Urbanization

Cities are dynamic in nature. They experience continual change, influenced by many factors that are often economical and political. We have seen how the decentralization of the inner city leads to inner city decay, where the inner city areas deteriorate economically and environmentally. Jobs are lost as businesses follow the movement of people out to the suburbs or peripheries of the city. Crime and pollution that plague the inner cities are huge push factors driving (literally) people to decentralize.

Large-scale decentralization began in the 19th century but accentuated after WWII. However, most cities in more economically developed countries now show evidence of a process that contradicts this pattern. This process is known as gentrification. It refers to the movement of high income middle-class or professional households into inner city neighborhoods. Sometimes, reurbanization is used to refer to this same process. The slight difference between the two, though, is that while gentrification is preoccupied with the affluent, reurbanization can involve the movement of any socio-economic group into the inner city or city centre.

The regeneration of cities has brought about failures and successes. While the rejuvenation of the inner city structure and economy is usually impressive, the social problems that persist in these inner cities are hard to ignore.

The London Docklands is located at the east of London, UK. It was once one of the world’s busiest ports. All of London’s docks were closed between 1960 and 1980. This was due to the fact that the London’s docks’ inability to accommodate larger container ships that began to be prevalent then. This created 21km2 of derelict land in East London. Unemployment soared, the back to back terraced housing fell into disrepair and there was a lack of transport and leisure facilities.

In 1981, the London’s Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC) was set up to improve the economic, social and environmental problems that had developed in the area. The LDDC was a statutory board appointed and funded by central government with wide powers to acquire and dispose of land in the Docklands. It also served as the development planning authority for the area. The London Docklands became the most important experiment with the largest budget in using market forces and private businesses to drive inner city regeneration.

With the changing economic base and decline of the city centre, there has been a need for city decision-makers to reimagine the city and thus attract investments in industries which prefer inner city locations. Measures to rejuvenate it include setting of the area as an enterprise zone, encouraging more diversified users, improving infrastructure and encouraging tourism through capitalizing on the maritime heritage of the Docklands. Such developments serve to act as an economic magnet to attract people, spending and jobs.

Now, politicians and policy-makers have often equated regeneration with economic or physical regeneration, measured by an increase in wealth or jobs in an area. However, I think that this is a very narrow definition of regeneration. The objectives of regeneration should be to redistribute income within the city through the ‘trickle-down’ effect where the pockets of the most disadvantaged are benefitted through job creation, like servicing incoming visitors, as well as to increase consumer spending that will spur growth in other related and non-related industries.

Does regeneration then, successfully fulfills its objectives? And is regeneration really the answer to decentralization and inner city decline?

Looking at the London Docklands, urban generation did indeed bring about economic benefits. It attracted huge investments and number of business increased from 1000 to 2350 between 1981 and 1995. This is due to increased income from tourism and businesses, which increased local tax income, leading to greater provision of social amenities. Employment went up from 27,000 to 66,000. Increased land prices led to increased value of assets, resulting in renovation and revitalization of old buildings into new ones.

However, the area experienced a property slump in the early 1990s which halted all development in Docklands for several years since the project has been largely spurned by private investments. Developers found themselves saddled with property which they were unable to sell or let. The parties who gained most from this are local authorities in terms of the tax income, businessmen and the highly skilled labour. The original inner city residents, whom the government wanted to help originally, do not gain much from this.

Jobs created were unsuitable for the relatively unskilled inner city population. The majority of the jobs in the new hi-tech industries are unsuitable to unemployed docker workers. They do not have the skills needed for jobs in these industries. Hence, not only are the needs of the people often not addressed, they have been marginalized further as they have been driven away with the increase in poverty prices and are may still unable to find employment. Their skills and educational level have not been improved, as well as access to social amenities. In fact, the income disparity between the highly skilled labour and original residents has become wider.

Projects have caused a stunning transformation of the London Docklands with the reclamation of 7km2 of derelict land and refurbishment of 7700 council houses. Even in terms of the physical landscape, developments in the inner city are usually shaped for aesthetic areas and often surrounded by large areas of severe social and economic deprivation.

On the social side, population increased from 39,000 to 68,000 between 1981 and 1995. There was improved access to area with the construction of new roads, the Docklands Lights Railway and the London City Airport. 19,000 new homes were erected and more social amenities were provided. For example, at the south of the river, warehouses have been converted into top quality restaurants such as the four Terence Conran restaurants, art galleries, designer shops and other places of interest such as the Design Museum.

Unfortunately, there are more shortcomings than there have been successes. Few amenities are built for locals in the early years of the LDDC. Public funds were diverted away from provision of social needs like health, housing and education. There were also insufficient services for people living in the area such as the care for the elderly.

LDDC was accused of favoring elitist luxury developments rather than affordable housing. Traditional close-knitted ‘Eastenders’ community was destroyed as some of the original inner city residents have been driven out of the area. There was also poor access to the area in the early years due to the LDDC’s reliance on the private sector to build the underground railway lines especially with the economic downturn. In the end, this caused greater social polarization as the inner city areas now have a social division of very rich people with poor people. The subsequent delay in its delivery has shown the continued importance of the government in the provision of social goods.

Drawing from the example of the London Docklands, we can see that cities experienced changes due to changes in economic base and the competition for global capital. Urban regeneration projects, however, often do not cater to the needs of the original residents and in some cases, worsen their situation. In order for them to be successful, besides partnership between the public and private sectors, there is also a need to involve the local community in decision-making.

Advertisement