World Cities Case Studies

Problem:

• Large and rapidly increasing number of slum dwellers
• An overcrowded and unplanned central area

Solution:

• Houing and Development Board (HDB) set up in 1960
• Cleared old properties close to the CBD
• Created purpose-built estates instead with 10,000 - 30,000 people in these towns
• Initially flats were for low-income families with low prices = 1-3 bed closely packed high rises
• 1/4 of wage earners' salary automatically put into central pension fund and this can be used to buy your own apartment or flat
• Since 1974 4 or 5 room units have been built for higher incomes
• Large estates = functional in design and developed on neighbourhood concept
• Each estate has greenery as well as amenities
• All new towns are linked to city centre within 30 mins = Mass rapid transport railway
• Each estate has its own light industry e.g. producing clothes 

Results:

• By 1994 there were 14 new towns with 12km of CBD
• In 1994 87% of Singaporeams lived in government-built housing and 80% owned their own homes
• Each estate is pristine = fines for litter and grafitti
• HDB put sensors in the floors of lifts to detect the salt from urine
• By 1994 the HDB had built over 700,000 flats

Future:

• Now the aim is to provide every householder with a minimum of 3 rooms
• This is done by pulling down early apartment blocks or emalgamating them
• 3 room flats also sold on the open market and they are sold at discount prices to low-income families

Where: A small town in the south east along the Grand Union Canal

Suburbanisation:

• Grew during 1920s and 30s as part of metro land = Rickmansworth Station on the underground line
• 1851 population = 4,800
• Today population = 15,000

Why?

• Excellent transport links (London in half an hour)
• Good links to Luton and Heathrow airports
• Close to M1 and M40
• Contained within the M25
• Classified as one of the top ten neighbourhoods for quality of life

Where:

• Around 100km north of London
• 25km northwest of Cambridgeshire
• Close to A1 and Main East Coast Railway

Changing Town:

• Majority of land outside town is farmland but over recent years has been changing into new housing developments
• Apartment blocks built in town centre for more exclusive housing

Changing population:

• One side of the town is ageing and the other is becoming more youthful
• Area has affordable housing and good transport links = commuters to London
• Largely young families or retirees = rural oart of town for more land but still good transport
• People in St Ives have higher incomes and living standards than anywhere else in the UK = boom in property demand for water-side properties

Commuting:

• 25% of St Ives population commutes to London daily
• Railway line was electrified = cut journey times
• Station in Huntington = 50 minute journey to King's Cross
• Annual rail ticket = £3.920 which makes living in St Ives still cheaper than living in London

Services in the Town:

• Now come in to meet the demands of new residents
• Low order services still exist e.g. greengrocers (though many have expanded to meet the new demand)
• High order services now beginning to appear e.g. restaurants and  designer clothes shops
• Secondary school intake has risen

Past:

• Once an 18th century hamlet with a low population density
• Industrialisation brought workers from the countryside
• Landlords built terrace housing to house these workers
• Victorian era = rough,working class area
• 1950s = area of slums and deprivation
• 1958 = race riots
• 1976 = Notting Hill Carnival Riot

Present:

• Over last 30 years Gentrification has sent property prices booming 4 bed detached = £1 mil
• Many open spaces = one of most desirable neighbourhoods in London for families
• Celebrities in the area
• Fashionable and exclusive places to eat e.g. Veronicas
• August Bank Holiday = world's largest carnival outside of Rio = over 1 million people over 3 days

History:

• Originally built up due to its proximity to the port
• During industrial revolution the tenement blocks grew into high-rise slums
• Soon became known as a centre of low life and sex industry
• Low rent prices attracted many migrants to the area = large Filipino Community - language barrier

Regeneration Scheme:

• Schemes put in place to solve the problem that the area was overly populated and a centre for crime and the sex industry
• Led by public funding, the EU Social Cohesion Fund as well as private investment

Positive Effects:

• Depopulation in a sustained way and in relation to depopulation of Barcelona as a whole
• Employment risen significantly
• Main road in the Upper Raval is now a sought after location for local business linked to the tourist trade
• Crime rate reduced to Barcelona average
• Some small businesses and workshops have remained
• Tenement blocks have begun to be refurbished and some have been demolished

Negative Effects:

• Low qualifications in the area means jobs often go to other areas and so family income has fallen
• Left some people thinking that the heart has been ripped out of the area

What:

• Europe's largest regeneration scheme = £446 million in govt funding and £1.5bn needed in private investment (2012 = 1/3 secured)
• Completion aimed for 2016
• Designed to accomodate London's expanding population which is set to rise to over 8 million by 2016

Where: The area stretches 40 miles from London's Lower Lea Valley along the Thames

The Plan:

• Over 12,00 new homes = at least 35% to be affordable
• Estimated 225,000 jobs to be created
• Part of the fund would go towards education, transport and new affordable homes
• New homes intended to be 'carbon zero' with 80% built on previously developed land

Where: 15km from Cambridge City Centre

What: A new village whose planning application was submitted in 1992 and work began in 1998

The Plan:

• 8000 to live there
• 3000 houses with 900 of those being affordable
• 3 villages with services to include a church, primary schools, sports centre, bowling green etc.
• System of balancing lake control from the site to Bourn Brook
• Developers provided funds for a park and ride scheme, cycle tracks and buses
• Roads between Cambourne and Cambridge became duel carriageway
• Business Park which included shops and offices
• Houses were sold quickly

