Gentrification led by stadium development
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Gentrification led by stadium development
A study into the effects of football stadia on the urban area
By
Otto C. W. van den Boom
Thesis prepared for the degree of
MASTER’S PROGRAMME IN SPATIAL PLANNING
Specialisation Planning, Land and Real Estate Development
Nijmegen School of Management
RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN
February 2022
i
Colophon
Document: Master’s thesis
Date: 28-02-2022
Student: Otto C. W. van den Boom
Student number: s1045249
University:
Address: Radboud University Nijmegen
Programme: Houtlaan 4, 6525 XZ Nijmegen
Specialisation: Master's programme in Spatial Planning
Specialisation Planning, Land and Real Estate
Development
Supervisor: Dr. F. Landau-Donnelly
ii
Preface
As part of my Master’s programme in Spatial Planning at the Radboud University Nijmegen, I studied
the effects of stadium (re)development on the surrounding urban area. This study examines whether
stadium (re)development has an effect on the gentrification of the area it is located in, through the
change of the built environment and the perception of local residents. The development of the
Brentford Community Stadium in Brentford (London) and the redevelopment of Anfield Stadium in
Liverpool were used as cases for this research.
I have always had a passion for football stadia and British stadia in particular. Over the last couple of
years, I have travelled across the length and breadth of the United Kingdom to experience the British
(football) culture and its stadia. Many grounds are steeped in history and located in the heart of their
communities. During my studies at the Radboud University, I developed an interest for gentrification.
For the purpose of my graduation project, I wanted to combine both of these interests of mine. This
eventually led to this thesis, in which I identify gentrification through the (re)development of the
Brentford Community Stadium and Anfield Stadium.
Although the subject of this research was close to my heart, the process was not always easy. The
Covid-19 pandemic impeded the progress my research in different manners. Nevertheless,
conducting an extensive on-site research in Brentford and Liverpool and interviewing local residents
enabled my to answer the research question. My time in England was an unforgettable experience
and something I look back on with great joy.
Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. F. Landau-Donnelly, for her guidance and support
during my research. I also want to thank Dennis McGee and James Coates, who guided me during my
time in Liverpool and put me in contact with many Anfield residents. Lastly, I would like to thank all
respondents without whose cooperation I would not have been able to conduct this analysis into the
perception of local residents.
Otto C. W. van den Boom
‘s-Hertogenbosch, February 28, 2022
iii
Abstract
The development of football stadia in the modern age has a large effect on the surrounding urban
area. Although new stadia keep being constructed, little academic literature is available on how the
development of a stadium affects the surrounding built environment and how local residents
perceive this. This research is carried out through the scope of gentrification, in order to determine if
stadium developments have an effect on the gentrification of its locality and the perception of
residents. The research question of this thesis is: ‘How does stadium (re)development affect the built
environment of the surrounding urban area and how do local residents perceive this change in the
case of Brentford and Liverpool?’
This research used a case study approach. The first case focuses on the development of a football
stadium in Brentford. The case of Liverpool concerns the redevelopment of Anfield Stadium and the
derelict surrounding area. To answer the research question, the change of the area was observed
through desk research, interviewing residents and on-site research. To understand how local
residents perceive the change of the area, interviews were mainly used. A theoretical framework was
established to assess whether the change of the area can be categorised as gentrification. The main
theoretical concepts applied to identify gentrification were new-built gentrification and gentrification
trough greyfield redevelopment.
The research showed that gentrification did occur in both cases due to stadium (re)development.
Interestingly, the phenomenon of gentrification occurs in different shapes. In the case of Brentford,
the development of the Brentford Community Stadium followed the local trend of gentrification
through densification and fancy amenities that attract urban gentrifies. Local residents did not mind
the construction of new housing in the area, but were highly critical of the negative effects it had on
the area. Liverpool on the other hand witnessed gentrification in a different shape and was much
more grounded in certain parts of the area. Derelict terraced housing was all cleared to create a new
suburban middle-class community. The perception of local residents, whether they looked positive or
negative towards the change of the area was much influenced by their geographical position.
The conclusion of this study is that stadium (re)development has a large impact on its surrounding
built environment. The exterior of the area is highly affected. No overarching pattern was detected in
the perception of local residents. This rather differentiated in each case and even within the cases.
Nevertheless, in both cases the (re)development stirred gentrification of the surrounding urban area.
