One borough, one community - naming places.
'One borough, one community' is a tagline used by the council in The London Borough of Barking & Dagenham, where I live.
Ever since the former boroughs of Barking and Dagenham were merged in 1965 to form The LB of Barking, there has been at worst rivalry and resentment, and at best the persistent belief that the two former boroughs continue to exist, or that there are two parts of the Borough. I heard the latter claim repeated just a few weeks ago.
[Aside - many people think the boundary between the two former boroughs is where the boundary between the IG and RM postcodes runs (whilst in the Borough). They are wrong.]
In 1980 Dagenham got its own way and "and Dagenham" was added to the name of the Borough. It makes for a very cumbersome place name and re-inforces the idea that it is two places abutted. People say 'I don't live in Barking and Dagenham, I live in Barking' (or Dagenham, I suppose).
It is very difficult if not impossible and undesirable to come up with new names for geographical areas. Locally we struggle with Dagenham and Rainham parliamentary constituency. It makes sense that institutions carve up territory as best fits their purpose and parameters, but people do get hung up on names.
[I once saw a map with Greater London carved up into compass-point-named areas, similar to the postcode areas of the LONDON post town - E, SE, SW etc - under the map was someone complaining bitterly that he didn't live in Southeast London but South London, as if the organisation in question was going to divvy up the capital in a way that suited where people say they live rather than for their own specific purposes, and as if he really would use those designations anyway if they were "right" in his case.]
Now Barking & Dagenham is one borough, despite what people say/think, and of course no-one can disagree that the council should treat all parts of the borough fairly/equally. The problem is that the "two parts" idea comes into play and the view is taken that whatever Barking gets, Dagenham should have too. The silliness of this idea can be countered by the fact that Dagenham is to get a film studios (all being well). Should Barking have one too, to be fair? I've not seen anyone claim so seriously, but it's the logical extension of the idea that the two parts are something like twin siblings with a powerful desire to be treated equally.
A case in point is the proposed new shopping centre in Barking. Why not Dagenham too? Well, in part because the GLA has deemed that Barking is a tier higher in its hierarchy of shopping areas than Dagenham; that will be seen as unfair in itself.
It's very difficult to perceive where the former boundary was, because the LCC built their massive Becontree Estate such that most of it was in the Borough of Dagenham, but a substantial part was in the Borough of Barking and not a negligible part in the Borough of Ilford. In their defence they tried to get the name 'Becontree' taken up for the estate, but a lot of people simply referred to all of it as 'Dagenham' and still do.
The council has of course noticed that just as people argue the borough has two parts, you can say it has more. They plumped for 11 'character areas' which of course they gave names to, chosen from among existing place names and the names provoked arguments based on where people say they live. But it does show up the two parts concept as an absurdity; if Barking Town Centre Character Area (c/a) gets a new shopping centre, why not all 11 c/as?
I do think we need a stable geography for the borough. [Wards are no good - they keep changing (rightly) or electoral purposes]. The situation where different people in the same street give a different name to the area they live in - and not just because places are subdivided into smaller places.
It seems that something like c/as addresses this, if only people would agree to going along with the areas defined, rather than not agreeing with the definition of them because it's wrong.
The existence of the 11 character areas only goes to show that there is not one "community" if by community we mean something like a small (human scale) geographical local area. One might aim for cohesion within a small area like a c/a, and that the cohesion be replicated throughout the borough, but the borough is way beyond the human scale so cohesion as one borough is unlikely if not absurd.
The Post Office of course abandoned any idea of subdividing post towns into smaller named units (on the whole); postcodes are abstract after the mnemonic first one or two letters. No-one seems to get upset about which postcode sector they think the post office should put them in. They accept it as a practicality, like a phone number.
Ever since the former boroughs of Barking and Dagenham were merged in 1965 to form The LB of Barking, there has been at worst rivalry and resentment, and at best the persistent belief that the two former boroughs continue to exist, or that there are two parts of the Borough. I heard the latter claim repeated just a few weeks ago.
[Aside - many people think the boundary between the two former boroughs is where the boundary between the IG and RM postcodes runs (whilst in the Borough). They are wrong.]
In 1980 Dagenham got its own way and "and Dagenham" was added to the name of the Borough. It makes for a very cumbersome place name and re-inforces the idea that it is two places abutted. People say 'I don't live in Barking and Dagenham, I live in Barking' (or Dagenham, I suppose).
It is very difficult if not impossible and undesirable to come up with new names for geographical areas. Locally we struggle with Dagenham and Rainham parliamentary constituency. It makes sense that institutions carve up territory as best fits their purpose and parameters, but people do get hung up on names.
[I once saw a map with Greater London carved up into compass-point-named areas, similar to the postcode areas of the LONDON post town - E, SE, SW etc - under the map was someone complaining bitterly that he didn't live in Southeast London but South London, as if the organisation in question was going to divvy up the capital in a way that suited where people say they live rather than for their own specific purposes, and as if he really would use those designations anyway if they were "right" in his case.]
Now Barking & Dagenham is one borough, despite what people say/think, and of course no-one can disagree that the council should treat all parts of the borough fairly/equally. The problem is that the "two parts" idea comes into play and the view is taken that whatever Barking gets, Dagenham should have too. The silliness of this idea can be countered by the fact that Dagenham is to get a film studios (all being well). Should Barking have one too, to be fair? I've not seen anyone claim so seriously, but it's the logical extension of the idea that the two parts are something like twin siblings with a powerful desire to be treated equally.
A case in point is the proposed new shopping centre in Barking. Why not Dagenham too? Well, in part because the GLA has deemed that Barking is a tier higher in its hierarchy of shopping areas than Dagenham; that will be seen as unfair in itself.
It's very difficult to perceive where the former boundary was, because the LCC built their massive Becontree Estate such that most of it was in the Borough of Dagenham, but a substantial part was in the Borough of Barking and not a negligible part in the Borough of Ilford. In their defence they tried to get the name 'Becontree' taken up for the estate, but a lot of people simply referred to all of it as 'Dagenham' and still do.
The council has of course noticed that just as people argue the borough has two parts, you can say it has more. They plumped for 11 'character areas' which of course they gave names to, chosen from among existing place names and the names provoked arguments based on where people say they live. But it does show up the two parts concept as an absurdity; if Barking Town Centre Character Area (c/a) gets a new shopping centre, why not all 11 c/as?
I do think we need a stable geography for the borough. [Wards are no good - they keep changing (rightly) or electoral purposes]. The situation where different people in the same street give a different name to the area they live in - and not just because places are subdivided into smaller places.
It seems that something like c/as addresses this, if only people would agree to going along with the areas defined, rather than not agreeing with the definition of them because it's wrong.
The existence of the 11 character areas only goes to show that there is not one "community" if by community we mean something like a small (human scale) geographical local area. One might aim for cohesion within a small area like a c/a, and that the cohesion be replicated throughout the borough, but the borough is way beyond the human scale so cohesion as one borough is unlikely if not absurd.
The Post Office of course abandoned any idea of subdividing post towns into smaller named units (on the whole); postcodes are abstract after the mnemonic first one or two letters. No-one seems to get upset about which postcode sector they think the post office should put them in. They accept it as a practicality, like a phone number.
Comments
Post a Comment