Research Question - The Developments of The London Docklands have changed the characteristics of the whole area.
The developments in the London Docklands have changed the characteristics of the whole area
Introduction
In the early 19th century the London Docklands was one of the busiest ports in the world. With around one quarter of the entire world's trade coming into England, it was a thriving industry, with many surrounding areas developing due to its growth, such as "ship repair, heavy engineering, food processing, warehousing and distribution". Industries continued to blossom due to the raw products imported from the docks such as tobacco and animal skins. The docks specialised in "high-value" products such as ivory, cocoa and coffee along with wine and wool, for which warehouses and wine cellars were made. Due to the successfulness of the first dock, more were opened and continued to develop quickly during the 19th century. By the 1930's the London Docklands carried 35 million tons of cargo worth around £700m, with around 100,000 Dockers and ancillary workers were dependant on the Docklands for employment. The docks were multicultural and heavily populated with immigrants, to escape from situations apparent in their countries, such as the potato famine in Ireland. Many of these people did not have the skills for higher paid jobs, and so flocked from rural England or from across seas, eager to find jobs that didn't require training or experience.
In 1961 the Docklands had reached its peak as 60 million tons of cargo was handled, although only a few years later the Docklands began to decline due to a variety of factors which I will discuss here.
Advanced technology such as cranes and fork lift trucks, started to lessen the necessity of manual labour needed to work on the docks. A more substantial factor for the decline of the Dockland's was that the use of large containers was a new and more efficient strategy for cargo handling. Containerisation led onto greater job losses, and so furthered the decline of the Docklands. More cargo continued to be imported, and larger ships were required to carry them; although these larger ships could not sail on the narrow widths and shallowness (by the Isle of Docks) of the River Thames, and so more docks moved to the coastal areas -Tilbury was the new port.
Furthermore, Britain as an industrial country began to suffer. There was deindustrialisation as Britain began to become less dependent on manufacturing and imports, because British colonies had become independent and began producing their own products. Also, things became cheaper in other countries, and so most of British trade moved abroad, therefore there were fewer exports.
After a review by the Port of London Authority (PLA), considering the possibilities for the future of the Docks, it was thought best to close the docks due to its unfeasibility. There were a series of closures, which started with the East India Docks in 1967, and the aftermath of this on local employment was radical.
The PLA reduced its workforce, and so in 1971 only 6,000 were employed and in 1981 it was reduced even further to only 3000 workers. Within the space of ten years (1966-1976) the majority of East London especially the Dockland boroughs, suffered from roughly 150,000 job losses, which impacted negatively on the social, environmental and economic aspects of the area. Job losses had a detrimental effect on the social and the economic aspects of the area, as higher unemployment rates meant a lower economy, poor education and housing quality. Widespread unemployment took its toll the most on housing quality as 20% of houses were classed as being poor or uninhabitable in condition and just over 9% of housing was deemed as overcrowded. Over 95% of the housing was rented which were majorly estates which in most cases they were high-rise blocks. The population or the Isle of Dogs had decreased as the decline of the Docklands had left it in dereliction. Related dockside industries fell into bankruptcy and other factories either went out of business or relocated. There was a lack of public transport (only "a single bus route and no rail or underground service"), and limited access to the rest of London, which was congested. Also, shopping facilities were inadequate, and there was almost an absence of open space and recreational facilities.
In an effort to undo the progression of the decline of the Docklands, the government established the London Docklands Development Corporation in 1981. Its aims were to regenerate the area by seizing planning responsibility from local councils.
The LDDC operation ended in 1997 after 17 years of developing the Docklands area. It claimed its work was a "success with physical, economic, social and environmental regeneration" and roughly two-thirds (68%) of its local residents said the LDDC has done "a good job". Almost three-quarters (73%) of the residents believed that the prospects for the area are good.
After £11 billion pounds of investment in the Docklands, the Isle of Dogs seems to have benefited the most from the development, and continues to be the area that has seen the most change.
My aim is to see whether the LDDC were completely effective, and if they carried out there objectives equally over the whole of the Dockland's area, or whether there was more development in the centre and the regeneration of the area lessened the further away from the epicentre.
To test which statement was true, I had objectives that I strategically came up with to investigate it. These were to:
) Find out how the environmental quality changes across the area.
2) Find out how land use varies across the area.
3) Find out how the quality of public transport varies throughout the area.
4) Find out how the crime rate varies across the area.
5) Find out how the quality of housing varies across the area.
My hypothesis is that the regeneration occurred and affected the whole region of the Docklands, but the amount of development lessens as we move away from the centre (Canary Wharf).
Methodology
The aim of this research project was to find out if development and regeneration of ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
2) Find out how land use varies across the area.
3) Find out how the quality of public transport varies throughout the area.
4) Find out how the crime rate varies across the area.
5) Find out how the quality of housing varies across the area.
My hypothesis is that the regeneration occurred and affected the whole region of the Docklands, but the amount of development lessens as we move away from the centre (Canary Wharf).
Methodology
The aim of this research project was to find out if development and regeneration of the docklands was equal in all areas. We visited four different locations: Island Gardens, Mud Chute, Canary wharf and Cross Harbour.
I tested environmental quality to see the effects of the LDDC, for example if there were still a lot of derelict land in undeveloped places of the Docklands, if the roads were still congested, if there was air pollution (lots of smog above roads) if there was still lots of litter etc. This would show me how much development had gone into the area, as if there was lots of litter, and the area was generally not in a good state, it shows there had not been much regeneration. Also, to see how much money was being put into each area for the cleaning and maintenance.
I tested land use to see whether land had been developed from derelict brown field sites to built up areas of accommodation, office blocks etc. This would show if there had been equal regeneration in all parts of the Docklands, because if there larger quantities of derelict land in one part of the Docklands than another, then it had not received as much development as one that didn't.
The quality of transport would show how accessible an area of the Docklands is, and how it varies throughout it. More transport links would suggest that more regeneration had happened.
More crime in different areas of the Docklands could link to poor security and poor quality housing; it could also link in with lower education standards, and employment rates. Less regeneration would result in more crime.
Housing quality would show how developed an area was and how it varies as we moved into different areas of the Docklands. Poor housing quality, such as overcrowding, and broken windows etc, would indicate less regeneration.
Our first objective was to "see how land use varies in the Docklands". I used this objective to show how developed the area had become, for example in the 1970's (the period when the Docklands were most destitute) most places at Canary Wharf were Brownfield sites. Thirty years later, it is now one of the most modern parts of the city. We can see from our land use map how much regeneration has taken place by the amount of commercial, and retail land there is, and also how much of the land is still a Brownfield sites. Lots of green space and Brownfield sites, without many links of public transportation indicates less redevelopment, and so I can compare this on my map. Our method was a land use map. A land use map shows an aerial plot of land that you wish to survey, and through use of colour, it categorizes land use.
Firstly I located myself on the map, and then pin-pointed the buildings around us, and according to what it was used for, coloured it in according to the key I had made before. For example if I found a block of luxury flats, I would colour the building in orange - which represented residential on my key.
To carry out the land use map I used convenience sampling - I simply recorded the details of the use of each building/space as we passed them whilst walking. I used secondary sources such as the internet to fill out the rest of the map. I thought that a land use map was the most fitting method for our objective, because it is very visual and it is easy to compare the uses of land at the four different sites It was also practical as we would be passing many buildings and it would be time efficient if we just coloured the according squares on the map.
With a land use map we can clearly see whether an area is more developed or not. The disadvantages are that you cannot record multi-purpose buildings (such as flats over a retail shop), as only one colour can be used for each building. Also, the map I was given was outdated, for all the roads were not marked on it. Despite its inadequacies, the land use map was still an effective way to express my objective.
A blank land-use map
My next objective was to "find out if the quality of housing varied throughout the Docklands". For this I used a Housing Survey table. This was a simple table that assessed the "score" of a house based on the ratings that we gave it. The better the "score" the better condition it was in. Houses got assessed in six fields: damaged roof tiles, broken windows, litter, brickwork, paint work and security. We would give a rating in each of these areas - the lower the rating the better the score e.g. 1 being the highest 10 being lowest. I used systematic sampling for this, as soon as we stepped off of the DLR we walked in a northerly direction for 5 minutes and then rated one in three houses that we passed and rating 5 in total. We did this for every site that we visited to make our results fair, because it allowed us to see the variety in all the houses. Choosing consecutive houses would result in all of my data fairly similar - which would make my results inaccurate as it is not a fair representation of each area.
