Summary and Analysis:
Keywords
View support quotes and references at the bottom of the page.
The early Victorian city is usually described from above. Historical accounts of Manchester and Sheffield in the period 1780 to 1850 tend to reach for macro-scale images: the shock city of industrialisation, the fragmented townscape, the slum, the mill. These are powerful images but they are, as Griffiths and Navickas argue, essentially reductive. They derive from a view of the city as an undifferentiated whole rather than from the lived experience of people navigating streets, entering buildings, and assembling in specific rooms at specific times.
The paper inverts this perspective. Rather than asking what kind of city Manchester and Sheffield were in general, it asks where, specifically, people chose to hold political meetings, and what the spatial structure of those locations reveals about the relationship between urban form and political agency.
This is not an architectural history question in any narrow sense. It sits at the intersection of political history, historical geography, urban morphology, and digital humanities. The methodological move that makes the paper possible is a combination of text mining and space syntax analysis applied to historical data. Katrina Navickas and Adam Crymble had previously developed methods to extract meeting locations from digitised nineteenth century newspapers using natural language processing. Griffiths and Navickas took that database of nearly one thousand political meetings and overlaid it onto axial maps of the two cities. An axial map is the basic tool of space syntax: it represents a street network as the smallest set of longest straight lines needed to pass through all its connected public space. Each of these lines, an axial line, roughly corresponds to a street or a clear line of sight and movement, and the way these lines connect to one another can be measured to show how accessible each part of the city is from every other part. The meeting locations were mapped onto this network and analysed to ask whether the location of political meetings was spatially structured, and if so, how.
The answer is yes, and in revealing ways. Where people met to discuss politics in industrial Manchester and Sheffield was not random, not merely a matter of convenience, or ideology. It was shaped by the configuration of the street network in ways that are now measurable and that reveal a politics of space that historians of this period have largely overlooked.
The paper’s central argument is direct: political meetings were a spatial practice as much as an ideological phenomenon. Collective political agency was assembled piecemeal through the accessibility of meeting places and the act of meeting, not only through the declared aims of political organisations. The location of a meeting, the kind of street it stood on, and the extent to which its entrance was visible from that street all carried political meaning, whether or not the people who chose those locations consciously intended it.
This matters for design practice because it demonstrates that the built environment is not a neutral backdrop to social and political life. It is an active participant in what kinds of collective action become possible and who has access to them. The spatial configuration of streets and buildings in two northern English cities in the early nineteenth century shaped the geography of British democracy.
The obvious answer is that this paper is intellectually unusual. Space syntax is not commonly used in political history, and political history is not commonly used to interrogate urban morphology. The combination produces results that neither discipline could reach alone.
But the deeper reason it matters for a design audience is what it reveals about the concept of spatial agency. Griffiths and Navickas show that ordinary people in early industrial cities were making sophisticated spatial choices, even if they would not have described them that way. Radical groups meeting under prohibition chose backstreet pubs with courtyard entrances because they understood, without the vocabulary of space syntax, that a poorly connected, hard-to-see location provided a kind of cover. Reform groups choosing town halls and assembly rooms at high-integration locations were making a different political statement with their location as much as with their platform. The spatial choice and the political act were inseparable.
This is a significant conceptual contribution because it extends the reach of space syntax theory into territory it has rarely addressed. Most space syntax research asks what a spatial configuration does to the people who inhabit it, how it generates movement, shapes encounter, produces economic outcomes. This paper asks the inverse question: how do politically motivated people actively exploit spatial structure to achieve their goals? It suggests that spatial literacy, or at least spatial instinct, is not the preserve of designers. It is part of how ordinary people have always navigated urban environments to pursue collective goals.
For practitioners in architecture and spatial design, this raises an uncomfortable parallel. If the configuration of a nineteenth century industrial city shaped the geography of political dissent; the configuration of a contemporary office, hospital, or neighbourhood shapes the geography of informal organisation today. The question of whether a building enables or suppresses accidental encounter, collective action, and the formation of solidarity is not simply a functional design question, but a political one.
Across both cities and both phases of the time series, the paper finds that streets hosting political meeting sites had significantly higher global integration (urban-scale accessibility) and local integration (neighbourhood-scale accessibility) than the average for all streets in the city. This holds for Manchester and Sheffield, and for both the early period (1780 to 1823) and the later period (1824 to 1850). The finding is statistically significant. Political meetings were not randomly distributed across the urban grid, they gravitated towards connected, accessible streets.
This is the paper’s richest finding. In Manchester, as the city expanded rapidly, the number of axial lines hosting meeting sites grew by 61%. Political meetings spread into new areas of the city, following the foreground network as it extended. The foreground network is the connected set of the most accessible, most heavily used routes in a city, the main streets and through-routes that carry movement across the whole urban system. It sits in contrast to the background network of quieter, more local residential streets. Space syntax theory holds that the foreground network is where a city’s public, economic, and social life concentrates.
