Along the London Overground: Transport

Improvements, Gentrification, and Symbolic

Ownership along London’s Trendiest Line
Marion Lagadic*
6t Bureau de Recherche

Between 2008 and 2011, the dysfunctional North London line was improved and re-
branded into a high-quality, high-frequency service: the London Overground. Great
ambitions for regeneration came with this project: The improved line, running
through deprived areas of East London, was expected to bring inward investment
and to open access to new opportunities outside the borough to its residents. Seven
years after the beginning of the improvement works, Hackney’s Overground sta-
tions have emerged as hubs for London’s trendy, symbolic economy, and the current
commercial dynamism has been interpreted by many as indicative of widespread
gentrification. Through census data analysis and 58 interviews with local shopkeep-
ers and experts around four stations of the London Overground—Dalston, Hack-
ney Central, Homerton, and Hackney Wick—this study shows that the emergence of
a trendy retail scene should not be mistaken for inclusive regeneration. The North
London Line improvements catalyzed gentrification both by capital and by collec-
tive action, and fostered gentrification in both direct and indirect ways. The ex-
pansion of the trendy retail scene, if left uncontrolled by policymakers, will lead
to a symbolic displacement of longstanding residents, which will be added to their
direct displacement through rising rents and exclusion from employment opportu-
nities in the symbolic economy.

INTRODUCTION

In 2001, the Mayor of London announced the improvement of orbital rail links in in-
ner London (Greater London Authority 2001): The new service would be based on the
existing North London line, a disinvested rail link going through North and East Lon-
don. According to Mike Brown, Transport Commisionner at TFL, the North London line
was, at the time, “a dreadful, desolate place with broken windows, plants growing on the
platform, buddleia growing out of buildings” (Topham 2015), and suffered from a repu-
tation of poor service and unsafety. As an existing infrastructure going through some of
the poorest neighborhoods in Britain, the infamous North London line nevertheless of-
fered a great potential for regeneration, and it is with this ambition that the Overground
project was launched (Davison et al. 2012; Greater London Authority 2004; Harbison
2012:79; London Borough of Hackney 2009).
∗ Correspondence should be addressed to Marion Lagadic, 6t Bureau de Recherche, 58 rue Corvisart, 75013
Paris, France; marion.lagadic@gmail.com.

City & Community 18:3 September 2019

doi: 10.1111/cico.12414

C 2019 American Sociological Association, 1430 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005

1003
 CITY & COMMUNITY

In September 2006, the name “London Overground” was first used (TFL 2010), and
as early as 2008, new trains were running on the North London line. The improvements
were completed in spring 2011: The North London Line had turned into a high quality,
high frequency, rebranded service. Londoners are now familiar with the orange line that
completed the TfL transport map, and owed the Overground its own special nickname:
“the Ginger Line.” Indeed, there is something that sets this line apart: It is connecting
the hubs of creative London. From Shoreditch to Hackney Wick, it was soon noticed
that London’s trendiest spots were clustering around its stations. Iain Sinclair (2015), an
author from Hackney, writes:

The arches beneath the elevated tracks, oil pits dealing in MOT certificates, mysterious lock-
ups and rehearsal spaces for bands without names, were being rapidly upgraded to fish farms
offering meditational aids to keep money-market buccaneers on an even keel, Japanese
restaurants and artisan bakeries operated by downsizing hedge-fund managers. The word
“artisan” signaled the change in demographic.

A process of cultural and social change seems to be at work along the Ginger Line, a
process that one may be tempted to call gentrification.
For decades, Hackney has been among the poorest boroughs in Britain, and many have
linked its social problems to its geographic marginalization: Hackney did not have a tube.
The fact that the Ginger Line is now associated with a certain upper-class lifestyle shows
us the complexity of the project. How did the improvement of the North London line im-
pact these neighborhoods? Gentrification has been widely studied as the process through
which well-off households purchase houses and invest their economic capital into disin-
vested areas (e.g., Smith 1979, 1987; Warde 1991), as a process through which households
with a low economic capital but high cultural capital settle into working class areas (e.g.,
Caulfield 1994; Ley 1996), as a process of sociodemographic change that may be entailed
by new developments (Davidson and Lees 2005), or led by retail transformation (e.g.,
Zukin 2009). It has been documented both in European cities (e.g., Butler and Robson
2001, 2003a,b; Clerval 2013; Paccoud and Mace 2018) as well as North American cities
(e.g., Lees 2003; Lloyd 2006; Pearsall 2012). However, very few works have linked gentri-
fication processes to transport improvements. The purpose of this article is to study the
ways in which transport improvements impact the sociodemographic processes at work in
a neighborhood. It will be argued that the improvements to the North London line have
contributed to the gentrification of the neighborhoods serviced in both direct and indi-
rect ways: directly, by endowing these areas with spatial capital (Rérat and Lee 2011) that
new city-centric residents were ready to trade economic capital for—that is, by attracting
new residents willing to pay higher rents; indirectly, by allowing the retailscape of the
East London “symbolic economy” to land in new areas, leading to a change in symbolic
ownership and progressive indirect displacement of longstanding residents.

UNDERSTANDING THE LINK BETWEEN GENTRIFICATION AND

TRANSPORT IMPROVEMENTS: A LITERATURE REVIEW
In 1964, Ruth Glass coined the term gentrification to characterize a process of social
change she observed in Islington, London. Studies of gentrification in London have,
since then, been plentiful (e.g., Butcher and Dickens 2016; Butler 2003; Butler and Lees

1004
 ALONG THE LONDON OVERGROUND

2006; Butler and Robson 2001, 2003a,b; Butler et al. 2013; Davidson 2010; Hamnett
2003, 2009; Hubbard and Lees 2018; Lees and Ferreri 2016; Paccoud and Mace 2018;
Watt 2013). Through five decades of gentrification studies, many definitions of the
phenomenon have been offered; a broad one could be the following: Gentrification
is a process through which middle-class or upper-middle class households move into
working-class neighborhoods. These households either buy cheap, run-down properties
that they renovate, or rent their accommodation. This new demand causes prices to
increase, putting longstanding residents at risk of being displaced. According to Marcuse
(1986), this displacement can be either direct, when longstanding residents are priced
out of the neighborhood, or indirect, when the amenities and people that sustained
their daily uses of the neighborhood disappear, and familiar streets progressively lose
their familiarity. “Gentrifying” households would be mostly young singles or couples, and
are often highly educated (Brown-Saracino 2010).
Revington (2015:152) observed that, while gentrification is considered to be an intrinsi-
cally inequitable process, public transport has always been conceived as a way to promote
social equity, by opening up the access to the space of the city and its opportunities to
residents of all classes. What is the relation between policies of transport improvement
and gentrification dynamics?
As Revington (2015:157) underlined, interventions on transport infrastructure “alter
the distributions of locational advantages” within the city, and households with higher
incomes are better able to compete for the new locational benefits, while low-income
households may be priced out due to the rent capitalization effect—a process which has
been widely documented in urban economic studies (e.g., Ahlfeldt 2013; Ahlfeldt and
Wendland 2011; Bartholomew and Ewing 2011; Baum-Snow and Kahn 2000; Bowes and
Ihlanfeldt 2001). A few authors (see Kahn 2007; Lin 2002; Pollack et al. 2011) have in-
terpreted upward trends in property prices following transport improvements as being
indicative of gentrification, without further characterizing the phenomenon.
The link between transport improvements and gentrification can easily be conceived
of when looking at the “gentrification by capital” (Warde 1991) literature stream in ge-
ography. Some scholars, following Neil Smith (1979, 1987), have analyzed gentrification
as a supply-led phenomenon, resulting from the return of capital into disinvested areas.
Smith theorized this disinvestment by referring to a “rent gap,” which corresponds to the
difference between the current value of land in a given location and its potential value,
that is, its value in its most productive use. The widening of this rent gap through disin-
vestment and depreciation of real estate assets creates opportunity for profit-generation.
When capital “moves back to the city” and puts this land to better use, gentrification hap-
pens. The present author takes the premise that transport improvements in disinvested
areas amount to a return of capital to disinvested urban areas: When the accessibility of
the neighborhood is improved, the potential value of the land surrounding the station in-
creases tremendously; so does the rent gap, and the profitability of additional investments
in the neighborhood from other actors. The likelihood of gentrification is great.
Transport improvements are, however, much more than a simple capital investment:
They transform the location of a place within the city, opening up new opportunities for
residents. How have gentrification and mobility been linked in the literature?
A stream of research has endeavored to study mobility not only as a movement from A
to B using a given mode of transport, but also as a capital. Flamm and Kaufmann (2006)
use the term motility, defined as “how an individual or group takes possession of the

