Essay: Culture and London's Urban Form

This post contains an essay submitted as part of student course work for the Planning 100 "Introduction to Planning" course taught by me this year at Planning School, University of Auckland. The topic for the essay is: Comment on the influence of culture on the way urban settlement develops. Choose a city and describe how specific cultural ideas shape settlement patterns within the urban environment. The essay is about the evolution of London and is by Jessie Jia Qin Xie, who has kindly given permission for it to be published here.

London can be underlined as the urban mecca of Britain. Brown (1965) informs that the Romans established London as a livable-‘main junction’ to connect Britain to the Thames River. Eventually settlements sprawled concentrically whilst population and transportation intensified. The introduction of the industrial revolution and aristocracy drove the commercialism culture and social priorities were shifting away from its monarchal and religious ideas into self-driven pursuits of happiness. Nonetheless, urban settlement and displacement coincided with the changes in societal desires of mainly the upperclass.

The Victorian Era was the instigation of Plutocracy. Brown (1965) claims that this era was the beginning of London’s financial proliferation and liberation: This resulted in a ‘miserably unplanned’ London. Hall (2002) claims in 1780, London was the ‘fastest growing’ port town, this drew the poorer rural population and worker migrants into the city: these new urbanites lacked ‘social and technical necessities for urban-life’ as well as the skills and knowledge for the factory industries. This privation prolonged the social gap, created ghettos and compromised employment. The Free-trade movement and the development of larger port-dock drew in Irish immigrants whom wanted employment. Whitfield (2006) recognizes that Immigration was the catalyst for London’s population growth. By 1860, London housed more ‘Roman Catholics than Rome’ and ‘more Irish people than Dublin’. Little (2010) supports Whitfield’s statement stating that the city acted as a ‘magnet’ to the less fortunate because it was concentrated with opportunities. Many of the Irish alongside with dock workers settled in the East end of London, but due to the sway of industrialization; its seafaring-economy could no longer support the additional workforce and many workers relocated to the city in search of employment.

By the 19th century, London’s topography and society was driven by monetary forces of the wealthier class and prosperity became the dominant value of city inhabitants. I believe plutocracy fulfilled aristocratic cultures and enflamed the ‘slum culture’ during urban developments. Weightman & Humphries (1983) show a distinctive commercial transformation in the 1800’s where tradesmen and merchants had to be repositioned away from the city-center for financial offices and buildings, yet the poorer classes remained hopelessly stagnated in the city until demolitions for roads and railway impelled those outwards. Capital exponentially grew by the 1800’s, Brown(1965) comments as London grew outwards, buildings expanded ‘upwards in the center’ especially by the 1850’s, Weightman & Humphries (1983) explains the ‘power and wealth’ concentrated within the city also pushed poverty and it’s people out to the East End London, Healey(2002) calls this notion: Economic Planning. Aristocracy pursued ‘industrial capitalism’ and these ‘Capitalist Entrepreneurs’ fed the pecuniary culture; exploiting labor, creating competition and hierarchy. Weightman & Humphries (1983)also claims that the Late 1800’s saw a decline in employment within the East End ports , poverty struck and forced stagnated residents to settle in slums with diseases, drunkenness and violence. This was partially caused by the exponential growth of its State power, wealth and railways within the city and West end-London’s eviction of the under-employed community into the East end London. The rail-way network allowed residency to decentralize away from work-areas which essentially dispersed varying social classes in a segregated manner. Gentry’s success and prosperity evolved into a culture of exploitation and greed. The incompetent lower class was consequently overpowered by the elite and their previous cheaphousing and slums were demolished for railways, dock-expansions, new office buildings and new roads that benefited the London City and London West end-nobles. Nevertheless, the East end London had weak barriers of entry and powerless social systems which attracted not only the underprivileged of London’s Central Business District but the underprivileged of the whole Britain and worldwide. The Eastend settlements became more concentrated and housing-densities increase whilst the city-Centre intensified its slum-clearance to satisfy the metropolitans’ pursuit for a pristine society.

Eventually by the mid-19th century, London’s metropolis became less residential and highly concentrated with ‘commercial offices’ and warehouses. Brown(1965) identified ‘Brokers’ as the new Victorian- hierarches that had evidently replaced the lucrative businesses of tradesmen and merchants Hall (2002) also argues that aristocracy ‘dominated the growth’ and city-structures during the industrial revolution. He notifies the streets were developed for the ‘richer’ taste; decorous dwellings dominated ‘residential quarters’ and street arrangements were more geometrical to develop garden-squares. Whitfield reinforces that London provided greater ‘commercial opportunities and access to markets which was obliviously unequal and aimed for the higher society. The new railways relocated the city’s residents and eased traffic which resulted in a commercial and trade based metropolitan. London’s Central business District drew in buyers, sellers, bankers, entrepreneurs and aristocrats all coveting wealth: The new wealth shaped the cities social structure. The city was implicitly making way for the upper class, geographically mapping social classes; Weightman & Humphries (1983) identifies the growing professional wealth and consumption of the higher society where the city provided the majority of professional employment.

