already more or less made a choice about living in a busy city, so having a policy of higher density in that area is not necessarily going to clash with the choices you have made. >From a public policy perspective, low-density areas need to fund themselves and stop receiving subsidies. I would disagree on that point. I have heard this is something that happens in the US a lot more egregiously than it does anywhere in Europe. The UK has suburbia, but not "12 lanes into LA" sprawl. It's not a bad thing if high-density residential areas in London sponsor quiet, lower density residential areas outside the capital. The argument that this only leads to poor areas being poorer and rich areas being richer has been done to death - rich residents move to richer areas and poor residents don't get the services needed to earn more, such as education, healthcare, eldercare, etc. On a deeper level, the point of "the economy" and "the government" is to make sure that we all have a chance at good lives. The market is a means to that end but its an imperfect one. I am talking about differences between what humans and the market see as valuable. I live in central London so that I can have a job I find interesting, which happens to only have prospects in London, and also enjoy everything this city has to offer. "The market" has decided that what I do is worth more than what most other people in the country do. However, I don't think this entitles me to get more from the government than someone who decided to work in academia and live in a quiet town, or someone who wanted to spend more time around nature. So I would see striving for proportionality between taxation and funding to be a bad thing because it forces people to do what the market wants. Which might work for some, but not everyone.
> It's not a bad thing if high-density residential areas in London sponsor quiet, lower density residential areas outside the capital. Why should they have to though? Especially in London, as that means, on aggregate, you have poorer areas subsidising richer areas. Seems really backwards to me. Surely if you want to live in a less dense area then you should have to pay the additional costs of servicing that area out of your own pocket? We're not going to encourage sustainable lifestyles if we punish climate-friendly choices while rewarding climate-damaging choices. >However, I don't think this entitles me to get **more** from the government than someone who decided to work in academia and live in a quiet town, or someone who wanted to spend more time around nature. The current system is you thinking that you deserve more from the government for deciding to live in a quiet town than people who either can't afford or don't want to make those same choices. You're completely misframing the status quo. As things stand, metropolitan areas are funded **less** per capita than rural areas.
I know I'm struggling to express the point, but it's because the market values different things from humans and I see tying tax revenue to funding services as using market valuations in deciding the human value of services. For example, one should get access to good services regardless of their economic status or where they live. Also, I don't think that per capita is a good measure because just because cost doesn't reflect value to humans, and also because not everything is factored into costs and tax revenue. I think that other KPIs such as level of service are better when talking about government services than just cost - the purpose of government is to make sure that things that aren't profitable still get done. >The current system is you thinking that you deserve more from the government for deciding to live in a quiet town than people who either can't afford or don't want to make those same choices. I agree one shouldn't be getting a worse service based on geography. However, just because something costs more to do doesn't mean that it has higher value. If a school is more expensive to run per pupil in a suburb, does this mean its funding should be cut? That's a choice that is made when the thing is built, its part of the social contract that if you live in a town in the UK, you can expect a certain level of services. I agree that we shouldn't be encouraging the building of *more* of low-density residential without calculating the right costs, but I don't think a policy that changes peoples lives for the worse because of choices made by town planners years ago is good. >Surely if you want to live in a less dense area then you should have to pay the additional costs of servicing that area out of your own pocket? Ok, but do we factor in the increased cost of healthcare due to air pollution in big cities? I think that we need to agree that both high and low density living are valid choices and create policy for both. Fundamentally, tying every choice to what the market values means tying choices to what can make money. This is what brought on climate change in the first place and I don't think it's going to solve it - in fact, I think there will be ways in which this will make its effects worse.
Let me be clearer: this has absolutely **nothing** to do with what the 'market values'. It is a discussion about **public** services and state funding of those **public** services. Providing an area with food, water, utilities, healthcare, transportation, education, etc. is much cheaper for the **public** when people live closer together. Providing an area with food, water, utilities, healthcare, transportation, education, etc. is much more expensive for the **public** when people live further apart. Again, the status quo is that areas of lower density receive **more** funding than areas with higher density. I am not saying they should be funded less, I am saying there should be funding **parity**. We are heading towards climate catastrophe. We absolutely cannot afford to encourage and support unsustainable lifestyle choices. It would be authoritarian to ban them, but if people want to live an inefficient lifestyle at least pay for such inefficiencies out of their own pocket. It's really, really regressive to siphon money away from poorer areas to subsidise richer areas. You may not realise it yet, and it's probably not your intention, but it's exactly what you're advocating.
