Life in London’s changing densities

ABSTRACT

Despite reaching ever higher densities, London’s new residential blocks and towers are evermore exclusive and unaffordable. The current market-led era of high-density housing development contrasts acutely with that of the postwar era, geared around the mass provision of council homes. These changing densities are often discussed at the city level, but there has been little research capturing residents’ perspectives. This paper aims to draw parallels between the politics and the experience of density using a recent study focusing on the residents of high-density housing in London. It seeks to demonstrate how consequences of structural shifts – a growing separation between tenures, increasing numbers of transient residents and the escalating role of international finance – impact day-to-day life within these buildings. In so doing, it advocates shifting the prevailing focus on density as a numbers game to considering the issues associated with changing social densities – particularly the inequalities within and between them.

KEYWORDS:

• Density
• housing
• London
• experience
• inequality

Introduction

Density has become a central focus of contemporary housing debates in London. The answer to the housing crisis – we are often told – lies in the rapid development of new high-density housing. But this argument obscures a complex politics surrounding the issue of density in the city. While the state-led production of high-density housing in postwar London was geared around the mass provision of secure homes for all, new market-led forms of high-density housing are increasingly unaffordable and exclusive. These changing densities are often discussed at the city level, but there has been relatively little research capturing the perspectives of residents themselves. This paper aims to draw parallels between the politics of density and the experience of density using a recent study focusing on the residents of high-density housing in London. It seeks to demonstrate how consequences of structural shifts in London’s housing agenda – a growing separation between tenures, increasing numbers of transient residents and the escalating role of international finance – impact day-to-day life within these buildings. In so doing, it advocates shifting the prevailing focus on density as purely a numbers game to considering the issues associated with changing social densities – particularly the inequalities that exist within and between them.

The politics of density in London

While urban policy tends to frame density as a matter of objectivity or technicality, scholars for years have been seeking to demonstrate how it is, in fact, a product of political values – driven by everything from economic cycles of (dis)investment, to planning ideologies, to social vectors such as class, gender and ethnicity (McFarlane, 2016; 2020). It has indeed in some places been directly used as a tool for granting and withdrawing access to urban space for certain groups (see, for example, Zhao, 2019 on the displacement of migrants in Beijing). Processes of densification and re-densification in any setting therefore cannot be understood without asking how, why and for whom they occur.

The politics surrounding density are particularly apparent in the city of London. High densities were a defining feature of postwar council housing in the capital, geared around the mass provision of secure homes for low- and medium-income residents (in 1979 some 42% of the UK households lived in council housing) (Harris, 2016). While originally celebrated as an innovative solution to the housing crisis, since the 1980s under neoliberalism and austerity council housing has been strategically disinvested and dismantled. This was propelled in part by a rhetoric equating high-density housing with crime and delinquency (e.g. ex-prime minister Tony Blair’s “sink estates” speech) – resulting in this form of housing being widely stigmatized, demonized and de-legitimized (Slater, 2018). Much council housing has now been transferred to the private sector via Margaret Thatcher’s Right to Buy policy, its production has near enough stopped, and many tenants have been decanted or displaced in the name of regeneration¹ (Boughton, 2018).

With housing development in London increasingly driven by free market ideology, recent decades have seen the emergence of very different forms of high-density housing across the city. Densification is now a primary way of extracting value for both developers and local authorities (see Robinson, 2019), and new high-density developments have become a growing object of international financial speculation (Graham, 2015). In opposition to council housing, new densities in the city cater predominantly to urban elites – increasingly associated with glass-clad buildings where the higher the floor, the higher the price (Graham, 2015; Nowicki & White, 2017). The market-led re-densification of high-density working-class areas has often been driven by “mixed communities” policies, based on the disproven rationale that an influx of wealthier residents will result in social and economic mobility for deprived residents (Bridge & Butler, 2011; Cheshire et al., 2008). However, where planning laws oblige new developments to include a number of social homes, they are often separated from the market units, of poorer quality, and given access to fewer facilities (Osborne, 2014). In sum, the contemporary process of de/re-densification in London is characterized greatly by a change in social densities – increasingly dominated by wealthier residents in expensive market housing, the exchange value of which often takes precedence over its social purpose. Figure 1

