London Docklands / Pimlico Quality of Life Comparison.
London Docklands / Pimlico Quality of Life Comparison
Hypothesis
'The quality of life at the Boardwalk in Docklands is better than at Churchill Gardens in Pimlico.'
Introduction
To prove or disprove the above hypothesis, we must first attempt to define 'quality of life'. Put simply, it is how content people are with their lives and the environment in which they live. However, quality of life is much more than that, it encompasses not just a person's contentment, but the way they live and the place where they choose to live. There are many factors that contribute to 'quality of life', among them are crime, climate, background, education, access to transport and services, living conditions and employment. However, for the purposes of this investigation, many of these factors are immeasurable. This is what makes quality of life so hard to define and gauge - the fact that there are things which clearly have great worth to some but others take for granted, and also that many of the elements of quality of life can only be measured when compared to those of a different place. For example, the quality of life in a developed country will easily exceed that of a developing country, but the same developed country could have a lower quality of life when compared to an even more highly developed country.
We used a wide variety of fieldwork techniques to come to our conclusions. These included doing traffic counts and local service surveys, using bi-polar diagrams and collecting environmental quality data. Each of these techniques were used for specific reasons:
· Traffic Counts: To observe how busy and congested the areas' roads were. Also to examine factors like noise and transport access. These were carried out on the nearest roads to the test sites for 5 minutes, measuring the type and quantity of the traffic.
· Local Service Surveys: To analyse how resident-friendly the areas were in terms of offering a wide range of useful services. We measured the types and quantity of the services we saw.
· Bi-Polar Diagrams: To give an overall profile of the two areas and their quality of life. Scores between 1 and 8 were given in the following categories: Noise, Litter, Space, Transport Access, Services, Air Quality, Accommodation Size, Employment, Homelessness, Crime, Education, Traffic, Places to Worship, Open Spaces and Youth Facilities. A score of 8 means the area is excellent in that field, eg. very spacious, no crime. · Environmental Quality Data: Used to examine and compare how environmentally sound the two areas were. The sites were ranked out of 10 in the following categories: noise, air pollution, litter, natural surfaces and areas for wildlife. A score of 10 indicates that the area is excellent in that particular class, eg. very quiet or litter free.
History of the Sites
London Docklands
For nearly 200 years, the docks of London's East End were the commercial heart of the world's largest empire. At the beginning of the 1960s, one-third of all Britain's trade passed through the Port of London and there were jobs for 28000 dockers. However the start of containerisation in the 1960s marked the beginning of the end for London as a major port. The docks were found to be too small and shallow to handle the huge container ships that were quickly overtaking the docking business in a bid to cut overheads by major shipping companies. By shipping more bulk the container ships quickly proved their worth. They could be loaded or unloaded in a fraction of the time and more cheaply using large cranes and fewer dockers. This containerisation started a rapid decline in the docking industry in London. The first dock to close was St. Katherine's Dock in 1967. Other closures followed in quick succession, the last three (Royal Docks) closing in 1981. The end of London's docking industry (excluding Tilbury, the new container dock near the mouth of the Thames where nearly 2000 people are employed) had grim consequences for the whole of the Docklands area, left virtually derelict. It has been estimated that for every job lost on the docks, three other jobs disappeared in the linked industries of ship repair, manufacturing and transport (the multiplier effect). In 1985 male unemployment in London's Docklands reached 32%. This had the effect of driving people away as young, richer and better educated people moved away in search of employment.
In an attempt to halt the Docklands' rapid degeneration the government set up the London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC) in 1981. Their brief was to make the Docklands more attractive to businesses and generally rejuvenate the area. Largely, this has worked very well. By making the Docklands an enterprise zone (an area free of normal planning restrictions with tax incentives to develop) the LDDC has made the Docklands a new ultra-modern extension of London's business district. The industries of printing, media, communications, retailing, leisure, tourism, commerce and finance have all set up major bases in the Docklands recently. Land and house prices are now reaching a peak as rich young people with highly paid jobs in the City of London are now moving in. The LDDC also orchestrated the building of the London City Airport (a short take-off and landing airport) and the Docklands Light Railway, connecting Docklands with the rest of central London.
