Using smart data sources, we chart the changes in mobility across England’s major urban centres since the turn of the century — revealing shifts in patterns of residential churn among cities, and exploring the extent to which London conforms to, or defies, these trends
Authors: Prof Paul Longley, Dr Justin van Dijk, Dr Shunya Kimura, Reem Khurshid
Smart data can enable understanding of the ways in which our cities and their populations are evolving, in more depth and detail than ever before. Using these unique datasets, we explore the outcomes of geographic mobility and neighbourhood change across the English city system over the last quarter century, tracking the extent to which England’s largest cities* contribute to annual UK residential turnover; the distances people are travelling to move into and out of these cities; the characteristics of the areas that people move into and out of; and how London features among these wider trends.
In subsequent data stories, we will zoom in on London in more detail — taking a closer look at how these patterns play out in areas identified by Trust for London as having experienced gentrification — to explore how the city is being shaped by geographic mobility and neighbourhood change since the turn of the century.
*Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield and London were selected for analysis based on the criteria of (a) being classified by the ONS as a ‘major’ built-up area (BUA), and (b) having a usual resident population of over 400,000.
- Geographic mobility and neighbourhood change across England’s cities: 2001–2025
- Residential turnover in gentrified London
- Distances moved, and residential mobility to and from gentrified London
- How residential mobility is linked to social mobility in gentrified London
Geographic mobility and neighbourhood change across England’s cities: 2001–2025
Summary of findings:
- London is an outlier compared to the residential mobility patterns associated with other cities: Though the proportion of residential moves into and out of major English cities (as a proportion of all UK residential turnover) has gradually increased in the past 25 years, the share of intra-city moves has declined. London, however, generates more residential movement within it, compared to the combined total of inflows and outflows connecting the capital to the rest of the UK.
- People within the UK now travel farther to move into these cities, with London in the lead: These cities also pull in populations from greater distances than they push them out, and the distances of residential moves into and out of all cities have also continued to increase over the last quarter century. London maintains lead position with the highest median distance of residential moves into the capital (114km in 2025).
- Those moving into cities typically take up residence in relatively more deprived neighbourhoods: Contrary to the conventional wisdom that people move to improve their living circumstances, those who move into cities tend to take up residence in more deprived neighbourhoods than those that they left, whereas city residents typically benefit when they move out.
London is an outlier compared to the residential mobility patterns associated with other major cities
Tracing how major cities in England contribute to residential turnover across the UK since 2001 shows how their role in UK residential mobility has shifted over the past quarter century. The proportion of residential moves into and out of major cities has gradually increased since 2001. Meanwhile, the share of moves within cities has declined — suggesting that people are increasingly likely to relocate between cities, or to/from smaller settlements, rather than within them.
London is a striking exception. The UK capital’s contribution of within-city moves to the overall pool of UK residential mobility has remained largely steady over time — pointing to the city’s size and internal housing dynamics, which continue to generate more movement within its borders as combined inwards and outwards flows connecting it to the rest of the country.
Data: The GeoDS Linked Consumer Registers (LCRs) contain georeferenced names and addresses for adults in the UK, collected from the open electoral register and consumer registers (with appropriate consents), from 1997 onwards. While the LCRs do not provide complete coverage of the adult UK population, the data are broadly representative of it.
Method: We measure population changes by comparing the list of named adults in a neighbourhood (that is, the Lower layer Super Output Area [LSOA] statistical geographic area) in one year with the list for the subsequent year. Counting the number of individuals who appear at an address for the first time (having moved into the property) provides the neighbourhood’s inflows, while counting those who no longer appear at an address (having moved out of the property) provides its outflows. This enables us to estimate annual residential moves into, out of and within the selected cities between 2001 and 2025.
Rationale: Measuring residential mobility at neighbourhood scale and with high temporal resolution has always been a challenge, especially in the periods between national censuses. Traditional sources such as the census or longitudinal surveys lack the frequency and granularity needed to capture short-term, localised changes. The LCRs provide a foundation for generating census-like evidence during intercensal periods, offering annual insights into shifts in the population structure of neighbourhoods — and enabling our second and third measures.
People within the UK now travel farther when moving into cities, with London in the lead by median distance
London retains prime position for drawing in residents from farther afield in the UK than any other city, with the estimated median distance of moves into the city increasing to 114km in 2025.
Yet the ordering of the distances of movements into and out of the other cities are not reflected by the size of their populations. Manchester, in particular, appears lower on both counts than its size suggests, perhaps reflecting movement between nearby northern cities. By contrast, Bristol punches above its population weight, appearing in second place not far behind London by median distance of residential inflows — perhaps because of the absence of competing urban destinations, or because of its economic success relative to other provincial centres.