Figure 1. Contrasting densities old (foreground) and new (background) at Woodberry Down, a vast estate regeneration project in North London (taken by author)

In the context of this immense paradigm shift in London’s density, we embarked upon a study of the lived experience of residents in high-density housing across the city. Between 2016 and 2019, we surveyed, interviewed and undertook workshops with residents from high-density housing old (blocks from the 1900s, 1940s and 1980s) and new (as recent as 2016) – representing a range of built typologies and tenures.² Our research built upon conceptual efforts to understand the differential production, experience, perception and negotiation of density (McFarlane, 2016; Moch et al., 1996; Rao, 2007). In particular, in bringing together the lived experience of density and the broader politics of density in London, this article advocates exploring density as a “topological” as opposed to “topographical” problem (McFarlane, 2016). Rather than simply a problematic of numbers and people, this understands it as a complex interrelationship between “ideology, political economic restructuring and (dis)investment, plans and regulations, cultural politics of spatial valorisation, everyday lives, and the built environment” (McFarlane, 2016, p. 632). In this spirit, the following offers some reflections on the lived reality of London’s changing social densities.

Living in London’s changing densities

The social contrast between London’s new densities and existing housing was among the first things to emerge from our study – made clear by the demographic composition of respondents. Seventy-nine percent of those from the new developments were living in a one or two-person household, which compares to 61% in London overall, while just 13% lived with dependent children, compared to 31% in London overall. In all of the new schemes, most respondents were under the age of 40 (almost 80% in some cases), while around 50% from the older estates were over 50. Respondents from the former – as expected – were mostly private tenants, and included many more households in the upper-income brackets. As one resident from a new development put it, “Everyone in my block is exactly the same, the same age, the same race, the same profession” (Pembury Circus), while another similarly argued “The rents are far too high for ordinary people, therefore most of the tenants tend to be high net worth individuals who do not socialise in the area” (Stratford Halo). A resident from a further new development described their scheme simply as “a gated community with residents who are professionals” (Woolwich Central). Our findings reflect how new densities in London often manifest as what McFarlane (2016) refers to as “intensive homogeneities” – in this case primarily a result of exclusionary pricing.

The influx of relatively homogenous residents in new private developments was often linked to a feeling of unease among respondents. Most pronounced was a tension between densities of tenure old and new, especially in estate regeneration schemes. As one resident from such a scheme in North London put it, “[There is a] sense of (the) fragmented nature of previous/historic tenants of the area and the new ‘posh’ people. New Sainsbury’s has driven business away from local community businesses.” (Woodberry Down). In parallel, those from the older estates were concerned about the social change resulting from council housing units being transferred into private ownership. For example, when asked what they dislike about their estate, one council tenant responded “The policy of social housing being sold & hollowing out of social housing” (Millbank Estate). As these quotes suggest, the class-based dualities between densities old and new are strongly felt on the ground.

