# Young Londoners flee capital for the regions



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Why would they be happy to move to Southampton or Cardiff but not to Birmingham or Newcastle?


----------



## Golden Age (Dec 26, 2006)

The proximity to the Southern Coast makes these towns quite attractive. Cornwall and Devon are quite similar to France's Southern Coasts in the Summer. This area benefits from a huge influx of tourists, which keeps unemployment relatively low.

Don't get me wrong. The North has plenty of nice towns such as York or Durham. Also, Birmingham and Newcastle have made huge gains since falling behind after their manufacturing faltered, but the South is simply warmer and, in the end, closer to London.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Birmingham is 80 minutes from London by train, that's no further than Southampton or Bristol and closer than Cardiff!

There also isn't much difference in unemployment rates or average salaries between most of those places mentioned, especially when you also take differences in housing/living costs into account.

A lot of people do move to places near the South coast but people also move elsewhere, it isn't particularly unusual to move to somewhere like Birmingham or Newcastle.


----------



## Golden Age (Dec 26, 2006)

Ok, Birmingham is pretty much in the middle with Oxford, Cambridge relatively close by and the word-famous Stratford-upon-Avon as suburb. It's not really north and not really south.

But if you talk of Newcastle, Manchester, Leeds or Liverpool, that's a different story altogether. Getting to London from there, takes a serious effort. Traffic is nothing short of horrendous.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

It's further, no doubt, but still only just over two hours by train from most of those cities, Newcastle is a bit further, 3.5 hours. In any case if you move to another city altogether then you are probably not going to need to travel to London all that often. London is 2.5-3 hours from me by train or car, I wouldn't go there every weekend, but for a handful of visits each year it's fine, traffic usually seems to be ok when I go, just avoid peak times around the big cities and it's busy but generally free flowing.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Here's a map of internal migration within England & Wales in the year to June 2013. As you can see most cities have negative net internal migration, many of them lose people to surrounding districts of suburbs and small commuter towns while many gain people instead from international migration.










Of course you will always find more people moving from London to the outer parts of the London metro or from Manchester to the outer parts of the Manchester metro than you will find moving either way between London and Manchester themselves. Most people when moving either stay in the same area or move to another area close by rather than heading to the other end of the country.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Anyway, we don't really need conjecture when we have actual figures. 

These visualisations are for the previous year but I don't think the overall trend changes much from one year to the next.

They show where people move to when they move out of Greater London, Greater Manchester, West Midlands (Birmingham area) and Tyne & Wear (Newcastle area). The biggest blobs on the London map are in the surrounding counties, many of those moves probably involve people still working in London, but there are also reasonably large blobs around places like Birmingham and Manchester plus a sprinkling going everywhere.


----------



## Golden Age (Dec 26, 2006)

Jonesy55 said:


> The biggest blobs on the London map are in the surrounding counties, many of those moves probably involve people still working in London, but there are also reasonably large blobs around places like Birmingham and Manchester plus a sprinkling going everywhere.


All true observations and thanks for posting them. However, I would be interested to know how many of these people are simply just coming home, after having left for London a while ago. 

Sure, you can argue that this trend of going north is more pronounced than ever, so there must be some London natives in this group moving to B'ham and Manchester.

On the other hand, London has never seen such an influx of oligarchs as it has now or investment bankers with 7-figure bonuses. Consequently, many Londoners in Belgravia, Richmond, Hampton Court, Notting Hill, South Kensington or Chelsea are being pushed out and are moving within the city. This rotation is pushing up prices everywhere, so students, blue collar workers and retirees tend to be affected most. Some of these people are then simply deciding to "go home".


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Yes, that will be the case for some of them I'm sure, it's always easier to move somewhere if you already have existing connections in that place.

When the article originally posted talks about "Londoners", it means people living in London generally rather than just people who have always lived in London.


----------



## openlyJane (Feb 3, 2010)

Golden Age said:


> Ok, Birmingham is pretty much in the middle with Oxford, Cambridge relatively close by and the word-famous Stratford-upon-Avon as suburb. It's not really north and not really south.
> 
> But if you talk of Newcastle, Manchester, Leeds or Liverpool, that's a different story altogether. Getting to London from there, takes a serious effort. Traffic is nothing short of horrendous.


If you are moving out of London for a better & more affordable quality of life and lifestyle, why would being near to London be a factor in your decision as to where to move to?

