[Palace] Souf london identity??

[AmexRuislip]

I had a titter when I read this

http://www.hltco.org/2016/02/04/why...ever-lose-their-unique-south-london-identity/

 

[Paul Reids Sock]

I agree that South London has an identity, as does anywhere. However I don;t think people moaning about the traffic, the ground or the view is exactly knocking this identity?

I grew up in Bromley and spent a lot of time around there, Croydon etc. and at no point in my growing up did I think - Wow, I bloody love the South London identity of crap football grounds and traffic

 

[Lady Whistledown]

I love it when people from a certain area find themselves jostling with others to be the official guardians of the local identity. Londoners are almost as good as Yorkshire folk when it comes to that sort of thing.

South London= gritty, urban? North London= cosmopolitan? Righto. I suggest you pop over to Haringey, Hackney or Tottenham, HLTCO, I'm not sure the Yummy Mummies are breaking out the organic soy lattes there quite yet.

(I appreciate there are plenty of divs in Brighton who like to crap on about our "unique" local identity too, by the way).

 

[theboybilly]

I had a titter when I read this

http://www.hltco.org/2016/02/04/why...ever-lose-their-unique-south-london-identity/

That's not how I see it. I'm originally from South East London (Plumstead) and have always thought of the area as a down-to-earth sort of place, although much changed now. All of the area along the south bank of the Thames is like that for me - through Woolwich, Charlton and up to Bermondsey. But Streatham, Norbury and Norwood? Hardly down-at-heel areas in days gone by (even those of my youth). These were areas built for commuters when the railways came. I've never shared an affinity with that part of London just as I don't with leafy Hampstead or Wimbledon. Gritty my a*se

 

[Lady Whistledown]

That's not how I see it. I'm originally from South East London (Plumstead) and have always thought of the area as a down-to-earth sort of place, although much changed now. All of the area along the south bank of the Thames is like that for me - through Woolwich, Charlton and up to Bermondsey. But Streatham, Norbury and Norwood? Hardly down-at-heel areas in days gone by (even those of my youth). These were areas built for commuters when the railways came. I've never shared an affinity with that part of London just as I don't with leafy Hampstead or Wimbledon. Gritty my a*se

Quite. Some of it- Thornton Heath, Norwood, New Addington- is a complete hovel.

But there's plenty of wealth in other areas south of the river. I wouldn't describe Richmond as "gritty".

 

[alfredmizen]

That's not how I see it. I'm originally from South East London (Plumstead) and have always thought of the area as a down-to-earth sort of place, although much changed now. All of the area along the south bank of the Thames is like that for me - through Woolwich, Charlton and up to Bermondsey. But Streatham, Norbury and Norwood? Hardly down-at-heel areas in days gone by (even those of my youth). These were areas built for commuters when the railways came. I've never shared an affinity with that part of London just as I don't with leafy Hampstead or Wimbledon. Gritty my a*se

you dont know Streatham /Norwood/Norbury then .

 

[alfredmizen]

I love it when people from a certain area find themselves jostling with others to be the official guardians of the local identity. Londoners are almost as good as Yorkshire folk when it comes to that sort of thing.

South London= gritty, urban? North London= cosmopolitan? Righto. I suggest you pop over to Haringey, Hackney or Tottenham, HLTCO, I'm not sure the Yummy Mummies are breaking out the organic soy lattes there quite yet.

(I appreciate there are plenty of divs in Brighton who like to crap on about our "unique" local identity too, by the way).

Parts of Hackney are becoming very gentrified.

 

[Giraffe]

Is living in a shithole having an identity then? Odd.

 

[theboybilly]

you dont know Streatham /Norwood/Norbury then .

That's how I saw it as I was growing up AM. Going anywhere past Lewisham was like going to another country when I was a kid - all big houses and tree-lined 'avenues'. I grew up in tiny 2 up-2 down back-to-back houses with outside loos in Plumstead. London has changed so much I don't recognise it as the place that made me - even Woolwich has a posh riverside complex now...back in my early days the Arsenal was still going pumping out ammunition and the docks were full of ships! I have worked with people from 'South London' who are around my age and when we talk you can tell there's a marked difference in how we lived, socialised or played (they didn't make camps in 'bombed out' buildings for example - and there were loads of them round our way), . Me and my mates used to call it Bandit country but in truth I suppose we lived in the rougher area. 'Over there' was much posher as we saw it.

