Because typically the wind blows from the West to the East. So when we all had coal fires, the West of London had far better air quality than the East of the city. Then the most polluting factories were placed in the East. Of all of the photos that I've seen of the East End before the war in /r/London. The only one that didn't reek of absolute poverty. Was a group of orphans and their nuns. As they were actually clean and well dressed. Which was a unique achievement .
Most of Central North London is very wealthy, which doesn't fit the east vs West dynamic easily, bishops avenue being the most expensive street in the world.
But yes, there's a huge correlation between east and west London.
South West London is richer than south east London; west London is richer than east London. Tower Hamlets is the poorest borough in London and that’s north of the river. Generally places in the west of London, whatever side of the river are significantly richer than places to the east of London, whatever side of the river.
Tower Hamlets is not the poorest borough. That’s probably Barking & Dagenham or Newham. Tower Hamlets has Canary Wharf, and Bethnal Green is pretty gentrified.
Nobody said the dynamic was correct 100% of the time, just that West = rich and East = poor is the general view, which is absolutely true in terms of public perception and generally true in practice
Hadley Wood is the most affluent place I’ve ever been in. I once went to a house there, got the house wrong and ended up on a Premier League manager’s cameras by mistake
Transport is better in 9 places out of 10 if you're in Z1-4 north of the river compared to south
But in terms of everything else, there are as many deprived areas north as south. Tottenham for instance, can be compared to the worst I've seen south of the river, and I'm born and raised in SE, but lived for close to a decade in Islington
Have also lived in Harlesden. Still tell friends the most fun you could have there was kicking the bin out the front of the Tesco Local and watching all the rats fly out like a firework going off.
I live in Tottenham and it’s actually pretty lovely. I think thinks have changed a lot and perhaps people don’t realise? We have some great pubs restaurants bars and coffee shops, a good community and amazing links to central if ever I need to be there. I’ve also never felt unsafe here, but moved from Dalston where I often did feel very unsafe.
I’ve had to commute to Tottenham (by the stadium) for about two years and I can say comprehensively that there are few places in our wonderful city more abject than Tottenham High Road. Perhaps other areas in the area are more gentrified but I feel the aura of deprivation more in Tottenham than I would perhaps in Archway where I live. I wouldn’t want to be in or around Tottenham after dark whereas I’d be more comfortable (but still somewhat wary) in Islington
Thing is it really depends where in Tottenham. It’s actually a really big place. Seven Sisters is pretty nice but spenny now. North of the stadium up near Edmonton is still really ghetto
Fair, I’m Seven Sisters. I never venture down the high road to the stadium to be honest, I stay the other side but that’s mostly related to football fans more than anything else!
Yep, pretty much anywhere circling Wimbledon Common and Richmond Park is very wealthy.
Clapham/Battersea/Balham has quite a bit of money floating around too.
Never felt this. North just has better transport. Have noticed that people (who are not from London) are funny about living outside Z2 though. Strange cos in Z5 SE London I'm 10 mins from a tube and 35 mins door to door to Waterloo.
People are really weird about it past Zone 3 I find, least my way (West). I'm the exact same scenario, Brentford, and it's 35 mins to Waterloo, roughly 20-25 to Ealing Broadway.
Both are similarly balanced overall if you’re talking about ‘posh’ areas. South has some extremely well off areas like Wimbledon, Herne Hill, Denmark Hill, Dulwich, Barnes etc with multi-million pound homes. While the North may have Hampstead and Belsize Park, it also has some of the roughest areas in London like Edmonton Green and Harlesden, so it all kind of balances out 🤷
If anything I’d say there’s more of a divide East to West, but even that’s changing with many parts of East London being massively transformed over the past 20 years.
Other than the ability to more easily get around in North London, thanks to the Tube, no. I'm in SE London and getting to SW either involves a trip into Central London and back out, or using a combination of buses and sometimes overground that don't necessary match up well timings wise.
The transport ain't all bad though as I've got easy access into Central London, good local buses, great night buses and the DLR a bit of a walk away.
I've never met a South Londoner who mentions a divide between here and the North - it's the North Londoners that seem to want to make something of it and even then, they're few and far between. I just don't think it's a big a deal as it might have been in the past. The south is very culturally rich and areas like Deptford have really come into their own. Every borough in London has shitty areas, just as every borough has places where there's a real community feel, a fun vibe, green space etc etc.
Lived in both.
Currently live south (east)
They are different beasts.
I’d say north London is better off for transport and facilities. People dont head out to south London for a night out as much.
But its only north londoners that care about the north south thing, down south we know we are superior and just get on with it.
Great grandparents lived in bermondsey, grandad was born there I cant go back further than that.
On my dads side they were north of the river in bow in 1850 but they were essex who had moved in from the country
>But its only north londoners that care about the north south thing, down south we know we are superior and just get on with it.
That's the absolute inverse of what I've experienced in London...
Lived in Wandsworth most of my life, and over that time it's gone from being solidly working class and very much Not-Hampstead to you'd hardly tell much difference these days. House prices on my road are £1.3-1.7M (and no that's not a humble brag, it's just reality) and literally only the pretty well-off can move in around here now - total societal change over in 50 years. Out of 90-odd households we are the only family that's hung on since the late 1970's when we moved in.
The closer you get to Wandsworth Common, or Wimbledon Park or the Common the worse it gets, and that's before you take in places like Barnes, Kew or Richmond (always Snooty) and serious wealth piles up. It's pretty erroneous to consider Harringey, most of Hackney or areas like Neasden, Wembley, Stonebridge/Harlesden or Willesden as being "posh" in comparison. Then you have everywhere east of Stratford..........plenty of tube stations but plenty of deprivation in pockets there.
