because that’s where the people are though surely
I was wrong, it’s £959.
Not really, it is where most of the jobs are
also adequate transport links
It’s a virtuous (or vicious) cycle where the demand to live in them, and the competing demands of land, are higher, because that’s where the jobs, nightlife, cultural activities, public transport, power and influence are.
right. when lots of people are in a place they are able to do business. which means its better to be closer to a large group of people to achieve this and have access to facilities. so everyone wants to live closer in to an area that might yield higher potential to earn money, you see
chicken feed mate, ( I am only joking)
yeah but everyone got together at the millennium and agreed B&H was great and deserved to be a city
we have a big church we could have just called a Cathedral, but we are better than that here
people want too much for them individually at the detriment of society. We’re all so selfish sometimes I hate being a human
I don’t want to earn more money I am going to try and convert any future pay rises into more time off
Used to effectively be the capital of England, before the Normans settled on London.
time is usually worth more than money anyway
There aren’t enough jobs in towns and villages though, it’s not really a choice
Is that an apology on behalf of town planners?
Did you buy a place, BTW?
Nothing to do with your post.
ah, those were the days
it’s all too depressing to think about.
Nothing will ever change will it
well, the redistrubution of money from those who have too much to those who need more actually could change. just keep voting for people who want that, and it’d be a genuine uptick in societal betterment.
uptick in societal betterment
Living in cities is a much more efficient way to use resources (and generate wealth/goods/services) than living in towns and villages.