Gentrification can be defined as the change in social structure of a specific location. This has occurred massively in London, and to varying degrees of “success” – whether gentrification is good or bad is, ultimately, totally subjective. Gentrification in London is occurring to a greater extent than ever due to the growth of employment opportunities in the tertiary sector, leading to an influx of more affluent, economically active workers seeking a more luxury lifestyle. Whilst it is generally considered beneficial in that it improves an area’s social structure, it can commonly be seen as an unfair process to those who cannot afford to live in the more affluent conditions that grow exponentially as the quality of life – and subsequently, cost of living – increases. In London boroughs such as Notting Hill, Kensington and Chelsea, and Hackney, the pattern of affluent people moving in, price of rent increasing, and previous residents being subsequently priced out, repeats.

 

In the past century, Notting Hill has undergone a dramatic change from being renowned as a derelict, high-crime area suffering from overcrowding, cholera and drastically poor sewage, to accommodate and provide for wealthy, middle-class families. A house costing £11,700 in 1968 now costs more than £2 million – a clear indication of the incredible impact of gentrification on the quality of the area. Whilst Notting Hill had long been the home of Caribbean migrants, following an influx after World War 2 when rent was only 65p – causing the evolution of a tight-knit community around a culture vastly isolated from other areas of London, the abolition of rent control in 1957 triggered the gentrification of Portland Road, causing a rapid spiral of change that serves to perfectly demonstrate the impacts of gentrification, and the clear winners and losers of the relatively ruthless process. As many former residents were too poor to afford the increasingly multi-million price of homes, but not poor enough to apply for benefits, a huge number of people were displaced for the sake of more affluent workers – so significantly did this occur that numerous riots broke out throughout the 50s and 60s. Notting Hill presents a prime example of the less obvious negatives of gentrification, and serves to highlight that though Portland Road and the surrounding area has, on the whole, benefitted incredibly from the rapid influx of disposable income, consumer demand for more profitable, lucrative goods and recreation (such as organic, vegan food, wine bars), it is always at the cost of tearing apart vivid and consolidated communities. Whether this is good or bad for the city of London is dependent on perspective – economically, socially and politically, it is arguably, looking at the city as a whole, more beneficial; gentrification causes areas previously stagnated, such as Notting Hill, with high crime rate and dependence on government support, become self-sufficient, profitable and innovative.

 

This pattern is repeated across London. Hackney has undergone a 319% increase in house prices, similarly in Kensington in which the average income is now £123,000 per year. Though gentrification is controversial, and inevitably results in, at least in the short-term, displacement and neglect of the city’s less profitable and affluent residents, there is a case to be argued that so long as gentrification continues, bringing with it the development of new, innovative industry in pursuit of exploiting the disposable incomes of young professionals, the continued boost to London’s economy provides potential for a positive multiplier of further money from taxation, to be used by the government to pump back into areas in which those displaced by gentrification have come to reside. Though gentrification is rapid and sudden, the overall urban change it fuels gives credit to the argument that it provides the potential for good.

 

However, the map above (removed) displays that gentrification is occurring strictly around the centre of London, with socio-economic status actually moving down beyond the city’s outskirts, in areas such as Mill Hill – this presents evidence of the reality of the darker impacts of gentrification. As it occurs more and more around central London, and exponentially high costs of living expands further outwards, those displaced by gentrification do not only increase in quantity, but are pushed further out of the city – further away, arguably, from government priority and the highest quality of services and resources. Whilst gentrification may be good for those in central London, who are able to fully indulge in the benefits it affords, as it continues to occur, the significance of its negative impacts may only accumulate, coalescing in a crisis so dense and intractable that, when looking at the impacts of gentrification on London as a whole, the bad comes to outweigh the good.

 

In conclusion, gentrification undoubtedly has a beneficial impact on the individual areas of London in which it is focused. As the level of opportunity continues to grow as development expands out from central London, young and affluent workers will inevitably influx into cheap, low-cost areas, subsequently raising rent prices, the quality of life, stores and leisure to create a higher class atmosphere and generating more tax and profit for not only the area, but for the city as a whole. However, while this is incredibly beneficial for London in the short term, the cumulative impact of the displacement of former residents threatens to outweigh the benefits in the long term, should it not be managed adequately.