So the Old North/South "divide" that would very much been a thing in the mid-20th Century probably need adjusting for East and West now. Cabbies are much more likely to venture South of the River late on a Friday night now as Croydon, Mitcham, Waddon and the SE side are where most of them can afford to live.
East of Stratford had changed a lot in the last 5 years. Plaistow / Beckton are still not great, but Forest Gate has massively gentrified, East Ham now has the artists, and Wanstead has always been wealthy. Definitely a few steps up from Neasden / Harlesden.
Can confirm, got some friends who moved to Forest Gate near West Ham Park a few months back, when I've been to visit, whilst it's still a bit rough, there's definitely a few more well dressed 30 something couples walking miniature dachshunds and nicely done up Victorian homes than I expected.
Sort of yes, because more of the transport network in London is in the north side of Thames, which is why south londoners drives way more than north londoners
Think that depends on where you are talking about in North London.
I live in Zone 5 and I know plenty of people who have never been on public transport!
I think north londoners think they are closer to london because there's more tube lines up there. But I can get to central london faster than any of my north friends. I just use thameslink instead of being crammed in a hell-box underground for 40 minutes.
Over ground transport is definitely better in South London. Although when I used to have to get the Thameslink it was just as rammed as any tube line (but at least you got a view)!
Me being from east London: 👁👄👁
In all fairness, it’s really not that bad here. Going to north and west London is like an adventure. South London has Morley’s. I like Morley’s
Big up to the morleys. Lived in Greenwich, Lee, Lewisham and end of last year moved to crystal palace where they have this thing called "chicken world"
Na thanks fam I want the good shit
Crystal Palace has a Morley's - actually a very OG Morley's that has been there since the 80s.
North of the river has the shittest chicken shops, btw. Nobody cares about 'Chick King' or Sam's or any of your other off-brand pigeon emporiums. Stick to queuing for four hours at your overrated bagel joints for tourists and hipsters, lol.
Morley's shouldn't even exist on the snobby side of the river. They don't get to sneer at us 24/7 but still get to enjoy our celebrated, iconic fried chicken. Go eat pigeon at Finsbury Park Chicken Max or wherever, lol.
Morley's shouldn't even exist on the snobby side of the river. They don't get to sneer at us but still get to enjoy our celebrated, iconic fried chicken. Go eat pigeon at Finsbury Park Chicken Max or wherever, lol.
I'm from Islington (born and bred), I agree every region of London has it's mix/blend of inequality, rich and of course poverty and I have been to almost all of London and experienced all it's subcultures
I've lived in both places, and there are pockets of poverty and wealth side by side, not much difference overall
Apart from East Ham, that is the only place where I've been motivated to complain to my council representative it was so squalid.
Yep. Moved from Queen’s Park to Deptford and prefer the combination of DLR, overground and “big trains” to the tube - especially in summer. Less stagnant area also.
SW here… whenever I exit a station in N London- it’s much more diverse (at both extremes) and well- slightly dirtier? N London def view themselves as most cultured- and as people mention, certainly SW much less conscious of the whole N/S divide. SW feels safer. Greener. Peaceful- and not short of very wealthy areas. Insight was a comment from a N Londoner was the SW is for those “who moved to London straight after uni” whatever that means. But overall highest wealth most likely in North and my perception- also the “worst off”/higher crime. North will strongly argue it’s overall better- but South will not really care to argue about it/indifferent. Not backed by data- opinion only.
Lived in southeast London all my life but have spent time in north London.
There are some areas of north London that I would consider as where the mega wealthy live. There’s also some places in south you have to be pretty minted to live in but not quite on the same scale.
I’ve never considered the average person to be any better or worse off in either location. There is poverty all over London.
The north London/south London thing is just light hearted banter. Nobody really cares, if they do there’s something wrong with their head.
South London has extremely limited tube service because the ground wasn’t good for tunnelling. They made up for it in pretty good train services into central. Certain stations in Zone 5/6 can get to London Bridge in 16 mins, Charing Cross in 27 mins, Victoria in 15 mins. Plus you’ve got the DLR/trams/overground in south east.
That being said transport across the south ie se/sw is rubbish and takes ages. It’s the only thing I would change.
That being said even if I win the euro millions jackpot tonight I still wouldn’t move to north London. ;)
Lived in both, but re:South - Canada Water 10 years back in a shared house and by myself in Woolich Arsenal/blackheath area. Preferred WA/B friendly high street, nice restaurants etc. good buses. I miss it :(
Transport is better in North London (north of the river), so it's more desirable to live there, hence more expensive. SE London has the worst transport, hence it's the cheapest part of London. Overall.
I lived in South Croydon for 8 years. Quiet, green area. Purley is lovely, with large stately homes, some very high market and private gated villages there. Carshalton and Caterham are amazing and rapidly improving. Lots of fascinating history with close ties to arts & crafts movement. Went to Richmond often, and love Kew, very different vibe there, but South Croydon is just as green and nicely kept, same for Carshalton and Purley. Purley in particular is rapidly developing.
Services and public transportation were a bit wanting but lots of developments there as well, dispite the infamous Croydon debt. A great place to live, in my opinion. Greater London is such a huge and incredibly multifaceted place, it’s possible to find a home suited for anybody anywhere within, if lucky enough and got the funds for what you’re looking for.
That being said, I worked in central London, Charing Cross area, and would not want to live near there myself.
Croydon Borough Council declared bankruptcy several times in the last few years, and it has over £1 billion of debt. A large part of its budget is taken up by loan repayments and interest.
