Spirit of Can Do
If there was a single continuous thread in the many and diverse contributions to Changing London, it was a spirit of can do. We don’t like everything we see but we do think change is possible.
We are bewildered and even alienated by the vision often repeated by mayoral wannabes – ‘the world’s most competitive city’ – partly because, as one contributor at our open meeting pointed out, it raises the question: competitive at what? Ballroom dancing, quiz nights, drinking games? But mainly because it has so little resonance with the average Londoner. Although 77 per cent of London residents are proud to live here only 17 per cent believe that they benefit from the building development in the capital.21 Big-shot London – big offices, big salaries, big business – is relatively peripheral to most of us, and 75 per cent say that there are a lot of things that they would like to do in London but simply cannot afford.21
A winning candidate would understand that reality, and develop a promise for the next mayoral term that owed less to the Westminster playbook and more to the people of London. We have ideas, we believe they are practical and we think they would reach the parts of the electorate that others never reach
As Boris Johnson is now stepping down and Ken Livingstone isn’t running again, the next mayoral election will be contested by first-timers. They have the chance to be something different, to stand for something more. It is very likely that they will be well-known, experienced, national politicians with a reputation to think about. Big ships are safest close to port but it isn’t what they are built for. Though caution might be understandable it would also be a wasted opportunity, for London and for politics.
One of west London’s most distinguished residents, T. S. Eliot, once asked:22
When the Stranger says:
‘What is the meaning of this city?
Do you huddle close together because you love each other?’ What will you answer? ‘We all dwell together To make money from each other’? or ‘This is a community’?
It’s not a simple either/or – choices in government rarely are – but it is about priorities, and contributors to Changing London were unequivocal: we want candidates who know what matters most, leaders who will listen to Londoners and, in 2016, a mayor who will embrace fresh ideas and a new approach to politics.
2. A Great Place to Grow Up
‘If we can lead in finance (or law or fashion or Olympic Games) it is neither illogical nor grandiose to demand of our mayor that this great world city leads the globe in nurturing our young. It would require vaunting, breath-taking, ridicule-risking ambition.’ So said south London teacher and community organiser Jamie Audsley, in one of the first contributions to Changing London.
Dozens of contributors shared Jamie’s passion. They included children and young people, who mourned the paucity of sweetshops and the cost of games consoles but were forceful in demanding decent schools, better transport and housing, more to do, reduced inequality and more opportunity; in this their views differed little from those of our adult contributors.
London can be a wonderful place to grow up. Some can take advantage of the opportunities to learn, to play, to experience culture from all around the world, living in safe communities with supportive neighbours, good services, and a loving family. Yet low pay and high costs consign a third of children to living in poverty.23 Densely packed, often-poor-quality housing damages health. Cars dominate public space, leaving little room to play. Insecurity and transience stop neighbours getting to know each other. Violence and fear blights the lives of a minority. We are a young city – a quarter of us are aged under nineteen – yet we don’t want to grow up here: a poll asked Londoners where they would rather spend their childhood if given the chance again, and most opted for elsewhere.24 Asked if London was a good place to bring up children, only 39 per cent of people in the poorest areas said yes, compared with 81 per cent in the richest.21
The former mayor of Bogotá Enrique Peñalosa said:25
We know a lot about the ideal environment for a happy whale or a happy mountain gorilla. We’re far less clear about what constitutes an ideal environment for a happy human being… If we can build a successful city for children, we will have a successful city for all people.
He is right. Our infrastructure, services and systems are not designed with the happiness of children and young people in mind. They leave many desperately struggling to thrive, and it is to them that a civilised society must turn first. It also traps many in a childhood that is good but not the best it could be, and even the luckiest children would see their lives improved if the streets and communities around them were thriving too.
The Rights of Every London Child
When they are growing up we expect a lot of our children and young people. In return they should expect more from us. In her contribution, Ellie Robinson suggested a set of expectations each child and young person could demand of their mayor and their city: the rights of a London child, spelt out because many are denied them at present. Based on the contributions to Changing London we propose six.
1 For every child: a fun, friendly community.
2 For every child: experience of all London has to offer.
3 For every child: the extra help, whatever it takes.
4 For every child: the first steps into a good career.
5 For every child’s family: a decent income and a good home.
6 For every child: the right to be heard.
There will be many other ideas and more to add but we will know we have succeeded when the next generation are able to say: ‘These are the birthrights of a London child; the best place on earth to grow up.’
(1) For Every Child: A Fun, Friendly Community
Ten Thousand Play Streets – and a Presumption of Consent
In 1972 a group of children living in central Amsterdam decided to reclaim their street from cars. With a calm, playful resolve they set up barriers at either end, organised petitions, took on irate car drivers and world-weary adults. ‘Impossible! You cannot ever close a street! Out of the question!’ said one. He was wrong. Local leaders took notice, they began rerouting traffic away from residential neighbourhoods, and introduced a 30 km/hour speed limit. Eventually the young campaigners won the right to a permanent play street, which still exists today.26
‘Playing out’ was a fond childhood memory for several of our contributors, but it barely features in the lives of today’s children. ‘For us it was fresh air, friends, games. For our parents it was a community, an excuse to chat, a sense of shared responsibility,’ said Sally Rogers. Christian Wolmar recalls ‘inter-war pictures where residential roads, with barely a car in view, were the site of a multitude of activities, ranging from women gossiping and cleaning the pavement, to children playing cricket or football on the cobbles.’
A bucolic vision perhaps, a victim of modernity. Not necessarily. In the 1930s children played on every street but cars were already taking over: the Street Playground Act of 1938 was introduced after thousands of children were killed in road accidents. It allowed local authorities to close residential streets between 8.00 a.m. and sunset. At their peak there were 750 around the country but by the 1980s most had disappeared. Until 2011, that is, when a group of parents in Bristol decided to use legislation intended for street parties to close their road for the day. Their play street was such a success that they set up Playing Out to support other parents in their efforts,