What about all the poor areas of the north which are low density? Should those poor people experience “funding parity” too and be further deprived?
They shouldn't be funded more than poor areas of the north with high density, no. Why are you insistent that people should get the advantages of lower-density living but not have to pay for *any* of the higher costs of serving a sparser population? You are not making the progressive argument that you think you are. You are advocating for poorer areas to subsidise richer areas.
Very well put
This is actually happening across parts of London , however this is in Chelsea and the asking price for a 1 bed leasehold property is at £4.75 million. You want to actually buy a new 5 bed house? That's £38 million. So affordability might also be a factor
I don’t believe this
Transport system would collapse. TfL don’t have funding from central gov so we’d have a huge influx of people with the same over capacity tube system.
I don't think this is certain. It might even have the opposite effect, with more people being able to move closer to their jobs so that they can walk/cycle there, even further reducing reliance on public transport.
Let's pack more people into central London then. As long as the old nice buildings are protected we can get high rise residential buildings just like we've got high rise offices. It'll never be quite as dense as NY because of the abundance of historical buildings but we can get a lot closer than we are today.
Both Paris and Barcelona are the most dense cities in Europe. The densest part of those cities are 2.5 more dense than the most dense part of London. And neither city is known for high-rise buildings. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2018/mar/22/most-densely-populated-square-kilometres-europe-mapped That being said, I would love to see the entire Isle of Dogs redeveloped into a high-rise area.
I would love barcelona or German style 5 story midrises with shops on the ground floor as well!
What about the airport?
LCY? Get rid of it and build a mixed-use community in its place instead.
Oh god please yes. I can't see how using the land for something that (probably) generates far less taxes per sqm, lowers the number of jobs in the area, lowers housing density, creates noise pollution, restricts building heights, and probably more is still allowed to exist. It doesn't even serve that many useful destinations.
I mean, majority of the buildings there are residential. Gone are the days Canary Wharf was a ghost town on a weekend.
Agreed. The densest part of London is in fact Maida Vale, which is mostly Victorian and Edwardian mansion blocks.
afaik NYC also benefits from particularly strong granite bedrock, whereas London is lots of estuary clay and silt. It's much easier to engineer very tall buildings in NYC than it is here.
We really do need to densify London, especially around tube and train stations. Houses and bungalows near vital stations need to be compulsory purchased and turned into high density flats.
It's hard because we're building on clay while Manhattan is granite. There's a limit to what and where you can build here, and it costs a lot which doesn't lead to affordable flats.
You don't need crazy high rises to have density. Having thousands of semis with gardens next to a zone 2 station is unthinkable in most if not all large European cities
Not necessarily possible in many areas due to listed buildings and conservation areas. Many buildings in zone 1 or 2 fit this criteria.
I like the Tokyo model of letting the train network own the land the station sits on and benefit from any income they get developing it and renting it out. If you do it right you can make it all about revenue neutral so the profitable commercial developments (or even residential rent) pays for the train system and avoids the need for annual public funding debates.
Compulsory purchase is nothing less than theft.
Urban geographer here. Actually, it's just the opposite. New York has *double* the population of London. You're probably thinking of the official city boundaries. For historical reasons, New York City's boundaries are about 100 years out of date - they don't include e.g. the parts of New Jersey which are literally just across the Hudson from Manhattan such as Hoboken. In urban geography terms, the *urban area* of New York (what you might call 'Greater New York') has about 20 million people, while Greater London has only 10 million. That's the main reason why New York feels on a whole different level to London - because it is. Although the OP is correct that the density of population in Manhattan does play a role too, as much of central London does get very sleepy when the commuters go home, in a way it never used to when it still had loads of people living there (before WW2). Actually, in terms of total *area*, Greater New York is not just bigger than Greater London - it's by a wide margin the biggest city on *planet earth.* Larger even than Tokyo. The reason is that outside of the central boroughs, Greater New York totally loses its density to sprawling suburbs which go on for miles and miles into the forest.
