# The LONDON they don't want you to see



## Blindfold (Jan 22, 2006)

Ok, we've all seen the classic London postcard images - St Pauls, The Tower of London, Picadilly Circus, Big Ben, London Eye, Buckingham Palace, Canary Wharf and monuments galore. The list goes on.

This is the REAL London where people live. Off the tourist trail and away from the camera's lense. Council estates, commieblocks, tower blocks, sink estates - call them what you will but London is full of them. 

South London's Finest:
Heygate Estate, Walworth SE17





































Aylesbury Estate, Walworth SE17














































Pepys Estate, Deptford SE8


----------



## spyguy (Apr 16, 2005)

I wasn't supposed to see this!


----------



## Jue (Mar 28, 2003)

Looks like China, minus the bicycles.


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

What??? Only Paris and Moscow are supposed to have those, this is obvioulsly some sort of propaganda


----------



## Blindfold (Jan 22, 2006)

Robin Hood Gardens, Poplar, East London


----------



## LSyd (Aug 31, 2003)

yeah, but there's still about as many nice streets of terrace houses. 

besides, i've shown "the side they don't want you to see" before. it's nothing new, or hidden.

-


----------



## Tamarindo Cobra (Feb 3, 2006)

What´s the problem with commieblocks? It´s Better than the slums in megacities! :|


----------



## Skabbymuff (Mar 4, 2006)

Perhaps this is a side of London some dont want people to see, but it is there all the same.

Of course some parts of London have more of this type of housing than others, some parts are almost all this kind of housing, but what you have to remember is London is such a massive city, and overall many of these projects are more a less spread out all over the place. 

There are so many tower blocks / estates in london, yet its so hard to find any images of them on the internet! here is a selection of council estates ive managed to find  some of these images are old, some new :


Broadwater Farm Estate : ("The Broadwater Farm Estate in Tottenham hit the headlines on the 6th October 1985 after a ferocious night of rioting which resulted in dozens of casualties and the murder of PC Keith Blakelock.")


























The Brandon Estate, Southwark : 


































Alton West Estate, Wandsworth :


















































Churchhill Gardens Estate, Pimlico :










































Elmington Estate, Camberwell :


















Cobbett Street, Clapham Rd :


























Golden Lane Estate :


































Totteridge House, Wandsworth :










Dragon Estate, Brentford :










Trellick Tower, Notting Hill :










































and some more :

Various Towers about London, i do not know the names of all of these, so many! :


blocks in Lambeth :










Stockwell blocks :










unknown blocks from bus :










various location unknown :










Burgess Park, South London :










Stonebridge Estate NW London :


















Alton Estate West Roehampton :










Wapping blocks :










estate in Peckham, South London :










blocks in Hackney :


















Holy Street, Hackney :









East London blocks :










council flats in tower Hamlets 










various :










low rise block West London :










tower in SE London : 










Kensal Green Estate, West London :


























Kier Hardy housing estate shortly before demolition East London UK :










block in Whitechapel :










South London towers :


























Walworth block :










estates in Clapham :










London Kidbrooke Park Estate :


























inner city block :










Holly Street :









isle of dogs blocks :










Clapton Park Estate, Hackney :










tower blocks reflected in the river lee hackney :










Swiss Cottage estate :










South Kilburn Estate :










estate in Bow : 










Dagenham council estate :










Nightingale Estate Hackney, known for its drug related violence :


























High rise housing estate in London at sunset :










London tower blocks with rainbow :


----------



## Skabbymuff (Mar 4, 2006)

and to all you lot (we reckon the uk forumers the most maybe) being funny about this thread, we expected it. 

at the end of the day, the thing i love the most about this site is seeing sides to cities i dont get the chance to. it opens my mind and makes me want to see more.

thats why this thread exists, nothing more, nothing less. of all the cities, london tries so hard to be the 'postcard' city, hence why this thread is here, cos its not all that rosy in places, and yes, not all that bad either, and other cities are 'ghetto' also, and its worse elsewhere, blah, blah blah, everywhere has its issues. serious ones at that.

its just a load of pictures, showing another side to another great city, thats all. i hope some of you enjoy


----------



## Greens! (Feb 13, 2006)

they look like large scale college dorms.....


----------



## Blindfold (Jan 22, 2006)

Southwyck House aka 'The Barrier Block', Brixton SW9


----------



## Tamarindo Cobra (Feb 3, 2006)

I didn´t know that there were black people in England! Well, i got to say that some commies are really poor and horrible, but some are coll and sympathic, i would live there! 

There is a thread in brasilian forum, where people are talking about this "perfection" of european cities! It´s very interesting!


----------



## Skabbymuff (Mar 4, 2006)

> I didn´t know that there were black people in England


 :wave:


----------



## Blindfold (Jan 22, 2006)

Tarcísio Tamarozi said:


> I didn´t know that there were black people in England!


Are you kidding me? Approx 10% of London's poulation is black but this rises to 35-50% in areas like Brixton, Peckham, Hackney and Harlesden.

All the UK's major cities have black populations, largely from the Caribbean initalially but now more commonly from Africa.


----------



## Tamarindo Cobra (Feb 3, 2006)

Hummmm! Then it´s cool!


----------



## ZimasterX (Aug 19, 2005)

I'm not surprised to see this. Many European cities have such apartment blocks (aka commieblocks).


----------



## LLoydGeorge (Jan 14, 2006)

Every city in the world has crappy areas.


----------



## Liam-Manchester (Dec 29, 2004)

These areas are no secret in London. In big cities there is always going to be inequality. At least the people that live on these estates have a roof over their heads and are reasonably well looked after by the government. It's a far better situation than in many other cities of London's size.


----------



## Bertez (Jul 9, 2005)

>


.....probably one of the ugliest commieblocks I've seen


----------



## LSyd (Aug 31, 2003)

Blindfold said:


> Are you kidding me? Approx 10% of London's poulation is black but this rises to 35-50% in areas like Brixton, Peckham, Hackney and Harlesden.
> 
> All the UK's major cities have black populations, largely from the Caribbean initalially but now more commonly from Africa.


that's it for Brixton? it seemed a lot higher. on some blocks in Brixton/southeast London, with the chicken eateries, nail/hair shops i felt like like i was back in the hood in America on my way to teach school. it was the first (and one of the few) things that made me homesick. :cheers: 

-


----------



## Blindfold (Jan 22, 2006)

More South London

Loughborough Estate, Brixton SW9























































Brandon Estate, Kennington










Camberwell, SE5










Aylesbury Estate, Walworth SE17


----------



## Skabbymuff (Mar 4, 2006)

> Every city in the world has crappy areas.


oh yes, this we know my friend, its just that these places are kinda deliberately swept under the carpet, like they dont even exist, well ,they do. 

its just a set of pictures. its a side to london many may not see, is all.
either you love them or hate them, dont miss-understand the purpose of this thread.
i grew up on an estate, and i turned out ok, and plenty others too, plenty others not, same same same. its just a bunch of pictures.

as variety is the spice of life, and all we ever see of london is the same old 'classic' stuff, this is merely a different flavor, okay 




check your PM blindfold...


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

I never ever want to hear a Londoner complain about Hong Kong's buildings being monotonous or boring - I will e-slap them.


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

edit


----------



## Blindfold (Jan 22, 2006)

LSyd said:


> that's it for Brixton? it seemed a lot higher. on some blocks in Brixton/southeast London, with the chicken eateries, nail/hair shops i felt like like i was back in the hood in America on my way to teach school. it was the first (and one of the few) things that made me homesick. :cheers:
> -


Brixton is a huge drawcard for black Londoner's from outlyting areas who shop at the market for their yams, african snails etc and to get their hair and nails done. Because of this, you will see more black faces on the street but many don't actually live there. Due to the daily influx it feels like 'home' for many black immigrants.

And I LOVE IT!


----------



## Skabbymuff (Mar 4, 2006)

im (as viewed by most uk people probs) a sick **** then, cos i bleedin' love the blocks in HK, its the place i intend to try and live over the next few years. i think the social issues are very different there to here. everyone lives in blocks there. over here, blocks generally mean council housing / estate = poor, crime, blah blah. its a really different social structure i think.


----------



## Skabbymuff (Mar 4, 2006)

bloody chek yer pm blindfold!!!!!!!!! grrrrr.


----------



## LSyd (Aug 31, 2003)

i like this shot i took near Elephant and Castle last summer










-


----------



## Skabbymuff (Mar 4, 2006)

hehhe, i used to live opposite that block on the left and the right (was across the road behind and in between the two)


----------



## Nouvellecosse (Jun 4, 2005)

Well I actually like these areas. Well, aesthetically anyway; I can't speak about any social problem they may have. 

I've been fairly familiar with this type of housing for awhile now. You can see the buildings off in the distance in any aerial shot of London, and I've watched a couple of movies that featured people who lived in these areas. Obviuosly the areas are poor, but I think they're quite nice for being poor areas.


----------



## el_artista_violeta (Nov 20, 2004)

spyguy said:


> I wasn't supposed to see this!


that's really funny.


----------



## TheOldMan (Jul 1, 2005)

nice thread. It is a look on the other side of London. i guess those were the "bad" areas?

They look much nicer than than the "bad" areas of Philly and Los Angeles. interesting...

Good photography, by the way.


----------



## Blindfold (Jan 22, 2006)

Enfield, North London



















Edmonton Green N9


----------



## Blindfold (Jan 22, 2006)

Thamesmead SE28
Famous for being used as a film set. See "A Clockwork Orange", "Beautiful Thing" and Aphex Twins classic "Come to Daddy" video.


----------



## Rachmaninov (Aug 5, 2004)

I suppose that's in Kilburn.

The council flats (now known as "affordable housing") are really a nightmare, especially those in East End!


----------



## Manuel (Sep 11, 2002)

Council housing is not really what is now called "affordable housing".

