Gentrification in Cambridge

Cambridge is a town situated in the south east of England about 100 km north of London. It is famed for the University and the beauty of its ancient town centre. However, during the last two decades, Cambridge has experienced a surge of economic growth due to it being recognized as a modern world-class center for research and technology. This has resulted in huge job growth and in-migration. It has also been a town that has restrained housing development in order to maintain its attractive environment and quality of life. The consequence of this combination of restricted development and economic expansion has been a rise in house prices and displacement of workers from the city into the surrounding areas.

The aim of this research is to use gentrification theory as a framework to analyse these changes and to assess the impact of them on local residents. The objectives of the study are to establish which areas in Cambridge are experiencing socio-economic change regarding inflows and outflows of residents, what are the motivations of those wishing to live in the central city and what are the attitudes and perceptions of those residents who live in the areas experiencing such change. On the basis of this the research assesses who loses from gentrification and what the policy implications of this are.

Summary of Site Contents

1) What is Gentrification and Can it be Applied to Cambridge?

2) What are the Changes and the Problems in Cambridge?

3) Analysis of the Findings

4) Conclusions and Policy Implications

5) Bibliography

PART 1

What is Gentrification and Can it be Applied to Cambridge?

The aim of this part is to see what insights the theories and research into gentrification can provide into the social changes that are taking place in Cambridge and to establish if they can help to explain the demand for housing in the city and explain why and where gentrification may be taking place. Although much of the research has been undertaken in large world cities such as New York and London, an attempt will be made to see how applicable they are to the processes of gentrification in Cambridge. I will begin by looking at how the term ‘gentrification’ has been applied and how it will be used in the context of this study. I will then look at three theories around the causes of gentrification – the ‘production’ argument, labour market change and the ‘consumption’ argument - and make an assessment of each as regards their applicability to Cambridge. I will then go on to look at the consequences of gentrification with regard to displacement and neighbourhood change.

Neil Smith [1986] described gentrification as a process that happens in the residential housing market when working class and derelict housing is renovated, resulting in a transformation of the area into a middle-class neighbourhood. He later expanded on this, stating that:

However, identifying exactly what these processes are and what can be classed as gentrification has continued to divide those studying the phenomena. For example, it has also been linked to urban renewal and the building of new residential and commercial developments on brownfield land where displacement may not take place. In contrast to Smith, Beauregard [1986 p47-48] states that:

Such an observation is particularly pertinent to Cambridge where there are not large areas of deteriorated housing and where even the cheapest housing would not be seen as affordable in many other cities. This study is particularly concerned with the pressure that has been put on the housing market in Cambridge resulting in this problem of affordability and the exclusion and displacement of not only the working class but the lower-paid and this is perhaps best reflected in Atkinson’s [2000a p.307] description of gentrification induced-displacement:

What such variations suggest is that it is not useful to have too rigid a definition of gentrification as this may restrict the scope of research and enquiry. For the purposes of this study I am concerned with the displacement and exclusion of lower-paid workers from residential areas in Cambridge by higher income earners and the impact that this has had, or may have, on the neighbourhoods affected and this will guide the enquiry.

Theories around ‘production’, ‘labour market change’ and ‘consumption’ have been used to explain gentrification and I will now examine each of these in turn in order to assess their usefulness as a framework for studying the processes taking place in Cambridge. My aim will be to argue that the explanations of labour market change and consumption are more useful in this respect than the theory of production.

Based on Structural-Marxist ideology, Neil Smith [1979] argued that gentrification was the result of the actions of producers and of wider economic changes and he set this down in his theory of the ‘rent gap’. The basic idea behind this was the depopulation of the inner city that took place during the 1940s, 50s and 60s due to suburbanisation and the movement of manufacturing to the periphery. Eventually the devalorisation of the inner city lead to a rent gap whereby the ground rent of the depreciated area was less than could potentially be gained by improving it for its best use. Re-investment therefore took place. It was this drive for profitability by developers, landlords, builders, mortgage lenders, the government and estate agents that determined which neighbourhoods would gentrify. Gentrification was therefore initiated by “collective social actors at the neighbourhhood level” [Smith 1979 p.546].

Another key factor identified by Smith in this process was deindustrialisation and the growth of the service sector. Deindustrialisation of the inner city provided the land and buildings with low ground rents to rehabilitate or renovate and the growing service sector provided the higher paid professionals and managers who were based centrally to facilitate quick decision-making. Spatial restructuring therefore resulted from economic restructuring. Smith acknowledged demographic and consumption changes inherent in this but viewed these as reflecting the surface form of wider restructuring but not providing an explanation.

The principal arguments against Smiths theory, however, come from consumption theorists who argue that he emphasises the supply of gentrifiable housing at the expense of demand and that he views gentrifiers as responding passively to capital movements when in reality they have an element of choice over which area they want to move to [Hamnett 1991]. It has also been shown that even where a rent gap exists, gentrification may not always take place [Beauregard 1986; Clark 1988] suggesting that other factors need to be considered.

Looking specifically at Cambridge, there are reasons why Smiths theory is not applicable. The production argument is based on studies of large industrial cities that faced considerable inner city deterioration and abandonment, such as New York, where Smith undertook his original empirical research into gentrification. This North American model does not explain why or where gentrification would occur in a city such as Cambridge which has never had large areas of deteriorated or abandoned housing. Also, Cambridge does not have a strong industrial past and nor has it experienced de-population. Similarly, it does not explain the presence of gentrification in cities identified by Williams [1984] such as Oxford and Canterbury.

Where Smiths theory is useful in explaining gentrification in Cambridge is his emphasis on the change in employment structures (as the chapter on social trends in Cambridge will demonstrate). This growth in professional employment as a cause of gentrification is central to the theories on labour market change which I will now consider.

David Ley [1980] claimed that to understand gentrification it is necessary to look at how the economy and society is changing. In contrast to Smith he focused on the shift from a manufacturing to a service-producing economy, which had taken place in the 1970s and 80s, and the demand for housing. This economic change, he argued, had created a new class of white-collar workers, especially in the technological, professional, managerial and administrative occupations, who demanded inner-city housing. He applied his thesis to Vancouver, concluding that:

He then went on to argue that cultural factors were a key to this demand for inner-city housing as the neighbouhoods had an element of life-style and ethnic and architectural diversity which were important to the middle-classes moving into them. It has also been argued that these changes in employment structures have made gender an important issue in gentrification as the growth in service sector jobs has created more professional and managerial jobs for women that are predominantly based centrally [Warde 1991].

Theories on the change to employment structures provide insights into the situation in Cambridge where there has been a substantial increase in technological, professional and managerial jobs due to the growth in the research and development sector. This in turn has lead to high housing demand within Cambridge. However, Leys theory still leaves it unclear who these gentrifiers are and since not all office workers live, or wish to live, in the inner-city, it still needs to be established why a certain faction do. Also, Ley argues that growth in white-collar work in the inner-city accounts for the subsequent housing demand; however, it has been shown that job growth on the city’s periphery can result in gentrification in inner-city areas [Kennedy and Leonard 2001] and certainly much of the commercial growth in Cambridge has been on the periphery due to the shortage of land to develop in the city.

