North or South London?

Afternoon!

Simple question I think as I'm moving from Bristol (where I've been spoiled when it comes to running as we have the Bristol to Bath cycle path to train on).  I need to move to an area in London where long uninterupted runs, not having to dodge people every six metres, and also build in some speed work when the training schedule says so, is possible.  Hills would also be nice!  We're not short of them here in the west country.

Your thoughts would be very much appreciated as I'm a bit stuck on where to live.  It would be good to know where you live in London and what's good/not so good from a running point of view.

I doubt it matters, but my PBs are 36:42 for a 10k and 1:17:31 for a half, so that's the kind of level I'm at and I would like to think that there is somewhere in London where I can improve.

Thanks guys.

North London is a no brainer with Hampstead Heath and other areas ....... apart from the fact South London is a dump and your own personal safety, I doubt that the parks match up to those in the North.

South London - Richmond Park, Wimbledon Common, Wandsworth Common etc.

David Falconer 3 wrote (see)

North London is a no brainer with Hampstead Heath and other areas ....... apart from the fact South London is a dump and your own personal safety, I doubt that the parks match up to those in the North.

 

Crikey - finally something we agree on....

Janinemarie wrote (see)

South London - Richmond Park, Wimbledon Common, Wandsworth Common etc.

Are we talking, south or south west ...... at least you wont get shot in the South West as well.

Hampstead Heath is great and you do feel safe there unlike some other parks .... in fact Ive only had one slightly bad experience there when I needed to use the public lavatories, but that was also offset by the fact I got to meet an ex-80's popstar!

David Falconer 3 wrote (see)

Janinemarie wrote (see)

South London - Richmond Park, Wimbledon Common, Wandsworth Common etc.

Are we talking, south or south west ...... at least you wont get shot in the South West as well.

 

They're south west - But a woman (Rachel Nickell) was, famously, murdered on Wimbledon Common some years ago. And you risk getting run over by David Weir in Richmond Park 

The question I would ask is why live in London Nick, its expensive and overcrowded.

If you need to work in London commute from the nicer countryside outside London, cheaper houses more than compensate for the travel costs. Then you can run people and traffice free

Tommygun2 wrote (see)

The question I would ask is why live in London Nick, its expensive and overcrowded.

If you need to work in London commute from the nicer countryside outside London, cheaper houses more than compensate for the travel costs. Then you can run people and traffice free

Good point.  This is the thing.  Being a Bristol lad I'm inclined to make that assumption, but my brain is telling me that I need to experience real London for myself for a while, not just the living in hotels London that I've been doing for the last eight months for work.

Tommygun2 wrote (see)

The question I would ask is why live in London Nick, its expensive and overcrowded.

If you need to work in London commute from the nicer countryside outside London, cheaper houses more than compensate for the travel costs. Then you can run people and traffice free

Second that sentiment ........ why live in the expensive s..hole that is London when you can be just 30 minutes away by train in a much nicer and cheaper part of the world ....... Have a look south in the Surrey area .... I wouldnt bother looking west though (apart from Ealing which is essentially London anyway). And as for going too far north, I find Hertfordshire overpriced and congested (in terms of traffic and general travel).

Yeah, I did notice that when i googled 'best place to live in London', the third result on the interbobble was 'top 20 places to escape London'.

Tommygun2 wrote (see)

cheaper houses more than compensate for the travel costs. 

They used to Tommygun, they don't anymore.

I only live in Zone 5 and I pay nearly 2 grand a year for my travel. The further you move out the more wasted money you are looking at.

Nick Weyman wrote (see)

Yeah, I did notice that when i googled 'best place to live in London', the third result on the interbobble was 'top 20 places to escape London'.

LOL,

Well Ive spent 13 years in this country, over a decade of that was in London and lived in about 5 or 6 different locations in that time in and around London ....... and guess what, the best place Ive lived is where I am now which is nowhere that godforsaken place.

Serious, get your train timetable out and start looking at how quickly you can get in from places in Surrey or Kent .... it also depends on whereabouts in London you are working, like I said, it can take an hour or more to get from one side to the other, so the location of your job within London is kinda important.

Screamapillar wrote (see)

Tommygun2 wrote (see)

cheaper houses more than compensate for the travel costs. 

