Is Penge the new East Dulwich?

[*Bob*]

You don't just live in Penge or ED though, do you. You live in a place which is conveniently connected to hundreds of other places all of which have stuff happening in - which you also enjoy get to the benefit of, if you can be arsed. That's what London is. There is no comparison anywhere else in the country.

If you can't be arsed and you're not taking advantage of it then you're in the wrong place.

[LondonMix]

Dull compared to what though- central London? Is there anywhere cheaper that you find wildly more interesting with better amenities and things to do? This area doesn't appeal to the very young. They are in Peckham which is equally expensive.

I don't think the relative value of ED to other places is a myth at all. I don't know Penge so I can't really say.

Otta Wrote:

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

> Well I think rahrahrah is bang on. ED has created

> it's own myth, and Penge is doing exactly the

> same. They are both decent places. But there is

> nothing particularly special about either, and it

> could be argued that both are pretty dull.

>

> That doesn't really bother me these days as I have

> a limited social life. But if I was 10 years

> younger I'd be desperate to be elsewhere.

[DaveR]

"My house on Ulverscroft is one of 6 built in 1887...

The cost of the 6 houses was ?420. ?70. each... and the rent for each house was ?5. per year..

And East Dulwich was a lot more gentrified in 1887..."

What's your point?

?70 was probably a year's income in 1887 for a reasonably skilled worker. But they would also have spent something like 50% of their wages on food (today it's something like 10%). And they wouldn't have had a car, or a TV, or a fridge, or state education or healthcare, for that matter. Plus, talking about gentrification in 1887 doesn't make any sense at all.

Whatever point you think you're making, it's bollocks.

[Jeremy]

I don't think there's any myth. If people really did think it was an incredible omg totes amazing place to live, it would be more expensive. As it is... probably about average for zone 2/3.

[LondonMix]

Its about average for zone two but relatively expensive for South / South East London and more expensive than East London. The averages in the north and west are much higher as you'd assume but they have much better transport links.

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> I don't think there's any myth. If people really

> did think it was an incredible omg totes amazing

> place to live, it would be more expensive. As it

> is... probably about average for zone 2/3.

[Otta]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> Dull compared to what though

Camberwell, Peckham, Brixton, quite a lot of other places reasonably close by.

Look I'm not dissing ED, it is what it is, and it's nice enough. But in my opinion (and that's all it is), it has become more dull in the last 10 years.

[DulwichFox]

DaveR Wrote:

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

> "My house on Ulverscroft is one of 6 built in

> 1887...

>

> The cost of the 6 houses was ?420. ?70. each...

> and the rent for each house was ?5. per year..

> And East Dulwich was a lot more gentrified in

> 1887..."

>

> What's your point?

>

> ?70 was probably a year's income in 1887 for a

> reasonably skilled worker. But they would also

> have spent something like 50% of their wages on

> food (today it's something like 10%). And they

> wouldn't have had a car, or a TV, or a fridge, or

> state education or healthcare, for that matter.

> Plus, talking about gentrification in 1887 doesn't

> make any sense at all.

>

> Whatever point you think you're making, it's

> bollocks.

I was not trying to make a point... It was meant as a piece of Historic Interest...

Well of interest to people who are interested in the area and not out to belittle someone at every oppotunity.

Therefore NOT bollocks..

DF

[Jeremy]

Otta Wrote:

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

> Look I'm not dissing ED, it is what it is, and

> it's nice enough. But in my opinion (and that's

> all it is), it has become more dull in the last 10 years.

ED was a better place to be young and free 10 years ago. It's a better place to be old and with kids now.

[????]

Otta Wrote:

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

> LondonMix Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Dull compared to what though

>

>

> Camberwell, Peckham, Brixton, quite a lot of other

> places reasonably close by.

>

> Look I'm not dissing ED, it is what it is, and

> it's nice enough. But in my opinion (and that's

> all it is), it has become more dull in the last 10

> years.

You are aware of the Psychology of 'Projection' I presume Otta :)

[DulwichFox]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Otta Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Look I'm not dissing ED, it is what it is, and

> > it's nice enough. But in my opinion (and that's

> > all it is), it has become more dull in the last

> 10 years.

>

> ED was a better place to be young and free 10

> years ago. It's a better place to be old and with

> kids now.

Well I am not young now and I wasn't 'young' young 10 years ago.. many of the people I knew back then are no longer with us..

I get on with young people a lot better than people my own age.. Some of these people are being forced out of the area

to be able to buy their first homes, have a family and find schools..

I do not believe E.D. is a better place to be old with or without kids.. But where is.. ?