Since Leys work, a number of studies have taken a change in employment structure as the starting point to establish if gentrification has taken place [Munt 1987; Bridge 1994; Hamnett and Butler 1994; Atkinson 2000b]; however, once this has been established, the focus has been on what makes a certain element of this ‘new’ class wish to live in specific locations in the central city. Based around Liberal humanist ideology and the focus on choice of the individual, consumption theorists argue that there are economic, demographic and cultural factors which explain this.

Economic factors refer to the financial benefits to living centrally over living in the suburbs. The argument is that gentrifiers are young and new to their careers so living in the central city is important as it provides housing that is the most affordable and it reduces commuting time and costs [Beauregard 1986]. Demographic factors refer to the increased participation of professional women in the workforce resulting in delayed child birth, later marriage and therefore more older single people and childless couples [Beauregard 1986]. Cultural factors refer to the idea that this faction of the middle class have shared values in their life-styles and aesthetic preferences for ‘a sense of history’ and this is demonstrated by their desire to live in period style housing [Jagar 1986].

Beauregard then argues that this group of upwardly mobile single or childless couples have distinctive consumption patterns. It is conspicuous with the purchase of commodities such as sports equipment, stereos and holidays and can also be seen outside of the home in the form of trips to restaurants and bars. People ‘cluster’ around these consumption items leading to their expansion as more entrepreneurs are attracted and as they become ‘up-and-coming’ areas this heats up the housing market leading to increased house prices. Labour market theory therefore explains how the changing structure of the labour market can create a ‘pool’ of gentrifiers and consumption theory helps to explain why a faction of these people are attracted to certain areas and in turn which areas may become gentrified. As suggested by Bearegard, the ‘clustering’ effect of gentrifiers to a particular neighbourhood will have consequences for that area and I will now consider what these are.

A consequence of gentrification is displacement of the original lower income occupants of the neighbourhood. This displacement can be involuntary displacement whereby the original resident is forced out through eviction or increasing house prices or rents and exclusionary displacement whereby the changes in the neighbourhood prevent future lower income households from moving in [Marcuse 1986]. The extent and nature of this displacement is linked to the housing market as Kennedy and Leonard’s [2001 p15-16] research discussed:

As will be discussed further in Chapter Three, the housing market in Cambridge is particularly tight with no cheap areas of housing within the city for displacees to move as is the case in many larger cities. This results in displacement to outlying areas in Cambridgeshire where relatively cheaper housing exists. A particularly vulnerable group with regard to displacement is obviously those renting due to the weaker position of their housing tenure. Research on displacement is scarce due to the difficulty of tracing displacees; however, Atkinson [2000a and 2000b] used census data and case studies to assess the impacts of this in central London. He found those such as the elderly, ethnic minorities and the unemployed were particularly susceptible to harassment, rent increases and eviction from landlords. This is so they can rent the property for more money to professionals or sell on the property because of the increasing house prices. A decline in levels of rented property is therefore often associated with gentrification.

However, displacement in gentrified areas is not necessarily limited to such obvious vulnerable groups, the working classes or very low-paid workers, but also affects successively higher income groups and this is important to consider in the context of this study as it will be shown that middle-class occupants are being displaced by a ‘new-wave’ of gentrifier. In his study of Kensington, Atkinson [2000a p317] found “Sloanes (upper class young people) of yesteryear being displaced by the stockbrokers of today due to the upward spiral of social change”. Lyons [1996] also noted such processes and in Dangshats [1991] study of Hamburg he identified a shift from what he termed the ‘pioneer’ to the ‘ultra’ gentrifier over time. There is thus an element of relativity to the process.

This decline of lower income residents and their subsequent replacement by an influx of higher income residents can have a number of impacts on the neighbourhood. Gentrifiers are assumed to have certain consumption needs and patterns and the changes that this can bring about are usefully summed up in an observation by Slater [2000 p.1] on the gentrified area in and around Bellevue Road in London:

As can be seen from this example of Bellevue Road, gentrification may lead to the development of new businesses that meet the needs of the new residents and possibly drive out older established ones who can no longer compete and in essence change the whole social character of the area.

Due to the effects on vulnerable groups, gentrification is assumed to be negative in much of the literature; however, there is conflicting evidence on this. A study by Bridge [1994] in Hackney found mixed feelings over the effects of gentrification amongst long-term residents with many welcoming the change as it improved the area with regard to a better housing stock and a broader social mix, for example. He also found the impact of gentrification on friendship networks to be slight. Similarly Kennedy and Leonard [2001] in their study of four US cities found that many original residents welcomed changes to the street character and composition as it improved public services in the neighbourhoods.

Part One Conclusions

Three theories around gentrification have been examined and it has been argued that the theories on labour market change and consumption provide the best explanation and insight into processes taking place in Cambridge. The theory on the rent gap is essentially based on depopulation of the city and although it is useful for explaining changes that may take place at a wider structural level and the role of institutional investment, it only provides a partial explanation of why gentrification may occur and it tells us little about the demand for housing or the processes taking place in Cambridge. The theory of labour market change, however, helps to explain how changes in employment structures and in individual job markets such as has taken place in Cambridge can create a pool of gentrifiers and the consumption theory explains the attraction of certain areas and why the area may subsequently change.

The consequences of gentrification have also been examined and it has been shown that displacement is linked to the housing market and that this may have particularly diverse affects for displacement in a city such as Cambridge, which has an acute shortage of housing and serious problems of affordability, leaving nowhere for lower income households to access or move to within the city. Further impacts on the neighbourhood have also been discussed with regard to who may gain and lose from gentrification. The next part will consider why gentrification is important in the context of the social and economic changes taking place in Cambridge.

PART 2

What are the Changes and the Problems in Cambridge?

This part provides an analysis of social and economic trends in Cambridge. The aim of this is to identify the processes that have lead to the problems of affordability and gentrification in Cambridge. In order to do this a mix of previous research papers and secondary data is used. Population growth and movement and employment trends are examined first to show how and why the influx of high income earners is creating pressure on the housing market and the effects of this. Then a recent study commissioned by the City Council which illustrates the problems of housing need in Cambridge will be analysed to show how poorer households are being displaced from the city. Finally, data taken from City Council and County Council research reports and from HMLR will be examined in order to assess the impact of these changes on house prices and rents in Cambridge and to show that they are amongst the highest in the region and unaffordable for lower income households and key workers. The conclusion will then show how this relates to gentrification theory and how this research will further understanding of the changes taking place in Cambridge.

Population Growth and movement

Research by Cambridgshire County Council Research Group [1999] looked into population growth throughout Cambridgeshire and found it to be the fastest growing county in England and Wales, growing by 78,000 (17%) between 1981 and 1997 to 537,600. About two thirds of this growth is due to the balance of in migration over out migration. Figure 3.1, taken from the report, shows the population forecasts up to 2006 as compared to the rest of the Eastern Region and England and Wales. Of the forecast growth from 1996 to 2006, 70% is due to in migration and just under 30% due to natural increase.

