CFP (full text)

Ticketing Site – early birds

London: Aspects of Change: Spatialising London gentrification, 60 years after Ruth Glass – London, 4-6 July 2024 – proposals due 2 April 2024

The intention is to publish key contributions from the conference and we are in discussions with publishers. Further information will be available shortly.

Ruth Glass’s famous introduction to London: Aspects of Change (Glass 1964), published in 1964, presented a view of gentrification that has become definitional, even though, at the time, Glass only attempted to “deploy a colloquial-jokey term” to characterise one of London’s ‘aspects of change’ (Johnson-Schlee 2019: 6). Since then, sixty years of empirical and theoretical analysis of gentrification settings in London have elapsed. In these intervening years, gentrification has been studied in the developed world, the global south, and has been seen to be a global phenomenon. This three-day conference seeks to bring the focus back to London, where it was coined, to look back to Ruth Glass’s definition and to examine London’s current development for signs of gentrification’s latest stages, and of the latest manifestations of resistance to gentrification. It seeks to return the discussion of London’s gentrification back into London as a globalised city, and also as a place – or series of places – in which gentrification occurs.

Gentrification in London has gradually departed from its original definition, which initially bore upon the residential rehabilitation of ‘larger Victorian houses’. It then evolved to include other types of residential upgrading, before morphing into multiple forms, such as commercial or tourism gentrification, amongst others (González and Dawson 2017; Hasenberger and Nogueira 2022) Glass’s definition of gentrification has assuredly become canonical. Hence, this conference will first aim to encourage reflection on the topicality of Glass’s definition of gentrification. In the same vein, it will encourage reflection on the evolution of this definition, whether it be from a theoretical or empirical perspective. As gentrification has mutated over time, the original process later came to be dubbed ‘classical’ or ‘traditional’ gentrification (L. Lees, Slater, and Wyly 2007).

Since June 1963, the definition of gentrification has also extensively evolved in different ways. While Glass’s definition referred to the direct displacement of ‘working class quarters’, it is now no longer the only form of displacement (even though it still does exist). First, the very notion of ‘displacement’ in London has grown to be understood in a broader sense. A case in point is the debate since the early 2000s, which has homed in on new-build residential developments as a form of gentrification with indirect displacement (Davidson and Lees 2005). Second, the notion of super-gentrification – developed by Butler and Lees (2006)  through their analysis of the changes taking place in Islington, one of the boroughs which Glass had in mind when she coined the term forty years earlier – is further evidence that even wealthy professionals are priced out of London boroughs.

Last but not least, the definition has also been geographically expanded. Glass’s definition was highly spatialised in its description of gentrification proceeding in several parts of London. She referred to Hampstead, Chelsea, Islington, Paddington, North Kensington, Notting Hill, Battersea, ‘and to several other districts, north and south of the river’. At that stage, she noted that the East End had so far been exempt, though she noted that it has been ‘transformed-in a manner which contributes a good deal to the prestige of municipal architecture, even if it is not invariably of a high standard’. Sixty years on, it is worth questioning whether any area can be deemed as having been left out of the process.

If Glass is still undeniably a reference in the field owing to the prescience of her pioneering work, gentrification studies on London have unprecedently been expanded by the work of eminent world-renowned researchers (Butler and Robson 2003; Hamnett 2004; L. C. Lees 1994; L. Lees 1994; Watt 2013). Thus, the conference aims at re-visiting Glass’s work, questioning her legacy on the concept, opening up the discussion, and more broadly, questioning sixty years of research and debate on gentrification in London. Among theoretical discussions, contributions are encouraged to identify phases in the debate on gentrification in London. Contributions are also encouraged to compare and contrast these phases with those of the broader debate in gentrification studies: first on the process, then on the causes, later on the consequences. Along the same lines, contributors are invited to consider the specific features of gentrification in London, but also the conditions of these. In order to study the characteristics of gentrification in London, considering other cities within or outside the UK might be conceivable as long as these cases throw light on London. In other words, London should ultimately remain the focal point of the contribution.

The conference will then encourage investigation of under-researched topics and novel avenues for research to explore the ‘aspects of change’ in London today. Contributions can reflect varied scales (at the street, district, borough, city-wide level) in Inner or Outer London. We also welcome paper proposals on any novel aspects of gentrification in London, including, but not limited to, those listed hereinafter.

  • Paper proposals should report on the latest manifestations and effects of gentrification in London, and on their contributions to our understanding of London as a series of places..
  • To continue this discussion, geographically-bound, the conference invites contributors to examine whether some places could be listed as ‘ungentrified’, i.e. places impervious to the gentrification process. Contributors could also question if places of resilience or resistance to gentrification in London still exist while Glass deemed the process as ‘inevitable development’. They can also question the form resistance practices can take – a research field which has begun to flourish over the past few years but which remains largely understudied in the London context (Hubbard and Lees 2018).
  • Contributions can also delve into the relationship between public policy and gentrification building on the existing literature  (L. Lees 2014; Cooper, Hubbard, and Lees 2020; Reades et al. 2022).
  • Contributions are also invited to examine the evolution of the terminology of gentrification in London, a study initiated by Glass in her iconic definition through her tongue-in-cheek comment of ‘the new real estate snob jargon’ when referring to the ‘houselets’ of her time. Indeed, curiously little attention has been paid to the linguistics of the term in the London context.
  • Amongst other research interests, paper proposals can examine the ethnic/racialized dimension of the process in London, a dimension which may have been almost completely left untouched regarding London’s multicultural boroughs contrary to American cities (L. Lees and Hubbard 2022). While Glass at the time referred to migrant communities, to date, the racial aspect of gentrification –  whether on the side of those displaced or the actors of gentrification – has largely remained underexplored in London.
  • As far as displacement is concerned, while some academics have recently started to track the trajectories of the displacees (Reades et al. 2022) and to look into individual survival strategies (L. Lees and Robinson 2021), these studies have clearly highlighted the need for more research.
  • We also seek to place Glass’s observations of ‘displacement’ in the context of the other urban battles in London in the early 1960s, notably the proposals for ‘Ringways’ (Dnes 2019), a series of concentric motorways, that would have resulted in massive demolition, displacement and transformation of London’s urban landscape, including some of the neighbourhoods to which Glass refers.
  • Lastly, the architecture of gentrification in London largely remains unexplored territory. Thus, contributions are also invited to question the evolution of its diverse forms since Glass’s time, when ‘elegant, expensive residences’ were built from ‘modest mews and cottages’.