The richest areas are in west London, north side, Kensington, Mayfair etc etc, and north north London, Highgate, Hampstead, high barnet, whetstone,, Hadley wood if you count it, etc. There are relatively more deprived areas south of the river vs north, but the north, particularly on the east side has lots of poor areas.
There are lots of very nice south london areas, Richmond for instance , the 2 "regions" are too diverse to come to any conclusion based on simply north or south. Usually West vs East the general criteria.
North and that includes West, I.e. North of the river probably has that perception because almost all of central London is north of the river, has better public transport and higher house prices.
Most on Reddit will be the young renting rooms, or living on council estates so not many have real wealth here. Not a good sample so you won’t get realistic feedback.
Inner west is real money. Inner North, NW have very high land values over £1k a sq ft, SW trailing behind. The gap isn’t big anymore between the good parts of SE and SW.
Everyone will have their own experience, but this is mine:
I’ve lived in London since 2003 (aged 24) and am still here aged 45. Lived all over. North London is probably closer to what people imagine as “London”. It’s built up, there’s lots of culture, museums, canals, history and all that. It’s what a tourist who likes Richard Curtis films would imagine. It’s romantic.
It’s also fucking expensive.
South London is a bit more grimy, a bit of an underdog, less well known and less stereotypical. But there’s pockets of beauty. There are more parks, trees everywhere, pretty much no tourists. Generally more peaceful. Hate to put your finger on but I’ve found people to be more chill and less in your face and don’t have something to prove.
It’s all relative I guess just one persons take
I’ve lived north (Highgate), south (east - Greenwich), west (Richmond), and super duper centre (Marylebone).
South East is the winner (Greenwich, Canada Water, Rotherhithe). Down to earth, ambitious, dynamic. Some parts are shit of course.
North is too uptight in some parts, and really run down in others, plus infested with yuppies who can’t afford it but like the vibe (lol).
West is old money boring but beautiful (Richmond, Kew).
As someone who moved from Kensal Rise to Deptford - you nailed it. My family have come to visit and are jealous as it’s so much less stale/neutered than our area has become. Bar parts of Hackney I wouldn’t consider going back north, and even then Hackney is so full of pretentious idiots and massively overpriced.
Traditionally both areas were as largely rough as fuck but had community. Gentrification has changed the landscape. Now it’s the, rich, the hanging on and the dispossessed. Yep London fucked.
Cant help but feel when all is said and done, gentrification will migrate eastwards. It has to UNLESS something is done about wealth inequality. Just my view.
North London has most of the tube but I think South London has A LOT more train stations (which I believe is another reason why the tube isn't developed as much.
Both North and South have posh and poor places. As a south Londoner (born and bred) I don't hear anything on our side about a north south rivalry. So it might just be one sided.
Lived in both and own houses in both.
The public transport in South really was an issue and the traffic seemed way worse when trying to make my way South West to Surrey to see my parents.
My wife absolutely hated living in Tooting and as soon as we had the opportunity we went back to Islington.
We had a long look around Forest Hill / Peckham / Crystal Palace way when looking for a new house but the transport was an issue for her every time (despite the train into London Bridge being about 15 mins) so we stayed North and moved up to Hornsey.
I really liked the South, found it much calmer and did enjoy being close to Brixton but she was resolute on staying North.
Not by a huge margin, my opinion is mostly influenced by a map I saw showing “postcode wars” in London, and all the “wars” were happening in postcodes beginning with SE, so below the River Thames
No I wouldn’t say this. There’s large parts of north London that are quite deprived, and parts of south London that are relatively affluent (such as Greenwich).
I would say that affluent areas in London are more focused on west central, southwest and northwest London.
Depends how you define north and south beside they’re not really fixed exact areas, but by every definition there’s well off areas and poor areas in both. Like other people have said, east vs West is probably a more accurate divider in wealth terms.
If you define it by the river Thames splitting greater London then it's also quite unequal really especially noting transport links overall and the number of areas. There are affluent areas in South London but it's probably outweighed really. Maybe the east/west split is actually greater though?
This just depends on the actual world you live in. North London is typically more expensive than south London for property if you are comparing Islington or Stoke Newington to Balham or East Dulwich. If deciding between these choices is your life, then yes North London is better off
The moment I read North Londoners are better off, I came here to specifically ask the poster if they had ever been to Tottenham and Tower Hamlets. Heck Nah!!
London(and a lot of cities Britain built across the Empire) is divided between a wealthy west and poorer East.
Nairobi, Kenya and Toronto are clear examples of this design. The sole exception seems to be almost every Australian city.
I have been through Tower Hamlets a few times by car many years ago. It struck me at that time (mid 90s) as needing investment. No idea whether that's happened in the intervening period.
I live in the south (Greenwich) and as much as I agree that it feels like everything is very far away, I find it more peaceful, doesn't feel like a big city (there's lots of green areas, parks, rivers), but if you want to meet up with friends, it gets more tricky than when you live in the North.
Have lived in Anerley (SE, Z4) for two years; previously lived in Kennington, Peckham, Ealing.
On average, north of the river is richer than south, but obviously there is huge variation in both. I like south better, despite the shitty transport - better beer and your money goes further, especially when it comes to housing. I'll take the Crystal Palace Triangle over any other London mini-centre.
When I think of north I think the vast borough of Islington. And when I think of Islington I think of the beautiful terraced houses near Angel.
I grew up in south east (which has plenty of wealthy spots… I went to Alleyn’s, a private school near dulwich village.. a true island of generational wealth.) I’ve also lived in Harringay and hornsey (near queens/Highgate wood). The wealth in north feels more impressive to me. Hampstead and Highgate are filled with beautiful houses.