Two other trends are also apparent: these cities pull in populations from greater distances than they push them out, and the distances of residential moves into and out of all cities have continued to increase over the last quarter century.
Data: The GeoDS Distances of Residential Moves (DoRM) Index uses the LCRs location data to compile yearly estimates of the median straight-line distances of all known residential moves out of, into and within each neighbourhood, from 1998 onwards.
Method: The DoRM estimates the distances over which the residential moves occur by capturing the origin and destination locations at which a named individual disappears from one address then reappears elsewhere for the first time in the following year. This enables us to measure the median distances travelled into and out of the selected cities and neighbourhoods.
Rationale: The DoRM enriches the exploration of residential mobility behaviour, as it can reflect local economic conditions and employment opportunities. Analysing move distances helps us understand patterns of social and spatial mobility.
Those moving into cities typically end up residing in relatively more deprived neighbourhoods
Lastly, we examine the degree to which this spatial mobility is accompanied by social mobility, as measured by neighbourhood quality.
Conventional wisdom has it that people move to improve their living standards, but this is not necessarily reflected in the data measuring residential mobility and deprivation (RMD). Rather, individuals take a hit in terms of the physical and social conditions of the city neighbourhoods that they move to. Meanwhile, city residents typically accrue greater benefits when they move out.
However, the magnitudes of these gains and losses have reduced over time, perhaps as successive Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMDs) have recorded lower relative deprivation levels in cities.
London’s position as a middle-ranking city is interesting, as it suggests that any benefits of the city serving as an ‘escalator’ for advancing one’s prospects are not crystallised in abnormally high gains in neighbourhood quality by those moving out of the city.
Data: The GeoDS Residential Mobility and Deprivation (RMD) data provide yearly estimates of the mean differences of residential mobility and deprivation of all known residential moves to, from and within each neighbourhood. These are aggregated at city level.
Method: The RMD uses the LCRs and GeoDS Harmonised Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD)* to measure the difference in the IMD percentile scores of origin and destination neighbourhoods for each LCR mover, with positive values representing moves to less deprived areas.
*Official statistics measure and rank residential living circumstances of neighbourhoods using Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMDs), which are updated periodically and separately for each UK nation. Each nation measures deprivation slightly differently, but indices broadly include indicators across the domains of income, employment, education, health, crime, barriers to housing and services, and the living environment. The GeoDS ‘harmonised’ IMD enables UK-wide comparisons over extended time periods.
Rationale: The RMD allows us to understand whether incoming residents likely originate from more or less deprived areas, possibly indicating neighbourhood gentrification or decline. It can also enable explorations into which neighbourhoods are platforms for moves to less or more deprived neighbourhoods, indicating neighbourhood roles in facilitating social mobility.
Residential turnover in gentrified London
The popular conception of gentrification is that of an urban neighbourhood’s character changing as wealthy individuals move into the area, driving up housing demand and prices, and gradually displacing incumbent residents. As such, heightened residential churn might be indicative of this process underway in a particular neighbourhood.
Using the GeoDS LCRs, entries can be grouped together in any convenient neighbourhood aggregation. Here, we aggregate the LCR indicators to look at subsets of the 53 neighbourhoods (Middle layer Super Output Areas [MSOA] statistical geographies) identified in previous Trust for London research as having experienced gentrification (characterised by low average income in 2012, but having experienced above-average growth in mean income by 2020) and the extent to which their residential turnover over the past 25 years compares with that of the typical London neighbourhood. While we refer to these 53 London neighbourhoods as ‘gentrified’ as described by Trust for London, our analysis assumes that gentrification is an ongoing process, and that the last quarter century offers a convenient, but not definitive, timeframe over which to consider it.
Summary of findings:
- Gentrified neighbourhoods account for a growing share of London’s residential mobility: The combined inflows and outflows of these areas, as a proportion of the city’s annual migration flows, have gradually risen over the past 25 years.
- In about half (25) of these areas, residential inflows surpass the London neighbourhood average in 2025. In 2001, only three gentrified areas experienced inflows higher than the city’s neighbourhood average.
- Variations in neighbourhoods’ inflow patterns show that gentrification unfolds unevenly: Looking at a selection of gentrified areas, we see differing trajectories, from sharp increases in new arrivals to more gradual trends, highlighting that neighbourhood change is unfolding differently across the city.
Gentrified neighbourhoods account for a growing share of London’s residential mobility
Looking at the combined residential turnover for the 53 gentrified neighbourhoods as a proportion of London’s total migration flows, there has been a general upward trend of both inflows and outflows since the early 2000s, with a lull in the years immediately following the 2008 financial crisis.
