Londoners: SW or SE?

dhope

I'm in SE London at the moment, have been a couple of years. Nice house, quite settled, tenancy is up shortly but can be renewed.
Been tempted to head over SW (Clapham/Balham way). Have friends both SE and SW.

Argh. Can't decide. Easy to stay, quite fancy going.

samivel

SE, you will only have to ride up to the city oppose to through London

HamishD

SE here: would live SW but can't afford it.

What would I prefer, a two bed flat or a four bed house? For me, the latter . . .

Cafewanda

Nope. Stay over that side. SW London is full :twisted:

Visitor's visa can be renewed quite easily

dhope

samivel wrote:

SE, you will only have to ride up to the city oppose to through London

SE to City is still 7 miles of lights and traffic. SW has the Embankment and Richmond Park...

HamishD wrote:

SE here: would live SW but can't afford it.

What would I prefer, a two bed flat or a four bed house? For me, the latter . . .

Agree, while I'm renting I could probably afford SW or SE, then when I come to buy it'll be a shoebox in Penge (I grew up there, I'm allowed to single it out as being crap)

jzed

I'm SW and would love to stay SW as the commute is nice (along the river, passed parliament), easily extendable round Richmond park. Missus wants to move to Greenwich/Blackheath. Not looking forward to a short commute stopping every ten yards for traffic lights, through built up areas as opposed to the more leisurely meander down the river and inability to do a quick blast round the park. Missus thinks Greenwich Park is a substitute for Richmond Park.

Pufftmw

dhope wrote:

samivel wrote:

SE, you will only have to ride up to the city oppose to through London

SE to City is still 7 miles of lights and traffic. SW has the Embankment and Richmond Park...

Richmond Park is 11 miles, Clapham is 7 miles, Wimbledon 9 miles and they all have a large amount of traffic lights in getting to the Embankment. Also I would say the traffic is worse that side of town as the roads are not so good - everything from the west is forced either Cromwell Road or down onto CE and everything coming from SW ends up there to.

sketchley

Embankment and RP would seal the decision for me. Although that being said if you have a good local community of friends maybe a good pub you go to regularly then stay were you are as finding that kind of thing in London anywhere is hard. Likewise if this available in SW then.....

Prevailing winds are from SW. So do prefer your headwind in the morning or the evening?

samivel

I quite like the ride in, bus lanes pretty much the whole way so your not caught up with traffic, then cross the river and your at the office.

For some reason though I can't get used to the hill in greenwich park, always kills me on the way home.

cjcp

SW. 8)

Headhuunter

I've never lived SW but have lived in Islington, N London. North London always feels busier, more cram packed and noisy. SE London by contrast is much more spacious, the roads feel wider, gardens are longer and there seems to be fewer people. Also I get more of a sense of community in SE London, whereas Islington and probably SW London has a much more transient population. Also, as has been pointed out, SW London, Clapham, Balham etc is waaaay more expensive than SE London. On the other hand SW London has better bars, cinemas, boutiquey shops etc, if you need that sort of thing.

As for the commute, I have ridden to and from Clapham and Balham from Chancery Lane and it's a fraction further - more like 7 or so miles than 6, but I find the A3 a bit long and boring, no twists and turns, just a long stretch of A road to plough along. SW London is certainly closer to RP, but in SE London you are very close to Kent with mile upon mile of open country roads, whereas the exit from Clapham out of London always seems more awkward...

On balance, stay SE!

jds_1981

Don't discount the north!

t4tomo

Never go south of the River after dark was alway my motto, its bandit territory.

Headhuunter

I've been north and unless you've got pots of cash and can afford something fancy in Islington, Highgate or Hampstead or whatever, it's not worth the money...

samivel

t4tomo wrote:

Never go south of the River after dark was alway my motto, its bandit territory.

Never go north of the river whatever the time of day, no reason needed is mine.

bigmat

Have lived in both (Balham for 8 years, Beckenham for the past year). Balham is great, handy for Richmond Park, lots of twenty-somethings, nice bars and restaurants, reasonably close to central London, good transport links (rail and tube). On the downside, its horribly congested, difficult to drive anywhere, and for longer rides you're looking at 20 miles through south London traffic before you get to Surrey hills. Oh, and property there is ludicrously expensive.

Beckenham is a bit more family I guess, better schools and more chance of affording somewhere a bit bigger. Neither of which are an issue if you don't have kids. There's probably a bit less of a buzz around the place, but its nice and chilled out. I love the fact that I can actually do things like drive to the shops, the nearest village, local hospital, tip, whatever, without being stuck in nightmare traffic. For commute its a 3 miles further, but roads generally quieter and there's a nice big hill in the middle which is great for training. And 20 minutes south you're in the nice rolling hills of Kent. Also handy for racing at Crystal Palace.

