Story of London Docklands
London Docklands - 1832
Docklands (8,5 milles2):
The development context varies
considerably across the 22 sq.
km.
History of growth and decline
History:
Growth was particularly fast in the
1696 - Howland Great Dock
19th century
Georgian docks:
1802 - West India
providing a large, secure, sheltered
1805 – London, East India
anchorage
1807- Surrey
1828 – St. Katherine
Victorian docks:
1855 – Royal Victoria
1880 – Millwall
1880 – Royal Albert
1921 - King George V
Tilbury docks
Surrey docks
1620 Mayflower
Regent's Canal, Limehouse
opened in 1801
London docks
East India docks
Wapping
Southwark borough
Actors
Area ownership
Port of London Public corporation 2,037 acres (36.6%)
Authority (PLA) 30,000 employees
100,000 men were dependent
GLC 1963 840 acres (15.1 %)
responsibility for strategic
transport planning
British Gas Public corporation 689 acres (12.4%)
Corporation
British Rail Public corporation 165 acres
five Dockland 1963 529 acres (9.5%)
boroughs 32 new London Boroughs
responsibility for local transport
matters
Production structure
1971 - manufacturing 46%, sea and port transport 25%
ship repair, heavy engineering, food processing, warehousing and
distribution.
Factors Actors Outcomes
emergence of the Complexity of planning system, NIMBY movement and
Greater London conservationist approach
Council (GLC) and One plan for London Docks was produced by the GLC
the London and Tower Hamlets; the PLA countered with another.
boroughs, as
planning
authorities
containerization PLA 1962
moving the port out of London to Tilbury
Free premisses PLA replacement by the storage purposes and the
warehouses
Lower demand for ship gradual closure of ports
transportation 1967
East India Docks
1968
St Katharine and the London Docks in, the Surrey
Docks
Reducment of the port employees:
1971 - 6,000 workers
1981 - 3000 workers
1966 and 1976 -
Dockland boroughs: Tower Hamlets, Newham,
Southwark, Lewisham, Greenwich lost some 150,000
jobs : 20% of all jobs in the area (13% in Greater
London, 2% in Great Britain)
Planning context
1963 - the Greater London Council (GLC) and the London boroughs, as
planning authorities high complexity of planning system, NIMBY
movement and conservationist approach of local communities several
competing plans.
1965 GLC started working on the strategic development plan
assumption that London's docks would continue to operate.
1969 The draft plan was published
proposed highway system. 1979 - Fleet Line (Backer St. – Charing
Cross)
Not going through Docklands
„Travers Morgan report“
Late 60s – recognition of the problem – the Secretary of State assign the study
1971-1973 - The Travers Morgan Study: first comprehensive assessment of
the area as a whole.
Scenarios population jobs
City New Town: 141,000 90,000
housing for sale
the Isle of Dogs: new shopping and office centre
East End Consolidated: 126.000 87,000
public rented housing
low priced private housing
Industrial jobs
Europa: 126.000 87,000
mini-tram rapid transit system
small service oriented centers
Thames Park: 85,000 69,000
small increase in population
mixture of office and industrial jobs
Waterside: 108,000 45,000
arranged housing around
water parks based
les jobs
Travers Morgan report
+ PLUS
large costs £450m - £800m
Docklands are „special case“ : special methods will be required in
organisation, in finance, in deployment of construction resources, and
in policy
Jubilee line alternatives
- MINUS
The study had frozen all development 1974 Docklands was bypassed by the
industry boom
Strong opposition from local authorities Development is halted
London Docklands Strategic Plan
Need to create independent organization with a strong mandate Docklands joint
committee 1974-1980.
Eight elected members of the GLC and eight elected members drawn from the five
Dockland boroughs
GLC agreed to delegate to the Committee most of their development control
functions
A lot of power based on the local level assumption that agreement is possible.
1976 - London Docklands Strategic Plan:
no place in the hierarchy of statutory plans
position between the Greater London Development Plan (Structure plan)
and local plans prepared by the boroughs
London Docklands strategy plan implementation: 1976 - 1981
focused on largely maintaining the status quo of the area - existing housing
pattern, employment structure
high proportion of housing renting (70%), local plans (70-80%) with owner
occupation 5% (37% owner occupation in Greater London as whole) no
investment into area
plans reality
New flats 6,000 1,300 (900 under
construction )
jobs 12,000 -8,500 + 800
public transportation line serving the Docklands + three roads> DNRR,
DSRR (Relieve roads) + East London River Crossing
Only DNRR accepted by local communities
London Docklands Strategic Plan: reasons of failure
Based only on public financement 1979 fiscal crises, governemnt
expendicture cuts looking for the lower cost alternatives to the Jubilee Line
Extension
Various motivations of key actors:
PLA, effort to keep the employment for all cost no clear plans for the closing
of production facilities, changing decisions
public corporations, boroughs try to maintain the status quo (own 50% of land)
habitants (low income, unemployed) local politics want to keep the production
and cheap living opposing the strategy
Where to start? – boroughs are in the conflict
Division of power:
Committee do not have land accuisition pover impossibility to implement plan
Docklands Strategic Plan: reasons of failure
1977 - White Paper Policy for the Inner Cities became a partnership area
(£15m per year)
Controversial use of money the filling of the many dock basins
Slow implementation of the the major transport proposals by GLC:
Situation in 1981
LDDC - London Docklands Development Corporation
New Urban Development Corporation New Town style developement
corporation, free from political influences - (LDDC) is bypassing local
government
Top mandate and responsibility: 12 members directly responsible to
the Secretary of State for the Environment not dependent of the
local elected bodies.