Analysing population movements into Cambridge provides evidence of the volatility of the housing market and also an insight into the type of people moving to the city. In 1997 23% of households had moved to Cambridge in the last five years and 7.3% in the last year, mainly for employment purposes, and the incomes of those moving recently were significantly higher than for long-term residents [Housing Needs Study 1998]. Given the high price of house prices in recent years, this indicates that it is those highly paid workers who have the resources to move into Cambridge.

Employment

Cambridge has been booming for a number of years as a high-tech center and has already fostered the nick-name of ‘silicon fen’, and a feature in Newsweek stated that Cambridge was among 7 regions worldwide with the potential to rival Silicon Valley. This, however, has brought with it the problems of an influx of IT workers putting pressure on an already overburdened housing market. Cambridge Futures [1999] carried out research into the predicted restructuring of employment from 2001 to 2051 in what has been termed the CambsTEC area - the city of Cambridge, South Cambridgeshire, East Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire. This found that primary employment (which includes agricultural and mining activities) would fall slightly and secondary employment (manufacturing) would stay more or less level. However, tertiary employment (which is business and commerce but represented essentially by the high tech sector e.g. research and development) would increase from 24,000 to 52,000. The service sector (such as retail and government agencies) is expected to rise from 100,000 to 200,000.

In order to mitigate against the adverse affects this would have on Cambridge there has been a dispersal policy whereby jobs are created in areas where there is space for housing outside of the city; however, the Cambridge Phenomenon Revisited [2000] report, based on interviews with 700 employees from twelve firms from the high tech sector, found that research and consultant staff prefer to live in Cambridge and are more able to do this due to their higher purchasing power. In total fourty-four per cent of those who moved since 1995 whose immediately previous job was abroad or outside of commuting range relocated in Cambridge city, even if their new job was on the outer fringe. The report also found that close to twenty per cent of consultants and researchers lived less than two miles from central Cambridge, whereas only six per cent of administration staff did.

Administration staff then have to commute the longer distance to Cambridge to carry out lower paid work which has lead to major problems of congestion. The specific problems with commuting are illustrated in table 3.1 below which shows the percentage change of commuters into Cambridge by area from 1981 to 1991.

There is also an imbalance between house building and job growth in Cambridge. This is evident by looking at the period 1991 to 1997 when the number of dwellings grew from 41,680 to 43,889, a growth of 5.3%, whereas employment grew from 72,590 to 82,710, a growth of 13.9% [Cambridge Local Plan 1999].

Table 3.1 – Commuting in Cambridge

The report Cambridge – An Estimate of Urban Capacity [1998] also found the current house building rate was below the capacity for Cambridge and would not address the imbalance between the growth of jobs and houses. Adding to the pressure on the housing market has also been improved rail and road networks between London and Cambridge which has made Cambridge more attractive to London commuters.

Social Housing

It is important to consider in terms of this paper the link between gentrification, affordable housing and the sustainability of communities. Warde [1986] compared gentrification between the countries of Britain, America and Australia and his analysis of the situation provides some useful insights into this. He notes how we have a much more interventionist style of government which, alongside the widespread provision of public housing, has helped to counter gentrification. However, the subsequent decline of social housing has contributed towards gentrification:

With high and increasing house prices and rents and job growth far exceeding house building there is clearly a need for affordable housing to counter the displacement taking place in Cambridge. In 1997 the council commissioned a study that was carried out by Fordham Research in order to update its information on housing needs [Housing Needs Study 1998]. The results were drawn from interviews with a sample of 750 randomly selected Cambridge households. Need was assessed with indicators such as overcrowding and lacking self-contained amenities. The ability to purchase or rent properties on the open market was calculated by income/savings information and a local housing market study. A study such as this has weaknesses in that it only provides a snapshot of housing needs within the area at a certain time, there is difficulty in distinguishing between housing aspirations and actual housing need in the responses and there are issues over the reliability of the income data that is generated. However, it still provides a useful indication of housing need and the study highlighted the problems that Cambridge is experiencing.

It found that there were 4,817 households in housing need, which is 11.4% of total households compared to the average of 9% found in Fordhams studies of other areas. Of these households 2,806 needed to move within one year. Added to this there are also 685 households moving into need each year and with the social housing sectors capacity of housing 860 per year there was no prospect of this need being met. This demonstrates the severe need for more social housing in Cambridge. More importantly regarding the context of this study, the report also found that 2,750 households had family members who had left the city simply because they could not afford the local housing. Approximately 75% of these have stayed in Cambridgeshire and would return to the city if there were cheaper housing. This is a clear indication that poorer households are being displaced from Cambridge and forced to take cheaper housing in the outlying areas. An important factor in this is that Cambridge, in contrast to most other cities, does not have areas of low cost housing where people can move to.

One of the consequences of the factors identified above has been to contribute to rising rent levels and house prices in the city. This section will provide an illustration of these changes and the specific impact on key workers.

The demand for privately rented accommodation in Cambridge is high due to the number of students in the city, the number of jobs in the city, the cost of property [Cambridge Local Plan 1999] and because social housing is only available to those most in need. Cambridge therefore has a buoyant rental market; however, this will only benefit mobile, well paid professionals as rents are so high as is illustrated in table 3.2. A comparison of these with RSL rents highlights the importance of social housing in providing affordable accommodation.

Table 3.2 – A Comparison of Market and Social Housing Rents

As can be seen, social housing rents are far below average rents. Overall, in 1997 56.8% of all tenants paid over 50% of their income (excluding benefits) on housing costs [Housing Needs Study 1998].

Cambridge has seen a rise in house prices that has far exceeded what most would have predicted, forcing owner-occupation out of reach for those on lower incomes. To examine this HMLR data is used to compare changes in house prices in Cambridge to other cities from surrounding counties and Cambridgeshire. An analysis is then made of how this affects lower-income households.

Table 3.3 compares house price changes in Cambridge with those of major cities from all the surrounding counties. It looks at cities all around Cambridgeshire for a more accurate illustration of variations in prices than could be gained from just looking at the county. Over this 5 year period in all the cities (accept Lincoln) house prices have increased by over 50 per cent and over half have increased more than the average for England and Wales. By looking at percentage change alone Cambridge appears not to stand out; however, a comparison of average sale prices over the same period shows that in 1995 prices were already higher than all the other cities and have remained so up to 2000.

Table 3.3 - A comparison of Cambridge House Prices with cities from surrounding regions

City	Percentage Change 1995-2000	Average sale price (1000s)
City	Percentage Change 1995-2000	1995	2000
Northampton	75.8 %	50	88
Welwyn Garden City	75.8 %	77	135
Ipswich	74.7 %	53	93
Cambridge	73.0 %	83	143
Chelmsford	68.7 %	70	118
Norwich	66.1 %	55	91
Luton	55.9 %	50	79
Stevenage	55.7 %	66	103
Lincoln	43.5 %	46	66
England and Wales	65.0 %	66	109

A comparison of average house prices against the rest of the county for the same period also shows the high levels and rapid increases in Cambridge.