Space syntax measures accessibility at two scales: local accessibility, how well connected a street is to its immediate neighbourhood, and global accessibility, how well connected it is to the city as a whole. Manchester’s meeting streets scored above the city average on both at once. In plain terms, the places people chose to meet were easy to reach both for someone walking from a few streets away and for someone crossing the city, which meant the meeting network was well woven into the fabric of the city at every scale rather than only at its centre.
In Sheffield, by contrast, the number of distinct streets hosting meeting sites declined by 6% over the same period, even as the city’s street network as a whole grew by over 400%. In other words, Sheffield built vastly more streets, but political meeting activity did not spread out to occupy them. It stayed put. Sheffield’s political meetings remained anchored in the historical centre, around Paradise Square and a small number of sites that had been used for public gathering for generations. The city developed a monoscale meeting culture while Manchester developed a multiscale one. This is a spatial difference that reflects and helped produce a political difference: Manchester’s radical culture was more distributed, more flexible, and more capable of absorbing new movements; Sheffield’s was more centralised and more reliant on established locations and established organisations.
The one significant caveat the paper is careful to note is that the dataset only includes meetings that were openly advertised in newspapers. Secret meetings, by definition, leave no newspaper record. The spatial profile of clandestine political activity is therefore necessarily underrepresented, which probably means the below-average accessibility of trades union and radical meeting sites is actually understated in the analysis.
The paper’s analysis of meeting types by accessibility produces a political map of urban space. Local government meetings and commercial meetings took place at the highest integration locations throughout the period: town halls, courthouses, stock exchanges on the main axes of the foreground network. Reform meetings were also found to be in locations of above average connectivity. Radical meetings occupied a wide range of positions across the spectrum, from relatively accessible city-centre pubs to neighbourhood backstreet rooms. Trades Union and Chartist meetings were consistently in locations of below the average connectivity for all meetings, often using peripheral open spaces outside the built-up area such as Kersal Moor in Manchester and Sky Edge in Sheffield. This is not coincidental; trades Unions were illegal between 1799 and 1824. Chartist meetings were subject to state surveillance and suppression. The spatial marginality of their meeting places was a survival strategy as well as a symptom of political exclusion.
The majority of meeting sites in both cities were pubs and inns. This is historically familiar but the paper gives it new precision. Pubs were not politically neutral spaces accidentally repurposed for meetings. Their spatial characteristics made them the optimal meeting infrastructure for non-elite political groups. A pub on a well-integrated street provided visibility and accessibility for gathering a crowd. A pub with a courtyard entrance on a less-integrated back street provided the cover necessary for a group that feared prosecution. The same building type served different political functions depending on its position in the network and the orientation of its entrance. This flexibility is what made the pub the backbone of early democratic culture in Britain.
The paper’s analysis of Ancoats, a dense working-class district to the north of Manchester’s centre, zooms in to the interface between building and street using isovist analysis. An isovist is the total area a person can see from a single point in space: stand in an open square and your isovist is large, because you can see in every direction; stand in a narrow courtyard behind a building and your isovist is small, because walls and buildings block your view. The visible area from a doorway therefore tells you how exposed or concealed that entrance is. Meeting sites in Ancoats used for large public events, such as Stevenson’s Square, had large isovists and high local accessibility: they were open and visible. Pubs and private rooms used by trades unions and radical groups had small isovists and were often entered through courtyards not visible from the main street: they were concealed.
The Pub as Political Infrastructure: A Schematic
This distinction between large and small isovists is what makes the following observation possible. One of the paper’s most productive insights is that the same building type, the pub, served radically different spatial functions depending on its position in the street network and the configuration of its entrance . Griffiths and Navickas identify two distinct pub typologies in the Ancoats data: the street-facing pub, with an entrance directly onto an integrated route and a large visual field from the threshold; and the courtyard pub, set back from the street with a narrow or indirect entrance and a small isovist.
This distinction maps almost exactly onto the distinction between legal public meetings and those that required some degree of concealment. Reform meetings, loyalist assemblies, and events backed by middle-class organisations chose visible, accessible locations. Radical democratic societies, trades unions operating under prohibition, and Chartist organising committees chose the courtyard pub.
The visualisation below is a schematic interpretation of this typology based on the paper’s Ancoats isovist analysis, drawn in the style of a spatial diagram rather than a historical reconstruction. It is intended to make the spatial argument legible for a design audience who may not be familiar with axial maps or isovist notation.
A final finding that deserves emphasis is methodological as much as substantive. The paper challenges the historiographical tendency to focus on extraordinary political events: the mass demonstration, the famous speech, the riot. The database of nearly one thousand meetings is dominated by weekly committee meetings in back rooms, regular gatherings in neighbourhood pubs, and routine assemblies in chapels and schoolrooms. These are the infrastructure of political movements, not their spectacular moments. And they are precisely the kinds of spatial activity that space syntax is well suited to analyse, because they are about the everyday accessibility of places rather than their symbolic significance.
