Gentrification in Southbank: A detailed comparison of perceptions, people and amenities, between the divide

Introduction

Gentrification discourse focuses on increasing property values (Ashdown, 1994), price mark-ups (Schwartz, 2014) and lower crime rates that benefit the new community. Whilst perceptions of gentrification have often been portrayed a simple dichotomy (Smith, 1991) between those who view gentrification as a positive the gentrifiers, and those that view it as a negative, the displaced individual (Doucet, 2013). Recent studies focus on the duplication of amenities (William, 2005; Redfern,2003) concluding that residents see these as unnecessary. Furthermore newly gentrified areas were found to have a more domestic pull (Kerr, 2008) whilst already gentrified areas attracted a more global clientele, whilst newly gentrifying areas were found to have greater levels of conflict between old and new inhabitants (Patch, 2004).

Through exploration of the theme ‘place memory and effect’, this project will access the extent to which the above studies hold up when applied to the Launcelot and Holland Street area. I will begin by establishing who the gentrifiers are in each location, whilst later exploring how memory and perceptions have responded to the gentrification process. In particular this study will echo (Williams, 2005) by focusing on respondent’s reactions to the amenities present in their area and any hostility they may garner towards the process. Although the themes discussed have been well documented by the urban studies community (Butler, 2003;Redfern 2003), this study nevertheless remains important to the field of human geography in that it seeks to challenge conventional beliefs and analyze how these theories may differ in two selected areas that have not previously been compared. By focusing on the high quality individual interviews this study will provide valuable insight into the varied spectrum of viewpoints that gentrification can manifest.

The chosen sites have both been subject to gentrification, however to remarkably different degrees. Holland Street demonstrates the most extreme gentrification on the South Bank area and has recently seen the development of Neo- Bankside, a multi million pound block of apartments complete with a range of exclusive services including a 24-hour concierge and lifestyle coach. In contrast the area surrounding Launcelot Street serves as a comparison site. It backs onto Waterloo station and has also been subject to gentrification however to a lesser extent with two bedroom apartments rising in price at between 8-12% a year according to local agent Frank Harris & Co. Recent developments include Steve’s bed and breakfast into high street apartments, though no life style coach is included

Map showing the two areas of Study: Launcelot street area bottom left and Holland Street area top right

When questioned on the effects of gentrification in the two areas Jim Dickson the head of Lambeth Council asserted, “gentrification tries to cater for everyone” but .. “it can sometimes be impossible to stop market forces.” Thus this project may be of use to any policy maker who is wishing to understand who gentrification does indeed cater for and how one may prevent such market forces from casting the perceptions of an area into a negative light.

Methodology

(Fig 0.2: Pedestrianized area around Holland Street)

(Fig 0.3: Currently gentrifying area of Launcelot Street, both pedestrianized areas)

(Fig 0.4: Neo Bankside) )development

(Fig 0.5: Neo Bankside development block B)(Fig 0.6: Current Conversion

Development in Launcelot Street)

The qualitative nature of this study lends itself to semi-structured interviews. Such an approach ensures those being questioned are put at ease during the process and are therefore more likely to discuss topics of their particular interest, thus adding valuable personal insights that would likely be constrained in a more formal interview or survey. Such an approach draws on oral histories of the residents of both Holland and Launcelot Street in order to uncover the feeling that gentrification has created. In order to try and document a full analysis of the changing perceptions both residents and business owners were targeted. Interviews were staged in the Holland Street area around the new multi million pound development of Neo Bankside and the newly gentrifying area of Launcelot Street. Specifically local supermarkets were used to find subjects with the majority of residents being found in the frozen food section.

(Fig 1: Main interview site in heavily gentrified Holland Street)

Semi structured interviews involved the following broad themes but due to the nature relying on perceptions. Where appropriate the individuals were allowed to venture off topic as long as it added value to the findings. Questions included:

Do you live in the area, where did you live before? What has attracted you to this area in particular? How long have you been living here? Where did your neighbours move from? What is your occupation? Do you know what is meant by the term gentrification? What do you think about the gentrification of Holland Street/ Launcelot Street? Are there any positives of the gentrification process? Are there any negatives of the process?

Respondents were assured their responses would be held in confidence and that the findings of the research were for internal peer review only. Interviews were recorded using IOS software and were later transcribed, respondents were assured that recordings would not be kept or stored. Although a first name basis was established with the subjects to try and ease conversation, upon conclusion of the interview individuals were asked if they would like their real name to be included in the report. In cases where they chose to remain anonymous a suitable alias has been used.

