Here's everything we learned from this gif of London's growth since 1900

Brutal: a screen shot from the GIF. Image: Create Streets.

The outline of Greater London has become a familiarly sprawling shape on the map: the “Dark Star” of the UK if you live outside of it, and the enlightened beacon of hope to those who live within.

It’s an ancient city, with a history that stretches back over two thousand years, but the vast majority of its physical growth has only happened over the past century or so. It’s tricky to envisage this when you can see it all spread out before you on a tube map, but the clever-clogs over at pressure group Create Streets have come up with a clever way of visualising it.

In one GIF, they’ve tracked the construction of London from just before the turn of the 20th century to 2015. It’s an extraordinary bit of data visualisation, and even just staring bleary-eyed at it as it goes round and round tells you al ot about how this city came to be the way it is today.

But it’s worth breaking down to get a closer look. We’ve separated the GIF into individual frames to pick apart how London grew at each point over the past century by looking at where flurries of construction took place. Aren’t we nice?

Pre 1900

At this point in history, London is obviously a very different beast. “Greater London”, the sprawling beast roughly confined by the M25, is but a twinkle in the residents’ eyes, and “Inner London” – the present-day boroughs of Camden, Islington, Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Newnham, Greenwich, Lewisham, Southwark, Westminster, Kensington & Chelsea, Hammersmith & Fulham, Wandsworth, Lambeth, and the City of London – is pretty much all there is.

As such, building immediately pre-1900 is pretty much exclusively within this area, with particularly intense construction in Kensington, Hammersmith, and Fulham. That being said, some developments do spring up outside those confines, most notably around Finsbury Park, Forest Gate, Battersea, and Clapham.

1900-1918

Building is obviously slightly stunted at this point because of the small matter of the First World War. There’s very little going on in Inner London, and any building, where present, focussed on areas just outside the Inner London boundaries. Ilford sees a fair bit, as does Leytonstone, the area around Alexandra Palace, and Ealing.

1919-1929

Lighter development is at this point reasonably well spread in concentric circles beyond the boundaries of Inner London. The Becontree Estate and surrounding areas in East London are a hotspot of building after the Housing Act of 1919, and it subsequently became the largest public housing estate in the world.

The Downham estate, in the southerly reaches of Lewisham, flags up as an area of intense building in this period, too. Housing estates such as these were intended to alleviate overcrowding in more central areas like Rotherhithe and Whitechapel, and were London’s first big foray into the expanses of what was then Home Counties countryside.

1930-1939

The arrival of Metroland is clearly visible in the north western part of London. Swathes of the boroughs of Harrow, Ealing, and Hillingdon became the subject of huge house building projects as part of a kind of “British dream”: moving out to the countryside to own your own home whilst still being within commuting distance to Central London.

Other spurs of building in this period crop up in the Chessington area of Kingston, Addington in Croydon, and Welling in Bexley.

There's no building to speak of during World War II, so jumping forward...

1945-1964

With the end of the Second World War, building comes back to Inner London as bombing damage is rebuilt and hard-hit areas renewed. Bethnal Green, Shoreditch, and the estates of Hoxton are a centre of dense building, as are the Churchill Gardens Estates in Pimlico and the northern reaches of Hackney.

Building also keeps moving out in a concentric sort of way towards the very edges of London, with parts of Hounslow seeing intense construction along with Harold Hill in the beyonds of Havering and Hainault in Redbridge.

Much the same trend continues through into the early sixties, with surprising bouts of intense building in Roehampton in Wandsworth and Addington in Croydon.

1965-1972

Huge building comes to the City of London during this stint, with one obvious project being the Barbican Estate. Across Inner London more generally, however, building returns with a reasonable vengeance, with hotspots from Peckham to Walworth, Belsize Park, and the World’s End Estate in Chelsea.

Meanwhile, outer London continues to throw up intense building centred around estates and town planning projects, including Northolt in Ealing, Heston in Hounslow, and the northern chunk of Romford in Havering.

1973-1982

Building cools off slightly in the late 70s, although that probably makes sense: if you’re struggling to keep the lights on, building a lot of houses might be a challenge.

Most prominent during this period are the estates of Thamesmead and Abbey Wood across what are now the borders of Greenwich and Bexley, immortalised unfavourably in the popular Stanley Kubrick A Clockwork Orange and more favourably in the more decidedly niche Beautiful Thing.

