Paper 2 - Urbanisation: London Flashcards
urbanisation
an increase in the proportion of people living in urban areas compared to rural areas
urbanised
countries have over 50% of the population living in urban areas
megacity
city with a population over 10mill
natural change
difference between birth rate and death rate
migration
movement of people from one place to another
-to work/live
immigration
into a country from another country
Domestic migration
from one area of a country to another
economic migrant
moves to seek work
refugee
flees for war or persecution
urban sprawl
spread of urban areas into rural
brownfield site
area of land previously used/built on
- must be decontaminated before built on
greenfield site
has never been built on
urban greening
process of increasing and preserving open space like parks
in urban areas
Push factors to leave rural
- main work is poorly paid (farming/factory)
- fewer services
- lack of infrastructure
- less access to running water/electricity
Pull factors into urban
-more nearby services
- more entertainment
- higher paid jobs
- previous movement of friends
London’s social importance
- top unis
- attract international and national students
- research facilities
- home to UK’s media companies = more entertainment
London’s cultural importance
- attract youth
- shoreditch night life
- tourism = landmarks
- reinvestment to maintain toursim
London’s tourism figures
40 mil international tourists
12 mil national 2019
London’s economic importance
- largest stock market
- jobs in finance/IT = 25% of GDP
- HQ for international businesses
- european HQ trade w/o tax = more trade
London’s work force figure
85% in tertiary or quaternary
growth
increase in population size and impacts
character
refers to culture of an area
Impacts of international migration: growth of london negatives
- pressure on services
- oversubscribed schools
- shortage of housing = higher prices
- rogue landlords - unsuitable living
Impacts of international migration: growth of london positives
- bridge skills gap
- more employees
- high paid jobs = more tax
- net gain of London’s economy
positive impacts of international migration: character of london
-large cultural mix
- encourages tolernace in schools
- restaurants
- inclusive safer community
Impacts of international migration: growth of london negative
ethnic segregation
- racism
Bridge skill gap figures
- 28% of GPs qualified outside of UK
- 65% of eu migrants arrive with degrees
gentrification
when welathier ppl move into a low income area
-imporve housing as more tax is paid
-lower income inhabitants are displaced
Shoreditch before gentrification
-heavily bombed after WWII
- hub for secondary texties
- working industries + working class
- low cost housing
- young ppl moved in = high demand
- high rent
shoreditch after gentrification
young profs
= improves services
- attracts businesses
- more leisure activities
- refurbished buildings
Positive impacts for Domestic migration
- more tax = more services
- better infrastructure
- creates jobs = attracts businesses
- higher demand for housing = nicer flats
Negative impacts for Domestic migration
-displacement
- creates local tension
- fewer cheap goods sold
- rents are higher
- older gen lack qualifications to access tech sector
integrated transport system
- involves combining diff modes of transport
-maximise ease and efficiency and cost
Elizabeth line
pros of Elizabeth line
-reduces journey times = 90mph
- increased capacity and frequent
- raise property values as close to station
- brings more ppl to london for work
-further regeneration
-improves access for disabled
pros of green spaces
- trees absorb PM and co2
- reduce risk off floods
- habitat for wildlife
- leisure
- grow their own food
Queen Elizabeth park - urban greening
-13 000 trees
- wildflowers boom and attract insects (food webs)
- rivers cleaned = tourism see fish
- flood management strategy
- leisure
Queen Elizabeth park - urban greening limitations
- traffic congestion
- may be built on
- pressure to develop industry there
Kensington + Chelsea and Newham: Housing
- K+C have higher value homes
- attracts higher income residents = more lavish
-Newham = terraced derelect flats - rent is higher in K+C
-ownership is equal
Kensington + Chelsea and Newham: Housing - reasons for differences
-more tax paid to council so more investment
- overcrowding
- poor quality = illness
Kensington + Chelsea and Newham: Health
- life expectancy is much lower in newham
- due to obesity, lack of exercise
-longer working hrs and less pay in newham so fast food is eaten (364 compared to 100 shops)
-air quality is poor
-private healthcare
Kensington + Chelsea and Newham: Health impacts
- childhood obesity
- more open spaces = better air quality + more space for exercise
Kensington + Chelsea and Newham: Education
-more private schools
-better grades in K+C
-smaller class sizes
-better funding for trips and resources
Causes of housing crisis
-unaffordable
-high demand
pros of urban sprawl waltham abbey
- houses will be built on environmentally poor land - protects biodiversity
- higher quality of life = less noise pollution
-reduces age segregation - more tax from young profs
cons of urban sprawl
- higher house prices
- ancient woodland cleared for new housing
- driving = more air pollution
- commuter = more congestion
-newer builds are less attractive
Derelict sites
- caused by deindustrialisation
- contaminated with heavy metals/chemicals
- plants can’t grow = fewer consumers
-decline in biodiversity
Air pollution
-nitrogen dioxide from cars
- tall builds trap pollutants
- post brexit less pressure to reduce emissions
- smog + acid rain
- endangers aquatic life
-PM = premature deaths
waste disposal
-large amounts of domestic/industrial waste
- not recycled
- landfill site increase
- plastics release toxins = contamination yrs to recover
- rubbish is burnt
= co2
Why was Stratford in need of regeneration
- factories into brownfield sites
- highest unemloyment
- poor housing
- river lea = polluted
- fly tipping
Stratford regeneration project: housing
- 500 homes demolished
- athletes’ village into housing
- 2800 homes created
- 8000 homes planned
- half are private half for affordable housing
- rents are higher due to gentrification
Stratford regeneration project: Services/leisure
- olympic park = playground
- stadium = football clubs
- UCL campus
- train station links
Stratford regeneration project: employment
- new local businesses
- 35 small ones
- retail jobs for low skilled workers
- East media centre = more higher paid jobs
- tech jobs
Stratford regeneration project: environment
- 10 hectares of open space
- nature trails
- toxic wasteland decontaminated
- £9 bn on decontaminating brownfield
- 250 species of insects
-60 species of bird
-13 000 trees
Stratford regeneration project: cons housing
- 500 homes demolished
- estate protested
- higher prices forces locals out
Stratford regeneration project: cons socially
- allotments = good community spirit
- destroyed
Stratford regeneration project: cons employment
- local businesses forced out
- 5000 jobs lost
- ## unemployment or low skilled workers
sustainable urban living
- minimal damage to environment
- secure employment
- strong community
Factors of a sustainable community - East village
- range of services
- mixture of homes to buy and rented
- communal spaces
- close transport links
- green roofs
-energy efficient homes
Santander cycle scheme - social
-lower levels of obesity
- reliable transport
- more ppl on st makes it safer
- daily exercise
- better mental health
-reduces sick leave
-improved access to services
Santander cycle scheme - economic
- boosts tourism
- for every £1 spent on cycling, £4 on local economy
Santander cycle scheme - environmental
- reduced co2
-reduces air pollution
Santander cycle scheme - limitation
safety on rd
-weather
-accidents
ULEZ
policy designed to reduce congestion and air pollution in London
ULEZ pros
- money raised is invested in transport
- some ppl are exempt (disabled)
- NO2 levels reduced
-cleaner vehicles used - PM has decreased
ULEZ cons
- low income ppl own older cars which don’t meet requirements
- impacts have been exaggerated
- smaller companies have less customer
- cameras have been vandalised