An inductive approach was taken to analysing the interviews (Schulz, 2012) in which key concepts and quotes were isolated and have been presented in the findings. Following this key themes and sub themes were analysed using an open coding method (Siedel, 1998), which looked at any similarities that were observed between the two locations. Where possible triangulation has been used by providing photographic evidence (Bogdan, 2006) in order to show empirical evidence of the themes discussed in interview.

(Fig 2: Main interview site in currently gentrifying site of Launcelot Street)

Findings

In talking to local residents of the Holland Street area it became clear that the locality is drawing residents from the international community. Jyni a new resident from Kuala Lumpur saw it as the “ideal location” to live in, “safe and secure” and “so easy to walk to my work (Rothschild’s) in the city” stating that the company had “advised this location for me”. Further residents of the area also followed a similar international pattern with Yonatan, an associate at VISA, originally from New York locating in the area due to its proximity to his work across the river. Yonatan revealed that the people living in his apartment block were “young professionals” from “around the world” and that his neighbours were even fellow “Statesman” but “not from my part of town”. Whilst exploring the local supermarket Marks & Spencer Hannah a smartly dressed professional who worked at the marketing company Adam and Eve disclosed that she had recently moved to the area from “north

London,” leaving her Maida Vale apartment, as she saw the area “just really a better investment to be honest,” with a “younger and friendlier atmosphere,” even though it was “annoyingly adding an extra 20 minutes to my commute”. All three subjects advocated the importance of the amenities in bringing them to the location with Hannah proclaiming that the local hotels provided a “good place for her friends and family to stay when they visit” and cultural activities such as the “Globe Theatre and Tate Modern, although I have never had the time to visit yet”

When prompted on their perceptions of gentrification Jyni remarked,

“It’s a process that has brought together all types of people who are able to live together”.

Jyni felt the process was exciting leading to new people from across the world coming to the area increasing the level of services that were offered. She focused on the various gyms that had located in the area allowing her to increase her choice before picking the most appropriate one, claiming:

“You just need to blow off some steam after a long day at work and here I got to try three different gyms before picking the best one, each one gave me two weeks membership for free”

(Fig 3: Gym in Holland Street) (Fig 4: Bankside health club) (Fig 5: Mercure hotel/gym)

Yonatan also talked of gentrification in a positive light however adopting a more critical stance stating that he saw the duplication of amenities as unnecessary:

“It’s a bit of a joke here there are three Starbucks coffee shops within 5 minutes of each other, look from where we are standing you can even see two.”

(Fig 6: Starbucks Holland Street) (Fig 7: Starbucks just visible from Holland St.)

When asked about the beneficial duplication of gyms in the area he did not acknowledge their benefit in the same way as Jyni instead expressing:

“Couldn’t they just have one for everyone instead of each gym trying to do something different.”

In contrast the local residents of Launcelot Street represented a more domestic outlook with residents coming predominantly from the UK. Charlie the manager of café which he wished to remain anonymous had moved from Clapham to the area with his “significant other” and had liked the idea of living in a more “central location” with its “greater transport routes” and “ variety of bars and pubs”. When prompted he revealed:

“The majority of my mates in the building are from places like Tower Hill, Aldgate east and Tooting Broadway”… and “no cultural activities weren’t really a big priority when choosing to move here, we mainly wanted to be in a friendly area with lots going on”

In exploring the local supermarket Iceland Abisheck an ICT consultant at Fujitsu who had recently moved from Chennai to work in the new London offices proclaimed that he was sceptical of the area, and although at first confused by the term gentrification after some clarification raised an interesting insight

“Its often noisy at night and the commute to work can be very overcrowded if I miss the early tubes”… “ I don’t see it as a bad thing and I hope nobody gets angry at me for living here I was forced to move for work and this was the most affordable and closest area I could find”

Perceptions of gentrification also varied significantly in Launcelot Street, Abisheck felt that it had led to a mixing of the population, however argued that the local population did not mix well although he felt that this did not matter. He welcomed the various amenities that had come with gentrification framing them in a positive light:

“Three DIY stores in the area is great, they all compete on price and I get some of the best deals in the area”… “ You may think we don’t need two Greggs at each end of the street but they are always so busy I am surprised another one hasn’t opened”

Thus it seems that ideas surrounding the duplication of services was very different to that in Holland Street. Charlie also had a somewhat nuanced perspective of gentrification arguing:

“They spend all this money getting rid of graffiti, if you ask me it’s a waste, they should spend the money on more important things rather then just tying to make the tourists happy when they pass through the area on the way to the station”

(Fig 11: Council painting over graffiti in the area)

However when asked how gentrification could be used to benefit the local community Charlie provided an incoherent response saying they should just be doing “other things”. Cain a worker at TFL who was in the process of leaving his property after renting in the area for more than 12 years was adamant that gentrification was negative for the community. Walking down the local high street he revealed the area was:

“Lost to the upmarket folk now”… “The yuppies are closing down my local shops, shops that have been here for years…. now all we get to look at are boarded up shops while the Brands take over”

(Fig 9: People queue outside local Gregg’s chain)

(Fig 8: Duplication of services catering to those that have recently moved in)

(Fig 10: Duplicated Gregg’s chain within walking distance of other branch)

( Fig 12: boarded up shoe store) (Fig 13: vacant home ware store) (Fig14: Sams café closing)

He drew my attention to two shops across from each other ‘Valero’ had recently moved to the area and was selling designer garments that fetched in excess of 100 pounds whilst over the road ‘What the Butler wore’ was advertising its closing down sale with the majority of items at below the 40 pound mark.

(Fig 15: new designer store Valero recently moved into area) (Fig 16: Closing down sale of ‘What the Butler Wore)

With further prompting Cain was happy to show me the detrimental effect that he felt gentrification had posed to the local area. Down a side street he showed me how the Council was now starting to paint over the graffiti in order to appeal to the new residents:

“ I understand that its illegal and all but the place is just loosing the character that it used to have, its pointless too… the kids just spray over it again.”

This was indeed the case as later that day a young man Adam replaced his tag over the area that it has previously been removed from.

(Fig 17: Adam replacing his ‘tag’ over the area the council had started to clear)

When prompted on how gentrification had affected the area, Cain was adamant that it had been damaging.

“Its got so desperate for them around here… most of them are now only staying open for part of the day… I cant go and get the washing done … Paws keep cutting their hours when I would have thought they needed to stay open longer”

(Fig 18: Paws makeshift sign detailing their new opening times)

Paws a local launderette service openly advertised the fact that they were now reducing hours upon questioning the owner he confirmed:

“Why would we stay open when the customers don’t come like they used to... I reckon most of them have their own washers now”.

Cain was sure that the prices in the area had gone up, even when reminded that this could be inflationary and not as a result of gentrification, asserting that gentrification was the cause. Walking up to a local café he remarked:

“Look what those suits have done £2.20 for a coffee, why should I pay that.”

(Fig 19: Four corners new café menu) (Fig 20: New smartly dressed customers of four corners)

When asked if there were any services that he felt catered for him he responded

“There are a few that try and remain loyal, but they normally go the same way as Coral”…(pointing out the shut down café… “Either the prices move or they do”

(Fig 21: Coral bay café, closed down for staying loyal to locals)

Analysis

This section seeks to interpret the aforementioned findings (without repeating what was discovered) and will focus on, some general themes that emerged from the research that particularly grabbed the interviewers attention. In analysing the gentrification of Holland street it became clear that the area attracted residents from a global pull whilst those in Launcelot street tended to be from the UK. This compliments the findings of (Kerr, 1992; Lees 2008) in which already gentrified areas of New York and Bristol were found to house a more global network. However it is worth noting that my findings revealed certain exceptions to this idea and thus it remains important to appreciate that gentrification has both a global and local dimension.

Gentrification was seen in both a positive and negative light in both locations echoing the ideas of (Smith, 1991) in which various stages of the gentrification were met with various perceptions of its effects. Thus it seems that perceptions of gentrification were not seen as either good or bad, rather their existed a broad spectrum of views surrounding the issue. Gentrifications impact on the duplication of services (Williams, 2005) was also perceived in a more nuanced way with some in Launcelot Street proclaiming its benefit whilst others saw it as somewhat of an annoyance, this contrasted the conclusion drawn from Williams in which gentrifications duplication of services was seen as a priori unnecessary to local residents even though they brought inherent value to the area.

Parallels from (Patch, 2004) can also be observed in my findings with little deviation. In accessing newly gentrified areas of Boston he concluded that conflicts were heightened between the new and old residents. Such findings are symmetrical with the current discourse in which there was no mention of hostility between old and new residents in the already gentrified location, whilst a very visual hostility was portrayed in Launcelot Street through the use of graffiti. However in analysing the changing nature of business practices in response to gentrification (Williams, 2005) this research did not highlight the typical price mark-ups and more affluent products being offered (Schwartz, 2014) and instead revealed that businesses had responded in more varied ways mainly by optimizing their opening times.

Of particular attention was a prevalent sub theme that emerged, the idea of forced gentrification, in which an individual did not seem themselves as part of the process but rather victim to the wants of Fujitsu and Rothschild’s. Both Abisheck and Jyni voiced this idea meaning that it was not location specific. The importance of business location in bringing about gentrification has been heavily detailed (Ashdown, 1994: Redfern, 2003: Clark 1992). However the most prevalent research has shied away from the idea of businesses forcing their workers to take part in the process, such an idea should be opened up for further study.

