Lesson video

Hi there, my name is Chloe, and I'm a geography field studies tutor.

This lesson is called Urban Change over time, and it's part of the urban Change unit of work.

We're going to be looking at what happens when people move in and out of urban areas and what impact that can have both on the population and on the spatial size of the city or town itself.

Let's begin.

By the end of this lesson, you will be able to analyse how and the reasons why urban areas change.

There are some key terms to think about first of all, suburbanization is the movement of people from more central urban areas to the outskirts of an urban area.

Urban sprawl is the unplanned and often rapid growth of urban areas into the surrounding countryside.

De-industrialization is the loss of manufacturing industries from urban areas, and regeneration is investing money into poorer and derelict urban areas where there was once a sustainable economy in industry.

The lesson is in two parts.

We're gonna first of all look at the growth of urban areas and then we're going to look at the decline and subsequent regrowth of urban areas.

We'll start with that first one all about how urban areas have grown.

So around the world there's an overall trend of urban areas growing in size, and that's both by population and by their physical footprint.

So the actual size of the city on the land.

Andeep is looking at this graph which shows the percentage of the population that has lived in rural and urban areas over time.

He notes quite rightly that today, globally more people live in urban areas than in rural ones.

You can see that 'cause the blue line is significantly higher than the pink one.

This trend however hides more complex and smaller scale movements of people.

Within urban change we're going to look at the reasons for urbanisation and we're going to link suburbanization to urban sprawl.

We're then gonna be thinking about deindustrialization and linking that to counter-urbanization and finally looking at regeneration and urban areas.

We'll start with urbanisation and why it has been happening.

So traditionally people move into urban areas for work.

Industries such as manufacturing require high amounts of human labour, and a lot of that originally will have been sourced from rural areas.

In developed countries like the UK, this mass urbanisation happened mainly during the industrial revolution.

That's around 1760 to 1850.

You can see a sketch here of Manchester during the industrial era, the big city full of smoke and high-rise buildings starting to emerge outta the forest In developing countries, the large scale movement of people to work in urban areas started in the 1970s.

So much, much later, and it's still happening today.

Migrant workers will often need to live close to their place of work.

This is because they may work long hours, they may receive relatively low pay, and they may have limited transport options.

When you combine those three things together, it makes much more sense to live virtually on the doorstep of your place of work than it does to live further away.

Housing for workers may be owned by the factory itself.

In the UK this housing was often terraced.

It is still found in many urban centres today.

You can see an example in the picture here.

In emerging countries, high-rise apartments may be built close to or even within the grounds of the factory where the people work.

And in developing countries.

Adequate amount of housing for new migrants to the city may not exist at all, and that can result in the creation of informal settlements as you can see here.

What do you notice is similar about these three styles of housing? We've got the three here, terraced, high-rise apartments, and informal settlements.

Now, as Sam points out in all of them the footprint of the housing is quite small when you consider the number of people who live there.

Lucas adds in, "This could mean the housing is quite crowded." And he's not wrong.

One of the main objectives of the factory owners when they're setting up terrace and high-rise apartments is to try to house their workers in small and cheap accommodation.

The objective is not to provide spacious living in luxury.

Now, true or false, mass urbanisation only happened in developed countries, and only during the industrial revolution.

Is that true or false? Have a think about what you've just learnt.

And then come back to me.

Well done, if you recognised that's false, now tell me why that statement is false.

Yeah, so mass urbanisation is also happening today, but it's happening today in emerging and developing countries.

It's not just something that happened in developed countries in the industrial revolution.

Now we'll look at suburbanization and what that means in relation to urban sprawl.

The crowded, often polluted conditions of the central urban areas were not aspirational living conditions for families in the era after heavy industrialization.

So where do you think they moved to? Well, those that could afford to, began to move outta the central areas and into outer areas of the cities creating the suburbs.

It's important to note this is still part of the city.

It's not part of the rural area, but it's right on the outskirts.

Suburban areas tend to be well served by public transport.

This means that residents can still work in the city, but also enjoy other things like quieter neighbourhoods, more space and a cleaner environment.

Good access to schools and healthcare, and many suburbs in the UK are characterised by larger semi-detached homes with gardens.

You can see some in the picture there.

With suburbanization comes urban sprawl.

The physical size of urban areas can grow rapidly.

Look at the animation that's playing now.

You can see Wembley is a village.

It's not a part of London at all.

Then as London grows, Wembley becomes a significant part of North London.

In the UK, rural villages on the outskirts of urban areas have merged with towns and cities, and we can see this across the United Kingdom.

