Richmond upon Thames

carolt

Figures sound surprisingly low for Richmond, TBH, though I can't think of any reason particularly why that should be.

Maybe I should move to Richmond - lovely place.

olly300

carolt wrote: »

Figures sound surprisingly low for Richmond, TBH, though I can't think of any reason particularly why that should be.

Maybe I should move to Richmond - lovely place.

1. Most properties brought aren't mortgaged by HBOS or the Nationwide so don't appear on their figures. I've had problems getting figures for areas I know have and lived in for this reason.

2. People who live in Richmond Upon Thames tend to live their for a long time as it's more family orientated meaning the number of transactions is low

3. The properties including in this figure are in the lower valued areas.

There are numerous reasons.............

butterfly72

I live in the borough of Richmond upon thames and read the weekly free property rag. A couple of months ago it was very thin indeed... but its starting to fill out again! Must be spring.

Although I have no stats of figures or example to show you, I've noticed the house prices have been falling across the borough since last year. Small cottages seem to have fallen a bit. Last year I used to see them at over 400K now you can get a 2 bed cottage for 330K in teddington. Still overpriced in my opinion. Rents have also come down and there always seems to be a good supply.

It is a really nice and having lived in various parts of London its my favourite by far. However, I do believe in the past 10 years it has become busier, noisier and not so appealing. (maybe thats just me slowing down and wanting the quieter life) The planes come over every few minutes and it will only get worse during the summer.

Sapphire

lostinrates wrote: »

And yet still less, because more places are ''nice'' now. Richmond used to be oh so exclusive, and indeed, I like Richmond a lot, but it offers less that other ''nice'' ares don't now.

No, don't agree. Richmond and other nearby areas within walking distance to the river (Petersham, north Kingston, Barnes, etc) beat inner London places by a mile. They are so much more attractive – cleaner, lovely architecture, beautiful parks, the river, good shopping with everything in one place, people as a rule polite, etc.

Every time I drive through London, even places that are considered upmarket, I am amazed at how dirty and crowded they are. Where I work in central London, near Marble Arch, there are beggars in the street, chavs screaming at their kids, dirt and a horrendous traffic. It is really horrible being there, though I suppose anyone can get used to it and persuade themselves that they like the diversity, etc.

There's simply no comparison between areas such as Southwark and Richmond.

Generali

Sapphire wrote: »

No, don't agree. Richmond and other nearby areas within walking distance to the river (Petersham, north Kingston, Barnes, etc) beat inner London places by a mile. They are so much more attractive – cleaner, lovely architecture, beautiful parks, the river, good shopping with everything in one place, people as a rule polite, etc.

Every time I drive through London, even places that are considered upmarket, I am amazed at how dirty and crowded they are. Where I work in central London, near Marble Arch, there are beggars in the street, chavs screaming at their kids, dirt and a horrendous traffic. It is really horrible being there, though I suppose anyone can get used to it and persuade themselves that they like the diversity, etc.

There's simply no comparison between areas such as Southwark and Richmond.

The biggest difference is that if you live in Southwark you can cycle to work in 10 minutes whereas if you live in Richmond you've got half an hour on a packed out, unreliable train.

Sapphire

Generali wrote: »

The biggest difference is that if you live in Southwark you can cycle to work in 10 minutes whereas if you live in Richmond you've got half an hour on a packed out, unreliable train.

From my experience, the trains from Richmond and Kingston are very reliable - and it only takes 15 minutes by train from Richmond to Waterloo. I always manage to get a seat in the mornings, although the the trains do tend to get crowded further down the line. I never notice - always have my nose stuck in a book and I actually like having the time to read.

The trains from this area don't often fail, either, except when we have 'snow of the wrong sort', etc.

Anyway, I can live with having a slightly longer journey if it means not living in a grotty area.

lostinrates

Sapphire wrote: »

No, don't agree. Richmond and other nearby areas within walking distance to the river (Petersham, north Kingston, Barnes, etc) beat inner London places by a mile. They are so much more attractive – cleaner, lovely architecture, beautiful parks, the river, good shopping with everything in one place, people as a rule polite, etc.

Every time I drive through London, even places that are considered upmarket, I am amazed at how dirty and crowded they are. Where I work in central London, near Marble Arch, there are beggars in the street, chavs screaming at their kids, dirt and a horrendous traffic. It is really horrible being there, though I suppose anyone can get used to it and persuade themselves that they like the diversity, etc.

There's simply no comparison between areas such as Southwark and Richmond.

I wasn't comparing Richmond and Southwark,

But more like Richmond and other similar areas, which, with slightly different flavours and atmosphere do exist in other areas around London and London parks! As I said I like Richmond very much too, but IMHO its lost its feeling of exclusivity (as have many places, ubiquitous high street and ''rerfined high street'' shop names/eateries don't help). I do like the area. In fact, Kingston, which you highlight, is an interesting comparison, and a valid one because twenty years ago I doubt most people would have compared Kingston with Richmond, but its success story has been tremendous. The other comparison, the one I didn't make with places like Southwark, is one of lifestyle choice: I was talking about other options within a similar choice of lifestyle wants.

Sapphire

lostinrates wrote: »

I wasn't comparing Richmond and Southwark,

But more like Richmond and other similar areas, which, with slightly different flavours and atmosphere do exist in other areas around London and London parks! As I said I like Richmond very much too, but IMHO its lost its feeling of exclusivity (as have many places, ubiquitous high street and ''rerfined high street'' shop names/eateries don't help). I do like the area. In fact, Kingston, which you highlight, is an interesting comparison, and a valid one because twenty years ago I doubt most people would have compared Kingston with Richmond, but its success story has been tremendous. The other comparison, the one I didn't make with places like Southwark, is one of lifestyle choice: I was talking about other options within a similar choice of lifestyle wants.

In fact, I think you are right about Richmond when it comes to the high street. My sister lives in Richmond and I go there quite often. Although it is still quite nice, in the evening in really feels quite rough and unsafe, with beggars and/or drunks on the streets - rougher, in fact, than north Kingston, which is where I live, and where I feel safer than I have felt anywhere else in London. I do believe, though, that north Kingston is the best bit of this quite substantial town - very near to lots of nice things, i.e. the river, Richmond Park, shopping, huge cinema, theatre, Petersham... . South Kingston is supposed to be not as nice.

Kingston is certainly interesting. I like the fact that it has a history, and a heart (the market place), which most London areas don't. Until a few decades ago it was heavily industrialized, with lots of little factories, the huge Hawker-Siddley factory on Richmond Road, the river with big barges next to it. For me, this is fascinating in its own way historically, but some parts must have been rough and run down. Other parts, like Kingston Hill, were probably always very upmarket.

daveb975

Sapphire wrote: »

In fact, I think you are right about Richmond when it comes to the high street. My sister lives in Richmond and I go there quite often. Although it is still quite nice, in the evening in really feels quite rough and unsafe, with beggars and/or drunks on the streets - rougher, in fact, than north Kingston, which is where I live, and where I feel safer than I have felt anywhere else in London. I do believe, though, that north Kingston is the best bit of this quite substantial town - very near to lots of nice things, i.e. the river, Richmond Park, shopping, huge cinema, theatre, Petersham... . South Kingston is supposed to be not as nice.

I think it depends on the exact location, though. The riverside part of Richmond going up to the hill is lovely, but there are some parts of it that are not nearly so nice.

Kingston is much the same. North Kingston is generally thought of as the premier part of town because the archtecture is better preserved than the southern end. This is largely true, but there are some lovely roads in the Knights Park area and Portsmouth Road in south Kingston and some grotty areas (Richmond Road and some of the surrounds) in north Kingston.

You also have to be a bit careful where you choose to go out. Kingston has a reputation for hideous nightclubs, but there are a surprising amount of really good pubs and bars around as well. These are all the better for the fact that most of the 'less desirables' are attracted to the nightclubs and surrounding music pubs.

I love living near Kingston, but could not deal with the train service (4 trains an hour to London and none at all the other way as it is on a branch line)

The service from Surbiton is much better, and you can still walk to Kingston town centre in 10 minutes if you live in the right part. It suits me fine, but I'd still move to the nice part of Richmond if I could afford it!

daveb975

lostinrates wrote: »

In fact, Kingston, which you highlight, is an interesting comparison, and a valid one because twenty years ago I doubt most people would have compared Kingston with Richmond, but its success story has been tremendous.

Richmond has always had that 'villagey' feel that somewhere the size of Kingston will never be able to emulate. Kingston has always been a sought after area, but I am not sure the price gap with Richmond has closed that much. The planners have also been a lot kinder to Richmond over the years than they have to Kingston.

Kingston has it's share of 'big town' problems, mainly because of the nightclubs and college, but it is an absolute success if you compare it to the other large London suburban towns (Croydon, Bromley, Uxbridge, Harrow etc). Even a lot of the large commuter towns further out of London have more problems than Kingston.

To a certain extent, I think that the high prices in areas like Richmond and Putney have had a very positive effect on Kingston as an area. Professional people like the idea of living near to the river and parks and with a good train link into London. Richmond and Putney have become unaffordable for most people, but Kingston offers most of the same benefits, albeit without the 'chi-chi' factor.

It is interesting to see how much more it costs to live in the Kings Road on one side of Richmond Park than the other!

http://www.findaproperty.com/displayprop.aspx?edid=00&salerent=0&pid=3526098

http://www.findaproperty.com/displayprop.aspx?edid=00&salerent=0&pid=2868756