Stream 4 Article Nº 4-015

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE From CONTESTED_CITIES to Global Urban Justice Stream 4 Article nº 4-015 RESISTING RETAIL GENTRIFICATION IN TRADITIONAL PUBLIC MARKETS IN LONDON SARA GONZALEZ GLORIA DAWSON Resisting retail gentrification in traditional public markets in London Sara Gonzalez, University of Leeds [email protected] Gloria Dawson independent researcher ABSTRACT This paper uncovers the mobilisation and resistance of citizens in the UK against retail gentrification. It focuses on existing and past campaigns that have emerged to save, promote and sustain traditional retail markets in particular in London. By traditional markets we refer to covered and uncovered licensed markets which sell all kinds of produce and services. In this paper we look at traditional retail markets not merely as spaces for consumption but as spaces for socialising, identity building and also for contestation and resistance. The aims of the paper are: 1. To explain how and why traditional markets are under threat 2. To critically analyse processes of gentrification in traditional retail markets 3. To discuss existing campaigns and resistance practices against the gentrification of traditional retail markets in London. The paper is based on research conducted thanks to a scholar-activist award by the Antipode Foundation in 2015. We used a mixed methodology of desk-based research to provide a picture of the state of markets in the UK and uncover existing and past market campaigns. We identified 10 past and present campaigns across the UK and in this paper we focus on 3 campaigns in London. We find that although campaigns not always use the language if gentrification as discussed by academics, the markets as mobilised as spaces for political discussion about the city and urban justice. KEYWORDS: traditional retail markets, gentrification, resistance, London - 1 - Article nº 4-015 1. INTRODUCTION: STRUGGLES AROUND TRADITIONAL RETAIL MARKETS This paper provides evidence on traditional retail markets in London as political spaces where trader and citizens mobilise for wider urban and political issues. By traditional retail markets we refer to indoor or outdoor concentrations of traders where food and other goods and services are sold. In London, and more widely in the UK, several campaigns have emerged in the last years to defend, promote and save these traditional markets from various threats: privatisation, gentrification, closure, demolition, displacement of traders, rent hikes or abandonment and disinvestment (Gonzalez and Dawson, 2015). In these struggles, the market, as we will see, becomes a sort of metaphor of the city where issues of urban justice/injustice take shape. In particular, in this paper, we will interpret these “market struggles” as forms of anti-gentrification mobilisations. This paper has several aims: To report on existing campaigns, activism, resistance and contestation around traditional retail markets in London, a phenomenon completely invisible in academic publication and British public media. To expand the research on anti-gentrification beyond residential struggles to incorporate retail gentrification. To begin to discuss the relevance of traditional retail markets as political spaces for mobilisation about citizenship and the right to the city Gentrification is a concept often used to describe and criticise changes in the social make- up of a neighbourhood. Simply put, it can be seen as the replacement of a working class and/or low income population by middle class as dwellers, consumers, or both. It is a complex process involving changes in the built environment, services (such as education) and the retail mix which shift to accommodate a wealthier population. There has been less focus on the impact of gentrification in the retail mix of a neighbourhood. We suggest that retail gentrification is “the process whereby the commerce that serves (amongst others) a population of low income is transformed/replaced into/by a type of retail targeted at wealthier people. From a different angle, we can also see it as the increase in commercial rents that pushes traders to increase price of their products, change products or change location” (Gonzalez and Dawson, 2015: 19). At first sight gentrification can appear as a positive change; underinvested, untidy or “grotty” markets are replaced with new stalls selling new products perhaps to a new clientele. There is often a commentary of „cleaning up‟ or making an area more „vibrant‟. For example, the transition in an inner London street market, which is located in a gentrifying neighbourhood, was described in an industry magazine as „From Sex and Sleaze to Gourmet Cheese‟, thus making explicit the replacement of sex-workers with quality food. However, behind this positive gloss there can often been a process of exclusion and displacement of previous traders and customers because of higher rents and/or higher prices. The gentrification of markets can take many different forms. Sometimes