Blog

Vic Keegan’s Lost London 52: the Devil’s Acre

When Charles Dickens called the streets around Old Pye Street (south of today’s Victoria Street) “The Devil’s Acre” he knew what he was talking about. Several other parts of London could claim to be the most destitute – Shoreditch, Saint Giles and Turnmill Street for a start – but none were quite as abominable as this territory a few hundred yards away from the sublimity of Westminster Abbey and the Houses of Parliament. 

Indeed, it was its proximity to the Abbey that caused many of its problems. For centuries a large area of land outside the Abbey, thanks to a decree of Edward the Confessor, was a sanctuary where criminals were safe from the long arm of the law. It thus became a magnet for disreputables and the tradition lingered long after the abolition of sanctuary. 

In the first edition of his Household Words, Dickens described the neighbourhood as “begirt by scenes of indescribable infamy and pollution; the blackest tide of moral turpitude that flows in the capital rolls its filthy wavelets up to the very walls of Westminster Abbey.”

Horrific overcrowding – sometimes as many as 12 people to a room and with up to half the population engaged in thieving according to some reports, it is not surprising that it became a no-go area for the police.

In St Anne’s Lane, off Old Pye Street, a contemporary described a side court which had “every feature of a sewer, and found a long puddle of sewage soaking in the hollow centre. The passages of the low black huts on either side were like old sooty chimneys, and the inhabitants were buried out of sight in the gloom.”

Further down Old Pye Street in Perkins Rents was a pub called One Tun which has rightly been described as a school for pickpockets. It may well have been an inspiration for Dickens when he write Oliver Twist, though there are other candidates. It was rescued by philanthropist Adeline M. Cooper, who raised money to convert the pub into a ragged school.

The Devil’s Acre was rescued partly by the construction of Victoria Street around 1850 with its associated slum clearance and partly by the emergence of other philanthropists such as William Gibbs and George Peabody, who built modernised blocks of flats around Devil’s Acre for the poor and which are still very much functional today.

Well, actually, they were for the poor but not for the very poor, as you had to have a job to afford the affordable rents. And since they were far nicer and bigger – only a few to an apartment rather than over a dozen in the slums they replaced – it made conditions even worse for those ejected from the slums who had nowhere else to go. They were a marvellous advance but, as with so many reforms, there were unforeseen consequences. Meanwhile Devil’s Acre is long gone, a bit of Lost London we are happy to say “Good Riddance” to. 

Read more stories of Lost London by Vic Keegan here.

LONDON AND BREXIT: Will leaving the EU be good or bad for the capital? On London and the illustrious London Society have jointly organised a debate about this crucial question. Anti-Brexit campaigner Andrew Adonis, former Boris Johnson adviser Daniel Moylan and Lib Dem AM Caroline Pidgeon have already been booked to speak. Buy your tickets here.

Categories: Lost London

Cecil Sagoe: what the introduction of estate regeneration ballots will mean for London

Cecil Sagoe is an assistant policy officer at the housing charity Shelter. This article originally appeared on Shelter’s website.

Estate regeneration schemes proposing demolition have been politically controversial over the last decade. Now, the London Mayor is attempting to address this issue through a new policy which will see some estate residents given the right to vote on whether demolish and rebuild schemes should go ahead. Which residents have been given a right to vote, which regeneration schemes are bound by Sadiq Khan’s new policy, and what might this policy development mean for the future of regeneration?

Proposing to demolish homes as part of estate regeneration schemes has become a contentious issue within London. A 2015 report by the London Assembly found that there had been a net loss of about 8,000 social rented homes across regeneration schemes covering around 50 council estates.

As well as the loss of social homes, there has been particular controversy around how much influence residents should have over the future of their estate when demolition is proposed.

Developers, housing associations and councils conducting an estate regeneration have been required to conduct resident consultations when developing plans for a regeneration scheme. However, in London over the last few years, a broad range of council estate residents, campaigners and political figures have been demanding that the Mayor also grant estate residents a binding ballot on regeneration plans involving demolition.

