Robert A Cresswell - Urban Design Theory 1 p32073 by Robert A Cresswell

Does the Role of Gentrification Aid Contempora ry Inner City Development?

Robert A Cresswell Urban Design Theor y 1 P32073

Co n t e n ts 1. Abstract pg.1 2. Introduction

2.1 What is Gentrification? pg.1

2.2 Understan ding the background of gentrification.

pg.2

2.3 Contemporary Gentrification. pg.3 3.Gentrification Within Urban Design

3.1 Historical Perceptions of Gentrification.

pg.4

3.2 A Change of Perception. pg.5

3.3 Contemporary Connotations of Gentrification.

pg.6

4. Mechanisms to Curb Gentrification

4.1 The Gradual Renewal of Jericho.

pg.8

4.2 Implementation. pg.9 5. CONCLUSION pg.11

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY pg.14

7. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS pg.15

1. ABST R ACT Developers in the 21st centur y either consciously or unconsciously have begun a cycle of retrofitting areas of socioeconomic deterioration in order to cater for a higher standing of socioeconomic class. These areas earmarked for redevelopment are becoming the main contributors in the struggle to curb gentrification and are aiding in the eradication of existing communities within inner city areas. With this in mind, this investigation aims to uncover the root causes of gentrification within these deprived areas and look at how this could be combatted within an Urban Design project. To do this an understanding of fringe communities that now lay deprived and neglected will need to be established through analysis of industrial growth and population swell. Thus, alongside the shift in commerce and ser vices a city provides after periods of industrial growth, will allow the formation of the current climate and reasons for this economic redevelopment on a large scale.

2. INT RODUCT ION 2.1 What is Gentrification? The term ‘gentrification’ was first conceived by British sociologist Ruth Glass in 1964 who notes: “One by one, many of the working class neighbourhoods of London have been invaded by the middle-classes—upper and lower... Once this process of ‘gentrification’ star ts in a district it goes on rapidly, until all or most of the original working-class occupiers are displaced and the whole social character of the district is changed.” 0(Glass, R, 1989). Since its original application this phrase definition has evolved to encapsulate all negative connotations of capitalist lead development in deprived areas. It is wor th noting that not all development has this ‘gentrification’ analogy; but only those that replace existing communities with those of a higher social standing.

Glass, R. (1989). London: Aspects of Change. In: Glass, R Clichés of Urban Doom. Oxford: Wiley-

Blackwell. p134.

FIG 2.1 - Map Showing London 1784

FIG 2.2 - Map Showing London 1880

2.2 Understanding the background of gentrification.

2.3 Contemporary Gentrification.

Throughout the industrial revolution thousands of people moved into inner cities to find work and as a result of the mass influx of people, thousands of inner city dwellings were created in areas of industr y. This cycle continued for a centur y until the eventual deindustrialisation of the UK. 1 (Williamson, J.G 1990) (see FIG 2.1, 2.2, 2.3).

In current practice, there are ever present examples of gentrification in areas that were of a low socioeconomic class. Now these areas are prolific among young professionals and ar tists. In the context of London these are identified as Brixton and Shoreditch.

This left many inner city areas designated for workers to fall into slum like conditions. Following the World Wars, many inner city areas fell into disrepair and local authorities were required to build communities outside of the city limits in order to provide for families whose homes had stagnated during this period as well as families whose homes were destroyed in the bombings. Through creating a suburban migration many people commuted to cities for work, many of which were within the new ser vice economy that thrived in the decades after the War. 2 (Nagle, G - 1998) In the 1960s this was most prominent, “there are many who would prefer to live nearer to the core of the London labour market… although the drift to the suburbs is continuing, it has become to a considerable extent an involuntar y one” 3 (Glass, R – 1989). This demand for habitable inner city dwellings has only increased over time and put pressure on areas of decay to be redeveloped. An impor tant thing to note is that not all areas of deprivation were rebuilt but only those that were uninhabitable. Throughout the decades leading up to the new millennium several factors contributed to the market we now see today. They are: the shor tage of space for development, the increase in proper ty values in desired areas and the cyclic nature of commandeering areas of community to autonomously provide new development for those of a higher socioeconomic class.