I chose the housing survey table because it was easy to compare the scores, on a graph as the numbers were simple. It was also very easy to fill out while I was on the move, and the categories that we chose to assess the houses in were effective in carrying out our aim to find out if the quality of houses varies throughout the Docklands. Whilst surveying the houses I also took pictures and compared them to see the difference in size and predicted size.
I used a secondary method to back up my results, as I looked on the internet for house prices in each area, and at estate agents in the area. The higher the house price, usually the better quality it was, as it has more space, more rooms etc. Also, the higher the house price the more likely it was that the surrounding area was desirable, and so I could also cross-reference with environmental quality.
House Number
2
3
4
5
Damaged roof
Broken windows
Litter
Brickwork
Paintwork
Security
Blank Housing Survey Table
Estate Agent in Cross Harbour
I backed up this information by using the internet to look for break-ins in each area of the Docklands, this would show the security of the houses and would also tie in with crime rates.
One of our methods was the Traffic count to correspond to the aim "the quality of public transport varies throughout the area". I carried out the traffic count by using a tally chart to record the number of different modes of transport that went by us. For this I used convenience sampling - I took the nearest main road from the DLR Station and recorded the data. To make it more accurate we took the same amount of time (5 minutes at each road).
I used the tally chart because it was a simple yet effective way to compare the variety of public transport in each area. It was quick to complete and the data could be manipulated easily from it.
Another objective was to test environmental quality throughout the Docklands. I tested environmental quality using an environmental impact survey, and also I carried out a questionnaire which linked to it. It was a simple star diagram, with 5 being the highest and 1 being the lowest.
For the crime rates objective I came up with an original method for collecting data. This was called the wallet method, and it involved me walking with my wallet on show in front of a group of people, and then dropping it on the ground purposefully as I walked past them. Then I recorded how many people left the wallet and didn't tell me, how many people gave back the wallet to me, and how many took the wallet.
If there were many people that took the wallet in a particular area this showed a higher level of crime in that area. More people that returned the wallet suggests a friendlier community and lower crime rates.
Data Presentation & Interpretation
The first objective was to see how land use varied throughout the Docklands. I used my land use map for primary research methods and also took pictures for examples of types of land use in different areas. For secondary research I looked at a virtual land use map, and also the amount of housing in different areas. From this I made a graph which I super-imposed on the images to compare the different things land is used for in different areas.
The coloured in land use map shows the trend of a lot more residential areas as we move further and further from Canary Wharf. This is also backed up by the chloropleth map which shows the concentration of dwellings per hectare is increased the further we move away from Canary Wharf.
I took the averages of the data from each area (by using the midpoint from each data set) to compare how much of the area is used for residential purposes. From the graph you can see that the amount of residential dwellings increases considerably the further out from Canary Wharf the area is. For example almost seven times as much land is used for dwellings in Island Gardens than in Canary Wharf. This links to the overall history of the regeneration of the Docklands, because in the 60's when the docklands were first closed the majority of workers were on low incomes, and when new luxury flats were built in Canary Wharf they could not afford the rent and so looked elsewhere for homes. In Mudchute and Island Gardens priority was given to re-house residents after the regeneration, and the most residential areas can be seen here. Most of the workers that resettled in areas such as Island Gardens and Mudchute were not very educated and so could not carry out the office jobs in the city, this lack of education also links to the high crime rates we see in this area which I will speak of later.
As there is a lot of residential areas further away from Canary Wharf this shows that less development has taken place there because this requires less money and will generate less money in the long term, because most of the people were being re-housed rather than buying from new. However in Canary Wharf a lot more money was put into creating office spaces (which generates income from letting) and retail shops/public spaces which would increase the numbers of people visiting -thus increasing the local economy.
In Canary Wharf there is also a lot more variation in the uses of buildings than with places such as Island Gardens. In Mudchute and Island Gardens a large proportion of each place was used for greenery and residential areas. Whilst in Cross Harbour there were lots more little retail shops and a few office buildings. In Canary Wharf the majority of buildings were for retail or commercial purposes with less than 1% of the land being used for open green spaces. Differentiation between building use is most noted at Canary Wharf as there are office blocks to supermarkets and police stations there.
