Why It Matters Urban-Rural Transect
Summary
We have measured the balance between the natural environment and the intensity of the man-made built environment in your area.
Definition
Our Urban-Rural Traverse metric measures the variation in man-made, built environmental land use intensity, scoring the extent to which a neighbourhood is as rural as can be in London or as urban as it gets on a 7-step scale. Think of it as a scale that lets you know how much living in such a neighbourhood will let you feel like you are living in the city.
| URT Rating | Category Name | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Urban Infrastructure | Specialised neighbourhoods that exhibit predominantly urban infrastructure uses such as major airports, waste treatment plants, landfill sites and sports stadiums. |
| 1 | The Countryside in the City | Such neighbourhoods have a marked absence of human made development save for the purposes of enjoying or maintaining the ecological capital. |
| 2 | The Rural Village in the City | These neighbourhoods experience a predominance of unaltered ecological capital however human-scale, low density residential and the associated supporting uses (i.e. small shops, and independent service providers) do exist. |
| 3 | General Suburbia | These neighbourhoods are the satellite suburban “villages” of London. They’re leafy but cannot be considered as rural living within the city. The primarily residential human-scale man-made development is softened by the prevalence of private gardens. Much of General Suburbia is practicably only accessibly by automobile and locally patronised. |
| 4 | Urban Boundary | These neighbourhoods are often situated immediately after a natural boundary and provide residential functions in greater proportion than categories 5 and 6. The Urban boundary exhibits some ecological capital but is mostly mid-scale man-made development that fringes the hyper urban parts of the city. |
| 5 | Urban Heart | The Urban Heart neighbourhoods are primarily used for light industrial, high-end (and high density) residential and office functions. Despite retail and employment within these areas often having nationwide or citywide consequences, there is some ecological capital however the ecological capital remains as serving an artistic function. Like Hyper Urban neighbourhoods, Urban Heart areas are hyper connected in transport terms but are more human in building scale and buildings follow street layouts. |
| 6 | Hyper Urban | Hyper Urban neighbourhoods are primarily commercial functions. This is the area that may sometimes be known as the CBD. Hyper Urban areas are completely designed for human benefit and ecological capital is present only to enhance human activity with the locale. Such areas are not built for human-scale and have taller buildings which allow greater densities to be achieved. |
| Metric | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Urban Rural Traverse value | This is the category between 0 and 6 that your postcode falls into within the urban-rural traverse schema. |
| Count of URT 0 in a Postal Sector | This tells you how many postcodes in your wider area (postal sector) would be categorised as being classed as category 0 within the urban rural traverse schema. |
| Count of URT 1 in a Postal Sector | This tells you how many postcodes in your wider area (postal sector) would be categorised as being classed as category 1 within the urban rural traverse schema. |
| Count of URT 2 in a Postal Sector | This tells you how many postcodes in your wider area (postal sector) would be categorised as being classed as category 2 within the urban rural traverse schema. |
| Count of URT 3 in a Postal Sector | This tells you how many postcodes in your wider area (postal sector) would be categorised as being classed as category 3 within the urban rural traverse schema. |
| Count of URT 4 in a Postal Sector | This tells you how many postcodes in your wider area (postal sector) would be categorised as being classed as category 4 within the urban rural traverse schema. |
| Count of URT 5 in a Postal Sector | This tells you how many postcodes in your wider area (postal sector) would be categorised as being classed as category 5 within the urban rural traverse schema. |
| Count of URT 6 in a Postal Sector | This tells you how many postcodes in your wider area (postal sector) would be categorised as being classed as category 6 within the urban rural traverse schema. |
| URT Probability of 0 | This tells you how plentiful or scarce this level of urban-ness/rurality is in London. It is a probability score between 1 (least likely/most scarce) and 100 (least likely/most scarce) which tells you how likely, if you picked 100 postcodes at random, you would pick a neighbourhood with a URT category classification of 0. |
| URT Probability of 1 | This tells you how plentiful or scarce this level of urban-ness/rurality is in London. It is a probability score between 1 (least likely/most scarce) and 100 (least likely/most scarce) which tells you how likely, if you picked 100 postcodes at random, you would pick a neighbourhood with a URT category classification of 1. |
