This is how stations can be at the heart of urban housing supply

Birmingham New Street. Image: National Rail.

The managing director of Network Rail Property on how the railways can help solve Britain’s housing crisis.

Coping with the housing demands of an ever-growing population looms large as one of the greatest challenges facing Britain. But housing is far from the only pressure point: population growth affects a huge variety of industries. From healthcare to farming, transport to infrastructure, few sectors are left untouched by the need to accommodate an increasing number of people.

Nowhere is the challenge more pressing than in our cities. As I said during my recent keynote speech to the UK Rail Station Development and Regeneration Conference, our growing population will continue to move towards our urban centres over the next decade, with 92 per cent of Britain’s population expected to live in cities by 2030.

Our rail stations will, of course, bear a significant brunt of this rise. In 2016-17, approximately 1.7bn people travelled by train. But this number is expected to double in the next 25 years to 3.5bn, with a huge amount of these journeys involving stations within the UK’s urban centres.

In order to manage this seismic societal shift, it goes without saying , the UK rail industry needs to invest in increasing its capacity. Our Railway Upgrade Plan which began in 2014 is our response to this growth, delivering longer, faster, more frequent trains; better, more reliable infrastructure; and better facilities for passengers, especially at stations. The projects include major schemes, such as Crossrail, as well as targeted local improvements for communities across Britain.

But we can do more; Britain’s stations can play a huge role in alleviating the broader challenges of population growth and urbanisation. With so much of the population now motivated to live in urban centres and many no longer seeing a need for car ownership it’s right to think that our future housing developments should have new or regenerated stations at their core.


Such stations have the opportunity to continue the historical role they played in the urbanisation of Britain 200 years ago. With their ability to act as a catalyst to facilitate housing, jobs, and economic growth, they play a key role in attracting people to an area and offering the key economic and social benefits that people desire.

The work that Network Rail has already undertaken in Birmingham, London and Reading shows the potential stations have to act as an unlocker, rather than a blocker, for development in the surrounding area. At King’s Cross in London, 67 acres of brownfield land is being developed into offices, retail and 2,000 homes. In Birmingham, the New Street Development has acted as the catalyst for a reported £2bn of regeneration to the south of the city centre.

Local authorities and developers are catching on to this. In Enfield we’re working with the Council and developers to deliver a brand new railway station for the £6bn Meridian Water project; which will create 10,000 homes, and our new station in Beaulieu, Essex, will provide a focal point for the development of 3,600 new homes. Likewise the new Cambridge North station, which opened this year, provides the opportunity to regenerate the surrounding land to provide over 900 homes.

However, it is not only the changes at our stations that support communities and the economy; we are in the midst of a railway property renaissance with many of our properties, particularly railway arches, providing space to support vibrant communities.

Once known for being places for only garages and light industry they are being transformed into spaces for restaurants, climbing walls, microbreweries and a host of other vibrant and exciting activities. They provide vital jobs and create hubs of activity which can set or support the tone and feel of entire areas. We are experiencing a period of sustained regeneration of these unique spaces, providing affordable space for small and independent businesses to operate in urban areas, playing a key role in local communities.

London Kings Cross. Image: National Rail.

Stations themselves are generally central to urban areas. Much coveted by those who value convenient transport connections, and often adjacent to other desirable amenities, they are a natural choice for housing developments, creating places for people to live, work and play.

These developments are happening – but we need more investment in station regeneration of this kind if they are to play a full role in supporting the nation’s growth. And we should be ambitious; the search for new homes requires innovative solutions.

At Clapham Junction and East Croydon we are exploring options with decking over the stations to create a platform for further new development. This kind of over site development allows us to take full advantage of the draw of stations and maximise the space we have for new homes. It creates new land in inner city locations where there is the highest demand.

Moreover, it can create new places based on high standards of urban design and place making that connects communities which historically have been severed by the railway. We need to embrace these ambitious projects if we are to meet the needs of our growing population and enhance the urban environment.

We also need to be creative about the way we fund such projects. Network Rail has always sought to deliver land for new housing, whether it be through our own investment or with our partners. We have a plan in place to deliver land for 12,000 homes by 2020, and have already delivered successful housing schemes at Walthamstow, Epsom and West Hampstead to name but a few.

In addition we are constantly seeking ‘rail + property’ opportunities: developing the areas in, around and above rail stations to help turn previously underused land into much-needed housing. Indeed, the importance of stations has also been recognised in the government’s Housing White Paper, which understands that they are key anchors for the next generation of urban housing developments.

