3 ms·
The original map dates from 1682, which didn't jump out if it was mentioned at all on the linked site. So "new" is relative, i.e. less than 335 years old.
by theoh 9y ago
The original map dates from 1682, which didn't jump out if it was mentioned at all on the linked site. So "new" is relative, i.e. less than 335 years old.
- calpaterson 9y agoWell, something being new is always relative isn't it?
- theoh 9y agoYes. I would argue, though, that the really striking thing about new bits of London is the expansion between 1918 and 1939, which increased the built-up area by 200%. That was real inflationary growth.