Neighbourhood · 23,112 residents
Fair · better than 2 in 10 suburbs
Check Local Score out of 100 · 60 is typical for the country
Each arc is a topic, coloured by its score
Map outline: Approximate — electoral ward boundary, used as the nearest surveyed shape
Regent's Park scores 52/100 overall, which the scorecard rates as fair — 60 is typical for the country.
It stands out for food & drink (97) and health (91).
It scores lowest on affordability (13) and safety (30).
Scores come from official data on safety, schools, transport, prices, health, food & drink and the local environment, for Regent's Park in London, each measured against the national average.
Regent's Park reads as terraces of white stucco, big-canopy plane trees, and the kind of quiet that comes from a resident population thin enough to be outnumbered by the park itself on any given afternoon. You won't find a conventional high street here — this is a place people live adjacent to, wrapped around one of London's great open spaces rather than organised around shops and cafés. It attracts a settled, well-off crowd: the median age sits close to 39, and the income and deprivation figures both place it in the top tenth nationally, which in practice means detached wealth rather than visible affluence — you sense it in the upkeep of the buildings more than in any parade of restaurants.
Getting around leans on the Underground rather than the high-speed rail network — Baker Street station anchors the area — and with only a handful of transport stops locally, this suits someone who works from home or has a short, predictable commute into central London rather than someone criss-crossing the city daily. Schooling is thin on the ground in the immediate area — Saint Christina's, an independent school, is the one named locally — so families here are more likely paying for education than relying on the local state offer, which fits a spot where a For Sale board almost always says "leasehold flat": of the recent sales tracked, nearly all were flats, every single one leasehold, and prices for those flats run at roughly four times the national median for the type. This is not freehold-house territory, and it never was.
The park itself is the main event — 144 hectares of green space across the area's nine open spaces gives it a green-space density most of London can't match, and it shapes the rhythm of life more than any parade of restaurants could: walking, running, the Zoo, the open-air theatre in season. Health provision locally scores only middling against the area's other strengths, worth knowing if that matters to you, and safety sits at the national average rather than standing out — shoplifting and theft from the person dominate the crime figures, which tracks with a place that draws visitors and passers-through as much as residents, though the overall crime rate still runs below the Westminster borough average. Housing costs are the honest trade-off: a median price of £800,000 sits well above the national and regional norms, and the local trend has been softening over the past year even as the medium-term picture for the borough has been firmer, so anyone buying is paying for the address and the view over the park, not for square footage or a rising curve.
This suits someone who wants a quiet, established corner of central London, values green space and period architecture over convenience shopping or nightlife, and can absorb both premium leasehold pricing and a commute built around the Underground rather than mainline rail. It suits less well anyone chasing strong local state schooling, freehold ownership, or ground-floor affordability — those buyers will find this postcode working against them from the start.
Data last updated: 19 October 2026
Pick another area to line them up side by side — the verdict, both Check Local Scores, and what actually separates them.