1005
 CITY & COMMUNITY

realm of possibilities for mobility and builds on it to develop personal projects” (Flamm
and Kaufmann 2006:168). Motility is conceptualized as a threefold concept, encompass-
ing (i) access (range of mobility options available in a given place, at a given time); (ii)
competence (ability to use these options, such as being able to cycle, or having a driver’s
license); and (iii) appropriation, which refers to individuals’ choices and mobility strate-
gies, given their specific constraints in terms of access and competence (ibid.:169). As
this capacity to move, which may or may not be converted into effective trips, can be mo-
bilized to develop personal projects, several researchers have discussed this capacity to
be mobile as a form of capital (Kaufmann et al. 2004; Rérat and Lees 2011; Urry 2007).
Rérat and Lees (2011) referred to this as a “spatial capital”—not to be confused with
Centner’s (2008) spatial capital—and laid the argument for considering mobility as a
capital: First, individuals are unequally endowed with it, due to differences in terms of
access, competence, and appropriation. Second, it can be exchanged for other forms of
capital: Paying a high rent to live closer to a station amounts to trading economic capital
for mobility. Third, it is not just the product of other capitals, as it is also determined by
geographic location, by age (e.g., capacity to use active modes), and by personal values
(e.g., environmental awareness leading to urban cycling). Rérat and Lees (2011) used the
concept of spatial capital to study new-built gentrification in Swiss cities. They argue that
what sets these gentrifiers apart from the suburban middle classes is the fact that they are
highly mobile; living in the central city allows them to increase their spatial capital and
to better negotiate dual career households. This finding is very specific to Swiss cities,
where many people work outside of their city of residence; it cannot be transferred to
the London case, as the areas of interest here do not benefit from locational advantages
over those areas where the upper middle class usually reside, even after transport im-
provements. However, it does allow us to refine our hypotheses: Transport improvements
would endow the area with “spatial capital,” which can be mobilized by residents, who
may therefore be better willing to trade economic capital for the opportunity to live in
the area. That is, when the capacity to move about the city from this area is improved,
residents are willing to pay a higher rent.
While the “capital” stream of gentrification theory has underlined the material circum-
stances of gentrification, which are present in the case of transport improvements, the
cultural stream (Caulfield 1994; Ley 1996) has emphasized how there is more to a neigh-
borhood than its built environment, or transport links.
To analyze how culture and space come together, Butler and Robson (2003a,b)
adapted Bourdieu’s cultural theory to gentrification studies. Bourdieu (1987) defined
three forms of capital: Economic capital refers to income and other financial resources;
social capital refers to those resources that can be mobilized through one’s social net-
works (ibid.). Finally, cultural capital consists of specific dispositions and tastes acquired
through socialization and education, and embodied in the “habitus.” Cultural capital can
be divided into two streams: incorporated capital, which represents knowledge acquired
through education, and symbolic capital, which allows individuals to define what are
legitimate values, uses, or aesthetics. Individuals are endowed with different stocks of
these capitals, that they deploy in a field (Bourdieu 1993), that is, a social space in which
individuals compete for access to specific resources. To Butler and Robson, these fields
become spatialized into different “local cultures” (2003a:1791) that reflect the habitus of
the dominant group within the field. This approach can be linked to Centner’s (2008),
who builds on and extends Bourdieu’s capital approach to discuss a fourth form of

1006
 ALONG THE LONDON OVERGROUND

capital, spatial capital—not to be confused with Rérat and Lees’s (2011). He defines
spatial capital as “a form of symbolic capital in a field where material space is at stake.
It derives from other forms of capital deployed through a particular habitus as a practice
[ . . . ] that is misrecognized as legitimate” (Centner 2008:197). In the San Francisco case
discussed by Centner, the expansion of spatial capital takes the form of “practices of
privilege consumption,” such as “expensive residence, high-end arts patronage, large
nonpublic celebrations, usage of elite eating and drinking establishments.” According
to Centner, the deployment of spatial capital in turn allows for the expansion of other
forms of capital, which contribute to shaping place according to a given habitus. The
need for adding a new form of capital to Bourdieu’s theory has been questioned (Mace
2017), as spatial capital could be considered to amount to symbolic capital deployed
in a field. Mace has nevertheless recognized the usefulness of the concept as a tool for
planners to refer to a holistic process of change at work in the urban environment.
According to Butler and Robson (2003a,b), when a given habitus shaped a place, a “lo-
cal culture” appears. Savage et al. (2005:9) find that “people are comfortable when there
is a correspondence between habitus and field.” These local cultures will consequently
be attractive to different groups, according to their specific habitus. Linking Centner’s
(2008) and Butler and Robson’s (2003ba,b) approaches, gentrification can therefore be
understood as the process through which a new population, endowed with high levels of
different capitals, becomes dominant in a field through the deployment of spatial capital
and consequently reorients the local culture. Once the local culture is reoriented, further
gentrification will happen, as more residents feel comfortable within that field. How are
local cultures manifested?
Studying a gentrifying neighborhood of Paris, Simon (1997) noted how different the
ambiance is from one street to the other, depending on who uses it, and in what ways. To
him, “ambiance” corresponds to “a kinetic phenomenon, linked to the fluxes of passers-
by and users” (translation by the present author). The ambiance is defined by who walks
by, where they stop, whether or not they stop, and their mobility is influenced by what the
street is made of.
Different theorists have tried to conceptualize that feeling of ease, excitement, or fear
one may get when walking down a street. Silver and Clark (Clark et al. 2005; Silver and
Clark 2015, 2016; Silver et al. 2010) developed the concept of scenes, which constitute
sets of consumption amenities that, put together, define the character of an area. Each
of these scenes will attract certain people, concurring with Simon’s (1997) characteri-
zation of ambiances as “self-segregatory.” To Clark et al. (2005:6), “those collections of
amenities and people serve to foster certain shared values and tastes, certain ways of re-
lating to one another and legitimating what one is doing.” The concept of scenes allows
us to see the field of consumption as a good indicator of the power struggles within a
broader social field, and as reflecting a certain habitus. This has been widely discussed by
Zukin (2009:47), who argued that in addition to catering to the material needs of new
residents, these new consumption spaces also “supply their less tangible needs for social
and cultural capital.” They, in that sense, form a local “symbolic economy” (Zukin 1995),
a new scene that overlaps and sometimes clashes with the former scene. This approach
echoes Centner’s theoretical framework and is key to a study of gentrification. Indeed,
“a group that imposes its own taste on urban space—on the look of a street, say, or the
feeling of a neighborhood—can make a claim to that space that displaces longtime res-
idents” (Zukin, 2010:3–4). Deener (2007:311) referred to this “social control over the

1007
 CITY & COMMUNITY

relationship between aesthetic presentation, public perception, and social and economic
utility of a neighborhood” as “symbolic ownership,” and argued that, once it is asserted,
different definitions and uses of space are closed off, as the symbolic capital deployed in
the field is perceived as being legitimate.
This literature review has shown that the capital stream of gentrification theory can be
easily related to transport improvements, and that gentrification is very likely to happen
in a situation of transport improvements—it is a hypothesis we will confront to data and
to oral histories as shared by residents in order to determine whether or not this was
verified in the case of the London Overground. The cultural stream of gentrification
has, however, not yet touched upon the issue of transport improvements. In the case of
the London Overground, we nevertheless observe strong changes in scenes along this
renewed infrastructure. The present article will consider how transport improvements
can lead to a change in symbolic ownership in an area.
This literature review allows the author to set three core hypotheses: First, that trans-
port improvements, by widening the rent gap, will encourage a process of gentrification
in the area. This rent gap approach can similarly be coined in terms of spatial capital:
Through transport improvements, an area becomes endowed with spatial capital that
residents may be willing to trade economic capital for. Second, this sociodemographic
change will entail a new demand for privileged consumption practices, which may lead
to a change in the retail scene, leading to a change in symbolic ownership, and in turn
to the indirect displacement of longstanding residents. The discussion will consequently
be divided into two parts, answering, respectively, the following questions: How have im-
provements to the North London line impacted sociodemographic processes at work in
the area? How has the scene, studied through an analysis of the retailscape, evolved in
these areas?

