Talk:Central London

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Circle line[edit]

I've heard that CL includes the area within Circle Line. How about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.1.73.86 (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plausible to the north, east and west, but you have to at least take the river as the southern boundary. I would go further and include a whole chunk of the South Bank, but I'm not sure where I'd put the exact boundary there. Tarquin Binary 13:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Circle line is the most sensible boundary for central London. There is scarcely anything of importance south of the river (only the London Eye, Waterloo Station and the Imperial War Museum). Catholic and Anglican dioceses use the river as a boundary and the Anglican diocese of London is only north of the river.
Dioceses in England are normally named after the location of the cathedral not the entire area - e.g. the Diocese of Canterbury not "Diocese of East Kent". The Diocese of London is named as such after the City and corresponds roughly to Middlesex. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not Plausible to the west: Knightsbridge, Kensington and definitely Chelsea are all West London, NOT Central London. Justgravy (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current poverty in East End[edit]

Its a bit of a myth that the East End is still alive with poverty. It would be a struggle to find any property under £250,000. Most of the 'real poor' have been forced out long ago. MRSC 08:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Complicated question, given that East London is a mosaic of deprivation and affluence. Just last year Tower Hamlets (followed by poor old Hackney, of course - and note how Islington is still way up there), was top in the UK on certain deprivation indicators. Source: Indices of Deprivation 2004 – District Level Summaries (Word Doc). It's extent that East London scores on. Better on Iv hell is out there


Oh, just to add that high property values can actually accentuate deprivation. Housing associations, for example, have taken that as a mandate to raise rents closer to what is seen as market value. So we have the inevitable 'poverty trap' that militates against people taking a job and losing their Housing Benefit. There is also the factor that so called market rents are distorted by Housing Benefit, in some areas, acting as a sort of govt subsidy to landlords. Tarquin Binary 09:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to keep adding. Just to say, that apart from the quibbles above, I have to agree with your correction in that, yes, middle-clas population has nothing to do with centralness. Tarquin Binary 09:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
These areas are only expensive if you buy or rent your property! If it's given to you by the local council, you don't pay a a penny. And there are still plenty of said council developments in these areas. Justgravy (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inner London[edit]

This article sounds much more definite about what Inner London means than does that article. I'm very much inclined to tone down the "defined term" stuff here, and refer people to that article for the different definitions (such as that of ONS and NUTS). Alai 06:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC

Original research[edit]

I'm of the opinion this article is original research and I propose to remove everything that does not have a reference, or is inconsequential, and list definitions we have source material for. MRSC (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done: I've looked at the diff and it is amazing how much opinion had accumulated here. The only point I'd be inclined to add back is the one about distances to London being measured from the original Charing Cross (the Ordnance Survey link is still valid). Would you object to that? - Pointillist (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to anything going in that is properly referenced. MRSC (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. - Pointillist (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

The article was updated to reflect one definition as fact. Please don't do this. There are various definitions and the article should reflect that. The London Plan Central London sub region stretches miles from Central London, even beyond the London postal district at the south of Lambeth! MRSC (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Central London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of big list of buildings[edit]

Looks like 79.74.106.254 added and then quickly removed a big list of tall buildings at the top - possibly from List of tallest buildings and structures in London. @I Am Chaos: thought the removal was vandalism + reverted to the added version. I think the anonymous user added by mistake then fixed the error by removing the list. So I've removed the list again. Hanoied (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hanoied: Thanks, I didnt see that. Thanks for the info.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Central London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Central_London&oldid=1197403371"