Brixton was a prolific immigrant area for the influx of West Indians after the war as the initial temporar y accommodation was located in Stockwell. Over time a rich culture began to develop, but over recent years an increase in proper ty value due to surrounding development has provided a ‘hip’ place to live for those who can afford it. (George Mavrommatis - 2011) (see FIG 3.1).

FIG 3.1 - Protests against Gentrification in Brixton 2016

A similar case is Shoreditch; an area that was once vibrant within the textiles industr y during the pre-war era star ted to see a decline as slum clearances post war led to a number of affordable housing schemes dominating the area. During the 90s a rise in studio space for ar tists in the abandoned factories lead to an increase in proper ty values and the incorporation of a metropolitan lifestyle has led to the decline of its once rich heritage. 5 (Benedict Seymour - 2004). (see FIG 3.2, 3.3). FIG 3.2 - Protests against Gentrification in Shoreditch 2015

Examples such as these are ever-present within London, providing one with an interesting array of case studies to critically analyse the underlying factors that contribute to the perception of gentrification. This, therefore allows me to pose the question: ‘Does the Role of Gentrification Aid Contemporar y Inner City Development?’.

FIG 2.3 - Map Showing London 1945 1

FIG 3.3 - Protests against Gentrification in Shoreditch 2015

Williamson, J.G (1990). Coping with City Growth During the British Industrial Revolution.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p3-25.

Mavrommatis, G. (2011). Stories from Brixton: Gentrification and Different Differences. Available:

Nagle, G (1998). Changing Settlements. London: Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd. p20-40.

http://www.socresonline.org.uk/16/2/12.html. Last accessed 30th Nov 2016.

Glass, R. (1989). London: Aspects of Change. In: Glass, R Clichés of Urban Doom. Oxford: Wiley-

Blackwell. p154.

Seymour, B. (2004). Shoreditch and the creative destruction of the inner city. Available: http://

www.variant.org.uk/34texts/shoreditch34.html. Last accessed 30th Nov 2016.

3. GENTRI F ICAT ION WITHIN U R B AN DESIG N

of malevolent climates beyond the control of man” 10 (Jacobs, J – 1961).

3.1 Historical Perceptions of Gentrification

The problem at the time is that little precedent and/or opposing planning policy was enforced in order to discourage cataclysmic redevelopment. “It does not represent a ‘conspiracy’. It is a logical outcome of logical men guided by nonsensical but conventional city planning beliefs” 11 (Jacobs, J – 1961). An interesting point raised; it may be a combination of factors that contribute to the perceived nature of inner city development at the time leading to the characterisation of gentrification. These factors include the reduction of available space for new redevelopment, the lack of precedent and/or policy and declining living standards in areas of mass overcrowding. This is usually low socioeconomic communities which all contribute to a greater organic growth within an area. An impor tant factor to consider is that, despite the misleading and blind investments made by conscious or unconscious contributors to gentrification, the nature of cataclysmic investment or ‘gentrification’ is the use of the development as a business model concerned only with economic returns. As Jacobs describes: “The key to future investment in this field is the profit factor” 12 (Jacobs, J – 1961). Thus, this provides a clear negative connotation towards gentrification during this period of time.

The city has become a fundamental par t of the contemporar y world in which people from var ying backgrounds, economic class’ and social standings are able to share a commonality. As Aristotle expresses:

“That what raised man above the level of barbarism, in which he was a merely economic being, and enabled him to develop the higher faculties which in barbarian are only latent, to live well instead of merely living, was his membership of an actual, physical city.” 6 (Pahl, R.E – 1968).

This statement emphasises our relationship to the city and allows a philosophical metaphor to be established. Early perceptions of gentrification forewarned the current and/or future socioeconomic climate of London through obser vations and projections. This is suppor ted by Glass: “The real risk for inner London is that it might well be gentrified with a vengeance, and be almost exclusively reser ved for selected high-class strata” 7 (1989). In doing so, a negative connotation of gentrification can be perceived, allowing the negative stigma of the redevelopment in London at the time to be blamed on various par ties. “Apar t from the ver y rich, it is mainly the young members (or aspiring members) of the middle-upper strata, single people or couples without family responsibilities, who are prepared to pay the exorbitant housing prices of the inner sector, despite the fact that they rarely get value for money.” 8 (Glass, R – 1989).