Britain is, of course, an island and is surrounded by glorious stretches of coastline and beaches. My home city of Liverpool has access to some lovely beaches, as well as victorian parks and gardens; lovely housing stock; cultural activity of all type..... Newcastle also has very quick access to miles of glorious sandy beach, peppered with castles and lovely market towns.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Jonesy55 said:


> It's further, no doubt, but still only just over two hours by train from most of those cities, Newcastle is a bit further, 3.5 hours. In any case if you move to another city altogether then you are probably not going to need to travel to London all that often. London is 2.5-3 hours from me by train or car, I wouldn't go there every weekend, but for a handful of visits each year it's fine, traffic usually seems to be ok when I go, just avoid peak times around the big cities and it's busy but generally free flowing.


I think 2.5 hours is a serious distance already. Costs and time effort are already substantial, for regular weekend trips. I mean thats like going to Budapest from Vienna every weekend. Sure you can pretend to work in one and "live" in the other, but it will get tiresome.


----------



## alesmarv (Mar 31, 2006)

Vancouver Canada has a similar problem and it continues to get worse. The politicians though so far have ignored it because money talks and their main voter base has mostly benefited with increased equity in their homes. Vancouver-real-estate-prices-pushing-millennials-to-leave-city-report

There is also a internal net migration out of the city, even though it continues to grow due to immigration. There are too many wealthy from the rest of the world coming to the city and storing their wealth in housing, specifically mainland Chinese who represent the vast majority. Just between 2015 and 2012 some 40,000 millionaires from China immigrated to Vancouver via the investor immigrant program. The repercussions are obvious, inflated housing costs and young locals and professionals slowly fleeing (and the trend is speeding up). Even doctors and professors and other highly paid professionals are starting to give up on the city because they are also being priced out. And the baby boomers are also starting to cash in on their equity and also leave because again they are house rich cash poor.

Like London it will be interesting to see what happens in the long term, though I can't see this ending well in the long term.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Slartibartfas said:


> I think 2.5 hours is a serious distance already. Costs and time effort are already substantial, for regular weekend trips. I mean thats like going to Budapest from Vienna every weekend. Sure you can pretend to work in one and "live" in the other, but it will get tiresome.


 Of course, but why would you want to go every weekend? Like Openly Jane said, if you are moving to another city you will spend most of your time in that city, so proximity to London probably isn't a major factor. But 2.5 hours isn't that far to visit a few times a year if you want to.


----------



## DanielFigFoz (Mar 10, 2007)

My parents were considering moving from London to Stoke (not to commute) because of the lower rent but they haven't.


----------



## PeterManc (Nov 30, 2014)

I moved from London to Manchester last year. I am still up in London for work quite a bit but I was very keen to move to a place that does not get sucked into the London orbit in the way that Brighton does, which would have been the obvious place for me to move to in terms of where my friends are. One of the reasons I moved is that I was tired of living in zone 3 suburbs. I wanted to live in the centre so that I could walk everywhere. That wasn't possible for me in London. I have met quite a few people who have moved north recently. But of course people are still going south too. i spent so long living in the U.S when I was younger that a couple of hundred of miles really does not seem like a big deal at all.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Jonesy55 said:


> Of course, but why would you want to go every weekend? Like Openly Jane said, if you are moving to another city you will spend most of your time in that city, so proximity to London probably isn't a major factor. But 2.5 hours isn't that far to visit a few times a year if you want to.


Well, yes. But then the difference to living in eg Glasgow is indeed not such a major one anymore. 

If we are talking about "a few times a year" than even flying could be acceptable and then you could actually live in Vienna just as well  With some proper flight deals it wouldn't be even that expensive either. 

But then, this was not what I have in mind by living within reach of London.


----------



## SE9 (Apr 26, 2005)

PeterManc said:


> I moved from London to Manchester last year. I am still up in London for work quite a bit but I was very keen to move to a place that does not get sucked into the London orbit in the way that Brighton does, which would have been the obvious place for me to move to in terms of where my friends are. One of the reasons I moved is that I was tired of living in zone 3 suburbs. I wanted to live in the centre so that I could walk everywhere. That wasn't possible for me in London. I have met quite a few people who have moved north recently. But of course people are still going south too. i spent so long living in the U.S when I was younger that a couple of hundred of miles really does not seem like a big deal at all.


I grew up in zone 3 and walked everywhere, don't know many of my peers that didn't. Of course I'm aware that the experience of living in London is different for someone born/raised here compared to those that come and go.

Zone 3 is obviously incomparable to the centre of London, but I'd rather have access to both (as an interconnected entity) than leave.


