Geography Project – A study of contrasting residential areas
I have based my project on contrasting residential areas in Sheffield.
I have chosen to study three areas; the inner city, the inner suburbs and the outer suburbs of Sheffield. I have chosen these three areas because I know that they have all been built at different periods to cater for people with different needs so my results should be easier to analyse and prove my hypothesis.
I have collected data from the three areas and examined it. I have examined the types of housing and use of space around the houses in each area. I have marked this information on maps of the areas, obtained from the library.
I have examined the socio-economic characteristics of the areas and found that there are differences in each area.
I have presented this data in a way which clearly shows that my hypothesis is correct.
I have studied three contrasting areas in Sheffield and compared the data I collected. In this project I have tried to define the differences between the areas. I have also tried to find out why there are differences.
Sheffield is situated on the west side of the Pennines, just south of Manchester. The city originally located here because it is close to rivers (mainly the Don and the Sheaf), it is on hills which were useful for defence against attack. Many raw materials such as limestone were found near the city. So Sheffield’s main industry was steel production until all the factories were shut down in the late 1970s.
There is a large variety of housing in Sheffield. There are old Victorian terraces built whilst the steel factories were open, there are inter-war semi-detached and detached houses, there are post-war houses and new mixed houses in the outer suburbs.
The areas I have chosen to study are:
? Area 1 is an area of rehabilitation of old terraces between Albert and Valley Road, Heeley, Sheffield.
? Area 2 is an area of low rise urban redevelopment between Gleadless Road and Springwood Road, Heeley, Sheffield.
? Area 3 is an area of large, semi detached and detached, unaltered Victorian villas between Victoria Road and Park Lane, Brromhall, Sheffield.
My results clearly show that area 1 is the most densely populated. There are 24 houses in a 100 metre area. Using the equation stated above I found that there are roughly 72 people living in every 100 metre area of area 1. Area 2 is quite densely populated, no where near as much as area 1 but there are still 24 houses and an estimated 42 people living in every 100m area of area 2. Area 3 is obviously the least densely populated area of the three I studied. There are only 7 houses in a 100 metre area meaning that there are roughly 21 people living in every 100 metre area of area 3.
Type of Housing
The results I collected for the type of housing in each area can be found on page 16 of my field note book.:
OT = Old Terraced MT = Modern Terraced SD = Semi-Detached
D = Detached B = Bungalows F = Flats
The majority of houses found in area 1 are old terraces (over 78%). There are a few flats (around 14%) and a semi-detached houses (around 6%). There are only 3 detached houses in area 1. There are no modern terraces or bungalows in area 1.
The majority of houses found in area 2 are modern terraces (over 46%) and semi detached houses (around 50%). There are a small percentage of bungalows (around 2%). There is only 1 old terraced house and 1 detached house in area 2.
The majority of houses in area 3 are semi detached (over 52%). There is also a large number of detached houses (around 40%). There is a small number of flats but no old or modern terraces or bungalows.
Building Materials and Size Of Houses!
1: Brick, Ornate Chimneys 4: Coal Holes
2: Red Brick 5: Wooden Doors
3: Stone Lintels
The houses in this area are very small in comparison with those in the other studied areas.
1: Simulated Stone 4: Plastic Window-frames.
2: Plastic Guttering 5: Front Garden
3: Interlocking Roof Tiles
The houses in these areas are only slightly bigger than those in area 1. They are still quite small.
1: Iron Ore Guttering 4: Slate Roofs
2: Sandstone Walls 5: Wooden Window Frames
3: Stone Lintels
The houses in this area are large in comparison with those in the other two areas.
Analysis of Results:
Type of Housing
The houses in each area are clearly different.
Area 1 is in the inner city which normally contains working class housing. The majority of houses in area 1 are old Victorian terraces shown in the fig. 2 in a grid iron street pattern. This is because they were built during the industrial revolution when factories were opened and many jobs were created. The majority of people were working in the countryside doing agricultural work at this time and during the onset of the industrial revolution a lot of farming work was mechanised, meaning less farmers had to be employed to do the same amount of work so farmers began to look for jobs in the city, this meant that rural to urban migration rates were high. Factory owners had to provide accommodation for their workforce but they did not want to pay out large amounts of money so they built the houses as close together as possible spending as little money as possible using the cheapest materials available, this explains why most of the houses in area 1 are terraced.
