We are faced with housing dating from different periods spread over a long space of time which goes between a century and a century and a half. It is a very interesting question to pose whether or not there has been significant improvement in overall housing and the environmental quality as modernisation has taken place. Because this question is very debateable we can take as our starting point the hypothesis:-
‘There is no difference between the quality of housing and the environment in Fermoy, Cheltenham, Swinbrook, and St Lukes areas of North Kensington’
In order to give a valid and precise answer to this question I must define quantifiable measures of quality regarding both housing and the environment. Even then these will be limitations to this approach because the assessment of quality involves a lot of value judgements that can not be easily quantified.
The northern area of Kensington has exemplified the problems associated with decaying inner city areas. Urban areas of this type, which originated with the expansion of industrial development along the main route ways out of the city (Hoyt Sector Model), are frequently afflicted by social deprivation, unacceptable levels of unemployment, crime and pollution. Sometimes these problems are aggravated by a tendency for the area to turn in to a ghetto occupied by an ethnic minority or recent immigrants (for example the Bangladeshi concentration in the east end of London). Obviously poor quality housing and a poor quality environment make up an important contributory factor to these problems and present an enormous challenge to policy makers whose aim is to bring about urban regeneration. For this reason the hypothesis chosen is a very relevant one. If the hypothesis is borne out i.e. if there is no measurable improvement in more recent housing developments compared to more historical ones, or if the quality of the more recent schemes rates even worse than the previous ones, then this is a serious condemnation of urban planning in the second half of the 20th century.
The common sense expectation would be to find a correlation between increasing quality and closeness to the present as regards housing patterns and constructions. However, so as not to prejudge the situation, the hypothesis chosen is intentionally not the one which would go with the positive expectation, but is a neutral one, suggesting no variation in quality in either a positive or negative direction. This helps to approach the question with an open and objective mind free from prejudice.
- Housing – When we use the word housing it should be taken as referring to all types of dwellings including houses (whether detached, semi-detached or terraced), flats (whether purpose-built or converted) or any other categories.
- Census – Census data may be either from the 1991 or 2001 census as specified.
- Quality – This will be measured according to a series of selected benchmarks which are listed in the bi-polar test sheet.
- Environment – I use this word in the sense of the physical surroundings and conditions that affect the lives of the people who live in the urban areas under investigation in this study.
I will be collecting data that will help me to either prove or disprove my hypothesis from certain techniques including questionnaires and the bi polar analysis test.
The primary data that I will possibly use while on my field trip will include certain methods such as handing out questionnaires, making sketches with annotation, the use of the bi polar test for attractiveness, taking photographs of the attractions/ distractions of the area, and maybe using a digital camcorder to create a short video showing everything that goes on in each of the four areas.
As for secondary data, I will need some extra data so I will look at the census for North Kensington in 1991 and then 2001 from the website www.statistics.gov.uk and other maps of the area.
The sampling method which we shall use to collect our data will be stratified. We will only select adults for questioning and try not to ask people which we see as ‘dodgy characters’ because this could result in a bad set of accurate results.
In an attempt to find an answer to our hypothesis, we have devised an investigation that we will do in the area of North Kensington in the Golbourne and Colville Wards.
The possible techniques that I could use when attempting to gather the required information from the area of North Kensington to help me prove or disprove my hypothesis are: -
- Questionnaire – used to ask the people in each area about the housing and the environment
- Bi Polar Analysis – used to rate the attractiveness of each area in North Kensington on a scale of 1-10
- Photographs – used to identify human and natural attractions and detractions within the area
- Attractiveness Survey - used as a survey to examine the attractiveness of a range of areas within North Kensington and the surrounding area
- Sketch Maps – used to roughly identify any physical features of an area
- Video Images with Sound – used to gather information through actual video happenings and sound of things happening around each area
The fieldwork techniques that I will be using while I am there to help me with my investigation will be to hand out questionnaires, make a Bi Polar analysis of each of the four areas to rate the attractiveness of a range of locations on a 0-10 scale, annotating sketch maps of each area, and also take photographs so that I can identify the natural attractions and detractions of each area.
I will be going to my designated area wherever that will be, and in my group of 10 people we will complete 2/3 questionnaires each by asking members of the public roaming the street that we are on and this will come to a total of 25 questionnaires.
This sampling method is probably the most efficient because the sample size is more than enough and the questionnaire is being asked at midday as this is the time when quite a few ‘normal’ people are around that usually have a few minutes to spare for some questions.
The questions that we will ask to members of the public and the possible check box replies that were given are shown below (Gender was answered ourselves):-
Gathering the information:-
-
Questionnaire – this will be read out to 25 people in each of the fourth areas and they will reply with their answers which will be checked in a tick box (in groups)
-
Bi-Polar Test – in each area, the attractiveness will be rated from 1-10 as we observe the area and what happens all the time (individually)
-
Sketch Maps – we will make annotations on the sketch maps provided (individually)
-
Photographs – with the use of a (digital) camera, pictures can be taken of the housing and the general pollution in the environment (individually)
Here is a table to show why each question was asked to the members of the public:-
The secondary data that I will be using to help me to prove or disprove my hypothesis is the Encyclopaedia of Britannica for background information on North Kensington and also the web site www.statistics.gov.uk where I will attain the census data for North Kensington from 1991 and 2001. This data will help me to find out any information that I did not manage to attain when I was on the field trip.
The results of the comparison between the four areas where the questionnaires were carried out (25 individuals in each of the 4 areas) indicate a higher degree of dissatisfaction with the Cheltenham estate by quite a wide margin. The difference in the approval/disapproval ratings for the bi-polar analysis of the other three areas show results which are closer together with the exact ranking being St Lukes, Swinbrook estate, and finally Fermoy and Hormead Road.
Certain environmental problems are common to all four areas for example the points for air pollution and condition of drains. The Cheltenham estate stands out with a particularly bad rating due to the amount of graffiti (9/10 rating) while the problem does not exist in the other three areas in the objection felt at being overlooked by other flats or buildings where the Cheltenham estate received a 10 rating, twice as much on average than the other three areas. The Cheltenham estate also showed the highest disapproval rating with regard to the issues of litter, street lighting density, quality of brickwork, front garden size, general noise and noise pollution. It also had by far the highest rating for the presence of dodgy characters lowering the tone of the neighbourhood, a problem which was negligible in the other three areas.
Considering the results of the bi-polar test sheet against the perspective of the dates of construction of each area the results show a marked improvement in environmental satisfaction between the 1960’s council estate and the 1980’s Swinbrook low-rise residential apartment’s area. They also show an improvement of the 19th century St Lukes residential terraces which have been extremely refurbished and gentrified over the other 19th century area of Fermoy and Hormead Road which has benefited from less modernisation. This simply bears out the negative perception in the population sample questioned of the architectural initiatives of the 1960’s which have failed to gain the affection of their residents.
Perhaps the next most striking result is the higher rate of appreciation detected in the gentrified 19th century terraced housing area of St Lukes compared to the 1980’s Swinbrook urbanisation initiative. This would indicate that the dwellers take more kindly to older housing that has been reformed then to newer housing purpose-built for contemporary life and with all the advantages of being able to learn from the better experience of the 1960’s failure.
These findings contradict the hypothesis which put forward the proposition that no significant differences in the quality of housing and the environment would be revealed between these four areas of North Kensington. What has been revealed is statistically significant differences in the perception of housing and environmental quality between all four residential areas and an unquestionably major difference concerning the 1960’s Cheltenham estate which is rated as nearly twice as bad as the most favoured area that the best area comes out with almost twice the approval of the worst area categorically disproves the hypothesis which I consider should be rejected for this reason.
One or two aspects of the inquiry process have raised doubts in my mind about the reliability of the methods used in this field work and the degree of accuracy in the results. However, I still think that the conclusions are valid and that they would still stand up with an improved methodology and a higher degree of accuracy. The first doubt concerns the size of the sample and the representatives of the sample. The sample size was only 25 people chosen at random in each area out of a total ward population in Golbourne and Colville of about 7,500 each, in other words less than 1% of the total population was surveyed.
A 100 people were interviewed at a time of day (late morning to early lunchtime) when it can be reliably assumed that the majority of the working population both male and female would be away from the area at their places of work. This would bring the risk of giving too much weight to the opinions of pensioners, housewives, the unemployed, and the chronically ill which could conceivably distant the findings. For example, it is possible that the collective attitude of these groups could be either more or less negative than the attitudes of the absent working population.
The criteria used for the quality assessment can be criticised for certain inconsistent details such as areas of repetition and overlapping and mixing more weighty points with more trivial ones.
To achieve a higher standard of perfection in the data collected, it would help to carry out the interviews and visits at different hours of the day including evenings, different days of the week including weekends, and perhaps covering the four seasons of the year This would give the data greater reliability and make them more convincing.
The criteria employed might also benefit from a more streamline grouping under areas such as security, anti-social behaviour, housing defects, and non-housing aspects of the environment such as greenery, playgrounds, benches, and street furniture.
However, I still believe that the conclusions arrived at are valid, especially the negative perception of area 2, which would be unlikely to be modified however more perfect the method of data collection could be made.