iv
Table of content
1. Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Keywords ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
2. Problem .................................................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Problem statement ............................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Research aim .......................................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Research question ................................................................................................................ 4
2.4 Societal relevance ................................................................................................................ 4
2.5 Scientific relevance .............................................................................................................. 5
3. Theoretical framework .................................................................................................. 6
3.1 Literature review ................................................................................................................... 6
3.2 Theoretical framework ........................................................................................................ 9
3.3 Operationalisation............................................................................................................... 10
4. Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 12
4.1 Research strategy ............................................................................................................... 12
4.2 Selection of cases ............................................................................................................... 12
4.3 Research methods .............................................................................................................. 14
4.4 Reliability and validity ....................................................................................................... 17
5. Brentford ............................................................................................................................. 19
5.1 Situation before stadium development ...................................................................... 19
5.2 Situation after stadium development ......................................................................... 22
5.3 Resident perception ........................................................................................................... 25
5.4 Gentrification ........................................................................................................................ 27
6. Liverpool .............................................................................................................................. 30
6.1 Situation before stadium redevelopment .................................................................. 30
6.2 Situation after stadium redevelopment ..................................................................... 38
6.3 Resident perception ........................................................................................................... 49
6.4 Gentrification ........................................................................................................................ 51
7. Comparison ........................................................................................................................ 52
8. Conclusion........................................................................................................................... 52
v
9. Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 52
10. Afterword ............................................................................................................................ 52
11. Bibliography....................................................................................................................... 52
12. Appendix 1 .......................................................................................................................... 52
13. Appendix 2 .......................................................................................................................... 52
14. Appendix 3 .......................................................................................................................... 52
vi
1. Introduction
1.1 Keywords
Gentrification, stadium (re)development, urban area, built environment, residents
1.2 Introduction
The (re)development of football stadia is becoming increasingly more complex and has a large impact
on the surrounding urban area. In order to obtain approval and financial support for their building
proposals, football clubs need to offer a wider encompassing plan to pursue the construction or
redevelopment of their stadium. Around the turn of the century, many clubs decided to build their
new arenas outside of the city limits on agricultural land or industrial zones. However, this model is
nearing its end in Western Europe as it is disliked by many. Nowadays more clubs decide to develop
their new ground within urban areas. Recent examples of this are Tottenham Hotspur and
Wimbledon FC in London and Union Saint-Gilloise in Brussels. Understanding how stadium
(re)developments in urban areas affect the surrounding built environment and the how local
residents perceive this, offer new insights for future stadium developments on how to execute them.
The phenomenon of gentrification has been studied since mid-1960. Glass (1964) was the first author
to establish a theory on the influx of affluent middle-class tenants into working class communities in
London. Glass described how the character of the area changed due to the displacement of the old
community by new middle- and upper-class dwellers. This work formed the guideline of what was
understood under the term gentrification. Later researchers argued that the phenomenon of
gentrification does not only concern the influx of more affluent people into a less prosperous area,
but comes in many different forms and shapes. Applicable theories for this research were those on
new-built gentrification and greyfield site gentrification. These theories explain that gentrification
can also occur by changing the exterior and character of the area through new real estate
developments that contradict their surroundings. However, limited literature is available on how
stadium (re)developments affect the built environment of the surrounding urban area and if they
serve as a catalyst for gentrification. Panton (2018) has been to only one to study this subject by
investigating the fear for gentrification during the redevelopment of Tottenham Hotspur’s new
stadium. Nevertheless, no scientific research has been conducted into the effects of stadium
(re)development after completion. In this research, gentrification is examined through the change of
the built environment of the area and thus the so-called character of the neighbourhood.
Furthermore, there has not been much research done into the perception of local residents on the
change of the built environment in their neighbourhood. This research aims to offer insight on this
matter.
Large and wide encompassing developments such as stadium (re)developments have a significant
impact on its surrounding area. Because they are executed within the limits of urban areas where
people live, it is relevant to understand the consequences of these projects on the built environment
and how this affects local residents. It is therefore also important to understand how local residents
1
perceive the change of their living environment. Furthermore, this research is also scientifically
relevant, because there is very little literature available on gentrification through stadium
(re)development. For academic purposes it is important as well to get a grasp of how gentrification
manifests itself in the case of stadium (re)development.
The aim of this research is to identify the effects of stadium (re)development on the surrounding
built environment and the perception of local residents through a lens of gentrification. The research
question is formulated as follows: ‘How does stadium (re)development affect the built environment
of the surrounding urban area and how do local residents perceive this change in the case of
Brentford and Liverpool?’ To offer an answer to this question, an exploratory multiple case study
approach was applied. The cases that were selected are Brentford and Liverpool in England.
Brentford FC are a club located in West London. The club built a new stadium on a small industrial
plot. The project was complemented by nine large towers that offer room to around 900 apartments
and commercial exploitation. Liverpool on the other hand redeveloped their old stadium. The
stadium is situated in the middle of a highly deprived area. The stadium redevelopment formed the
heart of the project to regenerate the entire surrounding area. Data was collected through different
means, like extensive desk research, fieldwork, interviews and observations.
The next chapter of the thesis offers a thorough description of the problem statement, research aim,
research questions and the relevance of this research. Chapter 3 gives an elaborate overview of the
relevant academic literature available on the topic of gentrification. Furthermore, it explains the
theoretical framework that was drawn up in order to understand gentrification in the case of stadium
(re)development. Subsequently, chapter 4 describes the methodology and applied methods in order
to conduct this research. In the following chapter the results of the study are described. Chapter 7
compares the results of both cases, which is then followed by the conclusion, discussion and an
afterword.
