“One by one, many of the working class quarters of London have been invaded by the middle-classes—upper and lower… Once this process of ‘gentrification’ starts in a district it goes on rapidly until all or most of the original working-class occupiers are displaced and the whole social character of the district is changed.”
Ruth Glass, Director of the Social Research Unit, University College London (1964)
Ruth Glass coined the phrase gentrification in her study London: Aspects of Change that described the many changes – social, economic and cultural – in a number of central London neighbourhoods, and how these changes were displacing the working class, immigrant and poorer residents of those neighbourhoods. She wasn’t totally won over by the process of gentrification and made clear her view that it would create its own problems:
“Altogether there has been a great deal of displacement. All those who cannot hold their own—the small enterprises, the lower ranks of people, the odd men out—are being pushed away.”
It is now more than fifty years since that report and the process of gentrification has, in the past ten years or so, become an unstoppable force in many of London’s inner boroughs, especially those bordering the east of the City and on the south bank of the Thames. My own neighbourhood, on the western side of Bethnal Green near the top of Brick Lane, is right at the centre of some of the most concentrated gentrification projects in London which were fuelled firstly by the availability of cheap and large warehouse-style properties popular with artists, then its proximity to the City of London and latterly the huge growth in tech, media and other creative industries around Old Street, Shoreditch and Hoxton. The original wave of ‘gentrifiers’ were attracted to the east-end by its affordability, its sense of community and its edginess, hence its popularity with artists. They have now mostly all moved on. The warehouses that served them well as studios, galleries and homes have gradually been sold on to more commercially minded owners, the flats that gave people a leg-up on the property ladder have increased in value enabling them to exchange edginess for something quieter. Gentrification has now taken on a decidedly market-led approach with continuous and large increases in property values changing the face and nature of the east-end in a very heavy-handed way, not improving the area for the benefit of all its residents but transforming it to a trendy destination point for the better off. The social mix that has for generations given the east-end its vibrancy and social mix is being lost, and we will all be the poorer for it.
The east-end of London has been too often seen by many as an exotic area of poverty and immigration, violence and murder interspersed with small districts of entertainment. Tour guides are two-a-penny willing to take the gullible and ghoulish on tours of the streets made famous by disgusting misogynist murders of the serial killer ‘Jack the Ripper’, the psychopathic murdering thugs of swinging sixties, the non-existent slum central to a book that is a Victorian melodramatic fiction but widely but believed to be history, and numerous other supposed sites of east-end myth and folklore based on the merest sliver of fact and turned into a totally believable but misguided and overblown history that has gained a place in the psyche of the nation. These tours and the tales they are based on are popular, I think, because they help us to believe that such problems of metropolitan life are distant from us physically and temporally which helps us ignore the realities of equivalent threats and problems today. In truth the east-end has many fascinating histories, much of which still affects our lives today in terms of anti-racist movements, health provision, social housing, human rights, politics, trade unionism, women’s rights, workers rights, working class movements… it’s a long, long list in which violence and murder plays a miniscule part. Poverty and immigration are an inescapable part of the east-end’s history but not the voyeuristic, poverty-porn sort full of “cor, strike a light guv’nor”, cheeky chappies, tarts with hearts, starving urchins, ignorant, indigent or brawling masses who just need a wash and a bit of love. I digress. There are numerous books written that cover the true history of the east-end far better than I could, (Bishopsgate Institute Library has an unrivalled archive and Brick Lane Bookshop holds a comprehensive stock of in-print books), and guides who provide enthralling and true historical tours of the area, (such as East End Walks and Backpassage Tours), I’ll concentrate on gentrification.
When I moved to Bethnal Green in 1987 I have to admit it wasn’t my first choice of somewhere to live, a friend had a spare room which was cheap to rent and I needed somewhere to stay. As an inner-London borough Tower Hamlets was adjusting to particularly harsh conditions economically, politically and socially, (like most inner-city areas), due to years of underinvestment, reduced funding and reorganisation imposed by the Tory government. Unemployment was high, far-right organisations like the National Front and BNP visibly active in the area with campaigning and physical attacks against people and businesses which, together with heavy-handed policing, created fear and tension amongst the Asian, black and gay communities, and left-wing and anti-fascist activists. Social housing had suffered years of neglect and many council estates, especially those around Brick Lane, Spitalfields and Shoreditch, were run down with many blocks classified as ‘hard-to-let’. To outsiders this all created the impression of the east-end as somewhere best avoided, but for the people who lived here it made community activism an important part of their lives. Cheap property prices in comparison to most other parts of London may have influenced some to move here but ultimately people stayed because it was a decent, vibrant place to live – it was the sense of community rather than trendiness or marketing that people found good reasons to live here.