It quickly became clear that many residents held prejudices based entirely on the tenure and socio-economic status of their neighbors. Perhaps most striking was the way in which those in private apartments blamed nearby social tenants for problems or made disparaging comments about them. For example, one resident from a new development complained there were “Too many social housing tenants. Tenants smoking drugs in the block. Tenants on the ground floor hanging out washing on the railings. Loud music coming from certain flats” (Hale Village), while another argued “People living on the council homes do not care about the communal areas. Rubbish left everywhere, the lifts are dirty with food leftovers, etc. They do not care at all.” (Thurston Point). When asked what they dislike about their home, a resident from a further new development simply stated “Proximity to low income housing” (Woodberry Down). These prejudices didn’t go unnoticed by the respondents from social housing. For example, referring to an adjacent market block, one resident from an early 20th century estate complained “[Social] Tenants who do not create a mess on the estate [are] being blamed for mess created by those in nearby private accommodation” (Tachbrook Estate). Relatedly, despite themselves having “chosen” to live in high-density housing, most of our respondents from new private units had negative associations with the very terminology of density. When we asked them to list five words that come to mind when they hear the phrase “high-density housing”, the majority referenced words like “council estate” or “social housing” in association with terms like “crowded”, “cramped”, “crime” and “poverty”. In this way, those in market flats seemed to see the very notion of “high-density housing” as inapplicable to their own living arrangements. These sentiments suggest that the entrenched associations between density, low-income residents and disorder – a direct consequence of political rhetoric (Slater, 2018) – persist in the lived realities of these buildings.

These perceptions can only have been exacerbated by the evident spatial separation between tenures in many of the new developments we surveyed – with residents often observing an uncomfortable division. As one resident summarized, “I don’t like the fact that the social housing has been separated out into another block, which seems to have lower specs than our blocks” (Pembury Circus), while another argued, “[I don’t like the] separation of shared ownership from affordable housing (creation of them and us culture)” (Thurston Point). Our study strongly echoed wider discussions around the phenomenon of “poor doors”, in which social housing in new developments is lower quality, poorly positioned and lacks access to the same services and amenities as private units (Osborne, 2014).

While many private residents blamed social tenants for problems, the latter seemed to be far more constitutive of the social life of developments. Social tenants often had many social connections within their buildings (50% knew at least 7), and mentioned being part of community groups and participating in the social life of their neighborhoods. Forty-five percent thought that there was a strong sense of community in their development. In contrast, private rental tenants generally knew relatively few people within their developments (77% knew less than 3) and just 19% thought there was a strong sense of community. The differences between schemes were stark: on the Tachbrook Estate, which is comprised entirely of council tenants, 57% of respondents knew at least 7 people within their development, while in Lanterns Court, comprised largely of private apartments, 55% knew no one else. Perceptions of community were also related to income, as households with lower incomes were far more likely to say there was a strong sense of community in their development, while households earning over £70,000 tended to say there wasn’t.

It became clear that the length of time residents anticipated being there – strongly related to tenure – was a particularly deciding factor in their level of social engagement. Many private tenants explained that there was no point in getting to know others when they knew they’d soon be leaving, including one that remarked “I never felt like I should get to know the neighbours because I didn’t expect to be here beyond 3 years” (Stratford Halo). For some, this was for the simple reason that they’d either not be able to afford a larger family unit or would be priced out due to inflating costs. For example, when asked whether their development would make a good long-term home, one private renter responded “Rent increases yearly and will eventually push people out” (Thurston Point). It was indeed quite common for private tenants to explicitly say that they had no interest in being part of a community where they lived. For example, one stated “I think that a community is there, though I wouldn’t necessarily seek out a close friendship with people just off the back of them being in the building” (Woolwich Central). Another explained the lack of community in their new development by suggesting “It’s a selection bias, people who choose to live here probably weren’t interested in [community] in the first place” (Woodberry Down). In sum, it became clear that most of the young, wealthier, childless professionals in new market units saw their homes as performing a transitory function – geared greatly around convenience and functionality (e.g. transport accessibility, modern facilities).

The perceived lack of engagement of relatively temporary residents was a major source of concern with regards to the social cohesiveness and day-to-day care of these high-density buildings. As one resident complained, “A lot of flats are rented out, so community feel is lacking” (Woolwich Central), while another similarly suggested, “There is a very high turnover of tenants many of whom don’t care about how they treat their surroundings” (Stratford Halo). In the former council estates, the transience associated with increasing numbers of units now being privately rented due to the Right to Buy policy was a recurring complaint. For example, one resident argued that they disliked the “Constant turnover over private tenants. I feel unsafe. ‘Strangers’ coming & going all the time” (Millbank Estate), while another from the same block suggested, “The community has become fractured over the last couple of decades, as residents are temporary due to renting”.

