APPENDIX 1
Case Evidence Mainstreaming (Draft, 10.10.2003)

1. Programmes and Institutional Set-Up

Berlin

In the Berlin case, we are looking at the south-eastern part of the inner-city. Here, we see the implementation of three programmes:

• the “Socially Inclusive City”a joint programme of the national government and the Bundesländer,
• the European Union Community Initiative URBAN II, and
• the Neighbourhood fund model, a programme initiated by the Berlin Senate.

All programmes are time-limited, though with different time-frames. Organisationally, they are based in a special unit within the Senate Department for Urban Development. At the heart of all programmes is the neighbourhood management team in a local office with the main tasks to coordinate and support area-focused activities of other organisations. This team is a contracted agency, the three core tasks of the neighbourhood managers are:

• Mobilising inhabitants and businesses to actively participate in the development process of their neighbourhood,
• Coordinating the neighbourhood, i.e. link different interest groups and local actors, establish cooperation between institutions, initiatives, businesses, housing societies, etc.;
• Assisting with the development of social, cultural and economic projects or those who deal with physical renewal (project initiation) (see Berlin case study).

Copenhagen

In the Kongens Enghave area of Copenhagen we are looking at the implementation the national programme Kvarterløft, which is carried out by the Finance Department of the Municipality of Copenhagen (see case study). It has a clear time-frame of seven years and a clear sequence of agenda-setting (“neighbourhood planning”), implementation and anchoring. At the heart of the programme is a local secretariat, based in the neighbourhood and managing the process. The staff of the local secretariat holds a mix of employees of the Municipality and hired staff, paid for by other institutions like housing associations (see case study). Its main task is to involve local residents into the development process.

Dublin

In Dublin , urban regeneration is based on an Integrated Area Plan. The IAP is a non statutory framework plan, initiated by the Urban Renewal Act 1998. It is implemented by a project manager who is supported by a multi-disciplinary project-team. It is overseen by a monitoring committee, chaired by a Dublin City Council member (see Dublin Case Study). Within the framework of the IAP, targeted strategies and partnerships evolve:

“The IAPs are envisioned as dynamic and fluid, providing a basis for the configuration and re-configuration of partnership arramgements focused around specific themes or targets of activities” (Dublin Case Study, p14).

In Kilmainham Inchicore, the IAP has the aim “to allow for partnership” and “to allow designation for tax incentives to take place in those areas that are in particular need”.

In planning terms the implementation of the IAP's is a stated inner city policy of Dublin City Council in its 1999 Dublin City Development Plan and Section 18 (3) (b) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 states that when planning applications are being considered regard shall be had to any integrated area plan for the area. Furthermore funding for public capital projects such as social housing, childcare, roads and traffic projects comes from Central Government Departments.

Glasgow

In Glasgow , neighbourhood regeneration is carried out by five key agencies:

• Glasgow City Council GCC
• Communities Scotland (implementing the Scottish Executive's Community Renewal Statement)
• Scottish Enterprise Glasgow SE
• Glasgow Alliance GA (representing the SIPs throughout the city)
• Glasgow Housing Association GHA (see Glasgow Case Study).

In the Gorbals, these agencies cooperate in three partnerships:

• Gorbals Initiative GI (core funding from GCC and SE)
• New Gorbals Housing Association NGHA (acting as a LHO for GHA)
• Gorbals Social Inclusion Partnership SIP (core funding from Scottish Executive/Communities Scotland).

There is no overall coordinator mediating between these institutions. Instead, the coordination of their work is based on “cross-sitting on each others boards”:

“There is no one overall body co-ordinating the various activities – overall co-ordination happens through more informal processes that include key personnel from each organisation (mainly senior staff) sitting on each other's boards” (Glasgow case Study, p13).

Right in the middle of this broad range of institutions sits the SIP. It was put into place in 1999 and was planned to run until 2005. However, all the SIPs in Scotland soon will be replaced by Community Planning Partnerships and the outlook in Glasgow is unclear. The SIPs' functions may be absorbed into Glasgow City Council's structures.

Hamburg

In the Hamburg case we are looking at the implementation of the national legislation on urban regeneration (Städtebauförderung) based on the national urban regeneration Act. At the same time we are looking at the local area management, which is a time-limited pilot-programme initiated by the local government (Hamburg Senate). The key actor here is the STEG Company:

“STEG was founded in 1990 by the City of Hamburg as a regeneration and redevelopment agency and district manager for the Karolinenviertel (and other areas)…” (Hamburg Case Study, p6).

