The Urban Injustices of New Labour's “New Urban Renewal”: The Case of the Aylesbury Estate in London

Abstract

This paper discusses the urban injustices of New Labour's "new urban renewal", that is the state-led gentrification of British council estates, undertaken through the guise of mixed communities policy, on the Aylesbury estate in Southwark, London, one of the largest council estates in Europe. In this particular case of post-political planning I show how the tenant support for the regeneration programme was manipulated and misrepresented and how choices were closed down for them, leaving them ultimately with a "false choice" between a regeneration they did not want or the further decline of their estate. I look at what the estate residents thought/think about the whole process and how they have resisted, and are resisting, the gentrification of their estate. I show revanchist and postpolitical practices, but ultimately I refuse to succumb to these dystopian narratives, very attractive as they are, for conflict/dissent has not been completely smothered and resistance to gentrification in and around the Aylesbury is alive and well. I argue that we urgently need to re-establish the city as the driver of democratic politics with an emancipatory agenda, rather than one that ratifies the status quo or gets mired in a dystopic postjustice city.

The right to community?

“…Against a backdrop of rising homelessness in the UK, and increasing demand for affordable housing in the capital, London's council estates are currently experiencing a 'new' wave of urban renewal (Lees 2014a). This state-led redevelopment, enabled by local (borough) councils, has been instigated by national and regional policies favouring the involvement of private finance in the upgrading of council estates.…”

“…not council housing and at a higher rent), and the majority sold at market-rate, this suggests that the social composition of the area will change considerably, and long-term outmigration and displacement will be inevitable. This displacement of leaseholders and tenants via agreement, and if necessary, a CPO, is something that is generally seen as being in the public interest given the demand for new housing in London, irrespective of the fact that what is being demolished is much sought-after and often structurally-sound council housing (Lees 2014a).…”

Key Variables for Decision-Making on Urban Renewal in China: A Case Study of Chongqing

“…, 82), for decision-making on urban renewal were selected ( Table 2) from summarising and analysing the interview results. 15 Commercial bank I 56 Internal social contact I 16 Shopping center I 57 External connection I 17 Sports facilities I 58 Education level I 18 Open space I 59 Medical condition and level I 19 Water supply I 60 Crime and social security I 20 Electricity supply I 61 The number and level of landmark heritage I 21 Gas supply I 62 The uniqueness of Architectural/landscape I 22 Sewerage I 63 Housing demolition and relocation difficulty I 23 Road network setup I 64 Housing demolition and relocation cost I 24 Traffic flow I 65 Relocation compensation method (monetary compensation/housing compensation) I 25 Functional area traffic I 66 Resettlement method I 26 External public transportation I 67 Land use and building type I 27 Greening rate I 68 Land and construction costs I 28 Vegetation type I 69 Total return/internal rate of return I 29 Air quality I 70 Investment time period…”

UnMaking Public Housing Towers

“…The media have also played a predominant role in spreading these socioenvironmental principles (see Feldman and Stall 2004;Lees 2013;Venkatesh 2000), representing public housing as deficient or dangerous through textual and visual "regimes of truth" (Foucault and Gordon 1980) that appear "natural." In Boston and Chicago, for example, the environment and geographies of public housing buildings and neighborhoods were relentlessly linked to residents depicted in denigrating race-and class-based terms as "others" (Pfeiffer 2006;Vale 2002).…”

“…Although this would not be officially approved by HUD for another four years, her statement marked Las Gladiolas as a stand-in ("buildings like Las Gladiolas") for problematic projects in general. Framing public housing space and its residents as "a problem" has the additional effect of implicitly validating paternalistic behavior by policy-makers (as "saviors"), of obscuring the negative effects of demolition as an authoritative intervention, and of disrespecting residents and undermining their confidence or willingness to participate in political activism (which then limits their ability to return to the new communities) (Hackworth 2005: 46;Lees 2013;Pfeifer 2006 Gladiolas as a controversial place (Fernández Arrigoitia 2010).…”