Jump to content

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Moovart said:

I believe "Dulwich" is deemed where Dulwich library is situated so left at Peckham rye and straight up Barry Road

Or turning left,Β  continuing on down Forest Hill Road and turning right further up.Β 

Google maps has Dulwich marked at the junction by the old Grove, where the South Circular heads off towards the rest of Dulwich.

But whatever, yes you can definitely get to Dulwich by going in the direction shown on the signpost!

I'm not sure you would get "anywhere" by going straight down, though, let alone 23 miles down 🀣

I like the "Now here" though!

Edited by Sue
  • Like 1
15 hours ago, sebastiondangerfield said:

The dogs on the street know that Dulwich is straight ahead , Goose Green, turn left and there you have it😜

It's easier to turn left at that junction than to go straight ahead, though, because if memory serves there are only two lanes,Β  and buses turning right (there is no right turn for cars)Β  clog up the right hand lane.

And the distance driven is probably about the same.

5 hours ago, sebastiondangerfield said:

Not everyone wants to go to the library,

the real Dulwich (village) is straight ahead.

Eh? Straight ahead of what?Β 

If you turn left at Goose Green, as you also posted above, you end up at the library. Then the Grove.

Then, unless you turn right at the South Circular, you end up at Forest Hill!

Edited by Sue

From the sign.

Turn left up Peckham Rye, turn right onto Barry Road, straight across at the lights onto Eynella Road which leads you to Court Lane and Dulwich Park.

You could turn right here and Dulwich Village is at the end of Court Lane.

Of course you could stand by the sign and be β€œNow here or Nowhere”

  • Like 1

Β 

2 hours ago, sebastiondangerfield said:

Dear Sue, straight ahead from the sign in question. Left at Goose  Green, right at East Dulwich Grove and on to the real Dulwich.😜

I think this could go on endlessly, so I suggest we finish it here!Β 

But why don't youΒ  track down the makers of the sign? Which hopefully has amused a lot of people, as well as brightening my bus journey.

Tell  them that their directions to Dulwich are not only wrong, but they do not seem to know where the "real" Dulwich is 🀣

I'm sure they will be delighted 🀣

Β 

In the old days you used to be able to access the actual Dulwich by turning left there and travelling down eynella road.Β 

Someone asked James McAsh to look into updating the sign when they closed those roads to Dulwich and I think he said he'd look into it when he used to visit this website.

Perhaps someone from the Dulwich society can enlighten us on why Dulwich Library/ Dulwich Plough is deemed "Dulwich" for geographical purposes. πŸ™

Personally I had always thought it was because it was determined as that for the tram stop in the days of trams and then for the number 12 bus.

I believe that public transport was once excluded from central Dulwich, so if you wanted to take e.g. a bus to 'Dulwich' the Library was about as close as you could get and hence that became Dulwich for maps. The Estate thought that public transport was infra dig.Β 

6 hours ago, CPR Dave said:

In the old days you used to be able to access the actual Dulwich by turning left there and travelling down eynella road.Β 

Someone asked James McAsh to look into updating the sign when they closed those roads to Dulwich and I think he said he'd look into it when he used to visit this website.

But the sign being discussed here is a joke sign, not an official sign!

6 hours ago, CPR Dave said:

Β 

Someone asked James McAsh to look into updating the sign when they closed those roads to Dulwich and I think he said he'd look into it when he used to visit this website.

He gave up using this website because some people on here gave him a really hard time.

2 hours ago, Sue said:

But the sign being discussed here is a joke sign, not an official sign!

He gave up using this website because some people on here gave him a really hard time.

It's actually an official sign, it's just the bottom third that's been covered over by the Poundland Banksy. The font gives it away.

It used to be sign-posted to Brixton, if I remember correctly.

Β 

Edited by David Peckham
Update
  • Thanks 1
10 hours ago, David Peckham said:

It's actually an official sign, it's just the bottom third that's been covered over by the Poundland Banksy. The font gives it away.

It used to be sign-posted to Brixton, if I remember correctly.

Β 

Ah, thanks, I hadn't realised that!

To be honest, I'd never noticed it until it was mentioned on here. It's really subtle, but there's a small subscript/signature in the bottom right of the added bit saying 'Be Here Now'.

I've tried to Google that, but it just comes up with Oasis's overproduced, yet underwhelming, third album of the same name.

I wonder whether was influenced by this:

https://metro.co.uk/2024/11/11/bizarre-london-sign-directions-california-finally-corrected-15-years-21971040/


Β 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I was also woken by this. It happened in two bursts, which felt even more anti social.
    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased πŸ˜†) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built.Β 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for Β£50 cash. Thank you
    • Can’t recommend the company enough, great service.Β 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
Γ—
Γ—
  • Create New...