please empty your brain below
I wish you'd stop presenting facts. This goes totally against the 'London has more than its fair share' mantra

TomH | 22.10.19 - 7:42 a.m. | #

Very interesting thank you. Kingston appears to have one area with '1' for Cambridge Road estate in Norbiton.

dg writes: That's a 2.

MS | 22.10.19 - 7:48 a.m. | #

Thanks for another interesting post.

Need to a bit careful in use of words - deprived and non deprived areas and affluent and poor areas are not always the same. Hence why Kensington and Chelsea has no 10s. Areas with high house prices may score badly on the housing domain due to affordability issues while the income domain is a misnomer and relates to claiming of certain benefits and not to average incomes in an area.

If you compare the IMD to Booth’s famous Victorian map of deprivation in London you will see the areas of deprivation have not changed much in well over 100 years

Joe | 22.10.19 - 8:09 a.m. | #

DG & Joe: Good you're warning readers of what can and can't inferred from this index.
The Min of H, Com & LG adds its bit in a FAQ, Section 19:
'What can’t the Indices be used for?'

MartinO'Holcombe | 22.10.19 - 8:28 a.m. | #

Interesting - I live in a "2" area in Dagenham. I know all but two houses on the road are privately owned, but we have a large number of retired and elderly people - I wonder how this compares with the illustrious heights of "3" just a few streets away.

David (@DTL) | Homepage | 22.10.19 - 8:59 a.m. | #

But you don’t explain the map at the beginning of the post.

dg writes: Below the Richmond table.

Bryn Davies | 22.10.19 - 9:17 a.m. | #

Like many statistics these are pretty meaningless without knowing the details of how they are calculated.

dg writes: See first link.

I suspect they would tell me I am deprived but I don't think I am.

kev | 22.10.19 - 10:10 a.m. | #

Fascinating stuff.

*adds site to long list of websites to consult when considering when relocating*

Thank you.

Blue Witch | 22.10.19 - 10:18 a.m. | #

David(@DTL) "a large number of retired and elderly people"

I think this has quite an impact. In the area near where I grew up, one of the richest bits with large expensive detached houses is shown as a 5 but amongst them there's also a large block of pensioners flats. I think it's occupied by relatively well to do pensioners but I guess their income will still be low.

Anders | 22.10.19 - 10:35 a.m. | #

If you wish to compare anywhere in England using this same data, whether it be in Greater London or not, The University of Sheffield's maps and stats for the English Indices of Deprivation 2019 are online – all 317 local authorities (with links to MHCLG data and docs) can be found here:

imd2019.group.sheff.ac.uk

Philip Brown | Homepage | 22.10.19 - 10:46 a.m. | #

At local area level the index doesn't seem to be good at showing deprivation levels in areas where there is rapid change. The areas in the Olympic Park area illustrate this. Although there is some new social and affordable housing, its difficult to believe that these are amongst the most deprived.

The overall index score still includes a number of indicies calculated from the pre Olympic 2011 census so don't fully reflect the demographics of housing built and occupied since then.

Boneyboy | 22.10.19 - 11:01 a.m. | #

As one who loves looking at the old Booth maps, I'm finding this fascinating. Thanks.

Despite my Nan having long been priced out of Hoxton where she grew up, her road is still a number 1!

Cornish Cockney | 22.10.19 - 12:10 p.m. | #

I can only agree with Joe here. Almost completely middle-class areas will score as being less deprived than ones composed of 90% billionaires and 10% paupers - hence the Barbican Estate, for example, ranking as the least-deprived area in Central London and higher than Kensington, Holland Park, or even most of Mayfair.

Also, the index is intrinsically biased against large cities, especially London. 'Housing affordability' is one factor, though perhaps it makes some sense at least. 'Living environment', however, is based - unless they've changed the algorithm - essentially on how busy the roads in the vicinity are. This means isolated suburbs with no shops and few green spaces but no major roads will be rated higher than, say, Regents Park Terrace, which may have the Euston Road running immediately adjacent, but is nonetheless a fairly pleasant environment I would think...

Martin Seiffarth | 22.10.19 - 12:57 p.m. | #

Fascinating. Thanks, DG. From recent experience, some universities use this sort of number to determine whether an applicant qualifies for a contextual offer (i.e. admission on lower target grades).

Perhaps worth repeating: Q19 in the FAQ explicitly cautions that the IMD cannot be used to say how affluent a place is.

The mode is an interesting number to pick - particularly if the distribution is multimodal - as seems to be the case in some areas - and if the distribution is discrete not continuous. (This may be ignored as a comment that "you could have done it another way", but I'll say it anyway:) The median might be a more representative number for each area. I wonder if the results would change significantly, but I suspect it would be more difficult to calculate.

Andrew | 22.10.19 - 1:49 p.m. | #

Merton's a very divided borough. There certainly isn't many 10s in Mitcham and Morden.

Steve Jones | 22.10.19 - 2:30 p.m. | #

I also calculated the mean and median for each borough, and they are indeed interesting.

diamond geezer | Homepage | 22.10.19 - 3:03 p.m. | #

I'm very surprised that the least deprived area of the country isn't Virginia Water in Surrey, which includes the Wentworth Estate.

The average house price for Virginia Water is currently close to a cool £1.5 million.

dg writes: Perhaps worth re-repeating: Q19 in the FAQ explicitly cautions that the IMD cannot be used to say how affluent a place is.

richard | 22.10.19 - 6:26 p.m. | #

I see HRH is only an eight at Buckingham Palace while the Archbishop of Canterbury a seven at Lambeth Palace. The Houses of Parliament are only a five however.

Alan S | 22.10.19 - 6:43 p.m. | #

I'm reading this at my Dad's house in Middlesbrough, the local authority with the highest proportion of 1s in the country. I grew up in, and Dad still lives in, an 8 - but, 200 yards down the road and across the stream, the area is not just a 1, but one of the 20% of lowest 1s. A quarter mile further still is an area that is not just a 1, but one of the 4% of lowest 1s. This feels intuitive.

Where I live in London is a 3, but the other side of the road is a 2, so I'm all right, Jack!

Chris | 23.10.19 - 2:38 p.m. | #

On digging down it was interesting to find that one of the "bad health" markers in London is "access to Pubs/Bars/Nightclubs".
I understand the reasoning, but not sure if everyone would agree it's wholly a negative thing (?) Almost like the density of London is inherently a "bad thing"
Looking at some villages in NE England that I know well, they appear to get good scores on this measure just because they are linearly spread out

Peter in W14 | 27.10.19 - 11:17 a.m. | #

"Despite my Nan having long been priced out of Hoxton where she grew up, her road is still a number 1!"

That's because deprivation in Hoxton and rest of the inner London is simply a result of most of the housing stock in this area being council, i.e., these huge deprivation levels in areas where only the wealthy can afford housing at a market rate are sustained artificially. Big chunk if not most of these council tenants come or have parents from developing countries with little education and in basic low-paying jobs if any (unemployment is particularly rampant among Somali and Bangladeshi communities, especially women).

G | 01.11.19 - 6:15 p.m. | #

"I also calculated the mean and median for each borough, and they are indeed interesting."

Could you publish those too?

G | 01.11.19 - 6:17 p.m. | #











TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy