1. How is gentrification impacting contemporary London
How is gentrification impacting contemporary London?  Antoine Paccoud LISER, Luxembourg & LSE, London

2. Outline A discussion of three analyses of UK Census data (2001-2011):
Paccoud, A. (2017) Buy-to-let gentrification: Extending social change through tenure shifts, Environment and Planning A 49(4): 839–56.
Paccoud, A. & Mace, A. (2018) Tenure change in London’s suburbs: spreading gentrification or suburban upscaling?, Urban Studies 55(6): 1313– 28.
Paccoud, A., Mace, A. and Niesseron, P. (under review) The role of ethnic change in the closing of rent gaps through buy-to-let gentrification, Urban Geography

3. Context
Since 2002, the number of households in the Private Rented Sector in England has doubled, linked to:
1988 Housing Act which allowed landlords to more easily retake possession of their property and limited the length of tenancies;
First buy-to-let mortgage was introduced to the market in 1998, rising importance of asset-based welfare;
Continued decrease in home ownership levels for younger cohorts, disappearance of a ‘wealth middle class’.
 How has the return of private renting in the UK affected the way in which gentrification operates?

4. Methodology
Focus on the distribution of socio-economic upscaling across England linked to changes in tenure between 2001 and 2011
161,296 Output Areas (≈300 residents) in England with stable boundaries between 2001 and 2011
Two steps:
- Identify social upscaling and downscaling (HRPs 16-64)
- Identify ideal type tenure trajectories (SR, PR, O)
In both cases, ‘change’ only if the absolute number of both arrivals and departures was larger than a threshold set at 7% of the total Output Area population in 2001

5. Methodology ↑ = upscaling ↓ = downscaling Allowed to co-vary
The ONS’ Socio-economic Classification (NS-SeC) allocates individuals to eight major occupational categories:
1. Higher managerial, administrative and professional
2. Lower managerial, administrative and professional
3. Intermediate
4. Small employers and own account workers
5. Lower supervisory and technical
6. Semi-routine
7. Routine
8. Never worked and long-term unemployed [excluded]
↑ = upscaling
↓ = downscaling
Allowed to co-vary
↑ = downscaling
↓ = upscaling

6. Methodology Buy-to-let gentrification
Tenure changes linked to social upscaling in English Output Areas ( ):
Social to Private Rent (285 OAs): direct displacement
Social Rent to Owning (216 OAs): direct displacement
Private Rent+ (801 OAs): direct displacement
Owning+ (677 OAs): indirect displacement
Owning to Private Rent (1451 OAs): indirect displacement
Sweat Equity Upscaling (957 OAs): indirect displacement
Buy-to-let
gentrification

7. Buy-to-let gentrification
Numerical advantage for gentrification linked to shifts to the Private Rented Sector over shifts to Ownership.
Between 2001 and 2011, BTL gentrification has been prevalent in more urban, central and disadvantaged OAs than ownership gentrification.
The UK legislative and financial context of the early 21st-century has allowed BTL investments to be used to extend gentrification to areas in England’s largest cities unreachable through ownership gentrification.
A response to the generalised creation of value gaps which provides local opportunities for investors to at least partially close the rent gap by introducing middle class renters into disadvantaged but central areas.

11. Tenure change in London’s suburbs
Focus on explaining the presence of buy-to-let gentrification in Outer London.
Idea is that it is linked to an overspill into areas affording a semblance of metropolitan milieu in Outer London of middle class tenants uninterested in, or unable to access, ownership and priced out of high house price Inner London.
Dependent on the variegation in the Outer London landscape: areas of distinctive architecture and excellent accessibility within a space dominated by early to mid-20th century semi-detached and terraced (row) housing.
Need to pay greater attention to the potential displacement of lower socio- economic groups from the suburbs and to the broader impacts and implications of suburban upscaling.

13. Ethnic change and BTL gentrification
Focus on the intersection of buy-to-let gentrification with dynamics of ethnic change.
Again draws on the idea that buy-to-let gentrification expands and spreads opportunities to close rent gaps, based on two hypotheses:
The middle-class White British population which generally do not want to purchase in working class areas (regardless of the ethnic composition), might be open to renting there and;
While the middle-class White British population may not want to rent in ethnic minority, working class areas, middle class migrants might.
These circumstances are reflected in the co-existence of three types of gentrification in England between 2001 and 2011, each representing a step in the gradation towards the exploitation of larger rent gaps.

14. Ethnic change and BTL gentrification
OAs with:
Population change ( ) linked to:
Ward type in 2001:
Ethnic minorities significant + working class
White British Dominant + working class
Buy-to-let gentrification between 2001 and 2011
A. Movements within the White British population
57/618
565/1072
B. Movements within the population of other ethnicities
145/618
53/1072
C. Ethnic minorities replace White British
325/618
69/1072
Ownership gentrification between 2001 and 2011
14/112
608/936
20/112
28/936
55/112
14/936

15. Conclusions
Buy-to-let gentrification is a mechanism in the spread of gentrification throughout London and into its surroundings. It mobilises:
The lower neighbourhood expectations of tenants vs owners;
The search for ‘metropolitan habitus’ by middle class renters pushed out of the inner city;
Ethnicity and migration related differences in neighbourhood ‘preferences’ that produce different gentrifiers for different types of areas.
Could buy-to-let gentrification be the spatial expression of the disappearance of the wealth middle class?
 In attempting to maintain their spatial position, middle class tenants facilitate accumulation of land and property wealth at the expense of the wealth poor.

16. Thanks for your attention Merci de votre attention