Socio-Cultural Consequences of the Restructuring of the London Docklands - Research Paper Example

SOCIO-CULTURAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE RESTRUCTURING OF THE LONDON DOCKLANDS puts his/her April SOCIO-CULTURAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE RESTRUCTURING OF THE LONDON DOCKLANDS TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 Introduction Research Objectives Methodology SECTION 2 Discussions History of the Docklands Initial development plans for the Docklands LDDC’s overall developmental activities Accomplishments in developing the Canary Wharf Criticisms of Exclusion in the development process of the Canary Wharf UK Government’s initiatives for developing communities SECTION 3 Conclusions Works cited References Tables Table 1: Changes in Key baseline indicators in the UDA between 1981 and 1988 Appendices Appendix 1: Canary Wharf before and after development SOCIO-CULTURAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE RESTRUCTURING OF THE LONDON DOCKLANDS SECTION 1 Introduction Development processes in most countries in the past suffered from the malady of inequitable social justice. Present day policy makers in general, give particular attention to deliver better social justice in “regeneration processes” to bring in “new life to the communities.” The UK Government Department of Communities and Local Government had in the recent past, identified several areas of deprived “neighbourhoods” distributed in its nine Regions (“English Indices. Summary . 11”). London Docklands comes under the Region listed as the second among the most deprived, the first being the North West. London Docklands has been selected for this research study as it glaringly reveals the dimensions of a typical case of socially inequitable development that eclipsed the needs and wants of the original inhabitants of the region. This research attempts to go into the history of the region and its stages of development that registered both positive and negative results. Research Objectives The following objectives have been identified for the study: (1) Historical background of London Docklands. (2) Strategies adopted by the British Government in developing the region and consequent accomplishments. (3) Critical review of socio-economic impacts of the developmental strategies adopted by the authorities. (4) The British government’s current policies and action plans to regenerate the region. Methodology The methodology chosen is to review secondary data and other published information including those available from websites, on the development of the region and to evaluate its socio-economic aspects. The scope includes the historical perspective of the region and its community life before and after the transformation, economic aspects of the transformation and its socio-cultural impacts, etc. This research is specifically focused on the transformation of the Canary Wharf that was once the heartland of the erstwhile port of London. It is proposed to study data and information gathered from books on the subject, publications of the UK Department of Communities and Local Government, Docklands Museum and other information available from Docklands Archives available from websites, demographic profiles and lifestyles available from relevant sources including the office for National Statistics- UK, etc. The following are the specific data and information sought in this study corresponding to the time horizon chosen, namely from1960 to 2000. Geography and historical facts about the region studied. Demography and its changes within the time horizon. Infrastructure development in the region such as buildings, transport, communications, information technology etc., and associated business activities. Living conditions of the community in the locality before and after development of the Canary Wharf. This will cover sources and adequacy of income for the people, education, housing, employment, unemployment, cost of living, social amenities etc. Critical review of the philosophy and success of developmental activities in realising the objectives. Continuing efforts of governmental agencies for balancing the developmental activities with social justice. SECTION 2 Discussions History of the Docklands The erstwhile Island of Dogs, presently known as London Docklands has a long history. This is the place where the port of London, the largest in the world in the 1930s, operated. Nearly 30,000 people were employed in the port at that time. The inhabitants including the dependents of the employees totalled to about 100,000 (“Condition of London Docklands in 1981.”) The port was heavily bombarded during the Second World War and post war operations went through a declining stage. Thereafter, technological changes in freight traffic such as containerisation requiring deep water ports, led to its closure in favour of a new deepwater port in Tilbury and other ports that afforded access for large containerships (“Port of London Authority”). People living in the Docklands were badly hit following the closure of the London Port. Many migrated in pursuit of livelihood in the mainland or elsewhere. Others remained in the place, languishing for a livelihood. The population dwindled from 48532 in 1971 to 39429 in 1981(“Condition of London....”). Even during the prime days of operation of the port of London, the quality of life of the communities in the Docklands was inferior to that in the mainland London. About 51 percent of the people in the Dockland were engaged in lower paid manual labour, compared to the corresponding level of 33% in London. Apart from this, unemployment among the population in the Dockland was also significantly higher (“Condition of ....”). Initial development plans for the