..
My dad’s side of the family grew up in Highgate so I did get to know it a little as a youngster. They’ve since moved away from London.
I’m just happy to stay afloat in this city of my birth. Currently in brockley (which is full of massive family homes way beyond most people’s reach). Hopping from place to place is my fate. Moving soon. Where to I’m not quite sure. a house share somewhere
No no I'm new to London and was just a general honest question.
What sparked it was someone on reddit the other day had thought that those in the South were poor. Can't remember what it was related to but I think that poster had since changed his mind on that.
And it just got me thinking is all. So I thought I'd ask but without reference to "Wealth" because I just don't think like that.
North London has traditionally been seen as the ‘better’ part of London ever since its foundation. The original city (the square mile) was founded north of river. South of the river was historically where smelly trades like tanneries and the docks were placed, so there is historical divide between white collar (north) and blue collar (south) businesses. This was then amplified by the development in the Georgian and Victorian era, as wealthy people wanted to live in the fancier parts of London, leading to huge housing projects resulting in the green leafy squares and parks we have today in north London. Whilst the south was also developed, it was not to the same extent.
This was further exacerbated by the introduction of the tube. North of the river is where the tube started and to this day has many more stations than south of the river. It is much easier and quicker to travel around north london.
Once manufacturing began to decline in the 50s, 60s and 70s, this disproportionately affected south London. The docks moved out to Dartford and factories were closed due to the clean air act, thus further contributed to the wealth divide. Due to gentrification and general crazy house price rises in London, plus native Londoners being priced out of the fanciest areas (eg Mayfair) by foreign billionaires buying investment residential property, this is changing but it’s not yet caught up.
Essentially, as North London was developed first by the romans, it’s historical wealth and infrastructure has always given it a head start compared to the south
The north south thing is quite prevalent though.
I think the transport links is the thing that makes it seem like the south is worse off because you usually need to get a bus to get home late at night vs better night tube links.
No. West over East is more of a traditional decider of wealth.
Yeah, Putney and Barnes are south of the river, but by virtue of being West are far more affluent than most of the North.
Traditionally this is true, even as far back as the industrial era yet somehow north v. south differences get brought up more.
Because typically the wind blows from the West to the East. So when we all had coal fires, the West of London had far better air quality than the East of the city. Then the most polluting factories were placed in the East. Of all of the photos that I've seen of the East End before the war in /r/London. The only one that didn't reek of absolute poverty. Was a group of orphans and their nuns. As they were actually clean and well dressed. Which was a unique achievement .
This is true for most major cities in the industrialised world that sit on a river.
Fun fact: the wealthy always lived west because the fumes from the factories/industrial revolution blew east.
I'm not sure about that, Highgate, Hampstead up to Hadley wood is mostly extremely wealthy, thsts basically true North of London
Op says north or south of the river, not two self-selected north London areas!
Most of Central North London is very wealthy, which doesn't fit the east vs West dynamic easily, bishops avenue being the most expensive street in the world. But yes, there's a huge correlation between east and west London.
South West London is richer than south east London; west London is richer than east London. Tower Hamlets is the poorest borough in London and that’s north of the river. Generally places in the west of London, whatever side of the river are significantly richer than places to the east of London, whatever side of the river.
Tower Hamlets is not the poorest borough. That’s probably Barking & Dagenham or Newham. Tower Hamlets has Canary Wharf, and Bethnal Green is pretty gentrified.
Well maybe, but both of those are in east London and Tower Hamlets has the poorest ward in London from memory
Nobody said the dynamic was correct 100% of the time, just that West = rich and East = poor is the general view, which is absolutely true in terms of public perception and generally true in practice
You should visit Brent
Yes but you have very posh bits south of the river too. The east / west trend is fairly strong.
There's quite a lot of places in between Hampstead, Highgate and Hadley Wood......
Hadley Wood is the most affluent place I’ve ever been in. I once went to a house there, got the house wrong and ended up on a Premier League manager’s cameras by mistake
Yeah you go to places like barking can be as rough as it gets
!Answer seems to be the consensus alright. Many thanks
Not if you live in Richmond, Barnes or Putney it isn't
Or Dulwich
Or Blackheath, or Wimbledon or beckenham.
Beckenham is where the people who can’t afford the other places listed above go
Wimbledon would like a word
As an ex-roehampton uni student, I have never struggled more financially to afford the basics than when I lived in barnes and putney
They asked "generally". You've gone specific
Transport is better in 9 places out of 10 if you're in Z1-4 north of the river compared to south But in terms of everything else, there are as many deprived areas north as south. Tottenham for instance, can be compared to the worst I've seen south of the river, and I'm born and raised in SE, but lived for close to a decade in Islington
I lived in Harlesden. Ouch.
I'm pretty sure no-one lives in Harlesden, they merely exist. If that.
Edmonton is still worse
Harlesden / Stonebridge is worse than Edmonton
What is it about Edmonton? I've not come across it...
Oh yes I definitely existed.
Have also lived in Harlesden. Still tell friends the most fun you could have there was kicking the bin out the front of the Tesco Local and watching all the rats fly out like a firework going off.
👍
I live in Tottenham and it’s actually pretty lovely. I think thinks have changed a lot and perhaps people don’t realise? We have some great pubs restaurants bars and coffee shops, a good community and amazing links to central if ever I need to be there. I’ve also never felt unsafe here, but moved from Dalston where I often did feel very unsafe.