A decade ago some half of the population of some Inner boroughs live in public housing, that's a very high proportion.

Among these, the proportion of people living in tower blocks is much lower, many estates are low rise terraced houses.

And yes there are fewer commie blocks in London than in Moscow or even Paris suburbs.

----

Very interesting thread, thanks for posting!


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Bertez said:


> .....probably one of the ugliest commieblocks I've seen


Isn't this a listed building? I have seen it on a BBC3 show (Dream Spaces?) a while back, and it has since had a makeover and become a real popular building for luxury apartments? Although it started life as a council building.

In fact, a few of these original council flats are being turned into modern higher cost apartment towers, and others they are knocking down. Many are truely terrible in design, and one of the reasons UK residents started to hate high rises.

There are quite a few around London, but the original post in this thread claimed "This is the REAL London where people live". No, this is where some people in London live, the vast majority of residentual space in London is not these apartments.


----------



## Blindfold (Jan 22, 2006)

Justme said:


> There are quite a few around London, but the original post in this thread claimed "This is the REAL London where people live". No, this is where some people in London live, the vast majority of residentual space in London is not these apartments.


Nobody said "This is the REAL London where ALL of the people live". I'm sure most forumers are aware of London's abundance of suburban housing whether it be detached, semi-detached or terraced. 

London is blessed with huge tracts of open space and parkland with many tree-lined streets but we're trying to show something a bit different from the norm here. It can't be ignored that this type of housing is a reality for a significant number of Londoners, especially in the inner city.


----------



## Blindfold (Jan 22, 2006)

Justme said:


> Isn't this a listed building? I have seen it on a BBC3 show (Dream Spaces?) a while back, and it has since had a makeover and become a real popular building for luxury apartments? Although it started life as a council building.


Trellick Tower is a Grade II Listed Building. I have been inside and on the roof a couple of times as part of London Open House weekend. The vast majority of the building is still council housing but private flats (bought under 'Right to Buy), are incredibly sought after. The views are amazing and the flats are spacious and well designed with both front and rear views.

A lack of security and concierge gave this building its nickname "Colditz in the Sky" in the 70s & 80s but this has all changed. The architect Erno Goldfinger also designed a slighty shorter verson in Poplar, East London called Balfron Tower.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Blindfold said:


> *Nobody said "This is the REAL London where ALL of the people live".* I'm sure most forumers are aware of London's abundance of suburban housing whether it be detached, semi-detached or terraced.
> 
> London is blessed with huge tracts of open space and parkland with many tree-lined streets but we're trying to show something a bit different from the norm here. It can't be ignored that this type of housing is a reality for a significant number of Londoners, especially in the inner city.


Actually, I copied and pasted that from the first post that stated this thread, so it was actually "said"

Don't worry, I'm not being critical of this thread, it's good to see all sides of any city. Personally, I think it should be balanced with other types of typical residential areas, but that's just me thinking


----------



## Blindfold (Jan 22, 2006)

Balfron Tower, Poplar, East London - the older and shorter sister of Trellick Tower.


----------



## SE9 (Apr 26, 2005)

Blindfold said:


> *South London's Finest:*
> 
> Heygate Estate, Walworth SE17
> 
> ...


I know some guys who live at Peyps. I dislike the two white blocks there as they partially block the view from Greenwick Park looking westward.

Greenwich council are demolishing all their mega-estates, to be completed by 2010. Currently the estate at Thamesmead (on the previous page) is being knocked down, and the Ferrier Estate is due for demolition.

In contrast, more Lewisham Borough residents live in flats than houses.



blindfold said:


> Brixton is a huge drawcard for black Londoner's from outlyting areas who shop at the market for their yams, african snails etc and to get their hair and nails done. Because of this, you will see more black faces on the street but many don't actually live there. Due to the daily influx it feels like 'home' for many black immigrants.
> 
> And I LOVE IT!


The 3 main Afro-Caribbean centres in South London are Brixton, Peckham and Lewisham. Brixton is slightly more Jamaican, and Peckham is slightly more West African, with Lewisham being quite a mix.


----------



## DrJoe (Sep 12, 2002)

Toronto has the same style "commie-blocks". It's nothing to be ashamed of. 

In Toronto's case it hasn't led to segregation or ghettoization. I don't know if that's the case in London also?


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

I don´t get what the big surprise is?? Large cities always have ugly areas - even in Europe (not as much as in the Americas and Asia though). We have tons of commieblocks in the suburbs of Helsinki....


----------



## Prince (Dec 12, 2004)

Aren't most of these areas going to be demolish or regenerated with the 2012 Olympics?


----------



## juanico (Sep 30, 2005)

Interesting thread, as someone said earlier, we don't come on here to see postcards.


----------



## brunob (Sep 11, 2002)

SuomiPoika said:


> I don´t get what the big surprise is?? Large cities always have ugly areas - even in Europe (not as much as in the Americas and Asia though). We have tons of commieblocks in the suburbs of Helsinki....


I can't talk for all the estates you see in this serie of pictures, but the Balfron tower and Robin hood gardens are definetly not going to be demolished: they are listed buildings.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

I think all too often, especially back in the City vs City days, no one wanted to admit that poor areas exist in their city. Some people even claimed poverty does not exist in their country. It is also interesting to see the poor areas as well as the wealthy... they exist in every city.


----------



## TeKnO_Lx (Oct 19, 2004)

i dont think is that bad, honestly i find housing projects in Lisbon suburbs much worse due to it´s rainbow colours and crazy densification


----------



## LeeUK (Aug 17, 2005)

Every city has shitty areas - proud to be a Brit!! wouldn't swap it for anything


----------



## Blindfold (Jan 22, 2006)

SE9 said:


> Currently the estate at Thamesmead (on the previous page) is being knocked down, and the Ferrier Estate is due for demolition.


I knew the Ferrier Estate is due to come down eventually but had no idea that Thamesmead was being demolished. Noooooooo!

Ferrier Estate was used for the outside shots of Gary Oldman's gritty drama "Nil By Mouth".


----------



## NothingBetterToDo (Sep 11, 2002)

great pics......

I'm suprised London isnt more well known for having areas like these (i always assumed that London and the UK was infamous for building ugly commie blocks in the 60's and 70's). 

I dont nessicarily think its the 'London they dont want you to see' or the 'hidden london'. Anyone who visits London and travels from any airport into London by train will pass through areas like these.......whether you notice them is another thing though....if you are a visitor you will tend to only spot the nice and attractive things. 

Also, alot of foreingers seem to think brits live like the steriotype....i.e. Living in big georgian houses, driving Jaguars and Rolls Royces.....drinking afternoon tea e.t.c 

well, like any big city, London has its sink estates and bad areas.............however, on the whole, London is made up of mostly 1930's semi detached suburban houses. Similar to these (its pure suburbia)










and check out this pic, it shows lots of commie blocks


----------



## Blindfold (Jan 22, 2006)

Taller said:


> I think all too often, especially back in the City vs City days, no one wanted to admit that poor areas exist in their city. Some people even claimed poverty does not exist in their country. It is also interesting to see the poor areas as well as the wealthy... they exist in every city.


Thank you. At least some people can appreciate the reasons behind this thread. Yes, we all know these types of housing exist in most large cities but few people get to see them up close either on these forums or when they are visiting. 

However, for myself its as much about the architecture and the social and economic climate existing both today and when these developemnts were thrown up in the 60's.


----------



## Blindfold (Jan 22, 2006)

NothingBetterToDo said:


> .............however, on the whole, London is made up of *mostly * 1930's semi detached suburban houses. Similar to these (its pure suburbia)


I would say its a fairly even balance between 30's semi-detached and the traditional late-19th Century terrace's which blanket inner London right out to Zone 3.



















And lets not forget these babies...the classic 1930's GLC block of which there are hundreds over Inner London. 










They seem to have stood the test of time and you rarely see them being demolished. Unlike many of the estates in this thread which are coming down everwhere. Shoddy system-built construction, damp, noise and and permiabilty problems have seem them have a lifespan of only about 30 years.


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

if it's weird it's British
if it's ugly it's Russian
if it's ugly and weird...it's French.


----------



## Henley (Apr 20, 2006)

There was a BBC programme marking 25 years since the Brixton riots just the other week. A black bloke involved in the riots took you round and showed Brixton today with it's deli's, restaurants, boutiques and how the area is much more mixed now rather than a predominately black area. Many of the traditional black population have left Brixton and moved due to escalating house prices and inner city gentrification.

It also should be noted that London covers a geographic area twice the size of New York and there are indeed high rise areas in South London, the East End etc, but London has some of the most beautiful suburbs at the same time and even areas such as Whitechapel, Brick Lane and Brixton have a great vibrance about them.

Finally many of the tower blocks such as the Elephant and Castle etc are the subject of massive regeneration and London currently has more inward investment than any other city in Europe.


----------



## BobDaBuilder (Jun 7, 2005)

Whats so bad about that?

Go to Adelaide in Australia and you will see a real hell hole.


----------



## Henley (Apr 20, 2006)

Here's an article regarding the gentrification of Brixton, which is now a very trendy and fashionable area with it's cafe bars and gated communities. Brixton is a totally different place to what it was and in many areas of London the new immigrants are now polish, east european and russian.

Brixton is now a very mixed area and the Afro-Carribean Community have been forced out by high prices and Brixtons new trendy image. If you want a good example of a tarditional Afro-Carribean Community, I would suggest Harlesden rather than Brixton.

http://yellowcontent.blogspot.com/2005/04/guest-article-on-brixton-london_20.html

Finally when has London ever tried to hide it's slums, pick up virtually any of the works of Charkes Dickens and you see the other side to London, or George Orwell's Down and Out in London and Paris or a whole host of other works including Bullet Boy 9pm this Saturday on BBC2. The fact that London was heavily bombed during the war meant there was a need for new housing and the so called white hot technology of the 50's and 60's provided this in the sahpe of high rise flats, however many of the flats have now been pulled down or are being demolished as they simple were not of good enough quality to stand the test of time.

