Pre-publication copy: not for circulation€¦ · realizing creativity as an emergent social...
Transcript of Pre-publication copy: not for circulation€¦ · realizing creativity as an emergent social...
Pre-publicationcopy:notforcirculation
Fullreference:S.Griffiths,‘Manufacturinginnovationasspatialculture:Sheffield’scutleryindustryc.1750-1900’.InI.VanDamme,B.Blondé,A.Miles(eds),CitiesandCreativityfromtheRenaissancetothePresent(London;NewYork,Routledge,2017),127-153.
1
Manufacturinginnovationasspatialculture:Sheffield’scutleryindustryc.1750-1900
SamGriffiths
UCLBartlettSchoolofArchitecture
Introduction
Theresearchpresentedinthischapterusesspacesyntaxmethodologytoprovidea
configurationalanalysisoftherelationshipbetweenSheffield’sstreetnetworkandthe
spatialdistributionofthecity’scutleryindustryfromthelateeighteenthcentury,inorderto
provideapreciseurban-scaledescriptionofwhatHall(1998:291-309)referstoasan
“innovativemilieu”ofindustrialproduction.Theassociationoftheurbanenvironmentwith
industrialinnovationwaspioneeredbytheagglomerationtheoryoftheneo-classical
economistMarshall(1919;1920),andsubsequentlyrevivedbyScott(1988a;1988b).
Agglomerationtheoryemphasizestheimportanceofco-location,proximity,occupational
specializationandcooperationbetweendisaggregatedunitsofproduction,inotherwords
theroleofspecificallyurbanprocessesincreatingtheconditionsforproductinnovationthat
sustaineconomiccompetitiveness.Inindustrialagglomerationsinnovationissaidtoarise
endogenouslyasaconsequenceoftheorganizationaldynamicsoftheproductionsystem
itself,ratherthanthroughthedeliberateinterventionofexternalagencies.Whiletheurban
dimensionisacknowledgedascriticaltotheagglomerativeprocess,however,thenatural
focusofeconomistsontheinstrumentalrequirementsofindustrycanservetoprioritizethe
economic‘cityofproduction’attheexpenseofthequotidian,lived,city-as-place’,which
appearssomewhatrecessiveincomparison.Thiselisionisproblematic,itisargued,sinceit
canleadtheoriesofeconomicagglomerationtorelyonratherunconceptualizednotionsof
‘urbancomplexity’tounderpinargumentsabouthowcitiesworkassociospatialentities.
ThischapteraddressesthisissuebydevelopingHillier’s(1989)notionofurban
‘spatialcultures’asaholisticconceptualizationofhowtheeverydayspacesofurbanlifein
Sheffieldalsobecameimplicatedinthereproduction(andalsodecline)ofitscutlery
industry.Whilesharingtheanalyticalfocusofagglomerationeconomicsontheurbanrealm
aspatialculturesperspectivegoesfurtherinseekingabroadertheoreticalrationaleforthe
embeddingofeconomicprocessesintherelationshipofsocietyandspace.Hillier’stheory
Pre-publicationcopy:notforcirculation
Fullreference:S.Griffiths,‘Manufacturinginnovationasspatialculture:Sheffield’scutleryindustryc.1750-1900’.InI.VanDamme,B.Blondé,A.Miles(eds),CitiesandCreativityfromtheRenaissancetothePresent(London;NewYork,Routledge,2017),127-153.
2
oftheurban‘movementeconomy’isadvancedinsupportoftheclaimthatthespatial
configurationofSheffield’sbuiltenvironmentconstitutedadynamicfieldofco-presence
betweendiverseindustrialfunctionsthatactedasakindofinfrastructureforthecirculation
ofpeople,goodsandnews.Inamoregenericsenseitissaidtohavecomprisedan
informationalresourcecommontothecity’sinhabitantsthatcanhelptoexplainthe
longevityofthecutleryindustryintheabsenceofanycentralizedindustrialplanning.Yet
thespatialcultureofacityisnotreducibletopatternsofmovementandlanduse,itisalso
concernedwithhowsuchgenerativeprocessesbecomeembeddedinsocialandcultural
normsthatseektocontrolorovercomespace,forexamplethrougharchitecturalor
institutionalmeans.Theimplicationsofthesemoreconservativeelementsofspatialculture
areexaminedinthelatersectionsofthechapter.
Conceptualizingurbancomplexityasspatialculture
Thisnotionofanurban-scalespatialcultureofinnovationhasclearresonancefor
Landry’sdemocraticidealofthecreativecity(Landry2000).Byrenderingtheinevitably
elusiveconceptof‘creativity’(hereusedinterchangeablywith‘innovation’)asabroadly
socialratherthanpsychologicalqualityitbecomesmoreaccessibleananobjectofresearch.
Thequestionofurbanmanufacturingcreativityis,however,ratherill-servedbycurrent
researchintothepost-industrialculturaleconomy–notleastbecausethedefinitionof
creativecitiesandtheir‘creativeclass’(Florida2002)islargelypremisedontheabsenceof
manufacturingindustry.Itisnotsimplythatscholarsinthisareahaveignored
manufacturingaltogether,Scott(2000:40)forexample,hasarguedfortheinclusionof
vertically-disintegratedmodesofartisanalproductionintheculturaleconomy.Ratherthe
strongtheoreticalemphasisintheliteratureoftheculturaleconomyonthecityasa
semanticizedspace(forexampleLashandUrry1994),canoccludeaparallelconsideration
ofthematerialityofurbanspace.Acknowledgingthematerialdimensionisessentialto
realizingcreativityasanemergentsocialphenomenoninspatialcultureratherthanagoal-
orientated,individualizedone(Hanna2005;Czikszentmihalyi1988).Italsohasparticular
relevancetohistoricalindustrialcitiessuchasSheffieldwhere,intheabsenceofformal
technicaleducation,simplecorporealpresenceintheinnovativemilieuislikelytohave
Pre-publicationcopy:notforcirculation
Fullreference:S.Griffiths,‘Manufacturinginnovationasspatialculture:Sheffield’scutleryindustryc.1750-1900’.InI.VanDamme,B.Blondé,A.Miles(eds),CitiesandCreativityfromtheRenaissancetothePresent(London;NewYork,Routledge,2017),127-153.
3
playedarelativelygreaterrolein‘learningthetrade’throughenablinganon-reflexive
processofknowledgeacquisition.
Theideaofmanufacturingcreativityasanemergentsocialphenomenoninurban
spatialculturesisimpliedbyMarshall’s(1920:224)famousdictumthatthemysteriesofan
industryarefound“asitwereintheair”ofacitytotheextentthattheymaybelearnt
“unconsciously”bychildren.Unlikeanotherclaimmadeforcityair–thatit‘makesyoufree’,
thevalueofMarshall’sinsightismoredifficultforurbaneconomiststoassesswithany
accuracy.Hismetaphor,however,clearlyindicatesthatasuccessfulindustrialclusteris
morethanthesumofitsparts,implyingtheexistenceofamissingconceptuallinkthat,
fromaspatialculturesperspective,issuppliedbythematerialityofthecityitself.
Marshall’snotionofagglomerationeconomicsresonatesstronglywithJacobs’
prescientcharacterizationofcitiesassociospatialsystemsof‘organizedcomplexity’(Jacobs
1993:564).Ininformationtheoryorganizedcomplexityreferstoastateof‘highentropy’;
information-richsystemsthatareneithertoouniformtobeinterestingnortoochaoticto
beunintelligible(alltoooftentheindustrialcityischaracterizedinthelattersense)but
poisedsomewhereinbetween.‘Information’issaidtoresideinthemeshofrelationships
thatcomprisethesystemoverall,butanylocalelementofthatsystemcontainsatleasta
partialdescriptionofthelargertotality.ForJacobs(1970)organizedcomplexitydescribes
theurbanconditionsinwhich‘newwork’arisesfrom‘oldwork’throughanessentially
contingentprocesssheseesasessentialtosustainingurbaneconomies.Jacobs’workon
urbanstructure,forexampleontheimportanceofsmall‘walkable’urbanblocksin
sustainingsocio-economicvitality,demonstrateshowshesawthebuiltenvironmentas
integraltoarticulatingthe‘complex’relationofsocio-economicpartsandwholes.
Yetdespitewidespreadacknowledgementamongsturbaneconomistsofthepositive
roleplayedMarshallianexternalities(i.e.ofknowledgeexchangedbetweenthosenot
formallyorganizedintoaproductiveunit)ingeneratingurbaninnovation,theagencyofthe
‘urbanvariable’itselfingeneratingwhatSoja(2003:279)calls‘synekism’–the“stimulusof
urbanagglomeration”ismoreoftenimpliedthanspecificallystated.Hall,forexample,
Pre-publicationcopy:notforcirculation
Fullreference:S.Griffiths,‘Manufacturinginnovationasspatialculture:Sheffield’scutleryindustryc.1750-1900’.InI.VanDamme,B.Blondé,A.Miles(eds),CitiesandCreativityfromtheRenaissancetothePresent(London;NewYork,Routledge,2017),127-153.
4
arguesthatwhenfavourablecircumstancesexist(forexampleegalitariansocialstructures
withreadyavailabilityofinvestmentcapital)innovationarisesbyenablingpeopletocreate
synergiesthrough“continuousinteractionatdifferentlevelsandindifferentways,inside
theirorganizationsandinthewiderurbanmilieu”(Hall1999:500).‘Synergy’(inthis
context)referstocreativityarisingfromtheagglomerationofdiversebutcomplementary
agencieswhich,together,aremorethanasumoftheirparts(Ashworth1997:127).The
builtenvironmentisclearlyinvokedinsuchdescriptionsofagglomerativerelationships,yet
Hall(1999)rarelydiscussesurbanstructureinanydetail.Similarly,Landry(2000:119-20,
133-4)acknowledgesthebuiltenvironmentasanaspectofthe“hardinfrastructure”ofthe
creativemilieuwithimportantimplicationsforgeneratingthe“softinfrastructure”of
communicativenetworks.Yetthenatureoftherelationship,between‘hard’and‘soft’
infrastructuregoeslargelytheorizedinhisotherwisecomprehensiveaccountthatidentifies
awiderangeoffactorsfromleadershiptohumandiversitypresentinthecreativecity.