The work of STEG is regulated in a redevelopment-frame-contract between the Municipality of Hamburg , Ministry for Construction and Traffic (BBV) and STEG.

STEG has an important double-function: It is an important landlord and area-manager at the same time. Whilst it owns / manages a large part of the housing stock (in a “trustee fund”), it is also employed by the local authority as regeneration agency and area manager:

“STEG has two important functions in the neighbourhood: On the one hand STEG administers one third of all housing and commercial areas in the district and on the other hand STEG acts as redevelopment agency engaged by the city of Hamburg” (Hamburg Case Study, p6).

The main elements of STEG's approach to regeneration are:

• area management
• integrated regeneration concept
• redevelopment advisory board
• cross-sectoral cooperation
• area-based neighbourhood office
• neighbourhood disposal fund
• ongoing reporting (Hamburg Case Study, p8f).

STEG was privatized in 2003, the consequences of this move for the regeneration process have not been looked at so far.

Lisbon

In Lisbon we are looking at the Integrated Castle Project. In 1985 the area was declared as a “critical Area of Recovery and Urban Conversion” (by the Municipality, as part of the General City Development Plan). In 1995, the City Hall set up the Castle Work group, which included at its beginning 3 architects and then grew to a multidisciplinary group. The approach includes restoration work (and to complete essential equipment of dwellings) as well as socio-cultural and economic development. The implementation is based on five governmental financing programmes:

• PROCOM (for commercial development)
• PROCOM/URBCOM (upgrading of public space)
• FUNDO DE TURISMO (for refurbishments of facades and roofs)
• REVRIA/REHABITA (renovation of dwellings)
• LEI DO MECENATO (allowing private sponsorship).

The approach was structured in 5 phases and was planned to be completed by 2005 (initially 1998). A change in the Lisbon Municipal Council led to a strategic change in the Integrated Castle Project. The “Castelo Project Unit” was created to complete the project. The new aim is to lay more emphasis on modernisation of housing types in order to adjust the housing stock to the demand – in contrast to a reconstruction of old types as it had been before.

Valletta

The Regeneration proposals have been developing from the 1980s with the institutionalization of the Rehabilitation Committee (Public works and Infrastructure) for Valletta . It was established by the central government under the Ministry for Works and Infrastructure) to initialize rehabilitation and restoration works in Valletta to address the degradation and depopulation. The Planning Authority supported these regeneration initiatives in the 1990s through the compilation of the Structure Plan Policy and other funding initiatives. This caters for a ten-year span and is currently under review.

Vilnius

Urban regeneration in Uzupis is carried out by the Vilnius Old Town Renewal Agency OTRA. OTRA was established in 1998 by the City of Vilnius and the national Ministry of Culture and works in close cooperation with the City Development Department. It is “a non-profit organization encouraging and coordinating interinstitutional cooperation of private, national and municipal sectors”. To date, it is completely financed by the Municipality (see: Municipality of Vilnius 2003, 15). Its activities are supervised by a Supervision Council, which is a public commission including representatives of non-governmental organizations and state institutions.

The Vilnius Old Town Regeneration Strategy scheme was approved in 1997 and forms the basis of OTRAs work. The first year (1998-99) focused on physical upgrading of facades and public space. In 2000 the Community Capacity Building programme started to financially stimulate and support initiatives of the residents to renovate and upgrade the exteriors of their houses and their environment. Also more attention was given to preservation and maintenance of cultural heritage properties. Community awareness rising activities were started (seminars, open discussions, special publications) to ensure better and long term understanding of the historic urban environment and proper ways of its care. The strategy for the Uzupis area is based on developing a cooperative networks amongst active organizations. OTRA cooperates with the House Owner's Association (HOA), with the Uzupis Fund and the Angel Club (local NGOs). Social issues such as creation of community center in the area are started to be debated between OTRA and local NGO.

2. Integration of Programmes into the local and city-wide political and administrative system

Berlin

The “socially integrative city” is a vision of the Senate and has been expressed in the government declarations 1999 and 2002. The approach is institutionalised via a specific unit within the Senate Department of Urban Development. This unit “Socially Integrative City” is responsible for connecting the project level with city-wide policy. The Senator of this department is responsible for raising important issues with the other departments (Senators). There is an accompanying steering committee meeting at the level of the State Secretaries approximately two to three times a year. It gathers those Senate Departments involved in questions of the “Social Urban Development”. These are the Senate Departments of Urban Development; of Education, Youth and Sports; of Health, Welfare and Consumer Protection, and of Economics, Labour and Women. In this round, fundamental issues concerning the “Socially Integrative City” and the local neighbourhood development are discussed, especially reflecting on the complexity of underlying trends and the city-wide implications and looking for the solution of possible conflicts of aims.