It is a track record that we are proud of, but there’s still much more that can be done. Investment in the land that stations sit on is just part of their potential role in future-proofing the UK’s cities. The ways in which passengers interact with stations is changing rapidly, with stations large and small and their surrounding areas increasingly becoming the hubs of modern communities – places to eat, meet and shop as well as travel. With the right investment and vision, stations can become a focal-point for placemaking programmes, turning these places into the go-to areas in the local community and providing the catalyst for further regeneration and economic growth.

It is happening already, but we need to build on the successes across the 2,500 railway stations owned by Network Rail and keep up the momentum. Stations’ role in placemaking should not be viewed as an optional extra or a quirky alternative to our urbanisation challenge – it is a fundamental pillar in our growth strategy, and is vital to ensure our cities are ready to embrace what is coming down the track.

David Biggs is managing director of Network Rail Property.

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

 
 
 
 

How the rise of anti-crime politics caused lasting harm to Black Americans

"I see an awareness that has developed in the Black community in the last 10 years or so about how deeply racist the criminal justice system has become," James Forman Jr. says. (David McNew/Getty Images)

The police killing of George Floyd, and the protest movement that emerged from it, has reinvigorated a national conversation around reinventing criminal justice policy in the United States.

At the same time, reports that violent crime is rising in many US cities have resurrected talk of the much-disputed “Ferguson effect,” a theory put forward by law enforcement professionals, and some researchers, who argued that police slowdowns in the wake of the first wave of Black Lives Matter protests resulted in elevated rates of violent crime. President Donald Trump is trying to weaponise this narrative, paired with images of federal officers clashing with protesters in the streets of Portland, to wage a 1968-style backlash election campaign.

“People who want to mobilise a lock-them-up style of either policing or prosecution have tried to weaponise those short-term increases,” says James Forman Jr., professor of law at Yale Law School. “Criminologists will say you have to be very, very cautious about short-term movement [in crime statistics]. We don't know whether or not what we're seeing right now [with violent crime increasing] is going to sustain itself. But the fact is, it's here and people are talking about it.”

In 2018, Forman won the Pulitzer Prize in nonfiction for his book Locking Up Our Own: Crime and Punishment in Black America. Drawing on his experience as a public defender in Washington, DC, he traced the emergence of anti-crime politics in late 20th century Black communities. Forman showed how newly empowered Black politicians fought for policies they believed would protect and uplift Black Americans, but inadvertently contributed to mass incarceration. 


CityMetric recently caught up with Forman to discuss crime trends, where he sees reason for hope in this moment and how the Black political class’s attitude toward crime and punishment has shifted since the latter part of the 20th century. 

This interview has been edited and condensed. 

There is talk right now about a resurgence of crime and violence in American cities. We saw similar, more localised concerns after the initial 2015 Black Lives Matter protests in Ferguson and Baltimore. Do you fear this could reinvigorate the kind of politics you describe in your book among segments of the Black community and political class?

I fear that it could be reinvigorated nationally and also in the Black political class. Look at the political conversations that are happening in Atlanta right now, for example, a city that also has seen a short-term uptick in crime as it is a site of a lot of protests about George Floyd and Breonna Taylor on the national level, as well as Rayshard Brooks and Ahmaud Arbery more locally in Georgia.

I think that you can already see in some of the language of the local elected officials this idea that we have to be very careful about pulling back. [They are saying] “while the protesters may make some valid points, we can't risk returning to the ‘80s and ‘90s.” Those decades really traumatised the United States, and particularly traumatised Black communities. There's a deep fear about returning to the levels of the violence that we saw in the crack years.

You write a lot about class divides among Black Americans, where middle income and elite Black people don't suffer as much from extremely punitive policies. They also have closer ties to the politicians who are creating these policies. There are very specific groups of people, even in marginalised communities, whose voices are heard.  As a result of these dynamics, you write about Black politicians fighting for things like mandatory minimum prison sentences or against decriminalising marijuana. Is there still that disconnect between those who suffer the most from criminal justice policies and those who are actually heard in political discourse?  

Let me just say a caveat, that when we talk about class divisions in the Black community it's important to hold two truths in our head at the same time. Bruce Western and others have shown the way in which class, educational status, income can dramatically reduce the likelihood of being hardest hit by the criminal system – namely incarcerated. Middle class and upper middle class Black people get some measure of protection. It's also true at the same time that Black people of all classes are worse off relative to their class counterparts in the white community. 

One area where class is least protective is policing and police stops. The police do not know how many degrees you have. They don't know how much money you have in your bank account. I want to be very clear that in making this point about class, I'm not making the argument that race or racism don't matter in this context. 

In terms of how it plays out now, I see an awareness that has developed in the Black community in the last 10 years or so about how deeply racist the criminal justice system has become. Twenty or 30 years ago they had a consciousness, but there's levels of understanding. Many of the people I write about in the book wanted to promote the interests of the Black community. They weren't motivated by indifference or callousness. When presented with mounting evidence of how awful this system has been in Black lives, they're reconsidering and recalibrating. 