Area 2 is also in the inner city but it contains different types of housing to that in area 1. Area 2 used to contain the same types of housing as area 1 but around 20 years ago the government decided to redevelop (knock down the old houses and replace them with new improved ones) the area as many houses did not have the amenities that many people were beginning to demand such as inside toilets, fixed bathrooms and running hot water so when the houses were rebuilt these amenities were included. The government also realised that rows of old terraced houses in a grid iron street pattern were very dull and repetitive so when this area was redeveloped, a variety of houses were put in, in a curvy linear street pattern to make the area look more attractive and to break up the repetition. This is why there are large numbers of semi-detached and modern terraces in area 2.
Area 3 contains a lot of Victorian semi-detached and detached houses. This is because it is in the outer suburbs, away from the CBD. The houses were built for wealthy people. There are some flats in area 3 for students, as this area is situated very close to the local university, these have been built in the last 40 years since primary industries such as mining began to become mechanised so more people turned to tertiary industries such as architecture which requires a more advanced education.
Size of Houses
The size of housing is very obviously different in contrasting areas of Sheffield. The houses in area 1 are relatively small in size and the houses in area 2 are only slightly bigger. The houses in area 1 are this size because they are original Victorian terraces built for factory workers. They are small because the factory owners wanted to use up as little of their land as possible but fit as many workers as they could on it. They also wanted to save money and by building smaller houses they could do this. The houses in area 2 are only slightly bigger but they are of a better quality and design than those in area 1. They are only slightly bigger houses but they have front and back gardens, something that the houses in area 1 lack. The houses in area 3 are large compared with those in areas 1 and 2. They are large because they were built for wealthy people who could afford the upkeep and did not want to live in small houses because they could afford luxury houses.
There are some very obvious differences in the building materials in each area. Some of the materials used in the houses in areas 1 and 3 are very similar. The houses in area 1 were built with the cheapest local materials available at the time such as red brick and Welsh slate. This was because the landowners wanted to keep building costs at a minimum. The materials used in area 3 are also local but are more expensive and better quality than those used in the houses of area 1, for example, the stone used in area 3 was much more expensive than the red brick used in area 1. This is because the people that these houses were designed for could afford to pay for the more expensive materials. The majority of houses in areas 1 and 3 have stone lintels and wooden window frames because they were the only methods known at the time the houses were built (some of the original window frames have been replaced with hard wood ones as they were rotting). The houses in both areas have coal holes in front of them. Coal was the only fuel available at the time the houses were built and using coal holes was a convenient way of storing the coal. The houses in area 2 are built with completely different materials to those used in areas 1 and 3 such as reconstituted stone and plastic guttering. This is because the houses are relatively new, and the materials that were used in the building of the other areas are now either too expensive or in short supply, for example Welsh slate and red brick. Area 2 used to be the same as area 1, so when the houses were redeveloped, different materials were used on the houses to help break up the repetition of the area.
Age of Housing
The houses in areas 1 and 3 were built at a similar time. The road names in each area were a very obvious way of showing the age. The roads were named after the reigning monarch at the time the houses were built. Albert Road in area 1 is named after Prince Albert and Victoria Road in area 3 is named after Queen Victoria. There are also plaques on some of the houses in each area showing the age. It was slightly harder to work out the age of the houses in area 2 as I knew the houses were relatively new and roads are very rarely named after the reigning monarch anymore. I had to look for plaques and there was one outside a church showing the years that this area was redeveloped, it confirmed that the area was redeveloped in the 1980’s and had pictures showing what area 2 used to be like, it was full of old Victorian terraces just like area 1, this proved that area 2 was an area of inner city redevelopment.
My results clearly show that there is a difference in density in each area. Area 1 is the most densely populated. This is because the houses were built for factory workers by land owners. The landowners were not bothered about the quality of life their workforce led, they were just concerned with their own money and life. They did not want to waste money on giving their workers a good standard of living so they just put the houses as close together as possible. The houses in this area are now lived in by immigrants who tend to have a large family in one house for security and students who also tend to live together in large numbers as it is cheaper. The houses in area 2 are nowhere near as densely packed as those in area 1. This is because they are quite new and the government are more concerned with people’s quality of life than with the amount of money they spend. This is why the houses are more spread out in area 2. Area 3 is the least densely populated because the houses are larger and have bigger gardens causing the houses to be more spread out. Originally this was to cater for landowners who could afford this space. Unfortunately the methods used to collect this data were not as accurate as possible.
