This essay aims to critically examine how artists’ own preferences of location are shaped and the influence on helping place formation, considering its relation with gentrification and regeneration. Taking Shoreditch in Hoxton area, London, as the case, I will further discuss how a place known for its vibrancy of cultural activities gradually bring in gentrification and its possibility and actual effect on leading urban regeneration. The influence of locality arises in its concentrated social network and capitals in terms of creative labors, knowledge sharing and other cultural resources. It not only attributes to reducing marketing and manufacturing costs, but also reinforces the local development. (Drake, 2003) Linking the case to the importance of location decision in the cultural and creative industries in a general scope, the continuous growths in Shoreditch illustrates how location contributes development in the area in terms of both infrastructure and professional talents. The essay is divided into two key sections, which starts by reviewing the historic condition of Shoreditch and the processes of gentrification happening in this area with real examples of artistic venues founded in the1990s to see how the phenomenon affects the artists, residents and neighborhood.
Shoreditch’s location between financial district in the city centre and the less prosperous east end of London reflects Zukin’s (1984) concept of ‘Loft living’ about artists’ location choices in the earlier phase that supports formation of a place. The urban artists who own abundant cultural capital but insufficient economic capital chose to dwell here and used their aesthetic eyes to convert ugliness in a post-industrial area into a source of appreciation. (Morley, 2003)
In the case of Shoreditch, which was seen as the most artistic place in the 1990s in London, gives an example of how artists’ arrival and their effort in building up career, for example, art galleries and cinemas, cultivated the Young British Artist scenes in 1990s and further turned the city fringe into a place of high rent apartments, trendy stores and restaurants, and later developed as part of the urban revival, which influenced the area in both positive and negative ways.
In the second section, Shoreditch’s position as a brand name for policy makers to promote a neighborhood of diverse and mix-used residential and commercial accommodation illustrates a condition of urban renaissance, taking cultural activities as the drive. (Pratt, 2009; Harris, 2012) I will argue whether this culture-led regeneration is effective despite of the negative sides of gentrification, or it only suggests a form of culture consumption. Besides, it is suggested by Florida (2002) that the ‘creative class’ having high mobility in pursuing of jobs and their tendency to move to cities that can best represent their identities. As Shoreditch is seen as ‘the coolest place on the planet’ (Time Magazine, 1996), the theory will be used to examine whether in this case the artists being part of the creative class move with attractive spots, or the trajectories are the result of gentrification and regeneration.
Gentrification
It has been discussed for a long time that art and artists are factors that affect the development of a place, for example, the gentrification of city fabric and displacement of lower income neighborhood with regard to the price of real estates, local prosperity and distribution of population. In the case of Shoreditch, the processes of place formation and gentrification are well illustrated with real examples from history. Shoreditch is situated in east London close to Liverpool Street station and old street station. In its north lies the Hoxton Square; southeast lies the renowned visitors spot, Brick Lane. Geographically, this area is often referred as Hoxton, where the less welcomed undertakings such as illegal trading and harmful manufacturing activities happen. Historically, the Shoreditch-Hoxton area (nicknamed ShoHo) was severely bombarded in the Second World War, leaving smoked and damaged housing to the residents, and a lot of council housing projects were subsequently launched later on to meet the shortage of supply. Due to its edging position in the city, this area has experienced substantial social deprivation and social exclusion for a long time. (Pratt, 2008) In the 1980s, inner London experienced a large scale of deindustrialisation, which caused 65 percent of manufacturing employment loss. (Gramham and Spence, 1997, 463; Harris, 2011) This situation thus resulted in the first move-in of creative artists to the abandoned warehouses and workshops. In addition to visual artists, some fashion designers and musicians are also attracted to this area to reuse the properties because of its central location (Harris, 2011). Artists chose to use the derelict warehouses and factories not only for the cheaper rent, but also to demonstrate their different sense of aesthetics from the others. In Ley’s (2003) interview with a sculptor in Vancouver suggests that
‘Artists need authentic location’every artist is an anthropologist, unveiling culture. It helps to get some distance on that culture in an environment that does not share all of its presuppositions, an old area, socially diverse, including poverty groups.’
