These billboards shed light on why people are moving to London – and why others are leaving

One of the responses on the Holborn billboard. Image: courtesy of Rebecca Ross.

If you had free rein over two giant billboards in central London for just under a week, what would you do with them?

That was the question faced by Rebecca Ross,a lecturer in communication design at the Central Saint Martins art school, when she undertook some consultancy work for billboard firm Outdoor Plus. As part of her remuneration, the firm gave her use of two of its electronic billboards, in Holborn and Aldgate.

So, what do do with them? Most of us, let's face it, would probably fill the space with our Instragram feed, or with pictures of cats, or with our Instagram feed about cats. But, as part of the "London is Changing" project, Ross has been collecting anonymised, individual testimonies of why people are leaving or arriving in London. She's using the billboards to highlight her research into the personal stories behind London's migration patterns. 

Part of the appeal lay in the chance to highlight a socially conscious message "in an environment, and on a a scale, usually reserved for a sponsored corporate message," Ross says.  The London is Changing board in Holborn is running between a Cadbury advert and an advert for the government's Good for Business campaign. 

More importantly, though, Ross believes the complex demographics of London aren't thoroughly understood, and are often oversimplified:

The reason it's called "London is changing" and not "London is getting crap" or "London is selling out" or "London is getting too expensive" or "leaving London" is because the situation is actually much more complicated and nuanced than that.

We know anecdotally that there are loads of people coming to London for work from other European countries, for example, where there aren't many work opportunities. Their situation is different to the middle class situation we so often hear about. There are lots of reasons why people relocate – sometimes they're relocating because there are important opportunities here that there aren't elsewhere.

Of course, many are also forced out of London by rising prices: of the 155 responses the project has attracted so far, "most are from people leaving", Ross says. She hopes that the visibility of the billboards will encourage a more diverse range of testimonies, however – and more of those lesser-heard stories of new arrivals in London, who may have been less likely to hear about the project through social networks and university mailing lists.

Once the project is completed, Ross aims to combine the testimonies with more "statistically rigorous" numerical datasets on demographics in different areas (while the testimonies are anonymous, they do ask for respondents' borough). The responses will also be available to download in full online. 

Here are a selection of the testimonies collected so far, taken from those that'll be shown on the billboards until Friday. First, the comments from some of those who are moving to London:

...and why others are leaving:

If you've moved to, from, or within London within the past year, or plan to in the next, you can leave your own testimonial for the project here. Responses will be collected until the end of the year.

Like what you see? Why not follow CityMetric on Facebook or Twitter. Go on, we're lovely.

 
 
 
 

Segregated playgrounds are just the start: inequality is built into the fabric of our cities

Yet more luxury flats. Image: Getty.

Developers in London have come under scrutiny for segregating people who live in social or affordable housing from residents who pay market rates. Prominent cases have included children from social housing being blocked from using a playground in a new development, and “poor doors” providing separate entrances for social housing residents.

Of course, segregation has long been a reality in cities around the world. For example, gated communities have been documented in the US cities since the 1970s, while racially segregated urban areas existed in South Africa under apartheid. Research by myself and other academics has shown that urban spaces which divide and exclude society’s poorer or more vulnerable citizens are still expanding rapidly, even replacing public provision of facilities and services – such as parks and playgrounds – in cities around the world.

Gated developments in Gurgaon, India, have created a patchwork of privatised services; elite developments in Hanoi, Vietnam, offer rich residents cleaner air; and luxury condos in Toronto, Canada, displace local residents in favour of foreign investors. An extreme example is the Eko Atlantic project in Nigeria – a private city being built in Lagos, where the majority of other residents face extreme levels of deprivation and poverty.

A commodity, or a right?

Although these developments come with their own unique context and characteristics, they all have one thing in common: they effectively segregate city dwellers. By providing the sorts of facilities and services which would normally be run by public authorities, but reserving them exclusively for certain residents, such developments threaten the wider public’s access to green spaces, decent housing, playgrounds and even safe sewage systems.

Access to basic services, which was once considered to be the right of all citizens, is at risk of becoming a commodity. Privatisation may start with minor services such as the landscaping or upkeep of neighbourhoods: for example, the maintenance of some new-build estates in the UK are being left to developers in return for a service charge. This might seem insignificant, but it introduces an unregulated cost for the residents.

Privatising the provision of municipal services may be seen by some as a way for wealthier residents to enjoy a better standard of living – as in Hanoi. But in the worst cases, it puts in a paywall in front of fundamental services such as sewage disposal – as happened in Gurgaon. In other words, privatisation may start with insignificant services and expand to more fundamental ones, creating greater segregation and inequality in cities.


A divided city

My own research on branded housing projects in Turkey has highlighted the drastic consequences of the gradual expansion of exclusive services and facilities through segregated developments. These private housing developments – known for their extensive use of branding – have sprung up in Istanbul and other Turkish cities over the past two decades, since the government began to favour a more neoliberal approach.

By 2014, there were more than 800 branded housing projects in Istanbul alone. They vary in scale from a single high-rise building to developments aiming to accommodate more than 20,000 residents. Today, this development type can be seen in every city in Turkey, from small towns to the largest metropolitan areas.

The branded housing projects are segregated by design, often featuring a single tower or an enclosing cluster of buildings, as well as walls and fences. They provide an extensive array of services and facilities exclusively for their residents, including parks, playgrounds, sports pitches, health clinics and landscaping.

Making the same services and facilities available within each project effectively prevents interaction between residents and people living outside of their development. What’s more, these projects often exist in neighbourhoods which lack publicly accessible open spaces such as parks and playgrounds.

This is a city-wide problem in Istanbul since the amount of publicly accessible green spaces in Istanbul is as low as 2.2 per cent of the total urban area. In London, 33 per cent of the city’s area is made up of parks and gardens open to the public – which shows the severity of the problem in Istanbul.

These branded housing projects do not feature any affordable units or social housing, so there are no opportunities for less privileged city-dwellers to enjoy vital facilities such as green spaces. This has knock-on effects on excluded residents’ mental and physical health, contributing to greater inequality in these respects, too.

Emerging alternatives

To prevent increasing inequality, exclusion and segregation in cities, fundamental urban services must be maintained or improved and kept in public ownership and made accessible for every city-dweller. There are emerging alternatives that show ways to do this and challenge privatisation policies.

For example, in some cities, local governments have “remunicipalised” key services, bringing them back into public ownership. A report by Dutch think-tank the Transnational Institute identified 235 cases where water supplies were remunicipalised across 37 countries between 2000 and 2015. The water remunicipalisation tracker keeps track of successful examples of remunicipalisation cases around the world, as well as ongoing campaigns.

It is vitally important to keep urban services public and reverse subtle forms or privatisation by focusing on delivering a decent standard of living for all residents. Local authorities need to be committed to this goal – but they must also receive adequate funds from local taxes and central governments. Only then, will quality services be available to all people living in cities.

The Conversation

Bilge Serin, Research Associate, University of Glasgow.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.