House prices and key workers

The National Housing Federation estimated earnings for key workers in Cambridgeshire as £20,084 for nurses and £23,641 for teachers [Cambridge Evening News 2001]. Using a conservative three-times-salary mortgage limit these salaries are clearly not enough to afford a property without other financial assistance based on average Cambridge prices. Table 3.5 shows the percentage of properties sold in Cambridge compared to other districts for under £60,000 and approximate lower quartile prices.

The marked contrast between the volume of sales at the lower end of the market between Cambridge City and South Cambridgshire and other districts is evident. What this data also illustrates is why those on lower salaries are being forced to take accommodation outside of Cambridge where prices are clearly cheaper.

Part Two Conclusions

The data and research examined in this part identify a number of factors and trends that have resulted in the current problems of displacement in Cambridge. High house prices and rents have resulted in severe problems of affordability and the impact this has not just on the very low-paid but on key workers has been shown with most having little chance of accessing the owner-occupied housing market. Also, an analysis of population movement shows the growth expected in the region will put further pressure on the market. The links to ‘labour market’ and ‘consumption’ theory on gentrification are also evident in the data presented with the restructuring of the labour market towards the technological professions resulting in a pool of workers with high purchasing power who desire to live in the central city. The important part social housing could play in protecting households from the displacement caused from this and in keeping communities together is also evident. However, the survey work undertaken in the Cambridge Phenomenon Revisited report and the Housing Needs survey do not consider whether there are specific areas or neighbourhoods which are prone to displacement, which areas may be particularly attractive to high income earners looking for a home or what their specific motivations to move there are. As was discussed in the literature review, consumption theory can help to explain this and the following section aims to answer these questions.

PART 3

Analysis of the Findings

Cambridge: Gentrification and Displacement

The first section of this part provides an analysis of ward level socio-economic census data for Cambridge for the period 1981 to 1991. The aim is to identify which specific wards may be experiencing gentrification and displacement. Gentrification has been operationalised by using the proxy variables of increases in professionals and qualifications and displacement has been operationalised using the decline of a set of vulnerable groups (specifically unskilled labour, households privately renting, unemployed, elderly and lone parents). There has been an attempt to improve on the proxy indicators for gentrification used by other researchers by analyzing changes in qualifications (first degree or higher degree or a diploma) alongside changes in professionalization as this has been documented as an attribute of the middle-class gentrifier in a number of academic works [Warde 1991; Hamnett and Butler 1993; Bridge 1994]. The results can be seen in table 4.1. and figure 4.1 shows the geographical location of each of the wards.

Taking professionals as the lead gentrification variable, the table has been arranged in ascending order, with the ward with the lowest increase in professionals at the top and the highest increase at the bottom. What is evident first of all is the overall restructuring that has taken place, with all wards showing a percentage increase in professionals and percentage decrease in working classes. Data on Cambridge City has been included in the table in order to indicate which wards have above average levels of increases in professionals for the city as a whole and, overall, there are five that fall into this category: Coleridge, East Chesterton, Castle, Petersfield and Romsey.

With the exception of East Chesterton, it can be seen that all these wards have correspondingly high increases in people with qualifications and decreases in working classes thus indicating that gentrification and displacement may be taking place. As Atkinson [2000c p.291] points out, a rise in “the number of professionals in the urban center can only take place (assuming a relatively fixed supply of dwellings and often an increased use of space by middle class households) if other households are moving away from that area unless changes incumbent on an area take place e.g. people that moved up from a working class to a professional occupation”. The exception of East Chesterton (which has smaller increases in those with qualifications and a much lower decline in the numbers of working class) may be explained by the fact that it is has neighbourhoods with some of the highest levels of poverty in Cambridge.

	Variables – percentage point increase from 1981 - 1991
	Gentrification variables		Displacement variables
Wards	Professionals	Qualification	Working Class	Unskilled	Pensioners	Lone Parents	Unemployed	Renting
Queen Edith's	2.37	5.30	-2.98	0.65	3	-0.1	0.7	0.8
Arbury	2.56	0.03	-13.25	0.63	3.2	0.9	2.5	1.7
Trumpington	3.44	14.75	-5.33	0.51	-0.1	0.9	0.5	-0.6
Cherry Hinton	3.50	4.21	-7.23	1.67	6.5	0.6	0.6	2
Abbey	3.51	3.14	-8.80	0.91	2.3	2.1	1.9	1.2
West Chesterton	4.84	8.84	-8.38	-1.65	-2.2	0.2	0.9	-10.1
Newnham	5.46	7.97	-2.91	1.11	-1	0.8	0.2	-8.7
Market	6.49	16.71	-8.16	-1.49	-1.3	0.4	-0.2	-4.5
Kings Hedges	7.35	10.46	-1.64	1.36	1.5	2	3.6	1.3

*Cambridge City*	*7.71*	*10.49*	*-7.68*	*0.50*	*-0.4*	*0.9*	*1.3*	*0.2*

Coleridge	9.58	10.15	-10.45	1.51	-0.3	1.2	1.4	1.8
East Chesterton	10.21	7.17	-1.68	-1.87	-3.4	0.1	1.6	1
Castle	14.90	22.28	-7.63	0.16	-1.8	-0.5	1.2	1.2
Petersfield	16.06	16.09	-10.90	0.47	-7.4	1.4	0.3	-2.5
Romsey	16.99	20.29	-17.70	2.50	-5.1	1.8	1.1	4.4

Regarding unskilled workers, nothing stands out as noteworthy, with all wards showing only slight changes in the variable (although it is interesting to note that Romsey, which stands as the most gentrified ward, has the highest increase when it would be expected to decrease). The table shows that pensioners have been displaced in all of the gentrified wards, with particularly high levels of displacement in the wards of Romsey and Petersfield.

In contrast to this the majority of ungentrified wards have shown an increase in this variable. Overall, lone parents and the unemployed appear to be positively correlated with an increase in professionals, a similar pattern found by Atkinson [2000b]. Renting is usually associated with a decline in gentrified areas; however, the increases evident in Romsey are representative of the buoyant rental market from student demand and the demand from professionals (this was confirmed in the interviews with Bush & Co, the Estate Agents, which follow below). What is also noteworthy is that three of the gentrified wards are the most central, which would be expected based on gentrification theory. Based on this data it appears that Romsey has had the highest influx of high income earners and displacement of the lower-classes and it therefore provides the basis for the following case study.

