The Real East Dulwich

[Huguenot]

In another moment of crashing interestingness, I sourced the attached pdf of East Dulwich Neighborhood statistics from the 2001 census!

Cool huh!

Highlights are:

10,840 individuals in 4,699 dwellings.

We have no more kids (0-4 yrs old) here than the London average, but less than Southwark overall.

We have 20% more 20-44 yr olds than London as a whole, and 40% more than nationally.

We have 25% claiming to have no religion (not even Jedi) compared with 14% nationally.

We're healthier than Southwark, London or National averages

We're more employed than Southwark, London or National averages

We're 10% self-employed!!

There's only 588 post-school students!

We're incredibly well educated (44% of adults degree+)

19% completely own their own houses

39% own their houses with a mortgage

Enjoy!

[Keef]

I suspect that those figures would look quite different now, 6 years on... Could be wrong :-S

[Muttley]

I reckon the number of infants has doubled since 2001. You can add in my six for a start. (I exaggerate slightly.)

[Huguenot]

Well possibly - however higher birth rates are traditionally the province of families with lower employment rates, lower peak academic qualification and lower home ownership. In fact a comparable example of 'how ED was' might be Charlton: a similar social and environmental breakdown, but less well employed, less highly qualified, and birth rates almost 20% higher.

If ED is getting 'claphamised' or 'islingtonised' then the brutal truth is that numbers of kids are more likely to be dropping not rising. The DINKY effect (double-income no kids yet) that we'd really anticipate in clapham-isation is sutained by the census.

It's more likely that the view of ED as populated by baby machines is going to go the same way as the evidence on 3 wheel buggies and SUVs - it doesn't appear to bear up under scrutiny. It may be that higher-earning or higher qualified ladies are more willing to be social with the kids (p'raps spending that money?), instead of staying at home.

More likely also is that ED is changing in a way reflected in the census: it's substantially more multicutural than the rest of the UK, it's educated, it's home owning employed people with a pronounced lean towards secularism compared with the average citizen.

If we don't accept the figures it may say more about us than the figures :)) !!

[Muttley]

You speak a lot of sense, Huguenot, but on the child front I can offer some harder evidence for you. Let's look at the houses on my stretch of road, the ones whose occupants I can trace back to 2001. Six years ago there were 3 young children in those 20 houses/flats. In those same houses there are now a staggering 14 children aged under five, with at least one more on the way. The parents aren't moving (a)because they love it here and (b)because in any case, it costs a fortune to move. Another piece of anecdotal evidence is that a couple of years ago, the number of NCT groups in East Dulwich suddenly doubled, at least I think that's what Mrs Muttley told me the other day. Not conclusive, but a sign that something significant may have happened in SE22 recently. I'm going to guess that East Dulwich will steadily regress to more typical birth rates in the next few years.

[spadetownboy]

you,re all forgetting those who were 0-4 6 yrs ago are now 6-10, therefore the newborns since the census are just replacing those who have grown up and moved on to better things eg primary school.so probably no real change.

[Muttley]

No, what I'm saying is that the toddlers haven't just been replaced, they've quadrupled, at least in this sample road. It's a change in the demographics. If this pattern has been repeated elsewhere in SE22 it suggests a lot more competition for primary school places. If families stay put here, there could be a heck of a lot of teenagers hanging around in Lordship lane in ten years time. Gulp.

[Huguenot]

Now that would indeed be terrifying, we seem to be about 30% below averages elsewhere for that recalcitrant bunch!

Incidentally if anyone else wants a play for compare and contrast time this is the link.

Keef, this is sydenham ward - you appear to be inundated with ladies!!

[bawdy-nan]

I love these figures and am slightly ashamed to say that I'd already looked at them in some detail ...

I think something that is interesting, in light of the issues posted about on this forum, is that only just over half the people in east dulwich live in houses that they own.

As the house prices continue to increase there's a growing gulf between the two tribes.

All the delighted crowing on the site about the increase in capital is at the expense of a rather large section of ED, especially as there is a much bigger than average number of people renting from private(er) landlords. Obviously its a situation happening all over London, and throughout the country, but this forum puts a focus on it glinty razor edge.

[Huguenot]

Indeedy - great point BN.

I'm surprised that the private landlords figure is 18%, I'd come to the conslusion that the speculators were rampant, but I never really envisaged that every fifth house was a private mint!

[Ant]

I really don't think I've seen any delighted crowing about house prices on this site.

[Huguenot]

:))

[bawdy-nan]

certainly not a consistent note, I agree, but there is an argument quite often put forward about the "improvements" to ED (shops etc) being "great" for house prices.

[macroban]

What is the Census definition of "East Dulwich"?

[Huguenot]

Here's the original Macroban, it's got a map in the corner showing the ward.

[macroban]

Many thanks.

So "East Dulwich" is not contiguous with SE22.

[Huguenot]

Not quite - there's not much in it:

SE22 Postal District

ED Electoral Ward

 

[buggie]

interesting to see those figures but wonder how accurate they are - I lived in ED when that census was undertaken living in a conversion flat. While clearly having 2 doorbells on the front door only one form was posted through which the downstairs neighbours took. Despite calling the "helpline" no other form was sent so I'm guessing me and my housemate will appear to have not existed.

Still, means that in generations to come if geaneolgy is still as popular I'll cause my great great great grandchildren some confusion!!

[Huguenot]

Hi buggie - in research of this kind the researchers do two kinds of study - passive and active polling. It's accepted that not everyone will answer the questionnaire, so they also sample areas actively.

They use the results of the active polling to alter the passive polling to deliver a more robust overall figure.

The incidents such as the one you describe are then taken into account for the overall 'macro' figures.