Foxy

[LondonMix]

Exactly this. I'd say Brixton, Peckham and ED are all as nice as each other but just appeal to different demographics. They are close enough to each other that they all cost more or less the same. It takes what, 15 minutes to walk to Peckham from most of ED if you want the night life there. Peckham and ED in particular basically share amenities.

What's good about ED is that you are equally as close the Dulwich Village amenities (sports clubs, museum etc) and Forest Hill (Horniman, etc) and it is only 15 min from Brixton on the 37. I feel like here you get access a lot of the amenities of South London most easily.

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Otta Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Look I'm not dissing ED, it is what it is, and

> > it's nice enough. But in my opinion (and that's

> > all it is), it has become more dull in the last

> 10 years.

>

> ED was a better place to be young and free 10

> years ago. It's a better place to be old and with

> kids now.

[Jeremy]

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> I do not believe E.D. is a better place to be old

> with or without kids.. But where is.. ?

Let me clarify - it is a good place to be a parent (by "old" I was being a little self-deprecating), if you can afford it. Of course, it is overpriced, as is all of London and the SE... but separate discussion.

[DaveR]

"Its about average for zone two but relatively expensive for South / South East London and more expensive than East London"

Correct

http://maps.cdrc.ac.uk/#/metrics/houseprices/default/BTTTFTT/12/-0.1119/51.5055/

[LondonMix]

Most of the areas of zone 2 that are more expensive or equal in price to ED overlap with central London. Given this isn't central London and has no tube, the area is fairly expensive. Its also nicer than other zone 2 areas that fall into that category (IMO) for the reasons already stated.

DaveR Wrote:

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

> "Its about average for zone two but relatively

> expensive for South / South East London and more

> expensive than East London"

>

> Correct

>

> http://maps.cdrc.ac.uk/#/metrics/houseprices/defau

> lt/BTTTFTT/12/-0.1119/51.5055/

[Otta]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> I'd say Brixton, Peckham and ED are

> all as nice as each other but just appeal to

> different demographics.

See I guess it depends on how you define "nice". I don't think Brixton is anywhere near as "nice" as ED, but there is way more fun to be had there.

???? Wrote:

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

> You are aware of the Psychology of 'Projection' I

> presume Otta :)

Heh, yes, and I get what you're getting at. But I stand by my point. I can't imagine any of the pubs / bars of ED appealing much to a 25 year old these days. 2002 - 07 I think it had more to offer that age group. But yes, it may just be that the area has grown up with it's residents (something which I am trying to resist).

[Jeremy]

If you insist on judging ED exclusively by SE London standards, then yes it's one of the most popular places (after Greenwich and Blackheath I'd guess). But looking at the whole of London, within a similar proximity to the centre - it's not a hotspot by any means. SW/W/N all more popular (and yes the transport is of course part of that). So my original statement stands.

[LondonMix]

I'm not disagreeing with you Jeremy. I think it's perceived as nicer than other areas with no tube that aren't part of central London but still in zone 2 for the reasons already stated.

Otta-- by nice I just mean desirable to live in because of what's there not posh per se or village-like.

[Jeremy]

I think the key (for me) is that despite the price rises (which have been London-wide), this area still offers the best combination of proximity to the centre, "nice-ness", and price.

[LondonMix]

Yep agree 100%.

Transport is better than elsewhere not on the tube as well given Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye are walking distance from me. I can get in the City, West End, Docklands, Shoreditch within about 30-40 minutes max which honestly is pretty good. South West London, which we looked at and quickly realised wasn't for us was just not as well connected. Everything goes in via Waterloo. You can change at Clapham junction but you can do that with the Ell plus you have direct trains into Blackfriars, Victoria, London Bridge, etc.

I think the lack of tube puts loads of people off but its actually not that bad so feels like relatively good value (despite being over valued like the rest of London). I got an Uber pool home from work the other day for 10 quid. That's the joy of not actually being that far out.

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> I think the key (for me) is that despite the price

> rises (which have been London-wide), this area

> still offers the best combination of proximity to

> the centre, "nice-ness", and price.

[????]

I've long banged on here that the lack of tube helps the feel of 'niceness' in SE22 - less transient a bit more community etc; I hope it never comes here.

[Seabag]

Let's be honest, the weirdo oddball count is favourably low in ED

It's a little higher in Penge

Even higher in West Croydon

Bellenden Village has one or two safe ones

"oh look, there she is....and him!"

[LondonMix]

I'm not sure where he calls home (seen him in West Norwood and Brixton) but one regular character South London character is the old bloke that dresses in very skimpy women's lingerie even in the dead of winter.

[Jeremy]

I'm not as old as I look, LM.

[LondonMix]

Haha! I'll call out next time I see you

[????]

200