Of course, to perpetuate the tradition in the field of gentrification studies, interdisciplinary approaches will be strongly encouraged (planning, social science, history, geography, urban studies, political science, etc.).

Date and place

We will use the venues of The King’s Foundation (TKF), with the main sessions for the conference in Chelsea – one of Glass’s original sites – and in Shoreditch in the East End of London, in Glass’s time “exempt” from gentrification, today famous for being famous, but also a site of resistance to gentrification.

Call for Participation

The Call for Participation is currently open. Details on how to register to attend the conference without submitting a paper will be publicised in due course.

Abstracts of 300-500 words along with a short biographical and bibliographical notice are invited to be submitted in the format of a single Adobe Acrobat PDF file. Proposals are due by 2 April 2024. (A link to a submission platform will be added shortly. In the meantime, feel free to drop us a line via the contact form on this website if you have any questions.)

The organizers invite conventional paper proposals, but welcome other appropriate formats to our subject matter such as poster presentations, films etc.

The conference organisers are Dr Matthew Hardy (The King’s Foundation), Dr Wilf Middleton (The King’s Foundation), Dr Mike Raco (The Bartlett Planning School, UCL), Dr Stéphane Sadoux (Université Grenoble Alpes), Dr Marie-Pierre Vincent (Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne).

This conference is hosted by The King’s Foundation in London.

Select Bibliography

  • Butler, Tim, and Loretta Lees. 2006. “Super-Gentrification in Barnsbury, London: Globalization and Gentrifying Global Elites at the Neighbourhood Level.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 31 (4): 467–87.
  • Butler, Tim, and Garry Robson. 2003. London calling: the middle classes and the re-making of inner London. Oxford, Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d’Irlande du Nord.
  • Cooper, Adam Elliott, Phil Hubbard, and Loretta Lees. 2020. “Sold out? The Right-to-Buy, Gentrification and Working-Class Displacements in London.” The Sociological Review 68 (6): 1354–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026120906790.
  • Davidson, Mark, and Loretta Lees. 2005. “New-Build ‘Gentrification’ and London’s Riverside Renaissance.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 37 (7): 1165–90. https://doi.org/10.1068/a3739.
  • Dnes, Michael. 2019. The Rise and Fall of London’s Ringways, 1943-1973. Routledge.
  • Glass, Ruth. 1964. London: Aspects of Change. Centre for Urban Studies Report. London: MacGibbon & Kee.
  • González, Sara, and Gloria Dawson. 2017. “Resisting Gentrification in Traditional Public Markets: Lessons from London.” In Contested Markets, Contested Cities. Routledge.
  • Hamnett, Chris. 2004. Unequal City: London in the Global Arena. Routledge.
    Hasenberger, Hannah, and Mara Nogueira. 2022. “Subverting the ‘Migrant Division of Labor’ through the Traditional Retail Market: The London Latin Village’s Struggle against Gentrification.” Urban Geography 0 (0): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2022.2146925.
  • Hubbard, Phil, and Loretta Lees. 2018. “The Right to Community?” City 22 (1): 8–25.
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2018.1432178.
  • Johnson-Schlee, Sam. 2019. “What Would Ruth Glass Do?” City 23 (1): 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2019.1575119.
  • Lees, Loretta. 1994. “Gentrification in London and New York: An Atlantic Gap?” Housing Studies, April. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673039408720783.
  • ———. 2014. “The Urban Injustices of New Labour’s ‘New Urban Renewal’: The Case of the Aylesbury Estate in London: New Labour’s ‘New Urban Renewal’: Aylesbury Estate.” Antipode 46 (4): 921–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12020.
  • Lees, Loretta C. 1994. “Pluralistic and Comparative Analysis of Gentrification in London and New York.” Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. https://era.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/20628.
  • Lees, Loretta, and Phil Hubbard. 2022. “‘So, Don’t You Want Us Here No More?’ Slow Violence, Frustrated Hope, and Racialized Struggle on London’s Council Estates.” Housing, Theory and Society 39 (3): 341–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2021.1959392.
  • Lees, Loretta, and Beverley Robinson. 2021. “Beverley’s Story: Survivability on One of London’s Newest Gentrification Frontiers.” City 25 (5–6): 590–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2021.1987702.
  • Lees, Loretta, Tom Slater, and Elvin K. Wyly. 2008. Gentrification. New York (N.Y.), United States.
  • Reades, Jonathan, Loretta Lees, Phil Hubbard, and Guy Lansley. 2022. “Quantifying State-Led Gentrification in London: Using Linked Consumer and Administrative Records to Trace Displacement from Council Estates.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, November, 0308518X221135610. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X221135610.
  • UCL Urban Laboratory. 2014. Ruth Glass and London: Aspects of Change 1964-2014. London. https://soundcloud.com/uclurbanlab/sets/ruth-glass-london-aspects-of-change.
  • Watt, Paul. 2013. “‘It’s Not for Us’ Regeneration, the 2012 Olympics and the Gentrification of East London.” City 17 (1): 99–118.