Pahl, R.E (1968). Readings in Urban Sociology. Oxford: Pergamon Press Ltd. p63.

6 7

Glass, R. (1989). The Mood of London. In: Glass, R Clichés of Urban Doom. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

p178. 8

Glass, R. (1989). The Mood of London. In: Glass, R Clichés of Urban Doom. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

p177. 9

Glass, R. (1989). The Mood of London. In: Glass, R Clichés of Urban Doom. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

p179.

The notion that people are being exploited despite their socioeconomic background poses the question whether developers at the time took into consideration the needs of people they were developing for. According to Glass: “this process has been assisted by the handiwork of developers who provoke a ‘them and us’ response” 9 (1989). The interpreted responsibility of developers during this period can be taken as a purely cataclysmic approach to redevelopment. It is wor th noting that other authors were seeing this destructive cycle of inner city developments. As journalist and author Jane Jacobs states: “these three kinds of money behave not like irrigation systems, bringing life-giving streams to feed steady, continued growth. Instead, they behave like manifestations

3.2 A Change of Perception Over time policies and precedents were created and followed to understand the root causes of redevelopment in cities and the problems in which they created. “There is cause for anxiety – and it is that which is resented, and for which the city itself tends to be blamed, rather than the influences that makes it what it is” 13 (Glass, R – 1989). Research into these influences began to obser ve a slight shift in how effor ts were being made, no matter how small, to inter vene with the existing framework of gentrified redevelopment. “[…] although the squeeze is becoming tighter still, only sporadic effor ts have been made to counteract it” 14 (Glass, R – 1989). Other practices that lead to the naïve and disastrous wave of redevelopment include the ways in which planners and developers implemented laws of averages. Catering for the average at a time when the divide between classes was ever present, presented disastrous consequences described by Glass as: “An anti-social, anti-urban doctrine is indifferent to social data, especially in quantitate

Jacobs, J (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House. p293.

Jacobs, J (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House. p303.

Jacobs, J (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House. p295.

Glass, R. (1989). London: Aspects of Change. In: Glass, R Clichés of Urban Doom. Oxford: Wiley-

Blackwell. p150. 14

Glass, R. (1989). London: Aspects of Change. In: Glass, R Clichés of Urban Doom. Oxford: Wiley-

Blackwell. p147

FIG 6.1 - Image of the public protests at the Aylesbur y Estate, London

FIG 6.1 - Image of the proposed Aylesbur y masterplan, HTA

Glass, R. (1989). The Mood of London. In: Glass, R Clichés of Urban Doom. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

p169. 16

Glass, R. (1989). The Mood of London. In: Glass, R Clichés of Urban Doom. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

p137. 17

Lees, L et al.. (2008). Gentrification: Positive or Negative?. In: Lees, L and Slater, T and Wyly, E

Gentrification. New York: Taylor & Francis Group. p199. 18

Oxford City Council. (2007-2016). WE16. West End Area Action Plan. 1 (1), p24.

form… preoccupied with misleading averages, such as the average occupancy ratio, average population density, the average family – a weakness which has had unfor tunate, long lasting results” 15 (1989). Through acknowledgement of malpractice when using averages, steps are now being taken in order to ensure that provisions are made for an array of socioeconomic classes.

market involvement and paying higher levels of local tax, which could be used to benefit local residents” 19 (Lees, L et al. – 2008). The Elephant Links Community Forum gained 80% suppor t of the local community for the new project and was able to create a framework for redevelopment that would oppose the existing social cleanings agenda 20 (Lees, L et al. – 2008) (see FIG 6.2).