Ballots for estate regeneration

On 18 July, after two consultations on this issue, the Mayor announced that schemes seeking mayoral funding and propose the demolition of affordable homes will now be required to conduct a resident ballot.

Just to be clear, this condition will be required if estate regeneration schemes propose any demolition of existing affordable homes or homes that were previously social homes; this would include council homes that were sold under the Right to Buy.

Crucially, to receive Mayoral funding a regeneration scheme involving demolition would need to secure the support of a majority of ballot participants.

If the majority of ballot participants choose to vote against a developer’s scheme then a developer could choose to walk away from it. They could also decide to not seek mayoral funding and commence with their original plans.

However, estate regeneration schemes often require a combination of public funding and private investment. So, if the developer wants to pursue the regeneration it is likely that they will need to amend its proposals and re-ballot residents on the revised proposals. This means that the Mayor’s announcement will likely give many estate residents a key say in whether a developer’s redevelopment proposals can feasibly commence.

Will all residents get a say in the ballot?

The right to be balloted on an estate’s redevelopment extends to the following residents throughout the entirety of an estate:

  • social tenants
  • homeowners who have been living on the estate for at least a year prior to the start of the ballot
  • private tenants or households in temporary accommodation who have been on the council’s housing waiting list for at least a year prior to the start of the ballot

However, crucially, the right to be balloted does not extend to all existing residents. Notably, it will not extend to the following households on an affected estate:

  • homeless households living in temporary accommodation who have been on a council’s housing waiting list for less than year
  • private tenants who have been on a council’s waiting list for less than a year, or who are not on the waiting list at all

40% of council homes sold under right to buy are now let to private tenants. So, a lot of people living on estates, who have an existing stake in its future, are now likely to be private renters.

Additionally, households in temporary accommodation on an estate, regardless of the length of time they have been on a council’s waiting list, are also likely to have a direct stake in the future of the estate.

Exempt schemes

The Mayor has also emphasised that there will be five broader estate-level exemptions to the new funding condition. These include schemes where demolition is required:

  • to facilitate major infrastructure projects
  • due to safety concerns
  • to provide supported and/or specialist housing

Exemptions will also exist for schemes where:

  • planning permission was secured on or prior to 18 July 2018
  • GLA funding was committed to the scheme on or prior to 2018

Schemes falling within the latter two exemptions will be subject to a ballot if they become amended to propose a greater level of demolition than had been agreed when planning permission was agreed for them/when the Mayor signed off funding for them.

Additionally, it is also critical to emphasise that current and future estate redevelopment schemes that do not seek GLA funding will not be required to conduct a resident ballot —currently, 17 out of 62 live regeneration schemes in London are not in receipt of GLA funding.

The future of estate regeneration

The move by City Hall to require resident ballots shows a desire to respond to residents’ concerns and address the controversy surrounding estate regeneration in London.

However, as (1) not all future estate regeneration schemes proposing demolition will be bound by the GLA’s new policy, and (2) not all estate residents will not be eligible to be balloted,  it will likely be unsatisfactory for many campaigners who support regeneration ballots.

Additionally, other key players, such as housing associations and councils are split on the precise terms under which ballots should be conducted, or indeed whether there should be binding ballots at all.

It is therefore likely that debates will continue over the impacts that ballots will have on the future of estate regeneration. For example:

  • how the introduction of ballots affects the number and nature of regeneration schemes coming forward
  • whether ballots, alongside the Mayor’s good practice guide to estate regeneration, can prevent schemes from delivering a net loss of social homes
  • and crucially, whether the introduction of binding ballots in London will lead to their introduction elsewhere.

As an organisation deeply concerned with the future of social housing, we at Shelter keenly await to see what the introduction of ballots will mean for the future of estate regeneration.

On London is very grateful to Shelter and to Cecil Sagoe for their permission to reproduce this article. Fellow Shelter on Twitter here and Cecil here.