METHODS

CHOICE OF STATIONS

The borough of Hackney has consistently ranked among the most deprived in England
(Koutrolikou 2012); in 2010, Hackney was, according to its score on the indices of multi-
ple deprivation, the second most deprived local authority in England (London Borough
of Hackney 2011).
This study will consider four stations on the Overground, chosen for their close prox-
imity and yet very different profiles: Dalston Kingsland, Hackney Central, Homerton, and
Hackney Wick.
Dalston has a lower percentage of social housing than the borough’s average, and its
residents display higher qualifications (London Borough of Hackney 2014a). The area
has undergone important redevelopment projects in the past years, with the Dalston
Square Complex, which Davison et al. (2012) have studied as a form of state-led gen-
trification, and many more new upper-end housing developments such as Dalston Curve,
or FiftySevenEast. While The Guardian already deemed Dalston to be “the coolest place
in Britain” 6 years ago (Flynn 2009), Hackney Central has remained a disinvested town
center, marked by high unemployment (London Borough of Hackney 2014b). Close to
Dalston, it has also benefited from great attention from developers, with projects such

1008
 ALONG THE LONDON OVERGROUND

as Pembury Circus or Hackney Square. Homerton, on the other hand, has remained
relatively disinvested, and displays a higher proportion of social housing than the bor-
ough’s average (London Borough of Hackney 2014c), leading to a concentration of
poverty. Finally, Hackney Wick is a fragmented neighborhood; while the Southern part
of the neighborhood, bordered by Tower Hamlets, would have the highest concentration
of artists per square mile in the Europe (hackneywick.org) and is composed of inhabited
warehouses, the Northern part is composed of a large housing estate marked by high
unemployment (London Borough of Hackney 2014d).
Hackney Wick has seen the London 2012 Olympics happen at its doorstep, and some
Olympic developments are being repurposed into new housing. The transformation of
the area will be dramatic in the coming years: A new town center is planned around
the Overground station (LLDC 2015), which should completely reshape the face of the
postindustrial island.
The four station areas have received different levels of investment, and present dif-
ferent material situations and physical environments. What brings them together is the
Ginger Line.

METHODS USED

This study is based on 5 months of ethnographic fieldwork conducted around Dalston,

Hackney Central, Homerton, and Hackney Wick stations. Fifty-eight semidirective inter-
views (questionnaire included in Appendix A) were conducted in total. The sampling
method was a mix between systematic sampling, focusing on all roads in a 500 m ra-
dius from the Overground stations of interest, and purposive sampling: The choice was
made to focus on shopkeepers, due to the importance of retail to indirect displacement
identified in the literature, and to the refined knowledge of social dynamics they acquire
through daily encounters with local patrons. In total, 42 out of the 58 interviews were
conducted with shopkeepers. In addition to these shopkeepers selected through system-
atic and purposive sampling, 16 interviews were conducted with people chosen for their
expert knowledge on specific topics, including a Hackney councilor. Interviews will be
referred to in the text by a letter and a number (e.g., D10; see Appendix B for summary
table and corresponding reference).
Interviews were complemented by everyday observations and informal conversation,
by census data analysis and cartography, and by a detailed preliminary study of policy
documents using the method of content analysis, (i) to identify how the present and
future of these neighborhoods was depicted; (ii) to identify all new developments in the
areas in order to add some context-specific elements in each interview, and (iii) to make
sense of sociodemographic changes observed in the census data analysis.

MOVING TO HACKNEY: IS GENTRIFICATION OCCURRING

ALONG THE OVERGROUND ?
A confrontation of census data analysis to the oral histories shared by residents allows
us to retrace the chronology of gentrification in the area, and to identify the role the
Overground has played in this phenomenon.

1009
 CITY & COMMUNITY

FIG. 1. Percentage Variation in Median House Price at the LSOA level, 2007–2014—circles represent a 500 m
radius area around each station.

10 YEARS ALONG THE LINE: A CENSUS-DATA ANALYSIS

The last two censuses have been conducted in 2001, before the Overground project was
even announced, and in 2011, the year the improvements on the North London line were
completed. Census data have been mapped at the output area (OA) level—the smallest
statistical unit in the UK census—in order to analyze demographic dynamics in that 10-
year period (Figures 1–7). To improve legibility, summary tables present the average value
for all output areas intersecting with a 500 m radius circle centered on each station of
interest. The average values are compared Hackney and London averages.
Property prices have, between 2007 and 2014, risen all throughout the area (Figure 1).
This property price increase has been observed all throughout London; the areas com-
prised in a 500 m radius around Dalston, Hackney Central, and Homerton have experi-
enced a higher increased than the London average, while the increase in Hackney Wick
is comparable (Table 1). Dalston and Hackney Central have seen their median property
price rise faster than the borough of Hackney: a 71 percent increase in Dalston and a 78
percent increase in Hackney Central, compared to a 63 percent increase in the borough
of Hackney. In Homerton and Hackney Wick, price increases have been lower than the
Hackney average; this pattern may be attributed to, respectively, the high proportion of
social housing and the specific built-environment (inhabited warehouses) of these two
neighborhoods, limiting capitalization processes.
While all four neighborhoods are characterized by an important, yet differing, social
housing stock, census data reveal that this stock has been decreasing all over the area
between 2001 and 2011 (Figures 2 and 3), as it has been in London in general (Table 2).
The percentage of households living in a social rented accommodation has particularly
decreased around Hackney Wick station (–11.7 percentage points). The 2011 census data

1010
 ALONG THE LONDON OVERGROUND

FIG. 2. Percentage of households renting their accommodation from the council or from a housing
association/registered social landlord at the OA level, UK Census 2001—circles represent a 500 m radius area
around each station.

FIG. 3. Percentage of households renting their accommodation from the council or from a housing
association/registered social landlord at the OA level, UK Census 2011—circles represent a 500 m radius area
around each station.

1011
 CITY & COMMUNITY

FIG. 4. Percentage of residents in Higher and Lower Managerial and Professional Occupations at the OA
level, UK Census 2001—circles represent a 500 m radius area around each station.

FIG. 5. Percentage of residents in Higher and Lower Managerial and Professional Occupations at the OA
level, UK Census 2011—circles represent a 500 m radius area around each station.

nevertheless show that social housing remains a structuring feature of these areas: The
share of households renting their accommodation from the council or from an associ-
ation/registered social landlord remains much high than the London average around
all four station areas. In the Homerton area, it is the case for more than one out of two
households.

1012
 ALONG THE LONDON OVERGROUND

FIG. 6. Percentage of residents in between 18 and 29 years old at the OA level, UK Census 2001—circles
represent a 500 m radius area around each station.

FIG. 7. Percentage of residents in between 18 and 29 years old at the OA level, UK Census 2011—circles
represent a 500 m radius area around each station.

At the same time, the proportion of residents in Higher and Lower Professional,
Managerial, and Administrative professions has risen around all four stations (Figures 4
and 5), at a much higher pace than it has in London (Table 3). This increase is par-
ticularly striking around Hackney Wick station, where the share of residents in Higher

1013
 CITY & COMMUNITY

TABLE 1. Median Property Price Variation between 2007 and 2014—Average Values for All LSOAs in a 500 m
Radius around the Stations of Interest

Hackney Hackney Hackney

Station Dalston Central Homerton Wick (Borough) London

2007/2014 +71% +78% +57% +37% +63% +39%

TABLE 2. Percentage of Households Living in a Social Rented Accommodation (Local Council or Housing
Association/Registered Social Landlord)—Average Values for All OAs in a 500 m Radius around the Stations
of Interest

Hackney Hackney Hackney

Station Dalston Central Homerton Wick (Borough) London

2001 Census 47.6% 51.7% 60.0% 57.8% 50.8% 26.2%

2011 Census 42.6% 47.0% 53.7% 46.1% 43.7% 24.1%
Variation –5 pts –4.7 pts –6.3 pts –11.7 pts –7.1 pts –2.1 pts

TABLE 3. Percentage of Residents in Higher and Lower Professional, Managerial and Administrative
Professions—Average Values for All OAs in a 500 m Radius around the Stations of Interest