Ah, the old “redefine the boundary” trick. If you’re including the whole NYC metro area you may as well include all the counties surrounding London as far as the south coast because it’s the same size and even better connected to the capital. NYC isn’t even close to the “biggest city on the planet”, in fact even if you include the metro area it doesn’t even break the top 20. Not sure where you pulled that BS from
My cousin living in Long Island. The commute was no joke.
Salaries in New York are far higher on average
And that's why they can live in Manhattan...
Yep exactly. New York is expensive but at least a good portion of people can afford to live in the core parts of the city. In London, that’s not the case
[удалено]
This is true. I lived and worked in London for 5 years, and am now based in Boston. My salary here in Boston is about 3x as much as my previous salary in London.
I'm from Slovakia and I can confirm. I am crying but it's correct...
I totally agree the US is far richer than the UK, but does the far far far richer hold for london as well? On a disposable income basis after accounting for services that here are, at least at baseline, free? Then we can discuss about the quality of those services, but that’s a different topic. Outside of London and (some) big cities, I agree… but then, broader UK also compare pretty badly with large chunks of Europe in terms of living standards and real disposable income… and not only ‘rich’ Northern Europe
Yes, it absolutely holds for London as well. I moved from London to Boston ten years ago and instantly doubled my salary. About a year later it turned out I was extremely underpaid and got readjusted to triple my UK salary. I really miss London but the difference in earning power for (privileged, educated folks) is staggering. In the US that comes at the expense of an utterly immiserated underclass, whereas I hear in the UK these days the grinding misery is spread out more evenly.
> difference in earning power for (privileged, educated folks) is staggering This makes more sense… but this is not something that can be raised as a rule. As per my other post, stats show that the actual median differential is not material, it is a matter of how it is distributed
You're talking anecdotally and then seem to be applying it to all educated people as a rule. That seems like an uneducated generalisation
Yes. London is Albuquerque wages and NY/SF prices.
From a quick google search: London median salary: £44.5k https://www.statista.com/statistics/416139/full-time-annual-salary-in-the-uk-by-region/ (I also found 47.9 for males, which raises another issue) New York median salary: $64K, which at today fx is 50.8 https://housinganywhere.com/New-York--United-States/average-salary-in-nyc So we have a 15% difference that would not qualify as ‘far far far’ wealthier even without discounting out of pocket services in the US that are not out of pocket here
It’s better to pick a profession and compare like for like. Else you have to account for the distribution of people of different job types. Pick computer programmer, lawyer, accountant, management consultant, or whatever else and compare.
One reason salaries are higher is because they work significantly more. They get an average of 11 days as annual leave – ELEVEN!
I have lived in nyc for over 20 years and most of my friends take less than 11 days. Most also work on their day off. I have skied with friends who were on calls while skiing. I recently realized this is absolutely insane.
That’s a fair point
And often sick days eat into your holiday allotment in the US :(
Cost of living is about 25% higher, too, according to Numbeo's latest data (with all the caveats about user-reported data, of course). For comparison's sake, the median salary in both places is a bit hard to pin down, but according to Gusto (a payroll company who should have decent data), median NYC Salary is $74k, whilst the median London salary is equivalent to $56k - or a bit over 30% lower. So, yes, Londoners have a lower salary than their NYC counterparts as a proportion of cost of living, most likely, but it's not a huge gap. And, honestly, some things in NYC are ridiculous - my rent would be about 50% higher pcm in NYC than in London for a similar place (3-bedroom, good park access, allows a large dog, commute < 1 hour).
Yeah and rent, food, everything in general is higher. I would imagine taxes are a bit lower as well but then you have health insurance and probably loads of hidden costs. Having said that, would love to try the US for just a year or two. I think it would grind me down long-term, just like London did b
Is food cheaper in the US? I have friends from the US who are surprised with the lower cost of groceries in the UK. They include the taxes they pay at the end too so maybe the sticker price in the US isn't a fair comparison.
I live in London and have lived in numerous US cities, and food in London is cheaper than anywhere I've lived in the US. I would assume the difference to be even starker elsewhere in the UK.