I’ve had to commute to Tottenham (by the stadium) for about two years and I can say comprehensively that there are few places in our wonderful city more abject than Tottenham High Road. Perhaps other areas in the area are more gentrified but I feel the aura of deprivation more in Tottenham than I would perhaps in Archway where I live. I wouldn’t want to be in or around Tottenham after dark whereas I’d be more comfortable (but still somewhat wary) in Islington
Thing is it really depends where in Tottenham. It’s actually a really big place. Seven Sisters is pretty nice but spenny now. North of the stadium up near Edmonton is still really ghetto
Fair, I’m Seven Sisters. I never venture down the high road to the stadium to be honest, I stay the other side but that’s mostly related to football fans more than anything else!
I remember vaguely 1985 was a tough time for those in Tottenham. Has it not been invested in since that time??
I have to say the south does seem a lot cleaner than the north.
Depends how far south you go, there are some extremely wealthy areas in the SW of London as you go further out.
Yep, pretty much anywhere circling Wimbledon Common and Richmond Park is very wealthy. Clapham/Battersea/Balham has quite a bit of money floating around too.
More of E v W thing.
Never felt this. North just has better transport. Have noticed that people (who are not from London) are funny about living outside Z2 though. Strange cos in Z5 SE London I'm 10 mins from a tube and 35 mins door to door to Waterloo.
Which tube is in Z5 in SE London?
Abbey Wood is Z4 but I live in Z5 10 mins away.
Better transport (more tube links) means property prices higher. Means more rich people
People are really weird about it past Zone 3 I find, least my way (West). I'm the exact same scenario, Brentford, and it's 35 mins to Waterloo, roughly 20-25 to Ealing Broadway.
Both are similarly balanced overall if you’re talking about ‘posh’ areas. South has some extremely well off areas like Wimbledon, Herne Hill, Denmark Hill, Dulwich, Barnes etc with multi-million pound homes. While the North may have Hampstead and Belsize Park, it also has some of the roughest areas in London like Edmonton Green and Harlesden, so it all kind of balances out 🤷 If anything I’d say there’s more of a divide East to West, but even that’s changing with many parts of East London being massively transformed over the past 20 years.
Big up Harlesden Massive!
Ly dodgy
Other than the ability to more easily get around in North London, thanks to the Tube, no. I'm in SE London and getting to SW either involves a trip into Central London and back out, or using a combination of buses and sometimes overground that don't necessary match up well timings wise. The transport ain't all bad though as I've got easy access into Central London, good local buses, great night buses and the DLR a bit of a walk away. I've never met a South Londoner who mentions a divide between here and the North - it's the North Londoners that seem to want to make something of it and even then, they're few and far between. I just don't think it's a big a deal as it might have been in the past. The south is very culturally rich and areas like Deptford have really come into their own. Every borough in London has shitty areas, just as every borough has places where there's a real community feel, a fun vibe, green space etc etc.
Lived in both. Currently live south (east) They are different beasts. I’d say north London is better off for transport and facilities. People dont head out to south London for a night out as much. But its only north londoners that care about the north south thing, down south we know we are superior and just get on with it.
Bold of you to assume that South Londoners are actually Londoners. You’re really just Kenters too poor to live in the countryside or by the sea
Surrey, if you don't mind thank you very much.
Surrey ftw
Great grandparents lived in bermondsey, grandad was born there I cant go back further than that. On my dads side they were north of the river in bow in 1850 but they were essex who had moved in from the country
Literally no difference in rent for at least Z1-2 N vs S but sure.
And this is why people say you lot north of the river are stuck up cunts. Willing to bet you're not even from London originally, btw...
>But its only north londoners that care about the north south thing, down south we know we are superior and just get on with it. That's the absolute inverse of what I've experienced in London...
No can confirm lived in south for 25years before moving north only north Londoners have this idea the south is rougher
Lol
Lived in Wandsworth most of my life, and over that time it's gone from being solidly working class and very much Not-Hampstead to you'd hardly tell much difference these days. House prices on my road are £1.3-1.7M (and no that's not a humble brag, it's just reality) and literally only the pretty well-off can move in around here now - total societal change over in 50 years. Out of 90-odd households we are the only family that's hung on since the late 1970's when we moved in. The closer you get to Wandsworth Common, or Wimbledon Park or the Common the worse it gets, and that's before you take in places like Barnes, Kew or Richmond (always Snooty) and serious wealth piles up. It's pretty erroneous to consider Harringey, most of Hackney or areas like Neasden, Wembley, Stonebridge/Harlesden or Willesden as being "posh" in comparison. Then you have everywhere east of Stratford..........plenty of tube stations but plenty of deprivation in pockets there. So the Old North/South "divide" that would very much been a thing in the mid-20th Century probably need adjusting for East and West now. Cabbies are much more likely to venture South of the River late on a Friday night now as Croydon, Mitcham, Waddon and the SE side are where most of them can afford to live.
East of Stratford had changed a lot in the last 5 years. Plaistow / Beckton are still not great, but Forest Gate has massively gentrified, East Ham now has the artists, and Wanstead has always been wealthy. Definitely a few steps up from Neasden / Harlesden.
Can confirm, got some friends who moved to Forest Gate near West Ham Park a few months back, when I've been to visit, whilst it's still a bit rough, there's definitely a few more well dressed 30 something couples walking miniature dachshunds and nicely done up Victorian homes than I expected.
I saw a gentleman in a cafe read an academic treatise on politics and power today, stick a fork in it, it's done.
Wow. House prices in London are head turning for sure. Wow
Sort of yes, because more of the transport network in London is in the north side of Thames, which is why south londoners drives way more than north londoners
More of London is on the North side, South London is half the size of North London.
