(Un)Affordable Housing

Exhibition investigating artists' experiences of the housing crisis in London.
Art and research by Dr Sofia Greaves

Introduction

I began this research aiming to raise awareness about artists’ experiences of (un)affordable housing and the importance of providing long-term affordable creative work and living space in London. I was told about Thamesmead, where Bow Arts Charity manages 75 flats and 8 artist houses which provide housing for 100+ “guardians” in total for artists and their partners.

This is done through a partnership with Peabody, the housing association/developer which provides Bow Arts with properties it has vacated for its regeneration scheme. The artists are housed there at affordable rates until demolition occurs, which can take around ten years. This fulfils the dual purpose of providing affordable housing for artists and property security, but causes problems.

Over the course of four months, I spent time in Thamesmead and spoke with 14 artists, 4 members of the Bow Arts team, 8 residents, an activist and Peabody employees. I asked them about the regeneration scheme, and the impact that the artists have in Thamesmead by living and working there. I asked artists about their experiences of “affordable housing” in London, as well as the Bow Arts scheme and the solution it offers.

As countless studies show, these issues are extremely complex. They are shaped by a cross-subsidy mechanism for social housing provision which relies on profit to deliver social outcomes. Consequently, housing associations/developers often argue that including social housing will make projects unviable. Peabody, despite being a charity, requires a profit margin of 16% for projects to be deemed viable and therefore works with baselines for social housing provision.

The resulting displacement of existing residents, breakup of communities, broken promises, compromises, misinformation, protest, vulnerability, violence and anger is largely undocumented.

Everybody has a right to an affordable home. The material presented here highlights the benefits and trade-offs inherent in the Bow Arts scheme. Bow Arts presents a solution, but is also a symptom. The fact that community, affordability and impact are predominantly achievable for artists through a symbiotic relationship with regeneration schemes - and therefore with the displacement of residents and breakup of communities - is profoundly wrong.