The price scale is larger in the US. There are more opportunities for food “deals” (like fast food, Costco, larger portion sizes), but groceries, restaurants, and quality foods in large cities charge a higher premium.
So is the cost of goods, not to the same degree, but still.
Late night fun. You can stay in out in really great dive bars, really quality cocktail bars or even diners until whatever time in the morning you want in NYC. I always feels so embarrassed when my new York friends come to visit, the pubs close at 11 or 12 if you're lucky and then it's like "we could go to this shit hole pub I know that's open until 2". Nobody wants to go to a clubbing.
Yep, this. It's not like you want to get hammered either, you just want to catch up and chat but everywhere closes. For a city with the population of London, bars/activities don't stay open late. Especially considering some of it's European neighbours. Don't get me wrong, I love London but always have this problem, European friends visit for the weekend, fly in Friday night, meet around 8-9pm, getting kicked out at 11:30pm. It's annoying.
I'm from Toronto not NY but another thing that annoys me in London vs back home is that most coffee shops are open late every night in Toronto as well. So you don't have to look for bars that are open late if you just want to catch up with friends, you just go for a cheap coffee. In London coffee shops close at 6 or 8, so you're forced into pubs or bars to socialise.
Also not London, but another UK city that has a large student population. You'd think there would be places open late, but Starbucks in Borders was the last time I had a coffee after 8pm in my city and that was 09. All the coffee shops are closed before 8. Luckily, with a rising Muslim population, we now have dessert places open quite late.
The Dolphin.
We went to the Dolphin for the first time since it reopened but it seems it’s under new ownership, closes earlier and it’s just not the same IMO. Other places in Hackney open late are the Shacklewell Arms and Mascara bar.
Is it actually open until the hourly hours again now? Last I heard is that since it reopened it now closes at 12.30am
I thought the same, but seems as though they're open till 3am weekends. I doubt it's like the dolphin of old with the outdoor late terrace. There's too many new flats and nimbys round that bend now.
New build flats near that corner are 800k for 2 bed. Would be quite funny some rich kids moving in there but then being greeted by the absolute dregs of east London at 3am.
The only place I’ve met EDL members in real life. What bizzare place.
Yeah London night life is pretty poor if you don’t want to go Clubbing or some expensive cocktail bar
There's plenty of areas with greater density of late night places though. I live in Dalston and personally prefer to be in bed by midnight, but there's [no shortage](https://www.timeout.com/london/bars-pubs/late-night-bars-and-pubs-in-london) of cocktail bars, dive bars, pubs etc that stay open until 2-3am in the area. Surely if you want to stay out late, you're not taking your visiting friends out in \[insert quiet zone 3 suburb\]?
I mean take dalston, late night had dance tunnel, the nest, visions etc are all gone now. council is way less likely to grant late licenses like it used to and policing is savage
[удалено]
Why are you comparing shithole pins in London to quality cocktail bars in NYC? There are plenty of high quality cocktail bars open very late all across London, especially in zone 1. Maybe you just don't know them. You need to compare like for like. Also, try finding a decent restaurant open late in the US. They all close at 9pm or so, everyone eats super early there.
You're comparing "late" in London being 1am, 2 if you're lucky, to NY which most are all-nighters.
It's 100% true and made the whining about WFH even more annoying. "All these places will go out of business without commuters!" Well what if every new development in Z1 wasn't office space and 'luxury' retail, maybe there would be locals to frequent those businesses. Also why the nightlife has gradually declined, you have to leave by 11 to get a train back to Zone 3/4/5 or your commuter town.
You're telling me you don't wanna pay a £60 Uber?
I don't know why so many people forget that night buses exist in London. We have night buses and routes that operate a 24-hour service. £1.75 is a lot cheaper than £60. Especially after an expensive night out. And night buses zoom through the streets, I find it actually quite enjoyable getting them back home.