Although post 1815-London was prospering with wealth and capitalism, masses of poverty still lingered within the city. Weightman & Humphries (1983) notified the newly developed suburbs were not financially assessable and inconveniently displaced for the lower-working class. Newman (2007) claims that the poor occupied over half the urban population. It has appeared that the upper class treasured their social wellbeing that forced them to displace away from poorer communities. By 1870, Whitfield (2006) claims that 250,000 residents had departed from the city central, leaving remnants of ‘starvation, crime, disease, prostitution, drunkenness and disorder’ of the working class. West End-suburban settlement of the riches began to sprawl during the 1880’s, development of offices and ‘high-prestige’ attracted many companies and the suburb became an ‘opulent suburb’. Weightman & Humphries (1983) called it the ‘aristocracy playground’ where the elite created a ‘techno-burb’ of metropolitan characteristics that also provided seasonal shopping’ for luxury goods and entertainment: ‘coffee houses’ in particular became a cultural phenomenon for the fortunate clique.

Weightman & Humphries (1983) depicts that London City expanded from 2 centers: Westminster – Political power and the city- commercial power which was eventually linked by the urban sprawl of West end London. The growth of London’s population naturally spread the city outwards further away from the core-city. The early suburbs were settled within about 3km walking-distance from the city Centre to conveniently access work but with mobility enhancements such railways and underground networks, the expansion of London proliferated. Established settlements were noticeably concentrated by ‘fashionable’ residents with remnants of slums in hidden alleyways and corners. While the majority of the established suburbs were homes to the upper class, minor cases of poorer communities also settled in the outskirts such as Bretford; in comparison to the Bedford estate (wealthier area) unwanted activities such as brewery and slaughterhouses were allowed. This was more practical and accessible for the poorer-lifestyle. Although, cases of such suburban-social amalgamation was rarely seen as it degraded the whole estate. As a plutocratic solution, the poorer society was constantly displaced away from high society.

The patterns that evolve in a city’s urban settlement are primarily triggered by the growth of its population. A city’s façade and structure can be determined by the dominance of certain social ideas and cultures. Victorian and Edwardian London illustrates an era of social wellbeing and prosperity; newly developed from the enlightenment period and into a modern society. It can be concluded that it was specific cultural ideas of the upper-social classes that shaped the city’s reformation and allocation of socially-ranked suburbs. Whilst London began to flourish with wealth due to trade and finance, society also pursued a new money-driven culture that consequently exploited vulnerable communities which extended the social gap. This social gap continued to grow as London’s economy boomed and the British Empire expanded where eventually plutocracy determined the city’s social and physical structure. The power of wealth fuelled plutocracy to an extent that urban and suburban settlement was mostly manipulated to gentry desires: separated from lower social classes. These environments were extremely beneficial for the rich but extremely detrimental to the poor. The need for Upper-class identity could be seen as a catalyst for suburban sprawl. Hierarchy and the social values withheld by aristocrats physically separated the rich from poor as they settled in contrary ends if the city central.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abram, S. (2011) In: The idea of culture in Planning. Culture and Planning. England, Ashgate Publishing Limited, pp. 7-17

Anonymous (1999) The workshop of a new society. The Economist: Millennium Special Edition, pp15-16

Bassand, M. (1995) In: Urban Dynamics and Cultural Action. Culture and Neighbourhoods. Volume 1. Concepts and References. Strasbourg, Council of Europe Publishing, pp. 105-114

Bianchini, F. & Santacatterina. L (1997) In: Analytical themes and issues. Culture and Neighbourhoods. Volume 2. A comparative report. Strasbourg, Council of Europe Publishing, pp. 33-61

Betjeman, J. (1969) Victorian and Edwardian London from old photographs. Suffolk, B.T Batsford Limited

Beaumont, C. (1994) How superstore sprawl can harm communities-and what citizens can do about it. Washington DC, National Trust for historic preservation.

Brown, I. (1965) London an illustrated History by Ivor Brown. The Netherlands, Studio Vista Limited Hall, P (2002). In: The Origins: Urban growth from 1800 to 1940. P. Hall (ed.), Urban and Regional Planning, 4th edition. London, Routledge, pp. 11-25

Healey, P (2002) from Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in fragmented Societies. In G. Bridge & S. Watson (Eds), The Blackwell City Reader (pp.490-501). Oxford UK: Malden MA.

Mehling, M. (1988) London- A Phaidon Culture guide. Oxford, Phaidon Press Limited

Newman, K. (2007) Cultural capitals-Early Modern London Paris. New Jersey, Princeton University press.

Watson, S. (2006) In: Children’s Publics. Bridge, G(ed.). Questioning Cities. City Publics-The (dis) enchantments of urban encounters. USA, Rutledge, pp. 123-158

Walljasper, J. (2007) In: Where Everybody Knows Your Name. The Great Neighborhood Book. Canada, New Society publisher, pp. 34-45

Weightman, G. & Humphries, S(1983)The making of modern London 1815-1914 London, Sidgwick & Jackson

Whitfield, P. (2006) London- A life in maps. London, The British Library