Gentrify...Commodify...Regenify...which one is it?

[mockney piers]

Jayd, I assume you must have defined the parameters of what you mean by Gentrification for the purposes of your study.

I'd genuinely be interested to hear them, as long as it doesn't get your dissertation into some sort of trouble for publishing bits of it.

Perhaps a summary, it might help frame some of our interminable debates here in future?

And Keef, sometimes?!?!

[barrymarshall]

Jayd5 -

I think there are two broadly separate (but still connected - bear with me) issues concerning gentrification. The first centres around consumerism, the second around issues such as jobs and housing.

People complain about gentrification because it brings in the coffee chains, the Foxtons and all the other brands. When gentrification reaches a certain point, the early adopters of a place complain because it is no longer so "cool", ie too many people are now in on the secret. Bigger chains move in because the place now has a certain demographic profile and what was a hip or edgy place now looks like everywhere else.

But all this is about lifestyle and patterns of consumption, and what people think about themselves. If you think you are distinct from most of the rest of the population, who drink in a starbucks, buy from gap, etc., etc., you won't be too happy when they start to move here. This is becuase there are different levels of people in the know and there are those who are slower to catch on to a "cool" place than others.

The paradox is that the early adopters of cool can cause the problem in the first place. Take Hoxton. A demonstration of the ideology of "cool" played out par excellence.

For a more in-depth exposition of this argument, read The Rebel Sell by Potter and Heath, link to an essay summarising their argument here:

The second issue is more important. You will probably have come across the case of Williamsburg, Manhattan. A traditional working class neighbourhood that was over a decade ago starting to be populated with artists etc looking for cheap rents. Of course, it got a reputation for being cool and wealtheir people, stockbrokers, lawyers, etc., moved in and prices wnet up, pricing local people out of the market. Not only that, but the demographic of people moving in but commuting into the city centre meant that local businesses lost out on trade, folded and different businesses moved in. rents went up so only the more upscale businesses could afford to operate.

Also, as the demographic changes so the provision of services changes. Working class inhabitants might not have access to jobs or schools if lots of young childless commuters descend on an area. This obviously happens a lot more slowly. Also, they may send their kids off to better parts of the city, meaning a welathy area has bad schooling (Islington?).

I don't know what others think of this.

I actually don't think ED is too bad as it was already a fairly wealthy area - remember, MAGGIE THATCHER moved round here (okay, so it wa the village) when she quit as PM. I doubt she'd have moved to Shoreditch, Behtnal Green or Brick Lane back then!

[Ted Max]

Good post Barry.

But Maggie bought in 1985 and sold in 1987, when she had about another 3 years in office still to go. And she bought in a gated community as an investment, greatly enriching herself courtesy of Barratt Homes, who were rewarded in turn.

Apart from that, it's hard to disagree with your analysis of what happens to an area once it starts to gentirfy.

EDIT - I suppose you'd be hard put to make the childless bit stick as well, relating to ED.

[HOMum]

thankyou barry masrhall!

this is exactly the kind of feedback im looking for!

yes i have come across the Manhattan case, and have read a very interesting book called Loft Living by Sharon Zukin...

i totally agree that ED isnt so bad.. at the moment...

but that neither was Islington when gentrification first started in Barnsbury...

maybe gentrification is just a way of life?

the rate of change can be so fast...

[barrymarshall]

Ted Max - thanks for the correction on Maggie - I knew that in the end she dislliked Dulwich becuase you had to drive through Brixton or Camberwell to get there.

I realise too about the childless bit - but it would be interesting for Jayd to compare how gentrification works in different areas - compare and contrast?

Also, I think people often conflate gentrification and a rise in living standards in general.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Very good post all the same Barrymarshall - I enjoyed reading that

[Ganapati]

Btw, Williamsburg is in Brooklyn, not Manhattan.

[barrymarshall]

ooops!

[HOMum]

still new york though barry!!!

i got the jist...

how have you found the white stuff??

good addition?

[Ganapati]

Yeah, but it's a bit like saying Surrey is London. Well, maybe Croydon?

[HOMum]

i do understand, just wasnt the main point of what we were talking about ... so in effect, doesnt matter so much to our conversation!

[barrymarshall]

Jayd -

the white stuff shop? I've walked past it but never been in. Doesn't look my style, really. I don't think of ED or LL as a place to buy clothes - I usually just to up the West End.

The funny thing about the gentrification argument I hear in ED is that we have Barclays and HSBC, Somerfield, Budgens and Iceland, all big national chains and people don't complain about those, but a Cafe Nero or White Stuff or Foxtons do cuase outrage.

