There
have been many postings on this website about Quintain's Wembley Park
'regeneration' and even more comments, particularly as the development has
accelerated recently eating up warehouse and industrial units and apparently
squeezing tower blocks into any spare space. In this guest posting Dilan
Tulsiani stands back and considers the implications for local people as well as
the locality itself.
On the 29th of August 2017, Quintain, a
property investment and development business, announced via its website that it
was ‘spending £1m a day on construction making Wembley Park one of the UK’s
biggest construction sites’. According to Quintain, there will be over 8,500
jobs created, with a further 3,000 homes under construction ‘delivered at a
pace not seen at any other London development site’. The construction framework
consists of six contractors, the notables being: McLaren, Wates, Sisk and
Carillion. Quintain have recently shifted their construction policy from ‘build
to buy’ to ‘build to rent’. They aim to build over 7,000 new homes, with 5,000
labelled as ‘build to rent’, and a further 2,300 as “affordable”.
Quintain and Brent Council have both resisted using
the term ‘gentrification’ to describe their partnership in transforming the
area. Instead, you’ll see ‘regeneration’ on practically every website or poster
promoting the ongoing process. This is understandable, as the critics of any
form of gentrification, are quick to label the selective description by
property developers as deceptive and dishonest. Technically speaking,
regeneration is embedded within the process of gentrification. The Cambridge
Dictionary defines regeneration: ‘to improve a place or system, especially
by making it more active or successful’. Gentrification is defined as: ‘the
process by which a place, especially part of a city, changes from a being poor
to being a richer one, where people from a higher social class live’. Wembley
Park’s ‘regeneration’ process factually falls under both definitions (for the
remainder of this article I will use the term ‘gentrification’ instead of
‘regeneration’, as it is more accurate to my subject matter). Although, to
prevent an ethical breakdown, new tenants would probably cling to
‘regeneration’ as an ontological justification for staying in Wembley.
Residents who have lived in Brent for more than a
decade will remember the industrial abyss that used to exist just a short walk
from the station. In this sense, the gleaming metallic towers, illusory
designer outlet and newly placed pavement are well relished. However, there are
a few fundamental concerns that have simply been swept aside. Firstly, the
effect on the surrounding areas. There is no surprise, that most, if not all
the flats in Wembley are not “affordable”. In fact, that term is usually used
to provoke a narrative of relativity concerning financial status. Quintain has
invested £900 million into Wembley Park, without careful consideration and
evaluation from the residents of Brent, this could lead to some serious
socio-economic disparities. David Fell, a research analyst at Hamptons
International states that property prices in HA9 “have risen by 14% in the last
year [2016], compared to a London average of 10%.” Just down the road from
Wembley Park, a two-bedroom flat is valued around £335,000. A flat of the same
size, less than 10 minutes’ walk away, is valued at £450,000 - £500,000.
Recently, Alto has sold two-bedroom flats in Wembley Park for £800,000.
A similar problem was highlighted in
2014 during gentrification processes in South Kilburn, where a member of the
Residents’ Association claimed: “Those who have
been living in the area are essentially being driven out. This all amounts to a
social cleansing of South Kilburn.” Moreover, Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury
Tenants’ and Residents’ Associations emphasised that the residents who have
lived in South Kilburn for generations could no longer afford to live in their
homes. These are not trivial or isolated matters. They’re simply the effects of
gentrification. Wealth concentrated in one single area in this manner, will
have drastic consequences. The surrounding populations will be allowed to use
facilities, shops and walk the newly paved streets, but there is a cap on their
indulgence of this ideology. Consider what the residents of Chalkhill think
when their homes are (literally and metaphorically) overshadowed by the new
apartment towers. When they, like so many other communities, have a lack of
funding within their own neighbourhoods, along with other serious social
issues. To name one, in Brent and Hounslow 34 high-rise buildings failed fire
cladding tests issued after the horrendous disaster at Grenfell Tower. In contrast,
I think it would be perfectly safe to assume that the newly built apartments in
Wembley Park have some of the best fire safety systems available.
Attached to this
disparity of wealth is the subsequent problem of crime. There is no doubt that the
new properties will have a well-maintained police presence, due to the
proximity of the stadium, along with security guards for each building. Due to
the disparity, crimes in the surrounding areas may increase. Let’s take some of
surrounding areas as examples (take these as approximate averages): From
January - August 2017, Alperton has had the average total crime rate of
118/month, Dollis Hill’s average total crime rate was 137/month, and Tokyngton
stands at an average of 188/month. Tokyngton is the closest of the three areas
to Wembley Park, and in recent years it has had a subsequent increase in total
crimes committed. If the investment in selective industries and areas remains
or increases in the next decade, there should be no surprise at the increase in
crime. This correlation was well represented in gentrification processes in New
York, especially Harlem. As living standards get higher, the price of property
increases, more people will forcibly turn to crime – both petty and serious.
The socio-cultural divide will only widen.
One last fundamental
issue is an assessment by The FA (for those like myself who are not sport
literate: The Football Association). In May 2016, The FA complained that Brent
Council was considering those who visit the stadium “an afterthought”. The
recent constructions sites, which appear directly outside the stadium, could
present potential hazards to fans, according to the FA. In fact, these new
apartments would present the highest, and thus the most expensive flats, with their
own personalised view of the games below them. Wembley is already set to be
overcrowded, yet with ongoing construction, and busy venues/rush hour, there
should be an effective policy by the council to counter this.
Ultimately, I see no
realistic counter-movement to what seems to be an unchecked gentrification
process at Wembley. In the next decade, Wembley, just as many other towns in
Greater London, will be injected with huge sums of money, none of which will
aid ingrained social issues, but will make these issues less noticeable for
those living in the newly ‘regenerated’ areas. In the meanwhile, surrounding
populations will attempt to readjust and comfort themselves from their high
price of living with the luxurious shopping outlets built on the borders
between their areas and the ‘newly regenerated Wembley Park’.