it can be part of the wider residential neighbourhood gentrification process where the retail offer is “upgraded” to fit the new residents with the other older ones being priced out. Other times markets can be part of “retail-led” regeneration strategies, where the market itself could - 2 - Article nº 4-015 become a flagship for the redevelopment of an area. Often conflict arises in these transformation because of the lack of involvement of traders, customers and the public and threats to the livelihoods of traders or because customers and residents feel that there is going to be a loss of a public space. This paper studies these kinds of mobilisations which as we will see below we interpret as anti-gentrification practices. This particular paper focuses on London but as explained above these market campaigns have been emerging across the UK in the last few decades (for an account of 10 such campaigns see Gonzalez and Dawson, 2015). In Leeds, in northern England, there has been a very active campaign from 2010 to around 2015 (Gonzalez and Waley, 2013), in Peterborough, to the North of London, there has also been a community group working with traders. In Birmingham traders have been campaigning against the closure of the centrally located Wholesale Market. Beyond these relatively established groups there have also been many campaigns and communities that have mobilised to “save their markets” gathering support from thousands of people. A quick look in the media in the last 10 years shows reports of petitions of 12,000 signatures to save Queens Market and 54,000 for Borough Market for in London, 10,000 for Northampton Market, 30,000 in Bolton, 20,000 in Milton Keynes, 9,000 in Stockton, and 8,000 in Oxford. In this paper we are focusing on 3 case studies of markets and campaigns to protect or save markets: Queens Markets, Seven Sisters Markets and Shepherds Bush, all markets at the edge of central and inner London (See Figure 1). Figure 1: From Google maps 2. THE EBB AND FLOW OF MARKETS IN LONDON THROUGHOUT HISTORY TO PRESENT TIMES Markets in London have a very long history. In the second half of 17thc there was a rise in formal, officially recognised markets (Smith, 2002) and by late 18th century London had over 30 of such markets. However by the 19thc formal markets struggled to expand at the same rate as the population and demand for food. Unlike in other cities such as Barcelona - 3 - Article nº 4-015 or Paris, in London for various reasons there was not a centrally organised plan for the expansion of municipal markets (Jones, 2015 and Fava el at, 2015). Through the 19th c. few wholesale markets dominated the retail environments but retail markets to sell directly to people declined (though not disappeared) (Smith, 2002). To cover that gap, street unregulated markets organically emerged as the alternative. Initially, costermongers, itinerant traders, bought goods from wholesale markets and moved around selling in mobile stalls. Later these itinerant traders started to trade in fixed locations (Kelley, 2015). Both Kelley (2015) and Jones (2015) explain how repression and persecution from local authorities partly shaped street trading in London. Costermongers in Victorian London acquired almost the status of criminals and were increasingly displaced from central locations but they were also tolerated, especially when they congregated in fixed locations, as it was recognised that they provided an essential service for the poor. By the beginning of the 20th century there were around 8,000 stalls of street markets in London, the majority in the poorest neighbourhoods (Kelley, 2015). Jones (2015: 17) explains clearly the social value of street markets in London: “Costermongers‟ flexibility, sustainability and efficiency meant that they could rapidly find buyers for produce that had been designated as wastage by others. Traders had low overheads and were able to sell smaller amounts of inexpensive goods to customers who could not afford to buy larger amounts of higher quality produce elsewhere.” (p, 71)” Fast-forward 100 years and in the beginning of the 21st century London still has many markets which still play a vital role in the life of Londoners particularly the poorest ones. A recent report from 2015 counts 99 markets for central and inner London (Cross River Partnership, 2014) and a previous report from 2010 on the whole London reported 162 markets (Regeneris, 2010). In inner and central London, the turnover of markets in 2014 is estimated at £360m per annum (Cross River Partnership, 2014). What emerges from various recent policy reports is that markets in London (street and indoor) are in a moment in transition. There has been a growth in the number and turnover of markets but this is mainly amongst privately run and owned markets (not municipal) and the more niche and type of markets catering for a wealthier clientele: farmers markets, speciality markets, street food, craft markets, etc. There is also a trend of municipal markets to switch to private operators.

Load more