[Cassius]

barrymarshall wrote:

>

> The funny thing about the gentrification argument

> I hear in ED is that we have Barclays and HSBC,

> Somerfield, Budgens and Iceland, all big national

> chains and people don't complain about those, but

> a Cafe Nero or White Stuff or Foxtons do cuase

> outrage.

I think certainly in my case that's because all those chain stores were there before I was, so didn't think about them in the same way. Cafe Nero I feel is unnecessary because there are already small, independent coffee shops which offer a similar service. But you are right, it is illogical.

[HOMum]

most probably just because it isnt the 'norm' and they are 'new', whereas the other chains have been around for a while, almost as though they have our consent!

generally i think the gentrification is a good thing..

but i have to llok at pros and cons to get a balanced argument!

[snorky]

bah!

the only people who are bothered about "chains" are "local businesses" who stir up resentment in order to protect their own interests.

If they had a decent product, well presented, then they wouldnt have to worry. If however, they have a second rate prioduct, badly presented ans overpriced, then they want a boot up the @rse, yet bleat instead of sorting their lives out

Compare the various LL & NCR coffee shops to se what is patently obvious in this sector.

Just cos something is Local does not mean it is better for the community.

[barrymarshall]

Ganapati Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yeah, but it's a bit like saying Surrey is London.

> Well, maybe Croydon?

last time I checked, Ganapati, Manhattan and Brooklyn were part of the same city. ;-)

You mean it's more akin to thinking ED was part of Lambeth borough.

[downsouth]

They weren't always. They 'were' all separate Dutch towns including Harlem and the then New Amsterdam - they are all bar NY anglicised Dutch names.

*puts Times History of the World down*

[Administrator]

Tomato, tomato. Please stay on topic.

[Ganapati]

I love all the fellow pedants on this thread. Yes, you're right Barry.

Anyway, I have to question this statement, "Gentrification can cause false aspirations,myth, status anxiety and emotional distress." I need some examples of these false aspirations, myth, status anxiety and emotional distress, bc personally, it seems those anxieties are suffered the world over.

When a kid stabs another kid for his mobile phone in Peckham, for example, isn't this an example of status anxiety?

[BARA]

As someone who has lived in the area for over 40 years - I take you back to the old days of the GLC and Ken.

In the late 70s early 80s the GLC did some research to find that parts of East Dulwich had the highest rates of privately rented and owner occupied properties without indoor toilets, central heating,bathrooms etc. It also had a very high rate of elderly people living in sub standard property. The Area Improvement and Modernisation Scheme was launched by the GLC, who surveyed much of the property in the area to suggest improvements and financial assistance (means tested. Local people were invited to sit on the monthly board of AIM - each street (or section of street id like Barry Rd/Lordship Lane etc) had to have a council tenant, private tenant, housing association tenant and owner occupier to represent local opinions. We met in a house in Whateley Road and discussed proposals for the area. Many of the older people rented from private landlords who had refused to put in bathrooms, indoor toilets etc due to costs - a financial arrangement was made by the GLC to install these facilities. I got a grant to put up new guttering back and front - I could have had a new roof, but my income could not meet the increased contribution towards costs. Millions of ?s were poured in by the GLC over several years - people began to take pride in their homes, the run down houses were given a massive make over, and naturally property prices began to rise. This was the start of gentrification - from an area which was to the main at least 50% populated by people over 45 - many over 65, the younger people/families began to come into the area - house prices were still lower that that of the remainder of Dulwich and all the schools had vacancies. In 1974 we sold the family home in Landells Road (no 63) for a princely sum of ?10,500 by the time of the early 90s - house prices in Landells Road had risen to around ?150,000. Those same 2 bed house are now going for ?400,000 +.

From the mid 1980's East Dulwich became home to many families - most popular schools were St. Johns and St. Clements, Goodrich and St. Anthony's as well as Dulwich Hamlet and Village. Heber had a poor reputation at that time and many parents refused to send their children there - but in those days - no school was over subscribed so you had a wide choice.

I think in order to answer a question re gentrification - you need to know the social makeup of the area at a given time. When I was young (in the last century) Islington and Hackney were considered, for the most part, to be slum areas and that people who had money were living in Finchley, Richmond, Westminster.

East Dulwich has improved vastly, Lordship lane with the on coming of Sainsburys was doomed (so it was predicted). Of course some businesses went bust - but increased wealth to the area has given a boost to the range of shops available to us. I must admit some of the prices charged are beyond my financial means even though I have a well paid professional job.

