New-build gentrification: Social inequality in the regeneration of the woodberry down estate

Nia Minoli

This essay explores the gentrification of the Woodberry Down estate in Hackney, London, focusing specifically on the treatment of residents and the social inequality they have been subjected to in this project of ‘regeneration’. By focusing on my experiences of the changing architecture on a walk through the estate, I argue that Woodberry Down has become a figurehead of new-build gentrification that not only displaces the previous community, but devalues those that remain, building for profit over persons. Property development group Berkeley Homes, have completely failed in their provision of social housing, overwriting Woodberry Down’s history as a welfare estate and forcing residents to fight for their community.

“All cities are unequal, but some cities are more unequal than others” (Watt 2021, 2). This statement, made by urban geographer Paul Watt, opens a scathing criticism on the reality of social housing in London due to the overwhelming effects of gentrification (Watt 2021, 2). Broadly defined, this act of gentrification is the movement of a wealthier class into a poorer neighbourhood, thereby increasing the economic value of the area and displacing those who live there. Arguably, nowhere is this more apparent than Woodberry Down, an estate located on the northern border of the London Borough of Hackney. Originally built in the 1950s, this estate of social housing was the largest - and one of the first of its kind - in the whole of the Europe, and was widely believed to encapsulate the success of post-war housing policies that emphasised welfare. Encompassing sixty-four acres of land and two reservoirs, this estate became a beacon of the future; however, in the 2010s it became an experiment of regeneration, the first redevelopment on this scale throughout the UK. Due to diminishing housing funds, Hackney Council gave the land to the private developers Berkeley Group on a 299 year lease, using the majority of the land for private housing, whilst partnering with Genesis Homes to manage the social housing on the newly-developed estate. The aim of this development is to build 5,500 new dwellings by 2034, of which 41% would be intended for social housing (Hackney Council, “Helping Others to Build,” Hackney Borough Council, https://hackney.gov.uk/building-help (accessed May 20, 2022). This project of ‘regeneration’ is one that is becoming increasingly popular in urban policy and planning, especially in London, as borough councils are seeking ways to improve aging infrastructure and economic growth. However, as in the case of Woodberry Down, this term ‘regeneration’ is used to acknowledge the benefits of such projects in generating change, but fails to convey the brutal social reality and discrimination that is perhaps better conveyed in the term gentrification.

By focusing on the redevelopment of this estate, I aim to explore how gentrification is enacted and its effects, with a particular focus on the impact it has had on the local community. I explore this case study through my observations on a walk around the Woodberry Down Estate, starting from the far east side, along the reservoir and towards the more developed area in the western part of the estate. Through my experience of the architecture, I focus on how the built environment reflects and enacts the gentrification that is overtly de-valuing the previous tenants, treating them poorly and in doing so reflecting a wider social inequality. Although my observations of the estate described within this essay were collected on an ethnographic walk, the data collected on this walk is invariably informed and compounded by my experience as a local resident whose family has lived in the area for over sixty years, and as such, my experiences are influenced by my seeing its change over a long period of time. This has therefore instilled in me a passion to explore and present the distressing effects of gentrification that I have experienced and witnessed specifically in Woodberry Down. To do this, I first explore the demolition that is currently underway on the estate, before focusing the impacts of new-build gentrification and its failures in providing social housing, thus exacerbating the housing crisis. I then look at how this displacement is felt even by those residents who remain, and describe the new community spaces and structures that have been built to both enact and combat this.