The retail spaces in Canary Wharf, I noticed to be aimed at a particular target group - city workers /business people, and prices were considerably higher within these shops than in retail places in Mudchute. I took different pictures of different types of land use.
In accordance with the objective I researched on the internet to see the amount of derelict land there was before the London Docklands Development Corporation regenerated the area. In July 1981, the Isle of Dogs had 200 hectares (ha) of derelict land - the second most deprived area in the Docklands. The largest of the four places with derelict land is Canary Wharf with Island Gardens with the least. This shows that more regeneration was needed in the Canary Wharf area. Development occurred throughout the Docklands although more happened in the Canary Wharf region because it was needed.
In 1997 - once the development had finished the land use map now looked like this. None of the land was vacant or not used, and the LDDC was successful in its regeneration plans. Canary Wharf went through the most changes at it went from derelict land to be used for business, as we can see from the photographs through the years.
My next objective was to see how the quality of public transport varies across the Docklands. The results of the traffic count are in a bar graph which shows the frequency of the sight of each mode of transport. We can see that the transport ran most frequently in Canary Wharf, and transport to Island Gardens had the least frequent. Canary Wharf also had the highest form of private transport (taxis). This links to the daily commute to work in Canary Wharf, most people using the transport were from out of town and trying to get work in the city centre. Most of these jobs were tertiary and were usually high paid, which links strongly to house prices in different areas. Most city dwellers can afford the luxury flats in Canary Wharf due to their large salaries.
In accordance to the objective to see whether LDDC actually made a difference to the whole Docklands area I looked at the state of the transport before the regeneration. In 1980 there was no connection to the city centre and public transport was virtually non-existent throughout all areas of the Isle of Dogs. Transport investment was priority of land development and throughout a series of instalments public transport was drastically improved. There was bus routes from the Isle of Dogs to connect to the London underground implemented, and in 1982 the Docklands Light Railway was introduced. The shuttle bus was improved by almost tripling its passenger capacity (5000 to 12,000) and increasing its frequency from every 5 minutes to every 15 minutes. The bus went through the whole of the docklands so it improved transport links in all area.
The DLR dramatically improved the public transport for the Isle of Dogs, but it runs more frequently in the Canary Wharf and Cross Harbour regions.
In 2000 we can see that there are many more transport links, although they are more concentrated to the north of the Isle of Dogs and mainly in the Canary Wharf area.
My next objective was to see how housing quality varies throughout the area. I noticed that there were different types of houses in each area. The homes in Canary Wharf were more compact and there were more flats rather than houses. The flats were of high quality though and most were selling for over £150,000. Houses in Cross Harbour were also of a high standard. The residential areas in Mudchute and Island Gardens were less clean and it didn't look as if lots of maintenance happened, although the houses were much larger and had more rooms. Here are the average house prices in each of the areas.
Canary Wharf - £290962
Cross Harbour - £478759
Mudchute - £356034
Island Gardens - £386990
When taking house prices into consideration, location can hoist up the value of a house. Since Canary Wharf is a desirable area to live in, and is close to the city centre house prices would inevitably be high.
House Number
2
3
4
5
Damaged roof
Broken windows
2
2
Litter
3
2
2
2
Brickwork
3
Paintwork
4
Security
2
Canary Wharf
House Number
2
3
4
5
Damaged roof
2
2
Broken windows
3
2
7
2
Litter
5
2
8
4
3
Brickwork
4
2
6
2
Paintwork
3
3
7
2
3
Security
2
7
2
Cross Harbour
House Number
2
3
4
5
Damaged roof
4
Broken windows
2
2
3
2
2
Litter
4
2
2
3
Brickwork
2
3
Paintwork
5
2
4
2
2
Security
2
2
3
2
Mudchute
Houses were of good quality and most were well secured. The houses were considerably smaller than those in Island Gardens, but this was to increase the
House Number
2
3
4
5
Damaged roof
3
Broken windows
2
2
2
Litter
4
5
5
6
4
Brickwork
3
Paintwork
4
4
Security
2
4
6
2
Island Gardens
The quality of housing in this area was consistently high apart from a few litter problems. The standard was high, and is probably the hotspots for homes of people that work in the city which was an objective of the LDDC, as there is not many residential areas in Canary Wharf
My next objective was to see how the environmental quality changes throughout the Docklands. When walking on the field survey the most noticeable factor was litter. Although Canary Wharf had a much greater population than any of the other three areas, there was hardly, if any, litter on the ground. It seemed as if the regeneration has deterred people from dropping litter, as most people are more careful about fly tipping when the surrounding area is clean as it will be noticed. Also in Canary Wharf had a considerable amount of security - to discourage people from dropping litter - and a number of cleaning staff instituted. Island Gardens had the biggest problem with litter, and I believe the problem was growing, as people believed it was "ok" to drop rubbish as the surrounding area was already littered. Canary Wharf however had high levels of noise pollution and congestion this was due to the high population density, and also the public transport levels that had to be maintained. With lots of open green space in Mudchute and Island Gardens, there were also increased animal excrement levels.