Case Study – Romsey Town

Romsey town is a ward situated about a mile from the centre of Cambridge. It provides good access to road links out of the city and is close to the station as is shown in figure 4.2. As well as being close to facilities in the city center and the local swimming pool, there are a good variety of shops on Mill Road, which is the main access road running though the neighbourhood and it is one of the few neighbourhoods in Cambridge with its own high street. Its population in the 1991 census stood at 6,839. The area has the nickname of ‘Red Romsey’ due to the areas past political affiliations with the Labour Party and it was traditionally a very working class neighbourhood as this account by Payne [1984 p58] shows:

The ward of Romsey ends at the railway bridge where Petersfield is found, a ward which in contrast to Romsey has traditionally been a middle-class area. This concentration of working class residents south of the bridge is in sharp contrast to the social mix of today with the predominance of those in the managerial and professional occupations. The main shops to be found in the area now include hairdressers, cafes and Delhi bars, health food outlets, numerous fast food takeaways and a number of local estate agents. Romsey was an area also identified as gentrified by Durrant [2000] in his study of Cambridge; however, the interviews undertaken revealed that the recent and prolonged rise in house prices may be leading to an influx of a ‘new-wave’ of higher income earners to the area. I will now present the interview results which explain this further.

Questionnaire Design

There were thirty questionnaires with face-to-face interviews of residents living in the area with the aim of gathering information on attitudes from a cross-section of people i.e. gentrifiers, long-term residents and those renting. Thus focused sampling was used in order to ensure all sub-groups were interviewed. In order to interview gentrifiers, properties were identified that looked as if they may have been gentrified e.g. wooden floors and restored Victorian features. Other groups were chosen on a random basis and all sub-groups were chosen from a variety of streets. Of the twenty-nine interviewed a majority (fourteen) were gentrifiers. It was necessary to have this group larger as much of the data collected involved analysis of this group and so accuracy was more important. There were nine people interviewed who were classed as long-term residents and five who were renting. Having such a small number has obvious disadvantages over a large sample, but despite this, the results can be indicative of possible trends and provide a basis for further research on a larger scale. Semi-structured interviews were also undertaken with a local estate agent, Bush and Co, and the manager of a local community center in Ross Street in order to get a further insight into changes in the area.

The aim of the questionnaire was to gather information on a gentrified neighbourhood with regard to the motivations for moving there and attitudes and experiences of living there. Gentrifiers were classified as those who moved into their property within the last five years. This is because although the census data shows socio-economic changes taking place prior to this, the focus of the study is on the impact of the recent problems of affordability which began with the house price rises in the mid 1990s and the subsequent displacement as identified in a 1998 Housing Needs Study by the City Council (as documented in part two). In order to assess residents attitudes to the changes taking place the questionnaire then asks a series of questions about house prices, sense of community and the advantages and disadvantages of living in the area.

Questionnaire Results

Five people interviewed rented their properties and three were owner-occupiers who had lived in Romsey since the 1940s. Seven people were interviewed who moved into the area between 1980 and 1994 and their occupations consisted of three Community Development Officers, a Personnel Administrator, a Freelance Book Editor (whose partner was an Occupational Therapist), an Artist/Special Schools Teacher and a Technician. However, of the fourteen people interviewed who have moved in the area since 1996, there were three Computer Software Engineers, a couple both self- employed in Computer Security, two Accountants, an Economist, a Chiropractor, a Lawyer, a Sales and Marketing Director and a Partner of an Estate Agency. The only exceptions to this were a PhD Student Nurse and two Teachers; however, the student’s parents financed the purchase of the house and I was unable to establish the occupation of the husband of one of the teachers. This trend towards people in higher paid occupations moving to the area corresponds to the changes in house prices which, as identified in chapter 2, have risen sharply during the latter part of the 1990s.

With this in mind, I have analysed the interview results as follows. Firstly, I will look at the data for the gentrifiers, which as discussed above, I have classified as those moving into the neighbourhood within the last five years, of which there were fourteen interviews. This group was asked specific questions that were not asked to longer term residents, specifially reasons for moving to the area, and this data will be presented. I will then examine the experiences and attitudes of all residents with regards to house prices and community and neighbourhood change. Also included is data from interviews with a local estate agent in the area and the manager of the local community center.

As was argued earlier in the study, the consumption theory provides the best explanation of the demand for housing in Cambridge and the changes that are taking place and there are a number of generalizations that can be made from the data collected which supports this. Overall, 89 per cent of gentrifiers worked in Cambridge and 72 per cent stated that this enabled them to walk or cycle to work which indicates the importance of the economic benefits of urban life to gentrifiers as it saves on commuting – a major problem for those living outside the city but working in the centre. However, it is also worth noting that the majority of them already lived within the city before moving – eleven in total fell into this category with three being moves within Romsey itself. The others were from Cambridgeshire, Glasgow and from abroad.

The importance of demographic factors as discussed by consumption theorists was also evident. Nearly all were either single or professional couples with seven in the 26-35 age category and five in the 36-45 age category and only three had children. Only one of the gentrifiers had an intention to move in the next two years, and this perhaps reflects what was said to me by the Local Estate Agent in that many people have stretched themselves to the limit financially to move here and with prices continuing to rise a further move would be difficult.

In order to assess why gentrifiers chose this area they were asked to rate on a scale of importance a number of possible reasons. These were split into factors to do with (1) the neighbourhood and (2) the house itself. These factors were based on pilot interviews, on a similar survey carried out by Munt [1987] in his study of Hackney in London and on factors identified in the part one review of the literature. In the questionnaire they were rated from very important, important, neutral, unimportant and very unimportant, but for ease of presentation the responses have been split into three.

As table 4.2 shows the most important reason for gentrifiers moving to the neighbourhood was to be close to social activities in the city center, with 93 per cent citing this as important and none seeing it as unimportant. Another highly rated factor is the closeness to employment with 72 per cent citing it as important. As already mentioned, this indicates the ability of the gentrifier to avoid the time and cost of commuting. Romsey is one of the only wards with a high street running though it and the importance placed on this is evident by the 72 per cent of respondents who rated shops in the neighbourhood as important. Over 50 per cent of respondents also cited the cultural diversity of the area as important and during interviews many referred to the mix of class and ethnicity.

Table 4.2 – Reasons for moving to the area: Neighbourhood Factors

Neighbourhood Factors	Important %	Neutral %	Unimportant %
House prices were more reasonable in this area	50	29	21
Presence of friends or relatives in the area	36	14	50
Closeness to social activities in the city center	93	7	-
Closeness to employment	72	14	14
Closeness to the station	36	21	43
Road Transport links	43	14	43
Cultural Diversity of the area	57	14	29
Shops in the neighbourhood	72	14	14

Half the respondents bought a house in the area because prices were more reasonable. House prices are extremely high in this area however, as Bush and Co explained, relative to other areas that are closer to the center and may be seen as more desirable they are lower and a number of respondents commented that they would have preferred to be even more central if they could have afforded it. Ian, who was is his 30s and is an IT software engineer, moved to Romsey because of its relative affordability and actually took gentrification of the area into consideration when buying here:

Peter, in his 40s and a partner in an Estate Agency, moved to Romsey in 1996 and used his knowledge to make an analysis of the market before moving to the area and in his decision to move within the next two years:

Two people whom I interviewed said they would ideally have preferred to buy in Petersfield and my interview with Bush and Co again revealed that many house hunters would prefer it as houses are larger and it is more central but prices are often out of their range. Factors of less importance were the presence of friends or relatives in the area, which can perhaps be explained by the relatively small size of Cambridge which facilitates the maintenance of social networks despite differences in location. Closeness to the station and road transport links were also of less importance and this is indicative of the fact that transport out of Cambridge was usually only important to those who used it for particular reasons, such as those who worked further afield.

