London Docklands Development

868 Words2 Pages

The London Dockland Development Corporation (LDDC) had a lot to do with the development of the London Docklands. Its aims included economically regenerating the area by drawing the attention of private investments, improving living conditions, and, of course, physically regenerate the environment of the Docklands.
Before the LDDC programme, housing was insufficient, and there was a huge lack of transport and facilities. Between 1970 and 1980, roughly 30,000 people had lost their jobs, and 50% of the Docklands was dilapidated. Now, the London Docklands employ or create over 1,000 jobs a month. The LDDC’s improvements to the land use include spending £7.7 billion in private sectors, creating and building 24,046 new homes, and spending roughly …show more content…

The first hypothesis, “the London Docklands will have a variety of functional land use” has been proven by the three sites I have analysed.
In Site 1, West India Quay, not only are there food and drink services and buildings with office and commercial use, but there are also health facilities, hair and beauty services, entertainment services and more. In Site 2, Canary Wharf, the most common service type would be both, food and drink and offices and commercial. There are also clothing services, health facilities, estate agents and many more around the area.
Finally, in Site 3, South Quay, the most common service was office and commercial, but the area also had buildings that were used for residents, entertainment purposes, health facilities and many more. The range of functions that the three sites provide is large, and it also shows how the regeneration of the Docks has improved the area.
The above shows that there have been many improvements to the London Docklands since its original purpose went out of business, and that the London Docklands have a wide range of functional land …show more content…

This is because the third site resulted in an environmental quality result in the negatives. The reasons for this may be due to the many construction sites in and around the area, and the air and noise pollution caused by the construction machinery, for example loud lorries and drilling. The first site had an environmental quality of 50% (16/32). The area had high qualities for design, but general qualities for litter, convenience of location of shops and services, and poor qualities of traffic and ease of parking. The area was generally well kept, and had many nice features, such as small ships with restaurants inside them.
The second site had the best environmental quality result of them all, achieving 75% with 24/32. This may be due to the possibility that Canary Wharf was one of the first sites to be regenerated. The area where we went through was well kept and clean and the roads had no traffic congestion. There was neither litter nor graffiti anywhere, and the roads were well maintained with paving. There were many shops, facilities or services nearby the main business/office buildings, and the outside had gardens and open space that were kept in good conditions. There were a couple of disadvantages, which included traffic noise and pollution due to

Open Document