1983-1999

Towards the end of the eighties and into the nineties the Docklands Redevelopment Project starts with a vengeance. Stretching through from Beckton in Newnham in the East to Wapping, to Rotherhithe in Southwark and the Isle of Dogs in Tower Hamlets, Docklands was a vast project, evident from the area’s dominance in building intensity in both frames.

Towards the end of the nineties, you can catch the South Bank facing Westminster getting a wee facelift, which is nice. Go London Eye.

2000-2015

Coming into the current century, most of the building in London is within the boundaries of Inner London, with fairly disparate, low-intensity construction taking place in the outer reaches of the capital. You can catch sight of the redevelopment of Stratford and its environs in advance of the Olympics, and you can see the developers moving in on Newington in Southwark along Blackfriars Road as a potential “build shiny flats nobody can afford here” type gig.

In the 2010s, a general shift between East Inner London logically coincides with the whole hip-Shoreditch-beard-Hackney-cereal-cafe thing, so it makes sense that the majority of intense building takes place there. Intriguingly, however, there are a few outsiders. Colindale on the Northern line in Barnet is a hotspot, Wembley Park is an obvious building centre, and Barking Riverside in Barking and Dagenham has seen construction fever.

TL;DR, GIF washed over me

You’ll have essentially got the basic effect. Roughly speaking, and in a very general sense, development has rippled outwards from the centre of the city before coming home to roost. As the city grew, houses were built further and further into the countryside, building suburbs, estates, satellite towns, and villages ever further out.

Then the 70s happened. And like a drunkard caught by a bad hangover, the city almost retreated into itself, with development coming back towards the heart of the capital as regeneration projects, brown fill, and redevelopment became the order of the day.

Is it a cycle? Will the next wave of development waft back out into Outer London, as projects like Crossrail and, potentially, Crossrail 2 bring further stretches of the suburbs within closer reach of jobs in Zone 1?

Only time will tell.

Cool GIF, though. You can see it in its original home on the Create Streets website.

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


 

 
 
 
 

Urgently needed: Timely, more detailed standardized data on US evictions

Graffiti asking for rent forgiveness is seen on a wall on La Brea Ave amid the Covid-19 pandemic in Los Angeles, California. (Valerie Macon/AFP via Getty Images)

Last week the Eviction Lab, a team of eviction and housing policy researchers at Princeton University, released a new dashboard that provides timely, city-level US eviction data for use in monitoring eviction spikes and other trends as Covid restrictions ease. 

In 2018, Eviction Lab released the first national database of evictions in the US. The nationwide data are granular, going down to the level of a few city blocks in some places, but lagged by several years, so their use is more geared toward understanding the scope of the problem across the US, rather than making timely decisions to help city residents now. 

Eviction Lab’s new Eviction Tracking System, however, provides weekly updates on evictions by city and compares them to baseline data from past years. The researchers hope that the timeliness of this new data will allow for quicker action in the event that the US begins to see a wave of evictions once Covid eviction moratoriums are phased out.

But, due to a lack of standardization in eviction filings across the US, the Eviction Tracking System is currently available for only 11 cities, leaving many more places facing a high risk of eviction spikes out of the loop.

Each city included in the Eviction Tracking System shows rolling weekly and monthly eviction filing counts. A percent change is calculated by comparing current eviction filings to baseline eviction filings for a quick look at whether a city might be experiencing an uptick.

Timely US eviction data for a handful of cities is now available from the Eviction Lab. (Courtesy Eviction Lab)

The tracking system also provides a more detailed report on each city’s Covid eviction moratorium efforts and more granular geographic and demographic information on the city’s evictions.

Click to the above image to see a city-level eviction map, in this case for Pittsburgh. (Courtesy Eviction Lab)

As part of their Covid Resource, the Eviction Lab together with Columbia Law School professor Emily Benfer also compiled a scorecard for each US state that ranks Covid-related tenant protection measures. A total of 15 of the 50 US states plus Washington DC received a score of zero because those states provided little if any protections.

CityMetric talked with Peter Hepburn, an assistant professor at Rutgers who just finished a two-year postdoc at the Eviction Lab, and Jeff Reichman, principal at the data science research firm January Advisors, about the struggles involved in collecting and analysing eviction data across the US.

