Neighbourhood · 14,720 residents
Fair · better than 1 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
Tottenham scores 47/100 overall, which the scorecard rates as fair — 60 is typical for the country.
It stands out for schools (74).
It scores lowest on affordability (21).
Scores come from official data on safety, schools, transport, prices, health, food & drink and the local environment, for Tottenham in London, each measured against the national average.
Terraced Victorian streets, low-rise blocks of flats, and a high street that mixes Caribbean grocers, Turkish bakeries and pound shops rather than chain coffee outlets — Tottenham reads as a place that has never quite been gentrified into something else, and plenty of people who live here would tell you that's part of the appeal. It's dense, young-skewing, and unmistakably working London, not a postcard version of the city.
The numbers behind the streetscape confirm what you'd sense walking round: this sits in the most deprived tenth of the country on both income and the wider deprivation index, and a median house price of £430,000 is actually 15% below the Haringey borough average, even though it's comfortably above the national median. Rents around £2,210 a month tell you this is still London pricing, just London's more accessible end. On transport, Bruce Grove and White Hart Lane rail stations give you two solid options into the centre, backed by 81 local stops, so a commuter doesn't lack for choices even if the connectivity grade sits only around the national average rather than above it. Schools are the pleasant surprise here — an overall A grade, with Holy Trinity CofE Primary rated Outstanding, and Bruce Grove Primary rated Good — which matters more than the modest secondary-level progress figures might suggest, because it shows the primary tier is genuinely strong even where the deprivation numbers are stark. That combination — good primaries, workable rail links, cheaper-than-borough housing — is who ends up staying here: people trading some rough edges for a foothold in the city they couldn't otherwise afford.
Green space is generously spread for inner London — 34 separate spaces amounting to over 37 hectares — so there's always somewhere to walk off a Saturday even without a single headline park drawing the crowds. Housing stock is dominated by Victorian terraces bought freehold rather than leasehold flats, which is the classic London first-rung buy: a terraced house here has a local median of £547,500 against a national terrace median of well under half that, so you're paying a London premium even at the "affordable" end of the borough. The one grade that jars against an otherwise fairly settled B-range picture is safety, sitting at C+, and the crime breakdown explains why: violence and anti-social behaviour together account for half of all recorded crime, and the borough-relative comparison shows crime running nearly double the Haringey average. That's the trade-off in plain terms — you get schools and transport and green space that outperform the deprivation numbers, but you accept a policing and safety picture that lags behind the rest.
Put together, Tottenham suits people who want inner-London density and connections without inner-London prices, who are comfortable with a lively, sometimes rough street life, and who value strong primary schooling enough to look past a borough-topping crime rate. It's not a place that flatters itself, and it won't suit anyone wanting a quiet, low-crime retreat — but for those priced out of leafier Haringey postcodes, it's a genuine and functioning alternative.
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.