Categories: Analysis

Dave Hill: Hackney’s Kings Crescent regeneration shows how boroughs can build

The Kings Crescent estate stands across busy Green Lanes from Stoke Newington’s handsome Clissold Park, right on the border with Islington, and was once in a sorry state: half demolished, half empty, in poor repair and in urgent need of rescuing. But in the last few weeks it has won two Royal Institute of British Architects awards, the New London Awards Mayor’s Prize and could get yet more gongs. Something’s been going right. What?

Hackney Council deserves plenty of credit. Back in 2011 its cabinet approved an 18-site estate regeneration programme, partly enabled by prior successful bidding for [Labour] government funds to help local authorities to build their own housing. Kings Crescent was to be part of that programme. In 2014 a “combination of refurbishment, retention, demolition and newbuild” was proposed for most of the estate which, in all, contained 275 homes at the time, of which 195 were for social rent (see paragraph 6.5.11).

Architects were appointed to create a “tenure blind” scheme to harmonise upgraded old homes and newly-constructed ones within redesigned public space, but the project as a whole has been run and self-financed in-house by the council itself without selling any of its land and with, it says, close community involvement. The construction work was done by Higgins.

The first two of four phases are now complete. The new estate that has risen in place of the bulk of the old comprises 374 homes in all. Of these, 154 are for social rent – 79 new and 75 refurbished. There are also 36 shared ownership homes, all new, 26 refurbished leaseholder-owned homes and 158 new ones sold at full market rates. The latter properties have produced the money to pay for the affordable types.

The remaining part of the original Kings Crescent, to be transformed in phases 3 and 4, is currently boarded off and planning permission for its renewal is yet to be received. It is intended that this will be made up of 373 homes: 138 for social rent (120 of them existing ones refurbished); 65 new shared ownership ones; 54 refurbished leaseholder ones; and 116 new market sale properties, subsidising the affordable as in phases 1 and 2.

It total, that means 747 Kings Crescent homes where there used be 275, including 101 shared ownership properties and 292 social rented homes where there used to be 195. The high level of affordability in this combination derives largely from two things: one, Hackney’s use of its own land, which meant a huge element of the cost of many housing developments in London did not exist in this case; two, the high price of market housing in London, especially near an attractive park, which meant more cash with which to fund the “affordable” homes.

It’s hard to quarrel with Hackney’s view that the Kings Crescent regeneration represents a clear gain for Hackney and its residents: a glum, crumbling estate is becoming a toothsome one where social housing renters include occupants of previous ones who had been rehoused elsewhere exercising their “right to return”, those who had stayed throughout taking a “first dibs”option on new ones, and an intake of completely new households from waiting lists.

The council stresses that the shared ownership and full market priced homes too were marketed initially to potential buyers in Hackney. There has been no loss of public land and no need, in this case, for partnering with a housing association or commercial developer. Practical regeneration with the right priorities and pretty good outcomes so far.

LONDON AND BREXIT: Will leaving the EU be good or bad for the capital? On London and the illustrious London Society have jointly organised a debate about this crucial question. Anti-Brexit campaigner Andrew Adonis, former Boris Johnson adviser Daniel Moylan and Lib Dem AM Caroline Pidgeon have already been booked to speak. Buy your tickets here.

 

 

 

Categories: Comment

Kate Hoey deselection moves bring Labour’s national faction fight to Lambeth

Kate Hoey, the famously Eurosceptic Labour MP for Vauxhall, has said she is “quite relaxed” about moves to deselect her after she voted with the government over Brexit. But many local activists believe she is on her way out, and the “moderates” among them fear a Corbynite successor being foisted on them from above. How could that happen in a party where the will of local members is now meant to be sovereign?

The theory goes that should Hoey lose a “trigger ballot” following a recent, unanimous, no confidence vote by constituency members, Labour’s ruling national executive committee (NEC) would intervene to make it more likely that a Full Jeremy candidate would fight the seat at the next general election. The possibility excites Momentumites across Lambeth, who sees the borough, including its Labour council, as a citadel of Progress, Blairism and so on that needs dismantling. Even though plenty of them campaigned for Hoey at last year’s general election, they wouldn’t mind replacing her with one their own.