Theimportantconceptualstepinrethinkingagglomerationeconomiesasspatial
cultureinvolveslinkingformaldescriptionsofurbanstructurewiththeirconcrete
descriptionaswhatLefebvre(1991,p.38)calls“spatialpractice”.Thislargelyperceptual
domainencompassestheroutine(social)activitiesofeverydaylifethatlinklocationssuch
ashomeandworkthroughanongoingbodilyperformancethatLefebvrealso(2004:40)
referstoas“dressage”.Difficultiesinconceptualizingthematerialbuiltenvironmentasa
productivedimensionoflivedsocialspacepersistbecausespatialmorphologyoftenseems
reductiveandepistemologicallydistinctfromaccountsofurbanculturewiththeirfocuson
textualandvisualrepresentations.Latour’s(2005)argumentthatsocialagencyresidesnot
onlywithhumanagentsbutalsowithnon-humanactants,orratherwiththenetworkof
relationshipsthatconnectthem,suggestshowthelinkedspacesofthecitymightexercise
suchagencyinthecreationofelementarysocialcompetenciessuchastheroutinesof
workinglife.Thedifficultyhereisthatthetheoryofsocialassemblagesdoesnotofferany
substantiveconceptualizationofhowthematerialdomainofurbanspaceactuallyfunctions
toexerciseagencyatthesociallevelcomparable,forexample,withJacobs’accountofthe
organizedcomplexityofcities.DeLanda(2006:94-95)drawsinsteadontheepistemologyof
Pre-publicationcopy:notforcirculation
Fullreference:S.Griffiths,‘Manufacturinginnovationasspatialculture:Sheffield’scutleryindustryc.1750-1900’.InI.VanDamme,B.Blondé,A.Miles(eds),CitiesandCreativityfromtheRenaissancetothePresent(London;NewYork,Routledge,2017),127-153.
5
time-geographytopresentspaceastheaggregateofindividualroutines–whichrather
avoidsthequestionofmaterialityaltogether.
Lefebvre’snotionofspatialpracticeasanessentiallynon-representationaldomain
ofroutinesocialactionhasitsreciprocalinHillier’sargumentthattheagencyofurban
spaceisessentiallyextra-somatic,embodyingratherthanembodied;aninformationalfield
inwhichindividualactionisrealizedsociallyaspractice(HillierandNetto2002;Netto
forthcoming).Hillier’stheoryoftheurban‘movementeconomy’proposesafundamental
relationshipbetweenoccupationalspecializationasaconsequenceofthedivisionoflabour,
andtheincreaseddifferentiationofurbanspaceunderconditionsofurbanization(Hillier
1996).Assuchithasimportantimplicationsforunderstandingthesociospatialdynamicsof
innovativemilieus.Hillierarguesthatthegeometryofurbanstreetnetworksexercisesa
powerfuleffectondirecting“naturalmovement”(pedestrianorvehicular)suchthat
differentland-useslocatethemselvesintheurbanstreetnetworkrelativetohowmuchofa
premiumtheyputonproximitytohigh-movementlocations(Hillier,1999;Hillieretal,1993).
Thisdynamicproducesafinely-gradedsystemofaccessibleurbanspaceinwhichrelatively
low-movementareasofthenetwork(dominatedbyresidentialactivity)areconnectedto
relativelyhigh-movementareasofthenetwork(dominatedbycommercialactivity),apart-
wholerelationshipthatcanbecanbemeasuredintermsofthe‘synergy’and‘intelligibility’
ofthenetwork,lendingempiricalsupporttoJacobs’argumentsabouturbancomplexity.
(Hillier1996).
Hillier’stheoryofthemovementeconomyhelpstoframethequestionofurban
agencybyprovidinganagent(spatialconfiguration)that,inLatouriantermscan“do
something”(Latour2005,p.128),thatisgeneratepatternsofprobabilisticco-presenceand
encounterbetweenhumanagents(forexamplethoseinvolvedinthecutlerytrades)and
non-humanactants(forexample,thematerialandsymbolicphenomenaofcutlery
production).The‘spacesyntax’methoddevelopedbyHillierandhiscolleaguesallows
propositionsaboutmovementpatternstobeadvanced,includingthosethattookplacein
thepast,thatcanusefullyinform-andbeinformedby-traditionalhistoricalsources
Pre-publicationcopy:notforcirculation
Fullreference:S.Griffiths,‘Manufacturinginnovationasspatialculture:Sheffield’scutleryindustryc.1750-1900’.InI.VanDamme,B.Blondé,A.Miles(eds),CitiesandCreativityfromtheRenaissancetothePresent(London;NewYork,Routledge,2017),127-153.
6
(LaurenceandNewsome,2011;Griffiths,2012).Italsooffersamethodofrepresentation
thatcanprovidequantitativeandvisualdescriptionsofurbanstructure.
ThecomplexityofSheffield’scutleryindustry
Sheffieldwasoneoftheleadingnorthernindustrialcentresassociatedwiththe
industrialrevolutionthattransformedEngland’surbanhierarchyduringthelateeighteenth
andnineteenthcenturies.In1700itwasnotevenoneofthelargest30townsinEnglandin
termsofpopulationbutby1750itwasthetwelfthlargest,by1801theseventhlargest,and
by1901thesixthlargestwithapopulationinexcessof450,000people.Thevastmajorityof
theimmigrationthatfuelledthispopulationrisecameinfromtheimmediatevicinityof
Sheffieldanditsneighbouringcounties(Pollard1959:6-7).Theextentofthepopulation
increasewasacontributoryfactorintheCompanyofCutlerslosingitslegalrighttoregulate
entryintotheSheffieldtrades,whichwasfreeby1814.Evenso,astrongtraditionof
apprenticeship,notleastwithinthefamily,continuedtooperateacustomaryframeworkof
regulation(Hey2005:146).Themajorityofleadingcutleryindustrialistsofthenineteenth
centurywerelocalmenwhomadetheirmoneyinthecitywheretheylived,oftentakinga
significantroleinpubliclife.
Geographically,Sheffieldissituatedattheconfluenceoftworivervalleys,thatofthe
SheafandtheDon,ontheeasternfringesofthePennines.Smith(1982:27)hasdescribed
thecityas“almostageographicalanddemographicaccident,theproductofaconfluenceof
riversandvalleys”.Sheffield’splentifulsourceofwaterpowerwasessentialtotheearly
developmentofthecutleryindustryandalsoexplainsthestrongpresenceofthisindustryin
itsruralhinterland.Anotherimportantfactorinindustrialdevelopmentwastheavailability
ofcheap,localcoalforsteelproduction.Sheffield’sgeographicallyisolatedposition
contributedtoitslackingsometraditionalfeaturesofurbancentralitysuchasacourthouse,
bishopricorasignificantcommercialsectoranddespiteitsrapidgrowthitwasstilllittle
morethanasquaremileinareauntilthemid-nineteenthcentury(Briggs1968:36-7;Berg,
1994:31-2).
Pre-publicationcopy:notforcirculation
Fullreference:S.Griffiths,‘Manufacturinginnovationasspatialculture:Sheffield’scutleryindustryc.1750-1900’.InI.VanDamme,B.Blondé,A.Miles(eds),CitiesandCreativityfromtheRenaissancetothePresent(London;NewYork,Routledge,2017),127-153.
7
Sheffieldwas,however,thecentreoftheancientdistrictofHallamshireandofthe
cutlerytrades.ByaddingvalueandimprovingontheruralproductSheffieldamply
demonstrateditsurbanstatus.ThebestknivesweremadeorfinishedinSheffieldwhile
cheaperandlowerqualityversionswereproducedinthesurroundingvillages(Berg,1994b
p.98;Hey,2005,p.84).WhilethefactoryonlybecamewidespreadinSheffieldwiththe
developmentofthesteelindustryinthesecondhalfofthenineteenthcenturythe
workshopsystemofindustrialorganisationwastypicalofmetal-workingtownssuchas
SheffieldandBirminghamwhereworkshopsandvariouskindsoflarger-scale‘works’sat
alongsideoneother(Crafts1985;Berg1994b).
Taylor(1998:4)arguesforthepriorityofsocialovergeographicfactorsforthe
successofSheffield’scutlerytrades.Sheemphasizesacultureofprideinthefinishedarticle
amongcutlersandastrongdislikeforunregulatedcompetitionthatthreatenedto
underminequality.Yetthestrengthofthiscrafttraditionnotwithstanding,thedivisionof
labourinSheffieldwasextreme.White’s1841directorynamesnofewerthaneight
differentoccupationalspecialismsinbladeforgingandnineinbladegrinding.Bytheearly
nineteenth-centurySheffield’scutlerswereresponsibleforavastandconstantlyevolving
rangeofproducts.The‘core’tradeswereinthemanufactureofpenandpocketknives,
tableknives,razors,scissors,filesandhandles(knownas‘hafts’).Inadditiontocutlerythere
werealsosubstantialedgetool,silverplating,hollowareandflatwareindustries.Most
tradesinthecutleryindustrydependedonthereadyavailabilityofgoodqualitysteel.
Producinghigh-valueconsumerproductsrequiredconsiderablelocalexpertiseinaspectsof
decorativemetalwork.
From1750-1900thetypicalunitofproductioninSheffieldwasthesmallworkshopin
whichtheself-employedcutlermightworkalongsideoneortwoofhisjourneymen.The
smallamountofcapitalneededtosetupasanindependentcutlerandthelimitedamount
ofphysicalspacecutlerymanufacturerequiredmeantthatitwasrelativelycheaptoenter
theindustryandtodevelopnewspecialismssincetheskills,premisesandplantrequired
werebroadlytransferable.Workshopsthemselvesweretypicallysimpleandeasilyadapted
forawidevarietyoftasks.AsBergnotes“evenlargefirmsweremorelikeacollectionof
Pre-publicationcopy:notforcirculation
Fullreference:S.Griffiths,‘Manufacturinginnovationasspatialculture:Sheffield’scutleryindustryc.1750-1900’.InI.VanDamme,B.Blondé,A.Miles(eds),CitiesandCreativityfromtheRenaissancetothePresent(London;NewYork,Routledge,2017),127-153.