The social life of new developments also appeared to be affected by the fact that many units – as is the case with much of London’s new housing – had been purchased by foreign investors. In one new development, in particular, Woodberry Down, the perceived prevalence of absentee landlords raised concerns. As one new build owner-occupier complained, “Most flats [are] rented by foreign owners, [so we are] not able to have a residents’ committee”, while another suggested, “With over half of the properties rented by absentee foreign landlords, we lack community cohesion”. Another simply complained “Too many apartments [are] used as land banks”. This speaks to the broader financialised housing economy in London, where often units in new developments are either left empty or rented out as buy-to-let assets – which in this case was preventing residents from organizing to resolve issues.

With these findings, we can clearly see the day-to-day impact of a politics that privileges certain housing densities over others. In particular, it appears that the proportion of long-term residents invested in the social life of developments strongly affects the perceived stability and quality of life within these buildings. In policy terms, our findings contest the “mixed communities” imperative behind London’s changing densities – which has been widely used as a moral rationale for replacing social housing with private units (Bridge & Butler, 2011). Far from mixing with and uplifting deprived residents, our study suggests that a preponderance of private units (especially those that are rented out) can, in fact, undermine the social life of developments. In this way, it reflects the all too obvious need for affordable, secure, long-term homes in London’s new densities.

Conclusion

Using a recent study of life inside London’s high-density housing, this paper has sought to draw parallels between the experience of density and the politics of density in the city. London’s residential densities have seen a radical change in social composition over recent decades – a direct consequence of structural and ideological shifts in the housing economy. In particular, our study found that residents’ day-to-day experience was shaped by a sense of separation between tenures, a proliferation of more transient residents, and the increasing role of international investment. Such findings reflect how – as opposed to being seen simply as a spatial metric – it is important to understand how density is differentially produced, experienced and negotiated. Our study also strongly suggests that the prevailing economic imperative behind densification in London – geared around producing the maximum number of market units – is out of touch with what makes high-density housing work on a day-to-day basis. Addressing the inequalities within and between densities – namely through the provision of genuinely affordable and secure homes – should feature far more prominently in London’s density agenda.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the LSE Knowledge Exchange and Impact Fund. The original data collection was joint funded by LSE Cities and the Greater London Authority

Notes

1. As it targeted existing residents of particular buildings, this study was unable to account for the decanting and displacement of council tenants – an outcome of contemporary re-densification processes in London shown to have devastating consequences (see, for example, Elliott-Cooper et al., 2020).

2. This research was undertaken by Fanny Blanc, Tim White, Kathleen Scanlon, Melanie Nowicki, and Meghna Mohandas. We looked at fourteen different high-density housing schemes across London. Eleven of them had been completed in the past ten years, and three were historic (completed respectively in the 1900s, 1940s and 1980s). The new buildings were largely comprised of market-rate apartments (with a small percentage “affordable” or social housing) whilst the historic developments were built as council housing – although many units had been transferred to private ownership through the Right to Buy policy. The developments represent a variety of built typologies, from tower blocks to lower-rise courtyard developments, to larger master-planned schemes.We surveyed residents of each scheme via mail and obtained an 8.5% response rate (517 respondents in total). The survey covered the reasons why people choose to move to the schemes, the positive and negative aspects of day-to-day life within them, and their future housing aspirations. It included both multiple-choice and open-ended questions, the latter of which generated the majority of quotes included in this paper. Following the survey, we did interviews and focus groups with residents to delve further into the issues identified. For context, the name of the respondent’s development is provided with each quote. Further information on this project – including details on the developments we surveyed – can be found here: https://www.lse.ac.uk/lse-cities-density-homes