They used to Tommygun, they don't anymore.

I only live in Zone 5 and I pay nearly 2 grand a year for my travel. The further you move out the more wasted money you are looking at.

 

But that depends, for all we know Nicks job could be in a zone 3, and if he can be on the 'right' side  in terms of living, then the transport costs wouldnt be so expensive.

I think if I put how much money I spend on my monthly travelcard into London you would all have heart attacks. I can promise you there isnt a single person on here who would have higher costs, and no im not travelling first class.

Nick do you have a job already in London, do you know where it is?

Tommygun2 wrote (see)

The question I would ask is why live in London Nick, its expensive and overcrowded.

If you need to work in London commute from the nicer countryside outside London, cheaper houses more than compensate for the travel costs. Then you can run people and traffice free

I'd be inclined to agree with this, except there is a delicate balance to be struck: too close to the big smoke and the house prices are exorbitant, too far out and the astronomical train fares outweighs any saving on the house. Until recently, the most cost-efficient place for me to live, taking these factors into account, ended up being so far away from work that it rendered any kind of hobby or social life impossible. So I finally moved to London, where my commute is down from a 5-hour round trip to less than an hour. I pay a net total of £50 a month more but it's worth it to have my life back!

Back on topic, I'm another fan of Hampstead Heath (and also of not getting shot), so obviously a Northern dweller.

David Falconer 3 wrote (see)

Screamapillar wrote (see)

Tommygun2 wrote (see)

cheaper houses more than compensate for the travel costs. 

They used to Tommygun, they don't anymore.

I only live in Zone 5 and I pay nearly 2 grand a year for my travel. The further you move out the more wasted money you are looking at.

 

But that depends, for all we know Nicks job could be in a zone 3, and if he can be on the 'right' side  in terms of living, then the transport costs wouldnt be so expensive.

I think if I put how much money I spend on my monthly travelcard into London you would all have heart attacks. I can promise you there isnt a single person on here who would have higher costs, and no im not travelling first class.

Nick do you have a job already in London, do you know where it is?

Thanks y'all.  My job is in Westminster, so hopefully that means good links with the outside world via Victoria, Kings Cross or Paddington.

Heh. I always think of the London divide as being East/West rather than North/South (West is best ) I've lived in London all my life so I'm used to the crowds and pace of life. The countryside is alright for a couple of weeks but I couldn't live there full time ... zzzzz

Screamapillar wrote (see)

Tommygun2 wrote (see)

cheaper houses more than compensate for the travel costs. 

They used to Tommygun, they don't anymore.

I only live in Zone 5 and I pay nearly 2 grand a year for my travel. The further you move out the more wasted money you are looking at.

 

I live well outside London and It costs me over £4000 a year but its still beter than living in London...

Nick Weyman wrote (see)

Thanks y'all.  My job is in Westminster, so hopefully that means good links with the outside world via Victoria, Kings Cross or Paddington.

If youre job is Westminster then youve just named the wrong 3 train stations. Theres only 1 name you need to know (well actually Victoria is fine as well) but the name you want is Waterloo.

And those trains all head through the Surrey and Hampshire countryside.

You can walk to Westminster from Waterloo Station.

So actually based on that, I would recommend the other persons answer of Wimbledon or have a look around the Bushey Park area or Richmond.

Or go further afield if you like, but if you want the London life, then based on the location of your job, I would have a look at Wimbledon or a little further out (Richmond can be quite pricey but nice park)

I've done both central London and Surrey... and am from Bristol originally!

I lived in Pimlico for nearly 4 years and as a runner I loved it. Walking or running to work (Westminster is quiet in the mornings and Pim is quiet all of the time), Battersea, Hyde and Green parks on your doorstep, Regents Canal, Hamstead and a shed load of other places like wimbledon a bus ride away. Awesome but pricey.

Now I live in Surrey and its much quieter but the pavements are shocking and routes are less run friendly in general, more running along roads than huge parks to take in. I do like having various canals, london loop, The Thames, Richmond, Bushy and Windsor parks on my doorstep though too.

Wherever you choose you will be surprised about how much is close by if you look for it, check out capital ring and London Loop for some ideas about the variety of terrain you can find in London. Dont forget to join a local club too... if you end up SW way you'll be spoilt for choice!