8
artisanalworkshopsunderoneroofthantheorganizationalinnovationrepresentedbya
factorysystem“(Berg1994b:132).BergarguesthatinnovationinSheffield’scutlery
industrywaslimitedbytheconservativeworkingpracticesofcutlers(Berg1994a:25).Yet
thisconservatismconcealedconsiderableflexibilityasmanyhighlyskilledpractitioners
could“turntheirhands”toarangeofmanufactures(Hey2005:112).TheGalesandMartin
directoryof1787,forexample,listsWilliamFoxofWestBarasamakeroflancetsand
phlemes,penandpocketknivesandrazors.Inanycase,theconservatismofcutlers’
workingpracticesservesonlytohighlightthegreaterinnovationthatresidedinextending
anessentiallypre-industrialmodeoforganizationtothescaleofanentirecity.
ItisstrikinginthelightofJacobs’characterizationofcitiesassystemsoforganized
complexitythatbothcontemporarycommentatorsandsubsequentscholarlyresearch
commonlydescribethecutlerytradesinpreciselytheseterms.
…itwastheapparentlycomplexorganizationofthelocaltrades,withtheirminutesubtletiesallowingforunprecedentedspecialisationofmanysortsofgrinders,hafters,forgers,shapersandothers,togetherwiththeflexibilityofthedominantoutworksystemwhichwasabletoreactquicklytonewdesignsorchangesintaste,whichcouldnotbematched.(Pollard1993:262)
AnEnglishHeritagesurveyofthearchitectureofthecutlerytrades(Wrayetal2001)
takesitstitle‘OneGreatWorkshop’fromanarticleinThePennyMagazineof1844which
describedSheffieldasanurbanscalefactory.
Onegreatworkshopfortheproductionofcutleryandedgetools–ahugefactorywhichscattersitsseparatedepartmentsindifferentpartsofthetown,butstillretainsthemall,likesomanylinksinachain.(iii)
Taylor(1993:203)putsitthisway:
ThestructureoftheindustryinSheffieldwasremarkablycomplicated,thewholeofthecentreofSheffieldwithitsoutworkers,teams,merchantsandmanufacturers,waslikenedtoonehugefactory,drawntogetherbythecomplexinterdependenceofskillsandproducts.
Pre-publicationcopy:notforcirculation
Fullreference:S.Griffiths,‘Manufacturinginnovationasspatialculture:Sheffield’scutleryindustryc.1750-1900’.InI.VanDamme,B.Blondé,A.Miles(eds),CitiesandCreativityfromtheRenaissancetothePresent(London;NewYork,Routledge,2017),127-153.
9
Ahugerangeofcutleryandmetalproductswouldhaveconstantlycirculatedthe
town,allowingdifferentartisanstomaketheircontributiontotheprocessofproduction
beforeitwasmovedontothesubsequentstage(Wrayetal2001:11;Tweedale,1995:50).
Unwin(2002:43),writingonthesamethemedescribeshow:
…Onecanimaginethetownbeingcriss-crossedbymenandboyscarryingpartfinishedandfinishedknivesfromonespecialisttoanotherandbacktothemanufacturer.
Acriticalmassofsuchobservationsamongspecialisthistoriansinevitablyraisesthe
questionsoftheagencyofSheffield’sbuiltenvironmentintheorganizationofanessentially
unplannedmanufacturingprocess.Theubiquityofmetalworkingknowledgeisconsistent
withTweedale’sargumentthatSheffieldwasfertilegroundforthesmall-scaleinnovations
generated“fromthegroundupwards”(Tweedale1995:35).Hegivesasanexampleof
innovatorypracticethe“adaptability”thatallowedSheffield’scutlerstodominatethe
highlyspecialistmarketforBowieknivesinAmerica1830-1860.ForTweedaleitwas
“virtuosity”inthe“complexnetworkoffirms”thatexistedinSheffieldenabledittosupply
thisdemand(55-6).Berg(1994a:30-32)hasrightlyemphasizedtheimportanceof
institutionalizedsocialnetworksingeneratinginnovation(seeSectionV,below)butin
Sheffield’scaseitisequallyimportanttoconsidertheextenttowhichthedensityof
spatiallycontingentrelationshipsbetweenpractitionersmayalsohaveplayedaroleinthis
process.
Sheffield’scutleryindustryasanindustrialmovementeconomy
Intheresearchforthisstudyspacesyntaxanalysisofaseriesofsixhistoricaltown
plansofSheffield(1771,1797,1808,1823,1832,1851)hasbeenusedinconjunctionwitha
seriesofbusinessdirectorydatafromsixperiods(1774,1787,1797,1817,1825,1841),to
maptheconfigurationallocationofpractitionersinSheffield’scutleryandrelatedmetals
trades.Thecombineddatasetmakesitpossibletoexploretheextenttowhichtheoft-
stated‘complexity’ofthecutleryindustrytooktheformofan‘industrialmovement
economy’.Thedirectorydatawastranscribedintoadatabaseandthedataofpractitioners
extracted.Theemphasiswasonidentifyingthefullrangeofcutleryandmetalworkpractices,
Pre-publicationcopy:notforcirculation
Fullreference:S.Griffiths,‘Manufacturinginnovationasspatialculture:Sheffield’scutleryindustryc.1750-1900’.InI.VanDamme,B.Blondé,A.Miles(eds),CitiesandCreativityfromtheRenaissancetothePresent(London;NewYork,Routledge,2017),127-153.
10
thereforeeachindividualtradeorproducttype(includingmultipleentriesforsome
individualsandcompanies)wasrecordedseparately,yieldingatotalof6931industrial
functionsin104activitytypesacrossthetime-seriest1…6.Thesampleofindustrialstreets
(228)isexhaustiveofthoseinthedirectoriest1…4butforpracticalreasonslimitedtothose
withtwoormorefunctionsint5andtenormorefunctionsint6.Thesampletherefore
excludesalargenumberofnewindustrialstreetsandindustrialactivitiesthatdeveloped
fromapproximately1825.Evenso,thesampleofstreetsandindustrialactivitiesissizeable.
Theproblemsinusingtradedirectoriesassourcesforsocialhistoryarewellknown(Corfield
andKelly1984;Beauchamp2002:103).Sinceitistheaggregatelocationofindustrial
activitiesonthestreetsystemovertimethatisatissue,however,directoriesweredeemed
anappropriatesourcetoidentifytherangeofproductsandservicesofferedbywell
establishedpractitioners.
Figure1:integrationanalysisofSheffield’sstreetnetwork1736-1850
Figure1showsRalphGosling’splanofSheffield1736,WilliamandJamesFairbanks’planofSheffield1808(bypermissionSheffieldCityCouncil)andtheOrdnanceSurveyCountySeries1851©OrdnanceSurvey.
ThebackgroundimageinFigure1showsthreetownplansforSheffieldin1736,1808
and1850.In1736emergingindustrialactivitywaslocatedlargelytothenorthoftheearly-
modernmarkettownintheCroftsarea.By1808therapidsouth-westwardexpansionofthe
cityisclearlyvisibleinthetwolargegridstructures.By1850thisexpandedareahadfilled
outandanewphaseofsuburbandevelopmentisbeginningatthemostwesterlyfringe.
Superimposedontoeachtownplanisanelementaryspacesyntax‘integrationanalysis’
Pre-publicationcopy:notforcirculation
Fullreference:S.Griffiths,‘Manufacturinginnovationasspatialculture:Sheffield’scutleryindustryc.1750-1900’.InI.VanDamme,B.Blondé,A.Miles(eds),CitiesandCreativityfromtheRenaissancetothePresent(London;NewYork,Routledge,2017),127-153.
11
derivedfromamodelofthestreetnetworkrenderedastheleastandlongestnumberof
‘axial’linesthatcoverallthestreetsasthesearerepresentedonthetownplansand
processedinacomputerusingDepthmapsoftware(HillierandHanson1984:90-123;
Varoudis2011-14).Integrationanalysisattheurbanscale(radius-n)measurestherelative
closenessofoneaxialline(streetorcombinationofstreets)toallotheraxiallinesinthe
streetsystembycalculatingdistanceonthebasisofchangesofdirection(i.e.topological
depth)ratherthaninmetricunits(i.e.metresdistance).Thisprocessassignseachaxialline
itsownintegrationvalue.Integrationisameasureofcentralityingraphtheory,referredto
as‘accessibility’inspacesyntaxanalysis.Theuseofthistopologicalmeasureofdistanceis
consistentwithspacesyntaxresearchthatshowshowtherelative‘shallowness’(i.e.inter-
accessibility)ofstreetsinanetworkisagreatermovementattractorintermsofstreet
networkeffectsalone,thanmetricproximity(whichisbetterappliedtotheanalysisof
individualroutesbetweenspecificoriginsanddestinations).InFigure1theaxiallineswith
thehighestintegrationvaluesarecolouredredand,onascaleofwarmtocoldcolours,
thosewiththesmallestintegrationvalues(i.e.the‘deepest’ormostsegregated)are
colouredblue.
