To what extent has the regeneration of the London Docklands been successful?

enquiry

To what extent is the regeneration of the London Docklands successful?

Why was it a suitable topic and location?

• The London Docklands has been extensively regenerated since the 1980s, as we know from studying it in the topic of urban issues

• London is in close proximity to our school; we were easily able to go there and back within one day. London itself is easy to get around

• We were able to collect both primary and secondary data to help us answer our question

Risks and how we reduced them

• Getting lost - we listened to and followed teachers' clear instructions about where to go and where not to go, we were equipped with phones and maps in case we got lost or needed to find our way around - mobile communication with teachers and other members in our group.

• Sunburn/dehydration/overheating due to hot weather - we wore and reapplied suncream, as well as wearing appropriate clothing such as hats to prevent the risk of sunburn. We made sure to stay hydrated by drinking plenty of water to prevent overheating.

Field sketch as a source of primary data, effectiveness

• While at Canary Wharf we drew our surroundings and annotated the drawings, allowing us to observe buildings in the area, green space, and other aspects of the environment that may not be easily shown in a photograph

• however we only did this for Canary Wharf

• qualitative data - analysis of this data is subjective - quantitative data may be more useful as it gives us objective answers

• somewhat effective for assessing aspects of Canary Wharf's environment, however since we only did one site we cannot compare with another site so we cannot apply this information to our overall evaluation of the London Dockland's environment - did not help us a lot with answering our question.

• Could have been improved by doing another field sketch at the O2 and comparing the two sites, giving us an overall impression of the London Docklands

Environmental quality survey as a source of primary data, effectiveness

• We observed and assessed various aspects of Canary Wharf and the O2's environment (litter, traffic, variety of buildings), 1 being the best, 5 being the worst

• allowed us to see the extent to which the areas' environments have benefitted and also sufferred due to the urban change it has experienced and so answer our question.

• Quantitative data - gave us numerical data which can be analysed and compared with one or more sites however it is somewhat subjective - overall effective and definitely helped us answer our question

• Could be improved by returning to the site at a different time of day or year, maybe with different weather, and carry this survey out again

Questionaires as a source of primary data, effectiveness

• We asked several people at both Canary Wharf and the O2 why they were visiting the Docklands, if they lived in the area and if not, where they travelled from, whether or not they feel that housing in the Docklands is affordable and that there is a strong community, which forms of public transport they use and whether or not they think the regeneration of the London Docklands has been successful

• Qualitative data - subjective, many people had very differing opinions

• Overall effective for answering our question and as a data collection method, however many people had varying opinions because some questions were very open and subjective, so information we gathered could be difficult to evaluate - some people were unsure about how to answer the questions

• Reliability could have been improved by increasing the sample size, or returning to the site at a different time of day or year, maybe with different weather, and carry this survey out again

• Accuracy could have been improved by redesigning the questionaire by asking different, more specific questions that would give us clearer results

London Docklands Museum as a source of secondary data, effectiveness

• We gathered and recorded information about how the Docklands have changed since being regenerated.

• Effective helping us answer our question as we were able to obtain plenty of specific, factual information about the Docklands from an objective source (quantitative data)

• However some of our information lacked the nuance you can get from primary data sources, so this alone would not be the best source of data in order to get a full understanding of the Docklands as an area and so be able to answer our question to the best of our ability

• Not all information was relevant to our question - maybe not as effective as we could have been as we had to spend time searching for more useful information

• improve by asking people about the main topics displayed in the museum

Google Earth as a source of secondary data, effectiveness

• We found and observed areas of the London Docklands on Google Earth. There are also photos of the same areas of the Docklands available online, meaning that we can compare places in the Docklands today to how they looked before regeneration in the 1980s

• Quite effective for helping us answer our question as it could give us an idea about the specific changes that have been made to areas in the Docklands, even in areas we weren't able to visit (we could get an impression of the Docklands as a whole rather than just the two areas we visited), however looking at photos online is not as helpful as seeing them in real life

• Could be improved by, if possible, finding photos of areas at multiple angles and observing those - photos are 2D so we cannot always see all the main aspects of an area in just one.

information we gathered using field sketch of Canary Wharf

• Variety of restaurants available

• Variety of other buildings

• The area was easy to get around, with a bridge across the River Thames

• Easy to navigate - convenient for tourists/newcomers - easy to find the DLR and shops as they are all lined up on pavements either side of the Thames

• The area was fairly aesthetically pleasing, with greenery in several places and even decorative lighting

• Fairly clean, however there was the occasional piece of gum or cigarette left on the pavement, and we observed a few pieces of litter that had been thrown in the River Thames

• Safe - barrier between the pavements and the Thames

• Many people were in the area but it was definitely not bustling or crowded

• Accessible - benches for people to sit on, bridge over the Thames is wheelchair-friendly

• No motor vehicles - no air/noise pollution created by vehicles in this way - made area more pleasant

information we gathered using the environmental quality survey - Canary Wharf

• Variety of buildings - 2 out of 5 - many different buildings (Museums, shops, restaurants) however there was one particular area where we found several restaurants, decorated similarly, all in a row

• Access - 2 out of 5 - easy to get to however we did not see lots of parking spaces in the area we visited

• Dog mess - 1 out of 5 - we did not see any

• Gum and cigarettes and general litter - 3 out of 5 - we definitely saw some, particularly litter in the river Thames, however it was not enough to make the area veryoffputting