2
2. Problem
2.1 Problem statement
In an era of ongoing commercialisation of the football industry, more and more clubs aim to replace
their outdated stadia for new state of the art arenas. A futuristic multi-purpose stadium gives them
an opportunity to generate more income through ticket sales, sponsor lounges and secondary
activities. The old stadia form a liability in their development. Therefore, many clubs, both big and
small in size, are making plans to build a new stadium or have already moved to a new venue. Hardly
no club has the financial power to finance a new arena on their own. They heavily rely on the support
of investors, banks and municipalities to achieve their plans. These parties see the erection or
redevelopment of a stadium as an opportunity to develop the surrounding area of the stadium as
well. Therefore, clubs have to offer a broader plan for the development of the surrounding urban
area in order to accomplish their goal. This means that nowadays an erection or redevelopment of a
football stadium has large consequences for the area around the plot. Projects are getting more
complex, which affects the living environment of people. Although some research has been done into
the quantitative effects of gentrification in relation to stadium (re)development, very little
knowledge is available on the qualitative impact on the urban area. There is a scientific void when it
comes to literature on the effects of stadium projects on the built environment and how local
residents perceive this change.
Two cases where the (re)development of a football stadium has had significant effect on the urban
area are Brentford FC and Liverpool FC. Both clubs are situated in England and have some interesting
and distinctive features that make them suitable for a case study into the effects of stadium
(re)development. Brentford FC are a club from West London who have recently moved to a new
ground one kilometre away from their former home. The site of the stadium used to be a rundown
industrial area and has now been turned into a diverse and modern working- and living environment
with a football stadium situated in the heart of it. Liverpool FC on the other hand have chosen not to
build a new stadium, but rather redevelop their infamous Anfield Stadium. The redevelopment of the
main stand formed the basis of a plan to regenerate the dilapidated neighbourhood around Anfield
Stadium. Because both a newbuilt and a redevelopment project are selected as cases, a better
understanding can be gained of the effects of stadium (re)development.
2.2 Research aim
The aim of the research is to identify the qualitative effects of stadium (re)development on the urban
area. Furthermore, it aims to examine how local residents perceive the change of their living
environment. The research therefore has an explorative nature, since it aims to investigate
something about which little knowledge is available. Van Thiel describes explorative research in her
book Research Methods in Public Administration and Public Management (2014, p.15) as follows:
‘Research that investigates a subject about which little or no knowledge is available. Exploratory
research results in detailed empirical descriptions. Exploration is also used in studies of how actors
3assign meaning, such as the way in which certain concepts are applied in practice.’ This research tries
to obtain knowledge about the effects of stadium (re)development on the surrounding urban area by
doing a case study. A case study in itself is a qualitative approach for methodological exploration
according to Mills et al. (2017).
2.3 Research question
Because of the exploratory nature, the research question needs to have an exploratory approach.
Exploratory questions are open-ended, and presuppose there is as yet no knowledge on the subject
of study (Van Thiel, 2014). In the case of this research, the unknown is the impact of stadium
(re)development on the urban area and the perception of local residents. Therefore, the research
question for this research is as follows:
- How does stadium (re)development affect the built environment of the surrounding
urban area and how do local residents perceive this change in the case of Brentford and
Liverpool?
To support the research question, two sub questions were drawn up. Because the research question
is too broad to answer at once, the sub questions divide the research and focus on one particular
part. The first question focuses on the change of the built environment. The scope of the second
question is on the perception of local residents. The sub questions are as follows:
- How does stadium (re)development affect the built environment of the surrounding
urban area in the case of Brentford and Liverpool?
- How do local residents perceive the change of the built environment of the surrounding
urban area in the case of Brentford and Liverpool?
2.4 Societal relevance
As Van Holm (2016) describes in his paper, stadium development has more far-reaching
consequences for the urban area nowadays. For many city councils, the ability to (re)develop a
certain location is a major reason to vote in favour of the project proposals. With the advent of a
football stadium in their area or the redevelopment of a stadium, local residents and business
owners see the area in which they live or operate change drastically. As Panton (2018) concluded in
his study, the new stadium of Tottenham Hotspur has caused a lot of anger among local residents.
However, this research was conducted two years before the opening of the stadium. There has not
been any research done into the perception of local residents on a finished stadium
(re)development. Like many other big projects, stadium (re)development proposals face a lot of
backlash from local residents. The phenomenon of NIMBY (Not in my backyard) plays a big role here.
This phenomenon occurs when local residents are afraid that new developments in their area will
4directly affect them in a negative way. This is what Panton found in his research, where local
residents here worried the new Tottenham Hotspur Stadium would have a negative impact on the
area. However, there is no data available on how local residents perceive the change of their area
after the completion of a stadium (re)development. It is relevant to understand what the effects of a
stadium (re)development are on the surrounding urban area. In the end, it is the living environment
of real people that is directly affected by these kinds of developments. There is little knowledge
available on how stadium (re)development stir change in an area and if it can lead to gentrification of
a certain locale. If this research would not have been carried, there would still be a void in scientific
literature on how stadium (re)developments directly affect the surrounding urban area where real
people live and how these residents perceive this change of their neighbourhood. Because the size of
stadium (re)developments is increasing and expands way further that just the stadium itself, it is
relevant to understand how these projects change an area after completion and how they benefit or
disadvantage local residents. In order to make well-balanced decision for new stadium
(re)developments in urban areas, it is important to understand the impact of these projects on
gentrification in the area, the built environment and the residents. Furthermore, research into the
perception of local residents may gain new insights and offer suggestion on what could be done
differently in the future for other cases.
