|Posted on Wednesday, 21 March, 2007 - 02:04 pm: |
Today's Times' 'Brick and Mortar' supplement has an article on East Dulwich "New Nappy Valley". "Once the haunt of student doctors and resting actors.... now choice for young families and bonus-loaded buyers"
Appears to be have written by an estate agent wanting to boost prices beyond their current high levels. No doubt trends will climb the hill to SE23 which will make some, but not all, happy.
Lot of talk about the wonderful private schools (Living South territory). The opening line puts me off "Freya and mummy.. daddy has joined the queue outside the organic butchers, Sebastian ... complaining that they have run out of sour dough..."
Well lots of threads in one here, the chance to attack or praise our neigbours about their shops, house prices, gastro pubs, shallowness or just grumpy old men like me looking back with fondness when the EDT was called by its full name and was a no go area downstairs on a Saturday night.
|Posted on Wednesday, 21 March, 2007 - 03:12 pm: |
I thought that this post was going to be about a new, local type of ice cream. How disappointed can one be?
|Posted on Wednesday, 21 March, 2007 - 03:41 pm: |
A pretty flimsy and lazy article from a once-great newspaper. I can't say I particularly like ED (yes, it does have a good butcher's shop but I can't be doing with such a long queue on a Saturday morning) and Forest Hill does have a assets (Horniman Museum, forthcoming tube - sort of - and Baggy Dave) that ED lacks.
However, I do think that its rise and rise is making more people who would not normally consider living somewhere with a SE postcode to reconsider their decision, and that I think is a good thing.
I wonder though if Forest Hill in three years time will be rather similar to the current ED and if by then there will be sufficiently strong a spillover effect so that Penge and Catford high streets will also be full of coffee shops, estate agents and yummy mummies?
|Posted on Wednesday, 21 March, 2007 - 04:42 pm: |
Sorry, forgot to add a link to the article:
|Posted on Friday, 23 March, 2007 - 01:52 pm: |
So that's what happened to my thread. Thanks for the contributions Tom, hope others add
|Posted on Friday, 23 March, 2007 - 04:57 pm: |
Apologies for turning this into Thomas's rants, but what strikes me when I go to places such as ED is how shopping is used as such a marker of social status (Marylebone High St is much much much much worse). Of course, the rich and powerful have always shopped at particular posh shops which the poor don't go to. But what strikes me is that the butcher in ED always seems to have such a long queue outside (apologies for mentioning this again, clearly I must be getting obsessed) - why are these powerful, highly paid people content to spend so much of their scarce leisure time queueing up as though they were in the old Soviet Union? Why haven't the butchers moved to larger premises? This was before my time, but I don't think that the rich and powerful of the 1950s and '60s spent quite so much time and effort shopping. Perhaps the relaxing of codes and norms in other areas (we're all now mockney speaking, dressed down football fans these days) simply divert this activity into other areas?
P.S. I've seen references to "Living South" magazine on the forum - I've not read it - does anyone know where I can get it? Ta!
|Posted on Friday, 23 March, 2007 - 05:44 pm: |
Thomas - the truly rich and powerful simply get their staff to queue and always have done!
And while we're on the subject of butchers - we do have an excellent one in Forest Hill on Wood Vale. Yes, there is a queue but that is because you get personal service and the meat is cut in front of you. Fantastic place and (others may coprrect me on this) for the quality you get, superb value.
|Posted on Friday, 23 March, 2007 - 06:15 pm: |
Thank you Bosco I will go there tomorrow!
But I think you'll see plenty of expensively dressed people round the shops of Lordship Lane. And have you noticed that those shops in ED that sell newspapers have an absolutely massive pile of the Guardian and only a small number of copies of other papers?!
I notice that Somerfields have a "Market Fresh" version of their store on Lordship Lane - whilst in Sydenham they have a bog standard version. But given the gentrification of Sydenham (what with the Dolphin and all that) things might change.
|Posted on Saturday, 24 March, 2007 - 01:46 pm: |
Thomas, try checking out the proportion of Guardians to other papers in Forest Hill newsagents too. But is this a reflection of the moneyed classes or just the middle-class chatterati? Surely piles of the papers that feature better-developed financial pages or regular reviews of private schooling would support your theory better? I'm more concerned that it's almost impossible to find a copy of the Morning Star round here these days.
