The Demise Of The London Rookeries; How And Why Certain Areas Of The Capital Were Redeveloped And Regenerated During The Nineteenth Century Circa 1836 – 98

The rookeries of London were historic urban areas synonymous with crime, disease, highly insanitary conditions, and extreme poverty within the nineteenth century. Originally their locations were physically and metaphorically on the edge of society. Yet, as the capital expanded the rookeries became isolated, places that the authorities feared to enter. Their reputations, however, masked the reality that not all the residents were criminal, and the majority were persons who simply were unable to reside in less insalubrious areas of London.

Despite the conditions of the rookeries and their reputations, they were extremely densely populated. This made them highly lucrative areas to those who either owned the freehold, the leasehold or both. Unlike some of the large patrician estates of London where the solitary freeholder was able to exert complete control over their land, the land upon which the rookeries stood was owned by multiple agencies. This meant that ownership was difficult to establish and thus, control was impossible to maintain. In addition, the enforcement of the inadequate legislation regarding building maintenance and improvements was non-existent due to the lack of ownership knowledge.

The nineteenth century saw the march of modernisation gain pace with the locomotive train at the vanguard. For those wishing to eradicate nuisance impoverished areas, the construction of a railway was an ideal tool. Yet due to the inability of the multitude of railways companies to penetrate central London, the railway was not an option available to the authorities to tackle the now, centrally located rookeries. Other methods of ‘improvement’ would have to be employed, the results of which highly resemble modern day gentrification.

Utilising archival material, this thesis researched two of the late eighteenth/nineteenth century London rookeries, St. Giles, Bloomsbury and (Old) Pye Street, Westminster to uniquely ascertain their demographics, physical conditions, and ultimate fate. It compares the two rookeries to establish their similarities and differences and determine if, due to the differing nature of the residents, they were treated differently. The ownership of the two rookeries has been researched to determine their ownership – freehold and primary leasehold. This has enabled for a unique insight into the multiple agencies involved in highly lucrative rookery ownership and in disclosing the amounts of capital involved in that ownership.

Through the extrapolation of census data, this study has been able to establish the difference between a rookery and a slum. Although the two terms are considered interchangeable, a distinction is highly important as the two were demographically dissimilar, and, as such, treated in a different way.

As the forced ‘improvements’ were undertaken within the St. Giles and Pye Street rookeries, the research reveals the direct consequences of the developments on the direct areas and the displaced residents. It becomes established that the two areas both became gentrified although by differing degrees and differing the long-term results. Additionally, the results reveal that any new housing built for the displaced was occupied by the ‘Aristocracy of the Poor,’ those that were deemed more respectable and easier controlled than those who had lost their homes to ‘improvement.’