2.5 Scientific relevance
As said in the research statement in 2.1, there has been very little research done into the effects of
football stadia on the urban area. However, over the last decade much research has been carried out
into the phenomenon of gentrification. There is a plethora of studies to be found on what causes an
area to gentrify and how it affects the local residents living in these areas. These studies mainly focus
on the change of working-class neighbourhoods in major global cities, like London, Berlin and New
York City and the displacement of local residents who can no long afford to live in these areas. So
much research has been conducted on this topic that gentrification has gained much social- and
political awareness over the last years. However, very little scientific literature is available on the
specific topic of stadium (re)development-led gentrification and how this affects local residents in
their direct living environment. Mark Panton (2018) has been the only one to specifically investigate
this topic of stadium-led gentrification. His study focussed on the affects of the stadium development
of Tottenham Hotspur based on the proposals that were on the table at the time. When it comes to
the effects after completion of the stadium (re)development, there is a large void in scientific
literature. There is no data available how these projects directly affect the surrounding built
environment and how local residents perceive the change of their area. It is, to put it mildly,
remarkable that such little knowledge is available on this subject, even more in this day and age
where stadium developments are becoming increasingly complex. To illustrate, the Tottenham
Hotspur stadium that opened in 2019 was the most expensive stadium in European history with a
cost of over one billion pounds (Kelly, 2019). There is a large void in scientific research on the topic of
stadium (re)development-led gentrification, which makes this study scientifically relevant. This study
helps to fill this void in literature on gentrification. It can serve as a tool to understand the impact of
big flag ship projects, like the stadia that were used in this study, and how local residents perceive
the impact in has on the area and their living conditions. It has both a relevance for people who try to
get a better understanding of the phenomenon of gentrification and its many forms and for those
who try to capture the effects a football stadium can have on the surrounding urban area.
53. Theoretical
framework
3.1 Literature review
The process of gentrification and neighbourhood change was first studied in the mid-1960. Ruth
Glass introduced the term gentrification in 1964 to describe the processes by which the poor were
squeezed out of parts of London as upper-class ghettos were created (Loukaitou-Sideris et al., 2017).
Although the conceptualisation of gentrification has never been completely consensual, the work of
Glass (1964, page xviii) formed the guideline of what was understood under the term gentrification:
`One by one, many of the working-class quarters of London have been invaded by
the middle classes - upper and lower. (…) Once this process of `gentrification' starts in a
district it goes on rapidly until all or most of the original working-class occupiers are displaced
and the social character of the district is changed.'
Since then, a rich literature has emerged on the phenomenon of gentrification. In the early stages,
many researchers closely aligned themselves with the description of Glass. Smith (1982, page 139)
described gentrification as:
`By gentrification I mean the process by which working class residential neighbourhoods are
rehabilitated by middle class homebuyers, landlords and professional developers. I make the
theoretical distinction between gentrification and redevelopment. Redevelopment involves
not rehabilitation of old structures but the construction of new buildings on previously
developed land.'
In the decades following, this definition would become outdated. Several authors claimed that this
definition did not encompass the broader effects of gentrification. Gentrification had departed from
Glass’s description and it started to refer to a much broader phenomenon. In his work, Smith (1996,
page 39) describes gentrification as:
`How, in the large context of changing social geographies, are we to distinguish adequately
between the rehabilitation of nineteenth-century housing, the construction of new
condominium towers, the opening of festival markets to attract local and not so local
tourists, the proliferation of wine bars - and boutiques for everything - and the construction
of modern and postmodern office buildings employing thousands of professionals, all looking
for a place to live? ... Gentrification is no longer about a narrow and quixotic oddity in the
housing market but has become the leading residential edge of a much larger endeavour: the
class remake of the central urban landscape.'
While the specific definition varied, gentrification was now often understood as ‘the process by
which higher-income households displace lower income households of a neighbourhood, changing
the essential character and flavour of that neighbourhood’ (Kennedy and Leonard, 2001, p. 5). Zuk et
al. (2015) identified the three main dynamic processes that encourage the change of a
neighbourhood. These are movement of people, public policies and investments, and flows of private
capital. These catalysts result in a range of transformations, physical, demographic, political,
economic, along upward, downward, or flat trajectories.
6According to Barton (2014), the definition of gentrification can be broken down into two interrelated
components. First, gentrification raises the economic level of a neighbourhood population. Second,
gentrification changes the ‘(social) character’ and culture of neighbourhoods. These components
were important because they shaped the definitions of gentrification. This distinction of
gentrification can also be made in the approaches that have been used to investigate gentrification.
The first component can be measured through a quantitative approach, whereas a qualitative
approach can define the change of the character of a neighbourhood.
The change of an area does not always have to be accompanied by rising rents or displacement of
local residents as stated by Bourne (1993). The revitalisation of ‘greyfield’ sites such as industrial,
warehousing and port land changes the character of the area and has an effect on its surroundings.
