Where would you consider the North-South and East-West divides to be within London?

[PTR 444]

Heading westwards from the Thames Estuary, it is a no brainier that anything north of the river is considered North London, and anything south is South London. East of Central London, the river split is roughly in the middle of the conurbation, and this remains true through Central and West London up until Kew Bridge where the river begins to meander southwards towards Kingston. West of this point, a much larger proportion of Greater London is north of the Thames than south of it, therefore I define South London from this point as being anywhere south of the M4 and west of Chiswick High Road/Kew Road between the M4 and the Thames.

As for an East-West divide, if one is even relevant, I’d consider anywhere west of the A23/A3/London Bridge/Great North Road to be West London, and anywhere east of there to be East London. This divides London into four neat quarters, bounded by arterial roads and a river.

Would you say that the above description is accurate to the administrative and cultural divisions of London, and would anyone beg to differ? Please feel free to define what you believe are your own N-S and E-W divides within London.

 

[telstarbox]

In my head South London is the more densely urban sweep from Battersea through Camberwell, Peckham, Greenwich and Woolwich. It gets noticeably more suburban in the areas a bit further out - Putney, Dulwich, Eltham etc.

 

[W-on-Sea]

The problem is I don't think that London really does divide into four neat quarters, in terms of allegiances, historical links, or continuing culture!
Partly there is the urban/suburban divide (is Erith really SE London in the same way that Battersea is SW London?), partly there is the continuing legacy, in some, but not places,. of the pre-1965 (in some cases, pre-1889) boundaries - Essex-in-London, Kent-in-London, Middlesex and in some areas Surrey-in-London still live on... (in the latter case the radically different political allegiances. when compared with the rest of Greater London, of the boroughs of Kingston and Sutton and Richmond highlight their non-London nature and origins....wheresa Croydon nevermind other former territories of Surrey have by now been thoroughly assimilated to London norms)

The N/NW postcode split makes sense to me too: the NW postcodes are mostly a fairly cohesive and distinct set of areas that don't look to the same places as most of the N postcodes. And Uxbridge is patently in no meaningful sense other than the pedantically administatively "North-west London") (Should the S postcode be taken back from Sheffield to form a coherent central chunk of London maybe centred around the Morden Branch of the Northern Line? Perhaps. Although Hackney balances on a boundary carefully, I'm not convinced NE is needed in the capital again though).

In the East, the Rivers Lea and Roding serve important boundaries - gradiations of eastness/Essexness, maybe. But clearly East London spreads on both sides of probably both of those rivers now. (Is Ilford meaningfully in Essex any more? Less so than even 20 years ago. Romford, though?)

I think my boundaries, however ill-defined and uncertain, would divide the city into not four chunks but rather nine@

1. Continuity Middlesex (focal points Heathrow, Hayes, Uxbridge, Harrow, Enfield) (This forms an L-shape running almost the entire height of the western boundary of present-day Greater London, and also sweeping East along the northern borders as far as Enfield, probably inevitably annexing a bit of historic Herts on the way)

The other territories are more or less arranged in belts running west to east:

The northernmost belt

2. NW London (focal points Edgware, Finchley, Golders Green, Hampstead, Kilburn, Camden)
3. N London (focal points Tottenham, Archway, Holloway, Wood Green)
4. E London (everywhere East of the Lea, including Essex-in-London, plus Hackney & Tower Hamlets)

Central belt (central area only)
5. Central London (essentially inside the Circle Line and a few bits outside south of the river)

The southermost belt
6. Surrey-in-London (the boroughs of Kingston and Sutton, and some of Richmond south of the river)
7. SW London (focal points Wandsworth, Wimbledon, Battersea, Clapham)
8. S London (focal points Brixton, Norwood, Croydon, Lewisham)
9. SE London (focal points Greenwich, Woolwich, Bromley, Bexley)

I wonder if rivers could be used in part to define the boundaries between SW and S, and S and SE. The Wandle, or Ravensbourne perhaps?

 

[91104]

In the 1980s different parts of London could be defined by what buses were in use. East and South East London it was Leyland Titans. South London was B20 DMSs and South West,West and North London was Metrobuses. That was until route tendering came along and changed things.

 

[Magdalia]

This is a perspective from the outside.

anything north of the river is considered North London, and anything south is South London.

Everything south of the river is South London, but everything north of the river is not North London.

In the East, the Rivers Lea and Roding serve important boundaries

East London is almost all east of the River Lea and north of the River Thames. The only additional bits are a few places west of the River Lea, and south of the Lea Bridge Road, like Bow, Poplar and Stepney.

Kew Bridge where the river begins to meander southwards towards Kingston

The southern boundary of West London is the River Thames. I think the best indicator of the northern boundary is Western Avenue.

The remaining bits, north of the Thames, and between the River Lea and the Western Avenue, are North London.

