Case Studies  The Lisbon Castle parish and the urban regeneration process

6.5. Partnerships, leadership and the participation of the people

During the process, several public partnerships for the achievement of the goals within the Castle intervention were set up.

The town authorities, apart from being the promoter and leader of the process, were obliged, in specific cases, to ask for external reports when some archaeological remains were found, and the work had to stop until the proper authorities carried out studies. The responsible partners were the Portuguese Institute of Architectural Heritage (IPPAR), the Archaeology Institute (IPA) and the National Monuments Institute (DGEMN).

The Portuguese Institute of Architectural Heritage had the major role among these institutions. The area being protected and classified, this partner had to approve the projects, before they could proceed.

This was not always a pacific situation because the needs are not always compatible with both side's demands, in some cases the projects were postponed, this being one more delay in the schedule.

It is also important to refer to the relationship between the Castle Work Group and the other municipal departments concerning public space and environment. Another partnership-like relation was established to the public and private institutions, responsible to approve all different infrastructure projects, and with whom an efficient way of communication has been developed.

Another important party is the municipal agency, EBAHL, mentioned above, responsible for the management of all facilities in the monumental area as well as the municipal houses in the Castle parish. This partner has been actively collaborating within the process of the intervention. The outcome of this partnership is however doubtful.

Only one private company acted within a fruitful way with the municipality, (apart from the two sponsors), creating a hotel (Pátio das Cozinhas, aforementioned) inside the urban fabric. In this case it was also possible to guarantee same jobs for local inhabitants.

Regarding employment issues, there was an especial agreement with the building contractor of the 1 st and 2 nd building phase that made it possible for lots of local people to get gainfully employed.

On the other hand, as the process was unequivocally carried out, within the Lisbon town administration, the project management did not encourage a sharing of responsibility and leadership. The municipality assumed responsibility for and conducted the whole process.

Assuming at the same time total financial responsibility constrained the role of private investment. Even when private owners of residential houses wanted to invest, exceeding the work's budget, the concept that projects have to comply with parameters of council flat, did not allow any flexibility.

Nevertheless, the owners were consulted and the projects discussed together.

The residents, as the main beneficiaries have had more influence in the definition and decision about “their” dwellings than the owners. There is a more favourable situation for the Town Authorities. The tenants have only one goal: coming back to their own improved houses as soon as possible.

In that way, each project change was patiently and meticulously discussed with the residents until consensus was achieved.

The municipality acted with the same special attention towards the elderly, explaining the need for temporary re-housing, while the renovation work was taking place.

Many families were re-housed in municipal accommodation or in prefabricated houses. In those cases, the Town Authorities met the costs of water and electricity consumption. Additionally, there was the possibility of financial support to buy a monthly public transport pass allowing the residents to go to their work places as well as to come back to the temporary residential area.

It was also decided to give financial support to all families in finding their own re-housing in the adjacent or other urban areas for the duration of the regeneration works. This support was between 400 and 600 euros, according to the family's circumstances and income. In the socially difficult cases, the municipality made all efforts to re-house people within the Castle district.

As for commerce, different methods for temporary premises were adopted, according to their activities as well as their dependence on the site. So it is possible to distinguish 3 types of commercial re-accommodation:

•  Activities dependent on local customers, such as the grocers and chemists, were given temporary premises inside the district.

•  Activities dependent on the surroundings, working in the district but not depending on it and working well outside the area (such as handicraft shops) were given kiosks to operate in.

•  Activities working independently of their location were given financial support for finding their own temporary premises.

If it is true, concerning the population, that there was individual attention, it is also true that there was no means of effective communal expression found for the general planning and future destiny, including the questions of public space and facilities.

The process of the Castle regeneration started with a public presentation of all previously defined aims, benefits, rights and duties of everyone involved.

In spite of the City's efforts and initiative, in personal and dedicated discussion of every single project, the potential and creativity that a public discussion suggests in terms of finding solutions was not made use of. Both, the municipality and the residents were not able to transform a public session into a work session in which it were possible to question the most urgent and important matters within the neighbourhood.

There was, nonetheless, a public institution in the neighbourhood with potential and specific authority in the participation process: the “Junta de Freguesia”, or local council, elected at the same time as the City Council. In this regeneration process, it acted as both, an interface and representative of the local population's interests. The “Junta de Freguesia” had a relevant role to play and is the highest level of proximity between the public authorities and the population. It acted as a mediator in conflicts between the residents and the municipality. This local council, however, had its own programme of policies to carry out.

Mediation is not easy if we consider the relative passiveness and pliant nature of the population that, on their own initiative, were unable to create synergies and means of expression as a whole. The fact that the project was carried out with particular attention to the residents did not help them to go beyond themselves and create a collective participation producing group demands and collective suggestions that could bring solutions.

6.4 Work in progress    6.6 Monitoring and periodic evaluation