Jump to content

Recommended Posts

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> They are/were very expensive though.


Oh yes, I didn't go in there again after seeing an identical bowl to the one I had bought a couple of days before at Sainsbury's for ?3 for sale in Green's for ?18.99.

They are going because of a huge rent hike. So even if this shop isn't your thing (I will miss it personally) then it could be one you like going next, if this pattern continues.


In relation to what replaces it, the council are allowed to limit the different types of stall in the market so there is not too much of the same thing, but seem not to be able to do so for the main shopping streets.

The rent hikes are a serious concern. It absolutely hammers useful specialist independent shops like these who were making a modest but viable return before the hike.


With the housing market cooling rapidly we may also see amalgamation of estate agents (as we saw already with banks for different reasons).


I wonder if this might mark a watershed in the fortune of Lordship Lane (visions of the Threshers site I fear). ED used to be quite a poor part of London: there is no guarantee it will not return to that if both central and local government are not more careful with their policies.

jaywalker Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I wonder if this might mark a watershed in the

> fortune of Lordship Lane (visions of the Threshers

> site I fear). ED used to be quite a poor part of

> London: there is no guarantee it will not return

> to that if both central and local government are

> not more careful with their policies.


Threshers has remained empty for a long time because the owner only wants to lease it to an off license - there is a thread somewhere on EDF. Saying East Dulwich was a poor part of London is misleading: certainly it was primarily working / lower middle class, developed with office clerks working in the centre of London in mind. While mainly residents may not have had a lot of money, the area was not "poor" in the sense of "deprived".


ETA I read a couple of days ago that one of the reasons Dulwich Estate gave over land to form Dulwich Park was to form a barrier against the newly emerging East Dulwich and keep the hoi polloi out of Dulwich Village.

jaywalker Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I wonder if this might mark a watershed in the

> fortune of Lordship Lane (visions of the Threshers

> site I fear). ED used to be quite a poor part of

> London: there is no guarantee it will not return

> to that if both central and local government are

> not more careful with their policies.


Threshers has remained empty for a long time because the owner only wants to lease it to an off license - there is a thread somewhere on EDF. Saying East Dulwich was a poor part of London is misleading: certainly it was primarily working / lower middle class, developed with office clerks working in the centre of London in mind. While mainly residents may not have had a lot of money, the area was not "poor" in the sense of "deprived".


ETA I read a couple of days ago that one of the reasons Dulwich Estate gave over land to form Dulwich Park was to form a barrier against the newly emerging East Dulwich and keep the hoi polloi out of Dulwich Village.

===================


nxjen - I think that's why Jaywalker used the expression "QUITE a poor area" !!

By London standards it was never slums, but 25yrs ago it was a million miles from where it is today.

>

> nxjen - I think that's why Jaywalker used the

> expression "QUITE a poor area" !!

> By London standards it was never slums, but 25yrs

> ago it was a million miles from where it is today.


...together with, Hackney, Hoxton, Mile End, Whitechapel, Tooting, Acton, Queens Park, Fulham, Shepherds Bush, Battersea, Clapham North, Brixton, etc etc etc etc etc

I have the Booth map on my wall. At the end of the C19th ED was relatively prosperous. You can see this both from how nice some of the semi-detached houses are (especially when they've been cleaned) and also from the tendency of developers to start packing houses really close together (especially on the East side of LL) to profit from the relative prosperity.


My 'quite poor' comment referred to what happened after WW2. There was I believe a significant downturn in the relative incomes of people here, with properties not maintained and so on. Isn't it really only in the last 15 years or so that ED became so prosperous? I have in mind things like RELATIVE house prices, kind of shop, and so on.

We moved to ED 28 years ago - in those days LL was quite run down, with at least 2 shops selling second hand prams etc. And house prices were 'realistic'. I would agree that it is in the last 15-20 years that the range and type of shop etc. has become gentrified and high(er) end. Like so many areas of London is has been on a roller coaster - currently either still coming up or possibly peaking. The varied quality (and size) of houses bears testimony to that. The fact that it is surrounded by, and embedded with, green spaces suggests that it at least started high.
Landlords want to maximise the return on their investment so they continually increase the rent shop owners pay and when a business can no longer afford the rent it sadly has a choice to cease trading so it does not incur a loss or try's to continue with the likelihood of running at a loss and going into debt at which point it makes no sense to continue running the business. As shoppers we lose out but the landlord waits for the next business who can afford the rent and so the circle starts all over again.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I am sure our lovely Evri delivery team, who do a firkin hard job, take the time between drops to read the East Dulwich Forum 🤫
    • For every person like OP that moans their doorbell was rung and there was a knock on the door, there's someone else moaning that they didn't hear the delivery drivers. If you've ever done delivery work you'll know that loads of people's bells don't work. The delivery drivers probably goes to a hundred doors a day: press bell, knock door, drop package, move on. If you don't like delivery drivers, insist on delivery by Royal Mail where the workers have wages and a union - or just stop ordering shit online that's artificially cheap. But most of us (me included) don't want that
    • If someone comes to my house and bangs my door and slams my gate, I'd speak to them about it nicely and ask if they would please not do that. And then subsequently less nicely if they keep doing it, ending in reporting them.  We don't slam doors at home and I don't put up with that either. I can see us moving to a culture where we bribe drivers to be nice by tipping them, but we shouldn't have to. It's not necessary - does not matter if they are on minimum wage or not, or if society means that delivery services are outsourced or whatever reason anyone would like to concoct.     
    • We’ve got a gap on the roof of our shed that needs patching  don’t want to buy a huge roll so hoping someone has some leftover  happy to collect/reimburse 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...