Thepatternofredlinesdescribestheurban‘integration’corewhererelativelyhigh
ratesofmovementandspatialco-presencemightbeexpected.Hillier(2012:33)refersto
thisasthe‘foregroundnetwork’ofthecitythatlinkslocalcentrestotheurbanscale
structure.ThethreemodelsinFigure1clearlyshowashiftintheintegrationcoreof
Sheffieldfromacirculatorystructure(in1736)embracingmainstreetsandinstitutionalcore
oftheearlymoderntowntoamorelinearstructureextendingtothewestandsouth-
westernareasofthecitythathadinitiallybeenintendedasresidentialbutbythe1830shad
beenlargelyappropriatedbythecutleryindustry.Thisshiftincentralitysuggeststhata
responsetoCorfieldandClark'squestion“whatistherelationshipoftownstoindustryand
thatofindustrytotowns?”mightbethatintegrationdifferentialsinurbanspaceoffera
mechanismforstructuringspatialco-presencebetweenspecializedoccupationalgroups
(CorfieldandClark1994:ix-x).ThispropositionisconsistentwithHillierandNetto’s(2002:
195)argumentthat“configurationalintegrationcreatesthenecessaryspatialconditions”in
whichthedivisionoflabourbecomesviable,thatisexaminedinthischapter.
Pre-publicationcopy:notforcirculation
Fullreference:S.Griffiths,‘Manufacturinginnovationasspatialculture:Sheffield’scutleryindustryc.1750-1900’.InI.VanDamme,B.Blondé,A.Miles(eds),CitiesandCreativityfromtheRenaissancetothePresent(London;NewYork,Routledge,2017),127-153.
12
Figure2representsSheffield’sstreetnetworkusingthesampleof228industrial
streets.Allowingforthesignificantunder-representationofindustrialstreetsinthelasttwo
time-seriesandthefurtherdevelopmentofthecityinthedecadebetweenthe1841
directoryand1850town-plananalysiscombinedint6,itislikelythatbetween33%and50%
ofSheffield’sentirestreetnetworkfeaturedindustrialactivityc.1840.Perhapsmorenotable
ishowthissubsetofindustrialstreetsformedanalmostcontiguousnetworkofspaceacross
muchofthebuilt-upareaofthecity.ThethicknessofthelinesinFigure2representsthe
sumofindustrialfunctionsattributedtotheequivalentstreet(s)intotalacrossthetime-
series,relativetothetimeseriesinwhichthestreet(s)firstfeaturedindustrialactivity(so
thataheavilyindustrialstreetthatfirstfeaturedindustrialactivityint6willappearthicker
thanaconsistentlylightlyindustrialstreetthatfirstfeaturedindustrialactivityint1).This
functionaldensityratiogivesanindicationoftherelativepersistenceofindustrialactivityon
agivenstreetovertime.
Pre-publicationcopy:notforcirculation
Fullreference:S.Griffiths,‘Manufacturinginnovationasspatialculture:Sheffield’scutleryindustryc.1750-1900’.InI.VanDamme,B.Blondé,A.Miles(eds),CitiesandCreativityfromtheRenaissancetothePresent(London;NewYork,Routledge,2017),127-153.
13
Figure2:Sheffield’snetworkofindustrialstreetsc.1850
Basemap:OrdnanceSurvey1:10560CountySeries,Sheet294,1851(cOrdnanceSurvey)
VisualizingSheffield’sstreetnetworkinthiswaymakesthepointthatitwouldhave
beenvirtuallyimpossibletohavetraversedearlyindustrialSheffieldwithoutcominginto
contactwithsomematerialevidenceofactivityinthecutlerytrades.Itisnotablehowthe
streetsthatcomprisethelinearizedintegrationcoreinFigure1(c.1850)largelycoincide
withheavyconcentrationsofindustrialactivity,particularlyaroundthenorth-southaxisof
RockinghamStreet(indicated).Thereis,however,nostraightforwardlylinearrelationship
betweenindustrialactivityandintegration;regressionanalysisacrossthetime-seriesshows
positivebutweakcorrelations(r20.1<0.21).Thisishardlysurprisingsinceindustrywas
ubiquitousthroughoutSheffieldandbecausemanyofthemostaccessiblestreetsinthe
N
Rockingham Street
Pre-publicationcopy:notforcirculation
Fullreference:S.Griffiths,‘Manufacturinginnovationasspatialculture:Sheffield’scutleryindustryc.1750-1900’.InI.VanDamme,B.Blondé,A.Miles(eds),CitiesandCreativityfromtheRenaissancetothePresent(London;NewYork,Routledge,2017),127-153.
14
eighteenth-centurycitywere,asmightbeexpected,dominatedbyretailbusinesses.Having
saidthat,somestrongpatternsemergefromtheanalysisthatsupporttheassertionthat
industrialactivityinSheffieldbecameorganizedinrelationtothenetworkofurban-scale
movement.TheintegrationanalysissummarizedinTable1showsthatthatsampled
industrialstreetswere,onaverage,moreintegratedthannon-industrialstreetsacrossthe
timeseries.Fromt3tot6thesedifferencesarestatisticallysignificant(p<.0001)comparedto
theallstreetsintheurbansystematequivalentpointsinthetimeseries.
Table1:comparisonofintegrationvaluesforindustrialandnon-industrialstreets
tradedirectoryyear
t1
1774
t2
1787
t3
1797
t4
1817
t5
1825
t6
184
1
Int.-rn Industrialstreets 1.18 1.26 1.27 1.28 1.31 1.30
non-industrialstreets 1.11 1.18 1.1 1.1 1.13 1.09
Shadedcellsindicatedifferencefrompopulationmeanisstatisticallysignificantp<.0001(dark)and
p<.027(light)
Figure3(a)comparestheaccessibilityofindustrialandnon-industrialstreetsin
termsoftheaveragemeantopological‘stepdepth’(i.e.thenumberofturns)requiredto
accessSheffield’smarketplace,locatedinthemedievalurbancore,fromallotherstreetsin
thenetworkateachpointinthetimeseries.Figure3(b)presentsasimilarcomparison,this
timeshowingtheaveragenumberofstepstothemostintegratedaxiallineinthestreet
networkasthischangedoverthetimeseries.Asmightbeexpectedthesetwodimensions
ofcentrality(geographicalandtopological)largelycoincideinthelateeighteenth-century
townbutasSheffield’surbanizationincreasesstreetscontainingindustrialactivitybecame
relativelymoreaccessiblefromthewestward-shiftingtopologicalcentreandrelativelyless
accessiblefromthehistoricaltowncentre.Industrialactivity,thereforedidnotdevelopon
theurbanperipherybutaroundstreetsthatstructuredspaceattheurbanscale.
Pre-publicationcopy:notforcirculation
Fullreference:S.Griffiths,‘Manufacturinginnovationasspatialculture:Sheffield’scutleryindustryc.1750-1900’.InI.VanDamme,B.Blondé,A.Miles(eds),CitiesandCreativityfromtheRenaissancetothePresent(London;NewYork,Routledge,2017),127-153.
15
Figure3:contrastingcentralitiesintheorganizationofSheffield’scutleryindustry(a)meanstepdepthfromthemarketplace (b)meanstepdepthfromtopologicalcentre
Source:author
Source:author
Figure3(b)showsthatbythemid-nineteenthcenturyindustrialactivityhadbegun
toedgefurtherawayfromtheintegrationcore.Toanextentthisindicatestheunder-
representationofindustrialactivityint5…6butitalsoreflectsthefactthatbythemid-
nineteenthcenturydevelopmenttothewestofthecentrewasincreasinglysuburban.Even
so,attheurbanscaleindustrialactivityinSheffieldremainedhighlyaccessiblefromallareas
ofthecitythroughouttheperiodtoc.1850.Theanalysissupportstheargumentthatthe
relationofurbanspacetothecutleryindustryforwasnotsimplyasanadhoccontainerfor
industrialactivity.Rather,itreflectedanemergentorganizationaldynamicconsistentwith
theHillier’snotionofthemovementeconomythatmaintainedthecoherenceofthecluster
asawholeasthecityexpanded.Ininformation-theoreticaltermsthisprocesswouldhave
affordedcomplexdescriptionsoftheorganizationofthecutleryindustrythatwere
indistinguishablefromtheexperienceofthecityitself.
Occasionallytheremayhavebeenanadvantagetospecificpractitionersandfirms
beinghighlyaccessible.Viewedsystemicallyasamodeofindustrialorganization,however,
itwouldhavematteredlesswhichactivitiesoccupiedthehighestmovementlocationsso
longasenoughofthemdidtomaintainthecoherenceofthewhole.Individualcutlery
practitionerscouldanddidlocateacrossawidespectrumofintegratedandsegregated
spaceswhichaffordedawiderangeofdifferentiated‘niches’intheurbanlandscape.
Beauchamparguesthatsimplespatialproximityofindustrialactivityattheurbanscale
Pre-publicationcopy:notforcirculation
Fullreference:S.Griffiths,‘Manufacturinginnovationasspatialculture:Sheffield’scutleryindustryc.1750-1900’.InI.VanDamme,B.Blondé,A.Miles(eds),CitiesandCreativityfromtheRenaissancetothePresent(London;NewYork,Routledge,2017),127-153.
16
facilitatedtheefficientfunctionalintegrationofspecializedproductionskills(Beauchamp
2002:54).Thequestion,however,isnotsimplyoneofspatial‘proximity’assuch(alargely
staticconceptinagglomerationeconomics)butratherofhowproximitywasstructured
acrossdifferentscalesofurbanspacetoaffordtherealizationofthefunctionallinkages,
synergiesand,moregenerically,‘informationalco-presence’thatdefinedtheorganized
complexityofSheffield’scutleryindustry.Anysuchaccountmustbeconsistentwiththe
assumptionthat,viewedsystemically,thelocationofanygivenindustrialactivitywas
largelyunpredictable.Indeed,thisstochasticdynamicdescribestheessentialgenerative
qualityoftheinnovativemilieu’.
Differentiatingbetweenfunctional‘reach’(thenumberofstreetsonwhichagiven
industrialfunctionfeatures)andfunctional‘range’(thenumberofdifferentfunctionsona
givenstreet)ishelpfulbecauseitoffersasimplewayofcharacterizingindustrialactivitiesin
termsoftheirtendencytobeclusteredordistributedacrossthestreetnetwork.Figure4
summarizestheoveralltrendsrelatingtofunctionalreach.Thehighfrequency‘core’cutlery
specialisms,mostlikelytobeassociatedwiththeindependent‘littlemesters’,particularly
penandtableknifemanufacturers,havethestrongesttendencytocongregatebuttheyalso
havethewidestreachofstreetsoverall.Bycontrast,steelconvertersandrefinersandcase
andcabinetmakers(toselecttwoexamples)arerelativelylesslikelytocongregate,possibly
indicatingapreferencetobewidelydistributedaroundthetown.
