a change in the air...: Edinburgh...

I have an ongoing list of places that are good to visit (but not live in), and places that are good to live in (but maybe not so interesting to visit), and usually when we travel I work out if I could live in a city, or if it’s more a visiting kind of place. I’m not sure which category Edinburgh fits into but I think maybe both.

For example when people come to Australia they all want to visit Sydney (quite rightly). It’s a beautiful city, vibrant, lots to do. And it has all the famous landmarks; you can climb the harbour bridge, visit the opera house, eat by the wharves, visit great galleries – of course you’d choose it. But if you were coming to live in Australia rather than visit, I’d argue Adelaide is a better (easier) place to raise a family and live a good life (unless you’re very rich – then choose Sydney). Adelaide is a much cheaper place to live, and much smaller. You can have a nice big old stone villa for the price of a flat in Sydney, you’re always pretty close to amazing, uncrowded beaches. The traffic is manageable even at peak hour. Get in the car and drive a couple of hours and you’re entering the outback and small country towns, then a couple more hours and you’re in deserts like nowhere else on earth. Adelaide had a great Festival and Fringe, good dining, and the best wineries in the whole country (I might be showing my bias there). It’s easy to navigate, clean, and pretty friendly. So Sydney’s a great place to visit, but Adelaide’s a great place to live.

There are some places that are both. I think Rome (my favourite city in the world) is both. And maybe Edinburgh is both too. It has that small city feeling that Adelaide does, like you could get around it easily, and it’s friendly. Plenty of students too, so it seems young and vibrant. And it’s an interesting place to visit. We did some touristy things (as you would) the Castle, an underground ghost tour, whisky tasting, but we also just walked and walked (it’s steep but compact).

The art gallery is very good, the permanent collection was impressive, and they had a temporary exhibition while we were there called Beyond Caravaggio (about the influence of Caravaggio on other artists) which included a number of Caravaggio’s that I wouldn’t otherwise have seen including the Supper at Emmaus, and Boy Bitten by a Lizard (I could have seen both in London if it hadn’t been on loan, but still) and The Taking of Christ (which is usually hung in a Jesuit Community building in Dublin, so it’s unlikely I’d ever get to see it) and Saint John the Baptist in the Wilderness (which is hung in Kansas City Missouri – so I would probably never ever have seen it).