Barnes vs Richmond

Barnes and Richmond share a borough, a stretch of the Thames and a reputation for being among the most comfortable places to live in London. They are close enough that people often view flats in both on the same Saturday. Yet the two feel very different day to day: Barnes is a small, self-contained village; Richmond is a proper town with a high street, a theatre and a busy station.

The biggest difference is how you get anywhere. Barnes has no tube, only two rail stations with trains towards Waterloo and a handful of bus routes, so it scores low for connectivity. Richmond has the District line, the Overground and fast trains, and scores far higher. Barnes is also the pricier of the two on our figures, by about a hundred pounds a month for a one-bed, which surprises people who assume the bigger name costs more.

What Barnes offers for that is quiet. Its centre is a pond, a green and a row of independent shops, with Barnes Common and the London Wetland Centre's reedbeds and bird hides nearby, and its nightlife barely registers. Richmond has more going on after dark, with riverside pubs and restaurants, and more green space still, with Richmond Park and Kew close by. Both score at the top of the range for safety.

Barnes suits people who want to feel they have left London, and whose commute works by train or bicycle. Richmond suits people who want most of that calm with far better transport, a lively town centre and, on our data, a slightly lower rent.