As time has marched on much has changed but much has stayed the same. Tower Hamlets is still amongst the poorest boroughs in the country, indeed child poverty is higher here than anywhere else in the UK, and with the current period of austerity affecting poorer areas more harshly than richer ones the borough is once again under pressure. Walking through along Brick Lane through Spitalfields and into Shoreditch might make you doubt that statement. Expensive shops, clubs, bars, restaurants and new private housing give the area and aura of trendiness and wealth. Look closely and you’ll see that there are few affordable shops, public services or public amenities that you’d expect to find in a residential area in an inner-city neighbourhood ranked amongst the country’s poorest. It is gentrification writ large. Small family-run cafes, corner shops and grocers have virtually disappeared. The curry houses that made Brick Lane famous have been forced to go ‘upmarket’ or been pushed out. Small traders and factories that had operated for years have been priced out of the area. It isn’t an area where the average Tower Hamlets resident can easily find suitable, decently paid employment, and those not fortunate enough to be considered for social housing are being forced out of the area to find affordable housing. The ‘right-to-buy’ scheme has also had a huge impact of the social fabric of the area, not because of the residents who took advantage of the scheme but the lack of forethought by those who introduced it. The original scheme did not allow local authorities to use money from sales of their properties to build or buy replacement properties. After three years the former council tenants who had purchased the property could sell it at full market rent and the council could do nothing. Once sold on the property was virtually the same as any other private leasehold property.
Properties in this area are at a premium, and in one area in particular this has become offensively apparent. Tower Hamlets is home to the first ever council estate built in Britain, the Boundary Estate. It was built in the 1890s on the site of slum housing by the newly formed London County Council. It was built in the style of a model village with all the amenities it could possibly need – a laundry and bath-house, schools, shops, eating houses, a doctor’s surgery, a church with a community centre and workshops- in light, modern blocks surrounding airy courtyards on wide, tree-lined roads radiating off the central gardens. It was an idea and design so radical that future council housing could never be quite so grand – the next to be built is the Millbank Estate behind Tate Britain, its buildings every bit as beautiful but it lacked the open spaces and amenities that were designed into the Boundary. The Boundary Estate is still a council estate but around 30% of the properties are privately owned. Estate agents call the area Arnold Circus. Many of the council tenants are on minimum wage jobs and receive housing benefit, a few of the original people who bought their properties under the right-to-buy scheme still live in their homes but many have been sold. Some of the privately owned flats are owned by property agencies who rent out flats at up to four times the average council rent. A two-bedroomed property recently sold for in excess of £600,000 and another is being advertised locally for £525,000. Calvert Avenue has become a chic and expensive shopping street with high-end designer jewellery, clothing and soft-furnishing for sale, expensive cafes and grocers and an art gallery replacing the council offices, grocers/off license, a newsagent, hairdressers and small businesses. A barber, newsagent and community-run launderette are all that remain from when area was a hard-to-let estate. The estate buildings and Boundary Gardens are grade two listed, but maintenance and upkeep is poor. The local authority and central government could work together to make much more of the Boundary’s status and protect it for future social housing need. They don’t and have refused in the past to do so when approached by residents.
In the past few years Redchurch Street, just to the south of the Boundary, has become one of London’s trendiest shopping streets. All of the old businesses have closed down or moved on. The small factories and light industrial units that operated on the western end of Bethnal Green road are almost all gone, those few that remain will be gone when the latest phase of redevelopment on the north side of the street is given the go ahead. Luxury flats have already been built and the site of the Bishopsgate Goodsyard is due to be built on within the next year. Ten high-rise buildings ranging from ten to around fifty stories are planned, for luxury apartments, ‘high-end shopping’, a luxury hotel and offices. There will be some public amenities and a small amount of social housing, the full details of which are yet to be announced.
So that is gentrification as seen from the viewpoint of a long-term resident of a gentrified area who fears for the future of social housing, social inclusion and social cohesion. My neighbourhood is not the only area to suffer in this way – it is an experience common to many across the UK. The problem will be dealt with only when the gentrifiers can’t find people to serve their coffees, work the supermarket tills, drive public transport, educate them and their children, tend their ailments or clean their homes as they’ve all been priced out of the cities. Let’s hope someone wakes up and realises.
Philip Green, Blogging & Writing. 