Docklands Although planning initiatives for the Docklands started in 1971, the progress was tardy due to changing governments in Britain resorting to controversial approaches. It is only in 1976 that a plan was conceived. The Government’s plan named London Docklands Strategic Plan (1976) envisaged a 20 year regeneration strategy with an outlay of £ 1,138 million of public funding and £ 600 million of private funding. The ambitious plan envisioned “development to redress the housing, social, environmental and employment, economic and communications deficiencies” of the Docklands (Foster 50). It can be seen that even after the plan was finalised, the hardships experienced by the local population continued for want of any positive action from the government. It has been reported that between 1978 and 1981(period between plan and action), 10,000 jobs were lost (“Regeneration statement”). The Docklands spreads over eight and a half square miles falling under the Urban Development Area (UDA) that includes Wapping, Limehouse, the Isle of Dogs, The Royal Docks, Beckton, Surrey Docks and Bermondsey Riverside. The UDA later also brought under its control, 1568 hectares of land and 162 hectares of landlocked water around the upriver docks (“Condition of ...”). As a follow-up activity to the 1976 strategic plan, the London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC) was established as per the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980. The UDA in 1981 handed over the land to LDDC for implementing the development plans (“Condition of ....”). LDDC’s overall developmental activities The LDDCs developmental initiatives started in 1981. The corporation was assigned the following specific responsibilities of developing the region: Bringing land and buildings (existing) back into effective use; Encouraging the development of industry and commerce; Ensuring adequate housing and social amenities; and Creating an attractive environment. (LDDC subsequently obtained permission for developing appropriate rail and road transport systems, justifying these as prerequisites for development of the region.) About 60% of the area that came under the control of LDDC was waterlogged, “derelict, vacant or seriously under-used land.” There were also a number of derelict, vacant and under-used industrial properties in their possession (“Condition of ....”). Major accomplishments reported by LDDC during the period 1981 to 1998 are given below (“LDDC History Pages.”): £1.86 billion invested by Public sector £7.7 billion invested by private sector 1,066 acres of land sold for redevelopment 144 km of new and improved roads Construction of the Docklands Light Railway 25 million sq feet of commercial /built industrial floor space 884 acres of derelict land reclaimed Accomplishments in developing the Canary Wharf Development of the Canary Wharf has been the most challenging and significant among the developmental activities in the Docklands. The wharf was originally the cargo warehouse of West India Docks that was centrally located in the Docklands. Due to declining port operations in the sixties, most of the buildings in this area were dismantled, obviously due to redundancy. Hence Canary Wharf became a potential area for convenient utilisation of land as it was a developed area and centrally located. The place was converted to a world class commercial landscape with a multitude of high rise buildings that attracted most international corporate giants (Abrahamson 30). Many large business establishments within the country also shifted from the mainland to the Canary Wharf. Consequently the demand for hotels and associated market places, accommodation, transport, etc., also shot up. The rail connectivity facilitated people residing in London to commute for work in the Docklands and others to seek accommodation in the Docklands to work and live in the place. Photographs given in Appendix 1 reveal the contrasting landscape of Canary Wharf before and after developmental activities. Development of Transport infrastructure was topmost in the priorities of LDDC. The Dockland Light Railway was a pioneering effort in this direction. But the main objective of this was to provide connectivity to London than developing the hinterland. The LDDC was wound up in March 1998 as a result of government policy review. The regeneration functions were transferred to English Partnerships, which is the UK Government’s national agency for Regeneration. A new establishment by name London Development Agency (LDA) was set up in July 2000 and the English Partnership’s role in the Docklands got transferred to the LDA. An authoritative evaluation of LDDC’s accomplishments made by Rhodes and Taylor (Chriss 242) reveals that every one million £ public sector investment in the Docklands generated net additional benefits to the UDA of 23 jobs, 8300 square meter of office floor space, 7.8 housing units plus many other diverse and intermediate benefits. Statistically this may sound impressive, although it does not evidence whether all the objectives of the developmental plan are reflected in the statistics. Obviously the outsiders were benefited by the developments to enjoy the modern conveniences, such as remunerative work opportunities in multinational corporations, modern accommodation, and convenient rail transport to the mainland, recreation and club activities, education and entertainment. Criticisms of Exclusion in the development process of the Canary Wharf The original settlers of the Docklands were the worst affected communities as a direct consequence of the transformation brought about by massive development. About 83% of the native population continued to live in Council rented accommodation that was poorly maintained. About 20% of these