Across the five case studies, economic ambitions played only a marginal role for ‘informal’ actors. The only notable exception to this was the busking case study, where direct financial rewards were an important factor (see section 4.8.1). While not an intention, some interviewees also reflected on the role their practices played in economic regeneration and gentrification processes. This is discussed in section 4.8.2.
148
4.8.1 Financial rewards
In the case of busking, several interviewees made reference to direct financial motivations for their practice. Indeed, several interviewees stated that they could earn “some really good money” when busking and, at least for some, the
“extra cash” was the primary driver for going out. Their expectations of a particular financial reward were also a consideration when taking a decision whether they should go busking with others or not. For instance, one interviewee mentioned a time when a friend joined their usual busking trio. This resulted in each of them earning £10 to 15 less than normal – a financial loss they were not prepared to accept in the longer term. Thus, they told their friend that he could not come out busking with them in the future.
In some cases, busking became a means of survival. For instance, one of my interviewees was also a professional busker on the London Underground. He busks four hours every day, thus enabling him to pay his mortgage. This financial element adds significant pressure:
“By its very nature, street busking is very confrontational. Well, it has to be, because it’s much more…not life and death but if you’re not going to earn that money, there’s no point in coming out. And that’s real pressure, that's one of the worst things about street busking.”
(B8, interview, 2015)
It is worth noting that for the majority of the buskers I interviewed, payment was considered more an important incentive than an essential means of survival.
This is likely to be due to the fact that most interviewees were not professional buskers. In contrast, the organiser of the Greenwich Street Performer Festival, where I interviewed buskers, mentioned that many busking acts had pulled out of the event, following a stipulation by the local authority that participants were not allowed to collect donations during the festival. This suggests that – at least for a proportion of buskers who treat this as their full-time occupation – payment is an essential component of their practice, rather than simply being an add-on.
In a couple of the guerrilla gardening projects that used or occupied sites earmarked for development, the informal practice also helped with, or provided
149
the basis for people’s sustenance. In one case, an interviewee had started setting up the gardening project while studying for a PhD. By the time his PhD funding ran out, the project had become a full-time job and if he wanted to continue it, he could not take up any other job. In order to save up on money for rent, he ended up living in a caravan on the gardening site for a period of time.
Overall, these cases where the informal practice is generating a financial return were in the minority. More often, the informal activity was unpaid and this sometimes became an issue when time resources were scarce and people had to take a decision between committing to their professional, paid activity and their informal practice. A detailed discussion of issues of time commitment follows in section 5.1.2.
4.8.2 Local economic development
As mentioned in section 4.4.2, informal practices in some cases may have an unintentional positive side-effect on the local economy. Interviewees highlighted that their practices helped to “liven up” spaces, make them more “vibrant” and look less “sterile”. This was acknowledged to help local businesses that might benefit from the street or neighbourhood becoming more attractive to people, thus increasing footfall and walk-by customers.
Moreover, improving the perception of the local area may have a bearing on the local economy. Several of the guerrilla gardeners mentioned the link between their practice, an improved perception of the neighbourhood and a tangible outcome on local property values – something that may lead to gentrification.
For instance, one of them explained that she had no doubts that the financial support they got from a local estate agent (for buying plants to share out among neighbours for tree pits and their front gardens) had little ethical foundation but was purely motivated by the prospect of raising property values in the area.
However, she felt that the substantial community benefits resulting from their activity outweighed this potential downside.
Another guerrilla gardener was more careful of the potential of instrumentalisation through the private development company that had allowed
150
him make temporary use of their space. He was relieved to find that the company was not interested in gaining positive publicity by exploiting their association with his project, as this would have made him “feel dirty”. He was also clear that he would not have started the project had there been a viable chance of stopping the entire private development. However, by the time he got involved, the development had already been signed off and residents of 1,200 homes had been removed from their flats. Notwithstanding these morals, he did not feel guilty of ‘art’ or ‘greenwashing’:
“I am just dubious about arguments […] where projects are written off as being complicit or as doing damage, in a vaguely specified way. I mean, it’s not an ideal world. It’d be nice, ideal to get a permanent site for a community project, but it doesn’t look like a possibility.”
(GG8, interview, 2016)
This tension is further discussed in section 7.2.2.