morpeth

Colleges in US generally are good money makers, so more often than not college towns can do quite well from the money coming into the community.

mrken30

They tend to be the only employer in town except for a few restaurants and shops.

morpeth

Guess depends how one defines college town

robin1234

One important variable, if it's truly a college (just undergraduates, no graduate programs) then all the income goes straight to the college, since kids have meal plans etc. About the only advantage for the town is the faculty and administrators living there. With graduate programs etc., there are more adult students in the bars, restaurants, shopping etc.

morpeth

Guess I haven't studied the matter but personal observation is that undergraduates spend quite a bit on bars, go out to eat frequently, and I have no idea how meal plans wouldn't benefit local economy. Yes it is big advantage considering how much tenured faculty and administrators make which is largely spent in local community. And in some "college" towns there are secondary benefits of industry developed to access specialized skills of local graduates. The more I think about it the more I think undergraduates ( 4 years) spend more than graduates ( 1 to 2 years often) as many graduates are part time. However one of reasons I have heard people like college towns is the greater diversity of shops and restaurants, and general atmosphere. Make no mistake , colleges are in general money machines funded through government loans to often private institutions with no accountability as to quality of education.

transatlantic_chap

Thanks everyone for helping me think this through -- there may be an element of rose-tinted optimism in my view of the US, coupled with a bit of personal dissatisfaction regarding various elements of my current life in the UK. Important to get a clear view of both options.

robin1234

As for bars, as you may know, the drinking age used to be 18 in many (most?) states, so at that time, almost all undergraduates could drink legally. At that time, in my town, there were 8 or 10 bars, all very lively. Now there are 3 or 4 and they are dead on their feet. If students drink illegally it is most likely to be in private, i.e. beer etc bought in Walmart rather than in a bar. In a traditional residential college (i.e. most students go there straight from school) only a minority are 21 or older. There's obviously a knock on effect from bars (pizza, ice cream on the way home etc.) so a lot of people in small college towns feel that raising the drinking age to 21 was a significant nail in the coffin of healthy downtown shopping.

As for meal plans, originally they were limited to use in the college cafeteria with possibly additional college snack bars etc. Now they've typically evolved so they can be used at local restaurants, fast food places etc.... but cost conscious students know that their best value for money is almost certainly the college cafeteria!

But you're right, a small town with a college is likely to be more interesting, liveable and viable than one without. There are three reasonable sized towns within a twenty mile radius of my NYS home. Two have two colleges each, one has two prisons and no college. The two college towns are distinctly more pleasant places than the prison town.

morpeth

Good comments. A town near where I live has population of around 40,000, and has four colleges. The town benefits in several ways- first the faculty and administration do well and spend locally. The students do drink one way or another, and spend money to benefit the local economy. The presence of the colleges promotes several stores that might not be otherwise found in this area without the colleges.

transatlantic_chap

I found that the college town atmosphere was pretty nice -- there are certain areas of campus that you might want to avoid on a Fri/Sat night, but the same is true of most UK towns. Meanwhile, the 'halo effect' of having the campus there, in terms of culture, education and diversity, provides a genuine boost.

nun

I think you are doing the right thing by leaving the UK. Over the past decade I've seen it become more and more like the worst places to live in the US with xenophobia and fear ruling the politics and BREXIT was the ultimate expression of that. I was once considering retiring to the UK, but now I think I'll stay in Massachusetts because it has a better social safety net than the UK and is a more welcoming society.

morpeth

I notice around area I live students eat out a lot, even when cafeteria available.

Also, people working at colleges seem to do very well financially so they also contribute to local economy. Around here hospitals and colleges seem to be really doing well financially, while industry doing poorly.

ddsrph

This has been mentioned before and I am not sure what is meant by brick built houses. Does it refer to 18th century building techniques where you have two foot thick walls with plaster on the inside, no insulation. Or does it refer to brick veneer over a wood structure to hold insulation and Sheetrock/plaster? If correctly built ,a brick veneer over 2 by 6 walls will last more than one lifetime, be well insulated and comfortable. With modern Windows, and vinyl trim practically no maintenance. I am building a smaller retirement home at present using concrete filled cement block walls, with brick on the outside of that and internal wood non supporting walls to hold insulation, electrical and Sheetrock. It will be standing long after I am gone and will require a bull dozier to bring down.

Nutek

Our house is built out of plywood and what passes for 2'x4's here, covered with vinyl siding. The ply was probably dry when the Tyvec wrap went on, but maybe not.

Pulaski

Neither. Until recently British houses were built with a structure that supports the floor joists and roof, that is entirely masonry, but not "two feet thick".

From some time in the first half of the 19th century, or earlier, and until the early 20th century, perhaps as late as the 1930's, British houses were built from two (vertical) layers of brick, which directly adjoined each other. Then in the 1930's the concept of the "cavity wall" was introduced, with galvanized wires to link the inner and outer wall, so the walls were thicker but made from the same number of bricks. By the early 1970's the inner layer had been replaced with 16x8x4 "breeze blocks", which superficially look like concrete blocks, but are made with pumice and so are quite light in weight.

American houses with a timber frame are flimsy and shift, creak, and settle in ways that British homes do not. Over the past 20 years some British houses have been built using the US style timber framing and then encased in siding or brick "veneer".

Well there's the difference - British homes actually need no maintenance.

My parents house was built in 1958, and it still has the same roof, which had a ridge tile blow off once, about 35 years ago, and has needed absolutely zero maintenance to the walls. There is not the slightest hint that the roof is coming to the end of its life, and houses in the same road built 30 years early all have their original roofs. The house hasn't needed to be treated for termites, nor have joints "recauked". There is no crawlspace to inspect, and no concern about water from the roof causing subsidence or "penetrating the foundation", really no maintenance at all. Of course the windows and door are no more robust that US windows and doors, but the shell of the house is still the same as the day it was built.

mrken30

The closest I get to brick in my house is the concrete pad in the garage. 100% of the exterior structure , including the roof is wood. Wooden siding, wooden roof tiles. Brick or concrete stands up to the elements much better than painted wood. I remember houses in the UK had windows sills that would rot eventually and be replaced. In parts of the US , this is the whole house.