Introduction
The morphology of landscape shaped the world as we perceive it; forming countries, cities and the way they develop. This not only in terms of geography but on a complex physical environment in which human aggregation develop cultural life through interactions and socialisation (Park, R. E. (1926)). The physical environment and its morphology always had a strong impact on humanity, shaping borders between countries, cities and forming the way we perceive them and interact within them. Furthermore the effect of the multiplication and extension of transportation has extended mankind physical and social environment (Park, R. E. (1926)). This phenomenon made transportation facilities shift from a mere transit building to, thanks to a continuous flow of people, a cultural and socio-economic diverse infrastructure that becomes an active social hub that helps the wellbeing of community (Village well (2018)).
The United Kingdom has the oldest railway system in the world which allowed communication and transportation to become more efficient enabling British industrialisation to become as powerful as we study it in history books (Clapham, J. (2009)). The UK railway system dates to the 1825 while Oxford first train station was built in 1884 but was then rebuilt in 1971 (British-history.ac.uk. (2018)). Even though Oxford is the 52 biggest city of the uk with a population of 170,350 it only registered 6.631 million people users this year (Orr.gov.uk. (2018)). Cambridge instead which is similar, in terms of history and population diversity, with a population of only 124,900 ranking her 183 in the UK has a annual passenger usage of 11,425 million people per year (Orr.gov.uk. (2018)). Looking at this data the failure of the train station in terms of transportation facility is evident which consequently undermines its potential as a social hub. For a station to be successful social hub it needs a frequent and consistent flow of people, therefore if it fails its primary aim which is to connect people it will not be able to become an active social hub (Village well (2018)).
Oxford development
Oxford as we see it today is the result of the agglomeration of different villages which include; Summertown, Headington, Iffley, Cowley, Botley/North Hinksey and oxford city centre (Oxfordhistory.org.uk. (2018)). The absorption of most of these smaller villages happened during the expansion of the 20th century (Opher, P. (1997)). Because of the relatively recent absorption in to the main city each village kept its own identity, community and facilities. Meaning that except for specific purposes inhabitants are not likely to leave their own areas. The only reasons for which people decide to move are commuting, meeting with other for social purpose or other more specific activities.
Furthermore Oxford has also been highly influenced by the garden city movement initiated by Ebenezer Howard. Such influence is noticeable in the green belt that surrounds oxford which is one of the most extent of the UK. Such creation was the result of the intent of proposing a third alternative to the city and country life by creating cities with extensive parks and green spaces (Howard, E. and F. J. Osborn. (2013)). The belt gave to oxford a cleaner and higher air quality and reduced the co2 emission of the city which increased the overall quality of life. What at the time seemed to be like a step toward progress with the fast paced development of the city is now splitting oxford population in two. As is possible to see in the map (?) the green belt nearly cuts off the the city centre from Cowley, Headington and Iffley leaving only a roundabout as a connection. This complicates the transportation system and consequently the circulation flow of the city creating a great distance, both in terms of perceived as well as physical distance, between the different areas of the cities.
How did the development of the city affected social hubs and the train station
The staticity of the inhabitants caused by the morphology of the city allowed the proliferation of social hubs all around the city in order to respond to the request of the different communities present in each area. Each village needs social spaces to keep the population together, furthermore social hubs have been linked with a healthier and dynamic communities as they allow the population to come together and interact (Albertahealthycommunities.healthiertogether.ca. (2018)).
Because of the way oxford expanded, by incorporating smaller villages within the border of a bigger city, the city evolved with a star shaped form. Accordingly to this shape the only area that is actually crossover for the purposes previously cited is the city centre, this dynamic is shown in the map (?). In the map the black line represent the main route in oxford connecting the different areas of the city, it’s also possible to see that the only area where the back lines connect is in the city centre. The result of the map is again caused by how the city is shaped, the centre is the only area easily accessible by all the inhabitants of the city as it acts like a big round about for the circulation of the city. This therefore brings a constant flow of people moving, interacting and working with each other and social space is increasingly correlated to human labor that in its environment leads to the creation of space created by people in accordance to the development of the environment over time (Lefebvre, H. and Nicholson-Smith, D. (2011)). It is therefore logic that the reappropriation of such social environment is through social hubs, in the map (?) is possible to see that there is a higher concentration of social spaces in the city centre.
The station should be a facility available and easily accessible by everyone. In oxford instead the station has been situated on the outskirt of the city centre even though the transportation system linking two of the main sides of the city is inefficient and with fairly static with communities. It should have been instead rather logical to put the station in a location more accessible by everyone.
Looking at the way that oxford evolved it is possible that when first built in 1884 the station might have been extremely functional as the city was much smaller and compact. With the renovation of the 1971 it should have been more logic to move the station in a more accessible area as the city had already greatly expanded. The location made the station unaccessible by a vast part of the population, losing its main function as a public facility which is to serve as many people as possible, and at the same losing its possibility to become an active social hub.
