Jump to content

Recommended Posts

In 1901 family sizes tended to be much larger (and in addition there would have been resident servants), and many houses would have had (in the poorer areas) multiple families living in them. Most middle-class families in 1901 would have had at least one resident domestic servant, upper-middle class houses perhaps two or three. The number of new houses in the area (outwith individual houses which replaced bomb-damaged houses) are mainly the big blocks of flats, which themselves replaced exisiting tenements, which would tend to be highly occuied.


Considering that by 1901 ED was already pretty built-up, 20% population growth doesn't seem unreasonable. Compare those resident in the City of London in 1901 and now, where there has been (I believe) a population collapse.


Edited to say - I hadn't noticed that the original figures may not both have been 'ward' based - if 'Dulwich' is being compared with ED ward then, whilst my general comments probably still hold, the growth rate I suggest is rubbish.

The overall population of London is up about 30% in that period, so a 20% increase is respectable in an area which was largely built by then. My suspicion is that it's rocketed/recovered recently too as 15 years ago - none of them flats in Goose Green, flats/houses at the Top of Henslowe Road, the Wood yard, all those by Sainsbury's and opposite the station existed there's a fair few properties in that lot alone...plus several other new developments

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The overall population of London is up about 30%

> in that period, so a 20% increase is respectable

> in an area which was largely built by then. My

> suspicion is that it's rocketed/recovered recently

> too as 15 years ago - none of them flats in Goose

> Green, flats/houses at the Top of Henslowe Road,

> the Wood yard, all those by Sainsbury's and

> opposite the station existed there's a fair few

> properties in that lot alone...plus several other

> new developments


I don't think though the estates on Dog Kennel Hill and Champion Hill or the Lordship Lane Estate had been built in 1901 which must have increased the population of ED significantly. The population could possibly have been higher in the intervening years than the figure of just over 12,000 quoted in the 2011 census. To balance this, as P68 says, families were larger and some houses had multi family occupancy whereas today there are many dwellings occupied by just single people or couples.

kford Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> According to the Census, in 1901 there were three

> families - eight people - crammed into our

> Victorian three-bed terrace in ED. No bathroom,

> and an outside loo. God knows how they managed.



Luckily there is an inside loo & bathroom these days but couples with 2 kids are expected to manage in a one bedroom flat so times haven't really changed at all.

When I was born I lived in a old house in East Surrey Grove Peckham

with

my Mum & Dad

my Nan & Granddad

My Uncle

a Lodger.


Mice.


There was no Electricity. Just gas light.


No Bathroom. Just a single cold tap.


An outside toilet.


Lucky B******s we were.


That's how things were in the 50's


DulwichFox

My father-in-law grew up in what he considered a large 4 bed Victorian house in North London in the 50s and 60s. Out of curiosity, we looked it up on Rightmove, under sold houses and its now configured as a two bed.


When his family lived there, the 2nd downstairs reception room was his parents' room. The dining room was in the narrow k!tchen and the only bathroom was downstairs behind the k!tchen. There was a loo (no sink) upstairs along with 3 bedrooms. His 3 sisters shared the biggest room by choice and he had his own room which meant there was a spare bedroom.


The current owners knocked through the two reception rooms into a through lounge. The k!tchen was extended into the old bathroom. They moved the bathroom upstairs and lost the back bedroom as a result, so now it?s a 2 bed house.


He couldn?t believe it!

London's population grew from the 19th century peaking in 1939. It then declined to a low in the 90's but has increased since, particularly in the last 10 years, but still not quite back to its 39 peak. People are still leaving in large numbers, but are being replaced by large amounts of immigration mostly from within the EU. Although inner London has seen a huge rise in percentage terms in the last 20 years it's still below the 1861 census figures.

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

    • Agreed and in the meantime its "joe public" who has to pay through higher prices. We're talking all over the shop from food to insurance and everything in between.  And to add insult to injury they "hurt " their own voters/supporters through the actions they have taken. Sadly it gets to a stage where you start thinking about leaving London and even exiting the UK for good, but where to go????? Sad times now and ahead for at least the next 4yrs, hence why Govt and Local Authorities need to cut spending on all but essential services.  An immediate saving, all managerial and executive salaries cannot exceed and frozen at £50K Do away with the Mayor of London, the GLA and all the hanging on organisations, plus do away with borough mayors and the teams that serve them. All added beauracracy that can be dispensed with and will save £££££'s  
    • The minimum wage hikes on top of the NICs increases have also caused vast swathes of unemployment.
    • Exactly - a snap election will make things even worse. Jazzer - say you get a 'new' administration tomorrow, you're still left with the same treasury, the same civil servants, the same OBR, the same think-tanks and advisors (many labour advisors are cross-party, Gauke for eg). The options are the same, no matter who's in power. Labour hasn't even changed the Tories' fiscal rules - the parties are virtually economically aligned these days.  But Reeves made a mistake in trying too hard, too early to make some seismic changes in her first budget as a big 'we're here and we're going to fix this mess, Labour to the rescue' kind of thing . They shone such a big light on the black hole that their only option was to try to fix it overnight. It was a comms clusterfuck.  They'd perhaps have done better sticking to Sunak's quiet, cautious approach, but they knew the gullible public was expecting an 24-hour turnaround miracle.  The NIC hikes are a disaster, I think they'll be reversed soon and enough and they'll keep trying till they find something that sticks.   
    • Totally agree with you.  🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...