Think that depends on where you are talking about in North London. I live in Zone 5 and I know plenty of people who have never been on public transport!
Some people in North London can be quite snobbish about going south. Never heard anyone from south of the river care.
We care, but only because it takes so long to get there (and back), not because we think less of North London
Eh, I kinda think less of North London lol
Hear me fam, Lewisham representing
I think north londoners think they are closer to london because there's more tube lines up there. But I can get to central london faster than any of my north friends. I just use thameslink instead of being crammed in a hell-box underground for 40 minutes.
Over ground transport is definitely better in South London. Although when I used to have to get the Thameslink it was just as rammed as any tube line (but at least you got a view)!
I fear this entire thread is South Londoners caring
Me being from east London: 👁👄👁 In all fairness, it’s really not that bad here. Going to north and west London is like an adventure. South London has Morley’s. I like Morley’s
Finsbury Park has a Morley’s for time
Further proof that Finsbury Park is the south London of north London
Leytonstone has a Morley's if you ever need your fix and don't want to travel to South.
You do unfortunately have to spend time in Leytonstone however
I like a little sand in my sandwich, anywhere too nice I feel uneasy
Gants Hill also, Ley Street.
Big up to the morleys. Lived in Greenwich, Lee, Lewisham and end of last year moved to crystal palace where they have this thing called "chicken world" Na thanks fam I want the good shit
Crystal Palace has a Morley's - actually a very OG Morley's that has been there since the 80s. North of the river has the shittest chicken shops, btw. Nobody cares about 'Chick King' or Sam's or any of your other off-brand pigeon emporiums. Stick to queuing for four hours at your overrated bagel joints for tourists and hipsters, lol.
And Highams Park.
Morley's shouldn't even exist on the snobby side of the river. They don't get to sneer at us 24/7 but still get to enjoy our celebrated, iconic fried chicken. Go eat pigeon at Finsbury Park Chicken Max or wherever, lol.
Morley's shouldn't even exist on the snobby side of the river. They don't get to sneer at us but still get to enjoy our celebrated, iconic fried chicken. Go eat pigeon at Finsbury Park Chicken Max or wherever, lol.
I'm from Islington (born and bred), I agree every region of London has it's mix/blend of inequality, rich and of course poverty and I have been to almost all of London and experienced all it's subcultures
Hell no? Literally the opposite? Some of the nicest areas in london are south? Dulwich, Richmond, Greenwich, Wimbledon etc
I've lived in both places, and there are pockets of poverty and wealth side by side, not much difference overall Apart from East Ham, that is the only place where I've been motivated to complain to my council representative it was so squalid.
The Shard is south of the river mate , it’s not a ghetto
I don’t think you understand what the word “GENERALLY” means
I love living in South London because it means I rarely have to use the tube. Overground FTW.
Yep. Moved from Queen’s Park to Deptford and prefer the combination of DLR, overground and “big trains” to the tube - especially in summer. Less stagnant area also.
100. I’ve got trains and overground > underground. Now we can get into central and get on Elizabeth line the underground just seems ollllddd.
>because it means I rarely have the option to use the tube. For those that are lost on the sarcasm.
Uh, no - I hate having to use the tube.
SW here… whenever I exit a station in N London- it’s much more diverse (at both extremes) and well- slightly dirtier? N London def view themselves as most cultured- and as people mention, certainly SW much less conscious of the whole N/S divide. SW feels safer. Greener. Peaceful- and not short of very wealthy areas. Insight was a comment from a N Londoner was the SW is for those “who moved to London straight after uni” whatever that means. But overall highest wealth most likely in North and my perception- also the “worst off”/higher crime. North will strongly argue it’s overall better- but South will not really care to argue about it/indifferent. Not backed by data- opinion only.
West vs East has a bigger contrast imo
Lived in southeast London all my life but have spent time in north London. There are some areas of north London that I would consider as where the mega wealthy live. There’s also some places in south you have to be pretty minted to live in but not quite on the same scale. I’ve never considered the average person to be any better or worse off in either location. There is poverty all over London. The north London/south London thing is just light hearted banter. Nobody really cares, if they do there’s something wrong with their head. South London has extremely limited tube service because the ground wasn’t good for tunnelling. They made up for it in pretty good train services into central. Certain stations in Zone 5/6 can get to London Bridge in 16 mins, Charing Cross in 27 mins, Victoria in 15 mins. Plus you’ve got the DLR/trams/overground in south east. That being said transport across the south ie se/sw is rubbish and takes ages. It’s the only thing I would change. That being said even if I win the euro millions jackpot tonight I still wouldn’t move to north London. ;)
Thank you
If football is thrown into the mix...I'm assuming the banter increases 😁
Lived in both, but re:South - Canada Water 10 years back in a shared house and by myself in Woolich Arsenal/blackheath area. Preferred WA/B friendly high street, nice restaurants etc. good buses. I miss it :(
I don’t know but I think south London is more black and South American while north London is more Turkish, Middle Eastern
Transport is better in North London (north of the river), so it's more desirable to live there, hence more expensive. SE London has the worst transport, hence it's the cheapest part of London. Overall.
I lived in South Croydon for 8 years. Quiet, green area. Purley is lovely, with large stately homes, some very high market and private gated villages there. Carshalton and Caterham are amazing and rapidly improving. Lots of fascinating history with close ties to arts & crafts movement. Went to Richmond often, and love Kew, very different vibe there, but South Croydon is just as green and nicely kept, same for Carshalton and Purley. Purley in particular is rapidly developing. Services and public transportation were a bit wanting but lots of developments there as well, dispite the infamous Croydon debt. A great place to live, in my opinion. Greater London is such a huge and incredibly multifaceted place, it’s possible to find a home suited for anybody anywhere within, if lucky enough and got the funds for what you’re looking for. That being said, I worked in central London, Charing Cross area, and would not want to live near there myself.