For me, SE wins but for younger / no kids living SW might edge it.

cjcp

You need to steer away from North London's Commentating Classes, that's for sure.

The good thing with SE London is that you're closer to Folkestone, so it's easier to get to France for cycling trips abroad. Otherwise, SW is way better than SE. Ner, ner, nerner, ner. :P

Don't discount Wimbledon, Raynes Park, Southfields or Earlsfield.

Headhuunter

BigMat wrote:

Have lived in both (Balham for 8 years, Beckenham for the past year). Balham is great, handy for Richmond Park, lots of twenty-somethings, nice bars and restaurants, reasonably close to central London, good transport links (rail and tube). On the downside, its horribly congested, difficult to drive anywhere, and for longer rides you're looking at 20 miles through south London traffic before you get to Surrey hills. Oh, and property there is ludicrously expensive.

Beckenham is a bit more family I guess, better schools and more chance of affording somewhere a bit bigger. Neither of which are an issue if you don't have kids. There's probably a bit less of a buzz around the place, but its nice and chilled out. I love the fact that I can actually do things like drive to the shops, the nearest village, local hospital, tip, whatever, without being stuck in nightmare traffic. For commute its a 3 miles further, but roads generally quieter and there's a nice big hill in the middle which is great for training. And 20 minutes south you're in the nice rolling hills of Kent. Also handy for racing at Crystal Palace.

For me, SE wins but for younger / no kids living SW might edge it.

Yes. Well summarised!

Headhuunter

BigMat wrote:

Have lived in both (Balham for 8 years, Beckenham for the past year). Balham is great, handy for Richmond Park, lots of twenty-somethings, nice bars and restaurants, reasonably close to central London, good transport links (rail and tube). On the downside, its horribly congested, difficult to drive anywhere, and for longer rides you're looking at 20 miles through south London traffic before you get to Surrey hills. Oh, and property there is ludicrously expensive.

Beckenham is a bit more family I guess, better schools and more chance of affording somewhere a bit bigger. Neither of which are an issue if you don't have kids. There's probably a bit less of a buzz around the place, but its nice and chilled out. I love the fact that I can actually do things like drive to the shops, the nearest village, local hospital, tip, whatever, without being stuck in nightmare traffic. For commute its a 3 miles further, but roads generally quieter and there's a nice big hill in the middle which is great for training. And 20 minutes south you're in the nice rolling hills of Kent. Also handy for racing at Crystal Palace.

For me, SE wins but for younger / no kids living SW might edge it.

I like to live SE with its relatively chilled, spacious atmosphere and cycle to central London, SW or N London for bars, restaurants etc... It's only a matter of a few miles by bike. I like the place I live, sleep and relax to be less frenetic....

jonny_trousers

Clapham and Balham are only pretend west anyway so no problem, you'll still be in the South East.

HamishD

Headhuunter wrote:

I've been north and unless you've got pots of cash and can afford something fancy in Islington, Highgate or Hampstead or whatever, it's not worth the money...

This

BigMat wrote:

Have lived in both (Balham for 8 years, Beckenham for the past year). Balham is great, handy for Richmond Park, lots of twenty-somethings, nice bars and restaurants, reasonably close to central London, good transport links (rail and tube). On the downside, its horribly congested, difficult to drive anywhere, and for longer rides you're looking at 20 miles through south London traffic before you get to Surrey hills. Oh, and property there is ludicrously expensive.

Beckenham is a bit more family I guess, better schools and more chance of affording somewhere a bit bigger. Neither of which are an issue if you don't have kids. There's probably a bit less of a buzz around the place, but its nice and chilled out. I love the fact that I can actually do things like drive to the shops, the nearest village, local hospital, tip, whatever, without being stuck in nightmare traffic. For commute its a 3 miles further, but roads generally quieter and there's a nice big hill in the middle which is great for training. And 20 minutes south you're in the nice rolling hills of Kent. Also handy for racing at Crystal Palace.

For me, SE wins but for younger / no kids living SW might edge it.

And this.

Would live in SW or Fulham if I was 10 years younger and renting - or if I was minted - seeing as I am neither I'm quite happy in bandit country for now....

phy2sll2

BigMat wrote:

I love the fact that I can actually do things like drive to the shops, the nearest village, local hospital, tip, whatever, without being stuck in nightmare traffic.

I must be thinking of a different Beckenham?!

t4tomo

samivel wrote:

t4tomo wrote:

Never go south of the River after dark was alway my motto, its bandit territory.

Never go north of the river whatever the time of day, no reason needed is mine.