I would disagree with the author of this thread though, London's poor side is not hidden, infact it's documented by every one from Shakespeare to Orwell through to contemprary dramas, and it is a side to London which is known throughout the world and which London has documented more than most cities.


----------



## SE9 (Apr 26, 2005)

^ Many have spread eastward towards Southwark & Lewisham boroughs. There's a significant African community between Woolwich and Thamesmead, and between Camberwell - Peckham - New Cross and Lewisham.


----------



## Blindfold (Jan 22, 2006)

Henley said:


> Many of the traditional black population have left Brixton and moved due to escalating house prices and inner city gentrification.


Although this statement is true for some, many black residents have left the area due to crime and other problems associated with the inner city. Others have left because they can now afford to move out to a quieter, leafy area and a bigger home with a garden.

Although Brixton has changed, there is still a lot of poverty in the area. Crime, especially drug related crime such as muggings and shootings is still amongst the worst in the UK.


----------



## Giorgio (Oct 9, 2004)

This is the London I expect. I see it all the time on TV in Australia and there is nothing wrong with it...excpet maybe the cloud cover.


----------



## Svajoklis (Oct 29, 2005)

This is a good thread...I myself live in Tufnell Park, which I think is the perfect mix in terms of suburbia vs. centre. It's very residential and thus peaceful, leafy, quiet etc. but it's also really close to the centre [TP is Zone 2 on Northern Line] and also other local commercial centres such as Camden and Angel. It's mainly made up of Victorian terraces and semis [I live in one of the latter], which I like, but not as much as Georgian terraces like those in the South of the Borough or places like Highgate or Hampstead. Also, because of the bombing, there are a few council estates as well. 

I've always hated those mock-tudor suburbs which stretch for miles on every side of London, but they're at least preferable to big ugly tower blocks [although I like Trellick tower], and they do look English, as opposed to commieblocks which look the same in Minsk as they do in Manchester. On the whole I would say that London isn't especially attractive or ugly as a city, but it differs to eg Paris in that the ugliness is mixed in with the attractiveness, rather than in a different place to it. I don't think any city in the world is entirely aesthetically pleasing.


----------



## oskarj (Mar 15, 2006)

:sleepy:


----------



## Henley (Apr 20, 2006)

Blindfold said:


> But hundreds of thousands of people do and they are far from rich.


The rate that new apartment blocks are being built in London at Canary Wharf, Chelsea, Paddington Basin, whilt the tower blocks are gredually being either demolished or even gentrified themselves, there will be more wealthy people living high rise than poor in London.



Blindfold said:


> If this is the case, count your blessings. As i've said already, social housing is a reality for a significant number of Londoners (myself included). For most of us, the detached and semi-detached houses pictured are far out of our reach because of insane property prices. Luckily for me, suburbia = BORING!





Blindfold said:


> Nobody has disputed this or said otherwise. Also working class and poor are not the same thing, they shouldn't be confused.


With one breath you claim the poor can't afford to live in Suburbia and with the other your claiming that you agree they do live in the suburbs. As for Barking and Dagenham, there both poor and working class areas, and the Dagenham Estate of houses was the largest public housing estate in the world when it was built and still is the largest in Europe to this day.

London doesn't have massive clusters of tower blocks like Singapore, it has the odd estate usually surrounded by terraced housing.

There may be a hundred odd thousand living in tower blocks but there's 7.5 million living in London.


----------



## NothingBetterToDo (Sep 11, 2002)

Peyre said:


> mmmm London grit
> 
> Not all Londoners live in sink estates. Its full of Semis, Detchaed and even 1930's 4 house terraces
> 
> ...


Here are some more pics of the North London Suburbs.....close to where i live 



















It must also be noted that the suburban style houses (be them Victorian, Georgian, 1930's e.t.c.) are not always privatly owned. Infact a large part of them are Social housing. I myself live in social housing, its a 1930's GLC (Greater London Authority) house, fairly typical of the suburban houses you see all over London. In a pretty nice area (Wood Green/Tottenham, which has a bad reputation, but is pretty undeserved in my opinion)


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Wood Green is great - I always go to cinema there  and WG is not far from Alexandra Palace/Muswell Hill.


----------



## LordMandeep (Apr 10, 2006)

Well In Toronto we have so called commieblocks, however they are quite mixed with people, expect in a few areas.
St Jamestown is really bad. 
Even the most nicest cities have shitty area. East sideVancouver is the poorest place in Canada. Even though its changing.

However there is mostly downtown condo buildings and massive subrubian homes being built now.


----------



## gamma_ray_burst (Apr 8, 2006)

London is the capital of brutalism.
This is one of the reasons because I love this town (even if trellik tower shakes my nightmares).

but I think the presence of such suburbs is a common feature of all big towns


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

What's the big deal? There's a lot worse in other cities. I find the commieblocks unattractive and lacking much personality, but they're not slums. I actually really like some commieblocks' design.


----------



## NothingBetterToDo (Sep 11, 2002)

El_Greco said:


> Wood Green is great - I always go to cinema there  and WG is not far from Alexandra Palace/Muswell Hill.


My heart will always be in Wood Green , i grew up in there (on the posh side, near the Palace  ).....now i live on the Wood Green/Tottenham border.

I'm always big'in up wood green to my mates........especialy the pompus ones who live in Barnet....they seem to have a thing against WG.............Well........Barnet is Chav central......WG has Ethnic chic and of course...Alexandra palace (which is gloriously shown in the pics above)


----------



## Skabbymuff (Mar 4, 2006)

this is one of the best pics of london i have seen in a long time. it looks vast and amazing, and the cbd is not even in this view.

this is why this thread is here, to show another side to this great city. you never see images of london like this, its always the same old postcard pictures, as cool as they are, it gets boring. its nice to see another side to this city. 

any chance anybody knows where this picture was taken from?


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Hehe


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Skabbymuff said:


> any chance anybody knows where this picture was taken from?


Somewhere in Greenwich I think (The Point Maybe)


----------



## NothingBetterToDo (Sep 11, 2002)

Skabbymuff said:


> this is one of the best pics of london i have seen in a long time. it looks vast and amazing, and the cbd is not even in this view.
> 
> this is why this thread is here, to show another side to this great city. you never see images of london like this, its always the same old postcard pictures, as cool as they are, it gets boring. its nice to see another side to this city.
> 
> any chance anybody knows where this picture was taken from?


well, its deffinatly greenwich......not sure exactly where though......probably not a hard place to find once you are in Greenwich park. But it wouldnt suprise me if that view has changed somwhat.....it was taken in 1997....almost 10 years ago, and in that time alot of tower blocks and estates have been demolished.


----------



## JDRS (Feb 8, 2004)

Interesting thread. I like seeing these parts of London instead of the same picture perfect images all the time. Lots of these places exist all over London and I'm sure many tourists do get to see them (if not on the skyline at least) as long as they step out of the West End. What is the estate near fulham/kensington that's supposed to be one of the most notorious?

As for suburbia I live right on the very outskirts of London and hate it. Especially at this age when I like life and energy. Give me an inner london tower block over the estate which borders the countryside I live in now any day of the week!


----------



## Skabbymuff (Mar 4, 2006)

such a shame, they make the skyline so much more interesting. its a real shame.


----------



## ranny fash (Apr 24, 2005)

i dont get why people are moaning about this thread. its interesting.


----------



## Blindfold (Jan 22, 2006)

Henley, a couple of points I need to clarify.


Henley said:


> With one breath you claim the poor can't afford to live in Suburbia and with the other your claiming that you agree they do live in the suburbs..


 Nonsense. I am more than aware of social housing of the 30's semi-detached variety. The point I was trying to make (and I apologise if it wasn't clear) was that people like myself who live in a high-density inner-city social housing development are unable to move to a suburban detached/semi-detached property without going private and this is now unobtainable due to London's sky-high property prices. Social housing tenants get what they are given and the majority of people in the types of developments pictured here do not have the means of escape (except by winning the lottery perhaps?). 



Henley said:


> There may be a hundred odd thousand living in tower blocks but there's 7.5 million living in London.


 Who said that most Londoners live in housing? Not me. I have already stated that the dominant house types are Victorian terraces and 30's semi's.


----------



## sohail style (Apr 21, 2006)

Wow..really is different than the manufactured image of London.


----------



## Blindfold (Jan 22, 2006)

Warwick and Brindley Estates, Westbourne Green, as viewed from the A40 Westway


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

I went to Edmonton/tottenham/wood green a few months ago while I was in London and I have to say that while this type of housing isn't pretty it isn't too bad. I couldn't live there though because of the filth everywhere. Litter was covering the parks, hedgerows and pavements, gutters at the roadside were literally overflowing with cigarette packets, fast food packaging, bottles, cans etc. The UK is quite bad generally for litter so i'm used to a bit but I was shocked by just how filthy many of these inner city London areas really are. I don't understand how the people there can have such a lack of respect for their own local environment.


----------



## Urban Dave (Apr 18, 2004)

:master::master: Simply amazing! Those high residential towers are lovely.


----------



## NothingBetterToDo (Sep 11, 2002)

Jonesy55 said:


> I went to Edmonton/tottenham/wood green a few months ago while I was in London and I have to say that while this type of housing isn't pretty it isn't too bad. I couldn't live there though because of the filth everywhere. Litter was covering the parks, hedgerows and pavements, gutters at the roadside were literally overflowing with cigarette packets, fast food packaging, bottles, cans etc. The UK is quite bad generally for litter so i'm used to a bit but I was shocked by just how filthy many of these inner city London areas really are. I don't understand how the people there can have such a lack of respect for their own local environment.


Yeah, thats one of my pet hates about my fellow Londoners.........the fact they just dump litter anywhere they feel like. Even if there is a bin a few footsteps away, they would rather throw their empty wrappers, fast food packaging, cigs, chewing gum e.t.c on the street.


