Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mani
which is better?
in a discussion with a relative from birmingham i argued that the town was better due to its smaller size hence safer, cleaner and better local amenities. comparing it to b'ham where the hospital waiting times are ridiculous unless ur on the verge of dying, where the streets are alot worse than in towns, alot dirtier and crime ridden.
but then he argued that it was the cities where the investment was happening and things are improving and most of the money goes to such areas and the towns are given the left overs...
whaddya think?
|
lesson in life here. The town, and why?, because all the above is true, ALL the bove is true, both sides, in other words the town dweller wins, cos we get the best of the town, the best of the city, as it's so near and easy to get to, and not the worst of the city. The worst of the town is far better than the worst of the city, we get the best of their facilities if we choose, the best of ours, hospitals, cinema, leisure, shops, less crime, less chance of getting shot plus open roling countryside and fresh air on our doorsteps.
The investment in cities is mainly in the centre, where the shops are, which suits me fine. Ask his about aston and lozells lmao. I've been to pubs in brum and the doormen carry machette's. I wouldn't live in birmingham if they paid me a grand a day.