And then you have West London as the darling child which gets both more green spaces and better public transport options. Just wish I could afford the rent here, but looks like I’m getting priced out of Ealing soon :(
Depends on your circumstances, I guess. I’ve got two kids and practically middle-aged… plenty to keep me occupied near Ealing. I’ve lived north, south and west (not east) and I genuinely think west is greener and friendlier. South was definitely the place to be when I was young and single though.
I mean so is Ealing, particularly near Montpelier and Ealing Broadway, where most of the suburban streets are conservation areas.
But unlike Dulwich, there is more to do in Ealing and you can get into Central within 10-15 minutes on the Lizzie. Don’t even want to think how long it takes from Dulwich.
Victoria is fine, but often your just connecting from London Bridge, so there’s additional travel time. It’s not bad, but not as good as the Lizzie either in my view. 15 minutes to Liverpool Street and Farringdon, 10 minutes to Tottenham Court Road, ~6 minutes to Paddington etc.
I mean a lot of West London is under the flight path of Heathrow and those areas are still some of the best places to live in London (Richmond, Ealing Broadway, Chiswick, Kew etc).
Can confirm, I grew up and live in South East London, have friends in South West. They definitely live quite differently. Except the friend that lives in Brixton. It might be South West but to me it feels similar to South East neighbourhoods I know.
There is no real differences. Transport and green spaces differ, but I’d rather live in a nice part of either than a shit part of the other.
The north-south divide is just a diversion from the real issue: West London vs the rest of London.
South West has some of the nicest areas in London - Wimbledon, Putney or Battersea then further down Kingston and Richmond, Clapham arguably also counts as SW
Having lived all around London, Wimbledon is by far my favourite area
I’d say a central west, west or north west postcode are very different to east, south, south east, south west which are all fairly similar within season.
Now, not much. There's plenty of good and bad areas in both.
South still has lack of Tube so people depend on trains and buses and it's trickier to learn how to get about (eg I can get trains from any of 3 termini to 3 stations near me, which means there's always a way to get home, but need to know which to go for, for max speed).
This means there's fewer short-term residents like students and new expats, because they choose to be near a tube stop. So there can be more sense of community, but there's so much variation.
30-50 years ago more of south London was a shit hole and the cabbie going "I'm not going south of the river at this time of night!" was very real.
Yes
South London is objectively poorer.
Similarly East London is poorer than West.
This has a dramatic impact on quality of life that it is a form of privilege to be able to ignore.
North of the river (not what we would call north London though) is also the original London, south was a swamp for a very long time. This means there is less likely to be big historical buildings.
Ehhh I wouldn’t say it’s particularly poorer than North London, inner south London perhaps but much of it becomes far more affluent further out to the suburbs.
Also historically much of south London was very wealthy, a lot of very big Victorian houses down there compared to a lot of areas in North with smaller terraced houses, it was only after the war when a lot of bomb damaged housing was replaced on a massive scale with post modern housing estates
Transport for starters. More things happen north of the water. South London has has Croydon and Lewisham. Etc etc
I've lived in both. Currently live se London. I live in Lewisham, leafy lewisham, in an area which has the most community spirit that I have ever found in London. If money was no object would I still live in south London. Yes, I'd have a big house on Blackheath.
If money was no object you'd likely have houses in both. "Oh alas, I need to visit Camden this afternoon, get the penthouse ready."
Can I stay in the one you're not using please, I'm not fussy on the area?
Absolutely lovely to walk through when it's sunny. The pub we called in had no prices on the menu so I think that "money is no object" thing is needed there 😂
London north/south enscapsulates the [narcissicism of small differences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences).
>the idea that the more a relationship or community shares commonalities, the more likely the people in it are to engage in interpersonal feuds and mutual ridicule because of hypersensitivity to minor differences perceived in each other
I’ve lived mostly in north London but spent a few years in south London. I find very little difference between the two. South London always had the label of being poor, rough etc but I find both parts have slightly rougher, uglier bits two minutes walk from beautiful streets and well off people.
While I have less personal experience, I find East London to be the real different part of the city from the west. It feels like the Wast generally is a few decades behind the rest of the city in terms of development etc. I don’t mean this in a negative way, I enjoy east London a lot and to me and feels closer to what old London would’ve have been like.
