Escrito por estudiantes que aprobaron Inmediatamente disponible después del pago Leer en línea o como PDF ¿Documento equivocado? Cámbialo gratis 4,6 TrustPilot
logo-home
Document preview thumbnail
Vista previa 2 fuera de 11 páginas
Resumen

Summary Unit 2 Dynamic Places - Topic 4a Regenerating Places CASE STUDIES (Newham, St Austell, San Francisco Bay, The Rush Belt (Detroit) & Glasgow)

Document preview thumbnail
Vista previa 2 fuera de 11 páginas

Myy revision notes for the following case studies: NEWHAM, ST AUSTELL, SAN FRANCISCO BAY, THE RUSH BELT (DETROIT) & GLASGOW. These are the case studies that I wrote seperately from my Regeneration Revision Notes as they were a bit long.

Vista previa del contenido

CASE STUDIES FOR: UNIT 2 DYNAMIC PLACES - TOPIC 4A
REGENERATING PLACES


Contains Detailed Case Studies of:
NEWHAM
ST AUSTELL
SAN FRANCISCO BAY
THE RUST BELT USA
CASE STUDY: GLASGOW




NEWHAM


BACKGROUND INFO:
● Approved in 2005
● Part of the 2012 Olympic Regeneration


WHY DID NEWHAM NEED REGENERATING?
SOCIAL ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL

● Over 0.7% of infants died before ● 2002: over 20% of working adults ● Abandoned industrial sites
12 months received out of work benefits ● Lot of empty wasted space
● 100k residents have a non-uk over time ● Derelict land
passport ● 2006-2007: 11-15% working ● Brownfield sites
● 2008: over 40% of dependent adults didn’t have paid work
children in households were ● 2007: over 17% of resident
receiving out of work benefits employee were paid less than
● 2008: net household income £7.50 an hour by the place of
was less than £1500 residence


STRATEGIES USED:
● Private and Public Investors → funded the regeneration
● London Olympic Stadium → home to West Ham United football team
● Aquatic Centre and Olympic Park → opened to the public
● Athlete’s Village → 2800 new homes (40% affordable)
● New School built → Chobham Academy
● Created a Westfield → 10k jobs
● £17bn spent on transport improvements, inclu extensions to the Docklands Light
Railway
● New Tube station → 2nd most connected part of London
● New green spaces and wildlife habitats created
● stadiums were made of at least 25% recycled materials

, ● Cleaned the River Lea


KEY PLAYERS:
PLAYERS THEIR ROLE? SUCCESS?

INTERNATIONAL Chose to host the olympics in London YES: London 'raised the bar’
OLYMPIC COMMITTEE Helps generate revenue for olympics on regeneration providing a
‘legacy blueprint’

LONDON LEGACY Developing a new dynamic for E. LDN TO AN EXTENT: sustainable
DEVELOPMENT Creating new opportunities for locals lifestyle
CORPORATION Responsible for economic and urban development in 2mn visited Aquatics Centre
London 2 years after 2012
In charge of: sufficient housing, transport and jobs

OLYMPIC DELIVERY Responsible for building the facilities YES: building for athletes →
AUTHORITY Overspent the budget of £2.5bn (£9.3bn) homes
New public spaces
Infrastructure was still
generating money after the
Olympics


MAYOR OF LONDON Motivated and Promoted the Olympics YES:
Ken Livingstone/Boris Responsible for controlling transport and planning improved transport
Johnson decisions to benefit locals → £2mn for transport
projects

TFL Improved transport links ensuring they would make the YES:
area more popular and successful after the regeneration More cycling routes and
pathways
Extended DLR and Jubilee
line
Created more jobs
Benefitted surrounding areas

INVESTORS Provided funds for regeneration YES: helped area thrive
Offered locals jobs Helped local businesses
Private Investors: HSBC, Lloyds Bank
£12.5bn investments - allows projects NO: locals businesses
$100mn by Coca-Cola couldn't compete
Relocating businesses

TOURISTS International Olympic Visitors spends £920mn YES: many tourist attraction -
Avrg Tourist spend £1290 per day Westfield, Aquatics Centre
Some money stayed in the area → multiplier effect After 2012: Visitors increased
Promotes the area by 20%

LOCAL RESIDENTS Some volunteered → lowering cost of games NO: increasing house prices
Took up temporary jobs Forced relocation (Clays
Gave input into decision making Estate demolished - 430)
Some had to relocated Very few jobs created for
locals

Información del documento

Nivel de Estudio
Tema
Subido en
15 de septiembre de 2023
Número de páginas
11
Escrito en
2021/2022
Tipo
Resumen
$4.80

¿Documento equivocado? Cámbialo gratis Dentro de los 14 días posteriores a la compra y antes de descargarlo, puedes elegir otro documento. Puedes gastar el importe de nuevo.
Escrito por estudiantes que aprobaron
Inmediatamente disponible después del pago
Leer en línea o como PDF

Vendido
0
Seguidores
0
Artículos
3
Última venta
-




Por qué los estudiantes eligen Stuvia

Creado por compañeros estudiantes, verificado por reseñas

Calidad en la que puedes confiar: escrito por estudiantes que aprobaron y evaluado por otros que han usado estos resúmenes.

¿No estás satisfecho? Elige otro documento

¡No te preocupes! Puedes elegir directamente otro documento que se ajuste mejor a lo que buscas.

Paga como quieras, empieza a estudiar al instante

Sin suscripción, sin compromisos. Paga como estés acostumbrado con tarjeta de crédito y descarga tu documento PDF inmediatamente.

Student with book image

“Comprado, descargado y aprobado. Así de fácil puede ser.”

Alisha Student

Preguntas frecuentes