This map shows the price of a square foot of housing in every postcode in London

The central London section of the map. Image: Neal Hudson.

You know, I sometimes worry that my mental map of London’s property prices might be a bit simplistic. Okay, I know Bloomsbury, say, is more expensive than Barking. But which is better value? Where are you getting more for your money?

Well – enquiring minds need worry no longer, because housing analyst Neal Hudson, who used to work at Savills before he went rogue*, has just published this rather lovely map. It shows property prices per square foot in every London postcode: not the area ones, like N1 or E17, but the individual locations.

And it demonstrates, among other things, that, measured purely on the basis of size, homes in Barking are much better value than those in Bloomsbury. So as long as you’re not worried about location or facilities or that sort of thing, Barking is definitely better.

Bloomsbury and Barking, labelled to enable direct comparions. Sort of.

The map only shows postcodes inside Greater London (which, oddly, means that some homes in London E4, which are technically in Essex, aren’t included). As a result, you can see exactly how arbitrary the city boundaries are in a few places:

On this version I’ve labelled some of the contiguous suburbs that fall outside the city boundaries.

You can also see the surprisingly big areas of the city that done include any homes. In the centre, this is because of parks, or the offices of the City; but further out there’s a surprisng amount of industrial land (in the dark greys that mean “built up”) or open space (in the light grey that mean, well, not).

As to the prices themselves – as you’d expect, they’re highest in the centre. But the most expensive areas, in burning hot whites and yellows, also spread to the west into Kensington and Chelsea, and north into Hampstead.

The cheapest, meanwhile, are generally to be found to by the Thames to the east, especially in the boroughs of Barking and Bexley. In fact, the map shows at a glance many of the prejudices that have been built into London’s social geography for decades. North is more expensive than south; west more than east.

Probably the single most striking thing about the map is the way it highlights the way the character of the river changes as you travel across London. In the West, where the Thames is narrow, pretty and easily crossed, the most expensive properties are those by the river. In the east, where it’s wide, industrial and unbridged, it’s the cheapest.

The unadulterated version. Image: Getty.

Anyway, there’s no doubt loads more interesting stuff to find in here, if you’re minded to spend an hour looking (not least, the relative price in your own area). So why not play with the big version of the map on Hudson’s own website. You can also follow him on Twitter, and should, because he posts lovely maps like this surprisingly often.


*Freelance.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and also has a Facebook page now for some reason. 

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.

 
 
 
 

Treating towns as bastions of Brexit ignores the reasons for the referendum result – and how to address them

Newcastle: not all cities are booming. Image: Getty.

The EU Referendum result has often been characterised as a revolt of Britain’s “left-behind” towns and rural areas against the “metropolitan elite”. But this view diverts attention from the underlying issues which drove the Brexit vote – and ironically has diverted policy attention away from addressing them too.

It’s true that a number of big urban authorities, led by London, voted to stay. And overall people living in cities were less likely to vote leave than towns. Setting aside Scottish cities and towns, which both voted very strongly for remain, Leave polled 51 per cent of the vote in English and Welsh cities, compared to 56 per cent in local authorities that include towns. (Consistent data isn’t available below local authority level.)

Yet there is a lot of variation underlying this average across towns. In Boston, 75 per cent voted Leave, and in Hartlepool and Grimsby it was 70 per cent. But at the other end of the scale, there were a number of towns that voted to stay. For example, Leave polled at 49 per cent in Horsham and Harrogate, and 46 per cent in Windsor and Hitchin. In places such as Winchester, Leamington Spa and Bath, the Leave voted amounted to less than 42 per cent of the vote.

What drives this variation across towns? Data from the Centre for Cities’ recent report Talk of the Town shows economic outcomes were the biggest factor – with towns that voted Remain also having stronger economies.

For a start, pro-Remain towns generally have smaller shares of people who were either unemployed or claiming long-term benefit. (This is based on 2011 data, the latest available.)

Towns which voted Remain also had a higher share of jobs in high-skilled exporting businesses – an indication of how successful they have been at attracting and retaining high-paid job opportunities.

And both measures will have been influenced by the skills of the residents in each town: the higher the share of residents with a degree, the stronger the Remain vote.

So the Brexit vote was reflective of the varying economic outcomes for people in different parts of the country. Places which have responded well to changes in the national economy voted to Remain in the EU, and those that have been ‘left behind’ – be they towns or cities – were more likely to have voted to Leave.

This sends a clear message to politicians about the need to improve the economic outcomes of the people that live in these towns and cities. But the irony is that the fallout from the Brexit has left no room for domestic policy, and little progress has been made on addressing the problem that, in part, is likely to have been responsible for the referendum outcome in the first place.

Indeed, politicians of all stripes have seemed more concerned about jostling for position within their parties, than setting out ideas for domestic policy agenda. Most worryingly, progress on devolution – a crucial way of giving areas a greater political voice – has stalled.


There was talk earlier this year of Theresa May relaunching her premiership next summer focusing on domestic policy. One of her biggest concerns should be that so many cities perform below the national average on a range of measures, and so do not make the contribution that they should to the national economy.

But addressing this problem wouldn’t ignore towns – quite the opposite. What Talk of the Town shows is that the underperformance of a number of cities is bad not just for their residents or the national economy, but also for the residents in surrounding towns too. A poorly performing neighbouring city limits both the job opportunities open to its residents and impacts on nearby towns’ ability to attract-in business investment and create higher paid jobs.

This isn’t the only factor – as the last chart above suggests, addressing poor skills should be central to any serious domestic policy agenda. But place has an influence on economic outcomes for people too, and policy needs recognise that different places play different roles. It also needs to reflect the importance of the relationships between places to improve the access that people across the country have to job opportunities and higher wages.

The Brexit vote didn’t result from a split between cities and towns. And if we are to address the reasons for it, we need to better understand the relationship between them, rather than seeing them as opposing entities.

Paul Swinney is head of policy & research at the Centre for Cities, on whose blog this article first appeared.

Read the Centre’s Talk of the Town report to find out more about the relationship between cities and towns, and what this means for policy.