----------



## PeterManc (Nov 30, 2014)

Fair play to you if you lived in zone 3 and managed to walk everywhere. I was spending at least 90 minutes a day on the tube or the bike, and that was just for work. Shopping and socialising on top of that. I didn't mind it when I first moved to London - it is exciting for a while - but 9 years was quite enough for me and I found myself hardening in a way I didn't like. But it's great that we have choices and I think it can only be healthy for everyone if the great regional cities are seen as more and more attractive options. I see no reason to be surprised that a lot of youngish people will prefer buying in Central Leeds, Manchester or Liverpool over renting in Zone 4, 5 or 6 of London. London is only just over 2 hours away and local airports take you easily to Berlin or Barcelona for your cultural and urban fix.


----------



## openlyJane (Feb 3, 2010)

PeterManc said:


> I moved from London to Manchester last year. I am still up in London for work quite a bit but I was very keen to move to a place that does not get sucked into the London orbit in the way that Brighton does, which would have been the obvious place for me to move to in terms of where my friends are. One of the reasons I moved is that I was tired of living in zone 3 suburbs. I wanted to live in the centre so that I could walk everywhere. That wasn't possible for me in London. I have met quite a few people who have moved north recently. But of course people are still going south too. i spent so long living in the U.S when I was younger that a couple of hundred of miles really does not seem like a big deal at all.


Did you consider Liverpool as a place to live, I wonder? Or was it work that took you to Manchester?


----------



## PeterManc (Nov 30, 2014)

Jane - I have been coming to Manchester for 10 years regularly and have some good friends here and the gay scene here in Manchester is great, which was a factor. But I do like Liverpool very much and would happily live there. I could also live in Birmingham quite happily. I think we have loads of very liveable and even exciting cities in the UK. Hopefully the regional economies will reflect that more and more.


----------



## PeterManc (Nov 30, 2014)

And just to add I freelance in the HE sector, so Manc is a great place to be, but Liverpool would also have been excellent. I couldn't afford to freelance in London though and was stuck in an an office which did not suit me!


----------



## openlyJane (Feb 3, 2010)

PeterManc said:


> And just to add I freelance in the HE sector, so Manc is a great place to be, but Liverpool would also have been excellent. I couldn't afford to freelance in London though and was stuck in an an office which did not suit me!


I used to be a teacher myself. :cheers:



( I take it you are referring to Higher Education?)


----------



## skyrocket2 (Jun 22, 2015)

How much of this is white flight and racism?
London's cheaper suburbs are generally filled with Britain's most hated ethnicities (Pakistanis or Blacks) and the education/healthcare in that region is some of the worst in Western Europe. For a middle class couple wanting to live in a family friendly environment they would need to move to West London (home to London's Hindu community) or South London, and the entire middle class trying to fit into South London isn't going to lower house prices.

If London ever decides to build up things would ease up, but another option could be to link the southern coast with HSR or Mag-Lev, pushing Londoners to somewhere fairly desirable.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

It's not 'white flight' just the middle classes/ new families moving further afield as the rich move into the centre, plus the traditional working classes from the inner city ring selling for a profit and joining them. 'White flight' as some would call it is also coupled with Indian, Jewish and Caribbean flight (the latter has more than halved since the late 90s) as they settle into the leafier suburbs, or sell on and move somewhere much spacier further afield, such is the inflation of house prices in the city. They are increasingly being replaced by the world's international elite, and 'white incoming' going the other way.

This is of course a vast cycle, in turn the children of these emigres will return to the city for jobs and opportunity.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

skyrocket2 said:


> How much of this is white flight and racism?
> London's cheaper suburbs are generally filled with Britain's most hated ethnicities (Pakistanis or Blacks) and the education/healthcare in that region is some of the worst in Western Europe. For a middle class couple wanting to live in a family friendly environment they would need to move to West London (home to London's Hindu community) or South London, and the entire middle class trying to fit into South London isn't going to lower house prices.
> 
> If London ever decides to build up things would ease up, but another option could be to link the southern coast with HSR or Mag-Lev, pushing Londoners to somewhere fairly desirable.


That's a very simplistic easy of looking at things. Most people don't 'hate' any ethnicity, and you can find people of all ethnicities in any part of London, there are higher concentrations in some areas but it isn't true to say things like 'West London is home to London's Hindu community', you can find Hindus all over London and within broad areas like "West London", "South London" etc there are many different neighbourhoods with many different ethnic mixes.

As Spliff Fairy says, it's generally middle classes of all ethnicities moving further out into and beyond the commuter belt as extortionate housing costs make family living standards lower for all but the richest in the city itself.


----------



## mintgum84 (Aug 18, 2011)

Worked in London for a considerable period of time, it is NOT worth it unless you are on a huge salary. Rent is almost infinite, a coffee costs £6, bloody tube costs an arm and a leg!