The local authorities at district level are integrated via an administrative agreement for the personal and financial support of the programme (contract). The districts have an area coordinator, and each neighbourhood management team is supervised by a steering committee.

Copenhagen

In Copenhagen , the Kvarterloft programme is placed in the Department of Finances – the main steering committee being the financial committee (Case Study p 10). At city-level there is a cross-departmental administrative reference group, in which members from all 7 departments follow the work: “The function of the Reference Group is to ensure that each department gives higher priority to the Kvarterloft neighbourhoods and also to ensure interdisciplinary coordination between the departments' activities in the Kvarterloft neighbourhoods” (Case Study p 9).

At neighbourhood level, the local steering groups also have representatives from various departments (local institutions as real members, central departments as observers) (Case study p. 24-25). However,

Kvarterløft is seen as a project of the lord mayor rather than for all the departments. There is relatively little political interest – except when there is direct involvement from other political levels (Case study p. 22-23) .

The participative and integrative character is problematic:

“The experiences from Copenhagen show that regeneration projects such as kvarterloft may be difficult to link with the ordinary procedures and routines. The local residents' wishes may (…) deviate from the municipality's internal planning and priorities, and the 1-year budgeting may be difficult to combine with resident-managed projects” (Copenhagen Case Study, 10)… The municipality of Copenhagen is an old municipality and the new methods of working (…) have not always been easy to tackle” (Copenhagen Case Study, 21).“

Dublin

All over Ireland , the Integrated Area Plans form the basis for the implementation of the national 1999 Urban Renewal Scheme:

“The scheme is based on the concept of Integrated Area Plans (IAPs) prepared by local authorities on the basis of guidelines drawn up by an Expert Advisory Panel on Urban Renewal. All IAPs were prepared by the relevant local authority, following widespread consultation with local partners and participation by local communities. The IAPs submitted by the local authorities were considered by the Expert Advisory Panel and their recommendations were made to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government” ( www.environ.ie , consulted 15-08-03).

For each of the 49 IAP there is a Monitoring Committee in place to monitor progress on the implementation of the IAP objectives. Comprising local elected, trade union, business and community representatives, the Monitoring Committee provides guidance on how delays or barriers to implementation can be eliminated and adopts an ongoing, pro-active role ( www.environ.ie , www.dublincity.ie , consulted 15-08-03).

Respectively, the IAP is a specific instrument for certain areas and is NOT a city-wide approach. Besides the implementation of the IAPs in five areas, Dublin City Council has expressed its commitment to neighbourhood development in the strategy “ Dublin – A City of Possibilities 2002-2012”:

“It is intended that Dublin will be a ‘City of Neighbourhoods ' by 2012. This goal is at the heart of the Dublin City Development Board 10-year Strategy to make Dublin an overall better city. Through the development, maintenance, and protection of neighbourhoods in Dublin City centre, the environmental, social, cultural and economic needs of the city will subsequently be fulfilled” ( www.dublin.ie , consulted 15-08-03).

Glasgow

In Glasgow, the local initiatives are integrated into city-wide institutions and the local partnerships are embedded in a city-wide system of partnerships, each of which have some relationship with the Scottish Executive (Glasgow Case Study p9). The city council and local elected representatives are embedded in local initiatives, either as partners or key players by design. The council at a city level has the largest budget and in terms of democratic processes is the only agency answerable to local people – all the others have members/directors in place through patronage or invitation. The council sees itself in that context as the legitimate lead player in any integrated work. This tends also to be replicated at a local level. In practice an example of this can be seen where Scottish Enterprise Glasgow and Gorbals Initiative work closely to tailor national programmes (Training for Work) to suit local labour market conditions and skills gaps. The LDC develops the programme, holds the contract and delivers outputs that contribute to SEG's targets.

Hamburg

STEG is contracted and controlled by the by the Municipality of Hamburg , Ministry for Construction and Traffic (BBV). There is a cross-departmental steering group of 5-7 Departments. The integrated approach is applied in some deprived neighbourhoods but not city-wide. However, there are obstacles to the integrated approach, as sectoral aims and higher level targets might prevent area-based approaches. The Departments are not obliged to prioritise the deprived areas in their work.