Let's check our understanding.

Why might people wish to move from central urban areas to the suburbs? Is it because there's more space and a cleaner environment? Is it because there's new work opportunities there? Is it because the housing is cheaper? Or is it that there's a lack of public transport? Why would people wish to move from the centre of a city to the suburbs? Have a think, pause the video and then come back to me.

Well, hopefully you recognise that it is A, there's more space and a cleaner environment.

Let's look at our first practise task.

Izzy is making a really important point here.

She says, "Urban sprawl worries me, if cities keep growing, there won't be any countryside left." Aisha says in return, "But people need somewhere to live, and if everyone lived in central urban areas, it would be too crowded and unhealthy." Now both of those are really valid and important points.

Your first task, read Izzy and Aisha's opinions again.

State who you agree with more and why.

Your second task is then thinking about why might central urban areas continue to be densely populated despite the growth of the suburbs? Why is it that the centre of cities never seem to lose their crowds? Have a think about that as well.

So two tasks to do.

Pause the video and then I'll tell you my ideas in a moment.

Okay, so that first task, we were looking at Izzy's and Aisha's opinions, and we need to think about who we agree with more and why.

Let's start with Izzy.

Here's something your answer may include.

I agree more with Izzy.

Once an urban area expands into the countryside, that area or countryside is lost forever.

The larger the city becomes physically, the more people may be attracted to it for work, making it grow even quicker.

In this case, I've said there maybe urban sprawl can actually create even more urban sprawl in the future.

Now let's look at the alternative viewpoint where we will be agreeing with Aisha.

People need to work and living in suburbs mean they can still commute to work in the more central areas, but also have more space.

As more employment come becomes online.

Fewer people may have the need to work in urban areas, so cities may stop growing anyway.

Maybe our cities don't have a future at all, because of future of our work is going to be online.

We won't have the need to live in bigger urban spaces.

Who knows? We now have our second task to think about where we're answering this question.

Why might central urban areas continue to be densely populated despite the growth of the suburbs? Here's an answer that you might have.

As people move from central areas to suburban ones, more migrants may move into the central areas to replace them.

The suburbs can also be more expensive places to live.

So being in more central urban areas can make more sense financially for some people.

Now of course, everyone has their individual budgets to be working to, sometimes the suburbs are not what everyone is looking for.

So yes, the central areas will still continue to be popular for some people, even though for other people, they are moving out.

This is really important.

Suburbanization is happening often at the same time as urbanisation.

People are moving in and people are moving out at the same time.

Now let's look at this idea of the decline, but also the regrowth of urban areas.

And to do this, we're going to be thinking about de-industrialization and how it links to counter urbanisation.

Since the 1970s, manufacturing industries have largely left urban areas in developed countries and moved overseas.

This is a process known as the global shift.

Emerging and developing countries can offer companies these kind of things, more space, cheaper land and cheaper and definitely more abundant labour.

De-industrialization in some areas, resulted in fewer job opportunities in central urban areas, economic and social decline.

And polluted and unattractive derelict areas.

So as the industries moved out, so too did the opportunities for work and at the same time, those factories, those warehouses started to become derelict sites in our city centres.

The industrialization has contributed to counter urbanisation where wealthier people leave urban areas entirely and move to the countryside.

It's important to remember this movement of people from the city goes not just from central urban areas, but also from the suburbs.

They're moving from those places to the countryside to rural areas.

Counter urbanisation often view rural areas as quieter, safer, cleaner, and healthier.

As land tends to become cheaper, the houses tend to be larger too.

Migrants are likely to be retired with less need to live near the city for work, and they might be working in the city, but able to afford to pay for a longer commute.

Let's check our understanding of those points.

Complete the sentences with the missing words.

You're going to want to pause the video here, so you can have a read through the paragraph and then come back to me with some words that you can put in those gaps.

Okay, let's see if you've got some right answers.

De-industrialization meant there were fewer job opportunities in central urban areas.

Old industrial areas became derelict and polluted.

This caused some wealthier people to want to leave the city entirely.

Now let's look at regeneration and urban areas.

So now we're thinking about not people leaving and the decline of an urban area.

We're now thinking about the regrowth of an urban area.

The decline of central urban areas in developed countries was common In the 1980s and the early 1990s.

Local governments sought investments for new industries, new housing, and new services.

They might have tried to look for that funding from our own government, from the UK government, but also from the EU as well.

These investments revitalised areas through the process of regeneration.

You can see here it's the transfer of money from large central pots into much smaller scale areas where it's going to affect local people more profoundly.