London is a wonderful place to visit, less wonderful to live in.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

It can be expensive, for housing especially, but if you are paying £6 for a coffee you are doing something wrong. 

Anyway, the latest internal migration figures were released today and they show that London lost a net 68,000 people to other parts of the UK in the year to June 2014, compared with 55,000 in the previous 12 months.

But still the population of London increased by 122,000 because of more births than deaths and a positive balance of international migration.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

^plus national migration going the other way back into London


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Overall figures for population change in London were...

*Population June 2013: 8,416,543*

Plus births: 127,807
Minus deaths: 45,449
*Total natural change: +82,358*

Plus people moving to London from other parts of the UK: 204,443
Minus people moving from London to other parts of the UK: 273,077
*Total internal migration: -68,634*

Plus people moving to London from outside the UK: 200,902
Minus people moving from London to outside the UK: 93,498
*Total international migration: +107,404*

*Other changes: +1,018

Total annual population change: +122,146 (+1.45%)

Population mid 2014: 8,538,689*


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

wowsers, that makes +120,000 p/a. I'm interested in what the +1018 'Other changes' are? Prisoners?


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

^^ Yes, things like prisoners and changes to numbers of military personnel stationed in barracks there etc.


----------



## lolantha2 (Jun 29, 2015)

London is wayyyyyyy too expensive. Where I lived a pint of beer costs about 4 quids. No thanks. Besides many say that cities have more "activities" but what are they? Just staring at buildings. Small towns have much more to offer and a free lifestyle.


----------



## Pedree (Aug 17, 2013)

I'm planning to move out of London eventually as its too expensive and too packed. 

Regarding ''White flight'' I don't think that's the problem here but instead rich White people moving into Multi-ethnic inner city areas and displacing the working class Whites, Blacks & Asians due to their expensive tastes and rising house prices. 

The government seems to be in favour of whole communities being destroyed by rich soulless people, too infact their word for this gentrification/colonisation is ''regeneration'' but in reality what they mean is ''push all the poor & brown people out and replace with bearded coffee drinkers'' 

IN A NUTSHELL.


----------



## Blackpool88 (Nov 15, 2007)

I would imagine a lot of the internal migration out of London is in fact people moving into the Home Counties or wider commuter belt, many of which will continue working in the city, so London's loss is likely the metro area's gain.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

That's true no doubt. One thing from the internal migration stats that were released the other day though struck me, if you take the whole of Southern England combined (London + SE England + East England + SW England) and compare it with the rest of the UK combined there was a small net flow from the South to the Midlands/North/S,W&NI. I think that's the first year this has been the case for as long as comparable figures go back.


----------



## Blackpool88 (Nov 15, 2007)

Jonesy55 said:


> That's true no doubt. One thing from the internal migration stats that were released the other day though struck me, if you take the whole of Southern England combined (London + SE England + East England + SW England) and compare it with the rest of the UK combined there was a small net flow from the South to the Midlands/North/S,W&NI. I think that's the first year this has been the case for as long as comparable figures go back.


I've lived in London for about 4 years now and it always makes me laugh when I hear people talk about the North as if it is a bad thing that housing is affordable! 

Those people in the North comfortably getting on the property ladder in their late twenties whilst still being able to afford a new car and a few nice holidays must feel like right idiots!


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

lolantha2 said:


> Besides many say that cities have more "activities" but what are they? Just staring at buildings. Small towns have much more to offer and a free lifestyle.


This is one of the funniest things I've heard in a while! Varied cuisines, entertainment, being able to walk for hours in a great urban place, infinite employment opportunities, lots of types of people....


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Yeah, but apart from those things? :laugh:

There are many good things about living in a smaller place compared with a big metropolis but variety and scope of man-made things to do has to be an advantage of the big city surely?


----------



## skyrocket2 (Jun 22, 2015)

Blackpool88 said:


> I've lived in London for about 4 years now and it always makes me laugh when I hear people talk about the North as if it is a bad thing that housing is affordable!
> 
> Those people in the North comfortably getting on the property ladder in their late twenties whilst still being able to afford a new car and a few nice holidays must feel like right idiots!


This is the UK we're talking about. Everything is down to classism. Even racism in UK is classiest (Pakistanis/Blacks being mainly lower class and lacking positive stereotypes). It's similar to mainland Europe, Paris has it's awful relationship with blacks...


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

^that's quite a dated view. Black women became the second highest earning strata in society (just after South Asian men) quite a few years back.


----------

