London docklands case study - AQA A level geography

Social - successes

20,000+ new homes created

More facilities built in the area

Luxury flats attract more economically active to the area

Economic - successes

Money in the economy increases as more people are paying taxes

cafes turned into wine bars

Area was economically prosperous buisnesses like the sun, ITV and the telegraph moved

Environmental - successes

more trees planted

Area - less derelict = looks more modern

trees = less flooding

Parks and green areas created

Political - successes

Brought in multi-national investement

government spent £441 million on docklands

brought in £4.4 billion in private investment

Social - failures

conflict between locals + profesionals

no jobs for locals as they are unskilled and cannot do the jobs available

Economic - failures

prices on basic foods went up = locals couldn't afford it - bread prices tripled

Environmental - failures

increased car usage leading to more CO2 emmisions + pollution

Descruction of habitats

New city airport = increased pollution

Land destroyed for construction of jubilee railway

Political - failures

No locals were interviewed ab the development process

Local councils who have been elected should decide about investment, not UDC's

Gentrification

The rehabilitation of deteriorated, often abandoned, housing of low-income inner-city residents.

when was it set up

1981

4 main aims

ensure housing was available to all

encourage development of buisness and industry

bring land and buildings back

create an attractive environment

sucesses

by 1988 a network of new and improved roads and comprehensive drainage system- suggests the sanitation and transport has improved

tackled widespread multiple market failures which prevailed in 1981
failures were adressed and have been alleviated by training projects, improvements in accessability in and out of the docklands and creation of new jobs

over 24000 housing units and 80,000 jobs attracts people and money

new schools and colleges were built and older schools were refurbished

weaknesses

conflict betwen origional and new residents as locals dislike LDDC building luxury apartments rather than affordable homes

jobs do not match work skills of the locals and only 13% of the incoming firms are locals, 13,000 jobs were lost from the traditional sectors since 1981 and 1988 52,000 residents were unemployed

critisism from local community groups and organisations for its lack or democracy, local consultation and community

reduction in community spirit with newcomers not mixing with the old residents.