Where to live in London - moving from Birmingham - all so expensive and confusing!!!

Alibear

Sidcup: Zone 5, SE. Maybe something like this? http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-18321669.html

I used to live in this very area, so am a tiny bit biased! But it's v. close to the station with links to London Bridge, Waterloo, Charing Cross and Cannon Street, meaning you might not even need to buy a tube pass, saving £50+ a month in travel.

MrsE_2

Doozergirl wrote: »

I'd rather pay less on the rent and more on a commute on a fast train because a cheap part of London is not a great place to bring up a child. It's easy to escape Birmingham into clean air. I'd stick to the side of London that is nearest to 'home' until the new place becomes home..

As an ex-Londoner I agree with Doozergirls post & especially the bit above.

Outer London & just outside London are far nicer than inner/central London. Unless you are VERY rich you can't afford central London, so that leaves the next ring - inner London - this really is the grotty part, as you go out to the next rings it gets better. Further you go the better it gets;)

I would go for NW outer London because of your Birmingham links. But where will your husband be working, as some parts of central london are easier to get to from some parts of outer London.

alarafan

MrsE wrote: »

As an ex-Londoner I agree with Doozergirls post & especially the bit above.

Outer London & just outside London are far nicer than inner/central London. Unless you are VERY rich you can't afford central London, so that leaves the next ring - inner London - this really is the grotty part, as you go out to the next rings it gets better. Further you go the better it gets;)

I would go for NW outer London because of your Birmingham links. But where will your husband be working, as some parts of central london are easier to get to from some parts of outer London.

Thanks - he will be in Westminster - You are right - we can't afford central london - and I too want to avoid 'inner city'. It's just such a big decision to make!

hazyjo

If you're planning on getting trains back to Birmingham, and friends/family will be using them to come down to see you, it might be worth picking somewhere that's on the train route (like Watford, as you said), or that's one tube line from Euston (limiting you to Northern line, Victoria line, or other overground lines that go into Euston).

It would make it a right pain if you all had to get a couple of tube lines and maybe another train out to somewhere else.

Also, driving round or across London can be a pain so I'd definitely stick north of the river. I lived south for many years, yet all my friends and family were north - put them off coming to see me! That river acts as a huge divide - let alone having someone drive down from Birmingham! The river crossings aren't great - there's constant work on the Blackwall Tunnel at weekends (mainly why I surrendered and moved north) and the M25 to the Dartford Tunnel/Bridge can be hell at times.

Jx

jonewer

Definitely dont head into London with a young child in tow.

I dont have a child but if I did I sure as hell wouldnt want to have him/her going to school anywhere in London and a lot of just-outside places would also be no-nos.

Regarding travelling times - many just-outside places have quicker trains than if within London places. For example, places like Sevenoaks, Woking, Redhill have 20 to 25ish mins into London, which is less than many zone 6 tube stations.

Of course, you pay more for your travel but get more for your money.

gingin_2

What about St Albans, nicer than Watford, good schools,

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-32786090.html

There is a house here for £925 in a good location, although we used those agents and they were the biggest slimeballs I've ever had to deal with.

princeofpounds

If you can afford St Albans it's a very nice place.

Don't worry so much about all the 'children can't handle London' posts. Whilst I can very easily see why London might not be a preferred destination for many millions of children have grown up perfectly well there. London is a big place and the experience of a child in streatham or Plumstead is not the same as one in Chislehurst or Surbiton. They don't all grow up stabbing each other and often have bigger horizons precisely because they live in a world-class city. Children are pretty strong and adaptable, what matters is the sort of life and environment you would like to create for them.

jonewer

Maybe so, but the a vast slice of the violent crime that occurs in London is committed by and against school aged children.

To re-iterate - I dont have them. But if I did, you couldnt pay me to bring them up in London.

chewmylegoff

alarafan wrote: »

I would appreciate any advice.

go on rightmove, go to rental property, search for "london", select 2 bedroom, select price range £900-£1,000. select properties added in the last 14 days.

that will tell you where you can live. you could push the budget up a bit as you can probably get the rent down a bit.

chewmylegoff

gingin wrote: »

What about St Albans, nicer than Watford, good schools,

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-32786090.html

There is a house here for £925 in a good location, although we used those agents and they were the biggest slimeballs I've ever had to deal with.

not cheap to commute in from st albans. £270/month for a season ticket, and that only gets you to thameslink stations, you have to pay more than that if you need the tube as well.