Demolition and Disregard

Seen continuously on the Woodberry Down Estate, demolition is a form of gentrification that results in major changes within communities through the very fabric of the built environment itself. As urban sociologist Rowland Atkinson outlines in his writing on the urban renaissance of gentrification, due to lack of funding London councils’ housing policies are now geared towards increased demolition and the construction of private housing, to boost the local market led by private developers (Atkinson 2004, 107). Atkinson’s overview of developing urban policy summarises perfectly the process of ‘regeneration’ that Hackney Council are enacting at Woodberry Down, with the demolition of every building over a time frame of twenty-five years, from 2009-2034 (Berkely Group, “Woodberry Down, Hackney,” Berkely Group, https://www.berkeleygroup.co.uk/about-us/sustainability/communities-and-sustainable-living/woodberry-down-case-study (accessed May 20, 2022). Therefore, one of the first things I encountered on my walk through the estate was a demolition site, where buildings have been flattened into piles of earth, and the air is heavy with dust and dirt that crunches under foot, accompanied by the constant noise of construction vehicles (figure. 1). What is clear in this demolition, is the way in which it impacts the residents who live within metres from its boundaries. Beginning on the west side of the estate from 2000 onwards, the demolition of each block of flats was completed in an extremely rapid and interruptive manner, just metres from where residents looked on to their fate (fig. 2). In contrast, now that new residents surround these demolition sites, the buildings are covered in scaffolding, before being pulled down in smaller units and using a more phased approach to convey a sense of consideration for the new residents. Therefore, whilst the demolition process is as cumbersome for all who live around the site, the new residents do not have to contend with the emotional burden of watching their homes being flattened, and are afforded a level of respect and consideration by Berkeley that previous residents are not. This process of demolition is disparaged by Paul Watt in his case study of regenerated estates around London, calling it an “Orwellian sick joke” (Watt 2021, 5). As apparent in the case of Woodberry Down, he argues that whilst demolition leads to the creation of more homes, few of these are affordable to those who need them, only benefitting the developers - something that Atkinson similarly concludes (Watt 2021, 5), (Atkinson 2004, 118). The emotion that Watt uses to describe this process I argue is rightly justified, as it conveys the powerful effect that such sites have on the observer, especially for those who have lived their lives in relation to these buildings and communities. Whilst the re-building of this site was much needed due the age and structural weaknesses of this post-war architecture, the mode of demolition conveys the emotional and physical ways in which residents have been neglected, as well as the type of community that Berkeley is trying to foster with respect only for those in private housing.

New-Build Gentrification

It is this long process of new-build regeneration in Woodberry Down, planned to span over two decades, that makes poignantly visible the process of gentrification as these two architectural styles battle for dominance. Still standing, there are sites on this estate that display the important history of this area. For instance, on the far west side is the Beis Chinuch Lebonos Girls School, which stands in what used to be Woodberry Down Comprehensive School, one of the first comprehensive schools in the UK. Furthermore, just five minutes further west, stands the John Scott Health Centre, the first ever public health centre opened in the UK in 1952. These structures still convey the pioneering estate that Simon Parker calls a “Rosetta Stone” in his analysis on London’s post-war welfare policies (Parker 1999, 61). However, in the process of demolition, the history of this estate is barely visible, showing how the process of gentrification extends beyond its traditional definition of simply the movement of people. Coined by geographer Ruth Glass in the 60s and expanded upon in Atkinson’s work, gentrification is defined as the movement of the middle-class into working-class areas and structures, which subsequently leads to social displacement, often for those who are most socially vulnerable (Atkinson 2004, 108). In contrast, Woodberry Down represents a new form of gentrification that occurs through the re-building of an entire area, subsequently overturning the dominant social landscape by changing the material landscape entirely. In their writing on new-build gentrification, Mark Davidson and Loretta Less describe this process as “third-wave gentrification”, one that is less concerned with the middle-class moving into a working-class area, but one where the working-class area is completely re-built (Davidson and Less 2010, 397-403). This argument is apparent when approaching Woodberry Down, where the visual history of the area seems to be slowly disappearing, alongside those who have made up its community for decades. Walking down nearly every street of this estate, this experience is compounded by the shocking contrast of the old and new blocks of flats (fig. 3). There is a real sense of transience in experiencing these flats in opposition to the other, and, more-so than with other mode of gentrification, the dominance of certain social classes over others, and their co-opting of space, is made visible through the very architecture of the area.