Figure4:therelationshipofindustrialfunctions(sum)withreachacrossstreets∑t1…6
Source:author
Pre-publicationcopy:notforcirculation
Fullreference:S.Griffiths,‘Manufacturinginnovationasspatialculture:Sheffield’scutleryindustryc.1750-1900’.InI.VanDamme,B.Blondé,A.Miles(eds),CitiesandCreativityfromtheRenaissancetothePresent(London;NewYork,Routledge,2017),127-153.
17
Thehighdegreeofcorrelation(r2=0.83)betweenthetotalnumberofeachindustrial
functionandtheextensivereachacrossthestreetnetworkofmostfunctionalspecialismsis
indicativenotonlyofhowthemostfrequentlyoccurringactivitiestendedtodistributethis
densityacrossthewidestnumberofstreetsbutalsohowthelessfrequentlyoccurringwere
nolessdistributedrelativetotheiroverallnumber.Exceptionsincludeclockandwatch
makersandotherretail-orientatedfunctionswhichhadadisproportionatetendencyto
clusterinprestigehighaccessibilitylocations.Interestingly,tradesassociatedwiththehigh-
valuesilverplatingtradealsohadatendencytobelocatedinhighlyintegratedstreets.This
doesnotmean,however,thattheyclusteredinthehistoricaltowncentresinceintegration
isnotafunctionofgeographicalcentralitybutofurbanstructure.Overallaclearpattern
emergesofindustrialactivitytypesdistributedacrossawidenumberofstreetsand
industrialstreetscharacterizedbyamixoffunctionsratherthanbyaconcentrationofa
particularfunction.
WhatwastrueofSheffieldasawholewasalsotrueofthevariouslocalesofthecity.
Forexample,theCroftsareatothenorth-westoftheeighteenth-centurycentre
accumulatednofewerthantwenty-threedifferentindustrialfunctionsacrossfourteen
differentstreetsintotaloverthetime-series.Themostfrequentactivitytypewaspenand
pocketknifeproductionbutallthecoretradeswerewellrepresented.TheArundellocalein
thegridplantothesouth-westofthecentreaccumulatedtwenty-twodifferentfunctions
acrossnineteendifferentstreetsoverthetime-series,withtable-knifeproductionthemost
frequent.WhilesomelocalessuchastheWicker,justnorthoftheRiverDon,and
dominatedbyscissorsmiths,hadquiteadistinctiveprofile,itwasalsohometoanumberof
edgetoolandpenandpocketknifemanufacturers(tonamejusttwo),functionsthatwere
alsostronglyrepresentedelsewhereinthecity.Itisnotablehow,ateachstageinthetime
series,theoveralldistributionofindustrialfunctionswascharacterizedbyafewhigh
densityfunctionsandalongtailoflowerdensityfunctions(forexample,decorativemetal
workers,steelconvertersandrefiners,andcaseandcabinetmakers).Thisdistribution
remainsremarkablystableacrossmostareasofthecity.Thereismuchvariationindetail,
however,withregardtotheexactcombinationofstreetsandfunctionsthatcontributeto
Pre-publicationcopy:notforcirculation
Fullreference:S.Griffiths,‘Manufacturinginnovationasspatialculture:Sheffield’scutleryindustryc.1750-1900’.InI.VanDamme,B.Blondé,A.Miles(eds),CitiesandCreativityfromtheRenaissancetothePresent(London;NewYork,Routledge,2017),127-153.
18
thetotalmixineachlocaleatdifferenttimes.Industrialactivityinthevariouscutlerylocales
ofSheffieldwas,therefore,neithersouniformastobeidentifiedasamono-functional
‘destination’nor,onthewhole,soself-sufficientsuchthatitunderminedthecoherenceof
theurban-scalesystemofproduction.Eachlocalehaditsowncharacterasaplaceforliving
andworking,asBelford(2001)demonstratesfortheCroftsarea.Yetequallynonewere
entirelyseparatedfromthewidercityinparticular‘quarters’or‘zones’dedicatedto
manufacturing.Localesconstitutedintermediatescalesofcutleryproduction,interfaces
betweenthedomesticandurbanscalesofproduction.
Figure5:longtaildistributionofindustrialfunctionsinSheffield∑ t1…6
Source:author
Figure5showshowthesame‘longtail’ofindustrialactivitythatwascharacteristic
ofindividuallocalesisalsoevidentforSheffieldasawholeintotalacrossthetimeseries.
Thedistributionisdistinctfromthedifferentlocalesindetailbutwithastrongstatistical
resemblanceoverall.Thepracticalconsequenceofthisdistributionofindustrialactivity
typesacrossSheffield’sstreetnetworkwastomaximizethemixoffunctionsatallurban
scalesandtobuildresilienceintothecutleryindustrybymakingitrelativelysimpleto
accommodatenewpractitionersandfirmsandcopewiththelossoffailingones.Thismixing
ofindustrialfunctionswasequallyapparentatthemostlocal,domestic,scalesofSheffield’s
urbanlandscape.Thrift(1987:32)hasnotedhowworkingclasslifeinSheffieldwasfocused
around“workshop-home-chapel-pub”(seealsoGriffiths2012).Therangeoflanduses
effectivelymakesthepointthattheclusteringoffunctionsperseisnotthepointsomuch
Pre-publicationcopy:notforcirculation
Fullreference:S.Griffiths,‘Manufacturinginnovationasspatialculture:Sheffield’scutleryindustryc.1750-1900’.InI.VanDamme,B.Blondé,A.Miles(eds),CitiesandCreativityfromtheRenaissancetothePresent(London;NewYork,Routledge,2017),127-153.
19
astheremarkablescalabilityofthatmixacrosseachscaleofurbanspace.Indeedthe
organizationofthecutleryindustrywascontinuallyassembledandreassembledinthe
fabricofurbanspaceitselfbutneverexactlyinthesamewaytwice.
SynergeticrelationsinSheffield’scutleryindustrywereaffordedthroughtheagency
oftheurbanstreetnetworkinprovidinganinterfacingmechanism(the‘movement
economy’)fordiversepractitioners,goodsandinformationtobeco-presentwithinand
acrossdifferentscalesofurbanspace.Thepersistenceofthismechanismensuredthata
highdegreeofrandomnessoflocationwithregardtoanygivenpractitionerdidnotequate
toa‘chaos’butrathertoaninformation-richstructureoforganizedcomplexityaspatterns
ofco-locationbecamemateriallyembeddedinSheffield’sbuiltenvironmentovertime.One
mightspeculateonthebasisofthisanalysishowSheffield’scutleryindustrygenerateda
distinctivedressagecharacterizedbyadensityoflocalizedroutinesinterpenetratedby
relativelyscarcertripsattheurbanscale.Borsay’s(2008:87)commentthatineighteenth-
centurytowns“acquiringinformationcouldbeasmuchavisualasanoralexercise”might
beextendedtoallthesenses.‘OldSmokey’Sheffieldwaswithoutquestiontheplacein
whichthepossessionofhighlyspecializedcutleryandmetalsskillsmademostsensenot
simplyasanindividualcompetencybutalsosociallyastheongoingperformanceofa
complexmodeofindustrialorganization.
Sheffield’scutleryindustryasspatialculture
Toassertapositiveroleforthemovementeconomyasakindofdurable
informationalinfrastructureforcutleryproductionisnottoarguethatrelationsbetween
individualpractitionersandfirmswerecharacterizedbyMarshallianco-operation,although
itdoesimplythatinamoregenericsensethebasicknowledgeandtechniquesof
productionprocesseswereheldincommonbytheurbancommunity.Thisdistinctionis
importantbecausescholarlyresearchintothecutleryindustrysuggestsitwascharacterized
asmuchbycut-throatcompetitionandareluctancetoshareinformationasitwasby
collaboration.Tweedale(1995:54)putsitwellinnotinghowcutleryandsteelfirmswere
“atonceatomistic,yetatthesametimecloselyinterlocked;competitiveandyetco-
operative”.Certainlytheco-locationofmanysimilarpracticesinaclusterisaslikelytoact
Pre-publicationcopy:notforcirculation
Fullreference:S.Griffiths,‘Manufacturinginnovationasspatialculture:Sheffield’scutleryindustryc.1750-1900’.InI.VanDamme,B.Blondé,A.Miles(eds),CitiesandCreativityfromtheRenaissancetothePresent(London;NewYork,Routledge,2017),127-153.
20
asaspurforseekingcompetitiveadvantagethroughincreasingdifferentiationasitdoesco-
operation.
Family-basedbusinessesofferedakeyinstitutionalmechanismforbusiness
collaborationacrossspaceandtimethatwaslargelyindependentofcontingent
informationaldynamicsofthemovementeconomy.Tweedale(2013)hasdrawnattention
totheimportanceofthefamilyfirminthecutleryindustry,notinghowwomenandchildren
wouldworkinvariousrolestohelpmakefamilyconcernsviable.Hey(1991)hasshownfor
thepre-nineteenth-centurycutleryindustryhowskillswerekeptinfamiliesforgenerations
andtransmittedthroughtheapprenticeshipsystem.Hearguesthatthenumeroussurname
clustersinnineteenth-centurydirectoriespointstoanenduring‘hereditaryprinciple’for
transmittingindustrialknowledge.Asecondimportantconsiderationthatbeliesany
complacentvisionoffreelycollaboratingartisanshighlightsthedegreeofclassstratification
betweenmerchant-manufacturersandsmallerproducers(GraysonandWhite1996).This
inequalityservesasareminderoftheextenttowhichco-ordinationofcutleryproduction
was‘top-down’(thoughlargelyadhoc)bylargermanufacturersandmerchants.Ahighly
stratifiedsocialhierarchy,asHallhasarguedisdisruptiveofthesynergiesoftheinnovative
milieu(Hall1998:494)suchasthoseproducedbythemovementeconomy.
