|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
FINAL REPORT
Regenerating neighbourhoods in partnership
– learning from emergent practices |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table of contents
Preconditions for local partnerships:
In terms of the preconditions required for local partnership building we looked at the social, economic and institutional fabric of the study neighbourhoods. Across the case studies, the profiles of local problems and the policy solutions varied tremendously. This meant that a simple transfer of knowledge and good practice from one case to another was not feasible. For example, the long-standing tradition of cooperative housing and collaborative approaches to housing improvements in northern cities and welfare states are at variance with the more individualistic approaches in the southern member states. In the very specific situation of a transforming city like Vilnius such models should and could not be employed easily.
Observations like these led us to a deeper analysis of the local circumstances, traditions and policies. Throughout the cases, we could show that in all the cities partnership based models exist in one way or another, but the meaning of partnership varies. It depends on local interpretation and administrative culture – it can refer to a rather formal arrangement to coordinate various agencies (as in the case of the Glasgow Alliance) or a more spontaneous experimental one-off activity (as in the case of the neighbourhood fund in Berlin).
3.OBJECTIVES
3.2.Good practice in urban regeneration |
|
|
|