It is argued that many major Western cities have seen the conversion of centrally located commercial and industrial property to residential uses in recent years. This is seen as part of a wider process of change from industrial to postindustrial land uses and is a physical counterpart of the economic and occupational class transformation of these cities towards the growth of professional and managerial workers working in financial, business, and creative services. The paper focuses on loft conversions in Clerkenwell, adjacent to the City of London which are shown to be initiated by changes in the commercial property market, particularly the rise and fall of the secondary office market and the need to find alternative uses for commercial property. The apartments have been marketed in terms of their architectural distinction, their centrality and the social attributes of city-centre living. Their residents are professional and managerial workers with a strong orientation towards centrality, many of whom see themselves as pioneers of a new form of city-centre living.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BassettKGriffithsRSmithI, 2002, “Testing governance: Partnerships, planning and conflict in waterfront regeneration”Urban Studies391757–1775
2.
BeauregardB, 1991, “Capital restructuring and the new built environment of global cities, New York and Los Angeles”International Journal of Urban and Regional Studies1590–105
3.
BrownhillS, 1990Developing London's Docklands: Another Great Planning Disaster (Paul Chapman, London)
4.
ClarkE, 2005, “The order and simplicity of gentrification—apolitical challenge”, in Gentrification in a Global Context: The New Urban Colonialism Eds AtkinsonRBridgeG (Routledge, London) pp 256–264
5.
Corporation of London, 1995The Competitive Position of London's Financial Services: Final ReportCorporation of London
6.
DanielsPBobeJM, 1993, “Extending the boundary of the City of London? The development of Canary Wharf”Environment and Planning A25539–552
7.
EngelsB, 1989, “The gentrification of Glebe: The residential restructuring of an inner Sydney suburb, 1960–86”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research19286–302
8.
FainsteinS, 1994The City Builders: Property, Politics and Planning in London and New York (Blackwell, Oxford)
9.
FloridaR, 2002The Rise of the Creative Class (Basic Books, New York)
10.
ForshawABergstromT, 1990Smithfield Past and Present2nd edition (Robert Hale, London)
11.
GaleD, 1979, “Middle class resettlement in older urban neighbourhoods: The evidence and the implications”American Planning Association Journal45293–304
12.
GlassR, 1964, “Introduction”, in London, Aspects of ChangeCentre for Urban Studies, London; reprinted in 1989, in Cliches of Urban Doom Ed. GlassR (Blackwell, Oxford)
13.
GordonDL, 1997, “Managing the changing environment in urban waterfront redevelopment”Urban Studies3461–83
14.
HallBPinderDHusainM, 1995Revitalising the Waterfront: International Dimensions of Docklands Redevelopment (Belhaven Press, London)
15.
HallP, 1964, “Industrial London: A general view”, in Greater London Eds CoppockJTPrinceHC (Faber and Faber, London) pp 225–246
16.
HallP, 2000, “Creative cities and economic development”Urban Studies37639–651
17.
HamnettC, 2003a, “Gentrification and the middle class remaking of Inner London, 1961–2001”Urban Studies402401–2426
18.
HamnettC, 2003bUnequal City: London in the Global Arena (Routledge, London)
19.
HamnettC, 1989, “Spatial and social segmentation of the London owner-occupied housing market: An analysis of the flat conversion sector”, in Growth and Change in a Core Region Eds BrehenyMCongdonD (Pion, London) pp 203–218
20.
HamnettCRandolphW, 1986, “Tenurial transformation and the flat break up market in central London”, in Gentrification of the City Eds SmithNWilliamsP (Allen and Unwin, London) pp 121–152
21.
HuttonTA, 2004, “Postindustrialism, postmodernism, and the reproduction of Vancouver's central area: Retheorising the 21st century city”Urban Studies411953–1982
22.
ImrieRThomasH, 1995, “Urban policy process and policies of urban regeneration”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research19479–494
23.
Islington Council, 1997Business to HomesIslington Development Planning Service, London Borough of Islington
24.
JacksonP, 1985, “Neighbourhood change in New York: The loft conversion process”Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie76202–215
25.
JagerM, 1986, “Class definition and the esthetics of gentrification: Victoriana in Melbourne”, in Gentrification of the City Eds SmithNWilliamsP (Allen and Unwin, London) pp 76–91
26.
KnoxP, 1991, “The restless urban landscape: Economic and socio-cultural change and the transformation of Washington DC”Annals of the Association of American Geographers81181–209
LambertCBoddyM, 2002, “Transforming the city: Post-recession gentrification and re-urbanisation” paper 6, Centre for Neighbourhood Research, University of Bristol, Bristol
29.
LevineF, 1989, “Downtown redevelopment as an urban growth strategy: A reappraisal of Baltimore Renaissance”Journal of Urban Affairs9103–123
30.
LeyD, 1980, “Liberal ideology and the post-industrial city”Annals of the Association of American Geographers70238–258
31.
LeyD, 1981, “Inner city revitalization in Canada: A Vancouver case study”The Canadian Geographer25(2) 124–148
32.
LeyD, 1996The New Middle Class and the Remaking of the Central City (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
33.
McCarthyJ, 1996, “Waterfront regeneration in the Netherlands: The cases of Rotterdam and Maastrict”European Planning Studies4545–560
34.
McLuhanM, 1967The Medium is the Message (Random House, New York)
35.
MartinJE, 1964, “Three elements in the industrial geography of Greater London”, in Greater London Eds CoppockJTPrinceHC (Faber and Faber, London) 246–264
36.
NewmanPSmithI, 2000, “Cultural production, place and politics on the South Bank of the Thames”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research249–24
37.
OgdenPHallR, 1982, “The social structure of new migrants to London Docklands: Recent evidence from Wapping”The London Journal17(2) 153–169
38.
PennanenP, 2002Policies and Impacts of Urban Regeneration: Waterfront Redevelopment in Helsinki, Finland 1980–2000 unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Geography, King's College London
39.
PlazaB, 2000, “Evaluating the influence of a large cultural artifact in the attraction of tourism: The Guggenheim Museum Bilbao case study”Urban Affairs36264–274
40.
PodmoreJ, 1998, “(Re)reading the ‘loft living’ Habitus in Montreal's inner city”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research22283–301
41.
PréteceilleE, 2003La division sociale de l'espace francilien: Typologie socioprofessionelle 1999 et transformations de l'espace résidentiel 1990–99 (Observatoire Sociologique du Changement, Paris)
42.
PrykeM, 1991, “An international city going ‘global’: Spatial change in the City of London”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space9197–222
43.
PrykeM, 1994, “Looking back on the space of a boom: (re)developing spatial matrices in the City of London”Environment and Planning A26235–264
44.
SavitchH, 1988, The Post Industrial City: Politics and Planning in New York, Paris and London (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ)
45.
ShawDV, 2001, “The post-industrial city”, in Handbook of Urban Studies Ed. PaddisonR (Sage, London) pp 284–295
46.
ShawW, 2006, “Sydney's SoHo syndrome? Loft living in the urbane city”Cultural Geographies13182–206
47.
SmithN, 1979, “Toward a theory of gentrification: A back to the city movement by capital not people”Journal of the American Planning Association45538–548
48.
SwyngedouwEMoulaertFRodriguezA, 2002, “Neo-liberal urbanization in Europe: Large scale urban development projects and the new urban policy”Antipode34542–570
49.
TeedonP, 2001, “Designing a place called Bankside: On defining an unknown space in London”European Planning Studies9459–482
50.
ZukinS, 1982, “Loft living as ‘historic compromise’ in the urban core: The New York experience”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research6256–267