Arguments For:

• Enables people to work and live in the community = reduces commuting
• New wildlife habitats will be created e.g. for badgers
• Aims to enhance the environment with 69ha of woodland, 56ha for country park and construction of lakes
• 3000 jobs in the business park
• Solution to the housing crisis

Arguments Against:

• 400ha of rural land lost
• Otters protected at Bourne Brook may suffer
• No need for so many new homes - estimated 5 million more by 2016 with population rise of only 0.2%
• Highest part of west Cambridgeshire = possible drainage problems
• Eyesore
• Delayed 12 months - drainage and sewage plans had to be agreed
• Too far from city centre = away from concentration of jobs
• Several similar new villages planned countryywide

Economic Impacts:

• Cost = £1.6bn
• Several other developments in surrounding city district
• 3rd largest shopping centre in UK
• 5 years to build, employing over 8000 to do so

Social Impacts:

• Transportation reform = Shepard's Bush station remodelled, new overground station, new bus interchange, new taxi stand and 570 new cycles on cycle routes
• Replaced a brownfield site
• Over £4mil provided by Westfield for physical regeneration of the area
• Over £170mil into regenerating local transport infrastructure

Environmental Impacts:

• Solar panels = 20% of energy for bus station, 60% public transport and 50% recycled materials
• Urban nature reserve created

Size:

• 5.5 million people live with 45 min drive of the centre
• Good motorway links (M61, M62)
• 11,000 free parking spaces
• 120 capacity bus station but transport links remain difficult with 87% coming by car

Positives:

• Stimulates local economy = 27mil visitors a year with average spend of £100
• Employs 7000 local people
• Offers a massive range of services
• 24% of shoppers visit once a week or more

Negatives:

• Poorer people turned away = no homless
• All chain stores as smaller businesses cannot afford to rent a place within the centre

When: Site chosen in Jan 1967 = equidistant from London, Birmingham, Leciester, Oxford and Cambridge

Intention: To become a major regional centre for housing and employment in its own right

Construction:

• Milton Keynes Development Cooperation (MKDC)
• MKDC wound up in 1992 and is now under control of English Partnerships (EP)

Main Aims:

• Create MK as modern interpretation of Garden City Movement
• No building should be higher than the highest tree (since been scrapped)
• River vallets, water courses and landscape buffers around MK = environmental assets have been intergrated into development

Where: Proposed eco-town site in northern Oxfordshire

The Plan:

• 828ha = 84% working farmland with 250ha of Oxford greenbelt
• 35,000 people
• 15,000 dwellings
• 12,000 jobs

Aims:

• Eliminate the need for a car = excellent transport links including a free tram and railway
• Small communities
• Use of 'green infrastructure' e.g. allotments

Criticisms:

• Unsustainable and unrealistic e.g. 100% shift to rail = unrealistic
• Inappropriate and unnecessary - 12,000 new homes already planned nearby and new jobs not required as unemployment is half the national average
• Impact on existing towns e.g. Bicester needs redevelopment
• Water Stress - site is on a floodplain
• Ecological Impact - Entirely greenfield site, 25% = Oxford greenbelt
• Social Aspects - would become a rural ghetto

Why: Development of container ships which could not fit into London Docklands' Port so business was moved to Tilbury (where they could fit)

Decline:

• Area was a wasteland
• Quality of life in the area was very poor
• 80% of all accomodation was council housing and 30% was unfit for human habitation
• Companies and businesses located elsewhere when the docks began to close
• Unemployment hit an all-time high = 35% (national average at the time = 10%)
• 1 in 3 shops closed down in the area

Redevelopment:

• London Docklands Development Cooperation (LDDC) - 1981
• Huge area of the Docklands was converted into a mixture of commercial, residential and light industry area
• Canary Wharf
• Docklands Light Railway

Where: Kingston-upon-Hull

Before:

• Brownfield site = mixture of ownerships and uses
• General ambience of neglect and decay in the area
• Opened in September 2007
• Sponsors include: Kingston-upon-Hll city council and Yorkshire Forward

Built:

• Mixture of retail outlets
• 10,000m squared food store
• A leisure complex
• A hotel
• A new home for the Hull Truck Theatre Company
• 1550 parking spaces
• Over 200 residential units
• New intergrated transport interchange = £10 mil

Docklands' Light Railway:

• Created to try to regenerate the area
• Used existing dock rail structures and linked important areas of the docklands
• 3 stages = 1985-7, 1996 and 2004
• Cost £77mil

Boris Bikes:

• Launched 30th July 2010
• Ran by Serco and sponsered by Barclays Bank
• Started with 5000 cycles with 315 docking stations = 17 square miles
• Approx. £140mil
• Easy to use and environmentally friendly and cheap!

What else?

• Congestion charges
• London underground = electric
• Oyster Cards

What?

• In the late 1980s it was the first city to offer a wide variety of recycling services
• Curitiba recycles 2/3 of its household waste = one of the highest figures in the world
• Cans are recyled (1/2 price of making new ones), nothing is wasted and books sent to public libraries

The Process:

• Recycling plants are made up of those who would find it difficult to find employment e.g. immigrants or disabled
• Colour co-ordinating teams collect the waste that has been seperated in inorganic and organic waste
• Then sorted and sent out to recycling plants

Green Exchange (1990):

• Encourage poor to recycle in return for food or bus tickets
• Cost same has landfill= 30,000 benefitted from the scheme