Lots of former elected officials have said to me some version of “I didn't know at the time and I appreciate that you showed us in our full complexity. I appreciate that you showed the pressures we were under. If I had known then what I know now, maybe I would have been less quick to go along with some of these harsh measures.” 

The second thing that has affected the Black political class has been the emerging movements, led by Black people in particular and led by young people. They not only educated leaders, but pressured them and made them understand that there is a political cost. If you're not moved by the moral argument, then you'll be moved by the political argument. You'll be moved by the people protesting outside the office of District Attorney Jackie Lacey in Los Angeles, for example, where Black Lives Matter LA has held, I believe, a year of consecutive protests against a Black district attorney who has had really some of the worst practices.

From what I can tell, she's been pressured by the movement to change some of her positions on important issues like prosecution of low-level drug offenders, for example, and the aggressiveness with which she prosecutes police officers for acts of violence.

What do you make of the calls to defend or even abolish the police?

What I find so compelling about abolition, initially in the prison context and extended to the police as well, is that it shifts the conversation and forces us to go through experiments in which we imagine what it would take to build that world. I think that exercise is very important, because it pushes us further than we are naturally inclined to go. Cultivating a broader imagination is an incredibly important part of this work, because as you know from my book, often it was lack of imagination that caused people to fall back on [punitive policies]. 

That's what caused D.C. Councilmember David Clarke to call the police rather than public health experts when he was overwhelmed with letters about heroin addicts in public space. He was anti-drug war, but he couldn't imagine responding to a call for help with heroin addicts with anything other than police. That's a very common move from even really good and progressive people. 

People who are for defunding, for abolition, are absolutely right about reinvesting that money into alternative structures that support communities. But the reinvestment part doesn't follow naturally from the terms. We might want to come up with a term that captures the new stuff we want to do. I think that's particularly important because one of the reasons Black communities have ended up supporting more police is that Black communities have always wanted their fair share of the resources.

Then, the evidence suggests the United States has too many police officers doing prophylactic, preventative, or stop-and-frisk style policing. The style of policing that leads to district level harassment, pulling people over for no reason. But we have too little investment in the parts of police departments that investigate unsolved crimes. I'm talking about the investigator or the detective who comes to your house after there's been a robbery, an assault, a rape, or homicide. 

As compared to European countries, in the United States we actually underinvest in those parts of our police departments. Jill Leovy’s book Ghettoside shows this in dramatic detail. She describes an LAPD that's stopping and frisking Black drivers wantonly and yet the homicide detectives are still relying on a fax machine and the fax machine is broken. They have to go with their own money to Staples to buy a printer. Meanwhile, other aspects of the department are kitted out in this ridiculous riot gear that makes them look like they're in Fallujah. 

That under investment is particularly damaging to Black communities because we're disproportionately victimised by crime. Because of racism and this allocation of resources, the police are less likely to respond in Black communities. The kids I used to work with in the charter schools in DC, we talk about no snitching, but one of the reasons they would never call the police after they'd been victimised by crime is they would say, “They're not even going to come. You're wasting time.” 

I did a Q&A with Jill Leovy too and her argument is one I've struggled to articulate in our present moment. She argues the state doesn't have a monopoly on violence in low-income Black neighbourhoods, because investigations of violence are deemphasised and crime victims or their loved ones often take retribution into their own hands.  But right now, establishing or preserving the state's monopoly on violence isn't an appealing talking point. 

Yes, this is another thing nobody's talking about. Whatever we're going to do instead of the police has to be accountable to the public. The best, most direct way to have accountability is to have the individuals be public employees. As long as we have 300 million guns in this country at least some of those state employees are going to themselves be armed. It's unreasonable to ask them to do the job without it. Not as many need to be armed as are armed now, but some of them need to be. But they can't be hiding behind union contracts or civil service protections which make it impossible to remove even the worst performing, most abusive officers. 

We can not call them police if we want to. That's semantic, but maybe symbolism matters. But those people have to be state employees. They can work with community-based nonprofits, but there are also communities that don't have as robust of a nonprofit network, and they deserve protection too. These [community] groups have to be accountable to the state and, when they don't exist, the state has to be there. 

Progressives get all the points I just made when it's applied to education. The notion that things be public and accountable to the state is understood when it comes to schools. It's exactly why so many people on the left are opposed to charter schools, because they say they don't have public accountability. They want these things to be a state function. But this point about the difficulty in removing this entirely from the hands of the state is, I think, one that liberals and progressives understand from other contexts.

Jake Blumgart is a staff writer at CityMetric.