Where would you live in London if you…

[Twittwhoo]

…had soon-to-be-secondary aged kids (and planned on state schools)

…liked feeling ‘in London’ (ie not suburbia)

…valued the usual stuff - access to green space, independent shops and businesses, villagey neighbourhood-y vibes, etc etc

…were open-minded to north and south

I live here and definitely count Dulwich as suburban, but the only reason you can’t see the centre of London from it is because it’s flat. Pop up the hill to the Horniman or Blythe and you can see for miles!

I live near Dulwich Village too. It is neither urban nor suburban it is very villagey. However,Herne Hill and East Dulwich, a stones throw away are a mix of urban and suburban. It really is down to individual streets as to what they are like. You can see the Shard from my window but my street is pretty middle of the road residential.
FWIW the Charter schools are an excellent state school choice in these areas

The reality is OP wants London feel i.e. central plus school - i.e. family areas - Brits like suburbia so families flog to family areas that have family homes and leafy streets e.g. Muswell Hill or Dulwich or Hammersmith. In the centre, most families in zone 1 that I know go private for senior school or stay where they are because they love the area, moved there when they were younger and the schools are ok ish. Thats just the reality of London. You want zone one and great schools- get your kid into Wetherby or London city or whatever but it will cost you. Maybe Stoke Newington used to the exception for the school, Crouch end's school is ok ish though not great; Telegraph Hill has an ok ish school but is also suburban; Clapham, Ealing etc are all lovely places but also rather 'suburban. I dont know of any great state school in say Earl's court - or North Kensington OP doesnt have the budget for Holland Park school.

So it's all a series of compromises.

Wimbledon, Collier’s Wood and Norbury are not inner London - that’s the point.

Balham, Streatham and Norbury are, and you could scrape a house for 1.2, but they’re not very nice.

@Mirabai plus Balham, Streatham and Norbury are all suburban - well the areas that are ok ish. Maybe bits around Highbury and Islington station close to a couple of state secondary schools are less suburban - but the budget is too small for a decent family home. If you are Catholic - then you can do Oratory in Fulham. There arent many though

It depends what you mean though. There are the rich leafy suburbs of inner London. And then there’s London suburbia which are on the outskirts - like Ruislip or Bromley or Mitcham with endless 30s semis and nothing much going on.

I’ve never heard anyone call Dulwich suburban but it is a leafy suburb.

As above, Muswell Hill, Hammersmith, Clapham, Dulwich are not ”suburban” in the way the term is commonly used, the latter 3 are inner London for a start.

What you mean is that the British like to live in houses in leafy areas with gardens, compared to say Parisians and Milanese who are happier to live in flats.

are not ”suburban” in the way the term is commonly used

What is the common use though?

Yes my borough is inner London but again it's nothing like living in Z1, there is definitely a difference.

There are the rich leafy suburbs of inner London. And then there’s London suburbia which are on the outskirts - like Ruislip or Bromley or Mitcham with endless 30s semis and nothing much going on.

@Mirabai where do you live?

There are endless 30s properties in many parts of z3.

Wimbledon, Collier’s Wood and Norbury are not inner London - that’s the point.

So z3 isn't inner London? I thought z3 was inner London according to you or another poster. Wimbledon isn't very different to Wandsworth so why is one inner London?

Balham, Streatham and Norbury are, and you could scrape a house for 1.2, but they’re not very nice.

There are plenty of houses in these areas for under 1.2m, particularly Norbury.

I’ve never heard anyone call Dulwich suburban but it is a leafy suburb.

So suburban is different to suburb? what is the difference?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_London

Because Wimbledon is under Merton borough which is defined as outer London. The outer and inner boroughs of London aren't subjective they are defined accordingly.

I would define suburbia as somewhere on the "outskirts of town". Inner London boroughs certainly don't equate to suburbia to me. Hampstead Heath is leafy I wouldn't class it as suburban.

And to those saying Dulwich doesn't have a tube so is suburban - welcome to south London where lots of our stations don't have the luxury of a tube. Peckham and Clapham Junction don't have tubes they aren't suburban or cut off from London we have the overground and trains instead.

Sure, that’s because it’s inner but it’s not central London, there’s a difference. But then there’s a difference between zone 3 and suburbia like Croydon or Ruislip.

Suburbs = the outskirts of a city. Generally residential properties with fewer amenities and a reputation for being dull and quiet.

”The Buddha of Suburbia” was based in Kureishi’s experience of growing up in Bromley, for example.

Dulwich or Clapham Common

@JogOnNed but why does an inner London borough mean something is not suburban?

So is the definition is outskirts of the centre? I definitely think I grew up & live on the outskirts of central London. If you were coming to London as a tourist you wouldn't stay & only visit z3 & say you've seen London.

Slight tangent but Clapham at least has 3 tube stations. I do feel that parts of SE is quite cut off due to lack of tube. Dulwich does feel like that for me & everyone I know who lives there uses the car quite a bit.

Sure, that’s because it’s inner but it’s not central London, there’s a difference. But then there’s a difference between zone 3 and suburbia like Croydon or Ruislip.

But why does a leafy street of 30s semis not count as suburban because it's in inner London?

Of course there's a difference between z3 & Croydon. But there's also a difference between Mitcham & Croydon or West Norwood & Balham. Or a difference between Clapham North & Clapham Common.

Suburbs = the outskirts of a city. Generally residential properties with fewer amenities and a reputation for being dull and quiet.

I would argue parts of Balham, Streatham, etc are far quieter than Mitcham!

So suburbia is bad because it equals dull & quiet? I didn't know that 😆

Not the outskirts of the centre, the outskirts of the city.

London has expanded so much that what used to be the outskirts are now inner London. And places that used to be in Surrey or Kent like Richmond or Kingston or Bromley are now London boroughs in their own right.

Wandsworth used to be part of Surrey I'm sure!

There are 1930s properties in Chelsea too, but it’s not in outlying districts of London.

Not the outskirts of the centre, the outskirts of the city.

What I'm saying is I just don't see a difference between parts of Wandsworth & Wimbledon in terms of only one being on the outskirts of the city & one being outskirts of the centre!

There are 1930s properties in Chelsea too, but it’s not in outlying districts of London.

I never said it was did I, it's z1? I just commented on your point about endless 30s semis

Wimbledon

Central London is only zones 1 & 2 for me, as per the tube map! Zones 3 & 4 are more residential imho and zones 5 & 6 are the suburbs and definitely outer London! Perhaps we could split inner London into zones 1-3 and outer 4-6? 🤣