Hackney Hackney Hackney

Station Dalston Central Homerton Wick (Borough) London

2001 Census 34.7% 29.6% 24.0% 22.8% 29.8% 34.3%

2011 Census 42.4% 36.4% 28.1% 32.6% 35.2% 35.5%
Variation +7.7 pts +6.8 pts +4.1 pts +9.8 pts +5.4 pts +1.2 pts

and Lower Professional, Managerial, and Administrative professions increased by 9.8 per-
centage points, compared to a 1.2 point increase in London, and a 5.4 point increase in
the borough of Hackney. This increases measured in Dalston and Hackney Central are
also above the borough average (respectively +7.7 points and +6.8 pts), while Homerton
displays a comparable increase (+4.1 points). Figure 5 shows especially high shares of
residents in Higher and Lower Professional, Managerial, and Administrative Professions
proportions in the area south of Dalston Kingsland station, by Dalston Junction station.
This area corresponds to the new Dalston Square development. This seems to suggest
these new developments entailed an “instant gentrification,” to use Rose’s (2006) ter-
minology: These new-built developments attracted new residents displaying sociodemo-
graphic characteristics that differed from those of longstanding residents. Similarly, more
pockets can be located in the southern part of the Hackney Central area, that is, the area
closest to London Fields, an already gentrified area, but also to the North, in the station’s
immediate proximity. Residents in these NsSec categories still represent a relatively low
share of the Homerton population, but one can clearly identify a pocket with a higher
share of such residents immediately by the station on the 2011 map (Figure 5). This area
does not correspond to any new development, which tends to suggest gentrification “by
collective action” (Warde 1991). In Hackney Wick, figures also rose to around the station
area.
In addition to professional occupations, gentrification is also associated with an in-
flux of young residents; Figures 6 and 7 show that the share of 18- to 29-year-olds rose
in the Dalston area. The increase is however most striking in Hackney Wick. Both the
Dalston Kingsland and Hackney Wick station areas saw that share of young residents

1014
 ALONG THE LONDON OVERGROUND

TABLE 4. Percentage of Residents between 18 and 29 Years Old—Average Values for All OAs in a 500 m Radius
around the Stations of Interest

Hackney Hackney Hackney

Station Dalston Central Homerton Wick (Borough) London

2001 Census 22.1% 21.2% 20.7% 19.8% 20.4% 19.3%

2011 Census 27.8% 24.6% 24.1% 25.5% 24.7% 20.2%
Variation +5.7 pts +3.4 pts +3.4 pts +5.7 pts +4.3 pts +0.9 pts

increase at a faster pace than that of the borough of Hackney. While the share of young
residents increased slower than the borough average in Hackney Central and Homerton,
this increase is still more than three times higher than that measured for the whole of
London (respectively +3.4 points in Hackney Central and Homerton, and +0.9 points in
London) (Table 4). A pocket characterized by a higher share of young residents emerged
in Homerton; This area corresponds to a new building by Homerton station, suggesting
what may be interpreted as another instance of instant gentrification “by capital.” Finally,
the proportion of young people also increased in Hackney Wick, in areas of warehouse-
type dwellings.
These data clearly suggest a process of demographic change along the Overground sta-
tions: The changes observed are particularly striking in the Dalston Kingsland, Hackney
Central, and Hackney Wick area, and may be slowed down by the high share of social
housing in Homerton. The sociodemographic processes observed in Homerton are nev-
ertheless significant. These processes of change may be traced to new developments, but
may also be disconnected from any intervention on the built environment, which shows
that there is more than gentrification by capital at work.

ORAL HISTORIES OF NEIGHBORHOOD CHANGE

Building on the oral histories of local residents, a chronology of change has been recon-
structed, in order to identify processes of gentrification predating the improvements, and
understand who are the newcomers, and, as a time-lag can be predicted to exist between
improvements and relocation decisions, what has happened since 2011.
Dalston started to gentrify as early as the late ’70s, when middle-class households set-
tled there to restore cheap Victorian houses (D16); in the mid-’80s, artists settled in to
take advantage of the large, cheap spaces left behind by deindustrialization; these young
creatives remained a minority. Interviewees widely agree that things started to change in
2013: While “young,” “hip” people had been present in the neighborhood before that,
they became much more visible, meeting in the cafés to work together (D21). Another
group of in-moving residents has also been identified by traders and real-estate agents:
that of young professionals (G2, G7, D10, D14), an influx already suggested by the data,
and which has apparently been ongoing since 2001.
While the statistical analysis reveals that residents in higher and lower professional, ad-
ministrative, and managerial positions were present in the area as early as 2001 (Figure 4),
interviewees considered that Hackney Central has started to change recently, in this same
2-year period; “free-lancers” and “artistic people” (G5), but also young professionals (G6)
and families (H32, G2), would be currently moving into the area.

1015
 CITY & COMMUNITY

In Homerton, things are not changing as fast; this is, according to a real estate agent
(G2), due to the high percentage of social housing in the area. He notes, however, that
a lot of them are currently going on the market. A local shopkeeper (H37) mentions an
influx of young professionals and families, which started to happen, according to her, in
2013.
Finally, Hackney Wick is unique in its evolution. The postindustrial haven, had, accord-
ing to a local artist, remained in “a beauty sleep” (HW51), until 2013. This period has seen
an influx of “hipsters” with “wealthy parents,” and who are “just here to party” (HW51),
but also of young professionals renovating warehouses to turn them into high-end lofts
(HW56), or moving into the ex-council cottages in the Northern part of the area.
Overall, two groups seem to have moved into the four station areas: first, a creative,
artistic group we will refer to as “neo-bohemians,” following Lloyd’s (2006) account of
gentrification in Chicago’s Wicker Park neighborhood, which was carried out by young
creatives displaying a high cultural capital, but low economic capital. The second category
refers to new residents displaying high cultural capital as well as high economic capital;
these will be referred to as “young professionals.” There is, surprisingly, wide agreement
across neighborhoods on the year 2013 as a moment of change. Interestingly, when asked
about change, all respondents immediately mentioned new retail. As data show residents
with “gentrifier” demographics were already present in all four neighborhoods in 2011,
one can assume that they have become more visible in the past two years through this
change in retail. This change in retail denotes a new demand for privileged consump-
tion practices, and a deployment of spatial capital in Centner’s sense, which led, as this
paper will discuss, to a symbolic ownership shift. How does the Overground relate to this
phenomenon?

“A SERIOUS COMMUTE”: THE OVERGROUND

Census maps (Figures 1–7) have shown that some dynamics of demographic change seem
to coalesce around the North London line stations. Were the North London line improve-
ments a key factor in the newcomers’ locational decisions?
Real estate agents all declare that proximity to an Overground station is one of the
key criteria mentioned by their clients in those areas, and one (G2) specifies that they
do not want to be more than 10 minutes away from the station walking. Moreover, in
all four neighborhoods, interviewees identify that the Overground allowed people who
work outside to move in (D10, HW51), wealthier, young professionals (HC5, HC28; H37,
H39). They mention their knowledge of clients who work in West London, in Parliament,
in Soho, in Canary Wharf.
It seems, however, that the impact of the Overground has gone beyond the mate-
rial accessibility aspect. Indeed, several interviewees mention that the Overground put
their neighborhood on the map and contributed to a change in perceptions of the area.
According to the manager of a trendy café in Dalston (D14), as the Overground is widely
used, people recognize “Dalston” as a name, something they would not have necessarily
done before, while neighboring areas, like Angel, an area serviced by the eponymous
metro station, already had a name. This view is shared by a Hackney Wick artist (HW51)
who considers that “places do not exist if they are not on the underground or Overground
map,” and consequently “Hackney Wick didn’t really exist for people” before the service

1016
 ALONG THE LONDON OVERGROUND

was rebranded. A local designer (HW57) adds that perceptions of distance have changed,
with the Overground making it “acceptable” to go to Hackney Wick. He considers that
the rebranding of the service was necessary for the North London line to be considered as
“a serious commute” one can depend on: “Now, it’s like getting on a tube, it’s accepted.”
Longstanding residents interviewed do, however, believe that the Overground only
brought new people in and is not used by the original community (D17; D18; D19; HC26;
HC27; HC28; H42; HW56). Indeed, none of the longstanding shopkeepers interviewed
declared using it or having knowledge of other longstanding residents or clients using
it on a regular basis. Out of the 34 people who explicitly detailed their use of the Over-
ground, only 5 said they used it regularly. All five of them are young, and four out of
those five work in trendy shops. These respondents represent, however, a very reduced
part of our sample. Young people involved in the creative industry or working in trendy
shops actually tend not to use the Overground: 15 out of the 22 interviewees involved
in trendy businesses or creative activities who specified their means of transportation de-
clared not using the Overground as their primary means of transportation because they
cycled. Within the remaining seven, four lived close enough to walk to work; the last three
were among those who declared using the Overground to get to work. Overall, out of the
22 respondents involved in trendy/creative activities, 19 did not use the Overground on
a regular basis. The reputation of the Overground as a “hipster shuttle” (D16), as the
founder of a Dalston conservation association likes to call it, does not seem to be verified:
While young professionals use it, the “neo-bohemians” do not. This allows us to refine
our characterization of these young professionals as being “city-centric.”
This analysis suggests that the “city-centric” residents, who are endowed with higher
stocks of economic capital than the neo-bohemians, would probably not live in those
neighborhoods without the transport improvements. The relation is not as straightfor-
ward for the neo-bohemians: While it appears from the confrontation between census
data and oral histories that longstanding dynamics of gentrification by collective action
have been reinforced by the Overground, these residents do not rely on it for their daily
mobilities. There is something more to the attraction of the neighborhood: a specific
ambiance, a scene, which is going to be considered now.