buildings were classified as inferior or uninhabitable. Social infrastructure in the region to support the population, such as health and education, recreation etc., was glaringly inadequate (“Regenerating London Docklands.”). While the LDDC could be complemented for its commercial achievements, they were criticised for not taking adequate measures to uplift the community that was largely working class comprising whites and a significant number of ethnic groups. It was widely known that even construction workers engaged for the development of the Canary Wharf came from outside the Docklands, perhaps due to contractors not wanting to rely on local capabilities (could be for valid reasons, considering their exigencies). It needs to be critically examined as to whether the LDDC could have done more for the local community. One argument brought forward to justify LDDC’s inability to deliver social justice is that being a corporation, it could not effectively promote social housing deploying government funds. Such funds are managed by the Councils. LDDC’s terms of reference although included “ensuring adequate housing and social amenities,” it was not specific to make them spend on social housing, and they found constrained with public funds for such developments. A Dockland forum report (Foster 74) observed that even the original affordable housing schemes were not within the ways and means of the community. The land prices shot up in the area, thanks to the massive regeneration programme of Canary Wharf. With rising prices of land and housing, it became increasingly difficult for middle class people to own houses, let alone the poor local community. It was also reported that whatever little the LDDC did for social housing could not get into deserving hands (Foster 74). While it could be technically stated that LDDC could not get into social housing schemes, there was no bar for them to get involved in shared ownership and affordable housing schemes. The LDDC archives (“LDDC History Pages.”) mention that they had actually involved themselves in building about 2000 housing units in shared ownership, affordable housing schemes and also in housing association initiatives with private sector investment. However beneficiaries of these schemes happened to be outsiders who were able to afford these. Foster Janet (Foster 74) mentions that the LDDCs social housing schemes were also abused and she supported it with the narration of an estate agent during an interview: “We had a terrible racket because [local people] got preferential treatment and anybody who had a rent book was first in the queue… All these people were getting rent books who werent council tenants and they were buying these properties at cheap prices and then flogging them on for another twenty grand or something like that. There was a desperate abuse of the situation, but thats why weve ended up with some of the housing we have here.” It can be reasonably judged that the problems relating to housing were more complex than one could imagine, and only concerted efforts by the all the agencies involved in housing sector could have handled such issues. Table 1 below gives an idea about the magnitude of developmental accomplishment in the Docklands in terms of growth of population, growth of employment and housing between 1981 and 1988. Table 1 Changes in Key baseline indicators in the UDA between 1981 and 1988(“Cities and regions.”) Key Indicator 1981 1988 Population 39,000 84,000 Employment in the UDA 27,000 84,000 Number of residents working in the UDA 1,014 2,600 Stock of housing units 15,000 36,000 Number of firms in the UDA 1,014 2,600 Eventually, the LDDC in their own focus area could not proceed beyond the Canary Wharf development, although work on the Royal Docks was started. This was left unfinished due to the Government’s rethinking, yielding to public criticism on proceeding with massive developments ignoring social priorities. The corporation was wound up in March 1998. The assets of LDDC were taken over by English Partnerships, a governmental housing agency. UK Government’s initiatives for developing communities The Government in the last few years had commissioned specific studies to bring out relevant aspects for long term planning. Foremost among the government’s objectives is delivering social justice to the deprived communities. The study reports include the following: (1) Egan’s Review: Skills for Sustainable Communities (2004) (2) Leitch Review of Skills: Prosperity for all in the global economy- world class skills (2006) (3) Calcutt Review of House building Delivery (2007) (4) Cave Review- Every Tenant Matters: a review of social housing regulation (2007) The government’s current planning strategies are revealed in a Green Paper presented to, the British Parliament in 2007 (“Homes for the future”). This paper takes into account many of the recommendations contained in the study reports mentioned above. The government strategies are focused on ensuring availability, affordability and sustainability (“Homes for the future.4)”) One of the important aims of the government as emerging from the above Green Paper (“Homes for the future”) is to create mixed communities with a “balance of housing types and tenures.” The government considers it important “to help create mixed and inclusive communities which offer choice of housing and lifestyle.” The principle behind this is that the “government does not accept that different types of housing and tenures make bad neighbours.” It can be seen from the above that there have been significant changes from the past in policies and strategies of the planners of the British Government, giving due importance to regeneration of deprived communities. There is emphasis on the interaction of local