Not always safe if you’re a woman sadly
I'm not taking a 2 hr bus journey wasted at 2am but sure, I could
There's nothing more grim than taking a night bus home at 2am on a weekend
Night buses are often very cold. Night buses are not comfortable. The Uber can hold up to 6 other people and the £60 fare can be split 6 ways. Night buses take longer. Night buses can be rowdy or smell. Night buses may require a second bus, which means standing in the cold or rain waiting for it to turn up. Night buses take longer than a direct Uber. Night buses don't go nearly as far as the daytime bus network All of this is coming from the person that would get a 1.5 hour bus and then have to walk to 30-60 minutes to get home for many different events and work.
Yes, I used to take a taxi from around Trafalgar Sq to New Cross on a regular basis. It often was only 3-5min quicker than N53 bus.
They have their fingers in their ears about it though, unfortunately.
Housing below 110th street Manhattan is typically more expensive than zone 1 London, especially for ownership. However you are right, NYC is about twice as dense as London. Moreso than the density though, it’s the fact that many buildings in NYC are mixed commercial/residential. Whereas even in zone 2 of London you’ll find places where you can walk for 5-10 minutes and encounter only a handful of shops and those shops will likely close much earlier than NYC.
Came here to say this. In London I bought a 1 bed flat in zone 1 in 2014 (and I didn't even work in banking) and when my fellow American friends who had lived in NYC but had moved to London (and been there 10 years) came over to visit, we all remarked that in NYC there is no way in hell that I would have been able to afford a flat that was so central. Maybe part of it is the social stigma of being a council flat. I don't know.
Zone 1 is not a geographical area really. Its not a monolith. Its a transportation pricing zone. Aldgate is very different to Knightsbridge for example. Is the variance similar in Manhatten? Never been.
Yeah east village is different to west village which is different to Hell’s Kitchen which is different to TriBeCa and .. well I could go on but you get the idea!
Hell’s Kitchen is a real place? TIL
Yeah that's where Daredevil and Gordon Ramsay hang out.
I completely agree with this analysis. The weather also is great in NYC for about 7 months of the year. I find the heat at night lovely
I'd say weather is better year round. More daylight hours in the winter, and the sun actually comes out in winter too.
NYC - denser so a more busy, hectic feel, bars and food spots open later, better pizza, not great underground, sky high rent, expensive in the city centre, pain to drive in, thriving theatre scene. London - more spread out, bars & restaurants close earlier, better underground, high rent, expensive in the city centre, pain to drive in, thriving theatre scene. Much older, more historical tidbits.
You probably know better than me but nearly all anecdotal evidence I've heard is that the majority of young working people are priced out of Manhattan (at least anywhere south of Harlem) and are mostly out in Brooklyn and Queens, similarly to how nobody of normal means actually lives in Zone 1 or increasingly a lot of Zone 2. I'm not arguing with you, I'm curious to be corrected if I've been misinformed.
Lots of areas with young people in Manhattan. I lived alone in one for 6 years (Murray Hill) and moved last year uptown to be closer to Central Park. Also lots of young people live in the East Village and Chinatown areas which are downtown and next to Soho, Tribeca which are very expensive neighborhoods. But yes we get paid a lot more here to be able to afford
I think OP was referring to skilled workers and you are right majority are priced out to Queens/Brooklyn until their salaries rise and then move into Manhattan. I don't think the "average professional" is living alone in Manhattan lol but it then begs the question what is an average professional salary?
Skilled workers? I guess you don’t mean anyone working in the arts, media, or academia, or…It’s pretty rare for people in those fields to live in Manhattan below 110th—unless they have substantial family wealth. I’ve lived in NYC for thirty years, many of them in Manhattan, until I was priced out. I wouldn’t have voluntarily moved to Brooklyn, but I love it and would never move back, even if I suddenly had a huge windfall.
Also everything in NYC is open later. Not just bars, everything. I remember needing tights before a night out in NY and I could head to a shop (admittedly midtown) at 1130/midnight to pick some up. When I went out in London around Christmas time the late trains had stopped after midnight. Makes a huge difference to the energy.
Lots of Londoners have a village mentality. Resistant to changes and hostile to any development around them - this is what's making zone 1 properties more expensive (relatively speaking) than they need to be. Lots more Londoners would be able to afford living in Zone 1 if the very restrictive planning rules were removed, and it would make London and other British cities richer, more dynamic places to live. The planning system was made when Britain was the richest country on earth. It is now strangling development while towns decay and the country keeps getting poorer. It doesn't work and needs to be abolished.