Limitations

Whilst carrying out the research it became abundantly clear that the work was subject to a variety of limitations that should all be recognized before any conclusions or generalizations are drawn. Firstly this enquiry set out to try and focus on a few high quality detailed interviews in order to gauge an understanding of gentrification in terms of place memory and affect. Whilst my initial

methodology acknowledged this as strength owing to the detailed personal accounts that would be afforded, such an approach relies on only a few stories from an individuals perspective. Had more time been more afforded these stories should have been framed in a wider context of more diverse individuals

In addition the appearance of myself may have influenced peoples responses. Gentrification is a sensitive topic and although I tried to adopt an appearance that would ease conversation in each locality. Had more time been afforded it would have been interesting to explore how more formal attire could have led to different responses from individuals. What remains an inherent weakness that has been largely ignored throughout the project is that no distinction was made between those that owned and leased their property. According to (Bridge, 2012) such a distinction is vital in gauging perceptions of gentrification as often those that own their residence will see it as a benefit while those that rent will focus in on its damaging effects, as their rents rise.

Moreover a limitation of definition was evident when conducting interviews in the Launcelot Street area as people were often not quite aware of what gentrification entailed, doing their best to cover up their misunderstanding. However once the term was explained respondents began to engage effectively in interview, although it is worth acknowledging that the way in which I expressed a definition may have manipulated the response that was afforded.

Conclusion

Before drawing any conclusions from this project it is important to acknowledge the above limitations, however if one is able to set these aside there are some key ideas that cement current findings on gentrification whilst highlighting some avenues for further study

1) Launcelot Street had more of a domestic population and a greater level of negative perceptions regarding gentrification

2) There is a broad spectrum of ideas around gentrification between Launcelot and Holland Street

3) The duplication of amenities resulting from gentrification can be seen as both a disadvantage and advantage depending on the individual and type of service

4) Forced gentrification, involving people having to move for business is a more novel idea and should be explored in further study

5) Gentrification can force businesses to operate in more efficient ways

- Word count excluding in text quotations, figure references and questionnaire = 2, 523

Bibliography

Ashdown, James. Gentrification: So What Is a Yuppie?: Theological Reflections on Gentrification. Sheffield: Urban Theology Unit, 1994. Print.

B. Doucet “Gentrification and those ‘in between:’ perceptions, meanings and interactions among those who are neither the gentrifiers, nor the displaced” RC 21 Conference: living with gentrification (2013): 1-18

Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S.K. (2006), Qualitative research in education: An introduction to theory and methods. Allyn & Bacon

Bridge, G, Butler, T and Lees, L (Eds.) (2012) Mixed Communities: Gentrification by stealth. Bristol: Policy Press

Butler, Tim. "Living in the Bubble: Gentrification and Its 'others' in North London."Urban Studies 40.12 (2003): 2469-486. Print.

Clark, Eric. "On Gaps in Gentrification Theory." Housing Studies 7.1 (1992): 16-26. Print.

Hilton, Karla. Gentrification: Is the Gentrification Process Negative by Definition?Winnipeg: Institute of Urban Studies, University of Winnipeg, 1991. Print.

Kerr, Jeffrey, and Scott Paler. Gentrification: Assessing the Causes and Effects. Winnipeg: Institute of Urban Studies, 1992. Print.

L. Williams (2005) The double- edged sword of gentrification in Atlanta

Lees, L. "A Reappraisal of Gentrification: Towards a ‘geography of Gentrification’."Progress in Human Geography 24.3 (2000): 389-408. Print.

Lees, Loretta, Tom Slater, and Elvin K. Wyly. Gentrification. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2008. Print.

Patch, Jason. "The Embedded Landscape of Gentrification." Visual Studies 19.2 (2004): 169-87

Postumus, H. (2013) The real and presumed effects of forced relocationsresulting from urban renewal

Redfern, P.a. "What Makes Gentrification 'gentrification'?" Urban Studies 40.12 (2003): 2351-366. Print.

Smith, Neil, and Andrew Herod. Gentrification: A Comprehensive Bibliography. New Brunswick, NJ: Dept. of Geography, Rutgers University, 1991. Print.

Seidel, John V., (1998) Qualitative Data Analysis, originally published as Qualitative Data Analysis, in The Ethnograph v5.0: A Users Guide, Appendix E, 1998, Colorado Springs, Colorado: Qualis Research

Schwartz, Madeleine. "The Art of Gentrification." Dissent 61.1 (2014): 5-8. Print.Schulz, John (2012) Analysing your interviews. In, Research Methods Series, Southampton, GB,