• Inclusivity - 1 out of 5 - the bridge over the Thames to access buildings on the other side of the river was wheelchair-friendly, most of the area was smooth

• Level of interest - 3 out of 5 - many shops and restaurants however there was not a lot for children to do - may only appeal to adults

• Traffic and noise - 2 out of 5 - quite a few people in the area however they were quiet and polite. Main area for the shops and buildings we visited was quiet and had no traffic, however there were quite a few cars outside the Docklands museum

information we gathered using the environmental quality survey - the O2

• Variety of buildings - 1 out of 5 - many different shops and cafes/restaurants, O2 arena for concerts

• Access - 1 out of 5 - large car park for cars and coaches

• Dog mess - 1 out of 5 - it was indoors so can't really be compared with Canary Wharf

• Gum and cigarettes and general litter - 1 out of 5 - didn't really see any, smoking is prohibited inside the O2 so it was unlikely there would be cigarettes

• Inclusivity - 1 out of 5 - lifts across all levels for wheelchair users, otherwise most use escalators

• Level of interest - 1 out of 5 - concerts, shops, restaurants - there is something for everyone to enjoy no matter their age or personal preferences

• Traffic and noise - 1 out of 5 - despite the area being popular and the large car park available, there was very little traffic. There were quite a few people inside but it was still quiet and not too busy

environmental quality survey comparison between Canary Wharf and the O2

• The mean score for Canary Wharf was 2.25 out of 5 whereas it was 1.25 out of 5 for the O2; the O2 has the better environmental quality according to our survey

• The O2 had a better variety of buildings, less noise, less litter, had a higher level of interest.

• Both scored 1 out of 5 for both inclusivity and dog mess

• It may be unfair to compare Canary Wharf and the O2's amount of litter, as one of the things we observed was cigarettes, which are prohibited in the O2 since it is indoors.

information we gathered using questionaires - Canary Wharf

• 2 out of 5 of the people were there that day for tourism, 1 out of 5 were there for shopping, 2 out of 5 were there for work, one of those told us that he is a lawyer

• 1 out of 5 travelled here from the Netherlands (visiting), 1 out of 5 came from Stanmere, 3 out of 5 live in or a short walk from the Docklands area

• 3 out of 5 said the Docklands' housing was affordable, 2 out of 5 said it wasn't for everyone and some specific areas can be particularly expensive

• 1 out of 5 was unsure about the community in the Docklands, the other 4 said there are many different strong communities

• All 5 people said the regeneration of the Docklands was successful because its appearance, bars, clubs, shops, restaurants have improved and it is less violent and dilapidated and more safe

information we gathered using questionaires - the O2

• 2 out 5 there for shopping, 1 out of 5 there for work, 2 out of 5 there for tourism

• 3 out of 5 lived in the Docklands, 1 lived in Reading and another in Essex

• 4 out of 5 thought that housing in the Docklands was affordable, one was not sure (not from the area)

• 4 out of 5 felt there is a strong community in the Docklands, particularly in the workplaces, one thought the community was not strong other than in certain jobs

• All 5 said the regeneration of the Docklands has been successful - more vibrant area, people are enjoying it more, business is better

information we gathered using the London Docklands Museum

• The DLR being built in 1984 reduced dependence in cars and so reduced air pollution

• Local routes around each of the former dock estates were constructed - there is now a high-speed link between the Enterprise Zone and the City - reduced traffic congestion

• 301 homes have been refurbished

• Between 1981 and 1988, the percentage of owner-occupied homes in the Docklands rose from 5% to 38%

information we gathered using Google Earth

• There is much more green space in the London Docklands today than there was in the 1980s

• Areas have been rebuilt and now have modern, "done-up" buildings, more aesthetically pleasing - great improvement from the many derelict buildings pre-regeneration

• Greater variety of colourful, attractive buildings than there were in the 1980s

Methods of transport regularly used by people questioned in Canary Wharf - pie chart

• 42.4% of people used the London Underground

• 34.1% of people used the DLR

• 16.5% of people used the bus

• 2.4% of people used the Thames Clipper

• Only 1.1% of people used a car

• 3.5% of people used another method of transport

Pie chart as a method of data presentation

• Displayed the methods of public transport used by people questioned in Canary Wharf

• Easy to construct, easily combined data with multiple different people

• Easy to understand data

• However it can be overly simplistic, and we only used it for one out of many questions we asked

• Overall helpful and effective but we could have done more of these for different questions

Radar graph as a method of data presentation

• Displayed the scores out of 5 for the environmental quality survey in both the O2 and Canary Wharf

• Easy to produce using IT, easy to combine data with other people

• Both sets of data can be presented on the same graph, making it easy to compare the two results

• Overall helpful and effective

Conclusion

• Overall, the regeneration of the London Docklands has been successful to a large extent, despite the area still having some flaws.

• Field sketch showed the overall good appearance and facilities in Canary Wharf

• Environmental quality survey showed there are a great variety of buildings, the areas are generally clean but still must be maintained as some litter was found in both Canary Wharf and the O2

• Questionaires showed the Docklands attracted people from various places for various purposes - attractive area with lots to do, many used public transport reducing traffic congestion, and regeneration has improved the character of the area, however the Docklands are not affordable for everyone at the moment

• Google Earth showed the great improvements in appearance and features of the Docklands

• The London Docklands Museum gave us evidence of air pollution and traffic congestion reducing since regeneration, making the environment more pleasant, and that more people are able to own houses in the Docklands nowadays, with 301 houses being refurbished - quality of homes has improved