The dissolution of empire has been critical to the growth of world cities Essay Example for Free

The dissipation of conglomerate has been exact to the growth of conception cities EssayKing (1990, page x) argues that the dissolution of conglomerate has been critical to the growth of world cities. How far does this fall in to capital of the United Kingdom?Modern patterns of development and growth consecrate been cast of causesd and influenced by the historical context of colonialism. at heart this context relationships between capitalist and pre-capitalist states or colonies helped forge a world economy, which would later lead to processes of globalisation and the current economic world order. Expansion in the world economy has been exacerbated by the freer flow of labour, goods, go and capital, which are features of the post-war, post-colonial world. King contends that these factors have been critical to the growth of world cities. (King, 1990 x) Urbanisation in many post-colonial states has been rapid, back up by wad with a greater number of nations compared with that of the colonial period. Indeed, many colonial nations have promptly followed their experience paths of industrialisation, instead of relying primarily on their export of natural resources such as timber their economies are becoming more diverse and are now linked inside a global mesh of trade and commerce that is enabling them to develop significantly. Existing at the heart of these states are primary cities, the administrative and economic centres for their spic-and-span global roles. introduction cities can be defined by their size, macrocosm and region they are usually the economic hub of the country in which they are seats of agency and dominate in the cultural arena with their iconic architectural distinctiveness and the importance of their historical roles. World cities lie at the junction between the world economy and the territorial national state. (Friedmann and Wolff, 1982) The urban center of capital of the United Kingdom fills these criteria perfectly, its nisuser power as the centre of the British Empire made capital of the United Kingdom the imperial metropolis of the world. H.G Wells set forth his impression of imperial London Its a great place. Immense.The richest t birth in the world, the biggest port, the greatest manufacturing town, the imperial city the centre of civilisation, the heart of the world. (Wells H.G, 190873) In this essay I will be discussing the significance of Kings argument with credit entry to the city of London. proud London will be introduced followed by a discussion of Londons decline and its patterns of ultramodern growth in order to ascertain how far Kings argument applies to the urban center. Different types of growth are included, barely emphasis is largely placed on the geographical and economic dimensions of Londons change and development.Londons imperial role was of the essence(p) to the expansion of its fortunes. Growth was inextricably linked with the colonial imperium and took place in several nonice areas during the colonial interlude. Londons Docklands represented a melting pot of colonial trade and commerce and were a critical facet of Londons (and Great Britains) economy that fed aspects of growth into the city centre and enabled it to thrive. In 1700 London handled 80% of the countrys imports and 69% of its exports. Trade with colonies in the Caribbean, Southeast Asia and the Indian Sub-Continent brought in tea, china, rice, tobacco and spices to the City and in 1799 the westernmost India Company began to build docks on the Isle of Dogs for over 600 ships. The importance of Londons Docklands lies in their influential role as conduit of wealth to the City and their symbolic nature as gate shipway to the pudding stone from its thriving commercial centre.Trade flourished, and London became a securities industry-driven commercial and financial hub for world trade. Manufacturers established themselves in the city centre and markets developed well-nigh th em supported by a growing number of banks. The city centre, therefore, was a series of markets and had few residential z unmatchables warehouses formed a prominent part of the landscape. Imperial London as well witnessed the growth of a market in stocks and shares located at the London Stock Exchange, and the establishment of large insurance companies such as Lloyds of London. Londons rising financial sector was represented by the Bank of England, which issued loans to juvenile colonies whilst giving security to the develop economy of Great Britain. The Citys role as a cultural centre was represented by big investment in museums and theatres and its dominant global position was expressed through monuments depicting colonial glories and exhibitions showcasing British power.Whilst there was growth of commerce alongside growth of the Citys financial sector, trends later developed in the form of rapid suburban growth aided by improved infrastructure in and around London. The London County Council (LCC) took on numerous housing projects peaking at 16,000 units that gradually expanded outwards form the City and were facilitated by improvements in communications, a tramway system and the electrification of the railways.As the immature century dawned, Londons position at the hub of the worlds largest empire gave work to half a million in the docks and in import-related occupations.London continued to grow between 1911 and 1939 its population increase from 7.25 to 8.73 million entirely in the outer ring beyond the LCC boundaries. (Porter, 199432) Urbanisation during this period was doubtless fed by the provisions created by empire, manifested in a country with a confident and specialise role in the world economy. In this system, London occupied the nodal point of a colonial urban system in which the economies of the metropolis and of such distant cities as Calcutta or Sydney and their respective hinterlands complemented one a nonher(prenominal) and were heavily interdependent. (Sheppard, 1998313)The testing of imperial Londons power by two world wars and the following dissolution of empire were to dramatically change the face of the City. These influences forced upon London the devastating effects of The Blitz and the processes of relinquishing power to the colonised nations, which had for so long been the source of Londons wealth. Inevitably Londons power began to decline and it was challenged with finding new ways to rebuild and to grow. London was sustained by surplus extracted from the colonial economy.With the demise of the colonial power, it lacked the economic base to adopt the social costs it generated. This resulted in problems of housing, a shortage of economic resourcesand a lack of the institutional infrastructure to draw with social, administrative and political needs. (King, 199045) Disappearance of hegemonic power systems took place, and the nation-state grew in significance as a unit of analysis. inwardly these nation st ates the seats of power were able to control their own destinies and determine growth within their own political boundaries this growth was facilitated by the freer flow of goods and capital through the nation states principal cities.The dissolution of empire and the effects of the Second World War led to a dramatic shift in the nature of Londons economy which ultimately affected its growth. The collapse of the manufacturing industries is a case in point, and from the mid-1950s people began to suffer cable losses in this