| URT Probability of 2 | This tells you how plentiful or scarce this level of urban-ness/rurality is in London. It is a probability score between 1 (least likely/most scarce) and 100 (least likely/most scarce) which tells you how likely, if you picked 100 postcodes at random, you would pick a neighbourhood with a URT category classification of 2. |
| URT Probability of 3 | This tells you how plentiful or scarce this level of urban-ness/rurality is in London. It is a probability score between 1 (least likely/most scarce) and 100 (least likely/most scarce) which tells you how likely, if you picked 100 postcodes at random, you would pick a neighbourhood with a URT category classification of 3. |
| URT Probability of 4 | This tells you how plentiful or scarce this level of urban-ness/rurality is in London. It is a probability score between 1 (least likely/most scarce) and 100 (least likely/most scarce) which tells you how likely, if you picked 100 postcodes at random, you would pick a neighbourhood with a URT category classification of 4. |
| URT Probability of 5 | This tells you how plentiful or scarce this level of urban-ness/rurality is in London. It is a probability score between 1 (least likely/most scarce) and 100 (least likely/most scarce) which tells you how likely, if you picked 100 postcodes at random, you would pick a neighbourhood with a URT category classification of 5. |
| URT Probability of 6 | This tells you how plentiful or scarce this level of urban-ness/rurality is in London. It is a probability score between 1 (least likely/most scarce) and 100 (least likely/most scarce) which tells you how likely, if you picked 100 postcodes at random, you would pick a neighbourhood with a URT category classification of 6. |
| Localisation Coefficient of 0 | The localisation coefficient tells you how under or over represented URT category 0 classifications are in this area as compared to the rest of London. |
| Localisation Coefficient of 1 | The localisation coefficient tells you how under or over represented URT category 1 classifications are in this area as compared to the rest of London. |
| Localisation Coefficient of 2 | The localisation coefficient tells you how under or over represented URT category 2 classifications are in this area as compared to the rest of London. |
| Localisation coefficient of 3 | The localisation coefficient tells you how under or over represented URT category 3 classifications are in this area as compared to the rest of London. |
| Localisation Coefficient of 4 | The localisation coefficient tells you how under or over represented URT category 4 classifications are in this area as compared to the rest of London. |
| Localisation Coefficient of 5 | The localisation coefficient tells you how under or over represented URT category 5 classifications are in this area as compared to the rest of London. |
| Localisation Coefficient of 6 | The localisation coefficient tells you how under or over represented URT category 6 classifications are in this area as compared to the rest of London. |
———
Why the metric matters from a commercial inhabitant’s perspective
The Urban Rural Traverse matters to commercial inhabitants mainly in terms of the access to the cost of business premises. With the exception of the Urban Infrastructure Category, as the Urban Rural Traverse categories move down from 6 to 1 and the feel of the place becomes more rural our data shows that where the surrounding area is juxtaposed to the area you’re looking at such as for example a category 1 area surrounded by category 6 areas or vice versa, it is almost without exception that a premium will be charged on commercial accommodation.
Why the metric matters from a residential inhabitant’s perspective
The Urban Rural Traverse provides knowledge in 2 key areas. Firstly, it informs you on how urban your neighbourhood is. Therefore, people who like to feel they are part of the urban heartland would choose to be located in places that are in categories 5 and 6 which would encompass areas such as most of Canary Wharf and a majority of the City of London. People whose lifestyles are more suited to rural living within the city would opt to be located in category 1 and 2 areas which dominate areas such as Blackheath, Richmond and Hadley Wood. In addition to highlighting the more rural parts of London, the Urban Rural Traverse provides the opportunity to see which areas of London, are what we call, “urban oases”.
These are areas that are interruptions to an otherwise homogenous land coverage in a neighbourhood. Where a category 1 or 2 neighbourhood is surrounded by category 5 or 6 neighbourhoods as is the case with Hyde Park, more often than not, the category 1 or 2 neighbourhood (i.e. the urban oasis) will be a much-coveted neighbourhood. Our data in relation to urban oases shows us that the greater the difference between the categories, the more coveted the urban oasis will be.