To be honest I haven't lived in london since the early 90's and most of South East london was pretty dangerous after dark, mind I lived in Islington and if you strayed too far East or West you havd a similar problem.

To be honest why live in London at all. I can do home to office in 45/50 minutes (bike-train-bike), which is quicker than a lot of peoples Tube & bus journey who live "In London" yet can cycle out into the country side in less than 5 mins, plus I'm an hour closer to Yorkshire than being in Central London.

bigmat

phy2sll2 wrote:

BigMat wrote:

I love the fact that I can actually do things like drive to the shops, the nearest village, local hospital, tip, whatever, without being stuck in nightmare traffic.

I must be thinking of a different Beckenham?!

Downe, Keston, Cudham - I can cycle there in under half an hour. Pretty much congestion free so an easy drive as well. From Balham, we couldn't drive anywhere without being stuck in traffic. It really starts to get on your t*ts after a few years (actually a lot sooner than that!).

Anonymous

I live i the SW, it's not bad.

Don't go near Wimbledon though. I have no idea why house prices in SW19/SW20 are so high because most* of the people who live there are miserable snobby tossers.

*Most, not all.

samivel

t4tomo wrote:

samivel wrote:

t4tomo wrote:

Never go south of the River after dark was alway my motto, its bandit territory.

Never go north of the river whatever the time of day, no reason needed is mine.

To be honest I haven't lived in london since the early 90's and most of South East london was pretty dangerous after dark, mind I lived in Islington and if you strayed too far East or West you havd a similar problem.

To be honest why live in London at all. I can do home to office in 45/50 minutes (bike-train-bike), which is quicker than a lot of peoples Tube & bus journey who live "In London" yet can cycle out into the country side in less than 5 mins, plus I'm an hour closer to Yorkshire than being in Central London.

I was only joking . However having lived in the south east all but 1 year in manchester and 6 months in Iraq for my whole life (34yrs) I can honestly say I have never had any trouble at any time of the day.

rick_chasey

I lived in SE for 6 months (recently) in Canada Water (which I wouldn't recommend) and moved to SW in Fulham. The quality of my life since that move has improved 10 fold.

As long as you don't mind the odd chin or two, along with no money after rent, SW is excellent.

Headhuunter

t4tomo wrote:

samivel wrote:

t4tomo wrote:

Never go south of the River after dark was alway my motto, its bandit territory.

Never go north of the river whatever the time of day, no reason needed is mine.

To be honest I haven't lived in london since the early 90's and most of South East london was pretty dangerous after dark, mind I lived in Islington and if you strayed too far East or West you havd a similar problem.

To be honest why live in London at all. I can do home to office in 45/50 minutes (bike-train-bike), which is quicker than a lot of peoples Tube & bus journey who live "In London" yet can cycle out into the country side in less than 5 mins, plus I'm an hour closer to Yorkshire than being in Central London.

That's the thing about London, you can't write off entire quarters like that. You can't say "SE London is dangerous" because as well as areas like New Cross and Deptford which can be "edgy", there is Greenwich, Blackheath and Dulwich - leafy, upper middle class kingdoms. Just as up north you have Islington which encompasses Barnsbury and Canonbury but also plays host to large swathes of dodgy social housing and then right next door yuo have Hackney, Harringay, Clapton etc. London is like a marble cake with good and bad areas jostling for space within metres of each other. Not like Paris which has a preserved centre, like a museum, which is the stomping ground of wealthy whites and then poorer neighbourhoods in the outer arrondissements, very separate from each other. In London rich and poor live shuolder to shoulder.

I love living in London, a lot of action, great services, I can cycle to work in 20-25 mins and be across London by bike at a bar in Clapham in a flash if I want. Wouldn't want to have to commute by train from the country at huge annual cost... If I want to go to the country, as Matt points out, I just jump on my bike from zone 2 SE London you're in Kent in about 45 mins....

dhope

Am 29, no kids, no car, renting.
Sadly not minted.

Beckenham would be feel too far out and I wouldn't go out there in the evenings. Grew up around the corner and while the Rat and Parrot (now Zizzi's) had it's charms when I was 14 I can't do O'Neills, Box Bar or Langtrys without losing the will to live

SE at the moment means Greenwich. Okay, Greenwich East. Fine, Charlton.

I think it's more the hassle of moving from a nice house with someone I get on well with to potentially a less nice house with randoms that I may or may not get on with. Doubt I could stomach the £1000+ rent+bills a month to find somewhere by myself in SW.

samivel

Langtrys closed years ago, went there as a boy!

HamishD

dhope wrote:

SE at the moment means Greenwich. Okay, Greenwich East. Fine, Charlton.

Ha!

My SE is Blackheath. Well, West Blackheath. Ok then Hither Green. Actually nearer Catford . . .