LONDON, A GLOBAL CITY

Method 1: Commenting on 2 documents

Stage 1: introduction - Presenting the documents
Similarities: These documents both deal with the characteristics of London, a global city (def) in a context of accelerated globalization (def). They both focus on London inner city so are on a local scale.
Differences: Source 1 is a typographic map of London from Time Out London student guide whereas the 2nd doc is a testimony by a Londoner about Stratford Olympic urban regeneration posted on 28 Jan 2016 on a Guardian blog.
Announce structure: In a first part, I will show that London is a attractive city thanks to the map but in a second part I’ll focus on the drawbacks of regeneration with the text.

Stage 2: Analysing the documents

DESCRIBE THE DOCS - What you see
Structured and detailed description
INTERPRET THE DOCS - What you know
Add & structure definitions of key notions
1. London, an attractive and powerful global city (map)

- Environment: parks such as St James
- Culture: historical monuments like Big Ben, Westminster, museums (Tate Britain)
- Finance: the City & Canary Wharf
- Higher education: universities, colleges like the LSE (London School of Economics)
- Transport: international, national & Tube stations
+ Nice, attractive, original map
Transition with Doc.2 Many regenerated areas: Isle of Dogs, Stratford Olympics, Hackney

- Attracts tourists (green & historical city), business people (global CDBs), highly skilled professionals (high-tech clusters) & students (colleges): massive flows of people (see notions) (open borders for them)
Because powerful multipolar command functions (see notions) + well connected (6 railway stations) to national & international (Eurostar) networks = a transport hub with fast multimodal transport infrastructures (see notions)
=> Transition with blog: Apparently successful rebranding: re-imaging (map) & regeneration (Docklands, Olympics) (defs in notions 1E)
2. The limits of regeneration (blog)
P1 The question: the project, the plan versus its impact, the facts, real life
- The Olympics regeneration was a big project but what is its actual impact on people living, working there ?
P2 The answer: not as perfect as it was supposed to be
- Trendy area, supposed to be fantastic but for high-income newcomers because higher housing prices & cost of living
- Social pbs unsolved by regeneration & deliberately hidden
- The planned regeneration for the 2012 Olympics -like the Docklands one in the 1980s, was needed in deprived neighbourhoods and supposed to be sustainable (see defs in Rebranding 1E)
BUT conflicting goals of urban regeneration: less social inequalities vs more economic assets (see notions) so usually unsustainable (def)
=> A more divided, polarised and not inclusive city as gentrification and super-gentrification (defs) of the inner city => higher standard of living & quality of life BUT low-income groups driven out to now deprived suburbs (suburbanisation) => new segregation

Stage 3: Concluding
Assess docs (reliable/biased justified): Both docs are reliable (full references) & biased with doc.1 too positive (re-imaging) and doc.2 too negative on regeneration so globally balanced (+ & -).
Sum-up ideas: To recap, both docs show how difficult it is for a global, powerful city to remain attractive and at the same time be inclusive. + Nuance/opening This challenge is even more important in a context of competition with other global cities like New York or Paris.