 

[zero]

I have lived in Harrow, West Hampstead and Richmond. The first two are NW London and absolutely not West London nor North London. Richmond is definitely SW London and not South London nor West London.

When talking about house prices the Daily Mail describes Richmond as being in Surrey and when talking about crime or more neutral stories it describes Richmond as being in (South (west)) London.

The other places in London where I have lived are incontrovertibly N, W or S. I know very little about East London except that it's actually in South Africa.

 

[nw1]

I'm an outsider too, and I don't visit the suburban areas very much (indeed, some areas I've never visited at all) - so what I have to say may be completely false but I tend to associate the areas with the rail network that serves them.

So SW London = the area served by the Waterloo lines, and south of the river. West of the line mentioned in South London, below.
South London = the area generally served by the old Central Division/LBSCR. Basically east of a line following the SWML as far as Raynes Park thence south to Epsom, and west of the London Bridge-Croydon route.
SE London = anything east of that and south of the river.
West London = the area round the GWML, Ealing, Hayes etc, and south to the river
North West London = north of the GWML and southwest of the WCML
North London = east of the WCML and west of the ECML
East London = east of the ECML and north of the river
I don't think of there being a separate "North East London", I barely hear that term at all.

 

[Busaholic]

Heading westwards from the Thames Estuary, it is a no brainier that anything north of the river is considered North London, and anything south is South London. East of Central London, the river split is roughly in the middle of the conurbation, and this remains true through Central and West London up until Kew Bridge where the river begins to meander southwards towards Kingston. West of this point, a much larger proportion of Greater London is north of the Thames than south of it, therefore I define South London from this point as being anywhere south of the M4 and west of Chiswick High Road/Kew Road between the M4 and the Thames.

As for an East-West divide, if one is even relevant, I’d consider anywhere west of the A23/A3/London Bridge/Great North Road to be West London, and anywhere east of there to be East London. This divides London into four neat quarters, bounded by arterial roads and a river.

Would you say that the above description is accurate to the administrative and cultural divisions of London, and would anyone beg to differ? Please feel free to define what you believe are your own N-S and E-W divides within London.

London can't be divided into four neat quarters, full stop. West London and East London are situated entirely north of the Thames and are separated by many miles, whereas South West and South East London virtually merge into each other with a few suburbs round the divide that are not exclusively claimed by either and can be termed South London e.g. Norbury. Even that is simplistic, but it's better than your attempted rewriting of the Great Wen's history. And there is definitely a Central London, almost all of it North of the Thames, though it pains me as an exiled S.E. Londoner to admit it.

 

[Mojo]

When Percy Ingle still existed it was easy to spot the border between East and West as it was where you stopped seeing them, and started seeing Wenzels.

Given that Archway station had a Wenzels opposite and there was a Percy Ingle near Nag’s Head on the Holloway Road, I’d say the border is somewhere near Upper Holloway station.

 

[Galvanize]

As a South East Londoner, I myself split it all up by Boroughs! Lewisham, Greenwich, Bromley and Bexley are very much South East London.

Southwark (most of*), Lambeth, and Croydon are most definitely South London…but the tricky one is Wandsworth, it has areas that would be classed as South London like Battersea or Balham…but Wandsworth or Putney seem more like South West London!

*East of Tower Bridge, you’re no longer in South London, you’re in South East London.

All in my opinion!

 

[PsychoMouse]

I don't think you can use the Thames as a distinct border unless you accept that a geographic central zone exists which is neither north, south, east or west. Waterloo isn't in south London much like Westminster isn't north.

Personally I'd say east London is anywhere past Aldgate, north anything past Euston Road, South anything past an imaginary line from Battersea-Elephant&Castle-Tower Bridge, and west is anything past the far end of Hyde Park... Anything else is just central London.

 

[telstarbox]

True but most of SE1 is not as busy and builtup as the rest of Zone 1 - it has quite a 'backwater' character which I love.

 

[778]

I'm an outsider too, and I don't visit the suburban areas very much (indeed, some areas I've never visited at all) - so what I have to say may be completely false but I tend to associate the areas with the rail network that serves them.

So SW London = the area served by the Waterloo lines, and south of the river. West of the line mentioned in South London, below.
South London = the area generally served by the old Central Division/LBSCR. Basically east of a line following the SWML as far as Raynes Park thence south to Epsom, and west of the London Bridge-Croydon route.
SE London = anything east of that and south of the river.
West London = the area round the GWML, Ealing, Hayes etc, and south to the river
North West London = north of the GWML and southwest of the WCML
North London = east of the WCML and west of the ECML
East London = east of the ECML and north of the river
I don't think of there being a separate "North East London", I barely hear that term at all.

Generally agree with this, but I would include North East London as east of the ECML and north of the Great Eastern Main Line, with East London being anything south of the Great Eastern main line and north of the river.

Would you consider area around the Waterloo lines north of the river to be considered South West London or West London?