Download - Pre-publication copy: not for circulation€¦ · realizing creativity as an emergent social phenomenon in spatial culture rather than a goal- ... Unlike another claim made for city

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



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



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,



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



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



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).



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



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.



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,



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’



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.



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.



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



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.



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



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



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



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



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



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



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.



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



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.



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,



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



26

products,nowproactivelysupportedbyinstitutionalagenciessuchastheCompanyof

CutlersandtheSouthYorkshireManufacturingForum.Inlookingtothefuture

contemporaryinterestinSheffield’surbanlandscapeasasiteofindustrialheritageshould

notdisplacethevalueofthislandscapeasasiteofmanufacturingcreativity.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.