Densification, Development and/or Displacement: accommodating migrant-

induced population growth in London (and its extended region)

Ian GordonGeography Department,

LSE London and Spatial Economics Research Centres

London School of Economics

LSE London/HEIF5 conference on How London is being transformed by migration , March

24th 2014

Introduction

• London Mayoral Plans all avoid recognition of– driving role of international migration in London’s population

turnaround; and– high degree of integration of housing / labour markets across

London metro region and beyond

• But size of gap between estimated housing need and (half) credible supply growth makes crucial to:– look much more closely at how immigrant-induced growth

has been accommodated so far;– with realistic view of the displacement effects along

extended chains of interaction in space-constrained region ;

– and of the dynamic effects of migrant settlement - as economic position and housing aspirations change

The Back Story• For 50 years GL population contracted because

– rising prosperity increased demands for personal space – beyond the capacity of available land inside the ‘green dam’

• Situation changed in late 1980s and then late 1990s:– partly cumulative effect of enlarged YUPpy cohorts of

singles / graduates with strong taste for city life– but clearly tied to upswings in international migration,

reflecting strong external stimuli + weak border control

• Migrant impact on London population is not 1 for 1– clear indications of displacement in inter-regional movement

• graphs and Hatton/Tani (2005) work suggest more like 50%

– but important questions about;• how 50% gets fitted in – generating development, or just crowding ?• Is this a temporary accommodation – or sustainable ?

London’s ‘Mirror Image’ Migration Trends

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Net International Migration

Net Migration with Rest of UK

Evidence from Inter-Censal Change

• Investigated 2001-11 changes in:– numbers of (occupied) rooms + average persons per room– 5 population groups:

• UK born• Migrants since 2001 – from Poor countries & Rich countries• Earlier migrants – from Poor/Rich countries

• Across the Greater South East - at 2 spatial scales:– neighbourhoods (LSOA), where relations with densification (or

reverse?) expected to be compositional (shifting mixes)– Local (sub-) Housing Market Areas (Coombes’ 73 ‘lower’ units) where

demand pressure may exert more general effects • on occupation density and on supply of dwelling space (rooms)

• Maps suggest some possibly important links

In Broad Terms – Over the Decade• Population grew right across GSE

– but fastest towards the core (IL)

• Reflecting growth in foreign-born– Primarily from poor countries – particularly in OL

where UK born numbers fell significantly– But also from rich countries – principally in IL– There was a dispersal of earlier arrivals from both

groups – though PoorC group going further (including beyond GSE)

• Room numbers also grew across the GSE– Especially in IL – though patchy even there – And not particularly in immigrant areas

• But in London population per room also grew– accommodating c40% of growth – Notably in/near areas of new poor country arrival

Statistical Evidence on ... Densification

• Analyses of 2001-11 change across LSOAs point to:– significant effect of job accessibility on densification

• with zero pop growth, prediction is of + 5.8% in IL vs. 2.9% in outer RGSE

– but strongest effect from (local) rate of PoorC arrivals• 55% absorbed by denser occupancy - cf. 10% for UK born

– much weaker effect from change among earlier arrivals (30%)• indicative of substantial convergence in housing expectations

– generally weaker among RichC arrivals – but strikingly so in IL• the main concentration, but quite atypical – maybe no net effect on

densities• though among longer stayers impact seems close to that for PoorC group

– additional to these local (compositional effects) there is evidence (from LHMA pop. change) of a demand pressure effect

• about 24% for growth from all sources • except for RichC arrivals in IL (zero impact at LHMA scale)• but for PoorC arrivals densification absorbed c.80% of additional numbers • Adding 12.9% to IL room occ. density vs 3.4% in outer RGSE

... Development Effects• Similar analyses of change in room numbers –

with controls for land availability, as well as job access:– suggest no significant effect from new migrants at

LHMA level – where we might expect to find it– at neighbourhood level there is apparent evidence of

positive (local) effects on the supply of rooms (equivalent to 20% of RichC arrivals and 7% for PoorC arrivals)

• but this could only represent a local diversion of development activity

• not a net contribution to accommodation of growth at the sub-regional scale

... Displacement• Time Series analyses for GL and for the rest of the

GSE (1981-2011) show:– Strong effects of state of (UK) housing demand (for GL partic?)

and some of overall GSE conditions (U/E and house prices) – but also

• International migrational gains into London appear to be 40% displaced into other areas (after 2 years) – though primarily beyond the GSE: i.e. the chain of displacements

stretches right through the GSE, ending up outside • Tho maybe still within Peter Hall’s original larger version of this super-region.

• No such evidence of displacement by RGSE immigration– consistent with assumption that it reflects the incidence of housing market

constraints, rather than labour market processes (or ‘white flight’?)

• Tho’ findings for densification / development suggest rich country migration must generate more displacement – there is no indication of this at the regional (GL) scale (or of the reverse)

Conclusions • Accommodating migrants involves some combination of : (a)

induced additions to local room stock; (b) denser occupation of those rooms; and (c) displacement elsewhere

• Impacts in a metro region such as London’s are greatly complicated, however, because:– displacement occurs at many scales – with knock-on effects across them;– different groups of migrants occupy substantially different HM positions;

and– these change markedly over time.

• There is much still to be sorted out about processes/impacts operating in London over the past 25 years - and the next

• But it is clear that:– the dense (self-)housing of PoorCountry migrants has been key to

location of population growth within London;– they will be demanding much more space (somewhere) soon – though

despite UKBA et al others may well come to take their place; and that – the process has ramifications right across southern England which need

more careful (and open) examination .