My results clearly prove that my hypothesis is correct. There are differences in the density, type of housing, age, building materials used and size of houses in each area. My results also show that areas get less dense and houses tend to get larger as you move away from the CBD.
Although my results prove my hypothesis to be correct I am quite disappointed with the way they were collected for the density of areas and age of housing as they were not as accurate as they could have been more accurate. For the density of the areas I measured a 100metre area, this was not doing with a metre wheel, it was done by counting 100 large paces. This was very inaccurate. I multiplied the number of houses in this 100m area by three as there are, on average three people living in each household. From my previous research, I know that different areas have facilities to cater for people with different needs. For example, in areas of low cost housing there are generally large numbers of immigrants who tend to have an extended family living in one household for security, there are also elderly people living on their own in small houses as they do not feel the need to buy large houses as it would be a waste of space. To work out the age of the houses I simply looked out for wall plaques and road names. Although this method is not as inaccurate as the method used for finding the density, it is still quite inaccurate.
Instead of using these methods I could have gone to the city library and asked for the latest census information as this would have given me very accurate results for the density of the area. For the age of housing I could have gone to the library and asked for books containing this information. This would have been much more time consuming but would be much more accurate.
There are differences in the amount and use of space around the houses
Collection of Data:
Before I went out into the field, I prepared land use maps for the three areas I studied. I worked out a key that I could use to mark on the use of space around the houses, for example I chose to colour any gardens in green, I used the same key for each map which made my results easier to compare. In my field note-book I left blank pages so I could record the use of space around the houses in each area.
When I went out into the field I took my field notebook and maps. I marked on the maps the different types of land use and I also wrote down this information in my field note-book (pages 18-20).
Once I had collected all the relevant information, I collected new maps and transferred all the data collected onto them. I altered the key slightly from the rough copies and made sure that it was the same on each map to make my results easier to compare.
I collected sheets of acetate with a 1cm x 1cm grid on. I counted the number of squares taken up by each land use but if a certain land use only filled up half of a square I looked for another half square of the same land use. If there were no other half squares then I counted it as 0.5squares. To work out the percentage of land used for each purpose, I used the following equation:
No of Squares for each purpose x 100 =
Total Number of Squares Covered by Whole Area
= Percentage Covered by A Certain Land Use
Area 1- Total Area Covered By Map = 265 Squares
Squares Taken Up By Land Use
% of Total Area Taken Up By Certain Land Use
Old Terraced Houses
Modern Terraced Houses
My results show that the land use in area one is mainly residential (Old Terraced Houses and Gardens, around 40%) and industrial (around 26%). There is also quite a lot of derelict land in area 1 (around 7%). There is no open space in area 1.
Area 2 – Total Area Covered By Map = 314 Squares
Squares Taken Up By Land Use
% of Total Area Taken Up By Certain Land Use
Old Terraced Houses
Modern Terraced Houses
My results clearly show that the land use in area 2 is mainly residential (semi-detached, modern terraced and gardens, around 50%) and recreational (services and open space, around 20%). There is very little industry compared (less than 2%). There are no old terraces or detached houses. There is not any derelict land in area 2.
Area 3 – Total Area Covered By Map = 319
Squares Taken Up By Land Use
% of Total Area Taken Up By Certain Land Use
Old Terraced Houses
Modern Terraced Houses
0 This cours from coursework.inf
My results clearly show that the main land use in area 3 is residential (semi-detached houses 6.3%, detached houses 6.6%). Over 50% of the area are gardens. There is quite a large percentage of services (around 9%) and industry (around 5%). There is also a small amount of open space (around 3%). There is no derelict land or modern and old terraced houses in area 3.
Analysis of Results:
Area 1 is an inner city area containing a lot of industry, old terraced houses and derelict land. During the industrial revolution many factories were built in the inner city because land was cheap and close to the CBD which contained railway lines and canals for transportation of goods and materials. The old terraced houses were built near to factories because the factory workers needed to live close to their place of work as they were not able to travel long distances to work as means of transport were poor, they are old terraces because the factory owners wanted to build the cheapest houses possible. There is a lot of derelict land in area 1 because during the 1970’s factory machines were built so that were more efficient therefore more products could be made in a smaller area getting rid of the need for large factories, so they were shut down and they were either left or knocked down leaving a lot of derelict land. There is not a lot of garden space in area 1 because the houses were built as close together as possible when there were no laws or expectations about space in this area. The owners wanted to build as many houses as they could in a small area so they did not include large gardens. There are not many large semi-detached and detached houses in the area as most people who could afford large houses when this area was built did not want to live in an area of heavy industry so there was no need to build large houses as no-one would be able to afford them. There are not many services left in this area. Originally there probably were shops and other services but as the numbers of people living in this area declined, shops closed down as there was not enough custom. However, when the area was redeveloped and the standard of housing rose and people began to move back to the area so did small individual shops but they could not compete with newly opened large supermarkets and out of town shopping centres so they closed down again.