authorities and the communities in each region. Hopefully the communities in the London Docklands can be expected to benefit from the new schemes. SECTION 3 Conclusions It is evident from records that the British Government did not take timely action to rehabilitate the working community in the Docklands which was thrown out of jobs following the closure of the Port of London. It is also on record that the changing governments, in Britain could not agree on an acceptable plan for regenerating the Island of Dogs, as no action plans took effect from the planning days in 1971 till handing over the area to LDDC 1981. The Dockland community in general lived in council rented houses and many of these homes were unfit for occupation. The minimum, the government could have done was to ensure good maintenance of these houses and provide some training for them to develop skills to be able to earn their livelihood. There was no government programme to rehabilitate the community, and the LDDC being a corporation was more interested in commercial developments in the Canary Wharf to bring it up to a world class destination for businessmen. Perhaps the LDDC had disabilities to spend resources on social housing or to work as a team with the Councils to simultaneously develop the deprived communities. The Government’s terms of reference to the LDDC did not include specific mention of regeneration of the community by providing them good shelter, jobs and education. The LDDC went about commercial developments and they did a good job of regenerating the Canary Wharf with high rise buildings and related infrastructure, which drew international attention. LDDC also did a good job in developing road and rail infrastructure in the region which benefited outsiders while depriving the local community of minimum needs. The current government policies on creating sustainable communities and the concept of balancing types and tenures of houses as revealed in the Green Paper (“Homes for the future”) is a welcome change from the age old practices of social exclusions in community living. Since London Docklands has been identified among deprived communities (“English Indices. Summary 11”) they can be expected to benefit from the new strategies. Works cited Abrahamson. Mark. 2004. Global Cities. Oxford University Press. New York. “Cities and regions”.Regenerating London Docklands. UK Communities and Local Government. Web. 17 Apr.2010.. Chriss, Hamnet. 2003. Unequal City: London in the global arena. Routledge “Condition of London Docklands in 1981”. UK Department of Communities and Local Government.Cities and regions.Archived content. Web. 17 Apr.2010.. “English Indices of Deprivation 2007.” UK Department of Communities and Local Government.Communities and neighbourhoods. Indices of deprivation.pdf.,2007.Web. 17 Apr.2010. . Foster, Janet (1999) Docklands: Cultures in Conflict, Worlds in Collision. Contributors: - author. Publisher: UCL Press. London. “Homes for the future: more affordable, more sustainable.” 2007. UK Govt. Green Paper. 2007). Web. 17 Apr.2010. “LDDC History Pages.” London Docklands Development Corporation-1981-1998-telling the story. Web. 17 Apr.2010. . "Port of London Authority." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 17 Apr. 2010 . “Regenerating London Docklands” UK. Communities and Local Government. Web.17 Apr. 2010.< http://www.communities.gov.uk/archived/general-content/citiesandregions/regeneratinglondondocklands/>. “Regeneration statement”. LDDC Publication.Introduction. March 1998. Web. 17 Apr.2010.< http://www.lddc-history.org.uk/regenstat/index.html#Overall>. . References About LDDC.a brief overview. Achievements.http://www.lddc-history.org.uk/lddcachieve/index.html#Powers Abrahamson. Mark. 2004. Global Cities. Oxford University Press. New York. “Cities and regions”.Regenerating London Docklands. UK Communities and Local Government. Web. 17 Apr.2010.. Chriss, Hamnet. 2003. Unequal City: London in the global arena. Routledge “Condition of London Docklands in 1981”. UK Department of Communities and Local Government.Cities and regions.Archived content. Web. 17 Apr.2010.. “English Indices of Deprivation 2007.” UK Department of Communities and Local Government.Communities and neighbourhoods. Indices of deprivation.pdf.,2007.Web. 17 Apr.2010. . Foster, Janet (1999) Docklands: Cultures in Conflict, Worlds in Collision. Contributors: - author. Publisher: UCL Press. London. “Homes for the future: more affordable, more sustainable.” 2007. UK Govt. Green Paper. 2007). Web. 17 Apr.2010. “LDDC History Pages.” London Docklands Development Corporation-1981-1998-telling the story. Web. 17 Apr.2010. . LDDC Monograph.Initiating Urban change- London docklands before LDDC (July 1997). Web. 17 Apr.2010. . London Development Agency: Our purpose and priorities Retrieved 11 May 2009. Available. http://www.lda.gov.uk/server.php?show=nav.00100g001 “London Docklands Development Corporation-1981-1998-An Overview.pdf.” LLDC-history. Web. 17 Apr.2010< http://www.lddc-history.org.uk/other/lddcpresentshort.pdf>. "Port of London Authority." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 17 Apr. 2010 . “Regenerating London Docklands” UK. Communities and Local Government. Web.17 Apr. 2010.< http://www.communities.gov.uk/archived/general-content/citiesandregions/regeneratinglondondocklands/>. “Regeneration statement”. LDDC Publication.Introduction. March 1998. Web. 17 Apr.2010.< http://www.lddc-history.org.uk/regenstat/index.html#Overall>. APPENDIX 1 CANARY WHARF BEFORE AND AFTER DEVELOPMENT Canary Wharf before development Adopted from: Sustainable communities in London (2003) (page 5) Building for the future. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Crown copyright Canary Wharf after development Read More