With reference to two contrasting urban areas, assess the role played by the process of
suburbanisation in creating patterns of economic and social wellbeing. [20 marks]
Suburbanisation refers to the outward expansion of urban areas engulfing surrounding villages and
towns in a larger urban area. It causes urban sprawl (the spreading of a city into green areas) along
with other impacts influenced by the demographic characteristics of an area. It can have both
positive and negative impacts, such as proving opportunity for development, however at the
expense of equality.
Suburbanisation plays a large role in creating patterns of economic inequality. Suburbanisation in
London caused high to middle income earners to move the outer boroughs such as Kensington and
Chelsea and left concentrations of low income in the inner eastern boroughs. Areas of high income
such as Chelsea are more desirable, with more open areas and less crime, at 82 crimes per 1000
people. This creates forces which exclude those who cannot afford property in the area. Conversely,
low income earners will try to leave disadvantaged areas such as Tower Hamlets, unless they do not
have the money to do so. Those born in less affluent areas are more likely to commit crime and face
substance abuse. This has created social inequality, leading to a decline in health and well-being for
those unable to move from the more densely populated and polluted areas. Therefore,
suburbanisation has played a large role in causing a disparity in social well-being across London.
However, arguably, gentrification is the largest factor influencing economic and social patterns.
Areas of London have been gentrified such as the Olympic park regeneration. The athletes’ village
has been relaunched as a housing estate, with 40% of the 2,818 new homes being ‘affordable’. The
whole Olympic Parkland has become five new neighbourhoods housing 8,000 people. Although the
claim that the housing will be partially ‘affordable’, compared to other areas of England (particularly
up North) the pricing is still very expensive. These houses are an unrealistic purchase for first time
buyers, and will lead to an increase of more wealthy inhabitants, contrasting from the surrounding
areas. These areas will also see improved social well-being, as with access to green space and
improved facilities, quality of life will increase. However, this only accessed by the wealthier,
encouraging an imbalance of economic and social well-being between areas. This is opposed by
areas of London that have not seen recent development, that are overcrowded and lack green space
as a result. Therefore, gentrification plays a larger role than suburbanisation in influencing both the
patterns of social and economic well-being, as the chosen site for redevelopment is indicative of the
affluence of the area.
Suburbanisation can also cause social well-being to decline in the suburbs, due to urban sprawl. This
is displayed in Mumbai. Dharavi had been recently targeted by investors due to the rich land value
after the northward expansion of Mumbai. This cause land prices to rise, after wealthy housing was
built around it. This has caused a reduction in green space for the inhabitants who once previously
occupied swamp marsh. Despite this area being home to thousands of micro-industries, including
garment-makers, tanners, welders, and potters (all of which produce over $650million annually),
living and working conditions remain very poor. It has the highest population density in the world at
over 300,000 per squared kilometre. This has put strain on local services, with on average each toilet
being shared by over 1000 inhabitants. Therefore, due to suburbanisation, the increase in
population has put strain on services, along with green land space, which would otherwise help to
improve social well-being. Instead, limited access to healthcare and education, cause a high density
of low social well-being in this region.
suburbanisation in creating patterns of economic and social wellbeing. [20 marks]
Suburbanisation refers to the outward expansion of urban areas engulfing surrounding villages and
towns in a larger urban area. It causes urban sprawl (the spreading of a city into green areas) along
with other impacts influenced by the demographic characteristics of an area. It can have both
positive and negative impacts, such as proving opportunity for development, however at the
expense of equality.
Suburbanisation plays a large role in creating patterns of economic inequality. Suburbanisation in
London caused high to middle income earners to move the outer boroughs such as Kensington and
Chelsea and left concentrations of low income in the inner eastern boroughs. Areas of high income
such as Chelsea are more desirable, with more open areas and less crime, at 82 crimes per 1000
people. This creates forces which exclude those who cannot afford property in the area. Conversely,
low income earners will try to leave disadvantaged areas such as Tower Hamlets, unless they do not
have the money to do so. Those born in less affluent areas are more likely to commit crime and face
substance abuse. This has created social inequality, leading to a decline in health and well-being for
those unable to move from the more densely populated and polluted areas. Therefore,
suburbanisation has played a large role in causing a disparity in social well-being across London.
However, arguably, gentrification is the largest factor influencing economic and social patterns.
Areas of London have been gentrified such as the Olympic park regeneration. The athletes’ village
has been relaunched as a housing estate, with 40% of the 2,818 new homes being ‘affordable’. The
whole Olympic Parkland has become five new neighbourhoods housing 8,000 people. Although the
claim that the housing will be partially ‘affordable’, compared to other areas of England (particularly
up North) the pricing is still very expensive. These houses are an unrealistic purchase for first time
buyers, and will lead to an increase of more wealthy inhabitants, contrasting from the surrounding
areas. These areas will also see improved social well-being, as with access to green space and
improved facilities, quality of life will increase. However, this only accessed by the wealthier,
encouraging an imbalance of economic and social well-being between areas. This is opposed by
areas of London that have not seen recent development, that are overcrowded and lack green space
as a result. Therefore, gentrification plays a larger role than suburbanisation in influencing both the
patterns of social and economic well-being, as the chosen site for redevelopment is indicative of the
affluence of the area.
Suburbanisation can also cause social well-being to decline in the suburbs, due to urban sprawl. This
is displayed in Mumbai. Dharavi had been recently targeted by investors due to the rich land value
after the northward expansion of Mumbai. This cause land prices to rise, after wealthy housing was
built around it. This has caused a reduction in green space for the inhabitants who once previously
occupied swamp marsh. Despite this area being home to thousands of micro-industries, including
garment-makers, tanners, welders, and potters (all of which produce over $650million annually),
living and working conditions remain very poor. It has the highest population density in the world at
over 300,000 per squared kilometre. This has put strain on local services, with on average each toilet
being shared by over 1000 inhabitants. Therefore, due to suburbanisation, the increase in
population has put strain on services, along with green land space, which would otherwise help to
improve social well-being. Instead, limited access to healthcare and education, cause a high density
of low social well-being in this region.