[citizenED]

Thanks for that insight BARA. I still think that the whole notion of Gentrification is rather "Headline" led. ie we see some nicer cars on the streets and some trendy mums at the weekends with their Phil and Teds, and some huge price tags on houses in certain streets - but from what you can witness, ED is still a largely "working class" area with a good mix of folk. ED does not simply consist of The Strip and the surrounding streets down in East Dulwich Village. Most of ED is residential and includes such things as the Lordship Lane Estate. Next time you walk around, have a look at the cars parked on the streets (exactly how many 4x4's, Mercs and Jags) and look at the older folk you see.

citizen

[Frisco]

"But Maggie bought in 1985 and sold in 1987, when she had about another 3 years in office still to go. And she bought in a gated community as an investment, greatly enriching herself courtesy of Barratt Homes, who were rewarded in turn."

I'm afraid this is wrong, the Thatchers didn't sell in 1987. They still owned the house in Hambledon Place, the Barrat development on the South Circular Road, when she left office in 1990: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/28/newsid_2527000/2527953.stm

They lived there for some months, before deciding that it was too much of a trek into Central London, and they then moved into a house in Belgravia that was loaned to them.

[Frisco]

"Do you think gentrification in Dulwich has been a good thing or a bad thing?"

I'm not sure that gentrification applies. There have been demographic changes and it's ceased to be quite as socially as mixed as it used to be, say 20 years ago. Plus, the type of people who came to live in ED 20-25 years ago were professional people and public servants, such as teachers, social workers, journalists, etc. very of whom could afford to buy here now. BARA is quite right about the previous state of housing, and there are probably still quite a few examples of that around. However, it wasn't that different then to places like Clapham, Fulham and Camden Town. The generally dilapidated state of the older housing stock was what led to the type of houses now being refurbished being demolished, and the occupants being rehoused in high rise flats and barrier blocks. I always remember watching a documentary about high rise flats in Hackney, and one of the elderly residents (who loved her flat, with its fitted kitchen and bathroom) pitying the people who had to live in the then half a million pound Victorian houses below. ED was lucky in that 60s and 70s development didn't reach here, and I'm not sure why. I can only suggest that it wasn't quite as bad as the areas that were demolished, some of which had much superior, and formerly up-market, housing than ED.

I think that generally the changes have been good, and it will mean that the Victorian housing stock in ED (an example of an unspoilt Victorian suburb) is being improved. However, the improvements have been inevitable really, given they it is only 11 minutes to London Bridge by train, and it would have happened ten years earlier if it hadn't been for the 80s/90s recession and the fact that the proposed tube line never came.

"Has it gone too far?"

Not quite yet, but the coming of Foxton's wasn't good news for the area. As a friend who lives in Bellenden Road )who was once an ED resident) says, it is in danger of getting too far up itself.

"Where do u think it will end?"

Not sure really, but probably as an enclave for highly paid city workers, for whom West London and places like Clapham are out of their reach, living cheek by jowl with their Peckham neighbours.

[macroban]

As someone who has lived in the area for much longer than BARA (the person) I'd like to add to BARAS's comment:

> Many of the older people rented from private landlords who had refused to put in bathrooms, indoor toilets etc due to costs

In the 1950s and 1960s the area between Lordship Lane and Barry Road had a high incidence of rented properties with elderly (in those days over 60) tenants. Nearly all of these tenures had Controlled Rents or (later) Regulated Rents, sometimes for Controlled Tenancies with the right to inherit the tenancy. There was also a fair number of requisitioned properties rented out by Camberwell Borough Council. For landlords the return on these tenancies with government controlled rents below market price rents was less that the return on Consols. The landlords could not afford these improvements without subsidising their tenants. An additional problem for modernisation was the number of properties with two or more households in one property with no structural internal division (typically one up, one down).

A local estate agent's brochure from c1880 seems to support the history books and confirm that a significant proportion of these properties were built for rental.

[Frisco]

"There was also a fair number of requisitioned properties rented out by Camberwell Borough Council."

According to land Registry records, my house fell into this category, having been in the ownership of the LLC for several years after the war.

"An additional problem for modernisation was the number of properties with two or more households in one property with no structural internal division (typically one up, one down)."

It was in multi-occupancy too until something like 1964, and when I move in it still had two gas meters. However, there had been no internal division between the two floors.

"A local estate agent's brochure from c1880 seems to support the history books and confirm that a significant proportion of these properties were built for rental."

From memory and reading I've done about ED, I don't think it's the case that the house were built for rental. It happened that in the 1880s there was a glut of newly built houses, and many of the streets in the area stood empty for a long time after being built. I also seem to recall that this coincided with a cyclical and national economic recession in the 1880s. I suspect that the rental market was a way of getting them occupied at the time.