There used to be a lot of industry and old terraced houses in area 2 as well but in the 1980’s the area was redeveloped and replaced with modern terraced and semi-detached council owned houses, gardens and open space. This area was redeveloped because the industry began to close down so there was a lot of derelict land. The local government also realised that the old terraced houses did not contain the amenities and garden space that many people were beginning to demand so they knocked down the original old terraces and replaced them with slightly larger, more spacious and modern semi-detached and modern terraces with drive and garden space. There is a lot of open space to make the inner city feel less congested and away from industry and to provide an area for young people to meet, something that more and more people were beginning to demand. There is no derelict land in area 2 because it is a relatively new area so there has been no need to knock anything down again. There are not many services in this area because people have access to public transport routes and cars so they can travel to large supermarkets and shopping centres reducing the need for small individual shops. Although a larger percentage of the land use in area 2 is residential this includes the larger gardens which houses in area 1 do not have, there are less houses in area 2 than area 1 and they are more spread out.
There is not a lot of housing in area 3 but there is a lot of garden space. This is because the houses are larger and more spread out leaving more space for gardens. The houses in this area are more spread out and have larger gardens because they were built for wealthy people who could afford this space. There is a small amount of industry in this area because it is situated quite near to the CBD and main roads which normally contain industry because they are on important transport links. A lot of the land in area 3 is used for services such as shops and bars, again on the main road because it is easy to get to so more people will use the services there. There is little open space in area 3 because a large percentage of the land is private gardens so there is little need for large amounts of public open space. There are a number of parks in the vicinity but they are not marked on the map.
I have found that there are differences in the way in which the land is used in each area. I have proved my hypothesis to be correct.
I am very pleased with the way I collected the data as I do not think that there is a much more accurate way of collecting the data that I needed. I went around each area and could easily see the way that the land was used. Although I could have made my results more accurate by paying more attention to the numbers half-squares coloured in for each land use for each map. For example I may have counted a quarter of a square as a half, which may have made my results slightly inaccurate.
There are differences in the basic amenities, country of birth and employment status i.e. socio-economic characteristics.
To collect the data I needed to prove or disprove this hypothesis I had to visit the city library and obtain the small area statistics from the 1991 census for the areas that I studied. I located the studied areas on a small scale map and took down a reference number. I used this reference number to help me find the relevant plate in the 1991 census and put it into the microfiche. I then located the tables:
SO1 (containing the census data about Population Base)
SO2 (containing the census data about Population Structure)
SO6 (containing the census data about Ethnic Groups)
SO7 (containing the census data about Country Of Birth)
SO8 (containing the census data about Employment Status)
S20 (containing the census data about Tenure and Household amenities)
and S21 (containing the census data about car ownership)
on the microfiche and took copies of them. I repeated this for each of the studied areas.
I then had to convert all of the results found on the tables into percentages to make the graphs easier to compare. To do this I had to divide the selected amount of data by the total amount living in that area.
Table SO2: Population Base
% of Pop. In Area 1
% of Pop. In Area 2
% of Pop. In Area 3
The population pyramid that I drew to show my results for the population structure of area 1 show that the majority of both males and females are aged between 25 and 29. There is also a large percentage of males aged between 0 and 4. There are very few people living in area one that are over 50, the majority of people in area one appear to be quite young.
My results clearly show that the majority of people living in area 2 are aged between 75 and 79. There are also a lot of people aged between 70 and 84 living in area 2. There are not many people living in area 2 below the age of 50. The age of people living in area 2 is much more evenly spread than area 1.
My results for area 3 clearly show that the majority of people living in this area are aged between 40 and 44. The data collected for area is much more spread out than for the other two areas.