Bourne explains that not only an influx of affluent people, but urban (re)development can encourage
gentrification too. Once a particular brownfield is being redeveloped, these developments can have
an impact on the surrounding area. The character of the area might change because of the new
developments on the greyfield, or the influx of new residents it attracts. This is in contrast to the
more prevalent assumption that gentrification mainly concerns the influx of more affluent residents
into a working-class neighbourhood, which eventually leads to rising housing prices and
displacement of long-term residents. Helbrecht (2017) describes gentrification as a process by which
more affluent groups of people move into a neighbourhood and replace the poorer population.
Similar views are held by Krase and DeSena (2020) who characterise gentrification as a process
where local residents are displaced, which leads to several socio-economic changes in an area.
Lambert and Boddy (2002, page 12) question whether the development of greyfield sites can be
categorized as gentrification. In their work they state:
`We would question whether the sort of new housing development and conversion described
in Bristol and other second tier cities, or indeed the development of London's Docklands can,
in fact, still be characterised as `gentrification' – post-recession or otherwise. There are
parallels: new geographies of neighbourhood change, new middle-class fractions colonising
new areas of central urban space, and attachment to a distinctive lifestyle and urban
aesthetic. But `gentrification', as originally coined, referred primarily to a rather different
type of `new middle class', buying up older, often `historic' individual housing units and
renovating and restoring them for their own use - and in the process driving up property
values and driving out former, typically lower income working class residents. Discourses of
gentrification and the gentrification literature itself do represent a useful starting point for
the analysis of the sort of phenomenon discussed above. We would conclude, however, that
to describe these processes as gentrification is stretching the term and what it set out to
describe too far'
This has led to scholars such as Davidson and Lees (2005, page 1166) to question whether this
phenomenon can or cannot be categorised as gentrification. In their view, greyfield development can
be defined as a third-wave of gentrification. It follows the first wave defined by Glass and the second
wave with the broader understanding of gentrification led by authors like Kennedy and Leonard and
Smith. Davidson and Lees call this third-wave new-build gentrification. They describe this
phenomenon as:
‘New-build gentrification contrasts with previous rounds of gentrification because different
groups of people are involved, different types of landscapes are being produced, and
different sociospatial dynamics are operating. New-build developments do not involve the
restoration of old housing stock by a new middle-class resident rich in social and cultural but
lacking in economic capital (Bridge, 2001; Caulfield, 1994; Ley, 1996). Rather, new-build
7gentrification is made up of large, newly constructed apartment complexes and luxury
residential estates where the gentrification has been conducted by a developer. The contrast
between traditional and new-build landscapes demonstrates how the capital deployment
processes of gentrification have changed, because the new-build landscape has significantly
different associations with cultural and economic capital. New-build gentrification involves
the large-scale deployment of economic capital by developers who have the capacity and
capability to do so, and then the deployment of economic capital by consumers buying into
this highly commodified form of urban lifestyle (Bridge, 2002) in which heritage and historic
referents are a significant part of the appeal. The consumers are buying into a different
version of urban living (Lambert and Boddy, 2002). New-build developments are often built
on brownfield sites or on vacant and/or abandoned land; as such they do not displace a pre-
existing residential population in the same way as classical gentrification has done. As
Lambert and Boddy (2002, page 18) state: `there is no direct displacement of other social
groups and lower income households as occurred with pre-recession gentrification.' The
processes of social change are different and a process of replacement occurs instead
(compare Hamnett, 2003). With respect to new-build developments, `Gentrification in the
sense of a process of social change based on `invasion and succession' is, therefore, a
misnomer'' (Lambert and Boddy, 2002, page 18).’
The topics of gentrification and the (re)development of football stadia have hardly ever been linked
together in scientific research. The sparse literature that is available on this topic, mainly focussed on
the quantitative effects on the urban area. Most quantitative studies of gentrification have taken a
macro, census-based approach (Hammel and Wyly 1996). Clark (Atkinson & Bridge, 2005, p. 258)
defined gentrification as: ‘a process that resulted in an increased proportion of higher socio-
economic status residents in combination reinvestment of the built environment.' Their focus has
been the measurement of demographic shifts over a number of years that indicate gentrification,
such as changes in the racial/ethnic composition, income, and educational attainment of residents
(Barton 2016). In the case of stadium-led gentrification, a few quantitative studies have been carried
out. These studies almost exclusively focussed on stadia in North-America. Baade & Dye (1990) were
one of the first to do a large case study on the impact of stadium development. They employed a
regression analysis to evaluate the impact that American football stadia have on economic activity of
the area. Since then, several studies have followed. Van Holm (2016) investigated the direct
qualitative effects minor baseball stadium developments had on the urban area. Regression results
showed that census tracts near a new minor league baseball stadium saw significant increases in the
median income and a change in the demographic composition of the area. In the case of Cardiff and
Manchester, the development had a positive effect on the property values and the areas where the
stadia are located.
Qualitative work on the other hand has usually taken a case study approach to provide an in-depth
exploration of neighbourhood change. Such studies typically use a combination of built environment
analyses and observations and stakeholder interviews (Loukaitou-Sideris et al., 2017, p. 229).