One way the NEC could help this happen would be to set requirements for the make-up of the shortlist, as happened recently in another safe London Labour seat, Lewisham East. In that case, the NEC insisted on it being composed entirely of black and minority ethnic (BAME) women, though pressure from the local party seems to have helped ensure that two experienced local councillors it reckoned were up to job were included. In the end, one of those, Janet Daby, got the job, defeating a pair of ardent Corbynites.

Might a similar sort of story have a different sort of ending in Vauxhall? Constituency “moderates” theorise that Corbyn Central would love Hoey to be replaced by Katy Clark, a former MP (in Scotland) and a close Corbyn aide, who lives in the constituency (in Prince’s ward). Laura Parker, Momentum’s national co-ordinator who was a Corbyn aide until last September and also resides in Vauxhall (Clapham Town ward), is thought a likely favoured contender too.

Might an all-female shortlist be demanded from on high, thus ensuring that one or both of these prominent pro-Corbyn figures gets in the frame? Were that the motivation, it couldn’t be another all BAME as well as all female shortlist though, because both Clark and Parker are white. The fact that Clark is currently leading Labour’s internal “democracy review” adds further twist to the speculation. Could that inhibit her from seeking the nomination? But even if it did, the moderates would need someone on the shortlist who could carry a majority of members in a CLP where no faction is dominant. Who would that person be?

Throw into the mix the fact that “moderate” Remainers in Vauxhall have long been as narked with Hoey over her prominent Leave campaigning as their Momentumite counterparts are over her voting with the Tories, and you have the weird state affairs where a sort of unifying horror at her hanging off the end of a boat with Nigel Farage could be followed by a ferocious faction fight over who succeeds her. That fight could end with the moderates getting shot of an MP they are fed up with, only for her to be replaced by another they are at odds with every bit as much for different reasons – and whom Momentum folk are overjoyed with.

Bear in mind that Hoey has not yet been triggered and might not be, depending on whether such a ballot actually happens and how the different local factions decide to line up if it does. There’s even talk of Hoey simply choosing to stand down, either because she’s had enough – she’s 72 years old – or, seeing the writing on the wall, in order to contest the next election as an independent. The Hoey situation is an odd one in many ways, and there are good arguments for not leaping to broader conclusions on the strength of it. But if she is to be removed as MP for Vauxhall, the capital could once again host a significant battle in the war for the Labour Party’s soul – and all over a Brexiteer in the city’s most pro-Remain borough.

LONDON AND BREXIT: Will leaving the EU be good or bad for the capital? On London and the illustrious London Society have jointly organised a debate about this crucial question. Anti-Brexit campaigner Andrew Adonis, former Boris Johnson adviser Daniel Moylan and Lib Dem AM Caroline Pidgeon have already been booked to speak. Buy your tickets here.

Categories: News

Earls Court: Hammersmith & Fulham leader repeats call for return of estates as Capco seeks ‘third party capital’

More than six months since Hammersmith & Fulham Council knocked back the idea of a new and bigger masterplan to rev up the glacially slowgoing Earls Court redevelopment scheme, has there been much forward motion? Answer: not really. But there have been a few stirrings of note.

The latest takes the form of a letter from the council’s Labour leader Stephen Cowan to residents of the adjoining West Kensington and Gibbs Green housing estates. These were earmarked for demolition when the giant scheme was given permission by a prior Conservative administration in 2013 and are currently subject to a conditional land sale agreement (CLSA), whereby sections of the estates would pass into the hands of developer Capital and Counties (Capco) as and when it provides replacement homes for those knocked down.

Cowan wrote to estate residents last November, saying that should a new masterplan go ahead, it “would see the two estates return to council control”. But although that masterplan was rejected in January, Cowan’s new letter says that on 2 March Capco’s chief executive Ian Hawksworth, “told the Council that the Capco board had agreed that it is in the best interest of both Capco and the Council to return the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates, Gibbs Green School [a separate site on the latter estate] and Farm Lane [a separate site nearby] to the Council”.

