London housing

grudas · 4 Dec 2012 at 22:04

look in north london

i swear you can find a hole-ish place for around 700.. but if you don't want that forget it and stick with what you have

or cycle half way for e.g. so you can save on your travel card

delta0 · 4 Dec 2012 at 22:23

grudas said:
look in north london i swear you can find a hole-ish place for around 700.. but if you don't want that forget it and stick with what you have or cycle half way for e.g. so you can save on your travel card

You would need to go out to a zone 5 hole (perhaps high barnet or potter's bar). Generally north is the most expensive part of London because the properties are bigger, the schools are better and the transport links are very good (as with all areas there are exceptions of course). East would be the only chance of something "cheap" relative to other parts of London.

Eliot · 4 Dec 2012 at 22:43

Theres so rubbish in here geeeez

The north/east is the best for that price as you have a combination of decent travel links and prices of flats which will work our cheaper than anywhere else

You have enough for a flat share in shoreditch. I know this because i know someone who does it
Nice house shares start at 550 in zone 2
I am renting a flat (albeit studio) in zone 2 near holloway road /highbury and islington tube for 750 a month.
In walthamstow you can get a one bedroom for thay

Eliot · 4 Dec 2012 at 22:45

kwerk said:
i dont know why anyone would want to live in london.

well i suppose it's the same reason people buy apple stuff.

Money?
Career aspirations?
Always something to do?

Downsides:
Tourists at tube stations staring at a turnstile for ten minutes
Driving

Also people mentioning bad areas etc etc is a load of rubbish.
Subject to a few exceptions London is not so simple as "nice" and "horrible" areas.
Is the sort of place where you have groups of streets that are nice.
But around any corner can be a **** hole.
There are also places like dalston, which may not look great. But are actually ok areas.
You cant apply the same formula to it that you might apply to Newport/Cardiff or Bristol to take a few examples.
Each of those has nice and not nice areas. Usually clearly defined

delta0 · 4 Dec 2012 at 22:51

Eliot said:
Theres so rubbish in here geeeez

The north/east is the best for that price as you have a combination of decent travel links and prices of flats which will work our cheaper than anywhere else

You have enough for a flat share in shoreditch. I know this because i know someone who does it
Nice house shares start at 550 in zone 2
I am renting a flat (albeit studio) in zone 2 near holloway road /highbury and islington tube for 750 a month.
In walthamstow you can get a one bedroom for thay

Shoreditch and Walthamstow are east areas which are generally cheapest of all the areas.

v0n · 4 Dec 2012 at 22:56

Google up camelot security through occupation. I work with people who live in those kind of properties (sometimes even exotic, like empty bank) for years at fractional prices. If you don't have kids, nothing beats that setup.

Eliot · 4 Dec 2012 at 22:57

Yup Walthamstow is kinda north east.
Holloway is decent but i would avoid tottenham....

Eliot · 4 Dec 2012 at 22:58

v0n said:
Google up camelot security through occupation. I work with people who live in those kind of properties (sometimes even exotic, like empty bank) for years at fractional prices. If you don't have kids, nothing beats that setup.

Hes right.
Providing you dont mind moving around its perfect

delta0 · 4 Dec 2012 at 22:59

Eliot said:
Yup east/north east areas are best
Holloway
in the north for example

I agree. North east to south east are the key areas for cheaper properties. In contrast north west to south west are more expensive, some areas in particular are obscenely expensive.

'Harry · 4 Dec 2012 at 23:02

v0n said:
Google up camelot security through occupation. I work with people who live in those kind of properties (sometimes even exotic, like empty bank) for years at fractional prices. If you don't have kids, nothing beats that setup.

Good idea. These pop up times for old care homes around here. £35 a week rent (bills all inclusive) just have to be willing to move at a weeks notice.

Just to stop vandals and the like whilst waiting for new buyer/refurbish etc

dowie · 5 Dec 2012 at 00:49

Eliot said:
The north/east is the best for that price as you have a combination of decent travel links and prices of flats which will work our cheaper than anywhere else

no it won't - and its not a subjective thing either - South East London has the cheapest property prices

RimBlock · 5 Dec 2012 at 05:17

Ilford is just outside London to the east. The area is ok, zone 3 iirc on the mainline to Liverpool St (other end is Southend) with changes at Stratford for the Central line, DLR or Jubilee Line. Just down the road is the Gant Hill central line station. Seems to be lots of new build flats available at Gants Hill but it is a very busy roundabout.

Single room flats are listed starting around 161/week. There are also buses that go to places like Chingford where you have Epping Forest.

Not the best place but fairly cheap if you look around and the 7 years I was living there I didn't see any real problems. That was around 6 years ago though.

Would prefer over Walthamstow and Leyton, both of which I have also lived in. Chingford is nice but, I suspect, out of your budget.

RB

anything I don't mind · 5 Dec 2012 at 11:43

I don't want to house share, I have done that and I much prefer living by myself.

What I don't understand is who lives in these houses for £300-400 per week because the area is full with people that definitely do not look like they spend £1800 per month on rent.

I'll take a look in the south east. I used to live in Leytonstone and would not realy want to live in ilford that area sucks.