As central urban areas became more attractive economically, they attracted new migrants and especially young people back.

So now we've got that other movement.

People are now moving back to the city from rural areas, but also from the suburbs as well.

This meant the physical growth of urban areas began to slow down as new developments were infilling spaces in the city rather than expanding it out into rural areas.

So the suburbs, or the growth of the suburbs started to slow down considerably.

Instead, we are now thinking about filling in brownfield sites in the centre of cities.

Those are now starting to become the areas which are seeing the most development.

As these former industrial areas became more popular, they often became more expensive too.

Inhabitants that had lived in some of these areas their whole lives often found they could no longer afford to live in the area, and this is a process known as gentrification.

So whilst this newly developed area might look really exciting, really modern, we do have to remember that often it's the case also that some local people who perhaps had lived in the area their whole lives now would have to move out because they can no longer afford this really developed area.

Let's check our understanding there.

Why might some geographers disagree about where the regeneration causes cities to grow? Think carefully about that statement.

Because both the population and the physical size of the city grows during regeneration.

Because the population grows, but the physical size of the city does not during regeneration.

Because neither the physical size of the city nor the population grows during regeneration.

Or is it because the physical size of the city grows but the population does not during regeneration.

Think really carefully about each of those.

They're very similar, aren't they? But each of those statements are different, and then come back to me, but the right answer.

So why might some geographers disagree about whether regeneration causes cities to grow? Yes, it's because the population grows, but the physical size of the city does not during regeneration, our urban sprawl either stops or slows down considerably because we're infilling the city with new developments.

But the population continues to grow because people keep coming in to live in those areas.

The story of urban change appears to have happened in a kind of sequence.

We have urbanisation, then suburbanization, then counter urbanisation and then regeneration.

The four key processes that we've looked at today.

In most cities however, it is not as neat as this.

There is often overlap between the processes and some processes occur throughout other periods of change.

So urbanisation and suburbanization might happen at the same time.

Counter urbanisation, people moving outta the urban area, might happen at the same time as regeneration.

It is also true that while mass migrations have been discussed, it's not the case that everyone in a city has moved as one.

Migration is often a choice only for those most able to move socially and economically.

Jen says, "I thought urban change was quite a neat idea, just people moving in or out of a city.

I now realise it's a lot more complex than that." We need to look individual cities as well, to see what their history is, and how that has affected their urbanisation, suburbanization, counter urbanisation and regeneration.

Let's check our understanding again.

Urban areas can only experience one process of urban change at a time.

Is that true or false? Hopefully know the answer now, but do pause the video and have a think and then come back to me.

Hopefully you recognise that is false, but can you explain why it's false? Yes, so processes of urban change frequently overlap, and some processes are continuous.

It's time for our final task of today's lesson.

Explain whether you believe counter urbanisation or regeneration represent the greater amount of change for an urban area.

Think carefully about both of those processes, and then think about the city itself in terms of it's size of the population and in terms of its physical footprint as well.

Do pause the video and have a think about this, possibly have a chat with other people nearby and see what their opinions are and then come back to me.

So let's have a look at some of the ideas that you might have included.

First of all, I'm gonna think about counter urbanisation representing the greatest change.

This is the only process where people are actively moving out of the city completely.

It shows us that many people do not want to live in cities, but often have no choice because of their need to work in the urban centre.

It proves that cities are not always attractive to everyone, but maybe you think that regeneration represents the greatest change.

Here's something you might have talked about.

Counter urbanisation only tends to be the movement of the people who can afford it rather than everyone.

Regeneration however affects more people for good and for bad.

People who have the financial means to move back to the city can take over areas.

While those that have always lived there may be pushed out as property prices rise beyond their means.

You might have some very similar or some very different ideas, but do check through and think, have I really given the most in my argument here? Let's summarise our learning for today.

There are four processes that we looked at, urbanisation, suburbanization, counter urbanisation, and regeneration.

Urbanisation is the movement of people from the countryside, from rural areas into the city.

This happens mostly in developing countries today.

Suburbanization is the movement of people from the city to the suburbs.

Along with urbanisation, this is what is happening in our emerging countries.

Counter urbanisation is the movement of people from the city centres and from the suburbs to the countryside.

And regeneration is the movement in the opposite direction.

People moving from the suburbs and the countryside back to the city.

All four of the processes are what happens in developed countries.

Well done, it's quite something to learn all those key terms and then use them at the same time.

So do review what you've learned in this lesson, especially those four key processes, and get used to using them as you're discussing urban change going forward.