Regeneration, gentrification, development – call it what you want, we all recognise the symptoms of rapid change affecting many areas in our cities: ludicrously expensive housing developments, ever-proliferating artisanal coffee shops, fancy new markets and suchlike. For advocates of this kind of change, it brings new vibrancy, increases diversity, expands work opportunities, raises aspirations. For critics, it is social cleansing, exploitation and unbridled property markets running wild. What are often missed are the endemic problems underlying what might seem to be a complete transformation.
I’m a youth worker and from a youth-led research project we ran, it was very clear that despite the new businesses, the rent hikes and the influx of hipsters, the problems facing young people in the area are the same as they have been for a long time: housing issues, overcrowding, poverty, lack of opportunities, gang crime, drugs, issues in education and so on.
The same issues that affected my generation of young people are still affecting young people living there today. If we label areas as trendified or gentrified, as if the whole area has been fundamentally overhauled, all these issues will be further sidelined, and less likely to be addressed. What policy devices or planning regulations could be used to make sure that when gentrification or regeneration happens, it actually addresses long-term problems in that area rather than mask them?
You seem to be involved in your community, and to have a knowledge of what makes the people around you tick. Spatial practitioner Jayden Ali, who focuses on how architecture and space develop communities, suggests thinking about the different ways in which a space can be valued: “One difficulty is that the value-system set up to evaluate these things tends to be economic.” But you can think about different ways in which to measure value. If a new development such as a pricey coffee shop or food market will dramatically alter a street, is there a way of thinking about who it benefits and putting that in response to a planning consultation? As an example, Ali suggests thinking about accessibility in a broader way. It’s normally a term that looks at how amenable the space is for people with physical disabilities – but what about whether people from low-income groups will be able to access the new development?
“I would argue that having an establishment on your doorstep that you can’t access, that you don’t want to access, that doesn’t want to be accessible to you has a deep psychological impact,” says Ali. He points out that the planning system – possibly for good reason – is not set up so that a single person’s view can skew the judgment. You could gain clout by joining a residents’ group and become part of a collective voice.
Not everyone will want to, or feel confident about being involved in bureaucratic processes. “People can feel excluded from the decision-making process. If you have an economics-based value system but you don’t have an economic stake in the community, how can you feel like you have a stake?” says Ali. There are other reasons why people may not want to engage. They may feel uncomfortable about challenging power if their livelihoods rely on the council; they may feel intimidated; they may have justified scepticism that they would be listened to if they haven’t been listened to in the past. These are all assumptions, but the question is, is there a way you can engage people in the way that they want to be engaged?
Ali organises a local party once a year to do this. “We did this in response to another local party set up in the area, which feels inaccessible to low-income groups who live on our estate.” The party allows them to be in charge of their street for a day, to enjoy their area in the way that they choose: “If you translate it into an idea, it’s about a city being generous to its population and having ownership even for a brief moment. Being present rather than just visible,” says Ali. Eventually, his plan is to empower the other residents in his block to take over the party. Like you, he has lived there his whole life, so it’s not about being charitable, it’s about building a relationship based on mutual understanding and trust – and handing over something to them that they want to have ownership of. Hopefully you can do that too.
• What do you think? Or have you got a question for Poppy and readers to consider? Post your responses below or email them to in.it.together@guardian.co.uk
• Submissions are subject to our terms and conditions: see gu.com/letters-terms