Table SO6: Ethnic Groups
% Living in Area 1
% Living in Area 2
% Living in Area 3
My results clearly show that the majority of people living in area 1 are white (over 85%) but there is a smaller white population in this area than in the other two areas studied. Compared with the ethnic minorities found in other areas, the ones in area 1 are quite large, there is a large Pakistani minority compared with the other areas studied (over 6%) and the Chinese (around 2%), Indian (around 1%) and Black Other (around 2%) minorities are quite large in area 1 compared with other areas. The Black Caribbean population (around 2%) is quite small in comparison with area 2. There are no Black Africans, Bangladeshis, or other Asians living in area 1.
Again, the majority of people living in area 2 are white (over 90%). There is also quite a large Black Caribbean community in area 2 (around 6%) compared with other areas. The Pakistani population in area 2 (around 1%) is small compared with area 1. There are no Black Africans, Black others, Indians, Bangladeshis, Chinese or other Asians living in area 2.
My results clearly show that the majority of people living in area 3are white (over 95%), this is the largest percentage out of the three areas studied. There is a small percentage of Black Caribbeans (around 2%), other Blacks (around 1%) and other Asians (around 1%). There are no Black Africans, Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis or Chinese people living in area 3.
Table S20: Tenure
% of People In Area 1
% of People In Area 2
% of People In Area 3
Rented Privately (Furnished)
Rented Privately (Unfurnished)
Rented With a Job or Business
Rented From a Housing Association
Rented From a Local Authority
Key: O – Owned outright B – Buying R F – Rented Privately (Furnished) R UF – Rented Privately (Unfurnished) R J – Rented with a Job or Business R H – Rented From a Housing Association R A – Rented From a Local Authority
My results clearly show that the majority of people )around 35%)in area 1 are currently buying their houses. There is also a large percentage of people that own their houses outright (around 15%), that are renting from a housing association (around 15%), that are renting privately and unfurnished (around 15%) or are renting privately and furnished (around 10%). There is a small percentage of people living in area 1 that rent their houses from a local authority (around 2%) or with a job or business (around 3%).
My results clearly show that the majority of people in area 2 rent their houses from a local authority (around 80%). Very few people rent their houses privately, furnished (around 1%) or unfurnished (around 1%). Quite a few people are currently buying their house (around 10%) or are renting from a housing association (around 5%). Not many people own their house (around 2%) or rent their house with a job or business (around 2%).
My results show that the majority of people living in area 3 either own their houses (around 30%) or are currently buying them (around 40%). Quite a few people rent their houses privately (around 20%) or rent their houses from a housing association (around 10%). Not many people rent their houses from a local authority (around 5%) and no-one rents their house with a job or business.
Analysis Of Results:
My results clearly show that there are difference in the population structure for each area. In area 1 the majority of people are aged between 0 and 4, and 25 and 29. These people are likely to be young couples with young children who will not have very much money and can only afford a house in an area like this. There are not many people aged between 5 and 20, or over 40 because they will have saved up money and moved away. My results for area 2 show that the majority of people are aged over 70. Area 2 is a council owned estate which means that the tenants do not have to pay for its upkeep which means that the elderly people do not have to worry about spending money on it as they probably no longer work so they do not have very much money to spend anyway. The population structure in area 3 is quite even with similar percentages of each age group living in the area. There are similar numbers of people aged between 0 and 19, and 30 and 50 because couples in this area tend to have two children and couples tend to remain married. There are large numbers of people aged between 20 and 29 because there are large houses in the area which have been converted into flats for university students as the area is very close to the university. There are large numbers of people aged over 60 because they are likely to have moved here at a younger age and because the area is pleasant and close to key transport links they do not see the point in moving away.
My results clearly show that the majority of the population living in each area are white but that there are difference in the ethnic minorities living in each area. The lowest percentage of the population that are white is in area 1 where only 85% of the population are white. In area 1 there are quite a lot of Asians, Pakistanis in particular and Black Caribbean people, this is because the houses in this area are cheaper and many people who have just immigrated to this country will not have much money. There are quite large numbers of immigrants living in the same area as they feel very insecure and believe in safety in numbers. In area 2 there are fewer Asians but more black Caribbeans, this is because they are likely to have lived in this country for a long time and be renting from the council. In area 3 there are very few ethnic minorities, this is because the houses in this area are very expensive and people that have recently moved into the country may not be able to afford them.