Land acquisition powers - ability to acquire land quickly from public
sector authorities directly offering to the investors
Enterprise Zone Authority responsible for the Isle of Dogs Enterprise
Zone
No planning!!! (planning is discredited) ad-hoc planning, non
strategic, no plans as document.
Corporation was not provided with plan making powers - the
responsibility for plan making remained with the three Docklands
Boroughs of Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Newham.
Only „development frameworks“ not statutory plans,
communication with the business
Financing: £60-70 million per annum
Development is based on private investment public money serves
as a attractors for private investment.
Principle of leverage:
1981 – 1986 279 mil public funds + 6x more private funds
Inspiration by Carter administration The Urban Developement
Action Grands (UDAG) (leveraging between 4.5 – 6.5 of private
investment),
Reviving the Docklands economy was central to the overall
regeneration task
Critical factors:
•Change of the perception of the area
•Enhance the accessibility
The Enterprise zones
Not frighten the investor !!! No quality requirements of the design, no
regulation
The Enterprise zones
•open to imigration of entrepreneurs and capital
•minimum regulation and bureaucracy (partly realized)
•exception from the national legislation (not realized)
•tax concessions
Conservation areas
Postmodern architecture development is based on historical heritage
protection
Docks taken as a heritage not infilled
116 buildings were added to the statutory list of Buildings of Architectural
and Historic Interest
LDDC Regeneration plans
Development frameworks: process
land-use planning for minimum coordination of private
investment simple and flexible plans to allow for the
changing economic and social demands
Development frameworks
First phase
Goal to keep the industry and offer a good location new industrial park
(20ha) near Cody Road
Results:
•400 new companies
•8000 new jobs
•4000 new homes + 10 000 under construction
•construction of new light rail system
Canary wharf
1982 - The Isle of Dogs Enterprise Zone
Early commercial development activity was concentrated in the Enterprise
Zone with the provision of low density business and warehouse units.
shortage of suitable buildings and development sites in the City
1987 – Olympia & York developers - Canary Wharf scheme. Canadian group:
office complex: 0.9 million sq. m
Office complex 46000 office jobs
Need to rebuild transportation system upgrade the initial railway + extend to
the City at Bank.
Increase its capacity to over 12,000 passengers per hour in each direction,
over 7 times the initial figure.
PPP
O&Y to make a substantial contribution (extension of DLR: 40% of the total
cost, Jubilee Line extension the contribution was £400 million)
design guidelines for the area Gordon Cullen was
commissioned to assess the Isle of Dogs and together with the
LDDC prepared design guidelines
Housing
Surrey Docks, the Isle of Dogs and finally Wapping
House builders on LDDC land had to give priority to local residents 40% of
new housing was affordable to people on average wages
priority was given to tenants of the Docklands boroughs to buy new homes
50% of newcommers from neighbourhooding boroughs
Transportation situation in 1982
Docks were selfsufficient no connection with the city centre
•Docklands Strategy Plans transportation plans were not implemented
•oposition of local communities
•internal Dock Estate roads were inadequate for development purposes public
•transport was non-existent – developement of Jubilee line halted
Transportation investment before land developement, it is impetus for
further developement uncertainty around the future transportation demand
piecemeal approach + contribution of private sector
•Bus routes connecting the area with London Underground (between Mile End
and the Isle of Dogs)
•1987 - Docklands Light Railway (Hill - Island Gardens – Stratford)
•1993 - Docklands Highways
•1998 - Jubilee Line Extension
Dockland – transportation map 1980
The Red Brick roads
Early proposals were focused on the Isle of Dogs Enterprise Zone
The Red Brick roads: basic network of 7.3 metre roads
serve all the major sites in the Enterprise Zone
Assumption: maximum potential development considered feasible for the
Island was a low density business park.
The Docklands Clipper (1984 - 1989)
Shuttle bus (Mile End – Isle of Dogs)
In 1984
Passengers 5,000 12,000
Frequency 15 5 min.
Docklands Light Railway (DLR)
Jubillee line extension 1992 – 1998
Docklands highways
24 km new or improved high capacity roads - from Limehouse in the
west to the Royals
Opposition from the local residents prevented by applying the
Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO)
London City Airport
private sector airport in the Royal Docks opposed by residents
1987 – small planes
1992 – regional jets
Dockland – transportation map 2000
Conclusion:
•Docklands Strategy Plan:
•Exclusively based on public investment
•Bad assumptions of demand for industrial production
•maintained a low wage economy
•Underestimation of total amount of costs
•The effert to solve everything at once
•To much actors with diverse motivations agreement impossible
Unexpected events:
•Fiscal crises cut of public expendictures no extension of Jubilee
underground line
Reaction:
New Town style developement corporation, free from political influences