100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
Previously searched by you
Summary Unit 2 Dynamic Places - Topic 4a Regenerating Places CASE STUDIES (Newham, St Austell, San Francisco Bay, The Rush Belt (Detroit) & Glasgow)R69,53
Add to cart
Summary Unit 2 Dynamic Places - Topic 4a Regenerating Places CASE STUDIES (Newham, St Austell, San Francisco Bay, The Rush Belt (Detroit) & Glasgow)
13 views 0 purchase
Course
Unit 2 - Dynamic Places
Institution
PEARSON (PEARSON)
Myy revision notes for the following case studies:
NEWHAM, ST AUSTELL, SAN FRANCISCO BAY, THE RUSH BELT (DETROIT) & GLASGOW.
These are the case studies that I wrote seperately from my Regeneration Revision Notes as they were a bit long.
CASE STUDIES FOR: UNIT 2 DYNAMIC PLACES - TOPIC 4A
REGENERATING PLACES
Contains Detailed Case Studies of:
NEWHAM
ST AUSTELL
SAN FRANCISCO BAY
THE RUST BELT USA
CASE STUDY: GLASGOW
NEWHAM
BACKGROUND INFO:
● Approved in 2005
● Part of the 2012 Olympic Regeneration
WHY DID NEWHAM NEED REGENERATING?
SOCIAL ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL
● Over 0.7% of infants died before ● 2002: over 20% of working adults ● Abandoned industrial sites
12 months received out of work benefits ● Lot of empty wasted space
● 100k residents have a non-uk over time ● Derelict land
passport ● 2006-2007: 11-15% working ● Brownfield sites
● 2008: over 40% of dependent adults didn’t have paid work
children in households were ● 2007: over 17% of resident
receiving out of work benefits employee were paid less than
● 2008: net household income £7.50 an hour by the place of
was less than £1500 residence
STRATEGIES USED:
● Private and Public Investors → funded the regeneration
● London Olympic Stadium → home to West Ham United football team
● Aquatic Centre and Olympic Park → opened to the public
● Athlete’s Village → 2800 new homes (40% affordable)
● New School built → Chobham Academy
● Created a Westfield → 10k jobs
● £17bn spent on transport improvements, inclu extensions to the Docklands Light
Railway
● New Tube station → 2nd most connected part of London
● New green spaces and wildlife habitats created
● stadiums were made of at least 25% recycled materials
, ● Cleaned the River Lea
KEY PLAYERS:
PLAYERS THEIR ROLE? SUCCESS?
INTERNATIONAL Chose to host the olympics in London YES: London 'raised the bar’
OLYMPIC COMMITTEE Helps generate revenue for olympics on regeneration providing a
‘legacy blueprint’
LONDON LEGACY Developing a new dynamic for E. LDN TO AN EXTENT: sustainable
DEVELOPMENT Creating new opportunities for locals lifestyle
CORPORATION Responsible for economic and urban development in 2mn visited Aquatics Centre
London 2 years after 2012
In charge of: sufficient housing, transport and jobs
OLYMPIC DELIVERY Responsible for building the facilities YES: building for athletes →
AUTHORITY Overspent the budget of £2.5bn (£9.3bn) homes
New public spaces
Infrastructure was still
generating money after the
Olympics
MAYOR OF LONDON Motivated and Promoted the Olympics YES:
Ken Livingstone/Boris Responsible for controlling transport and planning improved transport
Johnson decisions to benefit locals → £2mn for transport
projects
TFL Improved transport links ensuring they would make the YES:
area more popular and successful after the regeneration More cycling routes and
pathways
Extended DLR and Jubilee
line
Created more jobs
Benefitted surrounding areas
INVESTORS Provided funds for regeneration YES: helped area thrive
Offered locals jobs Helped local businesses
Private Investors: HSBC, Lloyds Bank
£12.5bn investments - allows projects NO: locals businesses
$100mn by Coca-Cola couldn't compete
Relocating businesses
TOURISTS International Olympic Visitors spends £920mn YES: many tourist attraction -
Avrg Tourist spend £1290 per day Westfield, Aquatics Centre
Some money stayed in the area → multiplier effect After 2012: Visitors increased
Promotes the area by 20%
LOCAL RESIDENTS Some volunteered → lowering cost of games NO: increasing house prices
Took up temporary jobs Forced relocation (Clays
Gave input into decision making Estate demolished - 430)
Some had to relocated Very few jobs created for
locals
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through EFT, credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying this summary from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller bvny. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for R69,53. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