FEELING AT HOME: RETAIL GENTRIFICATION AND INDIRECT

DISPLACEMENT

The importance of commercial streets and markets as places of sociability and encounter
has been widely studied (e.g., Hall 2012; Watson 2006); does this trendy scene, the emer-
gence of which followed the opening of the Overground, attract and cater to a specific
group of newcomers?

THE EAST LONDON HABITUS AND A NETWORKED SENSE OF PLACE

The trendy scene identified in these areas displays an aesthetic character that has
been identified with artistic, neo-bohemian gentrification all around the world (Lloyd
2006): Scandinavian-style furniture, vintage decor, and exotic indoor plants. An influx of

1017
 CITY & COMMUNITY

city-centric professionals, fostered by the Overground, has been identified. Do these peo-
ple share the aesthetic taste of the neo-bohemians?
Trendy shopkeepers in all neighborhoods identified recent movers within their clien-
tele, such as families (HC31), professionals working in central London (D10), or res-
idents of new developments (D23, HW51, HW52). This demonstrates that, while the
“city-centric” types do not deploy their symbolic capital in the same way as the “neo-
bohemians,” who are more likely to be involved in the hospitality or cultural industry,
both share certain aesthetic tastes. The owner of a Homerton gastro-pub noted that, when
he opened in September 2013, “they all came in, because they’d waited. [ . . . ] Some of
them have lived here for decades and they’ve waited a long time for somewhere nice to
come and have a drink” (H40). This is a very interesting point: Previous waves of gen-
trifiers had deployed their economic capital by moving into the area, but they had not
deployed their spatial capital (in Centner’s sense) in the same way, as they performed
their privileged practices of consumption in different neighborhoods.
Indeed, it appears trendy shops, bars, and restaurants in all four neighborhoods were
always busy, even when they had only been opened for a few months, or were relatively
isolated. It has been argued that different deployments of symbolic capital in the field of
consumption will give rise to different scenes, which, according to Clark et al. (2005), will
be attractive to different kinds of people, and that people feel comfortable where the lo-
cal field reflects their habitus (Savage et al. 2005); this study identifies a far-reaching “East
London habitus” that extends beyond class boundaries, from the middle- to the upper-
class, and is associated with large stocks of symbolic capital. Indeed, it seems that newcom-
ers conceptualize their area through a “networked sense of place” (Savage et al. 2005), a
“sense of place that is conceived by actors through comparisons with other known places”
(Davison et al. 2012:64). Cultivating this networked sense of place is a way for commu-
nity entrepreneurs to make their place feel immediately familiar to patrons who might
be from other parts of London by referring to neighborhoods that are already identified
as trendy. A bike shop in Hackney Central refers, for instance, to London Fields in its
name, while the owner of a Homerton café (H45) advertises its bread as being “from Dal-
ston” and its pastries “from London Fields.” In Homerton, people tend to refer to their
neighborhood as neighboring “Clapton,” as this local resident noted (H39):
Homerton is attached to Clapton, and the Clapton side of Homerton will tend to say that
they are Clapton, it’s a bit like, the part of Clapton that’s nearest to Stoke Newington will
refer to themselves as being in Stoke Newington, because that is always the more gentrified
place.

This exemplifies how widespread these cross-referencing practices are. Geographical

adjectives are also used by recent in-movers to characterize the retail scene: A Hackney-
based journalist (G7) refers to a new Homerton café as “typically the kind of place you
would find in Dalston,” while residents of Hackney Wick refer to the “Shoreditchification”
(H8) of their area and to the “extension of the East London scene” (HW54). Interestingly,
when talking about this same retail scene, longstanding residents tend to refer rather to
Islington (HC28, D17, 18, 19, H42), the neighborhood studied by Ruth Glass when she
coined the term gentrification in the 1960s, a neighborhood that is today one of the
most expensive in central London, and that Tony Blair calls home. While new residents
interpret this scene as being associated with a certain “lifestyle”—a perception already
noted by Zukin and Kosta (2004)—longstanding residents associate it with wealth.

1018
 ALONG THE LONDON OVERGROUND

This networked sense of place is easily fostered by the Overground: A new development
close to Hackney Central station makes clear reference to the proximity of Dalston in its
brochure (Peabody n.d.), while a Homerton resident, working in Hackney Central, con-
siders that one of the key assets of his neighborhood is to be close to Hackney Wick and
its buzzing nightlife (H33). The symbolic power of this new line has even been identified
by a group of restaurateurs, whose “nomadic restaurant and art space,” called the Ginger
Line, opens as a pop-up around stations of the Overground. This cultural dynamic has
even caught the attention of the V&A Museum, which invited artists from Hackney Wick
to take over its “Friday Lates” after a series of other neighborhoods also serviced by the
Overground, and an aestheticized East London identity is the subject of various books
published recently and available in the trendiest bookstores on the trendiest streets of
London, such as Broadway Market.

COLONIZING THE FIELD OF CONSUMPTION

To Butler and Robson (2003b:38), the field of consumption is about competition for two
key resources: economic capital, and symbolic capital. This approach is enlightening to
this study: In a context of rising rents, those traders or firms with the highest economic
capital will be best able to define the nature of the field; conversely, the deployment of
symbolic capital is a way to attract those customers with the highest buying power. The
present author wishes to add one new factor to this model: spatial capital, as defined
by Rérat and Lees (2011). Indeed, one can also argue that the spatial capital created
through transport improvements is a resource that can be mobilized by shop owners:
It widens the commercial reach of their shops, by making them more easily accessible
for visitors. It becomes possible to turn a local shop into a new destination within the
borough, or even within the city. One can thus hypothesize that rent capitalization may
be even higher for commercial spaces than it will be for residential spaces.
Locals, which cater to daily needs and do not necessarily capture this spatial capital,
are consequently behind in the struggle for these spaces, as they will be unable to convert
this new spatial capital into economic capital in a gentrifying neighborhood. The field
of consumption is colonized, and a new symbolic ownership is established: that of the
East London habitus. Watson (2006) underlined that, while spaces of consumption can
be places of encounter, they can “increase a sense of displacement and alienation when
the dominant selling goods begin to change.” This is what we are observing along this
railway line.
Most trendy shopkeepers interviewed admitted that most of their clients “were people
who moved to Dalston rather than people who grew up there” (D23), “were not native
Homerton people, if you know what I mean” (H40), “were probably new residents or
outside visitors in Hackney Central” (HC31), and “were from the warehouse or new-built
community rather than the social housing estate in Hackney Wick” (HW52, 53). To the
contrary, longstanding shopkeepers perceive this new offer as being exclusive, and dis-
connected from the needs of the community. To a traditional café owner in Homerton,
new residents tend to “keep to themselves” and go to “their cafés and shops” that they
opened “for themselves” (H42), while a volunteer at a local Homerton community cen-
ter (H39) notes that “there are a lot of people that feel a bit put out by the [Chatsworth
Road] street market, it’s all very trendy stuff, and lots of people are very angry about that.

