Assess the extent to which international and global changes have influenced two contrasting places (12 marks).
I believe that international and global changes have had a greater influence on coastal communities
such as Boscombe, whereas in inner city areas such as East London, local changes have had the greatest
influence.
The most significant reason why global changes have had a greater influence on coastal communities
is because they are more reliant on tourism than inner city areas. Boscombe for example became financially
successful in the 1900s as coastal areas where popular tourist destinations. However, tourism habits changed
in the 1970/80s due to cheaper air travel and package holidays becoming increasingly available worldwide.
As a result, Boscombe lost its primary function (tourism) and so fell into decline due to a lack of income. East
London in comparison was less affected by this global change in tourism, as its main source of economic
growth is from the quaternary and quinary industries. I believe this to be the most significant reason because
when an area looses its function and economic issues arise, this often leads to social and environmental issues
as well, typically triggering a spiral of decline; this has been the case in Boscombe where cheap housing is
occupied by a transient population, typically characterised by drug and alcohol use.
The second most significant reason why global changes are more important in coastal areas is because
inner city areas are affected most by local changes, particularly socially. For example, Canary Wharf in East
London is London’s secondary Central Business District and as such attracts many workers to live in the area.
This has lead to gentrification, where original residents are outcompeted for housing by a more affluent
population. This is the cause of several social issues in East London, such as increased demand for housing
and a loss of community/culture. The social issues in Boscombe are similar, however the reason for these
issues is different in that they are the result of global changes, including changes to tourism habits, and hence
global changes are more important in coastal areas. I believe this to be the second most significant reason
because these social issues are not as detrimental to a community as a loss of function, which always leads to
a spiral of decline.
However, one may argue that global changes have had a greater influence on inner city areas because
they are more involved with international events. East London for example was greatly involved with the 2012
Olympics, which had the aim of creating a lasting legacy for long-term regeneration. Media coverage of the
event put London on an international stage and flagship development projects were intended to attract
investment. This included several permanent sports venues, e.g. the Velodrome and Aquatics Centre and
infrastructure such as 10,000 new homes and leisure spaces. These changes have continued to boost
regeneration by attracting tourists and appealing to businesses, stimulating a multiplier effect and allowing
East London to move up-market. Boscombe on the other hand is far less involved with international events
such as the Olympics and so has not received government funding of a similar scale.
In conclusion, global changes have had a greater influence on coastal communities than inner city
areas because they are more reliant on tourism and global changes have less impact on social issues in these
communities. One may argue that global changes have been more significant in inner city areas as they are
more involved with international events, however these typically have less of an effect than anticipated due
to conflicts created over management as many stakeholders will be involved.
,Explain how science parks can be used to attract investment (6 marks)
Science parks attract investment because of the interconnectivity experienced there, which is less common in inner
city areas. Cambridge Science Park for example has over 130 companies working in industries including bio-medical
and telecommunications. This creates the opportunity to share information, labs and expertise. Additionally,
Cambridge University is 2.7 miles away, and collaborations with the science park also appeals to businesses
considering investing.
Science parks also attract investment through their pleasant scenery and amenities, which leads to a better work-life
balance. Cambridge Science Park for example has 20 acres of open public space and the entire area has been
landscaped to create a peaceful environment, which many people prefer over working in the city. The Trinity Centre
offers leisure facilities and restaurants/coffee shops, meaning workers don’t have to travel far for services, further
increasing the attractiveness of science parks.
Science parks also attract investment because they allow businesses to start-up quickly and easily. For example, The
Innovation Centre at Cambridge Science Park has numerous vacant suites which are already set up with labs, offices
and other necessary facilities. This entices businesses to invest in the site because they can start operating faster than
they would setting-up by themselves.
,Is gentrification good or bad for the city of London?
I believe gentrification has some positive impacts on the city of London, such as new investment and
funding as well improvements to public spaces and markets. However, I think the negative impacts of
gentrification outweigh the benefits, as the issues of rapidly increasing housing prices and the loss of
community spirit will be a challenge to overcome in the future.