There has been a "Market Fresh" option round here for many years. it's called Catford Market. There's an even better choice at Lewisham Market though. And you'll be comfortably reassured by the almost complete lack of anybody wearing expensive clothes. I know that I am.
|Posted on Saturday, 24 March, 2007 - 04:04 pm: |
Thanks for your comments - not quite sure if I had/ have a theory about why the Guardian is so popular in ED - it might well be because there are so many of what you call the "chatterati" in the area (the moneyed classes might well stick to Dulwich village) - but I might be wrong.
Hmm, market fresh - a market in the open air - that's taking things too far!
|Posted on Monday, 26 March, 2007 - 12:30 pm: |
I think the moneyed classes probably read the Telegraph, the Guardian is traditionally for those with beards and teachers (and teachers with beards). Though I doubt a teacher's salary spreads to a house in ED. I live in the part of Forest Hill between FH proper and Catford - a road off Stansted road. Not sure what to call the area but I think it's a long time before ripples come this way...
|Posted on Tuesday, 27 March, 2007 - 04:32 pm: |
Read the article and thought it was entirely OTT but I'm not entirely sure what the problem would be with losing some of the empty units in Forest Hill and getting some ED-type cafes and gift shops. What's so wrong with getting new blood into the area and bringing in new businesses. For the most part, East Dulwich isn't a homogenised high street and it's one of the closest places I can think of where you can shop for meat, fish, vegetables, bread, cheese supporting local businesses rather than supermarkets like Sainsburys. Marylebone High St is almost entirely chain-store these days.
I do live on Wood Vale so I've been to the FH butcher and it is very good. But Lordship Lane also has a new good fishmonger, green grocer, baker, cheese shop and it's a pleasant place to spend an afternoon shopping or browsing.
I like stopping at Franklin's for a drink (and watching the queue at the butcher - incidentally, it moves very quickly. On a Saturday, there will be 8 or 9 serving staff running around so even when it's out the door, people tend to be in within 5 minutes). Looking at the market stalls on North Cross Road can be interesting and wandering around the little gift shops or the gallery before stopping for lunch is a pleasant way to spend an hour or two. There is a buzz around the place - a hum of conversation in the shops and cafes.
On the other hand, the only reason to go to Forest Hill during the day is to go to Boots, Sainsbury's or WH Smiths and there's no cheerful atmosphere around them. There are a few smaller shops along Dartmouth Road which have some interesting items but not with enough consistency to make them a destination stop.
Perhaps you'll write this off as me being one of the 'chatterati' although I don't read the Grauniad regularly but to be a vibrant community, you need to cater for more than just the 'value-pack' brigade.
|Posted on Tuesday, 27 March, 2007 - 04:54 pm: |
so where is the new fishmongers then Applespider? I occasionally go over to the one in Nunhead which is superb but I have to say I find it slightly intimidating.
|Posted on Tuesday, 27 March, 2007 - 05:20 pm: |
It's on the opposite side of the road from the butcher - on the stretch opposite Mrs Robinson and close to that very bizarre shop where everything seems to be white.
I've only been in once (it only opened a month or so ago) but they were fine - filleted a mackerel for me on asking and the person in front of me was asking for advice on cooking swordfish which was given nicely too.
I think they might be a branch of the one in Nunhead though
|Posted on Tuesday, 27 March, 2007 - 10:08 pm: |
The whole question of the economic health of FHill Town Centre is one that has been around for some time but never seems to move forward. It has been mentioned before that demography is an issue compared with ED where there is a higher residential density and a more affluent population. ( former Cllr Whiting, I think?). What is needed is an economic retail strategy for Forest Hill. When I first moved here over 20 years ago it was more affluent than now, with a butchers, grocers, hardware store, and 3 delis. I know from talking to them at the time that they could not compete with Sainsburys hence shut up shop.
From where I am sitting, FH town centre has little identity and purpose as it stands, apart from being functional, and needs proper research and investment into exploring its potential, and exploiting its strengths, perhaps for example, as a restaurant quarter. However maybe sheer functionality is in fact its strength. I like traipsing down Lordship Lane on a Saturday afternoon, popping into cafes, quirky furniture shops, the health food shops, looking at the market,etc, but realistically for me its ' entertainment' shopping, rather than a serious outing to acquire necessities.
|Posted on Wednesday, 28 March, 2007 - 09:13 am: |
I have lived in SE 23 for 33 years and before that 25 in SE 26.