This expression properly describes why a place full of depression and isolation like Shoreditch drew artists’ attention. Besides, it is mentioned by Zukin (1988, 58-61) that the shifting appreciation of old buildings reflects the idea of an identified ‘place’. By the time when ‘living loft’ has become a well-known residential style in the US and Western Europe, it is recognized not just as an economical option, but also a trend, which influence people’s aesthetic standards onwards. Despite that the buildings that artists choose to locate in can be shattered and ancient factories or relatively small and unheated floors in the fringe areas, which suggest that artists are living poor, artists are still able to transform the place into a loft for the purpose of both live and work with their abundant cultural capital. The famous jazz bassist Peter Ind, for example, launched his first business, a record label called Wave, along with a record studio in Hoxton Square in 1981; the Bass Clef jazz club, which was seen as one of the key place of the rising of this area, was later created and born in the basement of the same building. (Nowicka, 1944) During the 1990s, artists’ agglomeration in Shoreditch and its surroundings have been in blossom and shaped a new artistic scene. Another example is the commercial art gallery, White Cube, which opened in 1999 in a former factory. As one iconic place settled down in this area, others were inspired and attracted to follow the mode and thus make the Young British Artist scenes (YBA) gradually flourish. (Colomb, 2009) Creative workers from all kinds of fields, such as gallery curators, music producers, designers, media workers and so on, began to move in with entertainment businesses followed to meet the new residents’ need. Trendy bars, coffee shops, nightclubs, cinemas and restaurants, together with their artistic consumers, created the blossom of ShoHo nightlife scene. On the one hand, this area has been changed into a completely different place, with a distinctive status as an artistic centre, on the other hand, the processes of gentrification has begun to push those earliest arrived artists out.
Not only within the UK, the media and fashion editor promoted Shoho as ‘the hot spot to be’ (Morley, 2003; Colomb, 2009), in 1996, Time Magazine from the US also credited Hoxton ‘the coolest place on the planet’ (Pratt, 2008) With the promotion of the media, the price of real estate upsurged rapidly and eventually forced the artists to find another place to live. It can be observed that artists’ location choice is benefit to shape a place, however, as economic and social dimension are both taken into consideration, the effect of gentrification is harmful to both the artist and the place. First of all, to the existing residents in Shoreditch and Hoxton, the expense of going to a new local store or restaurant is beyond their budget. The idea of mixing the use of residential and commercial should be positive to increase the amount of economic activity, which leads to higher surrounding property values. (Cao and Cory, 1981; Song and Knaap, 2004) However, since the place has been crowned with a fashionable and creative image, its popularity also reflects on the price of products and service. The locals thus end up living in their old houses with higher expense if they consume in the new coming stores in their neighborhood, which is a negative influence on expanding gap between the old residents and the new comers. Secondly, gentrification gives the place a new face, which is not the same one that artists are fond of or the one that they would like to create. Originally, artists would like to choose an edging area as their living and working place not just for the low rent, but also because of the sense of detachment and uniqueness from the crowdedness and commercial prosperity of the city centre. As Zukin (1988, 66-69) points that ‘ living in a loft is an attempt to replace modernism’s mass production of the individual with an individualization of mass production.’
Artists take advantage of their cultural capital to individualized the residence and result in attracting professionals who work in related fields and share similar habitus (Bourdieu, 1984) to build up their cluster. However, once the place becomes popular with the public, and stronger economic capital flows in, it is no longer an exclusive place for the artists, but just ‘anywhere’ in London.
Zukin (1988:15) mentioned that when people start to find the artistic dwelling and living habits are commoditized and duplicated as a cultural model by the middle class, old factories became a means of expression for a ‘post-industrial’ civilisation’. Not just the housing style in ShoHo can be designed and reproduced, but also the artistic aesthetics and looks can be formed, marketed and fashioned by stores, housing agents or government institutes. Facing the problems of both high rent and lose individuality, artists search for another edging and unnoticed area in easterner London or Northerner Hackney to live in, nevertheless, as in the third wave of gentrification (Cameron and Coaffee, 2005), which government try to provoke urban renaissance by implementing policy in certain area, artists’ moving action is repetitive and as a result creates their trajectories.
The notion of creative class, which is cited by Florida (2002), although consist broadly of occupations from typical creative workers such as artists, filmmakers, media workers to other creative professionals such as engineers and scientists, helps to understand the creation of artists’ trajectories in Shoreditch partially. Firstly, as Peck (2005) indicated that
‘ The Creative Class seek out tolerant, diverse and open communities, rich in the kind of amenities that allow them precariously to maintain a work-life balance, together with experiential intensity. ‘
The creative class chooses creative milieu that is composed of people with both openness and expertise, and activities that express creativity, which corresponds to the core value of their professions. As discussed in previous paragraphs, artists and other creative workers build up the networks to meet their own demand for work professionals by congregating in the area. On the other hand, the entertainment industry in Shoreditch also adds to the opportunities for them to meet and mingle with new people not only as potential future partners or friends, but also serve as stimuli to artistic innovation. The previous edgy place where heterogeneity is shown as being revitalised, not only caters to their demand concerning both work and individual life, but also validates their identities as people with tolerance and novelty (Florida, 2002: 304). However, the creative class’ high mobility in pursuing of jobs and creative cities cannot completely describe changing scenes in Shoreditch. What is not in accordance with the theory is that the first artists’ moving out is the result of gentrification rather than artists’ own willingness. While new coffee shops, restaurants appeared one by one and most of the properties were refurbished or converted into residential accommodations, the once artistic place is on its way to play a new role as consumption space with the name of culture. (Pratt, 2008)
Culture-led Regeneration?
The concept of locality attribute to collective processes of creativity has been an essential point of view when it comes to the discussion of creative clusters. (Scott, 2000; Drake, 2003) In cultural and creative industries, it is important to locate in a place which they can get easier and closer connection with other creative workers. In the case of Shoreditch and Hoxton, it is observed that as artists dwelled in cheap studios one by one, other creative workers such filmmakers, fashion designers, musicians and media workers all chose to live and work there; thus the locality-based social and cultural network is developed and shared to create a new communities of creative workers in this area. Moreover, the locality is regarded as a brand and reputation of unique cultural activities in London, which grant Shoreditch and Hoxton the potential to lead an urban regeneration by using its cultural characteristics. Pratt (2005, 2008) revealed that the notion of ‘Cool Britannia’, which brands the UK with urban fashion scenes as well as Britpop prevalence in the1990s, has been further exploited by the New Labor government to make the area the representation of urban revival economically, nevertheless, the policy makers did not succeed to catch up the rapid cycling processes of gentrification, benefiting only people from other areas, who were already in better condition to get good jobs and left the old community to be neglected. Like in other cases of urban renaissance, one group of people’s regeneration can be the other group’s gentrification.
While in recent years it is a trend to spur local economic revitalization by using local culture and creativity, marketing the creative industries in deprived areas is still a controversial urban regeneration strategy. Reimaging post-industrial districts may contribute to local economic development and marketing efforts, however, whether it likewise helps to break down the segregated social communities and spaces within an area, is still doubtful. The general condition in Shoreditch and Hoxton was relatively poor before it went gentrified, as it was notorious of illegal trades and crimes such drug dealing and shootings. Whereas regeneration aims to bring in new economic force in to a derelict area to create new residential space, job opportunities, commercial activities, it is inevitable to face the problem of deprivation and uneven distribution of interest; the ethnical minority, the poor and the indecent ones fell into victims to the middle class when culture-led regeneration began to replace the populations. As a result, local low-income residents perceive newcomers who had higher income as enemies and increase the intensity and hostility between old and new residents, and the solution to this condition was to ensure existing residents to receive better education, healthcare, housing, leisure and cultural facilities. (Pyner, 2007; Colomb, 2009) In 1999, a partnership called ‘Shoreditch Our Way’ (later renamed Shoreditch Trust in 2004) was set up under the agenda of an urban policy program launched by the New Labour government to support the new social inclusion and people-based regeneration. The Shoreditch trust made efforts to bring local residents into the decision-making procedure, including a wide combination of ethnical minority groups, social housing tenants and new upper-middle class professionals as participants. Moreover, the trust used the funds they received to buy or rent the derelict spaces, for example, a clothing factory by Regent Canal, and made them available to small entrepreneurs or enterprises that desire to locate in the fringe at an affordable price before the commercial ventures come to settle a business here. (Colomb, 2009) With the help of the Shoreditch Trust, it seems that the downsides of gentrification has been compensated to some extent, nonetheless, it can be argued that gentrification and regeneration are still under progress at the same time. For the one thing, in spite of the fact that the local council and policy have helped the operation of the Trust, council housing would not stop encouraging commercial enterprises to develop this area for bigger economic reasons. As Shoreditch has established its reputation for creative clusters, it becomes an effective tool for region marketing. For the other thing, to existing residents or storeowners who found it wiser to let out or sell up vacant spaces to the artists, the transition of property is a natural process (Burwood, 2001; Pratt, 2005), however, the overall rising of land price in a revival area would push the newcomers into fiercer competition. In the long run, the problem is not solved but only left to another group of people.
Even though using cultural industries as the vehicle for the revival of economic activities may fall into problem of pure cultural consumption instead of comprehensive development in the area, there is still evidence that the artistic brand of Hoxton has been created through practices of concentrating cultural intermediaries in the chosen location. (Harris, 2011:187-197) One example was the influential gallery, Factual Nonsense, in Charlotte Road, opened by the artist Joshua Compston in 1992. It is reviewed by Cooper (2000) that Compston was attracted to settle down in Shoreditch not just for the cheap rent but also for the intensity of artist community and unique 19-century scenes. (Harris, 2006; 2011) This place, in Compston’s opinion, has the potential to be vibrant and recognized with the help of a brand like Factual Nonsense to market itself and bring in more talents and crowds. By planning continuous art festival such as ‘Fete Worse then Death’ and ‘Hanging Picnic’ in Charlotte Road and Hoxton Square, the gallery successfully aroused more people’ attention to the deprived place.