There are some very obvious differences in the tenure of houses in each area. The majority of people are currently buying their houses in area 1. Quite a lot are renting privately or from a housing association, these are probably students or young couples who are looking for a short term place to stay whilst they save up money for a house of their own. Not very many people rent their house in area 1 from a local authority, such as the council. This is because the majority of the houses are privately owned as the area is very old. The majority of the houses in area 2 are rented from a local authority, this is because the local council bought all the houses in the area around 5 years ago, knocked them down and rebuilt them (redevelopment) and now rent them out to local people. The majority of the houses in area 3 are owned outright by the occupants, the people who own their houses outright have probably lived in the area for a very long time and have paid off their mortgages. There are also quite a lot of people in area 3 who are buying their houses, they will probably be having to pay off a large mortgage.
I have proved that there are clear difference in the socio-economic characteristics of each of the studied areas. I have found that there are key difference in the tenure of each area, the ethnic groups living in each area and the population structure of each area.
Although my results clearly prove my hypothesis to be correct, I am quite disappointed with the way they were collected as the census data I found on the microfiches were over 10 years old. I could only use this set of data as the latest set of data, collected last year has not been made available. My results will have been slightly inaccurate as people may have moved out of the area or decided to buy there house instead of rent it and the ages of the people living in each area will have changed.
Although all of my results prove that there are difference in each of the studied areas, some of the results collected were not as accurate as they could have been. In this section I have tried to examine why they were not as accurate as they could have been and I will suggest improvements I could make if I were to repeat the project.
The way that I collect the results were very inaccurate, I just counted 100 paces of about 1 metre each. The paces could not have been very accurate and instead of doing this, I could have used a metre wheel. I then multiplied the number of houses in that 100 metre area by three, as there are, on average three people living in each house, but this could have been different for each area. For example, I know that many ethnic minorities live in area 1 as it is low cost housing and ethnic minorities tend to live with their extended family as they cannot afford separate houses, so the density for area 1 could be slightly higher. Instead of just presuming that 3 people lived in each house, I could have collected that latest census data from the local library or I could have gone around each house in the 100 metre area and asked how many people lived there.
Age Of Houses
Even though I had to estimate the age of the houses in each area by examining the building materials used and street names, my results were still quite accurate. I could have made my results more accurate by visiting the city library and finding out the information from there.
Size Of Houses
Although my results were based on my personal opinion, they were still quite accurate as they were all my own opinion and were therefore comparable. To make my results more accurate, I could have visited an estate agent and found brochures advertising a house in each area and compared the description the houses in each area but I would have had to ensure that they were all from the same estate agents to ensure that they were comparable.
I was quite pleased with the way that I collected the results for hypothesis B as they were quite accurate but I could not see the land uses behind the houses so some parts of the map were filled in on assumption. I could make my results more accurate by obtaining Ariel photographs of each area from the city library as they would allow me to see the space behind the houses. The way that I counted the squares on each maps was not very accurate either. The acetate grid used was only 1cm by 1cm so it was not very accurate as not every land use took up a full square. The maps used were also quite old, so some land that was marked as housing on my map may now be derelict land. The scale on each of my maps was different so my results may be slightly distorted.
The census data that was collected from the library was taken from the 1991 census as the data from the 2001 census has not been released yet. This was very inaccurate as the data is around 12 years old. This is inaccurate as people will have aged, people may have moved out of the area and people who were renting houses when the data was collected may have bought them. My results still give a quite accurate representation of the socio-economic characteristics of each area but they are not as accurate as they could have been. To make this more accurate, I could have visited each of the houses and obtained the information from a person living in the house but this would have been much more time consuming and not many people would be willing to participate.
I have clearly proved that there are differing features in different areas of Sheffield.
I have found that there are differences in: The age and size of houses, the building materials used, density, types of houses, land use and space and socio-economic characteristics.
I think that my results prove that houses generally get larger as you move further away from the city centre, because the houses were built to cater for different needs and there was more space available. I have also proved that as you move further away from the city centre the density of the areas decreases, because the houses are more spread out.
My results do not prove that there is any relationship between the age of houses and their distance from the CBD, this is because certain inner city areas, like area 2 have to be redeveloped as they are no longer reach the expected standards.
I think my results show that Sheffield is a mixture of the Hoyt and Burgess urban land use models. My results and previous knowledge of Sheffield show, that although the standards of housing increase as you move away from the city centre, industry and low class housing also develop in ribbons along key transport links, in the case of Sheffield, the lower Don Valley.
Although I have proved that there are differences in contrasting residential areas of Sheffield, I do not think that I have collected enough information to conclude that the city of Sheffield is a mixture of the Hoyt and Burgess models as I have not studied enough of the city.