I would say the affluence has not declined in the last 20 years but you are quite correct the retail outlets have. As you mention the culprit is Sainsbury
I think FH has a very mixed polulation wealth wise.
Some fairly poor ish people and some very affluent people.
I was reading somewhere recently that SE 23 has a below average under 18 population and below average over 55 population but well above average in the middle. Not sure what if anything this says about SE 23.
|Posted on Wednesday, 28 March, 2007 - 06:27 pm: |
And we'll presumably have nobody over 55 at all once the Tewkesbury Lodge estate secedes to Dulwich.
Aren't these kind of demographics likely to be fairly typical for an area this close to central London? Or are we a particularly extreme example?
|Posted on Wednesday, 04 April, 2007 - 09:40 am: |
Acording to ACORN which has classified all 1.9 million postcodes. SE23 and ED (SE22) are regarded as a Type21. This comes under the Urban Prosperity and Aspiring Singles category with a sub type of singles and sharers, multi-ethnic areas.
"Neighbourhoods fitting this profile are mainly found in Inner London and Outer Metropolitan areas such as Croydon, Harrow, Southall and Ilford. Here is an overview of the likely preferences and features of your neighbourhood:
Family income Medium
Interest in current affairs High
Housing - with mortgage Medium
Educated - to degree High
Couples with children Medium
Have satellite TV Low
These are metropolitan white-collar populations with high concentrations of ethnic minorities.
People are generally younger, typically under 40. There are some single parents, but most households comprise single people renting and sharing flats or terraced houses. The accommodation is small, often only one or two bedrooms. Around 35% of the population is black or Asian. Both minorities occur in broadly equal proportion across this type.
The level of education is above average, and jobs tend to be managerial or clerical. Levels of students, people working in the Public Sector and unemployment are all somewhat above the national average."
|Posted on Tuesday, 10 April, 2007 - 07:27 am: |
Interesting that high degree of education = low interest in satellite TV.
|Posted on Friday, 27 April, 2007 - 11:12 pm: |
Don't get me started Baggy. You know what happened last time I got on my anti East Dulwich soapbox. I cringe every time I hear a yummy mummy type calling to their offspring invariably named Archie or Esme.
|Posted on Friday, 27 April, 2007 - 11:23 pm: |
..and referring to comments on another thread about council estates possibly being behind crime in the area - which I found a bit offensive - some of the worst behaviour I've seen recently has been from the children of ED posh parents. A couple of weeks ago I witnessed one such little charmer aged about ten ferociously kicking his mum's bags of shopping in Lordship Lane and shouting demands for various items from shops. Nice.
|Posted on Saturday, 28 April, 2007 - 11:50 am: |
Absolutely outrageous. Why can't they just stick to knife crime like other South London kids?
|Posted on Monday, 30 April, 2007 - 12:12 am: |
Who's to say they won't? I know quite a few middle class kids who went off the rails - and plenty of them are regular customers of the South London drug dealers.
I sense an undercurrent of snobbery on these threads sometimes.
|Posted on Monday, 30 April, 2007 - 12:16 am: |
Who's to say they won't? I know quite a few middle class kids who went off the rails - and plenty of them seem to keep South London drug dealers in business.
|Posted on Monday, 30 April, 2007 - 12:17 am: |
Oops. Didn't mean to do that.
|Posted on Monday, 30 April, 2007 - 09:18 am: |
Quite possibly, but it's often balanced with a healthy dose of well-meaning self-delusion.
|Posted on Tuesday, 01 May, 2007 - 02:21 pm: |
Seeformiles - surely your attitude towards ED and it's inhabitants is rather "snobby" in itself?
|Posted on Friday, 04 May, 2007 - 01:30 am: |
Not really, no. It's all too easy to attack the same easy targets - people with less money or opportunities. I've seen examples of snobbery on these threads recently and feel justified in countering them with my own observations. I see nothing wrong with that.
|Posted on Friday, 04 May, 2007 - 10:11 am: |
No, I think you are just applying inverted snobbery. No-one has attacked those with less money or opportunities. There has on the other hand been some speculation as to the source of those committing crimes in the area that have affected contributors. It is quite telling that you conflate the two.
