It was amazing to see that even though we are on the other side of the world, the social response to the environmental conditions of the industrialization era remain the same.

As industrialization in Australia, particularly Melbourne, has resulted in suburbanization throughout C19/C20;  in post-industrial cities these conditions have resulted in r colonization of inner urban areas. In discussions with Dr Nicola Verdon, it was easy to see that it is the same for Sheffield and went further to say the strict policy behind the green belt has played a major role in recolonizing the inner urban areas and limiting the sprawling growth of the city, unlike Melbourne.

I perceive these movement characteristics as stemming from conditions of environmental inequality.  As whether the environmental problem is social or physical, and whether we are rich or poor, for centuries society has been taking steps to get away from poor conditions or reduce its dominance.

From the lecture Emma gave on the perceptions of the north and south divide.  It continued the thought that the rich have been able to become mobile and relocate out and into the inner core more readily and freely due to the social construction of their lives.  “I get more money and buy some difference for me. I get more power and force some difference on you’. (Stretton 1989). As from looking at houses in relation to their location in the local Sheffield housing market, one’s income plays a key role in poor environmental conditions due to the ability to remove one's self from them; however the working class don’t have this high income as they are social disadvantaged, creating a manifestation of poor environmental conditions where they reside. I came to the conclusion from lectures and sightseeing around Sheffield, that the better the environmental conditions, the better the liveability and the more they cost.

Due to the rise of the service sector, there has been a switch in where the better perceived environmental conditions are thus creating a flip, in where the rich and the working class reside. I had to rethink my perception of Sheffield and Melbourne as being the same.  For instance the further you get out of Melbourne, the cheaper the land, thus increasing the social disadvantage on the outskirts of town increasing social polarisation and distance from facilities. Sheffield possesses a green belt with the unique characteristic of the strict policy of no growth beyond the belt. This belt played a major role in recolonizing the inner urban area and has limited the sprawl confining the population to creatively rebuild and utilize that area they have. By doing this it created minimal sprawl reducing social polarisation and clusters of social dependence, however like Melbourne the socially diadvantaged areas are still located on the edge of Sheffield.

These field trips and lectures have supported and altered my original understanding of social movement interaction. However the clear distinction between classes and housing diversity that are present at home as you move further away from the CBD, is different Sheffield and the inability to truly see this distinction has somewhat surprised me. Plus the fact that I have not seen the common urban development, which is something that I expected to see.

What more surprises will Sheffield hold?

- Jacinta Morrissey (Bachelor of Urban, Rural and Environmental Planning)