Qualitative research on the effect of stadium (re)development is sparse. The only piece of literature
that specifically focuses on this topic is Mark Panton’s (2018) case study research on Tottenham
Hotspur’s new stadium. The research had the aim to understand to the local authority’s approach to
regenerate the area through the erection of a new stadium. Secondly, the inquiry tried to understand
how this approach was perceived by the local communities. Panton concluded that the local
authorities used a pragmatic approach to regenerate the deprived neighbourhood. Residents on the
other hand saw it as a way to gentrify the area. However, this study was conducted two years before
the opening of the new stadium in 2020. Furthermore, it does not focus on the change of the build
environment. Other research that has focussed on stadium (re)development led urban change is
Kool’s (2016) research on the impact of stadium development in a Dutch context. He concluded that
8stadium development in the case of Groningen had an effect on the number of amenities and
business in the area. However, his research had a too broad scope and mostly quantitative approach
to derive detailed conclusions. There is still a large void when it comes to qualitative data on the
effects of stadium (re)development on the urban area. The topics of the change of the built
environment and the perception of long-term local residents due to stadium (re)development has
not been conducted yet.
In this study, gentrification is seen as a phenomenon that has emerged in different waves like
Davidson and Lees (2005) explain. Instead of labelling the theories of Glass (1964) and Smith (1982)
outdated, gentrification can be understood as a phenomenon that occurs in different shapes and
forms. Barton’s (2014) explanation of gentrification serves best to understand the roost of the
phenomenon. Gentrification raises the economic level of the population in a specific area or changes
the (social) character and culture of the neighbourhood. These interrelated parts are the result of the
phenomenon that’s called gentrification. Nevertheless, gentrification can be caused in different ways
and by several factors. The change of the (social) character and culture of an area does not
automatically imply rising housing values and displacement of working-class residents. This change
can occur in different forms, like the change in architecture style of the area, the number and kind of
amenities that are available to local residents or the spatial layout. As Bourne (1993) explained, the
development of a greyfield site can have wide ranging effects on the surrounding urban area. In the
case of this research the development of a football stadium could be the cause which starts
gentrification in a particular area. This contradicts the stance of Grass (1964) that gentrification can
only be caused by an influx of more affluent people in a formerly poor working-class area. However,
this study does not deny that this cannot be a cause for an area to gentrify. Gentrification can be
understood as a phenomenon in which the economic level of local residents raises or the (social)
culture and character of the area switches. The cause of gentrification can occur in different forms.
3.2 Theoretical framework
In this study, gentrification has been studied through the lens of how stadium (re)development
affects the built environment of the surrounding urban area and how local residents perceive this
change. To do so, two cases were selected. These are Brentford and Liverpool. Three theories that
define gentrification are most relevant to the aims of this research. These are Barton’s explanations
on the two parts of gentrification, Bourne’s (1993) greyfield theory and Davidson and Lees’ (2005)
theory on new-build gentrification. As Barton (2014) concluded in his research, gentrification can be
broken down into two interrelated parts. The first part concerns raising the economic level of a
neighbourhood, which has an effect on rising housing prices, displacement, change in demographics
et cetera. The second more qualitative part focuses on the character of the neighbourhood. This
character can exist of several things, like the architecture, amenities, businesses, local culture or
social cohesion. Gentrification does not only have an influence on the economic level of a
neighbourhood, but also changes the character of the area with all it features. It is therefore not only
an economic and demographic, but also a social and spatial issue. Nevertheless, Barton’s theory on
gentrification does not offer tools to understand the roots of gentrification. It mainly focuses on
strategies to identify the phenomenon of gentrification and how to define this.
Bourne’s theory on greyfield gentrification and Davidson and Lees’ theory on new-build gentrification
help to understand how stadium (re)developments can stir gentrification of the surrounding urban
area. As Bourne (1993) stated, gentrification is not just a process of a sudden influx of affluent groups
9into a poorer area. Gentrification can concern the change of an area because of the development of
a greyfield area. The theory describes that the development of a greyfield site can have a wide-raging
effect on the surrounding urban area. Therefore, this theory is relevant to the Brentford case, where
they built a new stadium and accompanying residential area on a former greyfield site. Bourne’s
theory strongly aligns with that of Davidson and Lees. They argue that gentrification is made up of
large new-build developments in an area. These real-estate developments drastically change the
social composition, character and outlook of the area. In their view, this does not specifically apply to
greyfield sites, as argued by Bourne. However, this theory primarily highlights the development of
large, newly constructed apartment complexes and luxury residential estates where the
gentrification has been encouraged by developers. Although this theory helps to understand the
effects a new-build development can have on an area, it’s scope mainly concerns the development of
luxury estates. The theory helps to support this theoretical framework of this research, but is
therefore not automatically applicable.