The Docklands look to have a bright and wealthy future, having adapted well to once again become a major centre for industry and business, but of a different sort than would have been expected forty years ago. However, this 'new money' is perhaps resented by some of the area's older residents despite the money it has injected into their local economy.
First Impressions
We found Docklands a richly gentrified area, full of modern architecture and continuing construction. The apartments on the Boardwalk are very new and modern-looking (see photographs). They overlook a small marina of expensive ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
The Docklands look to have a bright and wealthy future, having adapted well to once again become a major centre for industry and business, but of a different sort than would have been expected forty years ago. However, this 'new money' is perhaps resented by some of the area's older residents despite the money it has injected into their local economy.
First Impressions
We found Docklands a richly gentrified area, full of modern architecture and continuing construction. The apartments on the Boardwalk are very new and modern-looking (see photographs). They overlook a small marina of expensive boats, with views east and west of the Millennium Dome and Canary Wharf respectively. The apartments are fashionably constructed of a combination of glass and brickwork, with residents' secure parking below.
Results
Environmental Quality
In the above graph, high scores (near 10) represent the best environmental quality.
eg. Noise: 0 = Noisy
0 = Quiet
Totals:
Boardwalk, Docklands: 25
Churchill Gardens, Pimlico: 26
These totals show that Churchill Gardens has a higher overall environmental quality when assessed on the basis of noise, air pollution, litter, natural surfaces and areas for wildlife. However, this trend is not quite complete. The Boardwalk had far less litter, which made the total figures much closer.
The Boardwalk is a much newer environment. The beds were freshly planted with some expensive plants (including tomato plants) and looked well looked after. In contrast, at Churchill Gardens most of the natural areas were open spaces of grass and some quite old trees, but nothing looking very designer-produced and somewhat more natural in appearance despite the small squares of grass. This is due certainly in part to the age of the environment, and also to the way it is looked after.
5 Minute Traffic Count
Total Vehiclesc
Trafalgar Way, Docklands: 50
Lupus Street, Pimlico 48
Average Vehicles per minute
Trafalgar Way, Docklands: 10
Lupus Street, Pimlico: 9.6
The above graph and figures show that Trafalgar Way, Docklands was a busier road for traffic at the time it was surveyed.
This survey was not truly fair, as the sites were tested at different times of day, yet neither time would obviously be busier. Trafalgar way was surveyed from 1401 to 1406. Lupus Street was surveyed from 1102 to 1107. Both roads were surveyed on the same day, Friday 22nd October 1999.
As the Traffic Analysis shows, in Trafalgar Way a greater proportion of the vehicles were in the sections 'Lorry/Van' and 'Motor Bike'. This could have had an impact on the noise level of the area, as these two types of vehicle probably produce the most noise individually.
Pedestrians
Despite not doing formal pedestrian counts, we found that on the whole both areas were quite empty. This obviously had a lot to do with the time of day, but the area around Churchill Gardens, Lupus Street in particular was surprisingly busy. On the other hand, Docklands was found to be very quiet and empty, perhaps promoting what some of the locals have been complaining about as a lack of atmosphere and community spirit amongst the large, impersonal modern architecture.
Local Service Survey
Service
Boardwalk and Trafalgar Way, Docklands
Churchill Gardens and Lupus Street, Pimlico
Station
(Docklands Light Railway)
Within Walking Distance
(Victoria Line)
Supermarket
0
Petrol Station
0
Secondary School
0
2 (1 private)
Primary School
0
Post Office.
0;
Library
0
Corner Shop
0
7
Bus Stop
2
5
Public House
0
Laundrette/Dry Cleaners
0
Sports Court
0
2
Post Box
2
Telephone Box
2
4
Totals
5
33
The above table tells us not only what type of services each area has, but also how important its services are. The more important services (a matter of opinion) are at the top, leading down to the least important at the bottom. As you can see, Churchill Gardens definitely has a broader range of services and is especially well equipped in the medium to low order service range, from corner shop to telephone box. This is good, as high order services are often only required singularly (eg. station), yet more than one corner shop or school gives to resident a better choice.