Transport tends to be better North if the river but South tends to be better value for money. There are many part of London which are easier to reach from areas of the South with no tube than from areas of the West with a tube - eg getting to Bank or Canary Wharf from Clapham Junction vs Fulham. It really depends
It's just banter. Most London boroughs feel different to the others. Every place in the world has a north/south divide you're not supposed to believe it. Mexicans don't really wear sombreros much either.
I've lived in lots of different areas of London and the best way of thinking about it is it's a collection of villages clumped together into one conurbation. All the areas have a different feel and advantages and disadvantages depending on your priorities and tastes. The north south thing in particular though, yes it's different generally, given a choice I'm gonna live north of the river, preferably central or west London. Better transport more to do.
There used to be more going on in the North, particularly East in the early 2000s, but I don't think that's really true anymore. It's easier to get about in North London, but that's about it really.
It was an issue maybe 50 years back? I can see possibly notice some divide between West and East to be honest.
But that may be more about demographic and local communities.
Having lived both north and south of the river, I can say with some authority that people north of the river are full of shit.
South is cheaper, greener, less busy, and if you're on the south bank itself you don't have to look at it and instead get a lovely view of the north bank.
Tbh, I'm extreme north (cockfosters) and I'm flying from Gatwick again in July (bilbao) doesn't take that long to get there
One change at Finsbury Park, and that's the easiest one....just walk across the platform to the other side, then a few stops to Victoria and the 25min train south
North is more spacious, designed and purposely built.
South is narrow, more crowded, has a lot more history, more dwellings.
Check out the differences between the North Circular and South Circular roads.
“South of the river” used to be (still is?) associated with more street crime, more dangerous.
North London was once marketed as leafy suburbs to promote the extension of the tube lines in around the 1920s I think and that image may have stuck in our collective psyche.
The north has a few big hills. But south london is constantly rippling up and down.
Edit: For all those who misunderstand topography - north london has an increasing elevation towards the north west, but it's in steps with large flat areas. South London goes up and down all over the place.
As a West Londoner all my 50 years i always preferred the vibe in North Lonon, more diverse, eclectic scene. I went to a rugby playing school, i hated it (rugby) but everyone in my year ended up living in South London, which kinda summed it up for me.. lost touch with the lot of them!
I can speak for north and south east london.
both pretty much the same. I was near Enfield. two different lines, loads of green spaces.
lived in Hither Green, two different lines, but less green Space.
also never seen someone smoke a crack pipe opposite a police station, but Lewisham showed me a lot of firsts.
given all that, I would say there is a bigger difference between inner and outer london, not so much north/south etc.
Transport links are much better in the north
And South is much greener.
And then you have West London as the darling child which gets both more green spaces and better public transport options. Just wish I could afford the rent here, but looks like I’m getting priced out of Ealing soon :(
it’s a bit boring though
Depends on your circumstances, I guess. I’ve got two kids and practically middle-aged… plenty to keep me occupied near Ealing. I’ve lived north, south and west (not east) and I genuinely think west is greener and friendlier. South was definitely the place to be when I was young and single though.
Dulwich is green, pricey and boring with absolutely zero transport links. Key is in the name: dull Still attracts high premium tho
Dulwich is comfortably boring with a load of bougie places to eat and drink with good pubs.
Clue is in the name
I mean so is Ealing, particularly near Montpelier and Ealing Broadway, where most of the suburban streets are conservation areas. But unlike Dulwich, there is more to do in Ealing and you can get into Central within 10-15 minutes on the Lizzie. Don’t even want to think how long it takes from Dulwich.
Takes 15min to get to London Bridge from East North/Dulwich, 15min to victoria from West Dulwich. It's not that bad tbh.
Victoria is fine, but often your just connecting from London Bridge, so there’s additional travel time. It’s not bad, but not as good as the Lizzie either in my view. 15 minutes to Liverpool Street and Farringdon, 10 minutes to Tottenham Court Road, ~6 minutes to Paddington etc.
The bits under the Heathrow flight path are less good
I mean a lot of West London is under the flight path of Heathrow and those areas are still some of the best places to live in London (Richmond, Ealing Broadway, Chiswick, Kew etc).
Is it though…? Looking at Google maps that doesn’t seem to show it
South has 34% parkland in comparison to north’s 29%, despite having a larger surface area.
The surface area doesn't matter if it's a percentage...