area. Between 1971 and 1975 19 per cent of manufacturing jobs disappearedbetween 1978 and 1981 some 98,700 jobs in manufacturing and production were lost. (Coupland, 199226-27) Commerce likewise declined in central London and as unemployment rose a deprived inner city began to emerge.Londons problems were exacerbated not only by the housing problems caused by wartime damage, but by the closure of the docks, which had survived the war but could not survive the brea k-up of empire. The Empirehad long ensured Londons position as the worlds premier port . Independence, however, loosened old trading ties no longer was trade automatically routed through London, and new nations created trading preferences of their own, selling direct to America, Germany and Japan. During the 1960s population trade was halved, and London shrank as an entrepot. (Porter, 1994, 348) The closure of this critical dimension of Londons power represented symbolic as well as industrial and demographic decline.Moreover, while disintegration of manufacturing in London can be attributed to varying factors such as economic recession, the closure of the Docks are inextricably linked to the dissolution of the British Empire. The closure also affected activities linked to the Docklands transport, warehousing and food processing industries and systems were damaged and the Citys economic woes took shape in the form of rapid demographic change. As people moved outward from Greater Lon don the population began to decrease, from 8,600,000 in 1939 to 6,300,000 in 1991, a trend which continues today. The unemployment rate in the industrial areas of inner-London rose to 14 per cent in 1981, while a new trend of mass immigration from the Commonwealth changed the ethnical composition of Londons population and reflected Londons increasing diversity.The dynamics of Londons decline began to influence new processes of growth, both corporeal and economic. The new industries that grew up in London were connected to its role as an in brass city and there was an escalation in the significance of the cultural production sector. Tourism became a major source of income for London. Systems of land-use planning began to determine Londons physical growth, with the establishment of the Green Belt designed to fix an area of permanent countryside around the city in a policy to shift 1,033,000 Londoners and workplaces beyond its boundaries. This policy may have hindered urban sprawl, bu t it has also led to new types of growth in the form of an Outer environ, as towns on Londons periphery have had to conciliate and grow due to the population exodus from Greater London. Altogether, this Outer Ring added nearly one million to Londons population in the decade 1951-61, representing two-fifths of the net growth of the British population. (Hall, 197724)The growth of the Outer Ring coincided with various strategies by the LCC including the development of tower-block estates, a move that would later lead to rising social problems in the areas in which they were built. There continued to be a rise in office space in the inner city, as Londons financial sector remained strong alongside an influx of the middle classes into inner-suburb precincts. Consequently improvements in housing took hold mainly in areas such as Notting Hill, Paddington and Mile End. The 1960s were witness to the increased significance of London as a cultural centre and the City became an international heart of fashion, medical specialty and design. The City grew impressively from the 1960s, thanks to a combination of accident, expertise, language and geography. (Porter, 1994374)Redevelopment of London began with the comprehensive reconstructive memory of Tower Hamlets and in more recent times with the controversial redevelopment of the Docklands. The scale of redevelopment of the Docklands is characterised by the construction of Great Britains tallest building Canary Wharf. The area creates office space for 40,000 to 60,000 workers and symbolises the emergence of a new and modern London, one that is predominantly concerned with business and finance, and one that continues to exude success due to these sectors.From this discussion we can clearly see the importance of Londons imperial status in relation to its growth. Dissolution of empire has indeed been critical to the growth of world cities as they have become more freely uncovered to the processes of globalisation and have ha d greater control of their position in the world economy. This contention can be exemplified by the current position of world cities, such as New York and Singapore in the economic world order and the growth of occasion colonys capitals as they engage in directing their own futures, levels of trade and spatial organisation. London, however, is an exceptional case.As an imperial city it was largely dependent on its colonial territories for sustaining its own growth and power. Whereas eighty or ninety years ago, London was at the core of the world system, a generator of flop economic, political and cultural forces pushing out to the periphery, today it increasingly contends with equally powerful economic, political, and cultural forces pressing in from outside.(King, 199073) This change has increased the vulnerability of Londons economy. All separate world cities havehad to adapt to the internationalization of the world economy Paris and New York, for instance but what distinguish es London is the degree of its former imperial dominance, and the extent to which internationalization has brought foreign ownership, and hence dependence. (Sheppard, 1998359) Modern London now has to compete with other primary cities which have not had to undergo such a dramatic transition in their character and global position.Significant redevelopment has taken place in recent years and London continues to instance the world city. Its prominent role in Europe, its historical importance, imposing architecture, economic wealth and position as seat of power all contribute to make London one of the major cities of the world. The importance of dissolution of empire to many world cities is demonstrated by the increased flow of capital, labour, goods and services which have enabled them to grow.Imperial London already contained these processes which were fundamentally linked with its dominant global role, it is therefore, increasingly dependent and vulnerable within the new world econo mic order. However, the disintegration of its imperial role has not been completely negative to Londons growth, the City has just had to find time and method to help adapt and reposition itself within a new global system. Within this system London has now found a specific function as a global centre for banking and financial trading, which increasingly determine its international role and its patterns of modern growth.Bibliography.Coupland, Andy both Job an Office Job. And Docklands Dream or Disaster? In Thornley, Andy (ed) (1992) The Crisis of London. Routledge.Friedmann, J and Wolff, G. (1982) World City formation an agenda for research and action., International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 6.Hall, P (1977 2nd edition) The World Cities. Weidenfield and Nicholson, London. Ch 2.King, AD (1990) Global Cities Post-Imperialism and the Internationalization of London. Routledge.Porter, Roy (1994) London A Social History. Penguin, London.Shappard, Francis (1998) London A Histo ry. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Wells, H.G. (1908) Tono-Bungay. London Oldhams Press.