 

[alfredmizen]

That's how I saw it as I was growing up AM. Going anywhere past Lewisham was like going to another country when I was a kid - all big houses and tree-lined 'avenues'. I grew up in tiny 2 up-2 down back-to-back houses with outside loos in Plumstead. London has changed so much I don't recognise it as the place that made me - even Woolwich has a posh riverside complex now...back in my early days the Arsenal was still going pumping out ammunition and the docks were full of ships! I have worked with people from 'South London' who are around my age and when we talk you can tell there's a marked difference in how we lived, socialised or played (they didn't make camps in 'bombed out' buildings for example - and there were loads of them round our way), . Me and my mates used to call it Bandit country but in truth I suppose we lived in the rougher area. 'Over there' was much posher as we saw it.

We'll just have to agree to disagree mate , you talk about going past lewisham as being a different world , but that includes bermondsey, peckham camberwell etc , which are genuinely tough areas, and always have been , like i say you obviously dont the streatham area very well , its one of those areas that can have very posh houses cheek by jowl with absolute shitholes , bit like clapham and kings avenue, i dont know plumstead either so i suppose we're even on that score, woolwich/plumstead area has always seemed so far out of london to me.

 

[Biscuit]

It's a generalisation, of course, but I lived in London for eight years and I agree with it. South London is a dive when compared to the much more affluent/North and West.

Obviously there are examples that buck the trend on both sides of the coin (Chelsea/Tottenham) but as a rule of thumb - and that is what it is being presented as - it's correct.

 

[Biscuit]

Quite. Some of it- Thornton Heath, Norwood, New Addington- is a complete hovel.

But there's plenty of wealth in other areas south of the river. I wouldn't describe Richmond as "gritty".

Bad example. While just south of the river, Richmond to the majority would be considered West London.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

I had a titter when I read this

http://www.hltco.org/2016/02/04/why...ever-lose-their-unique-south-london-identity/

They were actually doing quite well there, until they used the word 'embraced'

 

[alfredmizen]

Bad example. While just south of the river, Richmond to the majority would be considered West London.

No it wouldn't , Richmond is South West London all day long.

 

[alfredmizen]

It's a generalisation, of course, but I lived in London for eight years and I agree with it. South London is a dive when compared to the much more affluent/North and West.

Obviously there are examples that buck the trend on both sides of the coin (Chelsea/Tottenham) but as a rule of thumb - and that is what it is being presented as - it's correct.

how do Chelsea/Tottenham buck the trend ?

 

[Simster]

Agree with [MENTION=31796]alfredmizen[/MENTION] on Richmond (especially) which is South West London along with Barnes, Putney, Ham and Kingston - neither West London nor South London. And he's spot on with regard to Streatham, as I'm sure [MENTION=189]Wozza[/MENTION] would testify.

 

[Simster]

how do Chelsea/Tottenham buck the trend ?

This thread is meat and drink to you isn't it? And it is absolutely marvellous when someone acts like he knows it all but comes across as clueless, just as this fella has.

 

[alfredmizen]

This thread is meat and drink to you isn't it? And it is absolutely marvellous when someone acts like he knows it all but comes across as clueless, just as this fella has.

I was actually hesitant about posting because i knew id get pulled up , just waiting for HT to turn up and take the piss !!

 

[soistes]

That's how I saw it as I was growing up AM. Going anywhere past Lewisham was like going to another country when I was a kid - all big houses and tree-lined 'avenues'. I grew up in tiny 2 up-2 down back-to-back houses with outside loos in Plumstead. London has changed so much I don't recognise it as the place that made me - even Woolwich has a posh riverside complex now...back in my early days the Arsenal was still going pumping out ammunition and the docks were full of ships! I have worked with people from 'South London' who are around my age and when we talk you can tell there's a marked difference in how we lived, socialised or played (they didn't make camps in 'bombed out' buildings for example - and there were loads of them round our way), . Me and my mates used to call it Bandit country but in truth I suppose we lived in the rougher area. 'Over there' was much posher as we saw it.

Agree up to a point, depending in which direction you go past Lewisham. Having spent some of my teenage years in Eltham (a mile or two south east of Lewisham), it's true that there were a lot of large Edwardian semis with big gardens, parks and tree-lined avenues. However, there were also a fair number of run-down council estates full of white racist thugs (as Stephen Lawrence later discovered to his cost - the bus stop in Well Hall at which he was killed was where I used to catch the bus to school). So some bits 'gritty', some bits definitely not (and this was in the 60s and 70s, long before gentrification).
Where the OP definitely gets it wrong, however, is in his reference to "souf" London. As anyone who's ever lived there knows, it's "sarf London"....

 

[Bozza]

Aside from where this is heading, can someone please explain the last sentence of the piece at the start of this thread.

I keep reading it and it just doesn't make any sense does it? Is the "without it" just completely superfluous?