Green spaces and grey consequences: how gentrification is reshaping London’s urban landscape
Written By Anthea Gabot
London has historically been home to some of the world’s greatest architecture; but recently, the urban landscape has been getting recognition for its public outdoor areas or, as they are better known, green spaces. Small pockets of nature found within London, green spaces provide an opportunity to unwind and relax from the bustling work-drive atmosphere. It is known that nature can play an important role in mental and physical health, but as the number of green spaces grow and change, so do their surrounding neighbourhoods – and sometimes in ways that exclude the very communities they were initially meant to help.
Gentrification is said to improve housing and standards of living but also increase prices and displace previous tenants. This type of urban renewal requires significant funding, and the creation of green spaces tends to attract new businesses and wealthier residents, thus making it an attractive opportunity for profit. Despite enhancing public wellbeing, there seems to be a symbiotic relationship between green spaces and gentrification. Green spaces may be good for health, but whose health is it really improving? And who is being left behind?
As one of the largest cities in Europe, London has been subjected to countless urban development projects. The London Environment Strategy proposed by the Mayor of London addresses various environmental challenges in hopes of promoting sustainability and quality of life. Aims of the strategy involve developing “green infrastructure”, attempting to make London the first National Park City, where more than half of its area will be green.
The interdisciplinary nature of urban development brings together urban planning, healthcare, and public policy — numerous articles from all spheres of academia note green spaces as being an integral part of any modern urban city. Architecture and urban planning note how the high-rise buildings tend to obstruct the horizon in London, transforming the urban landscape into a valley in itself – a phenomenon linked to lower mental health and general unhappiness among adults. Whilst healthcare papers highlight how nature reserves allow for exercising and socialising among people – relating to better mental and physical health - public policies focus on green spaces as a source of biodiversity whilst reducing both air and water pollution.
Whilst the overwhelming benefits of green spaces cannot be ignored, it unintentionally overshadows the consequent marginalisation of specific communities. Disparities in health within London are not mere coincidences but rather an amalgamation of systemic inequalities. Investigating the intricate relationship between race, gender, religion, and socioeconomic status – the ‘social determinants of health’ is more than a term thrown around during our clinical and professional practice (CPP) sessions.
Considering how these factors impact health, the social determinants of health have reshaped global approaches to health and wellbeing, causing a shift in the importance of education and work when it comes to quality of life and health. And although the concept may seem straightforward, the potential health consequences of green gentrification emphasize how our current system still works to perpetuate these disparities.
Despite the initial aims of the London Environment Strategy to improve health and diversity, the creation of these green spaces arguably hampers the development of marginalised populations. In a neoliberal society, green spaces are not just public amenities but also business ventures. The cost of creating and maintaining these spaces requires a level of funding that must be returned with a profit – money that is generated by increasing property value and attracting new businesses. Ultimately, this leads to gentrification and a reshaping of the community. The gentrification of these neighbourhoods can have a direct relationship with the social determinants of health; by utilising socioeconomic status, those with lower incomes are forced out of their homes.
Elephant and Castle is one of the most recent examples of this green gentrification. As part of an urban regeneration movement, the Heygate Estate was demolished between 2011 and 2014 to make way for the new and upcoming “Elephant Park”. Described as “no longer an ideal place to live”, this housing estate was home to almost 3,000 people; and despite the existing promises to re-house residents, the newer build only has 100 social housing opportunities. Thus, many former residents were forced to move further into Greater London, or out of London completely. Removed from their place of work, their support network, and the environment they have grown comfortable in, this displacement has clear consequences for mental health. Meanwhile, the ever-increasing public transport prices become yet another barrier for accessing work and services,thus leaving these populations on the backfoot of social justice. Transport for London has never had the greatest reputation, slow bus times, delayed tube times, hot and crowded transport; to add to this myriad of issues, the impacts of air pollution in busy cities are making its way to the forefront of global health. Don’t let London’s rare three days of sunshine fool you; air pollution has been a rising issue, especially throughout the city’s underground tube network. Notably higher in tube stations compared to the streets, air pollution levels have been linked to unhealthy lungs in the same way as smoking. The lowest air quality throughout London’s underground stations is found at the end of each line as it creates the perfect opportunity for particulate matter to accumulate. As a result of this, those living in the outer zones who are relying on public transport are not only exposed to higher pollution levels but are exposed for a longer duration during their commute back into central London. Ironically, while green spaces were designed to enhance air quality and public health, its role in gentrification has inadvertently forced many of its former residents to breathe in higher levels of air pollution which pose an even greater risk to their health.
Elephant and Castle is only one example of how green gentrification is making its way through London. And while the pursuit of greener cities is often framed as an unquestionable good, their expansion throughout London has become a double-edged sword – improving the environment for some whilst displacing others into areas of higher pollution, away from their work, and into greater socioeconomic instability. True progress in urban development cannot come at the expense of the most vulnerable; with only 25 years left of the London Environment strategy deadline, it is vital that green spaces are integrated with policies that prevent displacement, ensure affordable housing, and make sustainable transport truly accessible. Otherwise, the promise of a healthier, greener city will remain an exclusive privilege – widening the inequalities it claims to address.
Read the rest of the edition here