NeitherdoestheurbanscaleaccessibilityorarchitecturalflexibilityofSheffield’s
cutleryworkshopsandworksmeanthatwhatwentoninsidetheworkshopswaseasily
knowntooutsiders.Belford(2001:110)hasnotedhowthecourtoryard,concealedbehind
thestreetfrontage,actedasthe“basiccore”ofthegroundplan,bothfordomesticand
industrialbuildings.Thisplancreatedatransitionspace‘theginnel’betweenthepublic
streetandtheinterioryardthatservedtoseparatethetwo,makingiteasytodistinguish
betweeninhabitants,membersofparticularfamiliesandethnicgroups,andstrangers.
Smallerworkshopsmightbesituatedincourtyardsorinindividualroomsinhouseswhile
largerpremiseswouldoccupywholefrontages,extendingalongthestreetwhentrade
expandedandfillingthecourtyardwithvariousoutbuildings.Largerworksmightalsobe
situatedbackfromthestreetsoastoemphasizetheirseparationfromtheeverydayurban
realm(114).Suchanurbanlandscapewouldclearlyhaveactedasacontrolonthe
Pre-publicationcopy:notforcirculation
Fullreference:S.Griffiths,‘Manufacturinginnovationasspatialculture:Sheffield’scutleryindustryc.1750-1900’.InI.VanDamme,B.Blondé,A.Miles(eds),CitiesandCreativityfromtheRenaissancetothePresent(London;NewYork,Routledge,2017),127-153.
21
circulationofpeople,goodsandinformationatthearchitecturalscale;evenconcealingthe
natureofsomeactivitiescompletely.
Animportantdistinctioncanalsobemadebetweenlargercutleryworksonthebasis
oftheirinternalorganization(Beauchamp2002:99-104.)Worksthatwere‘integrated’
featuredarelativelyhighdegreeofinternalcirculationandtypicallyaccommodatedjusta
singleenterprise.Thisconfigurationsupportedtheintegrationofproductionprocessesand
madeiteasiertomonitorcommunicationbetweenworkersemployedindifferentareasof
thebuilding.‘Segregated’works,bycontrast,werecharacterizedbyminimalinternal
circulationandwereoftenaccessibleonlyexternally(onallfloors),orinternallythrough
corridors.Thesepremisesaccommodatedarangeofdifferentpractitionersand/ortrade
specialismsindifferentworkshopsthatweretypicallyrentedforthepurpose.Theinterior
architectureofthecutlerytradesthereforewouldhaveservedtoinhibiteffectiveco-
presencebetweendifferentoccupationalspecialismsandpractitionersofdifferentfirms
eveninconditionsofhighproximity.
Yetindustrialactivityandthelifeofthestreetwerenotentirelydistinct.Belford
notesoftheCroftsareaofSheffieldhow“…thestreetsthemselves,whichhadbeen
intendedasthoroughfares,becameextensionsofthehouseandworkshop(Belford2001:
110).Asignificantfactorinblurringtheseboundariesbetweenhome,workandthecity
wouldhavebeentheubiquitouspresenceofchildrenandyoungpeopleintheurbanrealm.
Symonds’(1843)evidencetotheChildren’sEmploymentCommissionof1843testifiesto
thewidespreademploymentofchildreninthecutleryindustryandchildrenasyoungas7or
8wouldhelpoutinworkshopsbeforebeginningworkproperattheageof10or11(Pollard
1959:70).OneofthegreatSheffieldsteelmakers(andinventorofstainlesssteel),Harry
Brearley,hadpracticedforgingnailsateightyearsoldand“wanderedamongstthelittle
mesters”asaboyinthe1870s(Tweedale1995:55).Theextentofjuvenileinvolvementin
thecutleryandmetalstradesemphasizesthecloseinter-minglingofdomesticandworking
lifeinindustrialSheffield,suggestinghowapracticalknowledgeofindustrycouldbe
acquired,asMarshallbelieved,simplybygrowingupthere.
Pre-publicationcopy:notforcirculation
Fullreference:S.Griffiths,‘Manufacturinginnovationasspatialculture:Sheffield’scutleryindustryc.1750-1900’.InI.VanDamme,B.Blondé,A.Miles(eds),CitiesandCreativityfromtheRenaissancetothePresent(London;NewYork,Routledge,2017),127-153.
22
Consistentwiththepropositionofagglomerationeconomics,thereissomedirect
evidencethatsimplespatialproximityalonemayhaveproducedsynergiesbetween
otherwiseunrelatedpractitioners.Forexample,inRobinson’s1797tradedirectory,
Lin[d]leyandVickersarelistedasasliverplatingpartnershiptradinginSpringStreetbutin
theGalesandMartindirectoryof1787thenamesJohnLindley(cutlerandrazorsmith)and
BenjaminVickers(scissorsmith)bothappearseparatelyonthesamestreet.Similarly,in
Gell’sdirectoryfor1825LevickandWasnidge,manufacturersofvariouskindsofcutlery,are
listedastradingat21PondStreet,whilstinBrownell’s1817directorybothfamiliesappear
onPondStreetbutnopartnershipislisted.InWhite’sdirectoryfor1841Marriotand
Atkinson,manufacturersofsundryedgetools,arelistedastradinginCrossSmithfieldwhile
botharelistedastradingseparatelyonthesamestreetinthe1825directory.Ofcourse,itis
impossibletosaywhetherthesepartnershipshadanythingtodowithspatialproximity
withoutfurtherresearch.Yetsuchexamplessuggesthowinoccasionalcasessuchproximity
mighthaveovercomethebarriersofcompetitionandtradesecrecythatheldattheworks
entrance.Theyaretoofewhowever,tosuggestthatagglomerationasmereproximityhas
muchexplanatorypowerintheabsenceofafullerconceptualizationofSheffield’sspatial
cultureasinvolvingthequotidianperformanceitsparticularmodeofindustrialorganization.
Publichousesheldavitallyimportantplaceintheartisanalandworkingclassculture
ofSheffield.Theycanbeconsideredalmostasmuchapartofthesocialinfrastructureofthe
cutleryindustryastheworkshop.Thewiderangeofdrinkingestablishments–includingthe
morerespectable‘inns’–wereascertainlypatronizedbyallclassesifnotallbyall
individuals.Reid(1976a:380)observeshowthepubwas“fundamentaltosocialintercourse
oneverylevel”,anessentiallocusofinformationinwhichdailynewsandgossipfromthe
“workshopandstreetcorner”couldbeexchanged.Pubswerealsoplaceswherebusiness
wastransactedbetweencutlersandfactors,especiallyintheearlierdaysoftheindustry.
Manypractitionersinthecutlerytradesbecamepublicansthemselvesandtherewasaclose
relationshipbetweentheseareasoftrade(Leader1875:124).
Churchandchapelplayedasimilarroleofinformationdisseminationamongthe
middleand‘respectable’workingclassesasthepubdidamongthemassoftheworking
Pre-publicationcopy:notforcirculation
Fullreference:S.Griffiths,‘Manufacturinginnovationasspatialculture:Sheffield’scutleryindustryc.1750-1900’.InI.VanDamme,B.Blondé,A.Miles(eds),CitiesandCreativityfromtheRenaissancetothePresent(London;NewYork,Routledge,2017),127-153.
23
urbanpopulation.YetasaspectsofSheffield’sspatialculturetheirroleswouldhavebeen
subtlydifferent.Whereasthepubwasprincipallya‘spatial’entity–inthesenseofdrawing
itsclientelefromtheimmediatelocality,thereligiousidentityofachurchorchapel(toa
greaterorlesserextent)transcendeditsgeographicalcatchment.Thisreligiousidentity
providedamechanismtosustainsocialnetworksbetweenconfessionalbrethren,including
manyleadingcutlerymanufacturersandentrepreneurs(Reid1976b:284).Onecanargue
thatifthepubfunctionedtopropagatethegenerativemodeofco-presencebetween
practitionerscharacteristicoftheurban-scalemovementeconomy,churchandchapel
functionedtocontrolitbyperpetuatingsocialnetworksthatwereeffectiveacrossspace.
Havingsaidthis,thecloselinksReid(1976:476)notesexistedbetweenSheffield’spubsand
itsfriendlysocietiescomplicatesthispicture,sincethesesocietiesalsooperatedastrades
unions,maintainingsocialnetworksamongsttheworkingpopulationbasedontrade
identity(forexampletheFilesmithSociety,established1732andtheScissorsmithSociety,
established1791)ratherthanreligiousaffiliation.Church,chapelandpubthen,provided
variedmechanismsforforgingbusinessrelationshipsandcirculatinginformationin
Sheffield’scutlerytradesandwerekeyinstitutionsinmanagingtheinformationflowofthe
city’sspatialculture.
AmoreformalinstitutionforthispurposewastheSheffieldCompanyofCutlers
foundedin1624,housedinthecentrallylocatedCutlers’Hall.Historically,theCompany’s
responsibilitywastoprotectthetermsofcutlers’tradebycontrollingentrytotheindustry
throughapprenticeship.However,from1814thisregulatoryrolehadsubstantially
diminishedleavingitsprimaryroleastheregistrationofCutlers’marksandprotectionof
theSheffield‘brand’(Unwin2002:17;Higgins1997).Asregulatorybodytheeffectofthe
CompanyofCutlersonSheffield’sday-to-dayspatialculturewouldhavebeenrestrictivebut
minimalinpractice.MoresignificantishowoverthenineteenthcenturytheCompany
becameincreasinglydominatedbylargermanufacturersforwhomitsannualCutlers’Feast
wasanimportantdateinthesocialcalendar-thatalsopresentedanopportunityforthe
reproductionofelitesocialnetworksawayfromthehurly-burlyoftheworkshopsandthe
street.