3.3 Contemporary Connotations of Gentrification

The idea of social mixing within new developments is one that is being used throughout the world and especially in Europe. FIG 7.1 shows examples of aims taken from recent district plans for Rotterdam and The Hague (Hulsbergen,E & Stouten, P - 2001)

A divide between designers and inhabitants create many unforeseen problems for the communities that call these developments home. In recent years there has been a rise in interaction between these groups which are in turn encouraging a more organic growth of development to happen within an originally deemed cataclysmic development. The redevelopment of areas that contain a large community of low socioeconomic tenants have many positives; including schemes of a once gentrified nature. In accordance with Glass: “the new homes of working – class and lower-middle-class people… are frequently superior in design and appearance to the older ‘luxur y flats’ and expensive houses of private tenants or owner-occupiers” 16 (1989).

The continuation of the Metropolitan Policies. The priority concerns strengthening the economic structure as a necessar y condition for a more positive development of problem areas.

The continuation of Urban Renewal, i.e. strengthening the competitive power of the living and employment environments in the existing urban areas, primarily focused on the physical-spatial structure.

These aims help encourage social mixing with cities and provide positive impacts of ‘gentrification’ to help low socioeconomic communities thrive. Realisations such as this and implementation of local policies will help change the public perception around large scale redevelopment schemes that were once associated with disruptive ‘gentrification’. Thus, this allows gentrification to be used as positive oppor tunities within local communities.

The continuation of Social Renewal, i.e. social investments to improve the par ticipation of residents in their living environment, also directed to social cohesion in neighbourhoods and districts, with sometimes over 60 different nationalities.”

FIG 7.1 - Table to show aim of District Plans for Rotterdam and The Hague

In order for us to move forward we have to build on the mistakes from past inner city schemes and concentrate on the integration of existing and incoming communities. Author Loretta Lees expresses: “Developing large amounts of social housing in one location does not work… As a result, jobs and investment go elsewhere… In future, we must develop on the basis of a mix of tenures and income groups” 17 (2008). Contemporar y developments have also benefitted from a wealth of precedents and new policies that have been developed over time. For example, the implementation of a percentage of affordable homes within residential and mixed use developments. The figure for Oxford currently stands at 50% allocation of all homes 18 (Oxford City Council – 2006). Another example of how policies of this nature are currently being used within the UK is Elephant and Castle, London. Two of the most prominent estates in the area (Heygate and Aylesbur y) have undergone demolition and a large mix use, and variety of housing schemes have been proposed for this site. Initially the existing occupants had to fight a hidden social cleansing agenda (see FIG 6.1), but the results of public par ticipation have allowed a higher acknowledgement of existing communities to remain intact. “Managed but inclusive gentrification to bring in more wealthy residents with higher levels of social capital and labour

Lees, L et al.. (2008). Gentrification: Positive or Negative?. In: Lees, L and Slater, T and Wyly, E

Gentrification. New York: Taylor & Francis Group. p200. 20

Lees, L et al.. (2008). Gentrification: Positive or Negative?. In: Lees, L and Slater, T and Wyly, E

Gentrification. New York: Taylor & Francis Group. p200. 21

Hulsbergen, E & Stouten,P. (2001). Urban renewal and regeneration in the Netherlands

Integration lost or subordinate?. City: analysis of urban trends, culture, theor y, policy, action. 5 (3), p325-337.

4. Me cha ni sm s to Cu r b G e nt rificat i o n 4.1 The Gradual Renewal of Jericho Jericho, formerly known as St. Barnabas’ has seen a great deal of development in the last centur y and has provided a sustainable example of how to integrate regeneration to the existing community. With the decline of industr y in Jericho and the decay of housing stock throughout the star t of the 20th centur y, a local plan was needed. Through a series of public consultations and council meetings three options were created for the redevelopment of Jericho; 1. 2. 3. 22

FIG 8.1 - Street Plan and Block Numbers, Jericho

FIG 8.2 - Policy Implimentation, Block 25 and 27

Do Nothing Comprehensive Redevelopment (Cataclysmic Development) Refurbishment of Existing Housing Stock

(Crosby, A – 1980)

In order to retain the character and community of Jericho, refurbishment of current housing stock was chosen. Author Alan Crosby explains this by saying: “In Jericho this process was elaborated, a commitment being made to the retention, wherever possible, of both the hosing and the residents, so that the community with its special character could be assured of continued existence” 23 (1980). In theor y this was a well-considered approach to not make the same mistakes of the St. Ebbe’s redevelopment that saw hundreds of families displaced and nominal values for proper ties given through compulsor y purchase orders.