General commentary
The Urban Rural Transverse is a metric we take great interest in, especially the urban oases it allows us to uncover. Whilst one’s preference for a more urban or rural neighbourhood is a subjective choice made by each inhabitant, based range of socio-economic and demographic factors, few people additionally realise that the trade-off between how close someone wishes to be to the “action” and/or how removed and closer to nature they may wish to be, is an important factor that affects location choice.
In choosing a neighbourhood in which to live a choice is also being made to become dependent on the facilities that are available within and to a lesser extent immediately beyond the neighbourhood. This is because within a city the distance and therefore time one takes to partake in chosen leisure economic, social and familial activities is arguably the most important determinant of happiness living within the city. Most people, therefore, wish to live in neighbourhoods that best accommodate their chosen leisure economic, social and familial activities. Resultantly, some neighbourhoods that permit access to chosen amenities become coveted for their strategic location.
However, the quality of a neighbourhood to an individual is also determined by the interaction of the landscape’s physical features as subjectively perceived by individual viewers. Notwithstanding the fact that physical landscape preferences are affected by individual perception, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that we yearn for natural landscapes. Whether that be due to our evolution to prefer them as places to settle, or due to the fact that being in the presence of peaceful natural environments has been shown to restore cognitive abilities and reduce physiological stress, landscapes in which nature is at work are considered as desirable. The outcome of the desire to minimise the time and/or distance to chosen leisure economic, social and familial activities whilst simultaneously being able to access natural environments is what makes the areas, where the otherwise homogenous urban scene is interrupted, so coveted. Or, put another way they are the places where we can have our cake and eat it!
(Photograph: Wikimedia Commons)
Trivia
We’ve been told that North Ockenden is the most rural part of London.
History
The first boundary between the rural and the urban that defined London were the Roman walls. Although most of these structures have disappeared and they are not visible above ground, Londinium’s perimeter is still identifiable in the layout of the streets around the City.
The falling of the Roman empire in the 5th century led to de-urbanisation with most of London’s population returning to agricultural activities and the city being abandoned. Nevertheless, a new settlement north of today’s Strand developed in the 7th century. Lundenwic had an essential role as the centre of trade from surrounding farms. Toponyms like Dulwich, Wandsworth or East Ham ending in-ham, -ton, -which and worth are related to former agricultural activities. From the 9th and 10th century onwards the Roman City was repopulated, trade increased, and some of the early farms developed into villages. This “village vibe” has defined many areas until now. However, this is not so much as a result of the historical preservation of medieval elements as it is because of the idealised rural imaginaries that influenced further redevelopments.
During the Renaissance, trade and industry increased and with them the population. John Norden’s 1593 map already shows some extra developments North but also South of the Thames. The City of London and Westminster were connected by what would become the Strand, back then a palatial suburban area with aristocratic mansions. Somerset House, albeit currently bearing little similarity to a Tudor palace, used to be one of those palaces. To the South, numerous Pubs and Theatres like the Globe populated the shores of the Thames. The expansion of London towards its rural proximity was hence not a linear one, and many rural pockets remained underdeveloped.
Due to the Great Fire, it is the 18th century to which we owe the eldest parts of London. Population growth, from 630,000 to 2 million, led to the first terraced houses built speculatively. As a result, whole new neighbourhoods like Mayfair and Islington bloomed. In the late 18th century suburbanisation began with the wealthiest household erecting beautiful Georgian houses in areas like Hampstead.
Nevertheless, the most significant expansion took place in the 19th century when London became the centre of world trade. Despite 20th century demolition, Victorian London remains a vital part of the contemporary city and the terraced properties from the time have become highly coveted iconic dwellings.
Improvements in transportation facilitated the great leap towards the suburbs that took place in the 20th century. Nevertheless, London didn’t see the emergence of a central business district until the mid-20th century when the liberalisation of the economy led to the abandonment of the industrial activities. Despite the decline in population, that only reversed in the last decade, London continued to expand into the outskirts reducing its density and spreading outwards.
This rich and eventful past has left many pockets of different densities and “vibes” across the city. For instances, many parts of Mayfair remain suburban while the new is contemporary. Meanwhile, recent development in areas like Hammersmith or Croydon is creating pockets of highly urbanised locales. Urbanists like Patrick Geddes, Andres Duany and McHarg, have been fascinated by these environmental divergencies since the early 20th century, and the Urban Rural transect sets out to capture.