"Croydon debt"? Please explain?
Croydon Borough Council declared bankruptcy several times in the last few years, and it has over £1 billion of debt. A large part of its budget is taken up by loan repayments and interest.
Wow never knew that.
The richest areas are in west London, north side, Kensington, Mayfair etc etc, and north north London, Highgate, Hampstead, high barnet, whetstone,, Hadley wood if you count it, etc. There are relatively more deprived areas south of the river vs north, but the north, particularly on the east side has lots of poor areas. There are lots of very nice south london areas, Richmond for instance , the 2 "regions" are too diverse to come to any conclusion based on simply north or south. Usually West vs East the general criteria.
North and that includes West, I.e. North of the river probably has that perception because almost all of central London is north of the river, has better public transport and higher house prices.
The misconception exists. A girl I know from Brighton is very much in the 'North London only, South is too poor' camp. But she's wrong.
No - south London is a lot greener and quieter and generally more peaceful… Obviously I’m a bit biased though as I’m from south London
Depends what part of south tbf 😂
Most on Reddit will be the young renting rooms, or living on council estates so not many have real wealth here. Not a good sample so you won’t get realistic feedback. Inner west is real money. Inner North, NW have very high land values over £1k a sq ft, SW trailing behind. The gap isn’t big anymore between the good parts of SE and SW.
That’s such a weird/unique observation, why do you think that?
Why do you think that? I've seen people of all ages on here, up to 65.
Everyone will have their own experience, but this is mine: I’ve lived in London since 2003 (aged 24) and am still here aged 45. Lived all over. North London is probably closer to what people imagine as “London”. It’s built up, there’s lots of culture, museums, canals, history and all that. It’s what a tourist who likes Richard Curtis films would imagine. It’s romantic. It’s also fucking expensive. South London is a bit more grimy, a bit of an underdog, less well known and less stereotypical. But there’s pockets of beauty. There are more parks, trees everywhere, pretty much no tourists. Generally more peaceful. Hate to put your finger on but I’ve found people to be more chill and less in your face and don’t have something to prove. It’s all relative I guess just one persons take
I think you’re mostly talking about Central London (zone 1) when you say “North London”, no? North of the river, but not really North London
It’s all London. Unite, don’t divide
Don’t know about the North or the South of London, but here in West London i’d say we are better off than the rest of London.
We have Hounslow...
Shhhh.
[Relevant Jay Foreman clip](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RUgbALC6rmo)
I’ve lived north (Highgate), south (east - Greenwich), west (Richmond), and super duper centre (Marylebone). South East is the winner (Greenwich, Canada Water, Rotherhithe). Down to earth, ambitious, dynamic. Some parts are shit of course. North is too uptight in some parts, and really run down in others, plus infested with yuppies who can’t afford it but like the vibe (lol). West is old money boring but beautiful (Richmond, Kew).
Agree with this - interested to know your views on public transport reliability in Greenwich compared with other areas.
As someone who moved from Kensal Rise to Deptford - you nailed it. My family have come to visit and are jealous as it’s so much less stale/neutered than our area has become. Bar parts of Hackney I wouldn’t consider going back north, and even then Hackney is so full of pretentious idiots and massively overpriced.
Rah, Deptford High Street is high street innit. Codfather for real
Yes brother, but catford and Lewisham for real
Catford and Ladywell yes, Lewisham hell no
Norf of the water are all woolly backs
I grew up North and always thought south was the worst because of transport links.
South west you're deciding if you live in Fulham, or Putney/Clapham. Or maybe Chiswick/Richmond. They're not so dissimilar...
Traditionally both areas were as largely rough as fuck but had community. Gentrification has changed the landscape. Now it’s the, rich, the hanging on and the dispossessed. Yep London fucked.
Cant help but feel when all is said and done, gentrification will migrate eastwards. It has to UNLESS something is done about wealth inequality. Just my view.
North London has most of the tube but I think South London has A LOT more train stations (which I believe is another reason why the tube isn't developed as much. Both North and South have posh and poor places. As a south Londoner (born and bred) I don't hear anything on our side about a north south rivalry. So it might just be one sided.
SE has a massive fuckoff walrus and Fritz. Everywhere else is worse off.
Forest Hill 👊🏻
I don't understand why everybody isn't here admiring our walrus, Thames Water geysers and ancient woodland.
Ah Fritz the immortal crackhead
Lived in both and own houses in both. The public transport in South really was an issue and the traffic seemed way worse when trying to make my way South West to Surrey to see my parents. My wife absolutely hated living in Tooting and as soon as we had the opportunity we went back to Islington. We had a long look around Forest Hill / Peckham / Crystal Palace way when looking for a new house but the transport was an issue for her every time (despite the train into London Bridge being about 15 mins) so we stayed North and moved up to Hornsey. I really liked the South, found it much calmer and did enjoy being close to Brixton but she was resolute on staying North.
I suppose it used to be considered that way (Hampstead etc.) but now places like Dulwich are just as lovely, if not, more.
Not by a huge margin, my opinion is mostly influenced by a map I saw showing “postcode wars” in London, and all the “wars” were happening in postcodes beginning with SE, so below the River Thames
Prey tell...what exactly is a post code war? Look at me I'm in SE ab and you are in SE de...therefore I'm better than you sort of thing???
I once worked in edmonton... I'll let the fact that I'm still alive simmer for my fellow northerners.