FIG 8.3 - Breakdown of work done on Block 25 and 28 22

Crosby, A (1980). The Experience of Gradual Renewal in the Jericho District of Oxford. Oxford:

School of Geography, Oxford University. p11-12. 23

Crosby, A (1980). The Experience of Gradual Renewal in the Jericho District of Oxford. Oxford:

School of Geography, Oxford University. p12. 24

Crosby, A (1980). The Experience of Gradual Renewal in the Jericho District of Oxford. Oxford:

School of Geography, Oxford University. p34. 25

Crosby, A (1980). The Experience of Gradual Renewal in the Jericho District of Oxford. Oxford:

School of Geography, Oxford University. p34.

As the project was rolled out mistakes were made and a larger number of proper ties were deemed uninhabitable (see FIG 8.1, 8.2, 8.3). This led to the eventual break down of public relations and the accusation of potential council ulterior motives. Upon project completion there were mixed views on its success, where many saw it as a disaster. “[…]the Jericho dream is fading; I’m still proud of it, but the original aims are being lost sight of now[…]” 24 (Crosby, A – 1980). A small minority of the community saw its positives. “It’s ver y good now, with new blood in the community, new young people in what they have called ‘Chelsea Set’ and that is a good thing. It’s been ver y successful, but it’s only now it’s beginning to show[…]” 25 (Crosby, A – 1980).

The desirability of location and character of Jericho led to the interest of many private investors. The inter vention by the local council stopped many instances of comprehensive redevelopment and in turn helped salvage the existing character and what was left of the community. If it was not for the council to establish policies and a framework for the renewal of the area it is safe to say that Jericho would have fallen victim to a complete cataclysmic redevelopment, similar to that of St. Ebbe’s.

4.2 Implementation

Transformation of this par t of the city to bring it up to the standard ‘Oxford’s reputation deser ves’

Developments will be ‘economically and socially sustainable’

The area must have a ‘strong sense of community’

The area must be ‘attractive to visitors – providing new retail, leisure, and community uses

5. It must have quality open spaces, and streets where people can ‘wander’

Oxford City Council has earmarked the West End of Oxford for redevelopment as it feels the area needs an improved economic life to what has become a neglected par t of the city. Within this improved economic development, a significant number of socially diverse housing is needed due to a shor tage within the city. 26 (Oxford City Council – 2006)(see FIG 9.1).

FIG 9.1 - Table to show aims of Oxford City Council West Area Action Plan

Through understanding the histor y and changing perceptions around gentrification, a framework was established to ensure that the negative connotations of cataclysmic redevelopment were not repeated (see FIG 9.2). The proposed masterplan brings with it a great range of mixed used facilities and a diverse mix of housing solution that Oxford desperately need (see FIG 10.1) The creation of 576 new housing units within the area will begin to combat the declining number of inner city homes being made available to the market and affordable housing schemes (see FIG 9.3). Within this number, 50% have been allocated for affordable housing. In order to ensure that these homes do not create a socioeconomic divide within the redevelopment, an integrated neighbourhood has been created. This is similar to that of the teachings of Lees et al. – Gentrification, which provides a foundation for social cohesion. (see FIG 10.1, 11.1). Incubator y style offices will facilitate a series of units for local star t-up companies that can benefit from private and shared office space. The ability to have ‘communal’ working areas is essential for continued community growth between local business as this will provide the environment for interaction and fur ther social and business cohesion. (see FIG 10.1, 11.1).

Creation of 50% affordable housing within the proposed housing stock. (260 units) a. 80% is to be social rented. (207 Units) b. 20% is to be shared ownership. (53 Units)

Incorporation of incubator y style offices. a. These offices will house local star t-up companies.

Retail units to house small local businesses.

Creation of a Compact College Campus.

Connection to Local Transpor t Links.

FIG 9.2 - Table to show framework for implimented masterplan.

FIG 9.3 - Poster for recent Oxford protest.