----------



## Madman (Dec 29, 2003)

I love these kind of threads, though we might not like them these blights on the landscape tell much about the optimism and faith in modernity Londoners had in the post war period. Although for the best, the rapid loss of these estates (i read somewhere the number of people in high rise social built housing has since the 1970s declined by 2/3) is a bit like white-washing much of London's past.


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

Blindfold said:


> Saw this pic on the UK forum and it blew me away...Whitechapel, East London 1972


Yeah, that´s an impressive pic! Whitechapel you say? Just yesterday i watched a creepy movie about jack the ripper ("From Hell") and the events in the film took place in Whitechapel...It didn´t look like that though


----------



## pricemazda (Feb 14, 2004)

Well, trust me Whitechapel ain't like that pic! 

Whitechapel is a dump.

I can't work out why people have started a thread with this title as if there is some conspiracy?

London has its shit parts. London is actually a dirty, heaving mess of a city. It has none of the urban manicured look of Paris. It doesn't need it, it has a vibrancy and creativity that is organic and implusive.

Was there any need for this thread. 

Oh and by the way some of the original pictures weren't even of a London, 'Hyde' is a area Manchester, not London.


----------



## Blindfold (Jan 22, 2006)

pricemazda said:


> Well, trust me Whitechapel ain't like that pic!
> 
> Whitechapel is a dump.
> 
> ...


Of course Whitechapel 'ain't like that pic'. That pic was taken nearly 35 years ago. Most of those flats are still there though. Next time you get the DLR out of Bank or Tower Gateway you will see them. 

The title of this thread was merely to catch peoples attention. It also reflects the fact that most pictures we see of London, and other cities for that matter, are of the picture postcard type. We wanted to show people that there is another side to London and this objective has worked. A lot of people have been genuinely surprised. Others are enjoying seeing a side that many UK forumers are unwilling to share about.

Yes, we know there is a Hyde in Greater Manchester but Hyde is also the name of a housing association in the South East of England:
http://www.hyde-housing.co.uk/corporate/index.asp
The pictures of the Pepys Estate are titled correctly.

Any other ill-informed 'facts' you'd like to share with us Pricemazda?


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Whitechapel is great I love it! :cheers:


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

this is one of the best threads since ages, keep the pictures coming! :cheers:


----------



## NothingBetterToDo (Sep 11, 2002)

pricemazda said:


> London has its shit parts. London is actually a dirty, heaving mess of a city. It has none of the urban manicured look of Paris. It doesn't need it, it has a vibrancy and creativity that is organic and implusive.


Mayfair and Kensington have the 'urban manicured look of Paris'......i think they are equally as beautiful


----------



## fcarvall (Nov 6, 2004)

oh my god these buildings are beautiful! It's so sad that they are in such bad disrepair. They should do good renovations on them and turn them into condos with certain percentages of the apts. directed for "affordable" housing, so as to have different levels of income people. 

wow

People have come to hate these buildings out of ignorance. Just like many downtown areas were raised in the 60s because they were considered ugly with their narrow dark, charming, alleys and old houses. People came to hate them only because the rich had left and only poor suffering people were living in them with no possibliity to bring modern-day wiring/plumming into these old houses. Nowadays, it's the same thing but with the buildings that replaced those. IT's almost funny how history repeats itself.

What you hate is not the architecture, but what it houses. These buildings do not CREATE poverty, poverty has found them. Hate the system, not the building.

Can you imagine the sprawling views those buildings have? the sunlight they capture?

Plus people have started calling them "commieblocks" so as to dismiss them without a fair understanding, using communist as the definition of ugly. It's 1984 doublespeak all over again: The question: it this commieblock beautiful? becomes "is this ugly building beautiful?" mmmm, how could something ugly be beautiful? Round and round the argument goes.


----------



## NothingBetterToDo (Sep 11, 2002)

^^ High rise tower blocks in the UK have a stigma attached to them because in ALOT of cases they where built very quickly, to very poor standard and were built to house the poorer members of society in the post war period, and as such, had little or no architectural merit. The terrible construction methods of many flats was highlighted in the mid 1960's by a building called 'Ronan Point', when a small gas explosion caused the complete collapse of one side of the building......it was later found out that the entire weight of the building was being supported by small, thin bits of wood on each floor. 

With bad design and bad construction methods these buildings became horrible places to live, the flats would often be damp, dust filled, with poor plumbing and a lifts that never worked. And, i know this is a gross generalisation, but without a good mix of 'classes' (if you want to call it that), these buildings often become crime infested.....drugs, prostitution, general crime e.t.c. 

Many of these buildings have been renovated and improved, however, with others (and it is a large proportion), i dont think renovation is possible or cost effective. The flats mabey small, and do not meet current regulations, and due to poor construction methods it may be cheaper to simply demolish and start again. 

I think important questions are raised about the 'Beauty' and architectural importance of these buildings. But at the end of the day, i think people quality of life should be placed above any such considerations, if demolishing a large proportion of towers in order to provide nice, well designed, well constructed homes for poorer members of society is the only way....then so be it......in a way it is white washing our history away, but it is for the better. Think of cities in developing cities with large slums or favellas....eventually they will have to be completely cleared (and hopefully the people rehoused in better dwellings)...but i doubt there will be many complaining that those cities are white washing their history.

EDIT: here are some pics of Ronan Point that i just found


----------



## Hed Kandi (Aug 29, 2004)

The commie blocks look awfull but the neighbourhoods do look nice.
It looks alive and very multi cultural. :cheers:


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

fcarvall said:


> Plus people have started calling them "commieblocks" so as to dismiss them without a fair understanding, using communist as the definition of ugly.


Commieblock - Communal Blockhouse.


----------



## asdfg (Mar 25, 2006)

WANCH said:


> Most major European cities have mid/high-rise public housing. In fact I would like to see this side of London!
> 
> But in the UK, I think Glasgow's public housing blocks more interest me than London's


Check out some of these photographs by Gleegieboy if you want to see some Glaswegian council housing...

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=8171592


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

Whitechapel is great, it is not a dump whoever said that is very ignorant surprisingly clean streets IMO except for the market ofcourse.

I am pretty surprised that the so called 'not so nice' parts of London aren't really all that bad, they are pretty nice looking actually. i think cities like Paris, New York, Glasgow have worse 'shitty areas' (anyone who thinks paris is just beautiful has never been,)


----------



## ranny fash (Apr 24, 2005)

great thread - even though there are some real shitholes, it's a real surprise how "nice" even the shitty areas in london look compared to other cities like manchester, glasgow, paris etc.


----------



## Xander (Mar 2, 2005)

Whitechapel is NOT a dump, its a thriving vibrant place. Thats the cool thing about London compared to the likes of Paris/New York etc, when you go off the beaten track there are many slightly run down yet amazingly interesting, historic places with their own unique vibes. There are very few real shitholes with nothing going for them in London, maybe Peckham, Lambeth, Hackney, Harlsedon (but even then i bet they have certain charms).


----------



## Blindfold (Jan 22, 2006)

Xander said:


> There are very few real shitholes with nothing going for them in London, maybe Peckham, Lambeth, Hackney, Harlsedon (but even then i bet they have certain charms).


I agree. One of the best things about London is the fact that the rich and poor often live cheek by jowl. Even the most 'exclusive' residential areas like St John's Wood and Belgravia have council estates on their doorstep.

Peckham and Hackney, which are generally very deprived and have a higher than average concentration of social housing, have got some stunning pockets with tree lined streets of Victorian of Georgian housing. Lambeth has got the bustling, buzzing, super-cool melting pot of Brixton as its heart (biased, I know).

On the subject of Peckham, have any Londoners got images of the North Peckham Estate? Made infamous nationally due to the murder of Damilola Taylor, this huge estate was possibly the nations worst. Mostly now demolished or remodelled, it consisted of high-level walkways connecting dozens of blocks. Very few roads penetrated the estate and it became a rabbit warren of crime and deprivation. It is rumoured that the architect comitted suicide after seeing what she'd created in the flesh. It's neighbours, the Camden and Gloucester Grove estates, were all connected via walkways and suffered a similar fate.


----------



## Blindfold (Jan 22, 2006)

Only North Peckham shots I could find (sorry, small images)

North Peckham Estate














































Gloucester Grove Estate


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

some of those pics are really old. London demolished over 400 highrise blocks after the sixties concrete buildfest and replaced them with new build but traditionally planned terraced styled housing. Many of the remaining ones are actually listed buildings now, including Robin Hood Gardens shown in the second photo post.

with the porperty bubble, many of the old estates have been spruced up as the middle classes suddenly find them viable to live in. Whats seen nowadays as a worse scourge are the gated communities. theres even a law against them now.

anyway if posting pics, at least post up to date ones.


----------



## pricemazda (Feb 14, 2004)

is there really?

But we have the London equivalent, small scale developments with secure parking and video phone entry, aren't they kind of the same thing.


----------



## Skabbymuff (Mar 4, 2006)

my local town in sw london they knocked down all the blocks and replaced with low-rise housing. traveling by on the train, you still see the same lack of respect for the area, its all the same people in the same situation they were in before. anybody who travels through this area via train will see the endless fields of burnt out cars, and knocked down picket fences (this is no joke), just because the tower blocks have been replaced, does not mean the social issues have disappeared also.
As for the way many estates these days are being turned into luxury apartments, well, I find it very odd. I think the u.k. has a very warped attitude towards highrise living, there is no two ways about it.


----------



## Skabbymuff (Mar 4, 2006)

you cant just put all the poor in one area and then let it rot, the results of this are obvious. the number of stories bares no relevance. taller buildings just happen to look better for the skyline, hence why i feel it is a shame all these blocks in london are being lost.


