As for public buildings such as churches and the iconic St Paul's Cathedral, they were left to the architectural genuis of the time; Christopher Wren. Wren’s works included rebuilding 51 churches and St Paul's Cathedral. St Paul's Cathedral and 29 of those 51 churches still remain 400 years later. The other iconic landmark which was destroyed by the flames in 1666 was the Royal Exchange shopping centre. It too was rebuilt by city surveyor, Edward Jerman in 1669. The four city gates, originating from Roman times, that were destroyed were also rebuilt, but without any changes. They went out of function soon and were demolished in the 1760s. However, it was not all change. Many owners of private land refused to change. A majority of buildings were still used for the same function as they were before the fire. Overall, London’s buildings and architecture changed rapidly, more than any other area of change. I feel that it changed for the better as many of the buildings still remain today and another similar major tragedy was averted in the future.
In both 1650 and 1750, London was a very important and thriving city. It was and remained the hotspot for all the important and rich people of the time, the government and the Royal family. It was the centre for a growing economy both in 1650 and 1750, but by 1750 London had started importing many luxury goods which would have been unheard of in 1650. By the 1750s, Britain was starting to explore remote areas, such as Northern America. During this era, Britain produced one of the best known explorers of all time; James Cook, who discovered Australia.
In the 17th century, firefighting was constantly changing and developing. The equipment used, organisation and attitudes towards firefighting totally changed over 100 years. Equipment gradually changed and developed into what is used nowadays, for example the fire engine, which made huge developments within the space of 100 years and is still used nowadays. However, much of the equipment stayed the same such as hoses. Before 1666, there was no organised force for extinguishing fire, instead local people and trained bands were responsiblie for putting out fires. This changed as after the fire many people insured their house through fear of another fire. Each insurance company would look after their insured houses, but would not extinguish a fire that wasn’t insured, leaving it to burn. This remained until 1833, when the public London Fire Brigade was founded and has remained since. One of the factors that would inevitably reduced the amount of damage by the fire was the disobeyal of the law. Long before the fire, a law was brought in, that house must not be built of wood, but stone. However, this law was neither enforced nor obeyed. After the fire, the law was enforced. Firefighting was an area of slow change. The organisation did change quite a lot, as it was inadequate before the fire, but the equipment changed much less rapidly, as it was relatively good, and the major inventions which are used today, were still a long way down the road at that time.
Overall, I think that the Great Fire of London sparked a huge amount of change in London in many different aspects, although it was not all change. Buildings, churches and public buldings were rebuilt, often exceeding their former glory. However, what did not change is the structure of the city, as the buildings were built in the same place as the old building. Society changed, as the rich moved and the glimpses of a middle class were seen. There was natural progression in economy, as many other developed countries of the age, were importing the same things that London was. Firefighting equipment was another area of natural progression, but the organisation of a firefighting service did change rapidly with the introduction of insurance. In summary, London went through a period of change; some rapid, some gradual. It was this change that made it into the thriving city it now is.
