Stop blaming the artists for the gentrification of British hipsters’ favourite hotspots
Arts and creatives are not a synonym for gentrification; other factors, like the quality of schools and transport, have a bigger impact in turning neighbourhoods into hipsters’ corners, writes Tasos Kitsos
Everyone can think of an example where a large influx of creatives has been associated with gentrification, and the displacement of poorer residents with new higher income ones. Yet there is little understanding of how strong the link between the creative industries and gentrification is in general, and if there is a link, what are the underlying causes.
Together with Dr Max Nathan of UCL and Dr Diana Gutierrez-Posada of Oviedo University, I’ve used big datasets to explore the widely accepted arts-gentrification link to see whether this is observable at a large scale.
In the average neighbourhood, there is hardly a link at all between the creative industries and gentrification – it’s so small as to be effectively negligible. Creative industries workers themselves have stronger links to gentrification than creative businesses, but it is still very, very small.
The links are however much more pronounced in areas of London and other big cities. Some of the most creatively dense neighbourhoods – those with more than 50 per cent of businesses classed as creative – are in and around the capital. Perhaps unsurprisingly, we find that these places have the strongest link between the creative industries and gentrification.
The difference we noted between the impact of businesses and workers led us to explore their impact separately. We found that they are not located in the same neighbourhoods. Arts businesses tend to start up in expensive, already gentrified places whilst artists are often found in cheaper neighbourhoods, that are later gentrified.
We also found that artists often attract creative services workers (such as architects and IT consultants) in a process that often leads to the displacement of the artists themselves, who were originally drawn to the area.
In the majority of places, artists have little to answer for in terms of neighbourhood gentrification with other factors having a much bigger impact such as school performance, existing and new transport links and spillover from other neighbourhoods. This does not discount peoples’ lived experience, especially in areas where it can seem as if the creatives are an overwhelming majority, and the character of a neighbourhood seems to be changing very rapidly.
Good policy can make the difference between the creative sector leading to unbalanced gentrification, or creating a welcome economic neighbourhood renewal and an improvement in residents’ lives. Crucially, the arts and creative sector can be a positive partner in this. The solutions are linked to wider gentrification factors, are politically loaded, emotive and not easy.
Empowering local authorities with greater powers in planning and community building can embed arts projects to the micro-local culture and “pride in place” activities can anchor residents to their existing communities.
Simultaneously, strong requirements for affordable commercial and residential space, together with active labour market policies can create the conditions for people to grow within their existing neighbourhoods. Taken together, these initiatives can mitigate gentrification and the local tensions sometimes associated with artists and the creative industries.
This research was carried out for the Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre – led by Newcastle University and the RSA, funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council.