Half of these areas’ residential inflows surpass the London neighbourhood average in 2025
Turning to residential inflows, we compare the average number of moves into 53 gentrified neighbourhoods against the London-wide neighbourhood average, year by year, and visualise this in descending order by degree of gentrification (as defined by the most extreme change in average incomes).
Yet the heatmap depicts a significant cumulative shift in the years since. In 2025, about half of these neighbourhoods (25) have higher relative inflows — in some cases by up to 1.5–2 times as much as the London neighbourhood average.
Several factors are likely at work, including: proximity to business districts and transport links; increasingly transient populations such as students; and the effects of urban regeneration projects that increase but also change the composition of the housing stock, making some neighbourhoods more popular destinations for new residents.
Variations in neighbourhoods’ inflow patterns show that gentrification unfolds unevenly
To illustrate the diverse trajectories that gentrification might take, we look at the relative residential inflows of a handful of the gentrified neighbourhoods.
Aldgate and Bromley-by-Bow West, for instance, both experienced sharp upturns in inflows after 2014. Yet they started from very different positions: Aldgate was already close to the London average, while Bromley-by-Bow West rose from well below average to more than 30% higher today, in large part likely driven by new mixed-use developments in the latter area.
Grahame Park and Peckham Park Road tell a different story. Their inflows have increased gradually and steadily, but remain below the London norm, albeit at slightly different magnitudes.
By contrast, Leytonstone South West shows inflows that track the citywide average almost exactly, despite being identified as a gentrified neighbourhood.
Together, these examples highlight that neighbourhood change is not a single, uniform process but one that unfolds along multiple pathways, from dramatic accelerations to subtle, long-term shifts.
Distances moved, and residential mobility to and from gentrified London
Changes in the median distance of residential moves can reveal how a neighbourhood’s housing market and social composition may be evolving, as it indicates whether it is becoming more attractive as a destination for potential residents from farther afield.
Summary of findings:
- The median distance of moves into gentrified London is even higher than that for the city as a whole: London is a magnet, but UK residents relocating to gentrified neighbourhoods typically come from even farther afield, causing changes in local housing markets.
- Patterns of inflow distance vary widely between gentrified neighbourhoods: The timing and magnitude of changes in median distance moved has varied during the last quarter century between these neighbourhoods, suggesting that gentrification trajectories are not linear. While many neighbourhoods become increasingly attractive to residents from farther away, others draw more heavily from nearby areas, hinting at different processes of neighbourhood change and different housing market dynamics.
The median distance of moves into gentrified London is even higher than for the city overall
Reflective of London’s role as a capital city, median distances of moves into London are consistently among the highest in the UK, at an average of about 102km over the study period.
These distances have also increased markedly over time. Moves out of the city are of a shorter distance and have oscillated around an average of 82km over the study period.
This picture of new residents being drawn into the city from more distant parts of the UK and departing Londoners settling closer to the capital is consistent with national north–south migration trends in the UK over the long term.
London’s gentrified neighbourhoods amplify the patterns in these figures, by an additional average 12.5km for in-movers and 10.1km for out-movers.
The broad differences among gentrified neighbourhoods appear relatively consistent over the last quarter century.
Focusing on the distances travelled by those moving into these areas, the heat map of median inflow distances across all gentrified neighbourhoods indicate a gradual change over the past 25 years, as new residents are increasingly likely to be drawn in from farther away to take up residence in these locations.
Patterns of inflow distance vary widely between gentrified neighbourhoods
Closer inspection reveals important local variations in estimated mobility patterns.
Looking at another selection of gentrified neighbourhoods, Manor Park North, Roundwood Park and St Mary Cray North all display an upward trajectory, reflecting the broader tendency for inflows to come from farther afield over time.
Yet the timing and magnitude of change differs.
Manor Park North saw inflows originating within 5km until around 2016, followed by only a modest increase. Roundwood Park experienced a comparable shift earlier, beginning in 2014, while St Mary Cray North registered change even earlier, around 2009.
This variation shows that although these neighbourhoods are converging towards longer-distance inflows, the pace and onset of this transition are not uniform.
In contrast, Dagnam Park and Nork Hill, along with Turkey Street, stand out as anomalies. These neighbourhoods witnessed a contraction in median inflow distances up to 2014–2015, after which the trend levelled off. Unlike the previous cases, they began with comparatively large median distances, which declined and then stabilised.
Such patterns suggest that gentrification trajectories are neither uniform nor linear: while many neighbourhoods become increasingly attractive to residents from farther away, others draw more heavily from nearby areas, hinting at different processes of neighbourhood change and housing market dynamics.