Pre-publicationcopy:notforcirculation
Fullreference:S.Griffiths,‘Manufacturinginnovationasspatialculture:Sheffield’scutleryindustryc.1750-1900’.InI.VanDamme,B.Blondé,A.Miles(eds),CitiesandCreativityfromtheRenaissancetothePresent(London;NewYork,Routledge,2017),127-153.
24
Taylor(1988:291)noteshowSheffield’smanufacturersdidnot,ingeneral,support
theestablishmentoftechnicaleducationinSheffieldonthebasisthattheydidnotwantto
giveuptradesecrets–andbecausetheysawsuchformaleducationaslargelyirrelevantto
thepracticeoftheirtrades.Otherinstitutionsthatmighthavebeenthoughttosupport
technicalpedagogysuchastheCompanyofCutlers,thelargelymiddleclassLiteraryand
PhilosophicalSociety(established1822)andthoseaimedattheworkingclassessuchasthe
MechanicsInstitute(1832)andtheHallofScience(1839)generallyeschewedtechnical
educationformoreesoteric,moralorpoliticalsubjects(White1997;Salt1960;1971).The
absenceofaforumforthepropagationoftechnicalknowledgeisambiguousinits
implicationsforSheffield’sspatialculture.Ononehanditsuggestshowcompetition
betweenfirmsandpractitionersinhibitedthereadysharingofinformationorthatthey
preferredother,trans-spatial,mechanismsforthispurpose;ontheother,itreflectsthe
strongbeliefinthecutlerytradesthatpracticalknowledgewasindeedbestacquiredby
learningonthejob.AnanecdoteinLeader(1875:188)tellsofanoldmanufacturerinSims
Croftwhowasinthe“brace-bitline”.Itwassaidinhisdayhewas“makingmoneyfastby
possessingavaluablesecretingilding”.Thestorysuggestshowthejealousguardingof
tradesecretsinworkshopsmightberegardedastheinevitableconsequenceofacitylike
Sheffieldwherethe‘mysteries’oftradewerehardtokeepandinthat,Marshallian,sense
seemedtopervadetheveryairofthecity.
Conclusion
IthasbeenarguedthattheprolongedsuccessofSheffield’scutleryindustryasan
innovativemilieucanbeexplainedbyunderstandinghowagglomerativeprocessesbecame
embeddedwithinthecity’sspatialculture.Thegenerativesocial,materialandinformational
dynamicsoftheindustrialmovementeconomywouldhavemeantthatabsolutedistinctions
betweenmanufacturingactivityandotheraspectsofquotidianlifewouldhavebeen
difficulttomaintaininpractice.Itsuggestshowtheperformanceofeverydayroutinesin
urbanspaceimpliedatleastaminimalengagementwiththedistributed,urban-scale
infrastructureofindustrialorganizationthatemergedinSheffield’scutleryindustry.Atthe
sametimethegenerativedynamicsoftheindustrialmovementeconomywerethemselves
subjecttocontrolandregulationwithinaspatialculturethatusedarangeofcustomary,
Pre-publicationcopy:notforcirculation
Fullreference:S.Griffiths,‘Manufacturinginnovationasspatialculture:Sheffield’scutleryindustryc.1750-1900’.InI.VanDamme,B.Blondé,A.Miles(eds),CitiesandCreativityfromtheRenaissancetothePresent(London;NewYork,Routledge,2017),127-153.
25
institutionalandarchitecturaldevicestopreservetraditionalworkingpractices,maintain
socialandkinshipnetworks,protecttradesecretsandmaintainadegreeofseparation
betweentheprivateworkshopandthepublicstreet.Indeedtheseconservativefactorsare
implicatedintheprotracted,thoughrelative,declineofSheffield’scutleryindustryfromthe
1870s.Thecutlerytradeswerewellknownfortheirrestrictiveworkingpractices,reflecting
thetraditionofthecutlerworkerasindependentartisan.Yet,ironically,thissametradition
ofindependencemeantthatunionizationwasweakandworkingconditionspoor–afact
thatchimeswithPratt’s(2011)associationofcontemporary‘creativecities’witheconomic
exploitation.
Fromthelatenineteenth-centurySheffield’sfragmentedindustrywasunableto
competewithGermanandAmericanentriesintothemassmarketforcutlery,whose
centralizedproductionmethodsandtechnologyallowedthemtoreducecosts.Itsuggests
howtheinnovativemilieuhadexhausteditsorganizationalcapacitytoadapttocompetition
throughincreasingoutputorimprovingquality.Increasingmechanisationintheindustry
internationallymeantthatmanytraditionalspecializationssuchasthehand-forgingof
bladeswerebeingrenderedobsolete(Pollard1959:203-05).Thechangingspatialcultureof
Sheffieldwasalsoafactorinthedeclineofthecutleryindustryinthelaternineteenth
centuryasasuburbanizingmiddleclassincreasedthegeographicalandsocialdistance
betweenhomeandwork,graduallyunderminingthesocio-spatialdynamismoftheurban
‘mix’inthecentralareasofthecity(Taylor1988:293-4;Griffithsforthcoming).
Yetifthespatialcultureofmanufacturinginnovationundoubtedlydeclinedwiththe
industryithadhelpedtosustainitisalsoafactoringestatingthecontinuitiesthatcanbe
identifiedeventothepresentday.Tweedale(1995:29,48)hasassertedthattheskillsbase
andhandicraftethosofthecutleryindustrywasanimportant“determinant”inthegrowth
ofSheffield’ssteelindustryafter1850.PotterandWatts(2014:617-18)haveproposedthat
ahighdegreeoftechnologicalrelatednessbetweenmanufacturingfirmshasfacilitatedthe
survivaloflocalexpertiseandthatthismaybeafactorinexplainingtherelativeresilienceof
themetalsclusterintheSheffieldcity-regionintothetwenty-firstcentury.Thelegacyofthe
cutleryindustrystillenduresinSheffield’sreputationforhigh-qualitycutleryandmetal
Pre-publicationcopy:notforcirculation
Fullreference:S.Griffiths,‘Manufacturinginnovationasspatialculture:Sheffield’scutleryindustryc.1750-1900’.InI.VanDamme,B.Blondé,A.Miles(eds),CitiesandCreativityfromtheRenaissancetothePresent(London;NewYork,Routledge,2017),127-153.
26
products,nowproactivelysupportedbyinstitutionalagenciessuchastheCompanyof
CutlersandtheSouthYorkshireManufacturingForum.Inlookingtothefuture
contemporaryinterestinSheffield’surbanlandscapeasasiteofindustrialheritageshould
notdisplacethevalueofthislandscapeasasiteofmanufacturingcreativity.
Pre-publicationcopy:notforcirculation
1
Publishedsources
CommercialDirectories
Brownell,W.(1817)SheffieldGeneralDirectory.Sheffield.
GalesandMartin(1787)ADirectoryofSheffieldIncludingManufacturersoftheAdjacent
Villages.Sheffield.
Gell,R.A.(1825)ANewGeneralandCommercialDirectoryofSheffieldanditsVicinity.
Manchester.
Robinson,J.(1797)ADirectoryofSheffieldIncludingtheManufacturesofAdjacentVillages.
Sheffield.
Sketchley,J.(1774)Sketchley’sSheffieldDirectoryIncludingtheManufacturingVillagesin
theNeighbourhood.Bristol.
White,W.(1841)White’sGeneralDirectoryoftheTownandBoroughofSheffieldwith
Chesterfield,RotherhamandtheSurroundingVillagesandHamlets.Sheffield.
CartographicSourcesGosling,R.(1736)AplanofSheffieldfromanactualsurvey.
Fairbank,W.(1771)AcorrectplanofthetownofSheffield.
Fairbank,W.(1797)AplanofthetownofSheffieldintheCountyofYork.
Fairbank,W.andJ.(1808)AmapofthetownandenvironsofSheffield.
Leather,J.(1823)PlanofSheffieldin1823.
Tayler,J.(1832)AmapofthetownofSheffieldintheWestRidingoftheCountyofYork.
OrdnanceSurvey(1855)Countyseries,sheet294.
ReportsbyParliamentaryCommissionersSymonds,J.C.(1843)ReportonthetradesofSheffieldandthemoralandphysicalcondition
oftheyoungpersonsemployedinthem.Sheffield.
Pre-publicationcopy:notforcirculation
2
References
Ashworth,G.J.(1997)‘Managingchangeinthecitycentre:theGroningencase’,inA.
Dingsdale,P.J.M.vanSteen(eds),TheManagementofurbanchangeinurbanEurope.
GroningenStudies,Groningen:UniversityofGroningen.
Beauchamp,V.A.(2002)‘TheworkshopsofthecutleryandtablewareindustryinSheffield’,
inJ.Symonds(ed.),ThehistoricalarchaeologyoftheSheffieldcutleryandtableware
industry1750-1990.Sheffield:ARCUS,StudiesinHistoricalArchaeology1,53-107.
Belford,P.(2001).‘Work,spaceandpowerinanEnglishindustrialslum:theCrofts,Sheffield,
1750-1850.inA.MayneandT.Murray(eds),Thearchaeologyofurbanlandscapes:
Explorationsinslumland.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,107-117.
Berg,M.(1994a)‘TechnologicalchangeinBirminghamandSheffieldintheeighteenth
century’inP.ClarkandP.Corfield(eds),Industryandurbanisationineighteenthcentury
England.Leicester:UniversityofLeicester,pp.20-32.
Berg,M.(1994b)Theageofmanufactures1700-1820:Industry,innovationandworkin
Britain.London:NewYork,Routledge.
Borsay,P.(2008)‘Invention,innovationandthe“creativemilieu”inurbanBritain:thelong
eighteenth-centuryandthebirthofthemodernculturaleconomy’,inM.HeßlerandC.
Zimmermann(eds),Creativeurbanmilieus:historicalperspectivesonculture,economyand
thecity.Frankfurt:Campus.
Briggs,A.(1968).VictorianCities.Harmondsworth:Penguin.
Corfield,P.J.,andClark,P.(1994)‘Introduction’,in.P.J.CorfieldandP.Clark(eds),
IndustrialisationandurbanisationineighteenthcenturyEngland.Leicester:Universityof
Leicester.