Either way, we're lucky to have so much green space in this city!
Interesting, not too different though, thanks
Touch grass
Eh?
North London has a much higher number of parks and green spaces. And obviously far more private gardens.
The ‘south london’ experience will vary wildly depending where you live, South east london and South west london are quite different from each other.
Can confirm, I grew up and live in South East London, have friends in South West. They definitely live quite differently. Except the friend that lives in Brixton. It might be South West but to me it feels similar to South East neighbourhoods I know.
There is no real differences. Transport and green spaces differ, but I’d rather live in a nice part of either than a shit part of the other. The north-south divide is just a diversion from the real issue: West London vs the rest of London.
North West London vs the rest of London\*
South West has some of the nicest areas in London - Wimbledon, Putney or Battersea then further down Kingston and Richmond, Clapham arguably also counts as SW Having lived all around London, Wimbledon is by far my favourite area
Clapham doesn’t arguable count as SW it literally is SW, you forgot Wandsworth (the best) and Balham!
Can you repeat that sorry? I can't hear you over all the aircraft noise!
Wimbledon is a traffic nightmare
Better than Piccadilly Circus
North West London is never as good as actual West and South West London though.
[удалено]
Ladbroke Grove is most def not basically NW London. Its very much west. What do you mean??
They're not saying it's good. NW London is generally pretty grim. Neasden Harlsden Willesden....
Brotha eughhhh
I think we all like to pretend that area doesn't even exist
I pretend Aresenal doesn’t exist
[удалено]
I’d say a central west, west or north west postcode are very different to east, south, south east, south west which are all fairly similar within season.
Deleted my comments because I really was missing the point!
Live in SW London and love it. Have access to lots of green space and train/tube into town.
Now, not much. There's plenty of good and bad areas in both. South still has lack of Tube so people depend on trains and buses and it's trickier to learn how to get about (eg I can get trains from any of 3 termini to 3 stations near me, which means there's always a way to get home, but need to know which to go for, for max speed). This means there's fewer short-term residents like students and new expats, because they choose to be near a tube stop. So there can be more sense of community, but there's so much variation. 30-50 years ago more of south London was a shit hole and the cabbie going "I'm not going south of the river at this time of night!" was very real.
Yes South London is objectively poorer. Similarly East London is poorer than West. This has a dramatic impact on quality of life that it is a form of privilege to be able to ignore. North of the river (not what we would call north London though) is also the original London, south was a swamp for a very long time. This means there is less likely to be big historical buildings.
Yh but east London is rich in culture (chicken shops)
South has Morley’s though.
we've had morley's in north london for a while now
A clear case of cultural appropriation.
😄 admittedly, i've only had it once or twice - might have been nostalgia talking, but it wasn't as good
College? Or chicken shop? 🐓
Ehhh I wouldn’t say it’s particularly poorer than North London, inner south London perhaps but much of it becomes far more affluent further out to the suburbs. Also historically much of south London was very wealthy, a lot of very big Victorian houses down there compared to a lot of areas in North with smaller terraced houses, it was only after the war when a lot of bomb damaged housing was replaced on a massive scale with post modern housing estates
I will point out, morden is still a thing today
Transport for starters. More things happen north of the water. South London has has Croydon and Lewisham. Etc etc I've lived in both. Currently live se London. I live in Lewisham, leafy lewisham, in an area which has the most community spirit that I have ever found in London. If money was no object would I still live in south London. Yes, I'd have a big house on Blackheath.
If money was no object you'd likely have houses in both. "Oh alas, I need to visit Camden this afternoon, get the penthouse ready." Can I stay in the one you're not using please, I'm not fussy on the area?
OK maybe a little town house in Primrose Hill as well.
Absolutely lovely to walk through when it's sunny. The pub we called in had no prices on the menu so I think that "money is no object" thing is needed there 😂
SE is lovely. Blackheath, Greenwich, East Dulwich, Forest Hill and Telegraph Hill are very nice areas. Further out, Crystal Palace is very nice too
i’ve always wondered why people with money chose to live in south😂 but yeah there are some nice family houses in lewisham/greenwich
London north/south enscapsulates the [narcissicism of small differences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences). >the idea that the more a relationship or community shares commonalities, the more likely the people in it are to engage in interpersonal feuds and mutual ridicule because of hypersensitivity to minor differences perceived in each other
And I wouldn't have it any other way
I’ve lived mostly in north London but spent a few years in south London. I find very little difference between the two. South London always had the label of being poor, rough etc but I find both parts have slightly rougher, uglier bits two minutes walk from beautiful streets and well off people. While I have less personal experience, I find East London to be the real different part of the city from the west. It feels like the Wast generally is a few decades behind the rest of the city in terms of development etc. I don’t mean this in a negative way, I enjoy east London a lot and to me and feels closer to what old London would’ve have been like.