Oxford City Council. (2007-2016). WE16. West End Area Action Plan. 1 (1), p1-5.

Large international corporations litter the main shopping routes throughout Oxford, which means many local smaller businesses are being priced out of the high street regardless of their long standing roots with the city. The ability to provide a large number of these much needed units for local retailers will allow an organic growth within this new West End hub. (see FIG 10.1, 11.1). One existing diverse community within the site, Oxford and Cherwell FE College cannot be displaced. This will lead to a growing number of the staff and student population finding it ergonomically impossible to continue their education due to travel expense. A redefined compact college campus will also include a number of student/course orientated retail units. These units will be showcased alongside the new local retailers and provide a higher level of social cohesion between generations. (see FIG 10.1, 11.1). Within modern society it is becoming increasing hard for lower socioeconomic classes to afford rising levels of car tax, insurance and off-street parking within inner cities. Due to this, the masterplan proposes the extension of the existing public transpor t network to contribute a finically sustainable alternative.

FIG 10.1 - Exploded Isometric showing mixed use locations within the Studio 1 Masterplan

5. CONCLUS ION Aforementioned, gentrification was first coined by Ruth Glass to define the negative connotations of the redevelopment of inner city areas. Previous examples of ‘gentrification’ tarred many other promising redevelopment schemes with the same brush and created a period of unease between the public and the developer. For instance, the Jericho regeneration of Oxford as I mentioned earlier. Other examples of this can be seen as late as the early 90s to the millennium in Brixton and Shoreditch. As discussed within the ‘Historical Perceptions of Gentrification’, it is easy to see a trend emerge between theories and public perception. Jacobs and Glass both speak of Gentrification as a negative movement towards redevelopment. This leads to the dispersion of existing communities of people through initial social cleanses or eventual take over. In summar y, it can be seen that the factors involved with this are the amalgamation of several key failures. The running of development as a business causes little care to be taken to the existing tenants and also the proposed influx of people. This, alongside little guidance by local authorities, declining living standards and limited space for expansion all contributes to the historic perception of gentrification. As it was discussed within ‘Contemporar y Connotations of Gentrification’, the change in the perception of projects that would once been deemed ‘gentrification’ inevitably began to aid inner city development. Through the analysis of texts from Lees and Hulsburgen, it is impor tant to understand that it is not just one key feature that will aid in the change of public perception, but a combination of many. For example: -The creation of integrated social communities that will encourage social cohesion, -The adhering to policies and frameworks set out by local authorities (as seen in Oxford and The Hague) -The rise in interaction between Developer/Urban Designer/Architect to the public of existing users within the area earmarked for redevelopment.

Socially Mixed Housing Local Retail Units Compact College Campus Incubator y Offices Transpor t Links FIG 11.1 - Implimentation of Framework within Studio 1 Masterplan.

It is paramount that the preceeding factors are not ignored as this period of cohesion between ‘developer’ and the public are key to the continuation of a positive perception of ‘gentrification’. The Urban Design Studio 1 project located in the west of Oxford has implemented design considerations including aforementioned factors and many of the council’s policies to aid the organic progression of the area (e.g. affordable housing quotas and redefinition of an existing educational facility). I regard this to be a clear example of how an Urban Design project can incorporate these considerations and allow the negative connotations of gentrification to be curbed. To conclude, I believe that gentrification does aid inner city development and should be a celebrated contemporar y form of urban renewal for communities that are in need of it. It is impor tant to note that this is only true when policies, public par ticipation and the aforementioned factors are taken into consideration. It is through the evaluation of the key points made throughout this critical analysis of theories and case studies that I perceive the negative views of gentrification to be outdated if tackled correctly.