Cowan adds: “I have written to the Capco board urging them to stick to to this statement and do so quickly.” He also says that in return for cancelling the CLSA the council would reimburse Capco for cash already handed over and could do so “with ten days’ notice”. The council says that Hawksworth made his remarks at a private meeting at the Town Hall. A spokesperson for Capco has issued the following measured response to Cowan’s letter:

The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham have expressed interest in pursuing alternative options for the estates. Capco continues to engage with LBHF and other stakeholders in relation to future plans for the estates. In the meantime, the Conditional Land Sale Agreement, a binding agreement entered into with LBHF in relation to the estates in 2013, remains in place.

This latest communication from Cowan to those living on he “People Estates”, as the long-running anti-demolition campaign has dubbed them, was made two days after Capco’s interim financial results – for the six months ending 30 June 2018 – showed it had knocked £52m off the value of the Earls Court scheme, taking it down to £707m. This followed a £131m reduction in February. In 2015 it was reckoned to be worth £1.4bn.

A combination of falling demand for the most expensive new “prime” properties in Central London, stamp duty changes and Brexit-related uncertainty are blamed for the bulk of the Capco project becoming becalmed, including the site of the now-demolished Earls Court exhibition centre buildings, which were supposed to give way to a new urban “village” through a joint venture with Transport for London. Capco owns most of the company, TfL owns the land, through which runs a weave of Underground and other rail lines. The interim results report says that Capco with TfL will seek “the introduction of third party capital” to help them build things there. The site has stood empty for some time.

In May, Capco said it is looking to separate Earls Court from Covent Garden, its other big London asset, which continues to be profitable. The company has sold off the Empress State building, a high rise office block – and originally a hotel – at the edge of initial masterplan area which it had bought with a view to converting to residential use within the larger scheme. The buyer was the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, which had previously leased it. That brought in £250m.

The interim results also say that most of the flats in the Lillie Square section of the project, a joint venture with interests of the troubled Kwok family that received its own planning consent in 2012, have now be sold. Some of the intended replacements for homes lined up for levelling on Gibbs Green and West Kensington were planned for a part of Lillie Square. The interim report says that “basement works” for some of these have been completed to “facilitate the first phase of replacement housing”. If and when such a phase will actually occur remains to be seen.

LONDON AND BREXIT: Will leaving the EU be good or bad for the capital? On London and the illustrious London Society have jointly organised a debate about this crucial question. Anti-Brexit campaigner Andrew Adonis, former Boris Johnson adviser Daniel Moylan and Lib Dem AM Caroline Pidgeon have already been booked to speak. Buy your tickets here.

 

Categories: News

Southwark: the happy housing story of Marklake Court

You don’t read many good news stories about housing in London, so make the most of this one. In July 2015 I reported that Southwark Council was about to give planning permission for 27 new council homes to be added its 1960s Kipling Estate in Bermondsey on land used at that time for car parking. Last week, three years almost to the day, I attended the official unveiling of those 27 homes, along with Kipling residents, starlets of London government, and members of the different organisations that have brought to fruition a scheme that truly merits the description “community-led”.

The Kipling is run by Leathermarket Joint Management Board (JMB), one of the numerous tenant management organisations (TMOs) in Southwark. TMOs can be set up by elected estate residents and, if judged competent, take over housing services with borough funding and other support. Leathermarket JMB, Southwark’s biggest TMO, has been around since 1996. It now looks after around 1500 homes, tenant and leasehold, in Bermondsey and Borough, mostly spread across a group of small estates (there are about 250 homes on the Kipling) covering five tenant association areas.

The 27 new homes, collectively named Marklake Court – students of Rudyard Kipling will spot the reference – have been built by the Leathermarket Community Benefits Society (CBS), effectively a development wing of the JMB but separated from it by a necessary Chinese wall. Early funding from the Greater London Authority (£360,000, allocated under Boris Johnson) helped the project to reach the planning permission stage, and Southwark has met the development costs as part of its council home building programme.