Lisbon

The Castle project has been named “integrated” because of the jointed intervention in public space, houses and (underground) infrastructure, having in mind at the same time a socio-cultural revitalization, economic growth and improvement of the social ambience (expected to be induced by physical renewal and new commercial promises to be established and addressed to tourism). All those interventions were planned and carried out including the involvement (even if in a very patriarchal and protective way) of the population and other mentioned stakeholders. So the focus here is still very much on physical renewal.

Urban physical renewal (not an integrated approach! Local concepts vary completely) has recently been (once more) declared as a priority of municipal policy in order to stimulate tourism and to protect cultural and architectural heritage, intending to comply at the same time with a declared national policy to stop excessive land use and to bring people back into the city centres. However there is some kind of inconsistency as it is not considering very important stratums of population (e.g. decrease in rent allowance for young people, abolition of especial bank loan conditions for young people).

In general there has been some kind of an attempt to come to an integrated way of urban renewal in Lisbon by establishing local offices made up by multi–disciplinary teams in charge of daily assistance and general development within different fields (see above).

However, recently things are changing and staff has been reduced. There are no clear orientations and intentions regarding neither an integrated policy approach on citywide level nor on local neighbourhood level.

Valletta

N.A.

Vilnius

The regeneration of Uzupis is part of the Old Town Revitalisation Strategy, which is carried out by OTRA. OTRA is a special purpose institution, which prepares and manages implementation of annual Old Town Renewal Programs (it covers Uzupis area) in co-operation with municipal departments and co-ordination with Ministries of Culture and Environment. Through the annual programs OTRA supports both public investments and financially stimulates private ones. indicates the importance of the issue, but at the same time it means that city-wide institutions are involved to a smaller extent.

3. Evidence of institutional learning

Berlin

At federal level, a new federal-state programme “Urban Redevelopment East” (Stadtumbau Ost) has been developed. In its implementation in Berlin , the integrated approach as experienced in the Socially Integrative City policy, is taken on.

Installation of district partnerships for economic development and job creation: These boards discuss strategies and grant funding for activities of business networks and marketing for specific neighbourhoods.

Area Management: The district of Lichtenberg is re-organising its service-delivery based on a spatially based distribution. As a first step, it introduced five area managers who guarantee a good access for the citizens to district affairs and have the responsibility to pursue neighbourhood related concerns within the administration. These (5) managers don't have much capacity (compared to the departments) and no own funding sources, their job is solely to secure information across departments and to and from the local community.

Copenhagen

Kvarterløft strategies have entered several places:

•  Local democracy

•  The development of new projects (kvarterløft light)

•  New procedures for resident involvement

•  Local approach to tackling unemployment

Housing associations and development companies, which have been involved have slightly altered their view as they are more sensitive to the environment/neighbourhood of their houses now.

Dublin

Area Management: New structures have recently been established whereby the city is divided into five areas for local service delivery. Area offices and staff structure under an Area Manager have been established. The Project Teams for the IAP's now fit into this area structure and the links established with local communities during the life of the IAP's will continue into the future.

Glasgow

The first Local Development Company (Govan Initiative) was formed in 1986, and subsequently based on its success seven others have been set up in the other regeneration areas, the last in 2000. Gorbals Initiative is a key player in economic regeneration in the Gorbals. The LDCs also work collaboratively on city wide issues, particularly in the field of employability and training and delivery of contracted services such as business start up and SME growth. The SIP model was a Scotland wide solution and in some ways the creation of these additional agencies in Glasgow was a missed opportunity. Their functionality could have been provided in a broader LDC remit by integrating economic and social development at a local level. The overhaul of the SIP structure is unresolved at this time, but the future role of Glasgow Alliance in this respect is most uncertain. Glasgow is unique across Scotland with the mature LDC model. Community development trusts are becoming more common, but are unlikely to approach the scale of LDC operations.

Hamburg

In Hamburg we can observe that municipality owned housing companies are today more aware of the neighbourhood of their houses than some years ago. The Municipality has renewed its commitment to an integrated approach for deprived neighbourhoods and public participation, but one has to take into account, that for all German cities, the integrated approach itself is still quite new and needs time to develop.

Lisbon

If we consider the whole Castle Project as some kind of a special procedure due to the included issues and the complete renewal of built up area and public space, we could name it “experimental” within the Lisbon context. As political changes occurred there were only few and partly reflections on that experience, not concerning the whole process and the different matters involved as well as initially defined goals and priorities.

Valletta

N.A.

Vilnius

The formation of associations like the House Owners' Association and the Angel Club is a positive sign of empowerment of the local initiatives and collective action. Also regular attempts of OTRA to involve wider circles of residential/ other social groups seeking to consolidate their interests and on the higher extent support their initiatives.