How residential mobility is linked to social mobility in gentrified London
Perhaps more so than anywhere else in the UK, neighbourhood change in London is an outcome of residential moves that in turn are motivated by opportunities to improve personal economic and social living circumstances.
Where this improves the value of owner-occupied housing in established neighbourhoods, the change has an ‘escalator effect’ in that owner occupiers (or the landlords of private rental housing) can accumulate wealth more rapidly than the population at large.
Gentrification in London can be thought of as enabling such escalator effects for individuals who take up residence in deprived neighbourhoods where physical and social conditions improve (the up-escalator) relative to local, regional or national averages. Having accumulated these gains, residents are at liberty to cash them in through subsequent residential moves elsewhere.
Measuring the differences between harmonised IMD scores of origin and destination neighbourhoods of residential moves provides one way of examining the degree to which geographic mobility is associated with social mobility, as enabled by up-escalator effects of the 53 gentrified neighbourhoods. This will not always be a direct indicator — for example, greater monetary benefits accrue to owner occupiers rather than renters — but gentrification brings improvements in many of the physical and social measures of deprivation.
Summary of findings:
- Mean changes in neighbourhood quality following moves into and out of the capital are more pronounced for gentrified London: On average, people moving into London have always experienced setbacks in neighbourhood quality, while those departing accrue broadly equivalent gains — trends that are amplified in moves to and from the capital’s gentrified areas.
- Escalator housing market effects have attenuated over time: Although neighbourhoods exhibit varying degrees of residential mobility over time, on average the levels of change in neighbourhood quality following moves into or out of all London neighbourhoods has decreased over the last 25 years. But such differences have remained higher for gentrified London throughout this period. Some neighbourhoods’ early in-movers experience gains in neighbourhood quality, while later in-movers experience the opposite.
Mean changes in neighbourhood quality are more pronounced for gentrified London
On average, moves into London have always required incomers to experience a drop in neighbourhood quality, but these losses are almost the mirror image of contemporaneous gains in neighbourhood quality for those moving out of the capital.
The magnitudes of gains and losses in neighbourhood quality are lower than those observed in some of England’s other major cities, but in all cities these differences have diminished over time.
Gentrified London neighbourhoods typically amplify the city’s average differences by more than an order of magnitude.
The prevailing pattern is that these gentrified areas amplify the overall escalator effects of London’s housing market and exceed those of all other major English cities.
A closer look at gentrified neighbourhoods’ incomers reveals that relative neighbourhood quality gains have turned into relative losses over time
The heat map charts annual average differences in neighbourhood deprivation experienced by incoming residents in each of the 53 gentrified neighbourhoods, relative to annual London-wide averages. This enables us to visualise whether incomers to each neighbourhood generally came from relatively more (green) or less (red) deprived neighbourhoods in any given year.
With some exceptions, this shows gradual changes in the outcomes experienced by new residents over the years — as predominantly improved circumstances in the early years give way to more recent incomers arriving from less deprived neighbourhoods. This may arise as perceptions of a neighbourhood’s up-escalator trajectory spread among prospective incomers.
Welsh Harp, the MSOA name for the area around the Brent Reservoir, north of Neasden and south of West Hendon (both of which are sites for new urban regeneration projects), illustrates this dynamic most clearly.
In the early years, its differences were positive, indicating that incomers were arriving from relatively more deprived neighbourhoods than the London average — a sign of early ‘pioneers’ moving upmarket. Over time, however, the annual mean dips below the neighbourhood deprivation score, indicating that subsequent incomers came from less deprived origins, effectively taking a relative ‘hit’ in terms of recorded neighbourhood quality, perhaps in anticipation of an improving neighbourhood trajectory.
Manor Park North shows a similar trajectory: early incomers accrue measurable benefits, but the benefits accruing to later arrivals first levelled off and then slipped below the neighbourhood deprivation score, indicating that later incomers typically experienced a setback in neighbourhood quality when moving there.
By contrast, Harlesden or Tottenham Green West incomers have taken ‘hits’ to neighbourhood quality throughout the 25-year period, and the gaps have widened over time.
All of this assumes that residential mobility is predicated principally upon neighbourhood quality. Mile End West reminds us that a flat profile close to the London average indicates that gentrification can be predicated upon more than neighbourhood milieu.
In summary, some neighbourhoods exhibit the archetypal sequence of early in-movers gaining in neighbourhood quality, followed by later in-movers experiencing the opposite, while others diverge towards persistently deprived origins or London-wide trends. Taken together, these patterns underscore that the residential dynamics of gentrification are not geographically homogeneous or constant over time.
Authors: Prof Paul Longley, Dr Justin van Dijk, Dr Shunya Kimura, Reem Khurshid