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

^^ exactly, blaming the form of archicture is only a way for the state to keep it's head in the sand. In the 70's in France there was a ridiculous study that claimed that starting from a floor (don't remember which one, I think it was the 7th), people had a higher tendency to be criminal. 

You mix this with the ugly look a lot of those towers have, and the "experts" think the solution is only urban, and by replacing cheap towers with cheap low rises or single family homes, problems will solve themselves magicaly.

Which is of course totaly false, until you attack the real causes, problems will not solve themselves.

I have a feeling that by nocking those towers down, they sort of want, not to solve poverty, but to hide it, 2-story social housing ghettos are much less shocking and visible then when they are made of 20-story towers.


----------



## Skabbymuff (Mar 4, 2006)

> I have a feeling that by nocking those towers down, they sort of want, not to solve poverty, but to hide it


by god, i think we have hit a note of reason....... :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:


----------



## Harkeb (Oct 12, 2004)

The graffiti on the walls are inspiring and encourge 'harmony'  Not the gangster sleaze one would find in many other cities.


----------



## velco (Dec 2, 2005)

always mad respect to your posts.


----------



## Valia (Feb 19, 2005)

I could barely believe it


----------



## ricz (May 4, 2006)

*london*

some of those blocks dun actually look that bad
but the atmosphere, the ppl there r reli ghetto tho
well London is generally reli tacky anyway even in the tourist area, with the tackiest n dirtiest underground and all the chavs lol
but well captured images!


----------



## DrJoe (Sep 12, 2002)

Toronto has similar buildings to this also.










This is one of the denest blocks in North America.









Many new Canadians call them home before they get their feet off the ground.


----------



## Blindfold (Jan 22, 2006)

There's a new thread in the UK forum covering commieblocks/council estates for all of the UK. Plenty more pics for those who got overly excited/upset about this thread first time around....
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=408485


----------



## Skabbymuff (Mar 4, 2006)

yay!


----------



## FASSE3 (Jan 12, 2006)

nice pictures


----------



## sydney_lad (Dec 6, 2005)

Brilliant thread.

Thanks for the pics especially.

This has inspired me to start a thread. 

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=10704893#post10704893


----------



## gamma_ray_burst (Apr 8, 2006)

does someone have some pics of the norwood junction neighborhood, in particular the blocks near the rail station?


----------



## GrigorisSokratis (Apr 6, 2005)

Damn 20th century!

I don't know but poverty should not be associated with this ugly kind of structures. Guys, in classic 18th, 19th centuries London (a-la-Dickens) there was also poverty in the city and they lived in other kind of structures, now recycled and considered wonderful. I simply think that the architects of back the 60's and 70's were the worst EVER in world history no matter their origins, almost all of them suck.

Simply I feel in most commies worldwide a lack of style, they're so.....empty of expression, though full of people inside, they lack that humanity found in more individual structures.

I hope slowly these people find better, cleaner (enviromentally) places to live in (along with an improvement in their economic position, they deserve of course) and these ugly monsters be replaced by something better, not only in London but everywhere on earth.

There's nothing bad on recognizing that these buildings are in a majority ugly (though maybe needed in the 70's) and needless for our current economic reality, where urban planification is much better and housing problems can be filled with houses of better quality.


----------



## Tubeman (Sep 12, 2002)

ricz said:


> London is generally reli tacky anyway even in the tourist area, with the tackiest n dirtiest underground and all the chavs lol


As we say in England; ****

Great thread... I have always been a great tower block fan. I grew up near the Brentford Towers (Green Dragon Lane) 
and South Acton Estates and have always loved the look of a series of giant blocks striding across the skyline. 
Fortunately not too many proper tall 'Point' blocks have been demolished in London... at least the majority remain. 
The largest estates I recalled being blown up are the Trowbridge Estate in Hackney Wick and three of the four Holly Street towers in Kingsland;

Trowbridge Estate










Holly Street Estate










I love the drive along the Westway and down the west cross route to Shepherd's Bush... you pass easily 20 point blocks including 
Trellick Tower, the 6 towers of the Warwick estate, Waynfleete Square in Ladbroke Grove with 5 towers, the three ugly monsters 
overlooking the southern end of the west cross route to the east and the four towers above the Shepherd's Bush shopping centre. 
Another favourite stretch is alongside the mainline out of Waterloo... first the garish multicoloured barrier blocks overlooking 
Battersea Park station, followed by 5 or 6 more wide brick-built blocks punctauted by 2 point blocks then the vista opens out 
to cover all of Battersea with the Surrey estate and then onto Clapham Junction station with the Winstanley Estate looming above.

I have lived in a few different council blocks, one of them being Michael Cliffe House in Finsbury, 
here viewed from my current flat in the LCC 1930's Margery Street Estate:


----------



## Saigoneseguy (Mar 6, 2005)

Haha...council estate+bunch of yobs+white van with english flag is where i lived in.


----------



## Tubeman (Sep 12, 2002)

saigon_monsooner said:


> Haha...council estate+bunch of yobs+white van with english flag is where i lived in.


You lived in a van with a bunch of yobs?


----------



## Franito (Dec 10, 2006)

I'm sure you don't understand the meaning of "don't want you to see" areas. Come to South America and then you'll see how lucky you are... hno: 
REGARDS.


----------



## Imanol (Dec 26, 2005)

....


----------



## RETROMANIA (Dec 9, 2006)

the city looks like Mexico city poor neighborhoods​


----------



## barcelona2007 (Mar 24, 2007)

Franito said:


> I'm sure you don't understand the meaning of "don't want you to see" areas. Come to South America and then you'll see how lucky you are... hno:
> REGARDS.



It depends on what country are you talking about, that place looks like the worst neighborhood of Buenos Aires (Lugano). Nor worse nor better. Just commie blocks with the poorer people and immigrants. 

But I guess that is just a neighborhood, in Buenos Aires at least is just a samml neighborhood out of 24! (most of the beautiful and charming for me  )


I guess that every big city has its "commie nighborhood". The same with Paris...

Is it a big this English neighborhood? I doubt it...


----------



## otro (May 27, 2007)

I think this side of London surprises people for a number of reasons, specifically, very few images beyond the postcards survive the editing room of printed media. Secondly, the level of disrepair and litter contradicts the image that has been marketed to the world. 

Does anyone have threads of other Europe slums? Please post.

Thanks.


----------



## Sirgarbagemann (Apr 5, 2006)

i dunt get it? whats so bad about it? it looks great!


----------



## Nightsky (Sep 16, 2002)

I think that everyone that have arrived Stanstead Airport and taken the bus to downtown London has seen at least parts of this. It is really a large part of London that looks like that!


----------



## MigMeg (Jun 4, 2007)

Well, New York isn't any better? Even on manhattan there are many ugly looking buildings, several skyscrapers/high rises made of brick etc. If you look at each building separatly there are many, many ugly ones, but New York are so dense that you really just see the whole (except some beautiful buildings sticking out). But in a way you don't care (at least me) that there are so many ugly buildings, because New York is, well, New York. I think that, in a way, people got a more "romantic" (in lack of a better word) view on London, they expect more in the architectural area having pictures of all the beautiful old buildings and so on in the back of their head. 

There are many really beautiful areas of London as well as there are many not as beautiful, but in a way it's a beauty in the diversity too, you find architectual styles from many different eras (in the downtown/centre). But for the suburbs, many are really ugly. When you take the train from Heathrow to London and pass all the brick houses on row after row, you really don't get a good impression of London (and that, I guess isn't the worst part of London). But every major city in the world have areas with ugly buildings, even Paris (though it's only in some of the suburbs, in the city itself almost every building is beautiful). 

But the dark era of commieblocks and ugly brick houses is gone and London is getting new, moore beautiful looking buildings and getting even more divers (Isn't it?)


----------



## PresidentBjork (Apr 29, 2007)

When these blocks were first built people felt very privileged to live in one as Britain was in desperate need of housing after the war. Clearing out the decrepit slums in all major cities was one of the greatest achievements of postwar governments.

As society and the economy changed, fashion moved on and these places have been all too often left dilapidated, but its amazing what a park and few trees can do to brighten them up. 

No they weren't often well designed, or well constructed and perhaps the ideas behind such developments can be seen as flawed now, but they're a part of London nonetheless.

As it happens I used to live in an area where the old original suburban houses built in the years 1900-1940 were intermingled with these blocks, as most of these areas are. Yes, they can be a bit rough, but I've since moved out to countryside and the so called 'middle class' people around the towns here can be worse than the poorer people found in these inner city areas. 

When its comes to low rise regeneration this actually makes sense, as it turned out, strict air laws in Britain meant these blocks had to be spread out to such an extent, that you can actually house more people in the same place in low rise row houses.


----------



## SE9 (Apr 26, 2005)

*Kennington* blocks, SE11











*Ferrier Estate* upon its creation, SE3


----------



## Minato ku (Aug 9, 2005)

MigMeg said:


> But every major city in the world have areas with ugly buildings, even Paris (though it's only in some of the suburbs, in the city itself almost every building is beautiful).



Even the center of Paris has ugly 70's buildings. hno: 

Welcome at 3 km of Notre Dame.  









All cities has ugly buildings, and I prefer a city with ugly 70's buildings. kay:


----------



## Sirgarbagemann (Apr 5, 2006)

well i think they are really pretty, not ugly at all


----------



## Hope_there's_a_lift (Jun 17, 2007)

I think what people are missing in this discussion is what these buildings represent.

The buildings that are being talked about as tourist attractions’ ect. are the cities symbols of wealth and power. The tower blocks which are being described as ugly are, or were, the cities answer to its poor. If I use a building that has turned up a few times in this thread, Trellik tower, as my example: it is in the heart of Notting hill, a trendy place now but if we look back to the sixties when London displayed signs such as 'no blacks, no Irish no dogs' Notting hill was the slums where the city put the people it didn't want, Trellik tower a budget house solution to put all the people it found offensive in one pile on top of each other.