Pre-publicationcopy:notforcirculation
3
Corfield,P.andKelly,S.(1984)‘Givingdirectionstothetown:theearlytowndirectories’.
UrbanHistoryYearbook,22-35.
Crafts,N.R.F.(1985)Britisheconomicgrowthduringtheindustrialrevolution.Oxford;
Clarendon.
Czikszentmihalyi,M.(1988)‘Society,cultureandperson:asystemsviewofcreativity’,inR.J.
Sternberg(end),Thenatureofcreativity:contemporarypsychologicalperspectives.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,325-339.
DeLanda,M.(2006)Anewphilosophyofsociety:AssemblageTheoryandSocialComplexity.
London:Bloomsbury.
Florida,R.L.(2002)Theriseofthecreativeclass:Andhowit'stransformingwork,leisure,
communityandeverydaylife.NewYork:BasicBooks.
Grayson,R.andWhite,A.(1996)‘”Moremyththanreality”:theIndependentartisanin
nineteenthcenturySheffield’,JournalofHistoricalSociology,9(3):335-353.
Griffiths,S.(2012)‘Theuseofspacesyntaxinhistoricalresearch:currentpracticeand
futurepossibilities’,inM.Greene,J.ReyesandA.Castro(eds),ProceedingsoftheEighth
InternationalSpaceSyntaxSymposium.SantiagodeChile:PUC(8193),1-26.
Griffiths,S.(forthcoming)‘Fromlinesonmapstosymbolicorderincities?Translating
processionalroutesasspatialpractice,Sheffieldc.1780-1910’,inS.GriffithsandA.von
Lünen(eds),SpatialCultures:towardsanewsocialmorphologyofcitiespastandpresent.
Farnham:Ashgate.
Hall,P.(1998)CitiesinCivilization.London:Orien,Phoenix.
Pre-publicationcopy:notforcirculation
4
Hanna,S.(2005)‘Wherecreativitycomesfrom’,inJ.S.GeroandM.L.Maher(eds),
ComputationalandCognitiveModelsofCreativeDesignVI.KeyCentreofDesignComputing
andCognition:UniversityofSydney:45-70.
Hey,D.(2005)AHistoryofSheffield.Revisededn.Lancaster:Carnegie.
Hey,D.(1991)ThefierybladesofHallamshire:Sheffieldanditsneighbourhood1660‐
1740.Leicester:LeicesterUniversityPress.
Higgins,D.M.(1997)‘”MadeinSheffield”:trademarks,thecutlers’companyandthe
defenceof“Sheffield:’.,inC.Binfieldand,D.Hey(eds),Mesterstomasters:Ahistoryofthe
companyofcutlersinSheffield.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress:85-114.
Hillier,B.(1989)‘Thearchitectureoftheurbanobject’Ekistics56(334-335):5-2.
Hillier,B.(1996)Spaceisthemachine.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Hillier,B.(1999)‘Centralityasaprocess:accountingforattractioninequalitiesindeformed
grids’.UrbanDesignInternational4(3-4):107-127.
Hillier,B.(2012)‘TheCityasasocio-technicalsystem:aspatialreformulationinthelightof
thelevelsproblemandtheparallelproblem’,inS.M.Arisona,G.Aschwanden,J.Halatsch
andP.Wonka(eds),Communicationsincomputerandinformationscience242.Berlin,
Heidelberg:Springer:24-48.
Hillier,B.andHanson,H.(1984)TheSociallogicofspace.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Hillier,B.andNetto,V.(2002)‘Societyseenthroughtheprismofspace:outlineofatheory
ofsocietyandspace’.UrbanDesignInternational(7):181-203.
Pre-publicationcopy:notforcirculation
5
Hillier,B.,Penn,A.,Hanson,J.,Grajewski,T.,andXu,J.(1993)Naturalmovement:or,
configurationandattractioninurbanpedestrianmovement’,EnvironmentandPlanningB
PlanningandDesign20(1):29-66.
Jacobs,J.(1970)Theeconomyofcities.London:Cape.
Jacobs,J.(1993)ThedeathandlifeofgreatAmericancities.NewYork;Toronto:Random
House.
Landry,C.(2000)Thecreativecity:Atoolkitforurbaninnovators.London:Earthscan.
Lash,S.andUrry,J.(1994)Economiesofsignsandspace.London;ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Latour,B.(2005)Reassemblingthesocial:anintroductiontoactor-network-theory.Oxford:
OxfordUniversityPress.
Laurence,R.andNewsome,D.J.(2011)Rome,Ostia,Pompeii:movementandspace.Oxford:
OxfordUniversityPress.
Leader,R.E.(1875)ReminiscencesofoldSheffield:Itsstreetsanditspeople.Sheffield:
LeaderandSons.
Lefebvre,H.(1991)Theproductionofspace.Trans.D.Nicholson-Smith.MaldenMA;Oxford:
Blackwell.
Lefebvre,H.(2004)Rhythmanalysis:space,timeandeverydaylife.Trans.S.EldenandG.
Moore.LondonandNewYork:Continuum.
Marshall,A.(1919)IndustryandTrade:AStudyofIndustrialTechniqueandBusiness
Organization;andoftheirInfluencesontheConditionsofVariousClassesandNations.
London:Macmillan.
Pre-publicationcopy:notforcirculation
6
Marshall,A.(1920)PrinciplesofEconomics.London:Macmillan.
Netto,V.(forthcoming)TheSocialFabricofCities.Farnham:Ashgate.
Pollard,S.(1959)AHistoryofLabourinSheffield.Liverpool:LiverpoolUniversityPress.
Pollard,S.(1993)‘Labour’,inC.Binfield,R,ChildsandD.Martin(eds),Thehistoryofthecity
ofSheffield1843-1993.Vol.2.Society.Sheffield:SheffieldAcademicPress:260-278.
Potter,A.andWatts,H.D.(2014)‘RevisitingMarshall'sagglomerationeconomies:
TechnologicalrelatednessandtheevolutionoftheSheffieldmetalscluster.Regional
Studies.48(4):603-623.
Pratt,A.C.(2011)‘Theculturalcontradictionsofthecreativecity’,City,CultureandSociety.
2(3):123-30.
Reid,C.O.(1976a)‘Middleclassvaluesandworkingclasscultureinnineteenthcentury
Sheffield’,PhDdiss.UniversityofSheffield.
Reid,C.O.(1976b)‘Middleclassvaluesandworkingclasscultureinnineteenthcentury
Sheffield–thepursuitofrespectability’,inS.PollardandC.Holme(eds),Essaysinthe
economicandsocialhistoryofSouthYorkshire.Sheffield:SouthYorkshireCountyCouncil:
275-295.
Roach,J.(1997)‘TheCompanyandthecommunity:charity,educationandtechnology1624-
1914’,inC.BinfieldandD.Hey(eds),Mesterstomasters:Ahistoryofthecompanyof
cutlersinSheffield.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress:241-283.
Salt,J.(1960)‘TheSheffieldHallofScience’,TheVocationalAspectofEducation.12(25):
133-138.
Pre-publicationcopy:notforcirculation
7
Salt,J.(1971)’IsaacIronside1808-1870:Themotivationofaradicaleducationist.British
JournalofEducationalStudies.19(2):83-201.
Scott.A.J.(1988a)Metropolis:fromthedivisionoflabortourbanform.Berkeley,California:
UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Scott,A.J.(1988b)NewIndustrialSpaces.London:Pion.
Scott,A.J.(2000)Theculturaleconomyofcities:essaysonthegeographyofimage-
producingindustries.London:Sage.
Shove,E.,Pantzar,M.andWatson.(2012)Thedynamicsofsocialpractice:everydaylifeand
howitchanges.LosAngeles,London:Sage.
Smith,D.(1982)Conflictandcompromise:classformationinEnglishsociety1830-1914:a
comparativestudyofBirminghamandSheffield.London:Routledge,KeganandPaul.
Soja,E.W.(2003)‘Writingthecityspatially’,City7(3):269-280.
Taylor,S.(1988)‘Traditionandchange:theSheffieldcutlerytrades1870-1914’,2Vols.PhD
diss.,UniversityofSheffield.
Taylor,S.,(1993)‘Sheffieldcutlerytrades1870-1914’,inC.Binfield,R,ChildsandD.Martin
(eds),ThehistoryofthecityofSheffield1843-1993.Vol.2Society.Sheffield:Sheffield
AcademicPress.
Thrift,N.(1987)‘Introduction:thegeographyofnineteenth-centuryclassformation’,inN.
ThriftandP.Williams(eds),ClassandSpace:themakingofurbansociety.London;New
York:Routledge,KeganandPaul:25-50.
Tweedale,G.(1995)SteelCity:entrepreneurship,strategyandtechnologyinSheffield.1743-
1993.Oxford:ClarendonPress.
Pre-publicationcopy:notforcirculation
8
Tweedale,G.(2013)Backstreetcapitalism:ananalysisofthefamilyfirminthenineteenth-
centurySheffieldcutleryindustry.BusinessHistory.55(6):875-891.
Unwin,J.(2002)‘ThedevelopmentofthecutleryandtablewareindustryinSheffield’,inJ.
Symonds(ed.),ThehistoricalarchaeologyoftheSheffieldcutleryandtablewareindustry
1750-1990.Sheffield:ARCUSStudiesinHistoricalArchaeology1:13-52.
Varoudis,T.(2011-14)DepthmapX,opensourcecomputersoftware,originallydevelopedby
A.Turner,UniversityCollegeLondon,https://github.com/varoudis/depthmapX,accessed
11/12/15.
White,A.,1997.‘”...Weneverknewwhatpriceweweregoingtohavetillwegottothe
warehouse”:nineteenth-centurySheffieldandtheindustrialdistrictdebate’,SocialHistory.
22(3):307-317.
Wray,N.,Hawkins,B.,andGiles,C.(2001)Onegreatworkshop:Thebuildingsofthe
Sheffieldmetalstrades.London:EnglishHeritage.