These three existing theories were applied in order to study a new area of research, in this case the
effects of stadium (re)development on the surrounding urban area and the perception of local
residents. Barton’s theory helps to define and identify gentrification. The theories of Bourne and
Davidson and Lees explain how a new development can result in the gentrification of the area the
development is situated in. It therefore forms the theoretical foundation how the (re)development
of a football arena can affect the surrounding urban area. Nevertheless, neither of these theories
describe the effect of the development of a football stadium on its surrounding. In this study,
gentrification is an overarching phenomenon encouraged by stadium (re)development. With the
theoretical framework used as a foundation that defines and describes gentrification, new insights
were gathered on how gentrification occurs in the context of stadium (re)development. It supports
the research on how the (re)development of a football stadium leads to a change in the built
environment and a change in the perception of local residents. Although other effects of
gentrification are not denied, this study solely focuses on these two effects.
3.3 Operationalisation
Operationalisation is the transition from theory to empirical research. The theoretical framework is
translated into entities that can be observed or measured in the real world. This research focuses on
two specific topics to examine the effects of stadium (re)development. These are the change of the
surrounding built environment and how local residents perceive the change of their neighbourhood.
The change of the built environment was observed and measured through several indicators. These
indicators helped to establish a clear view of what the area used to look like and how it has changed
due to the (re)development of a football stadium. The first indicator is the change in architectural
style that the area has undergone. One of the characteristics of gentrification is that it can
significantly change the look of the built environment. Observing the shift in architectural style helps
to examine this theoretical concept. This concerns several things like the type of housing of newly
built properties, architectural style, transition or renovation of existing buildings, redesign of facades
or use of space. However, architectural style is not the only indicator of change in the built
environment. Another indicator is the change in different types of local amenities and businesses.
The first thing that pops into many people’s heads when they hear gentrification is the replacement
of small kebab shops for trendy coffee shops. Although this seems like a cliché, Hertz (2016)
concluded that replacement of amenities and businesses is a direct effect of gentrification. A further
10indicator of the change in built environment is infrastructure. This is a somewhat broad indicator that
encompasses parking spaces, walkways, bike lanes or rental bikes, spaciousness of the area and the
overall spatial layout of the area. Lastly, the use of greenery is an indicator of change in the build
environment. Working-class neighbourhoods in England are characterised by the limited use of
greenery. The gentrification of an area could change this. Table 1 shows a quick overview of the most
important indicators applied in the coding of the data to identify the change of the area.
Indicators of change
Architectural style
Housing type
Amenities
Infrastructure
Spatial layout
Use of green
Table 1
The second topic of this research is the perception of local residents. The research tries to examine
how local residents who lived in the area before the (re)development perceive the change of their
neighbourhood. The most suitable method to research the perception of local resident on the
stadium (re)development in their neighbourhood is through interviews. During the course of the data
collection, local residents were asked a series of question on what the area looked like before the
stadium (re)development, how it has changed, what has improved and deteriorated, if they were
involved and directly affected by the stadium (re)development and finally how they perceive the
change of their neighbourhood due to the new stadium. The questionnaire can be found in Appendix
1. The transcripts of these interviews were used to determine the perception of local residents. In
order to do so, inductive coding was applied. Inductive coding is a ground-up data analysis approach.
Instead of using a predeveloped set of codes, like with deductive coding, codes derive from the
content of the data. This type of coding allows a theory to emerge from the data. There are no
preconceived notions of what codes should look like. It is a useful method to discover and explore
the perception of local residents. During the coding of the data, several patterns start to reoccur.
These patterns can be grouped into themes, in order to get a grasp of the perception of local
residents. The observation of these patterns can provide an answer to the sub question and show
how local residents perceive the gentrification.
114. Methodology
4.1 Research strategy
In order to answer the research question, a multiple case study was applied. Case study is a research
strategy in which one or several cases of the subject of study are examined in an everyday, real-life
setting (Van Thiel, 2014). According to Yin (2003), case studies are a preferred strategy when the
researcher tries to answer a ‘how’ or ‘why’ question and the research focuses on a phenomenon
which is contemporary and has some real-life context. The aim of this research is to examine how
stadium (re)development changes the surrounding urban area and how residents perceive this
change. This made a case study a suitable approach to answer the research question. Because the
research tries to examine the effects both for a stadium development and a redevelopment, the
strategy consisted of a multiple case study approach.
4.2 Selection of cases
For the selection of the cases a few requirements were drawn up. On the basis of these criteria two
cases were selected. The two cases had to be contrasting in the sense that one concerns the erection
of a new stadium and the other case a redevelopment of an already existing stadium. Because this
study attempted to investigate the perception of local residents, it is also important that the
(re)development of the stadium takes place in the heart of the community. A trend often seen
around the turn of the century, is new stadia being built far outside the city on an industrial estate or
agricultural land. A good example of this is the Opel Arena of the German side 1. FSV Mainz 05. They
built their new stadium on an agricultural field on the western outskirts of the city. The development
of this stadium had little to no effect on the area, except for two small connecting roads. However,
this model seems to lose popularity and many clubs try to develop within urban limits nowadays.
Another requirement was that the (re)development had to be either finished or almost finished. This
criterion made the new Feyenoord City project not apt for this research. Although the new stadium
in Rotterdam that tries to regenerate the poor area of Rotterdam-Zuid would seem suitable for this
inquiry, the municipality still has to approve the plans before construction can start (NOS, 2020). A
more practical requirement was that the stadium had to be situated in an English, German or Dutch
speaking country, to avoid an eventual language barrier.
