What’s so bad about Gentrification?

It seems very fashionable to spurn the economic rise of an area. We are used to the pattern of cafes, flats and gyms taking over from older businesses forced to close. Gentrification has become a single ‘catch all’ phrase for everything bad about capitalistic progress. But is it really that bad? Do you honestly go to that rough end of town or do you try that nice new gastropub or diner?

This is a devil’s advocate argument by a white cis middle-class heterosexual male. For an alternative view, see ‘Things You Hate About Gentrification.’

Was the Area That Great?

The displacement aspect of gentrification is bad. You could have rented a place for years only to be turfed out when development comes. However, areas before the coming of gentrification are seen as a kind of bohemian idyll. It was authentic and genuine. The problem is, you probably didn’t want to live there. Sex shops, dive bars and ‘greasy spoon’ cafes are the sort of businesses forced to close because of an area going up market.

It’s Actually Quite Nice

In return, what do we get? Interesting startups of fashion boutiques and coffee shops. Cocktail bars and new flats. Of course plenty of us don’t get on with this because of the expense. There is a strong holier-than-thou prejudice against the white middle class ‘immigrants’ who do not belong in this place. The fact is, plenty of us in London seem to fall into this category. The critics of gentrification are often the fashionable people who enjoy organic supermarkets and quinoa. They may holiday abroad and so don’t experience more ‘normal’ towns outside the South East where there may be one or even no branches of Itsu. A massive generalisation, but you see the point.

Not many of us can claim a long standing here. Therefore, are we not all in this category of economic migrant moving to the city for better opportunities? This doesn’t help those long-standing residents kicked out in the first place, but property owners will have benefited which means the only victim is, as usual, the tenants. Fortunately, the cycle of rise and decline in an area can hopefully only go so far. We must hope that while new areas become prime, others fall back into budget.

Aspiration

We seem to forget that we are in the highest earning area of one of the world’s wealthiest countries (albeit with some of the most significant pay gaps). Do not claim poverty when at the foot of a new luxury flat development. You probably have every chance of one day inhabiting a great glass bubble- someone has to live there. What’s more, you won’t live above a chip shop with revellers throwing up outside your door.

Of course this is another case of the louder lion’s roar, the bigger genitalia, the higher penthouse flat. It’s no wonder these are associated with dicks. Nevertheless, these form part of our greed-driven economy, a very pre-2008 view of ambition. On the positive side, whoever owns these provides the investment in cleaners, chefs, artists, and more – the very patronage a culture needs to foster growth. Condescending and (literally) patronising? Where would Raphael and Michelangelo have got without Pope Julius II and the Catholic Church?

The Camden Case Study

Camden is under development funded by billionaire Teddy Sagi. He claims to be a fan of Camden and has been buying up the various markets for a number of years. However, demonstrations have been planned to protest against this ‘gentrification’. In 2015 a similar protest ended in violence, with banners reading ‘devastate the avenues where the wealthy live’. This exacerbates the same class war the protesters claimed to be victims of.

The plan is for significant upgrades to the markets, as well as offices and 170 new homes (of which only 14 are classed as affordable). However, the plans sound quite promising- did you know there are vast horse tunnels underneath the Lock known as the Camden catacombs? The plan is to open them up again.

Uncovering the rhetoric is difficult. The Camden campaign seems a vendetta against Sagi- thus prejudice against a wealthy and Israeli capitalist? His view is of regeneration and investment- in effect turning the markets into more profitable structures which should benefit them- on paper. On the other hand, it is easy to see the argument for profit and ‘fixing something that ain’t broke’ completely destroying the culture of an area, while the investor reaps the rewards.

Finally, there is the worrying ‘lesser of two evils’ argument that perhaps Camden needs this overhaul which still (again- on paper) maintains its function and character. If it doesn’t, someone less sympathetic just might.

The Gentrification Debate

This is an optimistic and often weak argument in favour of gentrification. What is your view? Click here to join our discussion and have your say.

The post What’s so bad about Gentrification? appeared first on Felix Magazine.