Why Do Artists Keep Getting Displaced?
A new look at artwashing, gentrification, and the post-industrial city
In a special episode of Oxford Brookes Unscripted, PhD student Erkin Kurtoglu – a former co-host of this very podcast – takes us into the heart of London’s creative districts, but not to romanticise them. Instead, his research questions why the very communities that help revitalise post-industrial neighbourhoods often find themselves displaced by the changes they helped catalyse.
Erkin’s research stems from a deep curiosity developed during his master’s dissertation, which focused on community use of the spaces under the Westway Flyover in North Kensington. There, he discovered vibrant grassroots activity in unlikely places – a revelation that sparked his turn toward urban sociology and a PhD exploring the lived experiences of artists in gentrifying areas.
His fieldwork centres on two contrasting London districts: Hackney Wick & Fish Island, now heavily gentrified following the 2012 Olympics, and Harringay Warehouse District, where artists are still holding ground. Comparing the two, Erkin identifies stark differences in building typology, social integration, and community awareness.
“In Hackney Wick, artists occupied individualised loft units in old Victorian factories,” he explains, “while in Harringay, large, open-plan warehouses fostered stronger social bonds. That, combined with more integrated non-artistic communities and early awareness of gentrification risks, gave Harringay artists a stronger chance to organise and resist displacement.”
Central to Erkin’s work is the Artists’ Feedback Loop – a cycle in which artists unknowingly pave the way for creative-class developments, only to be priced out themselves. He also introduces the concept of passive artwashing, distinguishing it from more commonly discussed forms where artists collaborate with developers in council estate regeneration. In post-industrial settings, he argues, developers commodify the existing artistic aura – often without the artists’ involvement or consent.
His methodology blends urban morphology and spatial ethnography, offering a socio-spatial-temporal lens that captures changes across three phases: pre-activism, activism, and post-activism. Through GIS analysis, interviews, and on-site observations, Erkin examines how space, resistance, and power interact in real-time.
Importantly, his work offers a new way forward. “The only way to break this cycle is through pragmatic collaboration between artists, local councils, and non-artistic residents,” he says.
Looking ahead, Erkin is exploring options for public engagement beyond academia. From potential blogs to community-based documentaries, he’s keen to ensure his findings don’t just sit in journals, but reach those most affected by the issues he studies.
Ultimately, his message is one of cautious optimism – that arts-led regeneration doesn’t have to mean displacement, and that sustainability must include the social, not just the ecological.
“I’m not anti-capitalist,” he reflects, “but we need to be honest about its drawbacks. If we truly care about sustainability, we have to care about social sustainability too.”