Freefaller · 5 Dec 2012 at 11:55

delta0 said:
Lewisham outwards to Dartford is generally the cheapest it gets in London. There are a few areas around there which are more expensive though like Greenwich. The DLR has helped but generally the DLR area is the cheapest area with transport then the areas without the transport links are much cheaper. South East is not my choice of London though. I prefer North, North West or South West. The budget needs to be good for those though.

I personally do not like north London.

SW is nice though, but pretentiously expensive - and as all areas, it has it's holes.

SE along the river area is more industrial though you're right and I certainly wouldn't like to live around the Deptford / New Cross area - though Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Haringey, Islington, Newham, Camden and Enfield are on the map for being some of poorest councils. Lewisham and Southwark are also on the list - but they're not the worst by far (though still up there as not so good).

However, you get areas like Dulwich and Blackheath mixed in those areas too - so it's a bit hard to generalise.

East London (north of the river) is cheap and worth looking at - but again lots of poorer areas. Depends on where you want to live.

Freefaller · 5 Dec 2012 at 11:56

groen said:
I don't want to house share, I have done that and I much prefer living by myself.

What I don't understand is who lives in these houses for £300-400 per week because the area is full with people that definitely do not look like they spend £1800 per month on rent.

I'll take a look in the south east. I used to live in Leytonstone and would not realy want to live in ilford that area sucks.

Benefits, housing support/income support, council homes etc... Possibly house sharing and who knows what else!

krooton · 5 Dec 2012 at 12:11

Freefaller said:
However, you get areas like Dulwich and Blackheath mixed in those areas too - so it's a bit hard to generalise.

Dulwich is such a weird thing! Lovely little village feel, surrounded by utter hellholes.

In my almost 11 year stay in London, I have spent 1 year north of the river, 7 years south of the river, and 3 on the river (Isle of Dogs, neither N or S really).

Deffo prefer SW over all other parts of London.

delta0 · 5 Dec 2012 at 12:12

Freefaller said:
I personally do not like north London.

SW is nice though, but pretentiously expensive - and as all areas, it has it's holes.

SE along the river area is more industrial though you're right and I certainly wouldn't like to live around the Deptford / New Cross area - though Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Haringey, Islington, Newham, Camden and Enfield are on the map for being some of poorest councils. Lewisham and Southwark are also on the list - but they're not the worst by far (though still up there as not so good). However, you get areas like Dulwich and Blackheath mixed in those areas too - so it's a bit hard to generalise.

East London (north of the river) is cheap and worth looking at - but again lots of poorer areas. Depends on where you want to live.

I agree. It is funny how scattered the areas are. Just take Camden. That is one of the most expensive parts of London, especially the southern part from central London up to the Hampstead area. I've lived in SW and currently NW. I think SW was good (I was in Wimbledon and then later Putney), but then travelling into London takes longer than it does for me now in NW (West Hampstead). I find the property generally similar/slightly more expensive in NW than SW but there are pockets that are extreme. For me SW or NW is just as good as each other of course comparing apples for apples (similar areas).

krooton · 5 Dec 2012 at 12:15

West London in general is the most expensive.

1. W8, Kensington, £1,873,866.

2. SW7, Knightsbridge, £1,430,863.

3. SW3, Chelsea, £1,425,385.

4. W11, Notting Hill, £1,302,763.

5. SW10, West Brompton, £1,140,593.

6. NW3, Hampstead, £1,022,748.

7. SW1, Westminster, £1,010,228.

8. W1, West End, £987,191.

9. GU25, Virginia Water,£968,009.

10. SW13, Barnes, £958,871.

rsatd · 5 Dec 2012 at 12:17

I ended up flat/house sharing here so far, and like east london. But yeah IMPOSSIBURU to live on your own for the price

.

Freefaller · 5 Dec 2012 at 12:18

krooton said:
Dulwich is such a weird thing! Lovely little village feel, surrounded by utter hellholes.

In my almost 11 year stay in London, I have spent 1 year north of the river, 7 years south of the river, and 3 on the river (Isle of Dogs, neither N or S really).

Deffo prefer SW over all other parts of London.

When I moved to the country I lived in Dulwich - lovely place.

Lived in Putney as well - which was lovely too. The problem with most South london areas, even in Putney area is that you're reliant on the District line which is awful, unless you have good overground service.

I actually quite like SE London, but that's because I live about 10 min walk from Blackheath and far enough away from Woolwich and Lewisham not to feel like I'm there

delta0 said:
I agree. It is funny how scattered the areas are. Just take Camden. That is one of the most expensive parts of London, especially the southern part from central London up to the Hampstead area. I've lived in SW and currently NW. I think SW was good (I was in Wimbledon and then later Putney), but then travelling into London takes longer than it does for me now in NW (West Hampstead). I find the property generally similar/slightly more expensive in NW than SW but there are pockets that are extreme. For me SW or NW is just as good as each other of course comparing apples for apples (similar areas).

Agreed 100% - SW and NW London are nice - Hampstead is wonderful. It's a shame it carries such a premium though

I also agree about commuting from SW being a PITA - it seems the best transport links are either in relatively central London, or north of the River :/