Two cases that met all the requirements were Brentford and Liverpool. The case of Brentford regards
a new stadium development and Liverpool a redevelopment of their current Anfield Stadium.
Brentford FC are football club from West London. In the summer of 2020, Brentford FC left their old
stadium Griffin Park where they had played since 1904 (Westbrook, 2020). Their new stadium, one
kilometre east of their former home, offers them new commercial opportunities. The new Brentford
Community Stadium is part of a bigger plan to turn an industrial site into a diverse and vibrant living-
and working environment. According to project developer Willmott Dixon (n.d.): ‘The mixed-used
project will incorporate nearly 1,000 new homes, the new Brentford Community Stadium, as well as
12a mix of shops, restaurants, cafes and public spaces.’ Figure 1 shows the new Brentford Community
Stadium.
Figure 1: Brentford Community Stadium (The Guardian, 2020)
The second case is Liverpool Football Club. The Scousers are one of the most illustrious and
successful clubs in Europe. Anfield has been the home of Liverpool FC since 1892. The
eponymous neighbourhood in which Anfield Stadium is situated is one of the poorest and most
deprived parts of the port city. According to the Liverpool City Council (2017) unemployment is 25%
(compared to Liverpool’s 15%) and four out of 10 children live in poverty. Furthermore, the long-
term void of properties in the neighbourhood is twice as high as the city average. According to
Liverpool FC (n.d.): ‘The Anfield Project sets out a vision for the regeneration of the Anfield area. The
project is led by a partnership of Liverpool City Council, Liverpool Football Club and Your Housing
Group. The partnership has been formed with the aim of creating an attractive environment in
Anfield. The proposals include the expansion of Anfield Stadium, new and refurbished housing and
the development of a new public square including commercial and retail premises and a revitalised
high street.’ Through the redevelopment of the stadium, the parties aim to regenerate the
dilapidated area. Figure 2 shows an image of the Anfield area.
Figure 2: Anfield Stadium (Liverpool FC, 2020)
134.3 Research methods
To investigate the change of the built environment, two methods were mainly applied. Firstly, to
identify what the area looked like before the (re)development, desk research was carried out. This
strategy is suitable for research of an historical nature (describing developments over time), or when
exploring the background or context of a certain research problem (Van Thiel, 2014). Desk research
occurs in many forms. To establish what the surrounding urban area looked like before the
(re)development of the stadium, a content analysis is most suitable. According to Van Thiel (2014, p.
108): ‘Content analysis means to say that the researcher studies the content of the existing data
source, which will usually consist of written material or documents. The main interest lies in the
message that the author of the text tries to convey to the audience. The researcher first selects
material that is relevant to the subject of study. The data may have been produced in the research
situation itself (for example, texts published by an organization), or stem from an external source (for
example, reports on the organization produced by a review committee).’ In this case, the content
analysis mostly existed out of a media analysis, literature research and a most important photo and
video analysis. Interviews helped as well to establish what the area used to look like and what has
changed.
After collecting the data, the analysis phase constructed a clear view of the pre-development area.
Qualitative data are non-numerical units of information, for example statements, text or interview
fragments, and images (photos, posters). According to Van Thiel (2014, p. 110): ‘The basic principle of
data analysis here is for the researcher to read a text or look at an image, and assign a value to parts
of the text or image. The value is assigned by coding. The researcher interprets the qualitative data,
and subsequently assigns codes or labels to the different pieces of information. In this way, the data
are categorized and subdivided, so that they can be compared at a later stage.’
The same analysis method was used for the observation of the current state of the post-
development area. The main difference between these two is that the data collection here does not
exist of a content analysis, but through observations. ‘In this method, the researcher uses his or her
own observations and interpretations to arrive at certain conclusions and results’ as stated by Van
Thiel (2014, p. 70). The best way to conduct observation research is by walking through the
neighbourhood and get an understanding of the local context. Other ways to gather data are
described by as Loukaitou-Sideris et al. (2017, p. 229): ‘More recently, the volume of neighbourhood-
level data has increased dramatically. Parcel-level data and business data are now easily accessible
annually. Researchers can also draw information about neighbourhood urban form and its changes
from the Street Views archives of Google Maps and various crowdsourcing data.’ Google Maps and
Street view were often used both to observe the current and past exterior of the area.
The second sub question focuses on how the local residents perceive the change in their area. The
best way to collect data is by doing interviews. An interview can be relatively structured, or have a
looser, more unstructured format. In the case of this research, a semi-structured interview was most
suitable. ‘In the semi-structured interview, a so-called interview manual or topic list is used as a
guideline. The interview manual lists a number of topics that the researcher wishes to discuss, or
gives a set of questions prepared earlier. In semi-structured interviews, the order in which the
questions are asked can vary, depending on the way in which the conversation develops’ (Van Thiel,
2014, p. 94). Unfortunately, other means of capturing the perception of local residents, such as
media analysis turned out to not offer much relevant data for this research. News articles, forums or
social media post did not offer relevant insight in the perception of local residents on the change of
their area. In the rare cases they did, it was all very broad or it was not possible to track down
14You can also read
