1. Densification, Development and/or Displacement: accommodating migrant-induced population growth in London (and its extended region) Ian Gordon Geography 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 24 th 2014

2. 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

3. 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 ?

4. London’s ‘Mirror Image’ Migration Trends

5. 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

12. 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

15. 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

17. ... 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

19. ... 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)

21. 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.