C. Analysis
The Great Fire of London destroyed and ironically advanced the City like no other event.
Its appearance had changed several times before and often fire has been the cause, however this time not only a part of London was destroyed. Four-fifths had burned down within only three days, many of its great landmarks lay in ashes like St. Paul's Cathedral and many of the parish's churches. With few exceptions the buildings in 17th century London were constructed with wood and hay, enabling the fire to cause such a massive devastation.
King Charles II, the current monarch, recognised the hazard a city constructed out of wood posed as this was not the first fire to terrorize London, but by far the most devastating one. Having learned this lesson he required all buildings to be built from brick or stone and forbade the formerly popular hay roofs. One has to give him credit for the rapid measurements that were taken to rebuild the city, within merely two weeks he had composed a commission to begin the reconstruction. Even though he disagreed with the suggestion to simplify the street system, he allowed some of the streets to be widened so they could be used by street carriages. Besides the directing the street system the government stayed out of planning for the new city.
Sensing an unexploited, profitable market a few progressive entrepreneurs bought the land to built fancy housings, these they leased to returning Londoners for long terms such as thirty years to secure profit. With more and more people venturing into the real estate business the competition grew and the houses as well as the environment surrounding the buildings needed to be developed and made attractive. Therefore effort was also put into redesigning whole areas in a similar contemporary style and creating recreational spaces such as markets, gardens and parks.
Without the involvement of the public and economic interest of individuals it would have been unlikely that London had been rebuilt in such a short time span, most of the scorched land owned by private entrepreneurs was covered by new housings and plazas by 1671, whereas the restoration that was led by the government was not finished until 1686.
However not all of the areas were given equal care and whole districts like Seven Dials began to develop into slums, as many of the returning Londoners were not able to afford the nice houses made out of brick and stone, so they had to resort to live in poorly constructed apartment houses. The upstream properties of the West End, on the other hand, soon became the most desired in London as they lay close to the newly built administrative centre and commercial strip. While in those areas just finished housings were torn down to make way for more luxurious ones, the neglected areas were not even connected to the underground drainage system until 1844 whereas the West End already had access to clean water and drainage in 1675.2 Before the fire there existed no such thing as a slum or even a poor district as it was not uncommon, that a bakery was situated next to a rich merchants house with an orphanage just across the street. This had changed for the worse, as people could now be placed on the social ladder according to their address.
Another notable result was the relocation of a great part of the population to the suburbs of the City. Some 200,000 people had to flee and find temporary housing outside the city walls causing a rapid expansion of the outskirts. Unavoidably the limitation, that no construction was allowed outside of a two mile radius from the city walls, had to be lifted to ten miles. A growth outside of the city displeased several influential parties, most notably guilds whose power and privileges ended with the walls.3 Professionals who settled in the outskirts, were not obliged to join a guild in order to practise their profession. Inside the city walls guilds dictated the crafts and demanded payments, therefore made a return unfavourable. In the suburbs, free markets swiftly developed and actual demand shaped the offer rather than the decision of a guild leaders.
Without this development guilds would have survived longer, but with the appearance of a second market offering innovations and cheaper goods, guilds soon lost in power as they could only offer security of quality which came at a high price, what was unaffordable for many of the Londoners at that time, having lost their possessions in the fire.
The prospect of more affordable living conditions caused a lot of people to stay in the suburbs, rather than returning into the city. From there on the growth of the suburbs could not be controlled any more as people moving to the city from the country preferred to stay in the cheaper suburbs.
D. Conclusion
Without the Fire London would have not flourished into such a great commercial centre London's guild independent market was surely not the first in Europe but after the Fire the one with the greatest costumer market and having no incentive to return to the city a quarter of the people did not return. The economy was backed by the new real estate market and provided an financial appeal and opportunity for the citizen to fashion their own city in a way unknown before. The different styles and tastes of the individuals created the unique appearance of London. As a negative effect slums emerged, a phenomenon before unacquainted to the city where poor often lived next to the rich.
However even considering the decay of some areas the positive effects outlast the negative ones, as without the fire a reinvention and modernisation of the city would not have been possible.
E. Bibliography and Appendix
Sheppard, Francis. London: A History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Hibbert, Christopher. London: The Biography of a City. New York: Penguin, 1977.
Wall, Cynthia. "Novel Streets: The Rebuilding of London and Defoe's 'A Journal of the Plague Year" Studies in the Novel 30, no. 2 (1998): http://www.questiaschool.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001356782.
Summerson, John. Architecture in Britain, 1530 to 1830. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1954. http://www.questiaschool.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=288266.
Shields, Charles J. The Great Plague and Fire of London. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers, 2002.
Whitfield, Peter. London: A Life in Maps. London: The British Library, 2006.
See Appendix for map Francis Sheppard, London: A History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 28. Fig. 9
2 Christopher Hibbert, London: The Biography of a City (New York: Penguin, 1977), 7-8.
3 Cynthia Wall, "Novel Streets: The Rebuilding of London and Defoe's 'A Journal of the Plague Year," Studies in the Novel 30, no. 2 (1998), http://www.questiaschool.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001356782.
Charles J. Shields, The Great Plague and Fire of London (Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers, 2002), 103-105.
2 Peter Whitfield, London A Life in Maps (London: The British Library, 2006), 56-57.
3 Whitfield, London A Life in Maps, 58.
4 John Summerson, Architecture in Britain, 1530 to 1830 (Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1954), 125, http://www.questiaschool.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=288262.
Christopher Hibbert, London: The Biography of a City (New York: Penguin, 1977), 35.
John Summerson, Architecture in Britain, 129, http://www.questiaschool.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=288266.
2 Sheppard, London: A History, 182-183.
3 Withfield, London A Life in Maps, 87-89.