One reason why I believe gentrification is bad for London is because housing prices have been
dramatically increased in gentrified areas, resulting in the displacement of original residents. As more
affluent people move into an area, the new money brought in increases the value of the area, so housing
becomes more expensive. For example, in Chelsea, the average house price rose from £1,829,485 in 2013 to
£1,955,459 in 2015. Additionally, in the last three years average private rents in London have risen more
quickly than average earnings in London. With housing becoming progressively more and more
unaffordable, the difference between actual land value and potential land value will only increase and
residents will find it more and more challenging to stay in these areas. Old houses that were divided into
flats a long time ago are now being undivided again, further reducing the availability of homes. In Tower
Hamlets, residents are often easily outcompeted for housing. Workers in Tower Hamlets on average earn
£180 more than residents. These workers are mostly employed in managerial and professional sectors and
have moved here to be closer to their workplace. This is reflected in the Tower Hamlets planning to build
over 14,000 housing units there. Gentrification has had benefits here – most notably, the number of deprived
areas in Tower Hamlets dramatically decreased from 2004-2015 (see image to the right). Nevertheless, it is
a problem if housing is being constructed specifically for affluent areas as it means housing is being
neglected in other areas, and those who are forced to move out may struggle to find housing elsewhere.
Furthermore, Canary Wharf contains 44% of the jobs in the borough, yet only 14% of workers are Tower
Hamlets residents. This also shows how residents may struggle to find employment in their area when more
skilled and experienced people move in.
Another reason why gentrification is bad for London is because of a general loss of community. As
London becomes gentrified, it looses the original people and institutions that made up the community. Other
residents may then choose to relocate as the friendships and community networks that used to be important
to them are no longer present. A loss of residents typically results in the loss of culture that made London
unique. Old and new residents will likely struggle to mix with each other and there may even be rising
tensions between the groups with anti-gentrification campaigns that often oppose higher-density
development. Overall, community spirit has been lost in many areas in London, with only 60%-70% of
residents in boroughs including Chelsea and Camden having taken part in a community even in the past
year.
However, gentrification can bring many benefits and new opportunities to London, as an influx of
newcomers to an area can prompt investment. Shops and services have undergone changes to cater for the
new, affluent residents. The number of high-end retailers and restaurants, as well as services such as gyms,
has risen in all gentrified areas in London. In Chelsea for example, there are 17.3 coffee shops per 1000
people and 13.6 in Richmond and Kingston. As a result, new jobs have been created, increasing the number
and variety of employment opportunities. Accessibility and transport have been improved and public
infrastructure tends to be more efficient. Another benefit to existing residents is the increased land value, as
gentrification greatly benefits those who own their homes. London had the highest average increase in
property value in recent years of 239%.
In conclusion, gentrification overall has more negative impacts than positive impacts on the city of
London. This is because housing prices are increased dramatically by gentrification, which may benefit
existing residents but only those who own their home. For the majority of people, the new prices are too
high, forcing many residents to move out, damaging community spirit. One may argue that gentrification is
beneficial to London, as it has created many new opportunities. However, this still neglects the issue of
affordability as these shops/services are targeted towards the affluent population. Poorer residents may have
difficulties finding shops which are suited to their income.
,Using examples, evaluate the need for regeneration in different places (12).
I think that regeneration is most needed in urban areas with high levels of economic and social
deprivation such as Canning Town, as opposed declining rural settlements such as Powys in Wales.
One reason why regeneration is most needed in highly deprived urban areas is because these areas
are more likely to have better economic opportunities. For example, a ward in Canning Town called Custom
House was previously one of London’s most deprived areas, with 37.6% of adult men unemployed.
However, with the stimulus of the Crossrail, the CATCH programme has resulted in the creation of new job
opportunities, new workspaces and offices and a new supermarket has opened. These opportunities have
boosted Custom House’s economy and would not have been available in declining rural settlements.
Another reason why regeneration is most needed in highly deprived urban areas is because there is
commonly derelict and brownfield land that can be used for the construction of new housing / retail / leisure
facilities. For example in Custom House, after the closure of the docks in the 1980s, there were plenty of old
warehouses and derelict buildings which could be demolished or renovated into new facilities. Repurposing
unused land in urban areas would be cheaper and more sustainable than regeneration in rural areas as lots of
the infrastructure already exists.
However, regeneration in declining rural areas can be more impactful because in urban areas, the
focus of regeneration is often based on property development as opposed to community need. For example,
government funding towards the regeneration of Custom House has been cut since 2010, with the focus now
on private sector investment. Local residents have resisted this change; in the London Tenants Federation,
members of the community have expressed dissatisfaction, explaining that housing availability and rents
have worsened. Powys, Wales is a declining rural area and the 2011 Census showed that 46.8% of their
communities were in the top 10% of deprivation in the country largely due to poor provision of services. If
regeneration were to take place here, there would be a larger focus on community needs as there is little
reason for focus on property development.
In conclusion, regeneration is most needed in urban areas with high levels of economic and social
deprivation because there are more economic opportunities as well as easier land use compared to rural
areas.
,
,