6. BIBLIOG R APH Y Atkinson, R., Bridge, G (2005). Gentrification in a Global Context: The new urban colonialism. Oxon: Routledge. p70-256. Bentley, I (1984). User Choice and Urban Form: The Impact of Commercial Redevelopment. Oxford: Oxford Polytechnic. p1-12. Crosby, A (1980). The Experience of Gradual Renewal in the Jericho District of Oxford. Oxford: School of Geography, Oxford University. p11-34. Glass, R. (1989). ClichĂŠs of Urban Doom. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. p137-179. Hulsbergen, E & Stouten,P. (2001). Urban renewal and regeneration in the Netherlands Integration lost or subordinate?. City: analysis of urban trends, culture, theor y, policy, action. 5 (3), p325-337. Jacobs, J (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House. p293-303. Jacobs, J (1970). The Economy of Cities. London: Jonathan Cape Ltd. p87-130. Jacobs, J (2004). Dark age ahead. New York: Random House. 1-224. Lees, L et al.. (2008). Gentrification. New York: Taylor & Francis Group. p199-201. Mavrommatis, G. (2011). Stories from Brixton: Gentrification and Different Differences. Available: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/16/2/12.html. Last accessed 30th Nov 2016. Nagle, G (1998). Changing Settlements. London: Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd. p20-40. Oxford City Council (1980). St. Ebbes Action Area (No. 1). Oxford: Oxford City Council. p1-78. Oxford City Council. (2007-2016). WE16. West End Area Action Plan. 1 (1). Pahl, R.E (1968). Readings in Urban Sociology. Oxford: Pergamon Press Ltd. p63.

7. L IST OF IL LUSTR AT I ONS FIG 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 - Griffiths, S. (2014). The evolution of London: Map charts the birth of the city from its Roman roads to the glory of its 21st century skyscrapers Read more: http://www.dailymail. co.uk/sciencetech/ar ticle-2630609/The-evolu. Available: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ar ticle-2630609/The-evolution-London-Map-char ts-bir th-city-Roman-roads-glor y-21st-centur yskyscrapers.html. Last accessed 1st Dec 2016. FIG 3.1 - Corbishley, G. (2016). Gentrification X: how an academic argument became the peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s protest. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/jan/12/gentrification-argument-protestbacklash-urban-generation-displacement#img-1. Last accessed 1st Dec 2016. FIG 3.2 - Keery, G. (2015). Cereal Killer: hipster cafe attacked by masked anti-gentrification mob. Available: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11894644/Cereal-Killer-hipster-cafeattacked-by-masked-anti-gentrification-mob.html. Last accessed 1st Dec 2016. FIG 3.3 - The Fuck Brigade. (2016). Fuck Parade 3, Galleries. Available: https://fuckparade. wordpress.com/2016/02/21/fuck-parade-3-galler y/. Last accessed 1st Dec 2016. FIG 6.1 - Skinner, R. (2016). FIGHT//FOR//THE//AYLESBURY. Available: http://cargocollective.com/ lemonrouge/FIGHT-FOR-THE-AYLESBURY. Last accessed 1st Dec 2016. FIG 6.2 - HTA Design LLP. (2015). Aylesbury Estate Regeneration:. Available: http://www.hta.co.uk/ news/posts/aylesbur y-estate-regeneration-2. Last accessed 1st Dec 2016. FIG 7.1 Hulsbergen, E & Stouten,P. (2001). Urban renewal and regeneration in the Netherlands Integration lost or subordinate?. City: analysis of urban trends, culture, theor y, policy, action. 5 (3), p325-337. FIG 8.1, 8.2, 8.3 Crosby, A (1980). The Experience of Gradual Renewal in the Jericho District of Oxford. Oxford: School of Geography, Oxford University. p11-12

Seymour, B. (2004). Shoreditch and the creative destruction of the inner city. Available: http://www. variant.org.uk/34texts/shoreditch34.html. Last accessed 30th Nov 2016.

FIG 9.1 - Oxford City Council. (2007-2016). WE16. West End Area Action Plan. 1 (1), p1-5.

Williamson, J.G (1990). Coping with City Growth During the British Industrial Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p3-25.

FIG 9.2 - Cresswell, R. (2016). MArchD Urban Design Specialisation, Studio 1. [Personal Project] FIG 9.3 - Cresswell, R. (2016). [Personal Photograph] FIG 10.1 - Cresswell, R. (2016). MArchD Urban Design Specialisation, Studio 1. [Personal Project] FIG 11.1 - Cresswell, R. (2016). MArchD Urban Design Specialisation, Studio 1. [Personal Project]