Despite coming off so badly in this survey, the quality of life of the residents of the Boardwalk is unlikely to suffer due to a surfeit of services. Instead, the rich residents of the Boardwalk are more likely to eat out or travel further away from their house, into the City or around on business, creating less demand for what the residents of Churchill Gardens would see as their essential local shops.
Conclusions
Somewhat surprisingly, our original hypothesis was disproved by our results, which overall show that the quality of life in Churchill Gardens was at least as good, actually slightly superior, to the quality of life on the Boardwalk. I fully expected the Docklands site to greatly exceed the quality of life at Churchill Gardens. However, the results of the traffic count, local service survey, environmental quality data collection and even the bi-polar diagram were all closely in favour of Churchill Gardens.
Despite all this strong evidence I would still say the Boardwalk has a higher quality of life because of its residents' greater spending power. In my opinion income, housing and money available are actually the greatest possible indicators of quality of life. Nevertheless, I was very impressed with the thought and effort that has obviously gone into making Churchill Gardens a good place to live. It seemed well designed and I got the feeling that the council really does care about its residents. Docklands on the other hand, appeared quite disjointed and artificial to me.
The hypothesis on 'quality of life' was always going to be difficult to prove or disprove, but in the end the research techniques we used seemed to favour Churchill Gardens. Analysing data on average incomes and typical housing prices from the areas would have favoured Docklands, as would looking at data on residents' education and unemployment rates.
Docklands is an area with huge promise for the future and the residents of Pimlico also have reason to be optimistic, but for different reasons. However, they are both very important areas that need to be supported and maintained as two of London's many interesting places.
Background Information
Docklands
Evaluation
This investigation could have benefited from a survey of local residents, as this can put forward interesting ideas from the people who know the area best. In the form the investigation eventually took it seems possible that the questions we asked may have been biased towards Churchill Gardens and did not fully take into account all the good points of Docklands. At the same time they may have highlighted the areas of Churchill Gardens which have been worked on most by the authorities. However, this could be seen as a good thing, showing that the Churchill Gardens authorities know what the most important areas are.
As already mentioned, I believe that Dockland's higher average incomes would have reflected well on the area if we had tested this. However, this ultimately comes back to the initial question: what is Quality of Life? By the criteria used in this investigation Churchill Gardens was found to have a superior quality of life, but with different criteria Docklands may well have fared much better.
London Docklands became a port during the Roman times and it was a very important one because it was a nodal point of many rivers. Itself, it was the river Thames. Many goods were sold alongside this river, and the port became very busy. But later on, the river became too busy and large ships could not pass in many places because of the overcrowding. Things only got worse when ships became a lot larger, and London got more popular, many laws were passed.
Many decades later, people grew tired of the whole concept of overcrowding of ships, and so built own docks for private ships alongside the river in the Dockland. Also the industrial revolution was in conduction, so trade increased and therefore more space for ships were needed. As the space was running out, new ports were needed, so the Royal Docks were built further downstream to the first ports. Thousands of people worked in the docks by now. But this work was often dangerous and very badly paid. In the 1960's, workers complained because of this and demanded more pay, so the docklands became more expensive to run. So instead of the workers, containers, which were more efficient and cheap, were invented so workers were laid off. But still the rivers were not big enough to accommodate these ships who took the containers, so problems began again, and because of this, in the 1970's Docklands were closed. These were the reasons of decline. There was a sharp loss of workers in the Docklands, there was not enough space for many ships, many ports had to move to other parts of London, and also The Docklands closed because of this. This led to decline as businesses set up elsewhere; most of docklands became derelict land. The land was not used for a purpose anymore.
Also the houses that were built there, were built quickly and the areas were set up very rapidly too, this meant that environmental quality and house quality was very bad and people did not want to live there any more. People started to go and live somewhere else in London and other areas..