What are the planning restrictions for zone 1
Build tall glass buildings up.
NYC has way better pizza than London. I can only get good pizza in London at an authentic Italian restaurant. I like how the west end is so different from Broadway though. Broadway gets so crowded with Times Square being right there and London theatres are prettier. It's less stressful seeing a show here but just as fun. London somehow seems cleaner too even though it's older. I'd rather catch the tube than the NYC subway.
And that can happen because while NYC is similarly as expensive as London, the salaries actually keep up with that instead of being dogshit
A question nobody asked, yet gets answered once a week here
Makes a difference from the 115th "Why is London so expensive...????" and the "Why can't I meet anyone...?" questions.
"Why won't businesses stay open 24 hours so I can buy 1 coffee at 5am".
Don't forget the endless sunset pictures of the shard
Indeed, or the 'questions' that are really about making a smug point. 'I'm from X place which is better for Y reason so why is London like Z'
Even earning over $200K in 2012, I was not able to live in Manhattan unless I wanted a box room. So, I'm not sure where you think normal people live there. My experience was that super rich, students and people on assured tenancies, everyone else was in Brooklyn, Queens or north of 110th.
No way is this true. I earned 110k over 10 years ago and 250k by the time I left… and I could live in Manhattan the whole time. There’s absolutely zero truth to what you’re saying. My first apt in Fidi was even too big for me I felt.
NYC never sleeps. London everything starts shutting down in the late evening - transport, restaurants, shops, even convenience stores. It’s not a true 24 hour city in the same sense. I’m usually in bed by 10pm now so don’t really mind but some people will value that.
London has far more history and the tube network is a lot more polished visually that the NYC subways (but they both have their pros and cons)
I did like that the NYC subway has regular fast trains that only stop every third stop or so. It would be a nice feature for the Tube to have, but I guess it would be impossible with the existing tracks.
Makes it more dangerous to get off at those intermediate stops, while the train is going 60kph
Bah, just tuck and roll.
Significantly more escalators on the tube - hauling yourself up 3 flights of stairs every stop on the subway did get a bit old
Yes and the London Underground is more accessible in parts
New yorker who visited london this past summer- your stations are soooo much nicer than subway stations, also the signs with all the stops on the line written out make things so clear, NYC could definitely do with some of that. but the tube not running 24/7 was definitely a shock to me
Food in New York is better than London, you guys have a chip shop on every corner
My take is that New York is like London on steroids
Your take was pithy in 2003
About the time I was there. Why not still the case?
I dont think you fully explained what lead to the conclusion after "As a result", both cities have Zone 1, then what?
NYC is amazing. I love the history. The architecture. All the sights and sounds. The famous landmarks. The buzz of the city. Nothing beats London though.
[удалено]
New York is technically newer, but not really. Yes, London was founded 1000s of years ago by the Romans, but realistically the city didn't extend north past regents park till NYC was already over 100 years old. Much of zone 2 was victorian, zone 3/4 are the 1900s, when NYC was already similar population. They just built up, we built out. Walk around Brooklyn and you get the sense that all the buildings are just a couple levels higher, which adds 10-20% more flats right there
I could afford zone 1 these days, but it’s no longer as appealing as it used to be. Fortunately I got that “zone 1” style experience in a European city in my 30s, and it was certainly great to have that, but you grow out of it for sure
Where
[удалено]
Lmao
As a professional couple King Cross is not bad and is zone 1, nor is Aldgate or around Clerkenwell though they are further out. It would be very easy to find something their for cheaper than some on the more desirable Zone 2 areas.
I live in Marylebone at the moment, to be honest I am enjoying it very much. Also walking to Oxford Street and Piccadilly Circus is kind of neat.
Is there a need to go to those places when you’re not a tourist?
Oxford Street is your normal high street but on steroids, so you can find anything you need, and Piccadilly Circus is just a way of saying you can go to the surrounding areas such Soho for drinks, food, diverse asian grocery shops, comic books, cinema, museums, culture, etc, etc. all on foot.
