“Love Happens Here” – but how do we keep it that way? On the threat to LGBT venues

Pride London, 8 July 2017. Image: Getty.

Anyone who went to the Pride in London Parade on 8 July will have witnessed this year’s theme, “Love Happens Here”, in action. Over 26,000 marchers and almost one million supporters took to the streets to make a big statement about equal rights for the LGBT+ community.

That’s not the only way Pride in London (the organising group) used the city’s public spaces to create an impact. The group also teamed up with Google this year to produce a ‘Love Happens Here’ map. The public were asked to share the location of somewhere they’d fallen in love, along with a short story, and these stories were then marked on the map for everyone to enjoy.

Reading the anecdotes and examining the spatial patterns, the map actually holds some interesting lessons for people like me who work in urban development. And I couldn’t help but think that a very human dynamic, like love, should be considered more in the way we plan and design our cities and public spaces.

Here are a few things that the Love Happens Here map can teach us about cities and the LGBT+ experience of the city in particular:

The green and blue spaces in cities are important for quality if life. On the map, many people fell in love in places that connect them with nature. The Thames, parks and canals all feature as places where people created love stories. This reinforces the importance of these “shared gardens” in dense cities like London as places where we relax and enjoy the outdoors with friends and partners.

People make more than just rail connections at train stations. Though less romantic than the airport scene in the film Love Actually, train stations are places where couples are saying goodbye or welcoming loved ones home. Excellent design (like King’s Cross Station) and the growing popularity of leisure offerings in train stations make them more of a destination—a more pleasant space for those important farewells and hellos.

‘Gay enclaves’ like SoHo still matter. SoHo stands out as a neighbourhood with many LGBT+ love stories, but we know anecdotally that other LGBT concentrations like Hackney, Shoreditch and Clapham have strong clusters as well. I want to elaborate on this point in particular.


The agglomeration of LGBT+ venues has long been important as a way to create safe spaces and a density of nightlife and leisure activities that is required to serve the relatively small market. But, a range of broader economic and social forces – including rising London rents, the proliferation of dating apps, the growing acceptance of the LGBT+ community in “straight” bars and the “gentrification” of historically LGBT+ neighbourhoods – have led to a reduction of London’s LGBT+ pubs and bars by 50 percent in the past decade. This raises a question as to whether we need to protect gay enclaves as a part of cities, and if so, how to keep them thriving.

Amy Lamé, London’s Night Czar, has long supported the LGBT+ community and has been working with the mayor to protect the most important LGBT+ venues (among others) from redevelopment and the threat of closure. And for good reason: research from UCL notes that such venues serve “a wide range of important welfare, wellbeing and community functions.”

The 2015 book Planning and LGBTQ Communities has shown a process of LGBT enclaves becoming gentrified, which can either lead to them moving to another part of the city or getting absorbed into the wider community:

Whether London’s gay enclaves are losing ground to a typical process of gentrification or there are particular macroeconomic challenges facing them, like rising rents or changes in social tastes, is a question that should be explored further. If cities like London attract talented workers and create new ideas because of their diversity and inclusiveness, we must also bear in mind what attracts and retains diverse communities in the first place.

Though the Love Happens Here map is a relatively small sample of how people experience the city, it opens up an interesting opportunity for urban designers, planners and policymakers. If we regularly collect more information on how LGBT+ communities and other minority groups experience public life in cities, we can start to understand how to attract and retain the diversity of backgrounds and talent that makes cities interesting, liveable, innovative and successful.

Zach Wilcox is a senior consultant for Arup’s city economics practice and UKMEA chair of the Arup LGBT+ network, Connect Out.

 
 
 
 

Budget 2017: Philip Hammond just showed that rejecting metro mayors was a terrible, terrible error

Sorry, Leeds, nothing here for you: Philip Hammond and his big red box. Image: Getty.

There were some in England’s cities, one sensed, who breathed a sigh of relief when George Osborne left the Treasury. Not only was he the architect of austerity, a policy which had seen council budgets slashed as never before: he’d also refused to countenance any serious devolution to city regions that refused to have a mayor, an innovation that several remained dead-set against.

So his political demise after the Brexit referendum was seen, in some quarters, as A Good Thing for devolution. The new regime, it was hoped, would be amenable to a variety of governance structures more sensitive to particular local needs.

Well, that theory just went out of the window. In his Budget statement today, in between producing some of the worst growth forecasts that anyone can remember and failing to solve the housing crisis, chancellor Philip Hammond outlined some of the things he was planning for Britain’s cities.

And, intentionally or otherwise, he made it very clear that it was those areas which had accepted Osborne’s terms which were going to win out. 

The big new announcement was a £1.7bn “Transforming Cities Fund”, which will

“target projects which drive productivity by improving connectivity, reducing congestion and utilising new mobility services and technology”.

To translate this into English, this is cash for better public transport.

And half of this money will go straight to the six city regions which last May elected their first metro mayor elections. The money is being allocated on a per capita basis which, in descending order of generosity, means:

  • £250m to West Midlands
  • £243 to Greater Manchester
  • £134 to Liverpool City Region
  • £80m to West of England
  • £74m to Cambridgeshire &d Peterborough
  • £59m to Tees Valley

That’s £840m accounted for. The rest will be available to other cities – but the difference is, they’ll have to bid for it.

So the Tees Valley, which accepted Osborne’s terms, will automatically get a chunk of cash to improve their transport system. Leeds, which didn’t, still has to go begging.

One city which doesn’t have to go begging is Newcastle. Hammond promised to replace the 40 year old trains on the Tyne & Wear metro at a cost of £337m. In what may or may not be a coincidence, he also confirmed a new devolution deal with the “North of Tyne” region (Newcastle, North Tyne, Northumberland). This is a faintly ridiculous geography for such a deal, since it excludes Sunderland and, worse, Gateshead, which is, to most intents and purposes, simply the southern bit of Newcastle. But it’s a start, and will bring £600m more investment to the region. A new mayor will be elected in 2018.

Hammond’s speech contained other goodies for cites too, of course. Here’s a quick rundown:

  • £123m for the regeneration of the Redcar Steelworks site: that looks like a sop to Ben Houchen, the Tory who unexpectedly won the Tees Valley mayoral election last May;
  • A second devolution deal for the West Midlands: tat includes more money for skills and housing (though the sums are dwarfed by the aforementioned transport money);
  • A new local industrial strategy for Greater Manchester, as well as exploring “options for the future beyond the Fund, including land value capture”;
  • £300m for rail improvements tied into HS2, which “will enable faster services between Liverpool and Manchester, Sheffeld, Leeds and York, as well as to Leicester and other places in the East Midlands and London”.

Hammond also made a few promises to cities beyond England: opening negotiations for a Belfast City Deal, and pointing to progress on city deals in Dundee and Stirling.


A city that doesn’t get any big promises out of this budget is – atypically – London. Hammond promised to “continue to work with TfL on the funding and financing of Crossrail 2”, but that’s a long way from promising to pay for it. He did mention plans to pilot 100 per cent business rate retention in the capital next year, however – which, given the value of property in London, is potentially quite a big deal.

So at least that’s something. And London, as has often been noted, has done very well for itself in most budgets down the year.

Many of the other big regional cities haven’t. Yet Leeds, Sheffield, Nottingham and Derby were all notable for their absence, both from Hammond’s speech and from the Treasury documents accompanying it.

And not one of them has a devolution deal or a metro mayor.

(If you came here looking for my thoughts on the housing element of the budget speech, then you can find them over at the New Statesman. Short version: oh, god.)

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and also has a Facebook page now for some reason.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook