London's Olympic Legacy

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

London's Olympic Legacy LONDON’S OLYMPIC LEGACY The Inside Track GILLIAN EVANS London’s Olympic Legacy Gillian Evans London’s Olympic Legacy The Inside Track Gillian Evans Department of Social Anthropology University of Manchester Manchester , United Kingdom ISBN 978-0-230-31390-3 ISBN 978-1-137-29073-1 (eBook) DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-29073-1 Library of Congress Control Number: 2016949488 © Th e Editor(s) (if applicable) and Th e Author(s) 2016 Th e author(s) has/have asserted their right(s) to be identifi ed as the author(s) of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Th is work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfi lms or in any other physical way, and trans- mission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. Th e use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. Th e publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. Printed on acid-free paper Th is Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature Th e registered company is Macmillan Publishers Ltd. London For my daughters—valiant warriors well-versed in the ways of the world—they bring me honour. Pref ace On the eve of the 2016 Olympic Games, in Rio, this is a book about London’s Olympic legacy. I have written it, because I believe that London will become the planning-for-legacy test case city, against which all future Olympic cities will be judged. London has done better than any other host city to plan legacy uses for its Olympic Park, and sporting venues, both in advance of the Games, and in the few years immediately after. However, London still has lessons to learn, even while it also has lessons to teach the world, and especially other future host cities, about how to plan better for Olympic legacy. Mine is a story about the drama at the heart of London’s legacy plan- ning operation between 2008 and 2012, a drama that centres on the fi ght for the political prestige of the Olympic legacy, and the struggle of a few determined individuals to take seriously and to honour the prom- ises made in the Olympic bid to transform the heart of East London for the benefi t of everyone who lives there. Th e heartening thing was to witness, inside the Olympic Park Legacy Company, the practical power of a vaguely left-wing political idealism inspired by, or in tune with, the promises of Ken Livingstone’s Olympic bid, and Tessa Jowell’s framing of the legacy challenge. vii viii Preface From the privileged perspective of a researcher on the inside of the planning operation, I capture here, a sense of the unfolding drama as attempts were made in London to harness the juggernaut of Olympic development, and its commercial imperative, to the broader cause of meaningful post-industrial urban regeneration and transformation in the Olympic host boroughs of East London. Th e book is very purposefully written for a public audience, because the public deserves to know what happened with their money, what went well, and why, what failed, and for what reason, and who some of the champions of legacy were, and still are. I want the general public to be able to follow me on what is a diffi cult journey into the heart of a com- plicated situation, so my language is plain. At the end of each chapter, I include a list of ten suggested readings for those who wish to fi nd out more, and some of those books, or articles, will lead the interested reader further into the considerable body of academic work that now exists about London 2012, and which is also a legacy of the Games. I make no attempt to be exhaustive in my treatment of the Olympic legacy; there are many themes and issues that I do not cover at all. My focus is very specifi cally on the life and death of the Olympic Park Legacy Company, which came into existence in 2009, and met its end just before the Games in 2012. I speak here of unsung heroes behind the scenes, and the battle they fought, to hold fast to a set of principles they believed in, even when it often looked like all hope was lost. I describe too some of the scandals and controversies, and I shine a light under the carpet where one or two things have been swept. I do this not to be sensational, but to allow for refl ection on how things were done, and what could have been done better. I show how there was nothing straightforward about the attempts to plan for, and deliver an Olympic legacy from the 2012 Games, and despite outward appearances, the whole thing was an experi- ment, from start to fi nish, in how to do something that had never in the world been done before. Th ere is no need for any future host city to reinvent this wheel, and part of the legacy ought to be that host cities learn from each other about how to ensure that the multi-billion pound spectacle of the Olympic Games yields more than the fl ow of international capital accumulation to cities competing for world-class status through 4 weeks of fabulous Preface ix sport. Th ere is the potential, instead, for the development of a new model of twenty-fi rst-century urban transformation in which dispossession, disrespect, and violence towards those people living in relative poverty is rendered globally unacceptable, and replaced by the attempt to solve the problems of urban marginality through an unfailing commitment to regeneration properly conceived. My hope is that this book will provoke members of the public, policy- makers, academics, students, other host cities, and people who were part of London’s Games and legacy-planning operations, to want to add their own perspectives about London’s continuously emerging Olympic legacy. I have created a website for this purpose, so that an ongoing archive can be produced and enlivened by the contesting voices whose multitude it was impossible for me to capture. I encourage you to contribute. www.gillianevans.co.uk Gillian Evans Manchester, UK Acknowledgements Th is book has been a long time coming. To a certain extent, I got lost in the labyrinth I describe here, and it has seemed a surreal eternity, trying to fi nd my way out. For their endless patience, I want to fi rst thank my editor at Palgrave Macmillan, Harriet Barker, and her assistant Amelia Derkatsch. For its constant support, and the inspiration of that intellectual and collegiate environment, I wish to express my gratitude to the Department of Social Anthropology at Manchester. Th is research was funded by an RCUK Fellowship, which was hosted at the Centre for Research on Socio- Cultural Change (CRESC) at the University of Manchester. I am grate- ful to CRESC Directors, Professor Penny Harvey, and Professor Mike Savage, without whom this project would have been impossible. David Ryner, thank you for long walks, engaging conversation, and for giving me a way in. For their openness to my project and for their tolerance of my presence, I am indebted to the Olympic Park Legacy Company, and all who worked there between 2008 and 2012. I am espe- cially grateful to Tom Russell, Richard Brown, and my boss at OPLC, Emma Wheelhouse (now Frost), whose support for my project, along with the rest of the Comms. Team, was tireless. Th ank you to Paul Brickell for teaching me about urban planning as a problem-solving process, and xi xii Acknowledgements to Adam Williams at EDAW (AECOM UK) for taking a chance and allowing me to witness something of the master-planning process. To the many organisations and people of East London who opened their offi ces and homes, and took time to talk to me, I am most grateful. And, fi nally, deepest thanks to Sola, and to all my family and friends, for keeping the faith and waiting for me to emerge on the other side of this undertaking. Contents P a r t I Th e Old World 1 1 Enter the Labyrinth 3 2 A Herculean Eff ort 19 3 Future-Scaping 51 4 Fighting to Be Heard 75 P a r t I I Th e New World 101 5 Odyssey Becalmed 103 6 Th e Doldrums 129 7 Unruly Suitors 151 xiii xiv Contents 8 An Interminable Saga 181 Afterword: Summer 2015 207 Bibliography 221 Index 227 Acronyms BNP British National Party BOA British Olympic Association CPO Compulsory Purchase Order CSR Comprehensive Spending Review DCLG Department of Communities and Local Government DCMS Department of Culture Media and Sport DLR Docklands Light Railway ECDST Economic, Culture, Development, Sport, and Tourism Committee ELBA East London Business Association EMT Executive Management Team EP English Partnerships EU European Union GLA Greater London Authority GOE Government Olympic Executive HCA Homes and Communities Agency IAAF International Association of Athletics Federations ICA Institute of Contemporary Arts IOC International Olympic Committee KCAP Kees Christiaanse Architects and Planners LCS Legacy Communities Scheme LDA London Development Agency LETF
Recommended publications
  • The Human-Capital Needs of Tech-City, London
    THE HUMAN-CAPITAL NEEDS OF TECH CITY, LONDON By Max Nathan TRANSATLANTIC COUNCIL ON MIGRATION THE HUMAN-CAPITAL NEEDS OF TECH CITY, LONDON Max Nathan August 2014 Acknowledgments This research was commissioned by the Transatlantic Council on Migration, an initiative of the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), for its eleventh plenary meeting, held during November 2013 in London. The meeting’s theme was “Cities and Regions: Reaping Migration’s Local Dividends” and this paper was one of the reports that informed the Council’s discussions. The Council is a unique deliberative body that examines vital policy issues and informs migration policymaking processes in North America and Europe. The Council’s work is generously supported by the following foundations and governments: Open Society Foundations, Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Barrow Cadbury Trust (UK policy partner), the Luso-American Development Foundation, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, and the governments of Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and Sweden. For more on the Transatlantic Council on Migration, please visit: www.migrationpolicy.org/transatlantic. © 2014 Migration Policy Institute. All Rights Reserved. Cover Design: Danielle Tinker, MPI Typesetting: Rebecca Kilberg, MPI No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the Migration Policy Institute. A full-text PDF of this document is available for free download from www.migrationpolicy.org. Information for reproducing excerpts from this report can be found at www.migrationpolicy.org/about/copyright-policy. Inquiries can also be directed to: Permissions Department, Migration Policy Institute, 1400 16th Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036, or by contacting [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Spatial Imaginaries and Tech Cities: Place-Branding East London's Digital Economy
    Title Spatial Imaginaries and Tech Cities: Place-branding East London’s digital economy Type Article URL https://ualresearchonline.arts.ac.uk/id/eprint/14511/ Dat e 2 0 1 8 Citation Voss, Georgina and Nathan, Max and Vandore, Emma (2018) Spatial Imaginaries and Tech Cities: Place-branding East London’s digital economy. Journal of Economic Geography, 19 (2). pp. 409-432. ISSN 1468-2710 Cr e a to rs Voss, Georgina and Nathan, Max and Vandore, Emma Usage Guidelines Please refer to usage guidelines at http://ualresearchonline.arts.ac.uk/policies.html or alternatively contact [email protected] . License: Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives Unless otherwise stated, copyright owned by the author FORTHCOMING IN JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY Spatial Imaginaries and Tech Cities: Place-branding East London's digital economy Max Nathan1, Emma Vandore2 and Georgina Voss3 1 University of Birmingham. Corresponding author 2 Kagisha Ltd 3 London College of Communication Corresponding author details: Birmingham Business School, University House, University of Birmingham, BY15 2TY. [email protected] Abstract We explore place branding as an economic development strategy for technology clusters, using London’s ‘Tech City’ initiative as a case study. We site place branding in a larger family of policies that develop spatial imaginaries, and specify affordances and constraints on place brands and brand-led strategies. Using mixed methods over a long timeframe, we analyse Tech City’s emergence and the overlapping, competing narratives that preceded and succeeded it, highlighting day-to-day challenges and more basic tensions. While a strong brand has developed, we cast doubt on claims that policy has had a catalytic effect, at least in the ways originally intended.
    [Show full text]
  • Making Space
    Alternative radical histories and campaigns continuing today. Sam Burgum November 2018 Property ownership is not a given, but a social and legal construction, with a specific history. Magna Carta (1215) established a legal precedent for protecting property owners from arbitrary possession by the state. ‘For a man’s home is his ASS Archives ASS castle, and each man’s home is his safest refuge’ - Edward Coke, 1604 Charter of the Forest (1217) asserted the rights of the ‘commons’ (i.e. propertyless) to access the 143 royal forests enclosed since 1066. Enclosure Acts (1760-1870) enclosed 7million acres of commons through 4000 acts of parliament. My land – a squatter fable A man is out walking on a hillside when suddenly John Locke (1632-1704) Squatting & Trespass Context in Trespass & Squatting the owner appears. argued that enclosure could ‘Get off my land’, he yells. only be justified if: ‘Who says it’s your land?’ demands the intruder. • ‘As much and as good’ ‘I do, and I’ve got the deeds to prove it.’ was left to others; ‘Well, where did you get it from?’ ‘From my father.’ • Unused property could be ‘And where did he get it from?’ forfeited for better use. ‘From his father. He was the seventeenth Earl. The estate originally belonged to the first Earl.’ This logic was used to ‘And how did he get it?’ dispossess indigenous people ‘He fought for it in the War of the Roses.’ of land, which appeared Right – then I’ll fight you for it!’ ‘unused’ to European settlers. 1 ‘England is not a Free people till the poor that have no land… live as Comfortably as the landlords that live in their inclosures.’ Many post-Civil war movements and sects saw the execution of King Charles as ending a centuries-long Norman oppression.
    [Show full text]
  • The Magic Roundabout: Exploring a Young Digital Cluster in Inner East London
    DRAFT PAPER / TRIPLE HELIX CONFERENCE 2013 The Magic Roundabout: Exploring a young digital cluster in Inner East London Max Nathan1, Emma Vandore2 and Georgina Voss3 1 Spatial Economics Research Centre, London School of Economics; National Institute for Economic and Social Research 2 Centre for London 3 SPRU, University of Sussex; University of Brighton Abstract [to complete] Keywords digital economy, clusters, innovation, London, Silicon Roundabout Acknowledgements This paper is based on research published by the Centre for London (Nathan, Vandore and Whitehead, 2012), and supported by the British Venture Capital Association, BT Plc and the Federation of Small Businesses. Thanks to the Secure Data Service, Tech City Map / Trampoline Systems and DueDil for help with data. Thanks also to Giulia Faggio and Rosa Sanchis-Guarner for help with code, Duncan Smith for maps, and to seminar participants at the UCL Bartlett School of Planning, Frontier Economics and UEA Business School for helpful comments on previous versions. The paper represents the views of the authors, not the Centre for London, the original funders or the data providers. All remaining errors and omissions are our own. This work includes analysis based on data from the Business Structure Database, produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and supplied by the Secure Data Service at the UK Data Archive. The data is Crown copyright and reproduced with the permission of the controller of HMSO and Queen's Printer for Scotland. The use of the ONS statistical data in this work does not imply the endorsement of the ONS or the Secure Data Service at the UK Data Archive in relation to the interpretation or analysis of the data.
    [Show full text]
  • Park Management Plan Executive Summary 2 PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN I LONDON LEGACY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOREWORD
    Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park Park Management Plan Executive Summary 2 PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN I LONDON LEGACY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOREWORD Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park is the centre piece of the legacy of the London 2012 Games and the regeneration of this part of east London. The Park opened to the public in two phases in 2013 and 2014, and has been welcomed by the local community as well as visitors from across the globe. In contrast to Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, people have taken too many parks for granted and perhaps forgotten what incredible spaces they are. However, many have rediscovered parks recently and will continue to use them in the future. During the Covid-19 crisis parks have provided a critical lifeline across the UK. The popularity of local parks soared during lockdown. LLDC undertook research at that time which showed that more than 70 per cent of users said that open space had a positive impact on their physical and mental health. It also showed that during lockdown 60 per cent have been visiting their local park at least twice a week. As the lockdown restrictions were eased, six out of ten people say they will continue to visit their local parks more than they did before Covid-19 hit; and younger people are discovering the benefits of parks with 72 per cent of 25 to 34 year olds surveyed saying they will visit more than they did before the pandemic. It is the connection that parks form with their local communities that makes them special and this is one of the positives to come out of the pandemic crisis.
    [Show full text]
  • Does Light Touch Cluster Policy Work? Evaluating the Tech City Programme
    ISSN 2042-2695 CEP Discussion Paper No 1648 August 2019 Does Light Touch Cluster Policy Work? Evaluating the Tech City Programme Max Nathan Abstract Despite academic scepticism, cluster policies remain popular with policymakers. This paper evaluates the causal impact of a flagship UK technology cluster programme. I build a simple framework and identify effects using difference-in-differences and synthetic controls on rich microdata. I further test for timing, cross-space variation, scaling and churn channels. The policy grew and densified the cluster, but has had more mixed effects on tech firm productivity. I also find most policy ‘effects’ began before rollout, raising questions about the programme’s added value. Key words: cities, clusters, technology, economic development, synthetic controls JEL Codes: L53; L86; O31; R30; R50 This paper was produced as part of the Centre’s Urban and Spatial Programme. The Centre for Economic Performance is financed by the Economic and Social Research Council. Thanks to Simon Collinson, Anne Green, Neil Lee, Henry Overman, Maria Sanchez-Vidal, Rosa Sanchis-Guarner and Emmanouil Tranos for input, Francesca Arduini for code, Cushman & Wakefield for rents data, and to Martin Dittus, Kat Hanna, Sandra Jones, Natalie Kane, Andy Pratt, Matt Spendlove, Emma Vandore, Georgina Voss, Jess Tyrell, Rob Whitehead and Jonty Wareing for fruitful discussions. Seminar participants at Birmingham, Middlesex, Bath and QMUL and at UEA Düsseldorf 2018 made many useful suggestions. Early parts of this research were funded through a Regional Studies Association Early Career Grant. I am grateful to the RSA for their support. This work includes analysis based on data from the Business Structure Database, produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and supplied by the Secure Data Service at the UK Data Archive.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Businesses in the Creative Industry Sector in Lewisham
    Digital Businesses in the Creative Industry Sector in Lewisham March 2012 Andrew Erskine Consulting and Tracey Gregory Consultancy for the Arts Service and Economic Development Service of the London Borough of Lewisham Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................. 2 1. Introduction ................................................................................... 5 1.1 Lewisham digital and media businesses in context ........................ 5 1.2 Defining the digital and media business sector .............................. 9 1.3 Methodology ................................................................................. 10 2. The Digital and Media Sector in Lewisham .................................... 12 2.1 Digital and media businesses in Lewisham – Location ............... 12 2.2 Lewisham digital and media Businesses – the sub sectors......... 15 2.2.1 Software ................................................................................. 15 2.2.2 Media content ......................................................................... 18 2.2.3 Advertising and specialist design ........................................... 21 2.2.4 Other digital media businesses ............................................... 23 2.3 Co-location with other parts of the digital and creative sector ..... 24 2.4 Digital and media sector employment ........................................ 26 3. Lewisham Digital and Media Businesses – Current Practice, Perceptions, Aspirations and Barriers ..................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Deep Dive: 04 Digital and Creative Industries
    Deep Dive: 04 Digital and Creative Industries Date: September 2016 FINAL REPORT Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 3 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 7 2 Definitions ................................................................................................................. 8 3 Significance ............................................................................................................. 10 4 Business and Employment ...................................................................................... 12 5 Skills ........................................................................................................................ 26 6 Key Assets .............................................................................................................. 34 7 Growth Potential ...................................................................................................... 42 8 Spatial Considerations ............................................................................................. 48 September 2016 2 Executive Summary Context Across Greater Manchester (GM) – and the North more broadly – the Digital and Creative Industries sector is disrupting traditional business models and providing strong growth in both employment and Gross Value Added (GVA). Digital, one of four prime capabilities identified for the Northern
    [Show full text]
  • Tech Nation 2016, Our Second Annual Publication We’Ve Seen Some Real Successes with Tech on the UK’S Digital Economy
    TRANSFORMING UK INDUSTRIES THE RT HON DAVID CAMERON MP THE PRIME MINISTER FOREWORD Britain’s world leading tech sector gives us a competitive edge that is not just EILEEN BURBIDGE CHAIR, TECH CITY UK transforming our daily lives but also our AND PARTNER, PASSION CAPITAL economy – we are a becoming a true Tech GERARD GRECH CEO, TECH CITY UK Nation. It’s also helping us to transform the way Government works. Welcome to Tech Nation 2016, our second annual publication We’ve seen some real successes with Tech on the UK’s digital economy. City UK, but this is not purely about specialist Fuelled by a strong digital growth trajectory, the UK is an evolving startups and digital businesses. Tech is truly Tech Nation. The 2016 report demonstrates the clear contribution transforming the way we do all kinds of that digital technology is making to employment in digital and business, right across the country. traditional industries, and to the economy across the country. Indeed, more than half of all digital jobs now The opportunities are enormous if we are to fulfil our potential aren’t in high-tech hubs of London or Leeds – as a nation driven by digital tech innovation. The journey starts they are in businesses of every description, in with knowing what we have to offer and where we need to get every sector – in those that would not traditionally to, working with a highly supportive Government to create the be considered digital businesses at all. optimum set of conditions for continued growth. The digital economy is expanding at an The response from the digital community and their eagerness extraordinary pace, creating jobs and fuelling to share data in support of Tech Nation 2016 has been growth in regions and cities up and down phenomenal.