Table 4.3 shows house factors. A large percentage of respondents rated architectural style and the possibility of expressing creativity in home renovation as important factors which indicates the preferences amongst gentrifiers for Victorian housing that can be renovated to a particular style, and this is further supported by the fact that two thirds of the houses bought by gentrifiers needed some form of repair or improvement. The activities of renovation are clearly noticeable as a comment from Tara, a PhD student nurse whose father helped her purchase her house, about change to the area shows:

Similarly, another gentrifier noted that change to the area is most “visible by the properties – it used to be dingy but is now done up”. The wooden floorboards and the distinguishable ornaments on display easily identified the gentrifiers that I chose to interview. Bush and Co also told me that houses with their original Victorian features sell quicker and at a higher price than those without.

Table 4.3 – Reasons for moving to the area: House Factors

Of less significance is the investment potential and making a profit although a majority of fourty-three per cent still rated this as important. However, for speculators the investment potential of the area has clearly been important as is evident from these comments by a Special School Teacher called Joanne, a longer-term resident who moved to the area in 1991:

What the data presented here shows is the importance of demand factors in gentrification. Of particular significance in attracting gentrifiers to the area is closeness to employment, social activities, local shops, the style of the house and the relative cheapness of house prices compared to other areas. However, Romsey Ward has seen the highest house prices increases, with them climbing by 130 percent from 1986 to 1998 [Cambridge Local Plan 1999]. If this continues it will soon become unaffordable for even high income earners which may push gentrification to other areas. The next section takes a look at the attitudes and experiences of residents to these sharp increases in prices.

It has not been possible to look at those displaced. However, an analysis has been made of the attitudes of current residents to the rise in house prices. As explained, Romsey has seen the highest rise in house prices up to 1998 and table 4.4 shows how happy residents were about these increases.

Table 4.4 – Attitudes to House Price increases

Although the results need to be treated with caution due to the small sample, they do indicate a trend across the different groups that is worth highlighting. ‘Happiness’ is highest amongst gentrifiers, with half feeling happy about the increase and only seven per cent unhappy. However, a large majority also felt neutral towards the changes. This declines slightly with long-term residents as slightly less are happy and a third are unhappy, and then it declines even further with those renting as sixty per cent are unhappy and twenty per cent are very unhappy.

When asked to explain their choices, the general response of gentrifiers ‘happy’ or ‘neutral’ over prices was that they were pleased because their house had increased in value rather than decreased. However, most also stated that it made little difference in practical terms as to buy elsewhere or to up-grade in Cambridge would be just as expensive and so no gain as such is made. The problems of affordability and the relative price of other housing for gentrifiers are reflected in a comment by John, a 38 year old Sales and Marketing Director who lives with his wife and two young children. His response was ‘neutral’ and he now wants a larger property in Cambridge:

Similarly David, an Economist who moved here in 2000 from another area of Cambridge said about the increases:

Such comments were reflective of the general response of gentrifiers. A trend of people stretching themselves financially in order to buy was also identified by Bush and Co who talked of large numbers taking out very large mortgages and putting down high deposits. However, they also said they were amazed by the large amounts of cash that some people came in with, one couple paying out £120,000 for a house.

In similarity to gentrifiers, long-term residents saw little gain in the increases as moving would involve paying the same prices. Empathy towards those that cannot afford to live in the area was a trend that stood out amongst the long-term owner-occupiers in their explanations of feelings on house price change. For example, Steven, a technician who moved to Romsey in 1981, and in his mid-forties, thought that:

Likewise Gill, a Personnel Administrator in her 50’s who moved to Romsey in 1980, said:

And Sandra, a Freelance Book Editor in her 30s now bringing up two children who moved here in 1994, was ‘happy’ about the increases because their house was worth more, but also said:

These comments were representative of the general feelings of long-term residents regarding house prices and shows that it may not be seen as such a positive ‘gain’ as might be expected given how much they have risen by.

Only five people were interviewed who were renting properties. However, they all had negative views on the rise in house prices. Only Jim, a 77 year old man formally from the military who was born in his house was happy, but this was because he felt it benefited other people. On talking to him further he revealed that he felt let down as he had tried to buy his house several times from his private landlord but it was eventually sold to an investment group in the early 1980s. He said that he often gets leaflets through his door from other investment companies enquiring if he is an owner-occupier and would like to sell his property, demonstrating the high demand for housing in the area.

Susan is a Conservationist in her late 20s who has been renting in Romsey for a number of years and was very unhappy at the increases as she was now excluded from the opportunity to buy a property:

A good illustration of how the rising property values can affect those renting came from Richard, a technician who was living in a house with three other professionals, one of whom, Andrea, had bought the house recently:

What these responses demonstrate is the particularly detrimental effect that house price rises can have on those renting as opposed to other groups. Someone who already owns a home cannot be forced out; however, those renting are in a particularly vulnerable position and may be excluded from the financial gains that others make and at the extreme may be displaced even though they may have stronger ties to the neighbourhood.

Community and Neighbourhood Change

As discussed in the literature review, the influx of higher income earners to a previously working class area is widely assumed to have impacts on the community and the neighbourhood. In the questionnaire, residents were asked to rate the sense of community that they had living in Romsey, but with the small number interviewed no correlations arose as almost all had ‘some sense’ of community. However, open-ended questions were asked about this and whether people thought the area had improved, deteriorated and changed which revealed more about people’s general views on community and their perceptions of the neighbourhood.

Long-term residents had a mix of feelings about changes to the area. Some felt the area had not changed, but those that did tended to comment on the changing social mix and changes to the shops. Joanne, the Special School Teacher who moved to the area in 1991, had ‘some sense’ of community through her involvement with her childs school and felt the area had changed due to the changing population:

Julie, a Community Development Officer who moved from another area of Cambridge in 1992, was one of the only people who had a ‘strong sense’ of community and this was due to her involvement with Ross Street Community Centre and because “many of the businesses had been there a long time”. She felt the area had improved because she had lived in council accommodation previously in the area which was “quite rough but was not anymore” though she had mixed feelings about this as she felt these people had been “shipped out”. However, she also felt the area had deteriorated:

Other residents mentioned the rapid turnover of businesses and the change to the social mix of the Council Housing area. Irene and her husband, formally a paint-sprayer for the local airport and now retired, live on a street in Romsey that is predominantly council housing and they moved into their council house 43 years ago. They felt that there was ‘some sense’ of community but that this had declined because a different type of person was now moving into the homes that were formally council:

Many gentrifiers had moved very recently and so were unsure about change to the area; however, others provided some useful insights into the changes taking place. For example, Peter, the Estate Agent in his 40s who moved to Romsey in 1996, had ‘some sense’ of community but felt that this was in decline:

Similarly, Sandra, the Freelance Book Editor in her 30s now bringing up two children and who moved in 1994, felt there was only ‘some sense’ of community as “middle-class people keep themselves to themselves. People are friendly, especially the shopkeepers, but middle-class couples who have moved to the area who are working detract from it and you don’t see them in the day time.” The impact such changes may have on the lower-paid and on social networks was indicated by a professional couple, Tim and Sandra, two self-employed Computer Security Technicians who moved to the area in 1999 from the USA. Although they said there was a ‘strong sense’ of community in the area, their views on ‘change in the neighbourhood’ reflected some of the negative impacts of gentrification:

They also noted improvements to the area, however, commenting that their car used to get scratched all the time but that this did not happen anymore. Two other gentrifiers had similar feelings in this respect. One of these, Gemine, a Jewish Lawyer had moved here with her husband from abroad a year ago, but through past connections with the area was able to identify change:

The active playgroup run from the local community center in Ross Street was the dominant reason identified for there being ‘some sense’ of community in Romsey amongst those with children. They all said it was a good area to bring up children and this let them meet other parents and develop social networks. However, I spoke to Jayne, a council worker who managed the Centre and she said she had noticed some changes to its activities that were indicative of the changing social composition of the area:

What these interviews with gentrifiers and long-term residents on community and the neighbourhood show is that there is clearly noticeable change taking place. The change in social mix identified in the census data is backed up by the comments of residents, be they instigators of it or merely observers, as many mentioned the growth in professional couples in the neighbourhood. Aesthetic change has also been seen with the renovation of houses and there have been changes in the type of businesses in the area and their ability to operate successfully. Whether the area has improved or deteriorated appears to vary from person to person regardless of length of residency in the area. Some mentioned improvements due to the removal of a ‘rough’ element however many felt that the community feel had declined or was in decline. The main reasons cited for this were the influx of residents who spend more time working, the commercialization of the area, the regular turnover of businesses, which are seen as central to the community and the exclusion of many lower-income earners who would like to live there. In the final part I will look further at the conclusions that can be drawn from this data and at the wider policy implications.

PART 4

Conclusions and Policy Implications

Conclusions

This paper began with a review of three explanations for gentrification. It was argued that Marxist explanations provide only a partial explanation of gentrification and do not explain the processes taking place in Cambridge or account for the demand factors for housing. However, the theories around labour market change and consumption provide a useful template with which to analyse changes to employment structures and the demand for housing in Cambridge and indicate which areas may become gentrified. The part on social trends provided an insight into the particular problems that Cambridge is facing and why gentrification is an important issue in the context of these changes, with the growth in professional employment in the high tech sector and their demand for housing in Cambridge.

It was then shown from the 1981-91 socio-economic census data that Cambridge has experienced changes to its employment structure with an increase in the professional classes at the expense of the working class. Although this does not show the displacement of lower-paid middle-class workers, it still indicates areas where particular change is taking place. This data also showed that five wards have experienced above average levels of socio-economic change regarding these two variables and further analysis showed that there was also a positive correlation with increases in qualifications and the displacement variable of pensioners. One ward with particularly significant changes was Romsey and so a case study was undertaken in this area with the aim of taking a closer look at the dynamics of change in a specific setting and to assess what attracts gentrifiers to a certain area. Care needs to be taken with the interpretation of the results as it was based on a small sample. However, they point to trends that would be worthy of further exploration and the qualitative nature of the responses provide a useful insight into people experiences and attitudes to gentrification.

The census data showed that gentrification was taking place in the 1980s; however, the interview results showed that a ‘new-wave’ of gentrifier is coming into the area and this supports the trends identified in part two – the continued influx of high income earners concentrated in the high tech and related sectors. As identified in part one, previous research has shown that displacement in gentrified areas is not limited to lower income households but also affects successively higher income groups and this appears to be the case in Romsey. Consumption theorists emphasize demand factors in gentrification and the interviews identified a number of factors that were important to gentrifiers in moving to Romsey. These were closeness to employment which enabled them to avoid commuting, closeness to social activities in the center, the facilities in the neighbourhood, the cultural diversity of the area and the type of housing and its price. In the context of the study it is important to know this as it could help to identify other areas that may become gentrified. This study has indicated which areas these may be from the analysis of socio-economic census data; however, it would be necessary to undertake further qualitative research and case studies within neighbourhoods in the areas before any firm predictions could be made. These findings are also important regarding any future dispersal policies to encourage people to re-locate near to business on the periphery as it shows what is desired in an area when choosing to live there.

Gentrification literature sees house price increases as one of the major gains to gentrifiers; however, the interviews show that this has to be seen in the context of the city under study, for in Cambridge gentrifiers and long-term residents could see little real gain as most wanted to stay in Cambridge and every where is as expensive. The data also showed the particularly detrimental effect on those renting who faced displacement and exclusion as a direct result of the gentrification of an area and therefore emphasized the importance of developing policies to counter such effects. The interviews on the community and the neighbourhood also highlighted the changes in social composition taking place and its effects. Not enough people were interviewed to make firm conclusions on whether correlations existed in attitudes of different groups or classes; however, it highlighted the changes that are taking place and peoples perceptions of them. What stood out in this respect are changes to the local shops with the high turnover and new ones opening that cater for a different population and also the fact that many people felt the sense of community had changed due to a different social mix.

The potential impact on social networks and on those renting was also seen with, for example, the gentrifiers who were in fear of losing friends in the area who now wished to buy and so would have to move out of Cambridge to do so. The comments on the changes to the social composition of council house areas also lends support to Wardes [1986] argument as explained in part two that the ‘Right to Buy’ has reshaped local housing provision and contributed to an extension of the gentrification process.

It can be concluded that there are those who gain and those who lose from gentrification. Current owner-occupiers gain from having an appreciating asset, but it has been shown that even for many of the highly paid residents, this still leaves them unable to purchase larger housing elsewhere. Some felt there were improvements in the area with less of the ‘rough element’ around and the area will have benefited from the increased investment in the housing stock that has taken place through renovation. However the clear losers in the process are those now excluded from moving into an area that they may wish to live in or those renting who are unable to buy or forced to move out of Cambridge in order to do so. This can then impact on social networks as friends and family may not be able to stay in the area, and as was shown, this too can affect gentrifiers. This, therefore, leads on to the question of what can be done to help those who lose out from gentrification and I will now consider this further.

The main cause of the problems identified that has lead to particularly acute pressure on the Cambridge Housing market is the growth of employment in research and development. One of the obvious solutions to help alleviate this pressure is to discourage further growth. However, there are external counter-tendencies to such a solution. The growth in the technology sectors is part of a global economical expansion and in the UK the economy has performed well over recent years. Within this context Cambridge has become known as a centre of scientific and technological excellence and the Government has actively encouraged its development. Its prestige therefore has implications for the economy as a whole as the Cambridge Phenomenon Revisited [2000 Part 2 p.59] report suggests:

The ‘clustering’ of businesses around the region is set to continue if allowed as it has been shown in the report to increase competitiveness and the survey undertaken as part of the report shows that sixty-four per cent of high tech companies would only want to expand within the Cambridge area. With such forces it does not appear to be viable that growth in this sector will in any way be discouraged. However, if nothing is done then the sustainability of the sector is in doubt as the key workers necessary to support it will be driven out.