1019
 CITY & COMMUNITY

[ . . . ] The road here used to have some burger bars, kebab shop, it’s now gone, there’s
a shop that sells bottles of Gin for £200, so you know, it’s a different kind of place now.”
New residents have taken place, and their stories send us back to Centner’s discussion of
how spatial capital was deployed in the San Francisco Mission district.
The financial aspect is often brought up, and many new traders are well aware that
their products may be out of reach for the majority community in their area (HC29,
HW54): They are offering privileged consumption products. Several new shopkeepers
are concerned with the white, middle-class homogeneity of their clientele (D23, H40,
H45), and try to appeal to longstanding residents, notably by offering some products
at a low price. The fracture goes, however, beyond prices. A longstanding Mare Street
shopkeeper mentions with a certain disdain “all of these nice places to walk down and sit
outside and small talk” (HC28), while another trader (HC34) expresses her surprise at
seeing such cafés full all day long. The incomprehension is mutual, as exemplified by this
Homerton shopkeeper (H45): “it’s not because we play music that they don’t like, or like,
make food . . . . Maybe our food is not what they like. But it’s diverse, it’s not really specific
to an ethnicity, it’s just like brunch, you know.” Brunch is, however, clearly an upper-class
form of consumption.
Beyond the products, it is the general aesthetics of these shops that seem to be the
source of the fracture. This can be concluded from looking at the only exception to the
“old-timers”/“new-comers” retail segregation observed on the ground: pubs. While Zukin
(2008:731), talking from U.S. cases, argued that the cultural gap in gentrified neighbor-
hoods is greatest in working class bars, this appears to be different in the London con-
text, where some longstanding pubs that changed ownership have emerged as places of
encounter. A traditional pub taken over in Hackney Central has become a fashionable
stop for the evening crowd on its way to the theatre, while retaining its traditional clien-
tele. A trendy Homerton publican (H40) notes that the same is true of three local pubs
that have been taken over, an observation confirmed by members of their staff (H46,
H47). These four pubs still display “traditional” shopfronts, and their interiors were re-
decorated in subtle ways. This shows the power of aesthetics and taste to bring together
or fragment a community. These aesthetics go, however, beyond mere decoration. Zukin
(1995) observed in New York that the appearance of waiters was a central part of the
consuming experience; in all the trendy shops studied, employees displayed a very so-
phisticated “hip” style, suggesting that it may be harder for longstanding residents to
access the jobs created in this striving hospitality industry.

TECTONIC JUXTAPOSITIONS AND SYMBOLIC DISPLACEMENT

Overall, this study suggests that the symbolic displacement of longstanding residents is
underway in these neighborhoods. While the trendy scene may not be well developed
yet in Hackney Central and Homerton, almost all new shops opening around the four
stations adopt these specific trendy East London aesthetics, and are run by newcomers
who fit into that scene. Their patrons are also newcomers, who make sense of their area
by referring to other places that together form their “Hackney of the mind,” to use Butler
and Robson’s (2003a,b) phrase about Brixton’s gentrifiers. Similarly to what Butler and
Robson (2003a,b) noted in other gentrifying neighborhoods around London, newcom-
ers and old-timers come together in a “tectonic juxtaposition,” rather than in a mix. The

1020
 ALONG THE LONDON OVERGROUND

gentrification of the retail scene allows for “partial exit strategies” (Bridge et al. 2012)
through which newcomers can recreate a cocoon that looks and feels just like trendy—
and privileged—Shoreditch. While the Hackney Council (2009) perceived social mixing
as being an intrinsic part of regeneration, we identified, as Lees (2008) did, that this
social mixing does not actually happen on the ground. As longstanding shops are dis-
placed by new, trendier ones, it is the social capital of longstanding residents, who lose
places of encounters, that is eroded (see Cheshire 2006). As argued by Zukin (2008:745),
and Centner (2008) norms of alternative consumption can turn into means of excluding
others from a given space.

CONCLUSION

All along the Overground, trendy consumption enclaves have emerged, through which
new residents operate a “partial exit” (Bridge et al. 2012) and domesticate this space that
has now become an accessible and acceptable destination. This symbolic economy is now
spreading all around East London, and it would most likely have reached these destina-
tions, even without the Overground. The infrastructure provides, however, a “principle
of selection” (Harbison 2012), it signals specific points where investment is insured to be
profitable, due to this new spatial capital that can be captured to extend a shop’s catch-
ment area, but also to the new symbolic link between these areas and neighboring trendy
areas. The process of retail change accelerated so greatly that the independent retail
scene of Dalston, established only about 2 years ago, is now threatened to be displaced by
national chains.
The trendy scene studied along our portion of railway does not, however, appeal to
longstanding residents, and some of them do themselves interpret it as being indicative of
exit strategies. Moreover, the aestheticization of this scene prevents them from accessing
employment in the thriving hospitality industry: Only three of the trendy shopkeepers
interviewed were native to the neighborhoods, and they were all owners, not employees.
The displacement is, thus, both direct and indirect (Marcuse 1986).
This study has shown that there is something special about East London, and it is be-
cause of the particular symbolic strength of its scene that these findings may not be appli-
cable to another city, or even to other parts of London, as Butler and Robson (2003a,b)
have demonstrated the large heterogeneity of gentrification processes across London.
This analysis offers, however, an important takeaway for policy: Inhabiting is about more
than a dwelling. It is about the ambiance of one’s street, its familiarity, the aesthetics and
offer of the shops one walks past. While the recent retail dynamism does indeed bring life
and wealth to these neighborhoods, it indicates a deployment of spatial capital in a way
that excludes longstanding residents both from places of consumption and from places
of social encounter.
Dalston and Hackney Central will soon benefit from a new, large-scale transport im-
provement: Crossrail. Further research would need to explore the impact of this new
infrastructure, from announcement to completion.

Acknowledgements
I would like to warmly thank Alan Mace for his enlightening advice all throughout this
research project. I am also grateful for Ryan Centner’s support and encouragement.

1021
 CITY & COMMUNITY

Finally, I would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers whose feedback allowed me
to greatly improve this article.

REFERENCES
Ahlfeldt, Gabriel. 2013. “If We Build It, Will They Pay? Predicting Property Price Effects of Transport Innova-
tions.” Environment and Planning A 45(8):1977–94.
Ahlfeldt, Gabriel, and Nicolai Wendland. 2011. “Fifty Years of Urban Accessibility: The Impact of the Urban
Railway Network on the Land Gradient in Berlin in 1890–1936.” Regional Science and Urban Economics 41:77–
88.
Bartholomew, Keith, and Reid Ewing. 2011. “Hedonic Price Effects of Pedestrian- and Transit-Oriented Devel-
opment.” Journal of Planning Literature 26(1):18–34.
Baum-Snow, Nathaniel, and Matthew E. Kahn. 2000. “The Effects of New Public Projects to Expand Urban Rail
Transit.” Journal of Public Economics 77(2):241–63.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1987. “What Makes a Social Class? On the Theoretical and Practical Existence of Groups.”
Berkeley Journal of Sociology 32:1–18.
———. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bowes, David R., and Keith R. Ihlanfeldt. 2001. “Identifying the Impacts of Rail Transit Stations on Residential
Property Values.” Journal of Urban Economics 50(1):1–25.
Bridge, Gary, Tim Butler, and Loretta Lees. 2012. Mixed Communities: Gentrification by Stealth? Bristol, CT: The
Policy press, Bristol.
Brown-Saracino, Japonica. 2010. The Gentrification Debates. New York: Routledge.
Butcher, Melissa, and Luke Dickens. 2016. “Spatial Dislocation and Affective Displacement: Youth Perspectives
on Gentrification in London.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 40(4):800–16.
Butler, Tim. 2003. “Living in the Bubble: Gentrification and its ‘Others’ in North London.” Urban Studies
40(12):2469–86.
Butler, Tim, Chris Hamnett, and Mark J. Ramsden. 2013. “Gentrification, Education and Exclusionary Displace-
ment in East London.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37(2):556–75.
Butler, Tim, and Loretta Lees. 2006. “Super-Gentrification in Barnsbury, London: Globalization and Gentrifying
Global Elites at the Neighbourhood Level.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 31:467–87.
Butler, Tim, and Garry Robson. 2001. “Social Capital, Gentrification and Neighbourhood Change in London:
A Comparison of Three South London Neighbourhoods.” Urban Studies 38:2145–62.
———. 2003a. “Negotiating Their Way In: The Middle Classes, Gentrification and the Deployment of Capital
in a Globalising Metropolis.” Urban Studies 40(9):1791–809.
———. 2003b. London Calling: The Middle Classes and the Re-Making of Inner London. Oxford, New York: Berg.
Caulfield, Jon. 1994. City Form and Everyday Life: Toronto’s Gentrification and Critical Social Practice. Toronto, ON:
University of Toronto Press.
Centner, Ryan. 2008. “Places of Privileged Consumption Practices: Spatial Capital, the Dot-Com Habitus, and
San Francisco’s Internet Boom.” City & Community 7(3):193–223.
Cheshire, Paul C. 2006. “Resurgent Cities, Urban Myths and Policy Hubris: What We Need to Know.” Urban
Studies 43(8):1231–46.
Clark, Terry N., Daniel Silver, and Lawrence Rothfield. 2005. “A Theory of Scenes.” The Scenes Project, Univer-
sity of Chicago, http://scenes.uchicago.edu/theoryofscenes.pdf
Clerval, Anne. 2013. Paris Sans le People: La Gentrification de la Capitale. Paris: La Découverte.
Davidson, Mark. 2010. “Love Thy Neighbour? Social Mixing in London’s Gentrification Frontiers.” Environment
and Planning A: Economy and Space 42(3):524–44.
Davidson, Mark, and Loretta Lees. 2005. “New Build ‘Gentrification’ and London’s Riverside Renaissance.”
Environment and Planning A 37(7):1165–90.
Davison, Gethin, Kim Dovey, and Ian Woodcock. 2012. “Keep Dalston Different: Defending Place-Identity in
East London.” Planning Theory & Practice 13(1):47–69.
Deener, Andrew. 2007. “Commerce as the Structure and Symbol of Neighbourhood Life: Reshaping the Mean-
ing of Community in Venice, California.” City & Community 6(4):291–314.
Flamm, Michael, and Vincent Kaufmann. 2006. “Operationalising the Concept of Motility: A Qualitative Study.”
Mobilities 1(2):167–89.
Flynn, Paul. 2009. “Welcome to Dalston, Now the Coolest Place in Britain.” The Guardian. http://www.
theguardian.com/uk/2009/apr/27/dalston-cool-london-suburb