|Posted on Friday, 04 May, 2007 - 04:11 pm: |
Really? Well you can deduce what you like from what I've said. I know what's been implied elsewhere about the building of council estates. I don't think that kind of comment is particularly helpful either FHsecretary. Forums are about agreeing to differ in the end and we can't all think the same way.
|Posted on Friday, 04 May, 2007 - 04:14 pm: |
It's interesting that people feel very sensitive about my comments regarding E Dulwich. It's not the real world in here you know. I can only think I must have touched upon some kind of raw nerve. Does it really matter that I don't agree?
|Posted on Friday, 04 May, 2007 - 05:26 pm: |
Not in the least. I would really rather you didn't agree with me. You are lucky if the "some of the worst behaviour [you've] seen recently" is brattish behaviour from the little darlings of SE22 (if you asked me, I would identify assault, theft and vandalism), and I find it interesting that you should set this behaviour against the issue of crime.
You are also incorrect in stating that there have been posts attacking those with "less money or opportunities", unless this is some sort of euphemism for people having less money before they have had the opportunity to relieve someone else of theirs?
|Posted on Friday, 04 May, 2007 - 07:03 pm: |
I do I think it would be helpful if FHSSecretary could clarify whether her comments are her own or as an official representative of the Forest Hill Society.
|Posted on Friday, 04 May, 2007 - 10:02 pm: |
Allow me to clarify, they are his own (as are mine).
|Posted on Sunday, 06 May, 2007 - 06:59 pm: |
Unfortunately, I am not permitted to have one user name for personal views and another for "official" announcements and the like.
|Posted on Monday, 07 May, 2007 - 02:35 pm: |
Roz, quite sexist in your assumption that just because of the word secretary in the username, it is implying a female. I am sure FHS will not take it to heart though.
|Posted on Tuesday, 08 May, 2007 - 05:35 am: |
Perhaps thats because the FHS Secretary on the FHS Exec Committee is in fact female?
|Posted on Friday, 11 May, 2007 - 09:08 am: |
There you go again, making assumptions
|Posted on Friday, 11 May, 2007 - 10:55 am: |
Sorry, assumptions? Actually I believe the name ' Susan' indicates someone of the female gender.
Wouldn't you say?
|Posted on Friday, 11 May, 2007 - 12:11 pm: |
These things can be complex. Arthur, Marthur. Hotel, motel. Bangkok ladyboys. Hormone injections. At the weekend I'm Susan. That type of thing.
Who are we to stereotype gender identities and sexualities so narrowly?
|Posted on Friday, 11 May, 2007 - 12:37 pm: |
Oh Dorothy, you're such a cad!
|Posted on Sunday, 13 May, 2007 - 12:08 pm: |
FHSecretary I'm also happy you don't agree with me. I did also wonder why you made that that comment about estates being built in the area using your official title and for that reason I picked up on it.
Now it's been clarified I don't think anything's to be gained from continuing this discussion.
|Posted on Monday, 14 May, 2007 - 04:26 pm: |
Interestingly FHS, I just found your comment on the other thread, so thought I'd copy it here to make it clear what I objected to, in case there's any confusion. This was penned by you I believe?
"Posted on Saturday, 17 February, 2007 - 12:42 am:
Would be interesting to see where these scum came from.
Perhaps it will then be time for another big collective "thank you" to Lewisham for their policy of building estates in FH and Sydenham.
|Posted on Monday, 14 May, 2007 - 04:31 pm: |
Posted only in the interests of balance as I seem to be accused of misunderstanding these comments and/or inverted snobbery. Make of it all what you like but I maintain the above comment is unhelpful in the context of a wider discussion about crime. And I think it's questionable that you should use an official title to post your own views. Perhaps the webmaster could give you an additional user name to solve the problem.
|Posted on Monday, 14 May, 2007 - 05:34 pm: |
I think you brought the comments about inverted snobbery on yourself with curious comments about the behaviour of spoiled children in East Dulwich...
|Posted on Thursday, 17 May, 2007 - 08:33 pm: |
I've totally lost the thread on this one but it does remind me of the golden age of SE23.com before the night of the long knives where we debated mugging (or actually the fortunate lack of mugging) long into the night. It would be nice to have some of the shops that East Dulwich has, but I know where I'd rather live (UDB) and watching footy at the BHT.
Glad I have stimulated the argument!