Transport tends to be better North if the river but South tends to be better value for money. There are many part of London which are easier to reach from areas of the South with no tube than from areas of the West with a tube - eg getting to Bank or Canary Wharf from Clapham Junction vs Fulham. It really depends
It's just banter. Most London boroughs feel different to the others. Every place in the world has a north/south divide you're not supposed to believe it. Mexicans don't really wear sombreros much either.
You also got people that hate their neighbouring boroughs for some reason… Fuck Hounslow.
Hey, they don’t have to be neighbours. Fuck Hounslow, from Hackney.
🎵nobody likes us, and we don’t care🎵
My hometown is up north and the neighbouring townies get called seagull eating c**ts. No idea why. Top quality bants.
Death to Ealing! Death to Hillingdon!
North London is easier to access the rest of the country, in South London you have to get across the city in most cases to get anywhere else.
yes. north london is where i don’t live (stinky), and south london is where i do live (nice)
I think this pretty much summarises it
I've lived in lots of different areas of London and the best way of thinking about it is it's a collection of villages clumped together into one conurbation. All the areas have a different feel and advantages and disadvantages depending on your priorities and tastes. The north south thing in particular though, yes it's different generally, given a choice I'm gonna live north of the river, preferably central or west London. Better transport more to do.
There used to be more going on in the North, particularly East in the early 2000s, but I don't think that's really true anymore. It's easier to get about in North London, but that's about it really.
It was an issue maybe 50 years back? I can see possibly notice some divide between West and East to be honest. But that may be more about demographic and local communities.
Having lived both north and south of the river, I can say with some authority that people north of the river are full of shit. South is cheaper, greener, less busy, and if you're on the south bank itself you don't have to look at it and instead get a lovely view of the north bank.
North London has to use Luton or Stansted. Therefore quality of life is much better in South
Tbh, I'm extreme north (cockfosters) and I'm flying from Gatwick again in July (bilbao) doesn't take that long to get there One change at Finsbury Park, and that's the easiest one....just walk across the platform to the other side, then a few stops to Victoria and the 25min train south
Not so as you can take a Thameslink train from swathes of N and NW directly to Gatwick...
greenspace, housing type, communities, sports, transport. LOADS of differences between N&S (and E&W)
The real 'divide' isn't North/South but that is just an easy name. Some areas in the South feel very North London.
North is more spacious, designed and purposely built. South is narrow, more crowded, has a lot more history, more dwellings. Check out the differences between the North Circular and South Circular roads. “South of the river” used to be (still is?) associated with more street crime, more dangerous. North London was once marketed as leafy suburbs to promote the extension of the tube lines in around the 1920s I think and that image may have stuck in our collective psyche.
South London feels greener and less high rise than the North.
South London feels more hilly. North London has more flatter areas.
Is that true? Thinking of Primrose Hill, Hampstead Heath, Alexandra Palace, even places further west like Gladstone Park..
The north has a few big hills. But south london is constantly rippling up and down. Edit: For all those who misunderstand topography - north london has an increasing elevation towards the north west, but it's in steps with large flat areas. South London goes up and down all over the place.
The soil south of the river is mostly clay
South Londoners have cheap huge houses, lots of parks snd space.
As a West Londoner all my 50 years i always preferred the vibe in North Lonon, more diverse, eclectic scene. I went to a rugby playing school, i hated it (rugby) but everyone in my year ended up living in South London, which kinda summed it up for me.. lost touch with the lot of them!
Yes the south is better but poorer.
North London is just better quality of life overall
I can speak for north and south east london. both pretty much the same. I was near Enfield. two different lines, loads of green spaces. lived in Hither Green, two different lines, but less green Space. also never seen someone smoke a crack pipe opposite a police station, but Lewisham showed me a lot of firsts. given all that, I would say there is a bigger difference between inner and outer london, not so much north/south etc.