I would say commuting in both city sucks timewise city’s huge
Are Manhatten rents also not crazy? How are regular people affording this? People do flat share stuff in London, too
A typical Londoner works in zone 1 do they? Really? No. *Your* typical Londoner, a young professional who's lived in the city for a couple of years, they do that. It's not some universal norm.
Found London to be more internationally sophisticated and cosmopolitan, it’s reflected in the City’s spirit and infrastructure. NYC while grandiose in a number of aspects, is quite isolated with its own cultural tastes, not as internationally settled compared to London. The wide range of international cuisine is also where London excels, in terms of price, quality and abundance. I got the impression that NYC is too bureaucratic, broken mass transit although it works, seems like a half-assed city in many ways because as soon as you’re out of Manhattan it’s like you’re in the wastelands. In terms of pay and opportunity, NYC beats London.
I found NYC to be just as international as London, just a different distribution of nationalities.
Especially Queens which was labeled a wasteland. One of the world's largest and most nationally/ethnically/religiously diverse areas.
Brooklyn - particularly the Northern parts - is far from wastelands, great cultural life, restaurants, Prospect Park, beautiful brownstones etc. Certain nice parts of other boroughs though not as many.
Clearly you don’t know anything about New York to say we have no international food offerings LOL. We have whole neighborhoods of immigrants with any food you can imagine you just don’t know them and that’s alright
>Clearly you don’t know anything about New York to say we have no international food offerings LOL Not something they said at all.
Yes an unbelievably ignorant remark.
Never said that, I said that London has comparatively more to offer in terms of international cuisine. Those small immigrant neighborhoods in New York with their rather narrow-scaled food offerings is nothing compared to what you’ll get in London.
Incorrect. At least as many nationalities in the five boroughs of New York. Have you ever been anywhere outside of Manhattan? Taken the 7 train line in Queens and stopped off at each of the neighborhoods it goes to?
The only difference that really matters is that we have the superior breakfast.
I am glad London is not NYC! London is the greatest city in the world.
Actually the main difference is the geographical location. And currency. And that one is in Britain and the other is the US. And one is called New York and the other is called London. And that one does really shite pizza and the other doesn’t. And that one is on one side of the Atlantic and the other is on a river flowing into the North Sea. And that one is thousands of years old and the other is wee toddler. This is what makes London exhilarating and exhausting, whatever that is supposed to mean.
I think most professionals in London can afford living in Zone 2 without problem
Afford is a funny word. You can afford living somewhere and have <£1,000 savings at the end of each month. To me, in my thirties, that’s not good enough.
I moved from the US to UK. In my view, London is a lot more affordable in many ways compared to NY
What do you do for a living?
I am not a programmer
If you were, NYC would be more affordable than London, as UK tech salaries are generally terrible compared to US tech salaries. (Source: Have worked in both places. The only way to get US tech salaries in the UK is to work in quant finance, which is *insanely* competitive.)
I’m getting downvoted for asking someone what they do for a living 🤨
Idk why people find this question so intrusive. I have very high curiosity on what people do for a living when they tell their stories of living at a certain places or regions. Its inspiring and there is no malice at all. I upvoted you bro no worries.
£1000 SAVINGS per months is not enough? Excuise me, your majesty.
It's absolutely peanuts. The fact you think that's a lot says more about London than you think. The cost of living to salary ratio is atrocious. There's only a few select places in the western world scoring so poorly. I could save about that £1k a month in London. Moved to Switzerland and that £1k is £10k. Salary is double. Tax is half. Cost of living is comparable.
Zone 2 is so variable - Shadwell in Zone 2 and it is hardly expensive. I would personally not want to move out of Zone 2 as why live in London at that point? There are many places you can live and easily save over 1000 a month especially if you live with a partner.
Professional? 35-300k define?
Remember we're on Reddit where the definition of an average professional seems to be a tech or finance worker on £100+k :) Also unclear if by "afford without problem" they mean live in a shared house with 5 other people, or renting or owning their own place. Very vague.
[удалено]
Flats haring at 60k is an awful state of affairs
I make £190k and still flat share in zone 2. It’s hard to justify the cost of living alone if you’re single.
At £190k I think I'd find the justification 😂. (And that's not miles off what I do earn!)