Forced Displacement of Residents 

A major impact of gentrification in Woodberry Down Estate is displacement, which is partially the result of insufficient social housing being built. The initial aim was to have 41% social housing throughout the estate, but debates surrounding the re-development highlight how this figure has already been completely undermined (Hackney Council, (accessed May 20, 2022). For instance, in their exploration of residential engagement with the process of regeneration in Woodberry Down, Jane Lewis and Suzy Nelson highlight how socially rented homes will only amount to 20% of homes in the area, justified by an increase in shared ownership, as over two-hundred leaseholders have been displaced with only one moving into a new flat in Woodberry Down (Lewis and Nelson 2021, [no pagination]). Through interviews with those families who have been forced to move, they describe a community who feel unprovided for and who are defined by their economic status (Lewis and Nelson 2021, [no pagination]). It is clear that the majority of families who are in need of new social housing have been failed and their community broken up, as many are moved to areas across and outside of London. This attitude is only further condemned when the initial aim of rehousing homeless people through such social housing was removed from the agenda in 2014, in only the first phase of redevelopment (Watt 2021, 106). Whilst Berkely’s provision for the existing community and those in need of social housing is abhorrent, it is conducive for their purpose of injecting economic growth into the area and importantly, boosting their profits in an increasingly exclusive property market across the UK. Furthermore, it follows a wider trend across London that can also be seen in Berkely’s regeneration of Kidbrooke Village, formerly Ferrier Estate, in Greenwich south-east London (Berkely Group, “Kidbrooke Village,” Berkely Group, https://www.berkeleygroup.co.uk/developments/london/greenwich/kidbrooke-village (accessed May 21, 2022). This trend of regeneration is demonstrative of how in recent decades, wider urban policy has been decentralised and taken over by development corporations whose only concern is the market economy (Peter Hetherington, “England’s Lack of Urban Policy Blights the Nation,” The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/oct/29/england-urban-policy-town-planning-housing-economy-jobs (accessed May 21, 2022). In Woodberry Down, this is movingly tangible when walking towards the north side of the estate, where the majority of social housing straddles the busy Seven Sisters Road, punctuated with bus and tube stops. This shows how not only the social housing is limited, but it has only been made available in the busier, noisier and more polluted areas of the estate. Again, the aim of gentrification is made clear through the architecture and placement of those residents in social housing that is distinct and separate from the private dwellings build along the water side of the two reservoirs. As political theorist Margaret Kohn points out in her article ‘What is Wrong with Gentrification?’, the lack of social housing is not the fault of gentrification, but the wider social inequality that is made visible through gentrification (Kohn 2013, 309). Whilst I agree that the lack social housing is not the singular fault of gentrification, I contend that Kohn’s argument is limited in its rigid viewpoint of gentrification as an outcome rather than a process in itself. Not only is Woodberry Down symbolic of the wider social housing crisis in London, but it importantly continues to exacerbate it. As such, the treatment of those in social housing and those who have been displaced to other parts of England, demonstrates how Berkely’s gentrification of this area has been led solely by economic profit.

Destruction of a Community

 Furthermore, this displacement of the estate’s longer-term residents is felt even by those who remain, in the destruction of their community. In walking between these two very distinct areas of the development - the south end which is dominated by high-rise glass and steel structures, and the north end which straddles busy roads and junctions– the architectural disparity between private and social housing is clear. The majority of the private flats border the waterfronts of both the east and west reservoir, each building containing a private underground car park, a concierge and gated ‘community space’ with multiple water features (fig. 4). In comparison, the social housing is characterised by facades of brick rather than glass, with recessed balconies rather than extended balconies, and are placed within view of busy roads, rather than the beautiful nature that exists purely because original residents protested against initial plans for Berkeley to drain the reservoirs (fig. 5), (Lewis and Nelson 2021, [no pagination]). Therefore, there is a clear social divide in this area that fosters two very different communities, in contrast with Hackney Council’s policy of establishing a ‘mixed community’ and Berkeley Group’s promise to do so. In their fieldwork formed by conversations with current residents, Lewis and Nelson state that residents feel isolated and powerless, with no improved opportunities or outcomes for those who continue to live in Woodberry Down (Lewis and Nelson 2021, [no pagination]). This experience of isolation is again rooted in displacement, as, although current social housing residents have not been moved away, they feel little connection to the place that was once their community, and as such, have been displaced within their own home. Furthermore, as Watt powerfully argues, this stigmatisation within social relations has affected particularly marginalised groups, who are disproportionately reliant on social housing (Watt 2021, 152). Therefore, not only is this a destruction of a community, but it is a displacement that negatively affects those from marginalised groups. Arguably, this is one of the most emotional effects of gentrification that can be witnessed, again, simply through an interaction with the architecture of Woodberry Down’s divided community

David Vs Goliath

However, it is also important to highlight that there is a core community that been forged through this process of displacement. Opposite the demolition site at the bottom of a social housing block on Seven Sisters Road, stands a small and unassuming centre that houses the Woodberry Down Community Organisation (hereafter WDCO) (fig. 6). It is this group, run by volunteers, that Lewis and Nelson explore through their article, focusing on how they have continuously fought against the displacement felt by the original tenants and community (Lewis and Nelson 2021, [no pagination]). For instance, the group have successfully opposed the re-naming of Woodberry Down to Woodberry Park, have fought for local access for leisure facilities, and have supported three local businesses throughout the demolition process and ensured the creation of new shop space. Whilst these successes are limited given the power and opposition of the Berkeley Group, this demonstrates a community coming together to fight their displacement and exerting an influence that has continuously been undermined. In addition, the WDCO also campaigned against the creation of two separate and segregated playgrounds, one for the children who live in private housing, and another for the children who live in social housing. The playground intended for those in social housing is simply a football pitch, characterised by its small and derelict appearance, in contrast to the new-built playground with a range of facilities, including swings, slides and a rock-climbing wall, intended for those who live in private housing. Originally, these playgrounds were accessible to only those who lived by them, resulting in a lack of facilities for those living in social housing, until a campaign led by the WDCO fought for the playground to be accessible to all. These experiences unfortunately demonstrate how community spaces have been utilised by the developers to create a sense of belonging only for those who live in private housing. However, in campaigning against these inequalities, a strong community remains as they fight for this area to remain their home.