These declines were mainly caused by problems in the area and with the structure of the whole area.
Problems included mainly the factors of money, land, space and work force.
One of the main problems was space. The Dockland's were not designed to support huge ships, by their thousands at one time. They were also not deep enough to allow for the new bigger ships, which reached down a great amount. Container ships could not be sufficed, so other ports started to open, namely Tilbury and Antwerp, which could support the new bigger ships. As well as not having enough space now, the Dockland's were in constant battle with other ports to get business and investors. Soon they could not handle it, with the growing expense of running the whole port, so they closed. The amount of space and the size of the ports were a big problem.
Another problem was the fact that there were so many job losses, because of these new containers and in the end; they could not fit inside anyway. Also workers who lived there were very limited with their skills and could not handle the new technology.
Because of the closing down of the docks now, the areas became run down. This was problem, as no-one would want to live there let alone set up a business there, 40% of land was derelict now. There was a lot of derelict land now with a lot of street thugs and crime and graffiti hanging about.
Another Problem was that the land was owned by a council who did not have the will to redevelop the land. The derelict land in some places was very run-down, and so it would be very expensive to clear and redevelop. If redevelopment did not happen, investors and entrepreneurs would not even consider entering the area.
There was also a problem with routes to other areas of London. The roads did not clearly link to London main areas. This meant that it would be expensive to trade and communicate with other parts of London. There were no airports for transport to other countries or other places in England. Neither were there proper fast and hard wearing trains or train stations. The main transport was by ships, and this was very slow, not to mention the docks were also packed.
At this point counter-urbanization was taking place; all of the urban qualities of the area were being stripped off the Docklands. This meant that all of the functions and homes that were there became rundown and worse than before.
This also meant that the docklands could in no way keep up with the latest technology, which is so valuable when you want to lure investors your way.
Housing in the area was also a problem. There were terraced housing in most places of the London Docklands. This meant there was not much lure for normal families to come there and also the workers would not have liked it. The houses were built fairly fast in the past, so they were not very hard wearing at all. These needed to be replaced.
Even when the Docklands were a good market place, their image was of a run-down town. What the whole area needed was a nicer image as an attractive place to come and work and live with your family. Entertainment and activity centers were needed to put this image on to appeal to the families of workers to come there to live and also work, and educate their young.
The LDDC was formed as a result of regenerating the London Docklands. LDDC stands for London Docklands Development Corporation. They invested 1.86 billion pounds into the whole project.
Transport was the main investment, where nearly half of the money went. The Docklands Light Railway was improved and extended to go into other parts of London. It was also made more reliable so that it could carry more passengers. Five new stations were also developed. 72 miles of new roads were also built in the Docklands leading into other parts of the London, and some roads were improved. Pedestrianisation also took place, where high specification pedestrian and cycle networks were placed, with special help to disabled people. The new train system also is extended to go to the London City airport, so there is access between countries.
The Government also invested 159 million pounds into utilities in the Docklands. These included drainage and electrical supply for houses and other buildings. There was not much of this before, so this is a sufficient. The Corporation also acquired 2042 acres and is turning some of it from Greenfield, into Brownfield. This means more houses and Businesses can be set up.
The Government also refurbished the Docks to better quality opening them up to the public - 3.7 miles (6 km) of waterfront accessible in 1981, 31 miles (50 km) in 1998 - with lots of bridges. Water sports facilities have been or are being provided in every dock. an ecology park was created at Bow Creek and a wildfowl sanctuary at East India Dock Basin. To ignite the need of a more attractive environment, 160,000 trees have been planted in various places. 483 acres of Enterprise zone were build near the isle of Dogs. This helped the business development. Canary Wharf now holds the title of C.B.D. This was mainly because the land here is cheap and easy to relocate many businesses to. When built properly, the whole place will hold space for 70,000 new workers.
The Thames barrier was also built in the Docklands to stop the flooding. This controls the height of the river with gates that can change size and open or close.
