You're an intelligent guy, I respect you, but I do wish you'd stop stereotyping cities. Back when I was a n00b, I had a debate with someone in a thread titled "cities you wouldn't like to live in" or something like that. I think it was you who started to stereotype every single northern city (plus Glasgow). "Basically every post-industrial city which hasn't seen decent investment eg. Manchester, Sheffield, Newcastle, Glasgow)". But that Liverpool was fantastic and nothing like them. If that was you, your posts were full of stereotypes about the other cities, including Newcastle (on the basis of the area of the city a girlfirend lived in which was probably Walker or somewhere similar - the whole city isn't like that). Ignoring the fact that it has one of the most beautiul city centres in the country (alongside Liverpool, I think it has the highest number of listed buildings outside London), a very low crime rate for a city, fantastic nightlife, wealthy parts of the city (as all cities have) and a millionnaires belt in Northumberland, just a few miles outside the city, an abundance of great countryside and surrounded by National Parks and coastline (some being sites of outstanding natural beauty), some of the best state schools in the country.....
But according to you it's full of uninspiring areas, massive deprivation with a Ballardian landscape.
As for them not receiving investment, I must have imagined the cultural and scientific boom that has taken place in Newcastle these past ten to twelve years. That it is now home to some of the country's (and the world's) most important scientific research, a wide range of new museums including Europe's largest contemporary art galley alongside the pre-existing theatres and museums, some the largest and most important in the world (the Theatre Royal being the second home of the Royal Shakespeare Company) and not to mention a World Heritage Site in Hadrian's Wall.
But no, to you it was full of uninspiring council houses but Liverpool was nothing like these other scummy nothern cities. It is ******* amazing. Have a look at the crime stats and compare Liverpool to Newcastle (or Sheffield which, although not my kind of city, still has a low crime rate). Liverpool has huge areas of deprivation and these easily match the worst that any of these cities have. But I'm not going to sit here and stereotype Liverpool based on this and I appreciate crime figures can be misleading. But did you read that think tank report, where it was suggested people from "the north" should head to Oxford and Cambridge? If you read the report, you'll see that it praised Newcastle, Leeds and Manchester as being cities who've managed to transform themselves into forward thinking cities with an economy built on tourism and science/high technology. But this hasn't spread to neighbouring cities and areas (eg. Sunderland and Liverpool
). They weren't suggesting that people from Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester or the affluent market towns should south, but those from the cities that weren't as well off haven't moved forward. One of these being Liverpool. Now I think this is a pile of nonsense and the generalisations it make of cities like Liverpool and, to a lesser extent, Sunderland did piss me off at the time, but at least they recognised the growth and development of these post-industrial cities.
These people obviously didn't want to recognise Livepool's fantastic architecture, the waterfront (a World Heritage Site), William Brown street and some very affluent areas but you're doing exactly the same. So please don't stereotype all other cities and think Liverpool is somehow massively superior. I've travelled around a lot and, believe me, it's not. It's a great city, it has a vibrancy and identity of its own, but so do a few other cities. All have areas of deprivation, all have areas of wealth, all can offer a good standard of living for anyone on a decent income.
So please, stop the stereotyping. The east end of Glasgow isn't too pretty, but the west end is affluent and cosmopolitan. Give me Kelvingrove over Croxteth any day of the week. Glasgow has spent too much on the arts whilst ignoring the working classes? This show a great ignorance of the amount of money that has been spent regenerating the East End and relocating some of its residents to nearby new towns. These schemes have had varying levels of success, but the same can be said of many cities. But can't we accuse Liverpool of doing the same thing? It too has spent massive amounts of money on city centre developments but ignoring its more deprived and working class areas. Or, when it has spent money and invested, it's been done in an incompetent manner and has acheived limited success. You can change the area but you can't change the people
Just please stop stereotyping other cities. I expect "Don't go to Glasgow/Nottingham as you'll get shot" from some clueless kid, not an intelligent and highly qualified person.
Oh, and can you provide a source for "lowest violent crime rate outside London". The crime rates I look at has the Northumbria police area as the safest major force in the country (granted, a lot of it is rural) and both Newcastle (and wider Tyneside) and Sheffield beat Liverpool.
Violence against the person 22.8
Sexual offences 0.9
Robbery offences 2.6
Burglary dwelling offences 10.2
Theft of a motor vehicle offences 4.5
Theft from a vehicle offences 11.0
Still not bad for a major city. But: -
Violence against the person 18.3 (lower than Liverpool)
Sexual offences 1.2 (slightly higher than Liverpool)
Robbery offences 1.0 (Lower than Liverpool)
Burglary dwelling offences 6.0 (Lower than Liverpool)
Theft of a motor vehicle offences 3.1 (Lower than Liverpool)
Theft from a vehicle offences 8.8 (Lower than Liverpooll)
So most are lower, sometimes significantly and this includes violence against a person. If you take the wider Tyneside conurbation then it will still be quite similar. Gateshead lower than Newcastle, North Tyneside the same, South Tyneside possibly higher. Sheffield, another post-industrial city you're not fond of, is similar (maybe even slightly lower).
All of these three cities have crime rates above the English average, but Newcastle and Sheffield are only slightly above average. Liverpool is signficantly higher than average. But you'd expect cities to have. Head off to affluent Bloomsbury and you'll find its crime rate is comparable to Liverpool's (don't tell UCL students) and Kensington, the most affluent part of the country, has a crime rate comparable to Newcastle.