Overall, it is clear that in Cross Harbour, Mudchute and Island Gardens the same amount of funds used for maintenance are not as dispensable as Canary Wharf's. This shows that Canary Wharf has generally been developed more and has sustained its development in the long term by security and cleaning staff. Although with lots of regeneration, Canary Wharf has compromised its green space for commercial and retail purposes, and it has more noise pollution.
My last objective was to see how the crime rate varied across the area. After completing the questionnaires in each area the perception of crime was generally good. Canary Wharf had the best response and 60% of people had experienced no crime and felt safe there. Although, my experiment proved that it is not completely safe there. In Canary Wharf there was an incident of the wallet being picked up without being returned, although this is balanced out as 75% gave back the wallet.
Overall the development of Canary Wharf has inhibited crime, as there are high security levels and this deters criminals because of fear of apprehension. Crime rates also links to the housing quality, as there is high security on the housing in Canary Wharf less crime is likely to occur.
In conclusion, from the analysis of the data I collected on my field work assignment, redevelopment is apparent throughout the whole of the Docklands area, although Canary Wharf is where the area is most improved. My hypothesis was the negative of this statement as I said that development "lessens as we move away from the centre (Canary Wharf)". There is strong evidence of this throughout my results - although the entire Docklands area has been changed for the better, more development has happened in Canary Wharf. This development had different effects, most good, although there were repercussions such as noise pollution.
Evaluation
Overall my fieldwork project was a success, as I managed to prove my hypothesis without much difficulty. However I realise that the accuracy of my results aren't as they should be due to limiting factors such as time constraints etc.
When colouring my land use map I couldn't colour every building as it wasn't either very clear what the building was, or there wasn't time to stop. This would give unreliable results as some of the results could not be recorded and so not give a full picture of the full range of land uses in an area. When comparing one area to another one may seem to be more developed and have more residential areas/office blocks, when in fact the other area didn't have enough colouring.
The housing survey was little inaccurate, because the ratings were based on our own opinions, for example my idea of a house with good security could be a burglar alarm, with a mortise lock and so I would give it a good score however someone else's view of security could differ from this and so give the house a lower score. My conclusions are still valid, because I proved this from people's views on the housing in their area in my questionnaire, and also looked at house prices in the areas.
My questionnaire may have been unreliable because too few were given out. This is due to not enough people wanting to participate in completing one. This especially occurred in Canary Wharf where I was greeted with "Sorry I'm running late", or "I'm busy at the moment", although I think this reflected the nature of the area. Also, I could only survey a select amount of residents and this meant that not all age ranges were included. I did not come across any 65+ residents of the Isle of Dogs to give my questionnaire out to.
The traffic count worked well, although it was slightly unreliable because we had to carry out the survey at different times. This was important because it may look as if an area had good transport links in the morning rush hour compared to an area when we conducted the survey in the early afternoon when buses/trains etc don't run as regularly. My overall conclusion was valid because I looked at the amount of public transport in each of the locations, and also used quotes from my questionnaire, and interview with staff from the TFL team.
If I was to carry out the project again I would visit the site for longer and on two separate occasions to make the results more reliable and accurate. Having more time would enable me to gather more information and I would also add more criteria for the environmental impact survey to give a broader base for drawing conclusion.
Rachel Cutenar 11HYB Mr Henderson
Page | 1
