Table of contents

Aims of regeneration: more complex, multi-objective and moving targets

Urban regeneration has become a multi-dimensional task. Whilst traditionally urban regeneration in Europe was mainly concerned with physical improvement, over time the aims and the means of regeneration have become multi-faceted and more complex to deal with. They integrate different sectors and actors on several levels and contexts, combining physical in-vestment in 'hardware' with investment in the social 'software' of a neighbourhood. It is against this background that 'Partnership' led regeneration becomes pivotal.

All ENTRUST cities aspire to a broad, integrated approach to urban regeneration. However, a first set of aims can be discerned that are particularly important for changing the neighbour-hoods in question:

– stimulating local economies

– achieving and maintaining social cohesion

– creating better living conditions and rehabilitation of the urban fabric.

None of these aims are new in themselves. The very novelty is to pursue them at the same time (multi-objective).

Additionally, and on an entirely different level than that of inducing neighbourhood change, there is a second set of aims. They relate to alter the very policies of neighbourhood-based approaches themselves (policy change).

The evidence of ENTRUST partners’ cases and experience suggests strongly that a new set of regeneration aims is emerging that reflects the objectives to integrate ‘people, business and place' and bring about appropriate policies to achieve this aim. They are embedded in wider city and national aims and strategies; they promote the objective of community capacity building and aim at delivering tangible changes and exploit the geographical competitiveness of the neighbourhood in the long run.

Across the ENTRUST cities, we observed that defining neighbourhood related aims is mainly a public sector task. Even though objectives have become more diverse and multi-faceted, decisions are still taken top-down. There is broader involvement of other stakeholders in the implementation phase, but yet again, bottom-up processes are prescribed and structured from the top and embedded in hierarchical systems of decision-making.

Inner city neighbourhoods are not isolated islands; they are embedded in a city-wide system of relations and functions and play a certain role there. So, successful urban regeneration approaches have to be integrated into regional strategies in order to make use of such connections. However, our research showed that there is still a lot of room for improvement in all cities and countries. We observe contradictory policies at the various levels. In particular, national housing policies that encourage moving away from city centres (hence with an 'anti-urban bias') seem to be at odds with efforts to improve inner-city neighbourhoods.

As urban regeneration is becoming a multi-dimensional task it not only integrates various dimensions of urban development. It also has to manage tensions and conflicts between them. In order to balance the occurring ambiguities, urban regeneration policies often work with a hierarchical system of primary and secondary aims – the more aims there are, the more important is the need to prioritise aims. In some cases, at the local level there are efforts to make this agenda setting more transparent and more based on democratic processes.

Traditional physical approaches to urban regeneration were mainly concerned with outputs. They were conceived in a static fashion as objectives to be achieved: to improve the physical environment. The new integrated approaches are much more concerned with processes of neighbourhood development themselves. They are flexible and see the regeneration process as a learning system.