There is a mixture of one, two and three-bedroom flats within two blocks five and seven storeys, high standing less than 300 metres from The Shard. The (council) rents will be higher, calculated as they are in terms of current day “rateable values”, but not too much higher – the JMB says that the weekly rent for a one-bed Marklake Court flat will be £130 per week compared with round about £105 for one of the old Kipling one-beds, depending on the individual property.

 The really exceptional thing about the scheme has been the way the Leathermarket team, architects Bell Phillips and local development specialists Igloo Community Builders have made the wishes of Kipling residents integral to the project from the blank sheet of paper stage.

“The key thing is that we were almost like a facilitator,” said Hari Phillips, who recalled up to a dozen meetings being held with residents very early on, along with walking tours of the area in order to understand what people wanted in terms of everything from building height and materials to design details that chimed with older nearby buildings they liked.

Igloo’s Kym Shaen-Carter, winner of an award for her community consultation work, explained that there are many different ways to engage with local communities, but that the one vital ingredient is trust. “When residents made a comment, we really worked hard on integrating that into the plans or, if that couldn’t be done, showing them why it couldn’t. The design process went step by step. It wasn’t just two consultations and we’re gone.”

Among the speakers at the unveiling, held on the terrace that links the two blocks, was James Murray, Sadiq Khan’s deputy mayor for housing and residential development. He related his sense that all concerned in the collaborative approach had benefitted from it and said he would like to see more examples of it across the capital.

John Paul Maytum, who chairs the CBS, described Marklake Court as the realisation of a vision in keeping with what he called a “proud history of building homes for ordinary Londoners,” invoking the “homes fit for heroes” period after Word War I and the endeavours of the London County Council. He praised all the politicians who have supported the scheme, singling out Southwark’s Labour councillors.

Who will live in the 27 new dwellings? The start of the answer is a formal housing needs assessment conducted right the outset. Offers were then made to Kipling households that were either overcrowded or under-occupying, giving them not only the chance to move to somewhere more suitable in terms of space but also to be at the heart of development of their new homes. The knock-on benefit, of course, is that the homes they are moving out of will be freed up for people on Southwark’s waiting list.

One of those moving from an old flat to a new one is Barbara Caley (pictured above in the pink top with a daughter and some fellow residents), who has lived on the Kipling Estate for 40 years. “It’s been very exciting to be asked to take part in the design of the new building,” she said. “And we were actually listened to. They acted on some of the things we put forward.”

Barbara’s old place is a three-bedroom maisonette where she now lives alone, as her immediate family has grown up and moved out. She says she is “thrilled” to be moving into her smaller, brand new place that means she can maintain her local connections with neighbours, friends and the charity sector. Not every good news housing story can be same as this one and many might entail a lot more pain along the way. But what this one surely shows is that goodwill nurtured among those most directly affected can go a very long way towards writing a happy ending.

LONDON AND BREXIT: Will leaving the EU be good or bad for the capital? On London and the illustrious London Society have jointly organised a debate about this crucial question. Anti-Brexit campaigner Andrew Adonis, former Boris Johnson adviser Daniel Moylan and Lib Dem AM Caroline Pidgeon have already been booked to speak. Buy your tickets here.

 

Categories: News

Grenfell Tower ‘likely to remain standing for some years,’ says council deputy leader

Legal actions relating to the Grenfell Tower fire mean it will be “some years” before work can begin on dismantling the shell of the building and that demolishing it will take “an estimated two years” after that, according to the deputy leader of Kensington & Chelsea Council (RBKC).

Addressing the committee that scrutinises the council’s Grenfell Recovery programme, Kim Taylor-Smith revealed that “I have been told that [the tower] is likely to remain standing for some years until legal actions have been completed.”

There have been reported recent suggestions that the tower could begin to be torn down by the end this year.

Taylor-Smith provided the new information when presenting a progress report on meeting a list of commitments to tenants of housing blocks adjacent to the tower, covering refurbishment of properties, repairs, improved services with a “particular emphasis” on fire safety and temporary accommodation for those who feel unable to return to homes the fire had forced them to vacate. The fire on 14 June 2017 took the lives of 72 people.