Perhaps the most notable hurdle both researchers addressed is that there’s no standardized reporting of evictions across jurisdictions. Most evictions are reported to county-level governments, however what “reporting” means differs among and even within each county. 

In Texas, evictions go through the Justice of the Peace Courts. In Virginia they’re processed by General District Courts. Judges in Milwaukee are sealing more eviction case documents that come through their courtroom. In Austin, Pittsburgh and Richmond, eviction addresses aren’t available online but ZIP codes are. In Denver you have to pay about $7 to access a single eviction filing. In Alabama*, it’s $10 per eviction filing. 

Once the filings are acquired, the next barrier is normalizing them. While some jurisdictions share reporting systems, many have different fields and formats. Some are digital, but many are images of text or handwritten documents that require optical character recognition programs and natural language processors in order to translate them into data. That, or the filings would have to be processed by hand. 

“There's not enough interns in the world to do that work,” says Hepburn.


Aggregating data from all of these sources and normalizing them requires knowledge of the nuances in each jurisdiction. “It would be nice if, for every region, we were looking for the exact same things,” says Reichman. “Instead, depending on the vendor that they use, and depending on how the data is made available, it's a puzzle for each one.”

In December of 2019, US Senators Michael Bennet of Colorado and Rob Portman of Ohio introduced a bill that would set up state and local grants aimed at reducing low-income evictions. Included in the bill is a measure to enhance data collection. Hepburn is hopeful that the bill could one day mean an easier job for those trying to analyse eviction data.

That said, Hepburn and Reichman caution against the public release of granular eviction data. 

“In a lot of cases, what this gets used for is for tenant screening services,” says Hepburn. “There are companies that go and collect these data and make them available to landlords to try to check and see if their potential tenants have been previously evicted, or even just filed against for eviction, without any sort of judgement.”

According to research by Eviction Lab principal Matthew Desmond and Tracey Shollenberger, who is now vice president of science at Harvard’s Center for Policing Equity, residents who have been evicted or even just filed against for eviction often have a much harder time finding equal-quality housing in the future. That coupled with evidence that evictions affect minority populations at disproportionate rates can lead to widening racial and economic gaps in neighborhoods.

While opening up raw data on evictions to the public would not be the best option, making timely, granular data available to researchers and government officials can improve the system’s ability to respond to potential eviction crises.

Data on current and historical evictions can help city officials spot trends in who is getting evicted and who is doing the evicting. It can help inform new housing policy and reform old housing policies that may put more vulnerable citizens at undue risk.

Hepburn says that the Eviction Lab is currently working, in part with the ACLU, on research that shows the extent to which Black renters are disproportionately affected by the eviction crisis.

More broadly, says Hepburn, better data can help provide some oversight for a system which is largely unregulated.

“It's the Wild West, right? There's no right to representation. Defendants have no right to counsel. They're on their own here,” says Hepburn. “I mean, this is people losing their homes, and they're being processed in bulk very quickly by the system that has very little oversight, and that we know very little about.”

A 2018 report by the Philadelphia Mayor’s Taskforce on Eviction Prevention and Response found that of Philadelphia’s 22,500 eviction cases in 2016, tenants had legal representation in only 9% of them.

Included in Hepburn’s eviction data wishlist is an additional ask, something that is rarely included in any of the filings that the Eviction Lab and January Advisors have been poring over for years. He wants to know the relationship between money owed and monthly rent.

“At the individual level, if you were found to owe $1,500, was that on an apartment that's $1,500 a month? Or was it an apartment that's $500 a month? Because that makes a big difference in the story you're telling about the nature of the crisis, right? If you're letting somebody get three months behind that's different than evicting them immediately once they fall behind,” Hepburn says.

Now that the Eviction Tracking System has been out for a week, Hepburn says one of the next steps is to start reaching out to state and local governments to see if they can garner interest in the project. While he’s not ready to name any names just yet, he says that they’re already involved in talks with some interested parties.

*Correction: This story initially misidentified a jurisdiction that charges $10 to access an eviction filing. It is the state of Alabama, not the city of Atlanta. Also, at the time of publication, Peter Hepburn was an assistant professor at Rutgers, not an associate professor.

Alexandra Kanik is a data reporter at CityMetric.