Jerseygirl

IMO cities are OK for a quick visit...too noisy, crowded and dirty for my liking...I prefer the countryside.

Is it possible for you to spend half your time in Manchester and half in Bucks? I agree with an earlier poster...you cannot compare a city to a county. If you were to say Manchester and London I would recommend London...simply because it is the capital city.

Bermudashorts

Yes agreed, I realise there are trains into London. I was just trying to make a big distinction between Bucks and London as there is nobody living in London who would consider Bucks to be part of London and OP seemed to be referring to the two places interchangeably.

Bevm

I meant you have two coasts, and the Yorkshire coast is lovely, the dales and moors, the Peak District, which is astonishing, the Lake District and other places. Plus, out of England, Wales and Scotland, even Ireland not that far away. To me it seems more varied, and all probably easier to get to, with less congested roads, than places around London if you're thinking of driving.

You also have Liverpool and Chester very close, and the cities of Yorkshire not that far away, all quite different.

It always seems to me that the north has a lot of micro areas that haven't been mushed together the way a lot of the SE has by becoming suburbs of London. Still lots of great places down there, though. Not arguing against.

Bev

Fleaflyfloflum

Bev, you are talking about inside the M25. Bucks is outside of the M25. The only bit that is mushed together is London itself. The home counties have vast areas of green space, forests, woodlands and proper rural areas and villages. In fact Buckinghamshire is full of rural villages.
I cant comment or compare with Manchester as i have only been there once, but i assure you Bucks and surrounding areas are far from urban sprawl.
I think some northerners (not meaning you) have a warped concept of the south east of England. Kent, Sussex, and Hampshire have some of the most beautiful countryside you can find, Just as northern or western England does.

Bevm

I didn't mean that, Flea. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Only that being so close to London some of the local extremes have been polished away (or perhaps weren't there in the geography), whereas in the north there are still places that time seems to have passed by! For better or worse.

And there's not so much rough, wild country that close to London. Lovely countryside, but not the Peaks, or North York Moors, waterfalls and stuff. Don't know if the OP is at all interested in such things.

I could be wrong about less wild land, too, but my husband's from Surrey, and we have good friends in Bucks and Kent, so I know the SE a bit.

Bev

brits1

I agree I am a Northerner and have been very fortunate to have been able to see most of Great Britain...and I love it all...Scotland especially the Highlands and some of the west coast has the most wonderful beaches...Gairloch is like something out of the carribean on a sunndy day....we have spent lots of time visiting our family down south and it's lovely and we really enjoy sightseeing but when we do go back for a holiday and want to see a lot more variety and easily then I am affraid the North is where I would go..not the " I am a northerner and thats why" biased kind of attitude...just because as a visitor (as we are when we go to the U.K) it's just more do-able....oh and flying to Ireland from Manchester Airport (which is very easy to access) is quick and cheap...you can also fly down to Devon and it cost us 15.00 pound with Be My Baby....

Funky Monkey

I am a southerner and have been fortunate to see most of the British isles through work and I am inclined to agree with you.
I think the north has much more scenic and rugged land than the south although there is some nice scenery in the south too.

YankeemovingAbroad

Thank you Flea,Jersey,Brit1 and everyone else. Let me ask you guys a question.If you had to pick a area just out side London, what areas would they be, and would those be a better choice than picking Buckinghamshire?

I was leaning toward Bucks because it seem to offer the chance to be in the "real" countryside while not being too far away from a major uk city. But based on post of yours I have taken a good look at a few road maps and it does appear travel will not be a easy snap going from Bucks into London or to Wimbledon. I don't want the commute to be more than 45-60 minutes. Travel to and from entertainment events in manchester seem to be easier.

I was hoping to have it all(country near the city) but might not be possible. Staying inside London might have to be considered. If art,sports and culture weren't important to my stay then the choice would be very easy.

brits1

If you want countryside near Manchester then there are plenty of locations to choose from...North Manchester (Lancashire)has lots of rural towns/villages but still easy travel into Manchester City Centre, or you could try Cheshire....even Chester is an easy journey into Manchester...little villages like Diggle and Delph to the East of Manchester are lovely and just at the start of the moors but still a fairly easy drive in to Manchester.....you can even travel around on the canals to see more of the countryside and they go straight into the City, for either areas you should contact the local Tourist Information Centre...they are always helpful...we even use them when we go back home and we know the areas pretty well.....a lot of cities now have plenty to offer in the way Arts,Sports and Culture....even Liverpool ...LOL....sorry just a Mancunian joke.....even the Midlands offer lots of choice, Derbyshire,Lincolnshire,Nottinghamshire offer lots of lovely attractions...both have a lot of historical momuments as well......oh your really spoilt for choice....that's the beauty of the U.K.....

N1cky

I lived in Holmfirth for 10 years, which is around 20 miles from Manchester. The scenery is wonderful if not a bit remote. It takes at least 2 hours to get to the Lake District, and Blackpool is the nearest seaside town. The centre of Manchester itself offers some great theatre, good concerts, great restaurants, some nice hotels. As does Leeds which takes around 45 minutes from Manchester. There is some wonderful history around the area, country houses, castles and museums. I loved the weather in the north, ok, its rains alot, but you also get snow in the winter (very manageable only a couple of inches at most in the built up areas). I think people are friendlier to strangers in the North.

We then lived in Milton Keynes in Buckinghamshire for 2 years. Wow, I loved MK, it has a reputation of being a concrete roundabout, of which there are lots. However, I have never seen such a 'green city', there is grass everywhere (but no hills). There are loads of small villages around the centre. The shopping centre is good, the 'theatre district' has some really nice restaurants and bars, the theatre itself gets some excellent things on. There are loads of canals with nice little pubs at the side. You can drive to the Cotswolds in around 1 hour, and the closest beach is much nicer than Blackpool. There is plenty of history near by and some lovely walking areas, and of course as everyone has mentioned London is much closer. I think the people are just as friendly once you get to know them as in the North.

If we were considering going back, I think I would choose Bucks.

Jules Europe

Think of it in money terms, if you`ve got the money then Bucks wins hands down, far more upmarket and an easy commute to London etc. London is a city only rivalled by that of Paris in europe, in terms of size, history and diversity......Manchester just can`t compare. Where would you sooner live in the USA New York or Chicago? probably the same difference as choosing between London and Manchester.

Dreamer23

I am from Buckinghamshire and would I think that would be a great location to stay due to close proximity to London, the Cotswolds, Oxford etc. However, I am not familiar with Manchester so I cannot comment on that area. You need to figure out what you want to see and do while visiting England and pick the best place based on that.

YankeemovingAbroad

Thank you Jules,Brit1,N1 and dreamer.

Jules,your new york vs chicago comparison actually registered with me in how best to look at mans vs london. If a person has ever spent quite a bit of time in either(which I have) they can attest that there really is no comparison. New York has it all, while chicago is large and has it's own style and is a nice city but culturally it is not on par with new york.

Jules if your Manchester vs London comparison is on the money then the choice is easy to make. My instincts have been torn but some what leaning toward Bucks because of it's proximity to London, Wimbledon,Brighton beach. Traveling in the uk is not the long distance journeys which are the norm here in America so hopefully where ever I land my outings will be with in reasonable reach.

Jules Europe

My comparisons are based on several years of living in London and on several visits to Manchester. The american comparisons are based on one week in New York and only two days in Chicago. Both London and New York are world defining cities and in my opinion along with Paris are the three most impressive cities in the world for a melting pot of cultures, history and entertainment etc. To live near one of these cities is to have everything on your doorstep. Given the choice I would choose New York just ahead of London followed by Paris, even though I think Paris is the most impressive historically.

I chose Chicago as an example, as its the 2/3 biggest city in the USA much as Manchester is the 2/3 biggest in the UK. I can think of numerous cities in either country that I would sooner live in than these two.

Wimbledon is very nice but forget Brighton beach its pebbly, dirty and largely a disappointment.

srah

How long ago did you live in the UK and visit Wimbledon/Brighton/Manchester?