Over the past twenty years, the landscape of London has shifted drastically; from endless new housing developments to public transport links, which aim to promote community in a space where it’s all too common to feel alone. It’s easy to appreciate the benefits of this reconstruction from a birds-eye-view, although in reality the impacts of these changes have been destructive and a threat to the city’s vibrant culture. 

Gentrification is a pretty vague term, often used to describe hipsters and their disputes over coffee. However, a deeper insight into gentrified areas offers a more sinister narrative, one of erased culture and mass displacement. Two of the main areas in London affected by this wave of gentrification, were Tower Hamlets and Walthamstow, where extreme changes to buildings, businesses and homes took place. 

Tower Hamlets, prior to 2010, was known as a place of refuge for Bengali and Bangladeshi immigrants, as there was a thriving community based in Brick Lane, which was coined ‘Banglatown’ for its famous curry houses. This functioned as any borough should, encouraging diversity and income, whilst allowing a comfortable life for the majority of residents. However, as commercial interest became more relevant to London’s culture, a movement was made to build a five-storey shopping centre. This may seem like a benefit for those living there, however, as Brick Lane became known for its tourist value in shopping, the prices in the area began to rise rapidly. 

This left the original residents unable to live there anymore and broke down the Bengali and Bangladeshi communities that had been established in East London for years. 

Meanwhile in Walthamstow, house prices have gone up by 98% in the past five years as buyers were often convinced by the multiple transport links that made it easier to travel into central London for work. This meant the demographic of residents changed from working class families, to corporate individuals who can afford spending £600,000 on a flat. As former residents were forced out of their homes by the shift in prices, the shops along Wood Street began to change from locally owned businesses to chain supermarkets and expensive coffee shops. This resulted in several hundreds of people being displaced, as they simply couldn’t keep up with the extortionate environment of Walthamstow. 

However, some argue that this development has been beneficial for impoverished areas, as it has transformed the living space and boosted the local economy. A former resident described the area as “Quite run down” with many “betting shops”, making it a difficult place to perhaps raise a family. The gentrification of the area has created “Walthamstow Village” which consists of “coffee and organic and vintage shops”, which made it desirable to the residents of the neighbouring, wealthier borough of Hackney. The former resident believed that due to further gentrification in Hackney, many were looking to down-size, and began to associate Walthamstow Village as a suitable, cheaper replacement. The definitive argument is whether the aesthetics and reputation of an area are more important than the original settlers, and it is often the case that “a range of options are lost” due to such superficial perceptions. 

Several other areas of Greater London are expected to have similar “development programmes” to encourage positive economic activity. This raises the question of whether London’s culture and history is being threatened by the constant call for change. Often with gentrification, comes a wave of technological advancements, which can replace local industries and change the general demographic. It is crucial that we protect these communities where we can, by embracing their flare and rejecting attempts to homogenise our towns and cities.