Additionally the way the city is formulated the station is unsuccessful as social hubs. Social spaces emerge when there are an interlinkage of geographic forms, built environment and routine patterns (Molotch, H. (1993)). When erasing two of these factors from the equation the realisation of a social hub will not be achieved. The failure of the station is also augmented by the presence of regular busses for London that instead serve the entire city by Headington to the city centre. using the train station should still be preferable for the majority of the population of oxford as it avoid traffic and other contingency.
How geography shaped oxford
I therefore started to investigate the reason why the station would be placed so unstrategically in relation to the population. When studying the dynamics of such old city such as oxford, which dates back to the roman empire, it is important to understand that geography, especially at the time, does have an impact on the condition on men and their society and how they build their cities (Febvre, L. (2013)).
Oxford is in area which has a strong hilly geography and is frequently affected by flooding. As a response to the physical environment the city developed in order to avoid them because of its destroy-full nature and its links to illnesses. It is therefore logical that the city developed on the higher parts of the region as less likely to be subjected to these issues (Opher, P. (1997)).
The railway system in the uk dates to 1825 and the train station opened in 1884, tunnels at the time were extremely rare and expensive furthermore trains could barely handle inclination. When looking at a map of the morphology of the landscape is extremely noticeable that the location where the facility has been placed is also the only area that is the most flat when compered to the of the rest of the city.
Trains stations are part of a bigger network which aim is to connect cities with each other as efficiently as possible. Therefore in order to understand the functioning of the facility in oxford it was important to see it in a bigger context. As stated previously oxford geography stopped the train station to be in a more accessible area and it was interesting to see if that affected the relation of the station in relation to other facilities.
I therefore mapped the stations on a national level and how they interact with oxford, as is possible to notice from the map oxford has a strong connection with London, with trains every 30 minutes, and a few main northern and southern cities but it appears a lack of connections toward the east and the west side of the country. Again the answer can be found in the geography of the surrounding area of where the station has been placed. The site is completely blocked on the east and west, partially by the city and partially by the hills surrounding it. To have a connection to the west her east another station would most likely have to be built.
Socio-economic issues in oxford
Is also necessary to look the issue from a broader perspective than geography, that thanks to the development of technology is not an element strong enough to determine the life of a city (Febvre, L. (2013)).
Other than the geography and the green belt dividing the city a cultural and socio-economical difference thicken the barrier between Headington, Coley and Iffley village and the rest of the city. These areas (Headington, Coley and Iffley) correlate with culturally diverse communities, a lower average income, higher crime rates and is home to many minorities. Furthermore According to the 2015 Index of Multiple Deprivation, 10 of Oxford's 83 neighbourhood areas are among the 20% most deprived areas in England. These areas, which are in the Leys, Rose Hill and Barton areas of the city, experience multiple levels of deprivation – low skills, low incomes and relatively high levels of crime (Council, O. (2018)). Leys and Barton even though are not considered part of cowley and headington by the council they have a really strict relationship with each other as they are neighbouring areas, instead Rose Hill is effectively part of Iffley. This creates a great psychological barrier between the two parts of the city.
This barrier created by the issues stated above stops the residents of these areas to adventure themselves too much in the city centre and therefore use the station. Therefore other that geographical factors and greenbelts making the connections difficult, socio-economical factors make the station unaccessible to this part of the population of the city.
Oxford though does have a history of having a more efficient railway system connecting it oxford to Cambridge, the location of the station was in Cowly as it worked well in terms of geography to connect the city further. The line closed in in 1968 nearly in contemporary with the renewal of the station in the city centre (British-history.ac.uk. (2018)). There are now new plans to reopen the varsity line as well as the station in Cowley allowing the area to be better connected with both the city centre and other cities. the reopening is scheduled for mid 2020 and it would boost the region’s economy by £160 billion a year. furthermore it would support the economic growth of the region by improving transport connectivity between Oxford and Cambridge, both known centres of innovation (Anon, (2018)). More importantly though it would revitalise the area of Headington, Cowly and iffley and their surroundings offering new job opportunity for the residents as train stations have being linked to healthier community and revitalisation of areas (Village well (2018)).
Conclusion
In conclusion the only way to make the current station efficient on its own it would be moving its location in the city centre making it accessible by the vast majority of the population. Because of the geography and the morphology of the landscape of the region though this would be impossible.
To further complicate the situation a socio-economical barrier divides the city. The perception of the barrier is further amplified by the development of the city green belt which splits the city in two geographically.
Opening a new station, or reopening the Cowley station, could be the solution. The areas of Cowley, Headington and Iffley would undergo a process of revitalisation, this revitalisation will affect all the city increasing its dynamism. Car traffic will decrease through a more frequent use of trains, this will allow the circulation to flow more efficiently also by the decreasing the intense stress that is at moment affecting St. Clements round about. The current station will instead become a interlink for the connections between east/west lines and north/south creating a continuous flow of people making the train station an active social hub.