REBRANDING LONDON

Method 2: Commenting on 2 documents

Stage 1: Introduction - Presenting the documents
Similarities: Both documents deal with the rebranding, that is to say renovating & re-imaging a city, so on a local scale, here London the capital city of the UK, a dvped country.
Differences: The ad by London & Partners from its 2015-2016 annual review shows the company’s positive impact and the article from the Independent published in October 2015 by Jonathan Owen describes the impact of gentrification.
Announce structure: In In a 1st part I’ll focus on the advantages + aspects & in a second part I’ll analyze the drawbacks negative elements.

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. The asset: an economically attractive city, thanks to the ad

- Social impact:
Slogan: “Our job: to promote London”
+ positive image of London in the news, London more & more famous
- Economic impact:
more TNCs (transnational companies), more jobs => more income for London

Re-imaging : to “sell”, promote a new positive image, using advertising, marketing
+ Economic growth: financial services and high-tech clusters = a dynamic service economy
=> A global city (def) with the power to attract investors, business people, skilled labour
2. The downside: the social cost of regeneration, using the article
P1 Description: Londoners migration
Gentrification of inner London
=> higher standard of living
But deprivation moved to outer London
P2 Explanation: the reason for this move
Low-income groups left due to higher cost of housing and living
indeed housing prices above average income
- Inner gentrification: high-income groups back to the inner-city after its regeneration (def) with higher standard of living and quality of life
- Outer deprivation: eco poverty, social exclusion & enviro dereliction due to suburbanisation of low-income groups
=> a new form of segregation, a polarised, divided & not an inclusive city

Stage 3: Concluding
Assess docs (reliable/biased justified): To conclude, these documents are reliable as we have their full references, and both are biased: the ad is focusing on positive impacts to promote the city and the article describes a new segregation ; so globally they are balanced (+ & -).
Sum-up ideas (+ nuance/opening): Both docs show that re-imaging has a positive eco impact but regeneration has its social downsides => mixed effect of rebranding a city, so not really sustainable. We may wonder if the situation is similar in another global city like New York.