He said that the “long process” involved before the tower can be brought down needed to be incorporated in the council’s plans for the whole of the West Lancaster estate, which the tower stands at one end of, and considered within its wider housing policy.

Taylor-Smith pledged that an impending “improvement programme” to open up areas around the tower that have been closed off was “part of the journey of restoring the estate and making it the best place we possibly can for people to live,” and expressed his hope that the return of the award-winning Kensington Aldridge Academy to its original site next to the tower would also help with the recovery.

One third of homes in five housing blocks the report specifically addressed are currently empty and Taylor-Smith said that “encouraging residents to return”, in line with the wishes expressed by many of them, was another important element that needed to be addressed. He emphasised that the report was “not about forcing people home” though he acknowledged that it set out the council’s need to “support residents who are not in their homes make longer term decisions about where they want to live” (paragraph 3.2).

The meeting heard that of 204 Grenfell Tower or neighbouring Grenfell Walk households needing rehousing, 97 are now in permanents homes, 46 are in temporary homes and 61 are in emergency accommodation. A suggestion from a member of the public that targets had been set for returning households to their currently empty homes was firmly refuted.

 

 

 

Categories: News

Vic Keegan’s Lost London 51: the world’s first circus

If you stroll over Westminster Bridge to the eastern end of St Thomas’ Hospital – near where the Florence Nightingale Museum now is –  you will be standing on the site of the world’s first circus. Of course, circuses in some form had existed for many centuries. The word itself is of Greek origin and exhibitions of strange animals were held in ancient Egypt. But it is generally agreed that the modern circus was born on this London spot on 9 January 1768 when Philip Astley (1742-1814), born in Newcastle-under-Lyme, pioneered it in the form of a modern arena surrounded by tiers of seats from which to watch trick horse-riding and other acrobatic exercises. Astley reckoned that a diameter of 42 feet for the circus ring was needed so horses could move comfortably, a standard that is still used today. Tumblers, tightrope walkers and clowns were added later. 

Astley’s success soon spawned imitators. A rival, Charles Hughes, who had once worked with Astley, set up a Royal Circus a short distance from Astley’s Amphitheatre of Equestrian ArtsHughes, who was the first to use the word “circus” in this context, took his troupe to entertain Catherine the Great in 1790 and is credited with planting the idea of circuses in Russia. Meanwhile, John Bill Ricketts, a former student of Hughes, went to America and established a circus in Philadelphia. A performance in 1793 was attended by George Washington and a commemorative plaque now stands on the site – which is more than can be said for Astley’s original.

Later on, the barnstorming US showman PT Barnum became more successful than Astley, but there is no doubt who was the true architect of circuses. Astley established wooden amphitheatres around Britain and 18 in other European cities. He opened his first Paris circus in 1782 and is buried in the Pere Lachaise cemetery in Paris. In 1844, long after Astley’s death, the circus was still up to its tricks. The Annual Register reported that “an immense number of people” lined the Thames to watch a clown from Astleys sail from Vauxhall to Westminster Bridge in a washing tub pulled by two geese and then walk casually into the circus. That must have been one of the greatest PR stunts of its time. 

Amazingly, the world’s first modern circus was situated only a few hundred yards from what is claimed to be the world’s firs serious music hall, which I wrote about hereAstley’s circus has long since disappeared but it lives on in literature having been mentioned by Jane Austen, James Joyce, Charles Dickens and Tracy Chevalier.

The previous 50 episodes of Vic Keegan’s Lost London series can be found here. Vic’s book of London poems can be bought here.

LONDON AND BREXIT: Will leaving the EU be good or bad for the capital? On London and the illustrious London Society have jointly organised a debate about this crucial question. Anti-Brexit campaigner Andrew Adonis, former Boris Johnson adviser Daniel Moylan and Lib Dem AM Caroline Pidgeon have been booked to speak. Buy your tickets here.

Categories: Culture, Lost London