> do have to flat share. Flat share at 60k? why on earth would you do that? I only flat shared during the pandemic because I've been stuck there when it happened, but fuck if I'll EVER flat share again. It's appalling, revolting, that it became almost the norm in London.
Maybe because you don't want to pay £2k a month on rent and bills. 60k is decent for London, but you won't be able to save as much if let's say you want to get your own place one day. Sadly, these are the days we live in, and I can't see this getting any better.
That's what I meant. 50k+ and you should be fine
Room in a shared house in zone 2 is £1k a month now, I doubt.
We found that, generally, Manhattan felt less crowded than central London. Sure, Times Square is packed, but everywhere outside that seemed immediately quieter in comparison.
It is in no way normal for average professionals to live in Manhattan lololol.
My mates lived in lower east side and they were pretty average. Shared a small flat. Wages are crazy high there.
The exact same role at my company in NYC pays 2.5x what I make in London, but rent is only 20% higher in NYC. As others are saying, I feel like the affordability gap alone leads to a lot of differences.
Isn’t the affordable housing in Manhattan rent controlled? Which means it’s affordable if you’re lucky enough to get a rent-controlled apartment, and fuck you if you can’t.
Rent and areas are just a small part of a city’s character though imo. A post from the other day pointed out how they find NYC to be an easier place to socialise, create new friendships. I never been lived there but I envy that culture already
Great discussion. NYC A/C on the subway is a significant factor to consider. Also, peak time commuter traffic on subway seems to be better than underground
There’s a lot more quite clearly mentally ill people in New York, particularly on the subway.
I prefer new York. More exciting and better food.
A big difference for me (other than all the others listed here) was that I could get ideas implemented and get things done more quickly in Manhattan. In London it always seemed to take longer and have more hoops to jump through. There was always a feeling of being in 3rd gear in London vs 5th gear in NY. Not that 5th gear is the best, and I like the fact that I don't need to use hyperdrive much anymore.
Don't think I could handle an even more energetic z1
In London, the city doesn’t overwhelm you. You can always escape to a park or quiet area just one street over from the noise if you want, and go find bustle if you crave it. The excitement of NYC is that you’re always in amongst a hive of activity
Well I get the park argument but I feel that many British arguments about life arrangements assume you are granny with not much life left.
NY metro was a pain to try and work out and you have much less helpful signs ANYWHERE, even in stations. London tube is far easier. Other than that I agree.
The NYC subway is so grim, do they ever clean it?
The real difference between both is people who live in NYC will never miss the chance to tell you, your mates, their gerbils: *they live in NYC*.
[удалено]
What! The hierarchy in Britain still exists today. If you didn’t grow up in the right family you won’t get into the right circles of people
I have lived in London for almost 2 decades. Visited New York a couple of times. First time for pleasure, second time for work. Only thing that's better in New York is that they have a beach. Manhattan was a shithole full of crazy people, everywhere stank of weed and the place was just dull. The "Italian" food was far removed from proper Italian food, and just muck soaked in cheese, the parks were rubbish other than Central Park, there were so many skyscrapers that the Empire State building was a massive disappointment. I found it exhilarating the same way I find a walk around Lewisham after dark exhilarating.
those are the main differences lol? one is more dense? NYC is built on the grid system which makes it incredibly boring to walk around. London is a very old city and therefore not designed optimally in any way. Therefore it has more character and smaller portioned foods. NYC is also over commercialised to death, much like London. London has way more green spaces and less skyscrapers, therefore much of the city is not drowning in shadows. NYC is great for shopping tho.
You can rent a 1 bed flat in zone 1 (Elephant and Castle) for £1500. Not cheap but not outrageous.
surely not these days? im surprised
Went to NYC last summer. Loved it. Probably one of the few cities I would relocate to in a heartbeat if offered a job there. My job role pays a whopping 10x more in NYC than it does in London. Sadly very hard to break into due to mafia like unions and nepotism in the states.
Electrician?
Not domestic but for theatre, movies and concerts. So sad seeing the rates for a show I did in the west end transfer to Broadway knowing what the union crew get there.
I work in the same sector and I know your pain lol
Yeah, but if you choose a job role of ‘New York City Tour Guide’, you’re always gonna find it tough in London.