1022
 ALONG THE LONDON OVERGROUND

Glass, Ruth. 1964. London: Aspects of Change. London: University College London Centre for Urban Studies.
Greater London Authority. 2001. 2001 Transport Strategy. London: Greater London Authority.
———. 2004. London Plan 2004. London: Greater London Authority.
Hall, Suzanne. 2012. City, Street and Citizen: The Measure of the Ordinary. London: Routledge.
Hamnett, Chris. 2003. Unequal City: London in the Global Arena. London: Routledge.
———. 2009. “City Centre Gentrification: Loft Conversion in London’s City Fringe.” Urban Policy and Research
27(3):277–87.
Harbison, Robert. 2012. “A New Overground Line and the Sense of Place.” Architectural Design 82(1):78–81.
Hubbard, Phil, and Loretta Lees. 2018. “The Right to Community?” City 22(1):8–25.
Kahn, Matthew E. 2007. “Gentrification Trends in New Transit-Oriented Communities: Evidence from 14 Cities
That Expanded and Built Rail Transit Systems.” Real Estate Economics 35(2):155–82.
Kaufmann, Vincent, Manfred Max Bergman, and Dominique Joyce. 2004. “Motility: Mobility as Capital.” Inter-
national Journal of Urban and Regional Research 28:745–56.
Koutrolikou, Penny-Panagiota. 2012. “Spatialities and Ethnocultural Relations in Multicultural East London:
Discourses of Interaction and Social Mix.” Urban Studies 49(2049):1–18.
Lees, Loretta. 2003. “Super-Gentrification: The Case of Brooklyn Heights, New York City.” Urban Studies
40(12):2487–509.
———. 2008. “Gentrification and Social Mixing: Towards an Inclusive Urban Renaissance?” Urban Studies
45:2449.
Lees, Loretta, and Mara Ferreri. 2016. “Resisting Gentrification on Its Final Frontiers: Learning from Heygate
Estate in London (1974-2013).” Cities 57:14–24.
Ley, David. 1996. The New Middle Class and the Remaking of the Central City. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Lin, Jane. 2002. “Gentrification and Transit in Northwest Chicago.” Journal of the Transportation Research Forum.
Published in Transportation Quarterly 56(4):175–91.
Lloyd, Richard. 2006. Neo-Bohemia: Art and Commerce in the Postindustrial City. New York: Routledge.
London Borough of Hackney. 2009. Hackney Regeneration Delivery Framework. London: London Borough of
Hackney.
———. 2011. Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2010—Briefing. London: London Borough of Hackney.
———. 2014a. Dalston Ward Profile. London Borough of Hackney Policy and Partnerships. London: London
Borough of Hackney.
———. 2014b. Hackney Central Ward Profile. London Borough of Hackney Policy and Partnerships. London:
London Borough of Hackney.
———. 2014c. Homerton Ward Profile. London Borough of Hackney Policy and Partnerships. London: London
Borough of Hackney.
———. 2014d. Hackney Wick Ward Profile. London Borough of Hackney Policy and Partnerships. London: Lon-
don Borough of Hackney.
London Legacy Development Corporation. 2015. Hackney Wick Neighbourhood Centre. London: London Legacy
Development Corporation. http://queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk/the-park/homes-and-living/existing-
communities/hackney-wick-and-fish-island/hackney-wick-consultation
Mace, Alan. 2017. “Spatial Capital as a Tool for Planning Practice.” Planning Theory 16(2):119–32.
Marcuse, Peter. 1986. “Abandonment, Gentrification and Displacement: The Linkages in New York City.”
Pp. 153–77 in Gentrification of the City, edited by Neil Smith and Peter Williams. London: Unwin Hyman.
Paccoud, Antoine, and Alan Mace. 2018. “Tenure Change in London’s Suburbs: Spreading Gentrification or
Suburban Upscaling?” Urban Studies 55(6):1313–28.
Peabody. Undated. Pembury Circus Brochure. London: Peabody.
Pearsall, Hamil. 2012. “Moving Out or Moving In? Resilience to Environmental Gentrification in New York
City.” Local Environment 17(9):1013–26.
Pollack, Stephanie, Barry Bluestone, and Chase Billingham. 2011. “Demographic Change, Diversity and Dis-
placement in Newly Transit-Rich Neighbourhoods.” Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Paper #11-
3567.
Rérat, Patrick, and Loretta Lees. 2011. “Spatial Capital, Gentrification and Mobility: Evidence from Swiss Core
Cities.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 36(1):126–42.
Revington, Nick. 2015. “Gentrification, Transit and Land Use: Moving Beyond Neoclassical Theory.” Geography
Compass 9/3:152–63.
Rose, Damaris. 2006. “Les Atouts des Quartiers en Voie de Gentrification: du Discours Municipal à celui des
Acheteurs. Le cas de Montréal.” Sociétés contemporaines, N°63, 39–61.

1023
 CITY & COMMUNITY

Savage, Mike, Gaynor Bagnall, and Brian J. Longhurst. 2005. Globalization and Belonging. London: SAGE.
Silver, Daniel, and Terry N. Clark. 2015. “The Power of Scenes. Quantities of Amenities and Qualities of Places.”
Cultural Studies 29(3):425–49.
———. 2016. Scenescapes. How Qualities of Place Shape Social Life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Silver, Daniel, Terry N. Clark, and Clemente Jesus Navarro Yanez. 2010. “Scenes: Social Context in an Age of
Contingency.” Social Forces 88(5):2293–324.
Simon, Patrick. 1997. “Les Usages Sociaux de la Rue Dans un Quartier Cosmopolite.” Espaces et Sociétés 90:43–68.
Sinclair, Ian. 2015. “The Ginger Line: Ian Sinclair on the London Overground.” The Guardian.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jun/12/the-ginger-line-iain-sinclair-on-the-london-overground
Smith, Neil. 1979. “Toward a Theory of Gentrification: A Back to the City Movement by Capital, Not People.”
Journal of the American Planning Association 45(4):538–47.
———. 1987. “Gentrification and the Rent Gap.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77(3):462–5.
TFL. 2010. Creating London Overground. London: Transport for London.
Topham, Gwyn. 2015. “Clean, Reliable and Integrated: All Change for Neglected Rail Services in Lon-
don.” The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/29/neglected-rail-services-london-
tfl-overground
Urry, James. 2007. Mobilities. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Warde, Alan. 1991. “Gentrification as Consumption: Issues of Class and Gender.” Environment and Planning A:
Society and Space 9(2):223–32.
Watson, Sophie. 2006. City Publics: The (Dis)Enchantments of Urban Encounters. London: Routledge.
Watt, Paul. 2013. “It’s Not for Us.” City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action 17(1):99–118.
Zukin, Sharon. 1995. The Cultures of Cities. Cambridge, MA; Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
———. 2008. “Consuming Authenticity: From Outposts of Difference to Means of Exclusion.” Cultural Studies
22(5):724–48.
———. 2009. “New Retail Capital and Neighbourhood Change: Boutiques and Gentrification in New York City.”
City & Community 8(1):47–64.
———. 2010. Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Zukin, Sharon, and Ervin Kosta. 2004. “Bourdieu Off-Broadway: Managing Distinction on a Shopping Block in
the East Village.” City & Community 3(2):101–14.

APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE

(1) Questions about the interviewee

– Could you tell me a bit about yourself?
r Do you live in the neighborhood
r If yes: how long have you lived here? Where did you live before then? Tell me
about your decision to move to the neighborhood.
r If not: how do you go to work here? Why do you work here?
r Do you shop in the neighborhood?
r Do you go out in the neighborhood?
r Do you have most of your friends, relatives around here?
r Do you live on your own?
r How do you move around?
– How is the neighborhood different from other places you have lived/worked in?
– What qualities of the neighborhood do you most enjoy?
– What qualities of the neighborhood would you like to see change?
– How long do you imagine you will live/work here?
– [if intends to stay] is there anything that would change your intention to stay?
– [if intends to leave] is there anything that would encourage you to stay?
– Could you tell me a bit about your shop/bar/restaurant/association?

1024
 ALONG THE LONDON OVERGROUND

rAtmosphere you tried to create

rEvolutions
rCustomers: locals, or people coming from outside? Young, all age? Mixed or
regulars?
r Are there other shops like yours in London, is it a branch of a franchise?
(2) Scene, atmosphere, authenticity
– How would you describe [Dalston, Hackney Central, Homerton, Hackney Wick]
r What do you like, dislike about it?
r Could describe it in three words?
r Do you feel your neighborhood is unique?
– How would you describe the commercial scene(s) in the neighborhood?
r Alternative, anti-corporate, traditional . . .
– Could you tell me about the history of the community?
r How was it when you first moved in/started working here?
r How has the neighborhood changed in the time you have lived here?
r Tell me about how others talk about those changes.
r What is the best change you have witnessed? The worst change?
r What are your greatest concerns regarding the future of the neighborhood?
– How do you engage with the neighborhood?
r Are you part of any association?
r Do you feel part of a community?
(3) London Overground
– What do you think about the London Overground?
r Do you personally use it? If so, how often? To go where?
r What did it change the neighborhood?
– Links:
r Do you often go to Hackney Central, Homerton, Hackney Wick?
– How would you define it in relation to the rest of the city? Is it peripheral, in the
margins, or rather central?
r Has this perception changed since the London Overground has been in ser-
vice?
(4) Council
– Has someone reached out to you for consultation?
– What would you expect from the Council?
– Any specific queries?
(5) New developments
– What do you think about the new developments in the neighborhood?
r As a resident: rents? Atmosphere?
r As a shopkeeper: new clients? New demand?
(6) Concluding remarks: your vision
– Have you ever thought about leaving the neighborhood? If so, where would you
go?
– Do you feel your neighborhood is improving?
– Do you feel the neighborhood might be under threat?
– What sets the neighborhood apart?

1025
 CITY & COMMUNITY

APPENDIX B: INTERVIEWS SUMMARY TABLE

Reference Personal Informations Type

GENERAL
G1 Labour Councillor–Cabinet member for regeneration Local semiformal interview
at the Hackney Coucil
G2 Real estate agent 1 Short informal interview
G3 and G4 Real estate agents 2 and 3 (same firm) Short informal interview
G5 Real estate agent 3 Short informal interview
G6 Real estate agent 4 Short informal interview
G7 Freelance Journalist, editor in chief of an online Long semiformal interview
lifestyle magazine about Hackney, which tarted as a
publication about Dalston, early 30s.
DALSTON
D8 Barista in a Kingsland High Street Café Short semiformal interview
D9 Barista in a trendy café, 20s Short semiformal interview
D10 Barista in a trendy café, late 20s/early 30s Short semiformal interview
D11 Owner of a Balls Pond Road Café, late 20s Short semiformal interview
D12 Local artist in her 50s Long semiformal interview
D13 Manager at a local chain (12 shops in London), Long semiformal interview
second-hand clothes shop, late 20s
D14 Manager at a trendy café, late 20s Short semiformal interview
D15 Waitress at a trendy café/organic shop Short semiformal interview
D16 Founder of a local conservation Long semiformal interview
association—longstanding resident. In his 50s
D17 Chairman of the Ridley Road Market Traders Short semiformal interview
association, 50s
D18 Trader at Ridley Road Market 1, 40s Short informal interview
D19 Trader at Ridley Road Market 2, 50s Short informal interview
D20 Employee at an organization that supply affordable Long semiformal interview
studio spaces to artists around London
D21 and D22 2 baristas at a trendy café, 20s. Long semiformal interview
D23 Manager of a trendy café Short semiformal interview
D24 Manager of a Turkish Restaurant Short informal interview
HACKNEY CENTRAL
HC25 Owner of a trendy restaurant/pub/hotel, early 30s Short semiformal interview
HC26 Employee at and mother of the owner of a traditional Short semiformal interview
café, late 50s
HC27 Owner of a traditional shoe shop, 50s Short informal interview
HC28 Managing Director of a traditional fabrics shop, 40s. Long semiformal interview
HC29 Family managing an organic grocery Short semiformal interview
HC30 Couple selling fruits and vegetables from a permanent Short semiformal interview
stall, 50s
HC31 Waitress in a trendy restaurant/pub, early 20s. Short semiformal interview
HC32 Employee at a traditional bakery, 40s Short semiformal interview
HC33 Bartender at a longstanding pub taken over and Short semiformal interview
redecorated in a trendy way.
HC34 Trader selling books from a stall, late 40s Long semiformal interview
HC35 Owner of a trendy vintage store, 20s Short semiformal interview
HC36 Employee and daughter of the owner of a traditional Short semiformal interview
café, late teens
(Continued)

1026
 ALONG THE LONDON OVERGROUND

APPENDIX B: Continued

Reference Personal Informations Type

HOMERTON
H37 Barista at a trendy café on Brooksby’s Walk, late 20s Short semiformal interview
HC38 Chairman of the Well Street Traders’ Association, 50s Long semiformal interview
NA Well Street Traders Association Meeting Participant observation
H39 Employee at a Community Arts Center, 50s Long semiformal interview
H40 Owner of a trendy gastro-pub, 30s Long semiformal interview
H41 Owner of a high-end liquor store, late 20s Short semiformal interview
H42 Family owning a Traditional Café, 20s to 50s Short semiformal interview
H43 Owner of a trendy vintage store, also longstanding Short informal interview
resident, 40s
H44 Barista at a trendy café/restaurant, 20s Short semiformal interview
H45 Owner of a trendy café, 30s Long semiformal interview
H46 Waitress at a longstanding pub taken over and Short semiformal interview
redecorated following trendy aesthetics, 20s
H47 Sous-chef at a longstanding pub taken over and Short semiformal interview
redecorated following trendy aesthetics, late 20s
HACKNEY WICK
HW48 Owner of a clothes shop + sweatshop, 20s Short semiformal interview
HW49 Family owning a German deli, 20s to 50s Short informal interview
HW50 Waiter in a brewery, late 20s Short informal interview
HW51 Freelance artist and warehouse-dweller, 40s Long semiformal interview
HW52 Waitress at a trendy café, 20s Long semiformal interview
HW53 Waitress at a trendy café, 20s Long semiformal interview
HW54 Manager of a designers’ furniture store, late 20s. Long semiformal interview
HW55 Employee at an off-license, 20s Short informal interview
HW56 Architect based in Hackney Wick, late 20s Long semiformal interview
HW57 Designer, lives and work in Hackney Wick, late 30s Long semiformal interview
HW58 CEO of a social enterprise based in Hackney Wick, 30s Long semiformal interview
Note: Precise information is not provided here to preserve anonymity.

1027