Housing in the area was also helped. Stock of Dwelling in 1981 was 15,000. In 1998, the area had a record fo 38,000. Of these some 17,700 were for owner occupation, 5,300 for housing associations and nearly 1,000 for local authorities. The proportion of home ownership has leapt from 5% to 45%.
7% of the budget was spent on community infrastructure and activities, which help the environmental quality, get better. Tower Hamlets college was built, Bacons college was built, 12 new primary schools were built, 17 schools were extended, IT equipment was given, 5.2 million was given to the Royal Docks community school, The Butler's Wharf Chef School was built and 5 new health centers, 6 refurbished health centers, social care facilities and 3 children day care centers were built. Other activity centres included East Beckton District Centre, Surrey Docks Watersports Centre, and many more were built.
There has also been building of more private investments, which include hotels, restaurants, shops, factories, print works, offices and leisure facilities. Five hotels and a youth hostel have been built and four more hotels are under development. These are many for the tourism business, as many people would now come there to see the new regenerated Docklands, and the Corporation would make money off this.
In 1981 the population was 39,400, in 1998 83,000. In 2001, it was estimated there would be 98,500..
Also the Corporation is handing the Land on to the Local authorities. They have ceased operation now, but there are a few projects that will need finishing. They include, an international exhibition centre (ExCeL) on the north side of the Royal Victoria Dock, A Lottery Fund application is being made for a Sailing Centre at the western end of the Royal Victoria Dock and There will be some universities built in the Docklands, with a Campus.
These are what took place in the redevelopment of the London Docklands. It took many years, starting off in 1981 and finishing in 1999. Many projects have taken place. Now I am going to review them to see if the overall project was successful.
The Docklands started as a rundown piece of land, which became overcrowded with ships on its ports. As competition started with bigger ports, these ships went to those ports, taking the investors with them, and therefore leaving behind them, a big piece of derelict land. The whole place was not just a rundown area and so people started to move away to other parts of London, where there were better aspects of Health, Activities, Homes, Transport and Jobs. Jobs were the main aspect, many people moved because there were not many jobs in the area. Businesses moved, and not many people were left. Counter-Urbanization was taking place.
Then when the redevelopment started, Urbanization took place again. Gentrification also took place, and the whole lands were converted back from being a run-down town, to a good clean town which was rather attractive. It also became a multi functional place, where it attracted new industry such as newspapers, and banks. New housing was built to replace the old terraced housing. The new housing is now bigger, and a lot more attractive to new families thinking of working and living in the area. Even if they did not want to and wanted to be a commuter, the people could come through new improved transport. The new train goes to many new places now. There are also links to the airport through the train station now. And also there are plans of building the Docklands own Airport. New activity centers are also built to help the Racist environment heal and get children to come and do activities together and go to schools in IT based classrooms.
To make the whole area seem a little more attractive and better to the wildlife, parks were put in place, with many new trees planted.
Since 1981, the number of employers has more than doubled from 1021 to 2690. Employment has grown to 85,000 from 27,200 in 1981. So the employment rate has doubled because of this.
In 1981 there were 3,533 unemployed residents out of 19,788. In December 1997 there were 2,883 unemployed residents out of 40,077. The respective unemployment rates were 17.8% in 1981 and 7.2% in December 1997.
With the growth in employment has come a doubling in the population. In 1981 the population was 39,400, in 1998 83,000.
The LDDC received a total of 43 awards for architecture and conservation
From this evidence I can conclude that the whole project was very successful. The once rundown area of London Docklands was converted into a successful area which satisfied most family and tourist needs. The population increased, also with the employment rate, and the unemployment rate decreased considerably.
The overall society was renewed and the environmental quality got better along with the rates of Racism.
Even though this happened there were a few failures. The Shopping Mall built over the old tobacco plant turned out as an unsuccessful plan. This was mainly a result of misjudge.
The only problem with the area today is that the houses are for the richer people, with the housing becoming more expensive. But apart from this, the whole project was a huge success, a proper indication of what redevelopment can achieve.