| |
|
Illmatic: Anyway, none of you were born here anyway
Hey! I was, and have lived in and around West, North West, North, North East and East London for most of my life. I may not have ever actually resided South of the river Thames, but I have quite a few relatives there.
GL: I lived in North London for about five years, I've lived in South London for about five years. I would never opt to move back to North London because it is filthy and horrible and oppressive in the worst possible inner city way. South London has trees, and woods, and parks and air. ...
As for North London being filthy and so forth - that's true to an extent, but within 1 - 30 minutes travel from me I have a) Abney Park b) Highbury Fields and c) Walthamstow Marshes and Springfield Park, all of which have various advantages, some of which include huge open skies and fresh air in the case of c).
If I feel like going futher there's Victoria Park, Finsbury Park and Epping Forest for that matter. There are plenty of open spaces to hand if you care to find them, and most of the streets I've ever lived on in London (in any part) have been lined with trees. I can hear owls and woodpeckers out of my back window.
The only people who will tell you North London is better are the people who have never lived South of the river and feel the need to justify the exorbitant rent they pay for the privilege of living in a bleak, overpriced, depressing factory of housing.
I'm sure South London is a fine place to live in the right part, but so is North, East and even West London; all of them have dreadful dumps and blank suburbs too. I do pay exorbitant rent (though it is also entirely possible not to), but where I live is by no means bleak or depressing.
GGM: All generalisations about the 'north/south' London divide are pretty much bollocks, and say more about the generaliser than the city.
Agreed. |
|
|