A Matter of Time

Furthermore, through this campaigning there is also a sense of community that is created between the new and older residents. This can be seen in the cafes and restaurants that have opened up around the area, including on the bank of the east reservoir (fig. 7). Furthermore, the rebuilding of the Redmond Community Centre has proved a success, with this space being utilised for community activities including, but not limited to, a food bank, a dance studio and a wedding venue. The result of which are new accessible spaces which benefit all who live locally, and whose success is reliant on the re-development of these spaces and facilities. As such, these are areas that act as spaces for residents to come together, whether it be unconsciously, or with the specific purpose of building these social relationships. Therefore, it could be argued that it is simply a matter of time before a new, integrated community is formed at Woodberry Down, and this social segregation that is sought by the developers is bridged by the residents themselves. However, in his conversations with residents, Watt highlights how some feel that this creation of community is somewhat inhibited by the transience of this landscape which is still in the process of construction, and where 42% of private properties are owned by overseas investors, and therefore often sit uninhabited (Watt 2021, 397). This means that there is a lack of a permanent neighbourhood that was once experienced in, and had come to define, Woodberry Down. Therefore, the creation of a cohesive and defined community in this area increasingly becomes a question of time, as all residents live in a state of limbo between old and new between demolition sites.

Conclusion

Overall, I argue that the re-development of Woodberry Down Estate represents an increasingly popular approach of new-build gentrification in the UK. This process is one that is clearly visible in the very fabric of the area, where each street is in the process of upheaval, as old and new buildings battle each other through the choreography of movement and the co-option of space. Whilst the re-construction of this area was much needed due to the aging structures of a post-war development, the modes and values of this regeneration project reveal a social inequality that is being woven into the very site, from the architecture to the act of demolition itself. From this very first step of the building project, residents of the estate are facing an emotional strain as they watch neighbouring homes being flattened, an experience that is only worsened when compared to the demolition practice in sites next to private housing, where the demolition is happening in a more controlled and less disruptive manner. The result of this new-build practice is a site that visibly represents the process of gentrification, as social housing slowly disappears to make way for high-rise private housing, thus displacing an entire community. As such, the regeneration of this estate has completely failed in its provision of social housing that it initially promised, and has instead utilised this space to compete for a profit in the housing market, thus exacerbating London’s housing crisis. Therefore, Berkeley Homes have only exacerbated a wider social inequality and have in fact celebrated this, as they seek to create two segregated communities, each defined by their economic worth. However, in spite of Berkely’s best efforts to do so, an even stronger residents group has emerged that continuously campaigns against this inequality, and acknowledges the history of the estate that was built as a place of community and opportunity. Furthermore, through the creation of new community spaces this social sense of living in Woodberry Down is re-established between the older and newer residents, and as such, it a question of if and when this community will truly establish itself in the ashes of Woodberry Down’s historic estate.

References

Atkinson, Rowland. 2004. “The Evidence on the Impact of Gentrification: New Lessons for the Urban Renaissance?” Taylor and Francis Journals 4(1): 107-131.

Berkeley Group. “Kidbrooke Village” Berkeley Group, https://www.berkeleygroup.co.uk/developments/london/greenwich/kidbrooke-village.

Berkeley Group. “Woodberry Down, Hackney,” Berkeley Group, https://www.berkeleygroup.co.uk/about-us/sustainability/communities-and-sustainable-living/woodberry-down-case-study.

Davidson, Mark., and Loretta Less. 2010. “New-Build Gentrification: Its Histories, Trajectories, and Critical Geographies.” Population, Space and Place 16(5): 395-411.

Hackney Council. “Helping Others to Build,” Hackney Borough Council, https://hackney.gov.uk/building-help.

Hetherington, Peter. “England’s Lack of Urban Policy Blights the Nation” The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/oct/29/england-urban-policy-town-planning-housing-economy-jobs.

Kohn, Margaret. 2013. “What is Wrong with Gentrification?” Urban Research and Practice 6(3): 297-310.

Lewis, Jane., and Suzy Nelson. 2021. “Resident Engagement in the Regeneration of Social Housing Case of Woodberry Down, London.” International Journal of Housing Policy 21(1): [no pagination].

Parker, Simon. 1999. “From the Slums to the Suburbs: Labour Party Policy, the LCC, and the Woodberry Down Estate, Stoke Newington 1934–1961.” London Journal 24(2): 51-69.

Watt, Paul. 2021. Estate Regeneration and its Discontents: Public Housing, place and Inequality in London. Bristol: Policy Press.