Now W10 is one of the trendiest postcodes in London, Notting hill, the area that was the cities cupboard under the stairs, is a magnet for the rich. Trellik tower still standing tall in the middle of this Metamorphosis not as an ugly left over from the time this was London’s forgotten corner but as a proud symbol of the strength and courage that it was built on, a symbol of the culture that grew there and now attracts the rich. As with all tower blocks that have been designed with budget housing as there purpose they may lack the style and flare of some of the buildings that represent the wealth in the city but they are stronger because they have groan up from 'bad soil' . Yes these buildings may be aesthetically ugly, but poverty is, and that’s what makes these buildings so beautiful is that they are ugly and honest


----------



## Subliving (Jul 1, 2006)

Excellent point there. To further this point only a little, one should delve into London's past and take a look at the architecture through the ages to understand the place.

My area, Islington, is famed for it's beautiful yellow brick terraced houses, with a small two bedroomed example costing anything up to £1m. Ridiculous prices, but people pay them for such a fashionable area. However, what these people fail to remember is that these terraces were originally built as cheap accommodation for the factory workers in the area, and would cram as many people into one as they could. 

I guess in a very succinct way, I'm trying to say that people's opinions of an area do change. What is ugly or cheap today, could be tomorrow's rough diamond.

Subliving.


----------



## Maltaboy (Apr 15, 2006)

The trouble with these apartment complexes is not that they are not nice or that they are ugly.

The trouble with these areas is that they are not well maintained in spite of being modern and reasonably well constructed.

Remember, what is important is the quality of life. In order to have a good life, it is important that these places are cleaned up and maintained properly. The graffitti we see around shows that this is not the case.

I would not mind living in one of these ``commieblocks'' as long as they are well maintained, but they need to clean up the place first.


----------



## Snowy (Nov 6, 2006)

Maltaboy said:


> The trouble with these apartment complexes is not that they are not nice or that they are ugly.
> 
> The trouble with these areas is that they are not well maintained in spite of being modern and reasonably well constructed.
> 
> ...


The trouble is, even if they did clean these places up, it would only be a matter of time before the litter and graffiti returned, in fact it would probably happen in a matter of hours! While some of the residents are good, decent people, you always get the idiots who want to spoil it for everyone else. That's the problem with poor areas - the mentality of some of the people that live there. Unfortunately, because of this, it will never be cost-effective to clean these places up.


----------



## Lawl (Jun 21, 2007)

TETRIS!










by Lawl

(off of Cannon St, E1)


----------



## david chanrion (Oct 4, 2002)

he, Interesting thread but I have not seen many places that would change my idea of London. 
I ll think of starting one about Paris too when I have colected enough images, some northern suburbs donnot look like places you xould love to live.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

ok first off many of the pics are out of date, many of those 'estates' have been given maekeovers or been demolished (about 500 of them) and replaced with low level brick pastiche housing. Many of these that formed the notorious 'inner city' of the 1980s have in the following 2 decades become very much sought after in the housing boom and neverending property bubble, with the average prices now hovering at $700,000 for a concrete apartment. In short : the biggest regeneration of any city, from the Docklands and Stratford in the East to Paddington and Wembley in the West.


but to put things in context. After the war 1/3 of the city was destroyed, moreover when the docks closed by the 1970s 1/8 of the city suddenly laid derelict. 

The postwar planners and concretemeisters had a field day with highrises on the open land, but these prefab buildings after an initial success, went on only top breed crime and neglect. The tide turned and by the 1990s over *400* highrises had been demolished from a peak in the 1960s, with many still slated for demolition, despite protests from the Twentieth Century Society (eg Robin Hood Gardens as posted).

Today there are still decaying estates in the inner city, but there are more and more gentrified ones that outnumber them. Ill give you examples in following posts...


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Trellick Tower, the ultimate example. Notting Hill was once a gentrified and fashionable neighbourhood when it was built in the early 19th Century, but soon fell into disrepute and poverty by 1900. By the 1950s many of the elegant rowhouses housed the new immigrant communities from the Caribbean giving birth to race riots thand carnival the year after. By the 1980s it was becoming increasingly fashionable, the multiple bedsits being reconverted back into huge mansions for the wealthy whilst the immigrants moved out to the leafier suburbs. Trellick Tower slap bang in the middle of all this and so ugly it became an icon, started to become prime real estate, its now a listed building:



















personally I think they should just paint the bastard white.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

another fate of inner city real estate,
the 1. *RECLAD*, and conversion into hotel / offices:

Empress State Building:










2. the *RESTORATION*, hiring the original architect to create a new foyer and pool, and selling them off as luxury pads:

Keeling House:










3.the *COMMUNITY* project, in which the council and residents share the cost of a total revamp + community and youth centres. There is limited success though as long time residents then see the house prices rise to the $750,000 mark, move to leafier suburbia or rent out and in effect the whole community is gradually replaced.










Brunswick Centre:











and 4. *DEMOLITION* and replacement with low level, high density brick housing

the North Peckham Estate where schoolboy Damilola Taylor was murdered









...to be replaced by this:


----------



## eddie88 (Apr 3, 2007)

the spliff fairy said:


> Trellick Tower, the ultimate example. Notting Hill was once a gentrified and fashionable neighbourhood when it was built in the early 19th Century, but soon fell into disrepute and poverty by 1900. By the 1950s many of the elegant rowhouses housed the new immigrant communities from the Caribbean giving birth to race riots thand carnival the year after. By the 1980s it was becoming increasingly fashionable, the multiple bedsits being reconverted back into huge mansions for the wealthy whilst the immigrants moved out to the leafier suburbs. Trellick Tower slap bang in the middle of all this and so ugly it became an icon, started to become prime real estate, its now a listed building:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


man i want that Trellick tshirt!


----------



## eddie88 (Apr 3, 2007)

Blindfold said:


> Warwick and Brindley Estates, Westbourne Green, as viewed from the A40 Westway


Warwick *shudders*, ive got some friends who live in there, its shit scary walking around there one my own, but then I find out half of them get scared as well! 

There are so many groups of kids hanging out, well intimidating, flashing their weapons at you (not a pun) 

The other day I walked passed a group of what must have been 14-15 year olds 


I walk passed, they all stand up sshowing off their hand guns and knifes! I nearly started crying I was so scared! And atm in the news the people getting shot and stabbed are all young! 


Those pictures make the place look nice, just look under the westway (A40) and see what its really like!


----------



## mexatino (Apr 15, 2007)

Interesting thread. This is the first time I see this part of London. I have a question? How far are Westbourne Green and the other neighbourhoods from Picadilly Circus? (Well, form downtown)


----------



## zachus22 (Dec 4, 2006)

Nice stuff, though not as gritty and ghetto as I may have liked to think. Some of those areas with the commieblocks really remind me of mainland China, just the sheer dirtiness and stuff.


----------



## eddie88 (Apr 3, 2007)

mexatino said:


> Interesting thread. This is the first time I see this part of London. I have a question? How far are Westbourne Green and the other neighbourhoods from Picadilly Circus? (Well, form downtown)


Marble Arch is about 30mins by bus. but london hasnt really got a "downtown" 


theres Oxford St, but then theres The City. but id say the West end is where all the action is


----------



## Xpressway (Dec 2, 2006)

This thread doesn't change my opinion about London at all, i still think its one of the best on earth.

now the city can make these blocks look much better though, with some more care they'd look good, just look at Sweden's commie blocks


----------



## NothingBetterToDo (Sep 11, 2002)

mexatino said:


> Interesting thread. This is the first time I see this part of London. I have a question? How far are Westbourne Green and the other neighbourhoods from Picadilly Circus? (Well, form downtown)


Westbourne Green is about 2-3 miles from Piccadilly Circus. But the West End is pretty big, and there are places where its probably less than a mile from the 'downtown' area......its hard to say though because the boundary is blurred and London's tourist centre is so vast.


----------



## SE9 (Apr 26, 2005)

*South London* blocks:


*Evelyn Road* Deptford:











*Heygate* Walworth:


----------



## NothingBetterToDo (Sep 11, 2002)

^^ Lovin those moody clouds in the Evelyn Road pic - great shot


----------



## eddie88 (Apr 3, 2007)

nice pictures ^^


----------



## Tetramesh (Jun 22, 2007)

I just thought I'd add a few pics to this thread.

Bridges over the Regent's Canal carrying the Chiltern and Metropolitan railways.











Kilburn High Road











Denmark Place looking up at Centre Point











An alleyway connecting West End Lane (West Hampstead) to a housing estate.











The railway at Westbourne Park heading West under the A40 Westway.


----------



## TohrAlkimista (Dec 18, 2006)

I was impressed, last year, watching how could be different, the "climate" between the Tube stops Aldgate and Aldgate East. In less than 1000 m you can have the modernity of a business area near the Lloyds and after 1000 m, seems another city.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

What's wrong with this area, it looks quite pleasant to me?


----------



## Tetramesh (Jun 22, 2007)

Justme said:


> What's wrong with this area, it looks quite pleasant to me?


You're right, it does'nt really show what the area around Kilburn is really like. The high street has improved a bit in the last 10 to 15 years but the streets that you can't see have definately not. I'm back in the area in a few weeks time, I'll see if I can get some more photos of other places.


----------



## rembau1958 (Oct 10, 2005)

^^Tetramesh, I used to live on Salusbury Road next door at Queenspark in the late 80s, early 90s and pop over to Kilburn High Road on Saturdays to shop for veggies and stuffs. Has the streets leading from Queenspark to Kilburn High gone to seed?


----------



## egjames55 (Jul 8, 2007)

zachus22 said:


> Nice stuff, though not as gritty and ghetto as I may have liked to think. Some of those areas with the commieblocks really remind me of mainland China, just the sheer dirtiness and stuff.


Much of London's social housing has thankfully been renovated, but unfotunately the gang culture is still highly prevalent in these communities. 