A Note on the Data:
The dataset underpinning this research is genuinely unusual. Navickas and Crymble used natural language processing to extract meeting locations from digitised nineteenth century newspapers held in the British Library’s nineteenth century newspapers collection, supplementing this with sources from the National Archives Home Office disturbance papers. The result was a database of 704 entries for Manchester and 269 for Sheffield, identifying 185 and 70 meeting sites respectively, across a period of seventy years.
The spatial analysis used 1794 and 1797 historical maps for the early phase and 1849 to 1850 Ordnance Survey maps for the later phase. These were traced and converted to axial maps using ArcGIS and the Depthmap software, then analysed for integration at both urban scale (radius-n) and neighbourhood scale (radius-2). The joined dataset allowed the spatial profile of each meeting type to be calculated and compared.
Several numbers from the analysis are worth sitting with. Streets hosting political meeting sites in Manchester had a mean global integration of 1.40 compared to 1.19 for all streets in the first phase, and 1.40 compared to 1.10 in the second phase. Both differences are statistically significant at p less than 0.0001. The same pattern holds for Sheffield, where the difference is smaller but still significant. This is not a marginal result. Political meetings were substantially more accessible than the average street in both cities.
The Ancoats isovist data adds a further dimension. Meeting sites used for large public gatherings had both large visual fields and high local accessibility. Meeting sites used by groups seeking discretion had small visual fields and more modest local accessibility. The correlation is not perfect, but the pattern is clear enough to support the paper’s argument that spatial positioning was a deliberate, if often intuitive, political strategy.
The most direct application is the clearest. Before designing a space intended to support informal gathering, collective deliberation, or community assembly, it is worth analysing the relationship between that space and the surrounding street network at both local and urban scale. A community room placed in a building set back from the street, with an indirect or courtyard entrance, will serve a different community than one placed directly on an integrated route. Neither is inherently better. But the spatial choice should be made consciously rather than accidentally.
The paper also supports a more careful reading of entrance design as a political dimension of architecture. The threshold between building and street, and the extent of the isovist from that threshold, conditions who can be seen entering the building and therefore who is likely to use it. This matters for any space whose users have reason to care about discretion: addiction services, legal advice centres, domestic violence shelters, political organisations, spaces for communities whose visibility may carry risk.
More broadly, the paper supports an argument for distributing public assembly spaces across the urban network rather than concentrating them in central, highly visible locations. The political culture of Manchester was more robust than Sheffield’s partly because meeting infrastructure was embedded in neighbourhood streets across multiple scales of the foreground network, not only at the civic centre. Designing neighbourhoods that distribute opportunities for assembly, rather than routing all collective life through a single formal public space, may produce more resilient local cultures.
Finally, and more tentatively, the paper invites designers to take seriously the history of political use embedded in existing street networks. The streets of Ancoats were a political infrastructure long before anyone called them that. Understanding the spatial history of a place, including which streets and buildings hosted collective action and why, might inform how new interventions either support or disrupt the spatial cultures that have formed around them.
Griffiths, S., and Navickas, K. (2020). The micro-geography of political meeting places in Manchester and Sheffield c.1780 to 1850. In Stobart, J., Linstrum, D., and Clemente, A. (eds.) Micro-geographies of the Western City, c.1750 to 1900, pp. 181 to 202. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429329395-14
Navickas, K., and Crymble, A. (2017). From Chartist newspaper to digital map of grassroots meetings, 1841 to 1844: documenting workflows. Journal of Victorian Culture, 22(2).
Navickas, K. (2015). Protest and the Politics of Space and Place, 1789 to 1848. Manchester University Press.
Hillier, B., and Hanson, J. (1984). The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597237
Hillier, B. (1997). Space is the Machine. Cambridge University Press. http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/3881/
Griffiths, S., and Vaughan, L. (2020). Mapping spatial cultures: contributions of space syntax to research in the urban history of the nineteenth-century city. Urban History.
Political Meetings Mapper (British Library Labs project): http://politicalmeetingsmapper.co.uk
National Library of Scotland (n.d.). Ordnance Survey town plan, Lancashire CIV (Manchester and Salford), surveyed 1845, published 1848. https://maps.nls.uk/view/102344087 CC BY.
Robinson, D. (2024). Stevenson Square, Manchester [photograph]. Geograph Britain and Ireland. https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/7934458 CC BY-SA 2.0.
Rutter, C. (2010). Murrays’ Mills, Redhill Street, Ancoats [photograph]. Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ancoats_Redhill_Street-_4557.JPG CC BY-SA 3.0.
To continue reading...
Join and experience more as a Member
Access all our publications
Attend our events and access recordings
Support the Conscious Cities movement!
Receive updates on new content and events
Cancel any time
