Gentrification and Housing in the UK

 by Maddy Ross

The Grenfell Building, 14 June, 2017
(image: Natalie Oxford)

I first encountered the issue of gentrification a few years ago when watching 'How the Middle Class Ruined Britain', a BBC documentary in which Geoff Norcott conveyed his concerns about what he described as middle-class hypocrisy and how he believed it was ruining Britain. Granted, I actually found the documentary confused and a bit all over the place in terms of what it was actually trying to get across, but the one point which stuck with me was gentrification - defined as the process by which the character of a poor urban are is changed by wealthier people moving in, improving housing and attracting new business, often displacing current inhabitants in the process. Now at first, ignoring the latter half of the definition, I couldn't seem to understand what all the fuss was about; aren't they just improving the area?

The process that is known as gentrification usually arises when wealthy investors buy housing or land cheaply in less affluent areas with the intention of renovating it and thus increasing its value. As a consequence of this, estate agents will begin to advertise the neighbourhood as an 'up and coming area', thus attracting more wealthy investors and people to move into the houses. Due to the flood of new people to an area, landlords, as a result, can hike up the prices for the tenants already living there due to the demand. Already, this has consequences to the tenants as they are likely not to be able to afford rent, thus forcing them out of their homes. Alongside this, due to the influx of wealthier neighbours, businesses will be set up to cater to the new demand and demographic of people, driving up the overall price of living in the area.  

To the middle-class eye, a new hipster coffee shop or yoga studio might seem like a nice way of adding some 'culture' or just a way to generally improve the character of the neighbourhood. However, to a family that is struggling to make ends meet, it is unlikely that they would be able to afford the goods from these expensive new stores. To working-class families already faced with a lack of opportunities, this isn't improving their area; it's simply making it more inaccessible to them. That's the key point that I missed.

In regeneration schemes aimed at improving life conditions in low income areas, often housing ministers and developers seem to miss this idea. Often, they are more focused on the aesthetic of a neighbourhood rather than adding genuine value to those living there. Take the example of the development project of Elephant and Castle in which the Heygate estate, containing 1194 council houses, was torn down in 2013. The estate is to be replaced with an apartment complex which contains only 100 'socially rented' homes out of 2500 flats. The shopping centre which to many isn't the most appealing to look at but nevertheless was an iconic and loved building to locals, shut its doors for the last time in July last year. The shopping centre contained many local business, with a high percentage owned by ethnic minorities. The space itself is being used for new apartments (with a few being 'socially rented')m new space for the University of Arts, office space and retail space, but little for existing retailers. However, only some have been given 'relocation offers' and even they are likely to be forced to down-size. 

Elephant and Castle is arguably one of the most high-profile examples of gentrification in the UK and only indicative of the government's prioritisation of middle-class needs while putting the lives of the working class on the back burner. Housing shouldn't be something you invest in only when it suits the needs of the wealthy; it's important as the right to affordable and safe homes can be and is a life or death issue. The tragedy of Grenfell Tower, in which 72 and possibly more were killed, was a horrific example of what can happen when low-income families are systematically ignored. Residents were complaining about fire-safety risks even years before the tragedy. The residents of Grenfell Tower raised their concerns repeatedly to the Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation who managed the building. Mariem Elgwahry and Nadia Choucair were residents threatened with legal action by the KCTMO after they campaigned for fire safety; horrifically both women died in the fire, aged 27 and 33. In June 2016, an assessment had recommended 40 changes to fire safety that were advised to be implemented within weeks; however, four months later only 20 issues had been tackled by the KCTMO. Cladding was put on the tower in 2012 and 2016 with the purpose of improving energy and heating efficiency, but also with the goal of improving Grenfell's external appearance. According to the police, the cladding chosen failed fire-safety tests after the tragedy and many fire-safety experts agree the cladding used was a major cause of the fire. 

The point I'm trying to make is that the genuine concerns of the families and residents of Grenfell were overlooked and on top of that combustible cladding was fitted to the tower which was chosen for its aesthetic and cheap price. What we're seeing here is another example of the problems of working-class and often BAME families being completely disregarded as unimportant. The Chelsea council in whose area Grenfell is situated is one of the richest in London; they had the money to fix the issues and prevent this disaster. The lack of aesthetic value to Grenfell was considered more important than genuinely improving and protecting the lives of the people inside the Tower. 

The effects of Grenfell are far-reaching. Many towers that still have the unsafe cladding continue to have residents and they're having to pay extortionate rents and fees to fund fire wardens. Many families can't afford to move out of these apartment blocks, nor should they have to. This is a class problem. Grenfell Tower happened due to a systematic disregard for the concerns and lives of working class families. 

I think the solution to the overlooked issue of disregard for the working-class and their housing is to build more and better-quality council and low-income housing in the first place. If an area has to go through a 'regeneration', residents and locals must be consulted and asked for what they want for their neighbourhood. Middle-class families need to stop being prioritised. The Guardian in 2016 asked readers about their own experiences with gentrification and an anonymous reader wrote this, which I believe really sums up the inequality of the problem:

"My issue is not with areas being improved, it is how gentrification is about one demographic of our society changing an area for themselves and not for the benefit of everyone."

The importance of ensuring everyone in the UK has quality housing that they can afford is so important. According to the National Housing Federation there are 3.8 million people in England in need of social housing, 500,000 more than the official figures. The report is the most in-depth study of the nation's housing problem to date. The effects of Coronavirus is set to only worsen the problem and increase the need for social housing after the wave of unemployment in the country, likely to leave many homeless. Now, more than ever, the quality of low income housing should be held in high importance with the increased time spent indoors due to lockdown. There is an absolutely dire need for more social housing and this is only more true when you take into account people being displaced by gentrification.