Although to the eye the housing estates may not look shockingly 'ghetto', it's the people who live in them that make the areas 'ghetto'. Most of the undeveloped land around the docklands and East London look much more abandoned and 'ghetto' in appearance, but they aren't inhabited by many people. In areas such as Dalston, Hackney Wick, Brixton, Peckham and Harlesden there has been much re-development, which means that the actual housing may look slightly nicer, but the unfortunate fact remains that London is one of the most violent cities in the western world. Teeagers are murdered every week, and government intiatives (eg. TRIDENT) have beeen set up to prevent gun crime amongst London's black communities. This is the 'REAL' London -- and it's an unfortunate reality, certainly not one that should be celebrated, but one that should definitely be acknowledged. 

I'm a bit disturbed that you actively seek to find very ghetto looking parts of cities, in your words, 'not as gritty and ghetto as I may have liked to think.' It's absolutely necessary that people acknowledge the reality of so many parts of inner London, but to _want_ parts of the city to be ghetto is very different. The reality of 'ghetto' London, is hundreds of murdered teeangers a year.


----------



## Sirgarbagemann (Apr 5, 2006)

heh come to come to south Atlanta.


----------



## wolf18 (Dec 4, 2005)

en ,nice


----------



## eddie88 (Apr 3, 2007)

egjames55 said:


> Much of London's social housing has thankfully been renovated, but unfotunately the gang culture is still highly prevalent in these communities.
> 
> Although to the eye the housing estates may not look shockingly 'ghetto', it's the people who live in them that make the areas 'ghetto'. Most of the undeveloped land around the docklands and East London look much more abandoned and 'ghetto' in appearance, but they aren't inhabited by many people. In areas such as Dalston, Hackney Wick, Brixton, Peckham and Harlesden there has been much re-development, which means that the actual housing may look slightly nicer, but the unfortunate fact remains that London is one of the most violent cities in the western world. Teeagers are murdered every week, and government intiatives (eg. TRIDENT) have beeen set up to prevent gun crime amongst London's black communities. This is the 'REAL' London -- and it's an unfortunate reality, certainly not one that should be celebrated, but one that should definitely be acknowledged.
> 
> I'm a bit disturbed that you actively seek to find very ghetto looking parts of cities, in your words, 'not as gritty and ghetto as I may have liked to think.' It's absolutely necessary that people acknowledge the reality of so many parts of inner London, but to _want_ parts of the city to be ghetto is very different. The reality of 'ghetto' London, is hundreds of murdered teeangers a year.




very well said


----------



## rocky (Apr 20, 2005)

London is not dangerous at all , please

the level of crime I witness is pretty low, and I have been to bad places, and I live in Wood Green

there is crime but the city is safe. And the murdered teenagers are not hundreds. they are the victim of a fad of being in gangs but these gangs aint shit they are just teenage groups who want to prove they are hard, they are more like hooligans than like gangsters.

Ive been to all sort of places at night, I saw some drugdealers but dont act like London is the Bronx..


----------



## egjames55 (Jul 8, 2007)

rocky said:


> London is not dangerous at all , please
> 
> the level of crime I witness is pretty low, and I have been to bad places, and I live in Wood Green
> 
> ...


Alright mr hardcore 'Paris east' -- it's awful, but there were more murders in London than New York last year. New York, and USA as a whole, has a different system to ours: New York is divided by wealth, unlike in London where we have an integrated system (the poor live next door to the rich). It means that Mayor Juliano was able to tackle crime and largely put an end to it because it was so restricted to certain areas. Crime hasn't disappeared completely, but New York has a hopeful future. This is where London differs to New York -- gun crime has only slightly gone done and teenage murders have been consistent year after year. At the same time, we still have no specific solution to ending the violence in our city. E.g. more police on the streets, or hug a hoodie?? We run things differently in the UK and this affects policy making right the way through. All of America is overwhelmingly unified by being a part of their great successful nation. In London, we adopt a more liberal approach: the state isn't put before cultures, communities and ways of life. This is why we have home-grown terrorism, and it's also why we wouldn't be able to adopt virtual totalitarianism, like Juliano did in Harlem, to stop the crime. 

But your own differentiations between London and New York are irrelevant - the fact is that both cities have their bad parts and regardless of whether or not you like to call the perpetrators of these communities gangsters or hooligans, they are both very ready to shoot innocent victims. In fact, the people on the streets, in places like Dalston or Peckham, aren't totally different to the Bronx (I've been there): their style is largely inherited by black, urban and hip-hop America. 

You should open your eyes up beyond Wood Green if you think crime is 'pretty low' in London - do you not listen to the news, radio or anything?! The reason why there is such an outburst about crime all the time is because we have such a high levels of it for a Western nation, yet at the same time we still have no conceivable solution.


----------



## rocky (Apr 20, 2005)

im not saying im hardcore or paris is more hard (wich it is by the way) but that London is a safe city.

Us gangs are affiliated with organised crime and making money while the murders of teenagers who make the news are not related to criminal activities but more to stuff like "he looked at me wrong", "he took my girl" ... thats just random violence.

And the news reports murders, but because theires a few murders a week its that dangerous? All the cities of that size have murders everyday, it will never change.

I mean there is some real gangsters in London, but they are not the ones killing 15 years old kids. The media give these idiots too much importance.


----------



## PresidentBjork (Apr 29, 2007)

egjames55 said:


> but there were more murders in London than New York last year.


erm, comparing the statistics from the New York City Police department and the metropolitan police from last year, there were 597 murders in NYC and 153 in London.

If anything New York still suffers from all types of crime more so than London, disproportionate to the difference in population. No one denies the leaps and strides made by NYC, but lets not forget less than 30 years ago there were more gun murders in it than the rest of America. In both cases crime seems to be decreasing at a roughly equal rate. The media makes too much of individual cases in London, its still in comparison to other cities, a safe place.

I think Juliano's campaign against crime was more based on a zero tolerance of 'minor crimes', e.g grafitti, vandalism tec... than simply enacting some sort of 'totalitarianism.'


----------



## Audiomuse (Dec 20, 2005)

[London London London]
They're are plenty of commie blocks all over the city, mostly in the metro cities.

Not the City of London, Westminster, etc.

There are rows and rows of these commie blocks and ugly houses but doesn't every city have them??

London is no different from the rest in that case.


----------



## eddie88 (Apr 3, 2007)

rocky id like to see you walking around a west london estate in the middle of the night, and west is the nicest with the ever so forgiving Moroccans lol! 

then come here and tell me how safe london really is. walk around south, go into shops getting served by 13 year olds, these shops selling armor for pit bulls. 


i dont think there are many places left in the uk that are really safe, go to the suburban towns get beaten up by 15 year old drunken chavs. 

but im not sure you could look like Vin Diesel that might be why you dont get shit lol


----------



## ranny fash (Apr 24, 2005)

^bit over the top dude. the uk is mainly a safe country, but most cities have bad areas. 

having said that i wouldn't want to live in peckham.


----------



## Nutshell (Jul 5, 2007)

There is no real crime in England - people are too nice.

London is the safest city in the world, Paris is hardcore/urban/cool.


----------



## m4rcin (May 5, 2006)

Love those pics!! Great Thread!:cheers:


----------



## Skabbymuff (Mar 4, 2006)

> There is no real crime in England - people are too nice.
> 
> London is the safest city in the world, Paris is hardcore/urban/cool.


what dumb statements.


----------



## ilcapo (Jan 5, 2007)

I think London seem to have a pretty rough/dirty/cold appearance in some parts and i would'nt be surprised if london had more reported crimes (excluding murders) than new york by pretty far.


----------



## Manuel89 (Nov 18, 2006)

those are great photos, the unknown London is also very interesting, thank you!


----------



## london-b (Jul 31, 2004)

eddie88 said:


> rocky id like to see you walking around a west london estate in the middle of the night, and west is the nicest with the ever so forgiving Moroccans lol!
> 
> then come here and tell me how safe london really is. walk around south, go into shops getting served by 13 year olds, these shops selling armor for pit bulls.
> 
> ...


Have you even been to the UK? I know your location is set to London but still.....


----------



## SE9 (Apr 26, 2005)

rocky said:


> im not saying im hardcore or paris is more hard (wich it is by the way) but that London is a safe city.
> 
> Us gangs are affiliated with organised crime and making money while the murders of teenagers who make the news are not related to criminal activities but more to stuff like "he looked at me wrong", "he took my girl" ... thats just random violence.
> 
> ...


Maybe that applies to the North London teen-killings.... Most of the teenage shootings and stabbings in South London have been over drugs etc. 
Gangs such as PDC (of Brixton), the Peckham Boys and Ghetto Boys (of Deptford) have been feuding for over 20 years; primarily over organised criminal activities such as the drug-trade. The teenagers killed here have been involved in these trades, except for the cases of mistaken-identity.

Furthermore, New York has a higher murder rate than London, but London has a much higher violent-crime rate. Figures can be seen here (posted by forumer _Mikejesmike_)

Finally, London is also a very gritty city. Not many know, but it is home to the _Aylesbury Estate_ (in South London), which is the largest social housing estate in Europe (not just the European Union). I won't make any statement about it being moreso/less-so than Paris, as that's just opinion.


----------



## Nutshell (Jul 5, 2007)

SE9 said:


> Maybe that applies to the North London teen-killings.... Most of the teenage shootings and stabbings in South London have been over drugs etc.
> Gangs such as PDC (of Brixton), the Peckham Boys and Ghetto Boys (of Deptford) have been feuding for over 20 years; primarily over organised criminal activities such as the drug-trade. The teenagers killed here have been involved in these trades, except for the cases of mistaken-identity.
> 
> Furthermore, New York has a higher murder rate than London, but London has a much higher violent-crime rate. Figures can be seen here (posted by forumer _Mikejesmike_)
> ...


