A Critical Evaluation of Central Government Urban Regeneration Term Paper

A Critical Evaluation of Central Government Urban Regeneration Policies since the 1980s in Docklands, London - Term Paper Example Moreover, some parts of Docklands were experiencing severe dereliction, and this only acted to discourage investors into the area, owing to the ensuing high and uncertain development costs (Brownill 1999). Even then, a lot of development sites lacked the proper infrastructure for accessibility, and this further curtailed on development. Owing to the absence of proper linkage strategies between Docklands, the larger part of London, as well as the entire country and the world as a whole, this only served to decrease the investment returns of employers, by leading to added costs (Brownill 1990). The market too failed to provide the necessary amenities, environment, and infrastructure that Docklands so much needed, if at all it was going to attract an investor, while also casting off its hitherto diminished image. Ultimately, some hidden gaps were later to emerge, and these were discovered to have been a hindrance towards a positive market operation. A case in point was the lack of a private house developer in the area for a long time. This then acted to discourage would-be house developers, as they lacked a benchmark to gauge their chances of recouping their investments, should they venture into the housing business. During this period of the 1980s, Docklands charged the...s for commercial rent (less than 5 pounds for every square foot of office space), when compared to other parts of the London city, such as the west end (around 12 pounds per square foot of office space) (Brownill 1990).This was despite the fact that Docklands had limited office space. At around 1981, the railway network in Dockland was both slow and inconveniencing, for travelers and transporters alike, who commuted between the town and the other parts of London.