It was the area’s history that the artists were interested in. The life and rich tradition of working class communities provided resource of visual raw materials and stimuli to the artists. As in the case of choosing location between countryside and big city, the variety and changing features of location is regarded as a key element with regard to the decision. Compared to countryside, a big city can offer much more distinct possibilities and opportunities, inspiring people’s tendency to enjoy the diversity and convenient networks in locality. Similarly, when already being in a big city like London where creativity serves as the brand name, artists turn to look for unexpected experiences in a less developed place in the fringe, in which working class’ living scenes give the creative workers another angle to observe daily life activities in a city. As Drake (2003) said that ‘Locality is acting as an ‘exhibition space’ for social and cultural innovation’. In the eye of artists, Shoreditch is a place where their innovation can be stimulated and boosted, where live and work can exist in the same space rather than being separated with concern of quality of life that the middle-upper class would put much emphasis on. Artists might not consider the cultural capital they owned as an active factor to revive the region economically, nevertheless, regeneration has happened with the increase in investment in creative industries as well as entertaining businesses in the neighborhood. In Pratt (2008) and Harris’ (2011) terms, in addition to the artist’s own determination on promoting the brand of Shoreditch and Hoxton in the example of factual Nonsense, the company Glasshouse played an essential role in making the market. Its acquisition of property in Hoxton Square in 1990s and attempts to support Compston’s art events and cooperate with Hackney and the British Film Institute all attributed to the formation of Shoreditch and Hoxton as the most iconic place for cultural entrepreneurs to dwell in. According to the examples above, it can be assumed that artists’ location choices do attribute to urban regeneration, despite the fact that the boundary between gentrification and regeneration is nevertheless blurry. On the positive side, Shoreditch and Hoxton were revitalized with continuous creative activities such as music, film and art scenes; the nightlife in this area also becomes one of the most famous features. On the negative side, gentrification in Shoreditch and Hoxton not only takes the rights from the poor and gives them to the rich; things that remain ‘public’ will either be reclaimed for the middle class or left to decay. (Seymour, 2009)
Apart from the business and life clusters fostered in time, street art in Shoreditch is another artists’ contribution to shape the place. From Old Spitalfield Market, Old street, to Shoreditch high Street, street art flourished to show artists’ free spirits and creativity. Nevertheless, with the arrival of economic capital and tourism, the feature of street art as part of urban exhibition for the public somehow becomes one of the commodities of the area. Even though street artists themselves provide ‘free’ walking tours to introduce the concept, meaning and history behind each artwork there, the audiences still pay for the guide as a routine. It was told by the artist that the money she receives would be used to pay her very high rent for a studio. In this way, artists share their knowledge and expertise in exchange of economic capital in order to sustain their lives in the more and more gentrified east London. Furthermore, in recent years, street art in Shoreditch is no longer created out of the artists’ free will completely. On the contrary, some artists are paid to produce artworks that imply advertising of sale products by big enterprises. Regeneration attracts tourists; tourists come with money, but the cycle does not bring back the profit to artists who give life to the place. Instead, the real creative people keeps moving out of the area reluctantly as a result of gentrification and regeneration, leaving the new middle class and consumers to make more cultural consumption for urban development.
Conclusions
The way artists negotiate to balance and work and life in chosen a place has been one of the important features to understand how city image can be naturally altered and further marketed. The essay has explored that in the case of Shoreditch, artists’ location choices turned a space into a place that filled with unique assembling of creative people and activities (de Certeau1984) but also their own trajectories under the influence of gentrification. I have argued that despite the fact that this area has advanced from the culture-led regeneration and received economic boosts, there are still facts that illustrate the inequalities occurred in terms of social structure. This condition can also be found in other revitalised artistic place such Berlin, New York or Toronto. By following the artists, private investors or policy makers save time and cost to rediscover unnoticed space.
‘ The redemptive eye of the artist could turn junk into art. The calculating eye of others would turn art into commodity, a practice as true of the inner-city property market as of the artwork. ‘ (Ley, 2003)
Artists who are seen as pioneers to explore and develop an unseen spot take individual economy condition and the overall environment of the chosen place into consideration when deciding to settle down, policy makers, on the contrast, do not have complete measurement to protect existing people and things as city fringe experiences transition from a state of relative poverty and deprivation to a state of commodification and cultural consumption. From pure economic perspective, artists being the agent of urban regeneration, directly beautify the place, indirectly elevate property price and living standards in the neighborhood, and attract investment from the government or private ventures; moreover, the new image of the place that is shaped by the creative agglomeration can be further used in marketing strategy to promote the whole city. However, the contradiction between existing habitants and newcomers still exist. When talking about concrete results and efficiency of a redeveloped city landscape, it is important to ask where the interests actually go, how they are distributed, and who is benefited from regeneration. Otherwise, some people’s sacrifice in gentrification and urban renaissance will always be the issue. Cycle of displacement as a result of capital investment changes the sense of a place and other symbolic association of memories (Evans, 2003:433); whether the regeneration could be a successful model is still questionable.