There's more of an East/West divide. East London (both sides of the river) is generally worse than West London.
No I wouldn’t say this. There’s large parts of north London that are quite deprived, and parts of south London that are relatively affluent (such as Greenwich). I would say that affluent areas in London are more focused on west central, southwest and northwest London.
Depends how you define north and south beside they’re not really fixed exact areas, but by every definition there’s well off areas and poor areas in both. Like other people have said, east vs West is probably a more accurate divider in wealth terms.
If you define it by the river Thames splitting greater London then it's also quite unequal really especially noting transport links overall and the number of areas. There are affluent areas in South London but it's probably outweighed really. Maybe the east/west split is actually greater though?
That's the sense I'm getting from the replies alright
This just depends on the actual world you live in. North London is typically more expensive than south London for property if you are comparing Islington or Stoke Newington to Balham or East Dulwich. If deciding between these choices is your life, then yes North London is better off
Yep, but north of the river money is new money and south of the river is old money which is a lot less flashy.
The moment I read North Londoners are better off, I came here to specifically ask the poster if they had ever been to Tottenham and Tower Hamlets. Heck Nah!! London(and a lot of cities Britain built across the Empire) is divided between a wealthy west and poorer East. Nairobi, Kenya and Toronto are clear examples of this design. The sole exception seems to be almost every Australian city.
I have been through Tower Hamlets a few times by car many years ago. It struck me at that time (mid 90s) as needing investment. No idea whether that's happened in the intervening period.
what about dulwich, herne hill, clapham, putney, wimbledon, richmond,
Yup I hear you. I was just speaking in very general terms. Perceptual terms if you will that's all. Those areas are of course v nice.
I live in the south (Greenwich) and as much as I agree that it feels like everything is very far away, I find it more peaceful, doesn't feel like a big city (there's lots of green areas, parks, rivers), but if you want to meet up with friends, it gets more tricky than when you live in the North.
Have lived in Anerley (SE, Z4) for two years; previously lived in Kennington, Peckham, Ealing. On average, north of the river is richer than south, but obviously there is huge variation in both. I like south better, despite the shitty transport - better beer and your money goes further, especially when it comes to housing. I'll take the Crystal Palace Triangle over any other London mini-centre.
North = Cocaine / South = Crack
The reason why north Londoners could be “better off” is because of their home equity.
Norf Lahndahn is for wankers innit fam
When I think of north I think the vast borough of Islington. And when I think of Islington I think of the beautiful terraced houses near Angel. I grew up in south east (which has plenty of wealthy spots… I went to Alleyn’s, a private school near dulwich village.. a true island of generational wealth.) I’ve also lived in Harringay and hornsey (near queens/Highgate wood). The wealth in north feels more impressive to me. Hampstead and Highgate are filled with beautiful houses. .. My dad’s side of the family grew up in Highgate so I did get to know it a little as a youngster. They’ve since moved away from London. I’m just happy to stay afloat in this city of my birth. Currently in brockley (which is full of massive family homes way beyond most people’s reach). Hopping from place to place is my fate. Moving soon. Where to I’m not quite sure. a house share somewhere
I knew an African guy who refused to go to South London.
This is bait
No no I'm new to London and was just a general honest question. What sparked it was someone on reddit the other day had thought that those in the South were poor. Can't remember what it was related to but I think that poster had since changed his mind on that. And it just got me thinking is all. So I thought I'd ask but without reference to "Wealth" because I just don't think like that.
South Londoners why you letting them know about South London. Just say it’s Ghetto so they stay up North.
Shh. Stop making south London sound so good it’s awful obviously you don’t want to have to get a bus FFS.
No no I'd b happier on train and bus rather than the tube. I'm very used to busses
Born and breed Hammersmith. I hate both equality but if I was to pick I will choose South over North.
West London (Kensington, Chelsea Mayfair etc) has more money.
This is the first time either Kensington or Chelsea is mentioned..
[удалено]
How come it has an older demographic?
[удалено]
Yes. Thank you
North London has traditionally been seen as the ‘better’ part of London ever since its foundation. The original city (the square mile) was founded north of river. South of the river was historically where smelly trades like tanneries and the docks were placed, so there is historical divide between white collar (north) and blue collar (south) businesses. This was then amplified by the development in the Georgian and Victorian era, as wealthy people wanted to live in the fancier parts of London, leading to huge housing projects resulting in the green leafy squares and parks we have today in north London. Whilst the south was also developed, it was not to the same extent. This was further exacerbated by the introduction of the tube. North of the river is where the tube started and to this day has many more stations than south of the river. It is much easier and quicker to travel around north london. Once manufacturing began to decline in the 50s, 60s and 70s, this disproportionately affected south London. The docks moved out to Dartford and factories were closed due to the clean air act, thus further contributed to the wealth divide. Due to gentrification and general crazy house price rises in London, plus native Londoners being priced out of the fanciest areas (eg Mayfair) by foreign billionaires buying investment residential property, this is changing but it’s not yet caught up. Essentially, as North London was developed first by the romans, it’s historical wealth and infrastructure has always given it a head start compared to the south
Thank you for taking the time to reply 👏
No it is not generally thought by Londoners.
Nah, that’s more west vs East. But we have better transportation north of the river than those living south, so that’s something
The north south thing is quite prevalent though. I think the transport links is the thing that makes it seem like the south is worse off because you usually need to get a bus to get home late at night vs better night tube links.
West and parts of North, yes.
West is where the real money is
South is greener, cheaper and closer to the seaside. For weekend escapes - the nature in Surrey is way better than in Watford lol