|
Table of contents
Addressing policy makers (2)
Definition
Urban regeneration historically developed both as a distinct sector of public governance and expenditure, and as a philosophical approach to the optimal development of human settlements. On the one hand as an institutionalised sector of public governance, urban regeneration has, as its objective, the amelioration of inequalities-of-outcome that arise from market-driven economic development. This objective is addressed through a range of programmes aimed at managing social, spatial and economic regeneration. On the other hand as a values-based approach oriented toward the needs of deprived urban communities, urban regeneration seeks greater integration across the relevant sectors and the inculcation of the principle of sustainability in management practice. In both respects, the aim is to improve quality of life in deprived neighbourhoods by instigating and supporting the sustainable development of local communities.
There has been a generalised shift toward urban regeneration programmes that are funded on a project-based, problem neighbourhood-targeted and time-limited basis. Furthermore, the delivery of such programmes has been re-located away from established public and social economy (third) sector institutions to temporary project offices – often of an 'experimental' or 'pilot' nature.
Problem
The participating ENTRUST cities vary in terms of the emphasis given to urban regeneration. In Copenhagen and Hamburg located in the North, for example, there has been a shift from the emphasis on urban regeneration institutions towards a more value-based approach. In the cities of the South, Valletta and Lisbon, the focus is on developing urban regeneration institutions and agencies. In both instances, policy emphasis is either in one or other direction that is toward either a values based or an institutional approach. Complementarity between the two is seldom sought. While neighbourhoods prioritised for urban regeneration may improve because of targeted initiatives, problems may be displaced to other neighbourhoods. Unless the successful projects and programmes are somehow anchored in mainstream administration, their usefulness and applicability beyond the 'pilot' neighbourhood will be lost.
The advantage of setting up special initiatives and agencies outside of mainstream administrations resides in the greater freedom of operation and stakeholder confidence. The disadvantage lies in the fact that the successes achieved through this methodology are frequently not fed back into the mainstream institutions and administration. The latter, therefore, continue to face problems in relation to performance, credibility and stakeholder participation.
In the ENTRUST case studies, the integrated approach to urban regeneration is relatively new to many local actors. We have found little evidence of innovation on the ground being integrated into mainstream policies. The policy setting is largely defined at the national and municipal level. The needs and interests of local stakeholders and (potential) private partners are reflected in policy only when they happen to coincide with the aims as defined by the higher administrative levels.
Recommendations
Acknowledge the dual nature of urban regeneration policy. Recognise that mainstream programmes and special initiatives are often required to meet local needs. The urban regeneration sector must be integrated with other cognisant sectors, and the urban regeneration values based approach must diffuse into sectoral policies such as housing, employment, education, business development, environment, culture and the arts. Most importantly, urban policies must allow for a dynamic interaction between urban regeneration as a sector of governance on the one hand, and as a cross-sectoral, integrated approach to sustainable development on the other.
There is a need to balance the establishment of special neighbourhood initiatives, separate task forces, pilot projects and other high profile time-limited schemes generally with the need to provide comprehensive mainstream policies for urban regeneration and community development. It must be acknowledged that the public sector has limited means and that experimentation is only possible at the cost of the mainstream. Nevertheless, neighbourhood-based regeneration experiments are valuable because they offer the opportunity to try out innovative policies and strategies. Time-limited programmes with a multi-year budget allow for adequate planning, evaluation and the putting in place of an appropriate exit strategy. Special initiatives that are deemed successful only fulfil their purpose, however, if and when they are mainstreamed.
While the spatial dimension of urban social exclusion is critical, it is necessary to view each targeted neighbourhood in its wider context. Neighbourhood development must be seen within the wider geographical, social and economic spheres. 'Integrated' urban development must be both multi-functional (between economic development, housing, community capacity-building, etc) and multi-scale (operational at different neighbourhood levels). Successful urban regeneration cannot be confined to isolated neighbourhood actions. Notwithstanding the principle of subsidiarity, urban regeneration requires national and EU level support beyond the existing support to social and economic cohesion to secure greater policy cohesion, legitimacy, authority and resources for meaningful action. |
|
Addressing practitioners   Next
|