The policies undertaken by local government have therefore been based around developing the infrastructure to support the growth of the area. Funding of six million has been secured under the Starter Homes Initiative Scheme which will enable homes to be built for key workers. Also, newly qualified nurses have been granted yearly allowances of £400 to offset the cost of living. A new town has been built to the west of Cambridge and the council has ensured that thirty per cent of homes are affordable in the shape of homes to rent or buy at low-cost or under shared equity schemes. Cambridge City Council also has a general policy to ensure that on land over 0.5 hectares thirty per cent of the developable area is for special needs or affordable housing. The City and County Council have continued to develop their structure plans and various proposals have appeared in the press during the course of writing this dissertation suggesting extending the green belt or building in various parts of Cambridgeshire and there has even been suggestions of moving the local airport out of the city so houses can be built on the land. However, no firm plans have been made and as ever suggestions on re-classifying green belt land remain controversial and opposed by many residents and councillors. Various plans to improve transport networks are also being considered, such as widening the congested A14 and linking settlements with new rail networks.

I would argue that it may be necessary to make Cambridge a ‘special case’ regarding intervention policies by national and local government. Firstly, much of the funding going into cities has been based on those with regeneration needs and so Cambridge has lost out as it does not have this type of need. However, it is clear that funds are necessary to develop an infrastructure to cope with the demand to live in the area and the fact that the government is encouraging its growth is a justification for this. Secondly, despite the recent changes to PPG3, acquiring land and developing affordable housing remains a lengthy process, for as was shown in part two, current house building rates remain below the actual capacity for Cambridge. Given the circumstances in Cambridge and the high land prices, a case could be made to alter procurement processes in the city and provide funding so that the Council can buy back land previously sold for revenue so that more affordable housing can be built.

Thirdly, although politically controversial, there may be a case for ending the ‘Right to Buy’ due to the dire housing need and possibly considering giving the Council first option on buying back old council properties that are being resold. Finally, at a more local level, it is necessary to carry out more research within neighbourhoods to assess the impact on communities. This paper has pointed out possible trends taking place and implications for residents living in the areas affected; however, in order to develop appropriate policies further research is needed. It may be necessary for representatives from local business (in particular the high-tech sector), central and local government to form a partnership group in order to co-ordinate this, to discuss the options suggested and to ensure appropriate policies are driven forward and funded. If action is not taken at a national level then the gentrification of Cambridge and the displacement of its residents is likely to continue at the same pace as the economic growth of the city.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hakim, C. [1987] "Research Design: Strategies and Choices in the Design of Social Research" – Routledge

Hamnett, C [1991] "The blind men and the elephant: the explanation of gentrification" in Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 1991, 16, p. 173-189

Hamnett, C. and Butler, T. [1994] "Gentrification, class, and gender: some comments on Warde’s Gentrification as consumption" in Environment and Planning D, 1994, volume 12, p. 477-493

Jagar, M [1986] "Class definition and the aesthetics of gentrification: Victoriana in Melbourne" in Smith, N. and Williams, P. (Eds) "Gentrification of the City" p. 78–91 – Allen and Unwin

Kennedy and Leonard [2001] "Dealing with neighbourhood change: A primer on gentrification and policy choices" – www.brookings.edu/urban [link now unavailable]

Ley, D [1981] "Inner city revitalization in Canada: a Vancouver case study" in Canadian Geographer, 25, p. 124-148

Marcuse, P. [1986] "Abandonment, gentrification and displacement: the linkages in New York City" in N. Smith and P. Williams (Eds) "Gentrification of the City" p. 153-177 – Allen and Unwin

Marsh, C. [1982] "The Survey Method: The Contribution of Surveys to Sociological Explanation" – George Allen & Unwin

Munt, I. [1987] "Economic restructuring, culture, and gentrification: a case study in Battersea, London" in Environment and Planning A, 1987, volume 19, p. 1175-1197

Payne, S [1984] "Down your street: Cambridge past and present II, East Cambridge" – The Pevensey Press

Smith, N [1979] "Toward a theory of gentrification: a back to the city movement by capital, not people" in Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 45, p.538-548

Warde, A. [1991] "Gentrification as consumption: issues of class and gender" in Environment and Planning D, 1991, volume 9, p. 223-232

Williams, P. [1984] "Gentrification in Britain and Europe" in Palen, J. and London, B. (Eds), "Gentrification, Displacement and Neighbourhood Revitalisation" – State University of New York Press

Other Sources of information and Local Government Documents

Cambridge – An Estimate of Urban Capacity [1998], available from Cambridge City Council

Cambridge Futures Report [1999] "Cambridge Futures", available from the University of Cambridge Department of Architecture – University Press

Cambridge Local Plan [1999] Annual Monitoring Report – Available from Cambridge City Council

Cambridgshire County Council Research Group [1999] "Demographic Pressures" – Available from Cambridgeshire County Council

The Cambridge Evening News [2001] "Economic boom fuelling expensive house Prices", 12th February, p. 24-25

The Cambridge Phenomenon Revisited [2000] by Wicksteed, S. Q., available from The University of Cambridge – Segal Quince and Partners

1981 and 1991 Cambridge and Cambridgeshire OPS Census Reports, available from Cambridge Central Library, Lion Yard

Commuting From	Percentage Change 1981-1991
East Cambridgeshire	+21.9%
Fenland	+94.9%
Huntingdonshire	+71.2%
Peterborough	+212.2%
South Cambridgeshire	+18.1%
Outside County	+69.2%
Total	+33%

Dwelling Size	Average rent (per week)
Dwelling Size	All properties	RSLs
One bed	£104	£49.21
Two bed	£138	£56.07
Three bed	£161	£61.09
Four bed	£196	£69.25

	Percentage Change 1995-2000	Average sale price
	Percentage Change 1995-2000	1995	2000
Cambridge	86.6%	£82,670	£143,262
Cambridgeshire	63.2%	£65,789	£99,338

Local Authority Area	Percentage of properties sold for less than £60k	Approximate lower quartile prices
South Cambs	8%	£79,000
Cambridge City	10%	£79,000
East Cambs	25%	£61,000
Huntingdon	36%	£54,000
Peterborough	60%	£41,000
Fenland	64%	£38,000

	Gentrifiers	Long-term Residents	Renters
Very Happy	-	-	-
Happy	50%	45%	20%
Neutral	43%	22%	-
Unhappy	7%	33%	60%
Very Unhappy	-	-	20%

House Factors	Important %	Neutral %	Unimportant %
Architectural style of the house	79	-	21
Possibility of expressing creativity in home renovation	72	14	14
Possibility of house renovation and selling at a profit	43	21	36

Introduction to the Study