‘It’s just a Trojan horse for gentrification’: austerity and stadium-led regeneration

Abstract

Austerity was the driving principle behind the UK Coalition Government Comprehensive Spending Review in October 2010, with local government facing a disproportionately high share of the spending cuts. Research has focused on the impact of 'austerity urbanism' (Peck, 2012;Watt and Minton, 2016) and urban regeneration (Dillon and Fanning, 2015;Pugalis, 2016), however there is relatively little focus on sports-led regeneration. This article presents case study research of the stadium-led regeneration project involving Tottenham Hotspur FC and the London Borough of Haringey, focusing on the community perceptions of urban regeneration. It has two aims: first, to understand the local authority's approach to regeneration in the context of the austerity agenda; and second, to understand how this approach was perceived by, and the impact on, those communities living within the geographical locality of the developments. Three themes emerged: first, that austerity led the local authority to adopt a pragmatic approach to regeneration; second, that regeneration in a period of austerity is perceived by local communities as a strategy of gentrification; and third, concerns over the lack of community consultation served as a stimulus for community engagement. Two implications arising from this research are that while community groups in Tottenham had limited success in gaining major changes to the stadium-led regeneration in Tottenham they have arguably been able to slow down the process. Moreover, they have been successful in bringing together diverse groups across the community to share knowledge in order to challenge further proposals from Haringey Council.

Feasting in a time of famine: The English Premier League, ‘conspicuous consumption’ and the politics of austerity

“…As well as saving Tottenham almost £16 million, some £41 million worth of public money was found to finance the transport, infrastructure and other community improvements, much of which the club had initially agreed to pay for. Notwithstanding the continuing debates over the benefits to the local community of stadium-led regeneration (Davies, 2010; Thornley, 2002) – seen here, not simply in the case of Tottenham (Panton and Walters, 2018), but in neighbouring Islington and across the cities of Liverpool and Manchester – this type of consumption demonstrates again the limits of austerity, and the stark contrast between the entrenched poverty experienced across each of these neighbourhoods and the wealth of their respective football clubs.…”

Repurposing a community asset for revitalizing cities: The future of FirstOntario Centre in Hamilton

“…Consultation with those citizens that reside around the Centre is essential to avoid having the neighbourhood adversely affected. This is well within reason when the project could have an impact on their living situation or business [34][35][36][37].…”

The Everyday and the Evental Public Space: Rethinking the Spatiotemporal Modalities of Radical Political Events

“…In the immediate aftermath of the riots, the new "Plan for Tottenham" (Haringey Council 2012), despite its emphasis on the need for community led regeneration projects and affordable housing, continued on the historical trajectory laid out in previous regeneration plans, by consigning Haringey's public spaces to more real estate investments. Similarly to the development of the Wood Green Shopping City in the 1970s, the current regeneration plan around the new Tottenham Hotspur Stadium and housing complexes, will stand on the site of a row of small businesses that have been on Tottenham High Road for decades (Dillon and Fanning 2015;Panton and Walters 2018).…”