Following a spate of evictions at markets in Elephant and Castle, Brixton, and Shepherd’s Bush, a landlord and Hackney Council have met resistance on Ridley Road. Report by Amel Mukhtar.
And more broadly, in a city with acute housing pressure, we do have to be honest about trade-offs. Not every current use of space is equally viable or equally valuable at scale and avoiding that question doesn’t make it go away.
I read your piece on Ridley Road - and it feels like a highly selective, at times romanticised, version of reality.
You lean heavily on anecdote, nostalgia and symbolism, while largely sidestepping what the area is actually like day to day. I’ve lived around the corner for six years, and in London for nearly two decades, and I’ve never seen levels of crime and antisocial behaviour like this - open drug dealing, use on the streets, syringes, opportunistic theft. Last week, someone tried to break into my home while I was inside. That reality is missing from your account.
Relying on a single trader saying there are “no issues whatsoever” doesn’t hold up - it’s a clear example of selective framing. It replaces a complex situation with a convenient narrative: community versus developer.
There are also factual gaps. The redevelopment is no longer just “luxury flats” - it now includes affordable housing from what I understand. Presenting it otherwise feels outdated.
None of this is to dismiss the value of the market or the vulnerability of traders. But in its current state, it’s rundown, conditions are poor, and the model isn’t working. Preserving it as-is isn’t neutral, it means accepting further decline.
The real question isn’t whether Ridley Road changes, but how: improving safety, making the market viable, and addressing the very real demand for housing in Hackney.
And the closing argument that developers are the “worst form of antisocial behaviour” tips into ideology over analysis. It undercuts what could have been a more serious piece.
Finally, it’s hard to square the critique of “wealthy expats hollowing out the city” with the global, elite circles you yourself move in. That contradiction is worth acknowledging.
And more broadly, in a city with acute housing pressure, we do have to be honest about trade-offs. Not every current use of space is equally viable or equally valuable at scale and avoiding that question doesn’t make it go away.
Hi Amel,
I read your piece on Ridley Road - and it feels like a highly selective, at times romanticised, version of reality.
You lean heavily on anecdote, nostalgia and symbolism, while largely sidestepping what the area is actually like day to day. I’ve lived around the corner for six years, and in London for nearly two decades, and I’ve never seen levels of crime and antisocial behaviour like this - open drug dealing, use on the streets, syringes, opportunistic theft. Last week, someone tried to break into my home while I was inside. That reality is missing from your account.
Relying on a single trader saying there are “no issues whatsoever” doesn’t hold up - it’s a clear example of selective framing. It replaces a complex situation with a convenient narrative: community versus developer.
There are also factual gaps. The redevelopment is no longer just “luxury flats” - it now includes affordable housing from what I understand. Presenting it otherwise feels outdated.
None of this is to dismiss the value of the market or the vulnerability of traders. But in its current state, it’s rundown, conditions are poor, and the model isn’t working. Preserving it as-is isn’t neutral, it means accepting further decline.
The real question isn’t whether Ridley Road changes, but how: improving safety, making the market viable, and addressing the very real demand for housing in Hackney.
And the closing argument that developers are the “worst form of antisocial behaviour” tips into ideology over analysis. It undercuts what could have been a more serious piece.
Finally, it’s hard to square the critique of “wealthy expats hollowing out the city” with the global, elite circles you yourself move in. That contradiction is worth acknowledging.
Ridley Road Market: b 1880s.
Natalia K: moved in 6 years ago.
How does it change the issues I’m describing here?
Absolute pea-brained take. “the model isn’t working” sounds like an email written by larochette
Trying to donate, but can’t…