    [Show full text]
  • Bp1 / Llv Impacts + Beyond
    BP1 / LLV IMPACTS + BEYOND Games Monitor [ Briefing paper on London 2012 Olympic Games ] Games Monitor, December 2015 (fifth edition) – replacing previous background papers and extensively revised Other papers in the series: BP 2 / Finance, profit + infrastructure BP 3 / Apparatus (state + media) http://www.gamesmonitor.org.uk/contact_media_centre Games Monitor was founded in 2005 to raise awareness on issues around the London 2012 development process. We can be contacted at [email protected]. Questions on the background papers specifically should be addressed to Carolyn Smith [email protected]. CONTENTS 1. Loss of habitat and Common Land 7 1.1 Wildlife casualties and habitat destruction 7 1.2 Loss of Common Land, historic landscape and open space 8 Lammas Lands Exchange land (Hackney Marshes) Greenwich Park Wanstead Flats Leyton Marsh Drapers Field 2. Clearance of settlements, firms and local sport 13 2.1 Population displacements 13 Homelessness Gypsies and Travellers Clays Lane estate Students living on the Park Village estate Carpenters Estate, Stratford Manor Garden allotments River Lea bargees 2.2 International context of residential displacement 19 Erasure of Roma settlements, Athens 2004 Forced removal, Beijing 2008 Gentrification and resistance, Vancouver 2010 Clashes and inadequate infrastructure, Sochi 2014 Repression in the favelas, Rio 2016 2.3 Local economy: displacement of small businesses 23 2.4 Sporting losses and targets 25 Grassroots sport Cycling Football (soccer) Swimming Cuts to sports finance Sports participation 3. Contamination fears and impact of construction 27 3.1 Radioactive contamination and hazardous waste 27 3.2 Air pollution associated with construction 28 3.3 Impacts of construction on local residents 29 3.4 Sewage contamination 29 4.
    [Show full text]
  • The Machinery of Eviction
    The Machinery of Eviction: Bailiffs, Power, Resistance, and Eviction Enforcement Practices in England and Wales ! Alexander George Baker ! Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Architecture, Planning, and Landscape Newcastle University January 2017 Abstract This thesis addresses a significant research gap in critical research on forced eviction. It attempts to shift focus from the experiences of the evicted, examined in previous studies, to the work of evictors and eviction enforcement. It asks how the ‘tools, technologies, strategies, and tactics’ of forced eviction develop and are implemented in England and Wales. Using qualitative interviews centred around a case study of a city in the North of England to examine the ‘everyday’ form of evictions, this thesis looks at the work of a Rent Arrears Recovery Team on the ‘Benford’ housing estate in the city, and the working lives of County Court Bailiffs at the local court as they work in the context of a national ‘housing crisis’. Interviews with third party organizations and a High Court Enforcement firm, video footage, and online accounts of large-scale evictions provided by a wide range of sources from social movements are used to explore the ‘exceptional’ forms of displacement that emerge on a national scale. This research shows that Eviction enforcement actors and specialists have to employ forms of coercion which exist on a continuum between the ‘emotional’ and the ‘physical’; these practices are underpinned by ‘intuitive’ tactics built through individual and personal histories and the historical context in which evictions take place. These strategies and tactics of eviction are shaped by the resistance of the evicted, and the development of the disciplinary institutions of eviction happens in response to this resistance, which sets the pace for the development of the capacity of the state and economy to displace.
    [Show full text]
  • A Nomadic War Machine in the Metropolis: En/Countering London's
    A Nomadic War Machine in the Metropolis: En/Countering London’s 21st Century Housing Crisis with Focus E15 Paul Watt Abstract This paper builds upon Colin McFarlane’s (2011) call in City for an ‘assemblage urbanism’ to supplement critical urbanism. It does so by mapping the spatio-political contours of London’s 21st century housing crisis through the geophilosophical framework of Deleuze and Guattari’s A Thousand Plateaus (2013) and Hardt and Negri’s analysis of the metropolis in Commonwealth (2009). The paper examines the Focus E15 housing campaign based around a group of young mothers in the East London borough of Newham. In 2013 the mothers were living in the Focus E15 Foyer supported housing unit for young people in Newham, but they were subsequently threatened with eviction as a result of welfare cuts. After successfully contesting the mothers’ own prospective expulsion from the city, the campaign shifted to the broader struggle for ‘social housing not social cleansing’. The paper draws upon participant observation at campaign events and interviews with key members. The Focus E15 campaign has engaged in a series of actions which form a distinctive way of undertaking housing politics in London, a politics that can be understood using a Deleuzoguattarian framework. Several campaign actions, including temporary occupations, are analysed. It is argued that these actions have created ‘smooth space’ in a manner which is to an extent distinctive from many other London housing campaigns which are rooted in a more sedentary defensive approach based around the protection of existing homes and 1 communities – ‘our place’. It is such spatio-political creativity – operating as a ‘nomadic war machine’ – which has given rise to the high-profile reputation of the Focus E15 campaigners as inspirational young women who do not ‘know their place’.
    [Show full text]