Nick Bailey, University of Glasgow
The consequences of the suburbanisation of poverty in UK cities
The suburbanisation of poverty has been noted in the cities of a large number of countries, including the UK. The main drivers of this process are seen as labour market restructuring on the one hand, and market-driven change in the housing system on the other. For low income households, surburbanisation processes are generally viewed in negative terms. First they are seen as arising not from positive choices but from direct or indirect displacement from central locations as a result of gentrification processes. Second they are seen as negatively impacting on the welfare of these households through the loss of access to valued communities and social ties in the former working class neighbourhoods of the core, and through the loss of access to valued social services. On the other hand, suburbanisation may offer low income households access to places which have usually been portrayed as aspirational and as locations of social advantage, both in terms of social composition and in terms of physical and social amenities. This paper explores the consequences
of suburbanisation by changes in two aspects of residential amenity which result: levels of air pollution and quality of schools. Results show that suburbanisation has mixed impacts on household welfare but that low income households enjoy fewer of the benefits of ‘suburban’ locations than middle class households.
The suburbanisation of poverty has been noted in the cities of a large number of countries, including the UK. The main drivers of this process are seen as labour market restructuring on the one hand, and market-driven change in the housing system on the other. For low income households, surburbanisation processes are generally viewed in negative terms. First they are seen as arising not from positive choices but from direct or indirect displacement from central locations as a result of gentrification processes. Second they are seen as negatively impacting on the welfare of these households through the loss of access to valued communities and social ties in the former working class neighbourhoods of the core, and through the loss of access to valued social services. On the other hand, suburbanisation may offer low income households access to places which have usually been portrayed as aspirational and as locations of social advantage, both in terms of social composition and in terms of physical and social amenities. This paper explores the consequences
of suburbanisation by changes in two aspects of residential amenity which result: levels of air pollution and quality of schools. Results show that suburbanisation has mixed impacts on household welfare but that low income households enjoy fewer of the benefits of ‘suburban’ locations than middle class households.
Loretta Lees, University of Leicester
Planetary gentrification and urban (re)development
Gentrification is no-longer, if it ever was, a small scale process of urban transformation. Gentrification globally is more often practised as large scale urban
redevelopment. It is state-led or state-induced. The results are clear – the displacement and disenfranchisement of low income groups in favour of wealthier in-movers. Why has gentrification come to dominate policy making worldwide and what can we do about it?
Gentrification is no-longer, if it ever was, a small scale process of urban transformation. Gentrification globally is more often practised as large scale urban
redevelopment. It is state-led or state-induced. The results are clear – the displacement and disenfranchisement of low income groups in favour of wealthier in-movers. Why has gentrification come to dominate policy making worldwide and what can we do about it?
Jennifer Robinson, University College London
The politics of land value capture: Defining the form of the future city in London, Johannesburg and Shanghai
Cities have become sites and objects of value creation and capture through globalised and financialised circuits of both capital and urban design. But the political forms of the regulation of urban development are highly diverse and differentially territorialised. Furthermore, many different actors, from charities to churches, communities and states, are eager to realise both income streams and urban development goals through creating urban environments in concert with often globalised flows of finance and practice. This paper looks at three cases of large scale urban development in London, Johannesburg and Shanghai to investigate the emergent transcalar political formations which are shaping the future city.
Cities have become sites and objects of value creation and capture through globalised and financialised circuits of both capital and urban design. But the political forms of the regulation of urban development are highly diverse and differentially territorialised. Furthermore, many different actors, from charities to churches, communities and states, are eager to realise both income streams and urban development goals through creating urban environments in concert with often globalised flows of finance and practice. This paper looks at three cases of large scale urban development in London, Johannesburg and Shanghai to investigate the emergent transcalar political formations which are shaping the future city.