C'mon, WTF dude....gangland killings in London - LMAO!!!! Paris is much more hardcore, much more ghetto, in places. If you ask someone in Paris, they'll say "Ouest-side 'til I die, b*tch". Paris is far more ghetto than London - you'll hear hip hop blasting from many corners, but it's kinda cool. Brixton is just a village with like, 3 Jamaican people, so it can't call itself a black neighborhood.

London is safe, deal with it. No such thing as guns there n' the police wear silly hats and carry sticks. The problems in London are only due to drunks and "chavs" (people who wouldn't last 2 seconds in Paris, LA or New York).


----------



## Blindfold (Jan 22, 2006)

^^ Get over yourself Nutshell! You show very little knowledge of London with such ridiculous statements. I called Brixton home for nearly 10 years and to say that '_its just a village with like, 3 Jamaican people, so it can't call itself a black neighborhood' _is just absurd. How much time have you spent there?

Brixton, and the borough in which it sits, Lambeth, regularly post among the highest levels of street crime in the EU. Brixton has a very severe heroin, crack-cocaine and street prostitution problem. Drug and gang related killings are common. I was personally contacted recently by Operation Trident (taskforce set up to deal with gun crime in the black community) because of a man shot dead in the flat next door to me. 

Brixton is very much the spiritual home of London's black community which is not as 'ghettoised' as many other parts of Europe i.e. its spread out quite evenly across inner London. Walking the streets of Brixton during the day, black people will outnumber white people because the black population come from all over London to shop in familiar surroundings and buy groceries they can't always get in their own neighbourhood. This is despite the population of Lambeth being only about 1/3 black in total. I would estimate the population of Brixton proper (which does not have clearly defined boundaries) to be 50% black, the rest being made up of every race/colour/creed imaginable.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

all cities have good and bad parts...its impossible to say which is the safist becuase all cities have different types of crime...


----------



## Skabbymuff (Mar 4, 2006)

Nutshell - you are pissing me off now with your silly statements, but then of course thats what you want. you are clearly here to stir trouble, and should be brigged / banned imo. fool.


----------



## Blindfold (Jan 22, 2006)

^^ Agreed Skabbymuff


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Lol people debating which city is more dangerous.Ridiculous.Crime is bad.End of story.
If some of you think that crime makes city more interesting/better/cooler/whatever then I dunno see a shrink or stop listening to HH.


----------



## Obscene (Jul 22, 2007)

Daryae_Abi said:


> I still don't see how bad they are.
> Every city has poor neighborhoods and London's don't look half as bad as ours.


It's not a competition. 
Im very sure some parts of London deals with alot of problems too, even some problems that might not exist in Teheran (if thats where you from).


----------



## Tetramesh (Jun 22, 2007)

Obscene said:


> It's not a competition.


I agree. I didn't post photos here to show how bad London is, I wanted to show a few places that many people do not see when they visit or even think of London. All of the photos I have posted are actually in well-to-do upcoming areas of the city, London can be a contrast street to street which makes it a great and exciting place.


----------



## Blindfold (Jan 22, 2006)

Just when I think this thread has been forgotten about and banished to the bowels of SSC, it rises again!

Thanks to everyone for their additional pictures, coments etc


----------



## pacus (Jan 6, 2007)

Real life can be so awful, I prefer to live in my fantastic dreams of postcards and luxury cities...


----------



## Snowy (Nov 6, 2006)

the spliff fairy said:


> this is just feckin amazing. Modern rowhousing, I had no idea it existed


They're great, aren't they?! If they were refurbished, they could look as good as the Brunswick Centre!


----------



## ames (Aug 10, 2007)

UNFORTUNETLY THIS IS WHERE I LIVE, THE DIRTIEST CITY ON EARTH TRUST ME U DON'T WANNA SEE THE REST OF IT. THIS + RAIN, RAIN AND LOTS OF RAIN ALMOST EVERYDAY. YAAK


----------



## CrazyMac (Apr 23, 2006)

ames said:


> UNFORTUNETLY THIS IS WHERE I LIVE, THE DIRTIEST CITY ON EARTH TRUST ME U DON'T WANNA SEE THE REST OF IT. THIS + RAIN, RAIN AND LOTS OF RAIN ALMOST EVERYDAY. YAAK


lol...if you think London is the "dirtiest city on earth", you obviously havent travelled much.

Such a stupid ignorant statement....


----------



## aplz (Oct 13, 2004)

You think London's bad, try where I'm from; Belfast.


----------



## rocky (Apr 20, 2005)

Tetramesh said:


> These first two photos are the back of buildings which have their fronts looking onto Kilburn High Road, the backs are seen here from the top of Cambridge Avenue. The fronts don't look too bad but the back is a different story, it is not easy to see on the second photo but all the insides are empty and almost falling apart.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I lived near here and I had no idea this strange building existed. dont get wrong ideas, this area is very posh, maybe not this building but the area is so posh; its my dream to have a flat in that area!!

hampstead ghetto LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL


----------



## London_2006 (Feb 9, 2003)

ames said:


> UNFORTUNETLY THIS IS WHERE I LIVE, THE DIRTIEST CITY ON EARTH TRUST ME U DON'T WANNA SEE THE REST OF IT. THIS + RAIN, RAIN AND LOTS OF RAIN ALMOST EVERYDAY. YAAK


Why live here then? Also, London is one of the driest capitals in Europe.


----------



## Panamajack (May 6, 2007)

those photos dont look sooo bad. very urban


----------



## im_from_zw038 (Dec 5, 2003)

A commieblock neighbourhood is not a ghetto. Graffiti in alleys does not make them unsafe to pass trough. A lot of 'poor' people together (when you have a house, car, clothes and food...how can you call that poor?) do not always make it a place with loads of crimes. In western Europa, like said before, mostly murders happen when you bump into a drunk piece of shit with a knive, of when a robbery goes wrong. Organised executions on youngsters by streetgangs like in LA, NY etc. is not happening in Countries like U.K, the entherlands, france, germany etc. The most unsafe places in these countries are probably very safe places in other big cities. Around here we don't need bulletproof cars, vests and police on every corner.


----------



## city_thing (May 25, 2006)

WhiteMagick said:


> Man the matter of fact is that you showed the Best of the Worst places.
> 
> London has a lot worse. I was on a train to London to get a flight back home. At one point when the train started to enter the city and almost up to the station the only thing I could see were low rise slums. It was horrible. And I got to see even more when I took the tube to heathrow. I dont know why the heck some people (thank g-d not all) love london. Only its centre can be considered somewhat pretty but it surely does not compare to a lot of other cities.
> 
> The only things that are good about London are shopping, museums and a business centre. But everything is seriously overpriced.


Gawd, try getting the train from Berlin airport (schonefeld) into the Mitte district. The old East Berlin pubic housing buildings (true commie blocks) are hideous and dwarf anything that's in London. It was incredible to look at, for me at least, I think there's something romantic about run down housing estates 

But in all honesty, I'd MUCH rather live in somewhere like this:









Than suffer at the hands of the 'perfect American happy family' syndrome.

























I'll take London high rise misery over Midwest, baptist red neck suburbia any day.


----------



## rocky (Apr 20, 2005)

ok all stop the crap









These are the swiss cottage towers.
See the 3 white buildings on the left?
My girlfriend lives in the top floor of one of these. IT IS NOT A GHETTO. Its full of rich young urbans and some poor european immigrants but its not a ghetto.Loads of families too. Mercedes and Porshes in the streets. I miss that area. This picture brings back memories. I am not sure but I think these are appartments and not council estates.

This neighbourhood is fantastic. Theires is probably bad areas in london no doubt but this not one. 70's Towers= ghetto is not always true.


----------



## Evil Bert (Feb 20, 2003)

loving the pic's feel right at home!

i live in elephant and castle and i thought it was supposed to be a really rough area when i moved in last year, I haven't seen anything happen and as a student i'm out almost every night pissed and vulnerable! also there are some really amazing victorian streets and old vacant hotels that are real gems and never seen! i am really considering to move there when i finish and give clapham and (south west london area) a miss when i need to move out and stay! getto london is awsome and i think murders etc are mainly kept in the estates, and yes not sounding too rascist it mainly dodge because of black on black violence sorry look at the statistics and tell me i'm wrong


----------



## rocky (Apr 20, 2005)

I got friends who choosed to raise their baby near elephant & castle so it cant be that bad.. They told me the area is getting more and more mixed socialy, with middle class moving in


----------



## José. (Mar 22, 2007)

Every city has it's rich and/or beautiful places and it's poor places or not so nice places, regardless of being on a first or third world country. If anyone's interested in seeing an example check this picture threads form Monterrey, Mexico, the country's second most important city (from a third world country): http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=491828 
this thread is about nice houses, some of them are huge: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=514106
And yes, we do have a lot of poor places, but where do tourists and photographers go? Surely not to places "they" don't want you to see, and believe me, many people from Monterrey would give anything to live in any of those non-postcard buildings like the ones in London.

Here is also link to a thread dedicated to what I consider the most beautiful part of Mexico City: (check the last page, apparently the pictures from the first pages have been removed) http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=218732&page=62 and general photos of Guadalajara, another Mexican city: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=497133


----------



## Rizzato (Dec 13, 2006)

city_thing said:


> Gawd, try getting the train from Berlin airport (schonefeld) into the Mitte district. The old East Berlin pubic housing buildings (true commie blocks) are hideous and dwarf anything that's in London. It was incredible to look at, for me at least, I think there's something romantic about run down housing estates
> 
> But in all honesty, I'd MUCH rather live in somewhere like this:
> 
> ...


this is typical. an aussia complaining about the american way of life to the British.
w/e dude


----------



## Ian (Nov 26, 2006)

city_thing said:


> ....


Totally agree!!!


----------



## aplz (Oct 13, 2004)

Honestly, alley ways and a bit of spray paint from kids does not mean something is ghetto.


----------

