Hipsters and spikes: mapping gentrification and defensive architecture in Tower Hamlets

This research has studied the effects of gentrification on defensive architecture and considered it in spatial and social terms. House prices and selected shops have been used to identify gentrified and non-gentrified areas, along with defensive architecture to be mapped for the study of spatial implications. Surveys and semi-structured interviews were conducted to understand people’s perception of effects of gentrification on social exclusion revealed through defensive architecture.

In regards to the location of defensive architecture, hypothesis 1 (The more gentrified an area is, the more extensive is the use of defensive architecture) proved to be true at the inter-ward level but not at the within-ward level. Also, in non-gentrified areas, anti-homeless spikes were found but in gentrified areas other forms of defensive architecture were found, potentially supporting Davis’ claim. Interestingly, anti-homeless spikes were found around homeless shelter, which corresponded to Green’s finding that homeless people tend to be found around social facilities.

Hypothesis 2 (The undermining of social cohesion by gentrification process leads to the implementation of defensive architecture) has proved to be true from interviews in a sense that defensive architecture reflected revanchist nature of gentrification towards the non-mainstream public. It was also found that the disconnection between governments and people, uncomfortable gap between residents and the homeless can be highlighted with the presence of defensive architecture.

This focused case study on the relationship between gentrification and defensive architecture has contributed to research field by providing new empirical evidence and for the first time mapped defensive architecture along with indicators of gentrification. It also draws on qualitative data, generating discussions on the implications of social exclusion, perceived social effect of gentrification. Major limitations include small sample size due to time constraint, inability to map more wards for comparison, specificity of findings to the sites of study. Therefore, a larger sample size and more comprehensive case studies would be suggest in any future research projects.

References
Atkinson, R., and Bridge, G. (2005). Gentrification in a Global Context: The New Urban Colonialism. London: Routledge.
Colenutt, B. (2009). Winners and loosers from urban growth in South East England. In L. Porter and K. Shaw (eds.). Whose Urban Rennaisance? Oxon: Routledge.
Davis ,M. (1992). Fortress Los Angeles: The militarisation of urban space. In M. Sorkin (ed.). Variations on a Theme Park (154‐180). New York: Hill & Wang.
Greene J. (2014). Managing poverty, managing dissent: Homeless politics and collection action in London. Policy and Politics 42(3): 315-331.
Goldberg, J. (1994). The decline and fall of the Upper West Side: how the poverty industry is ripping apart a great New York Neighbourhood. New York, April (25): 37-42.
Hackworth, J. (2002). Postrecession gentrification in New York City. Urban Affairs Review, 37 (6): 815-843.
Institute for Children, Poverty & Homelessness. The Process of Poverty Destabilization: How Gentrification is Reshaping Upper Manhattan and the Bronx and Increasing Homelessness in New York City. Retrieved 9 June, 2016, from http://www.icphusa.org/index.asp?page=16&report=120&pg=130.
Kramer EM and Lee S (1999) Homelessness: The other as object. In Min E (ed.) Reading the Homeless: The Media’s Image of Homeless Culture: 135-157. London: Praeger.
London Datastore. Average House Prices, Ward, LSOA, MSOA. Retreived 8 June, 2016, from

http://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/average-house-prices-ward-lsoa-msoa.

New Policy Institute

Valverde M (2012) Everyday law on the street: city governance in an age of diversity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.