Assess the Extent to Which Regeneration Schemes Have Been Effective in Improving Urban Areas
Essay Preview: Assess the Extent to Which Regeneration Schemes Have Been Effective in Improving Urban Areas
Report this essay
Assess the extent to which regeneration schemes have been effective in improving urban areas (40 marks)Urban decline is seen when there is a decrease in economic activity in an urban area causes it to become run down. Because of this, regeneration schemes have been implemented to try and improve areas facing urban decline. Regeneration involves attracting people back into urban areas after urban decline, and there are three main types: gentrification, partnership schemes and property led regeneration. Causes of urban decline can include an increase in unemployment, fewer people using shops and services, and also a decline of physical environment (people who move out and leave empty buildings which may attract crime – vandalism and graffiti). One such method to try and improve the quality of urban areas is through partnership schemes. Partnership schemes are partnerships between the local authorities, local people, governments and private investors. They include schemes like City Challenge and Sustainable Communities. The most successful schemes combine social aims with economic and environmental outcomes. Here, the importance of decisions is significant. This is because many views and considerations from different people and authoritative bodies will have to be taken into account, meaning the decisions they make will influence the regeneration scheme. These partnership schemes involve local councils working with businesses and local communities to come up with a regeneration plan and they often try to improve the economy and environment in area. The main aim is to make social improvements e.g. Community centers, to combat the problems faced by places in urban decline such as an increase in unemployment, where if industry declines then there will be a loss of jobs so some unemployed people will move out to find jobs elsewhere. These partnership schemes seek to combat this by trying to provide more economic stimulus to the area, whilst also seeking to improve the general social environment. An example of a partnership scheme is the Hulme City Challenge in Manchester (Property-led partnership between local, national government and the private sector). In 1992 plans were drawn up to build 3000 new homes. Authorities were asked to submit details for regeneration plans to bid for government funding, and ÂŁ37.5 million was made available for the creation of a new Hulme. The reason for this development was part of a slum clearance in the 1960s, with many council- owned buildings. By 1995, after the development, 50ha of land was reclaimed, the majority of the former deck access flats demolished and 600 new homes were made for rent, and more than 400 homes were refurbished and improved. The new housing areas have a variety of architectural styles and are built to a high standard, using a more traditional pattern of housing. The success of this scheme in improving urban areas can be seen in how Hulme illustrates how careful planning and investment can revitalise an inner city area, changing its image and providing an attractive environment in which to live and work. A particular success in Hulme is that now people are choosing to live in Hulme, whereas in the past it was an area of out-migration; showing the present pull it has on people. By 1997 – over 4000 houses had been improved, 53000 jobs created and 2000ha of derelict land developed. 3000 new businesses established, increasing job creation. An attempt to have an area with a social mix of people has been achieved which removes the potential of a homogenous society. Economic benefits include the fact that the creation of the new ASDA shopping centre provided 350 jobs, as did the construction of houses. These benefits are useful for both the national government and the local people. This is because the local people are provided with economic stimulation in their area, which helps them to get jobs and improve their standard of living, whilst the government also benefits from an increase in employment (raising tax revenue), and also an increase in the quality of the overall area, which would be pleasing for the government. This means the positive consequences can be seen as wide-ranging, impacting not only the local area in which the scheme is implemented, but also elsewhere. The economic benefits are a good measure of success of these schemes, as one of the main purposes of these schemes is to improve the economy in the area, however although jobs have been created in the short term with construction, we will not be able to judge the effectiveness of job creation and the employment rate until the long-term. Another criticism of the scheme was the fact that it made different authorities compete for funding, so the more competitive authorities won the funding, not those that
needed it the most. The authorities could have worked together rather than competing with each other. Some competing authorities were not given clear information about the criteria on their application that would be judged which created an unfair disadvantage. Furthermore, house prices increased making private housing unaffordable to people on low incomes leading to economic segregation. Unemployment is still high in comparison to the rest of Manchester and it is still a very poor area with 47.5% of the population living in social housing. Despite this, the long term economic benefits that will arise from the infrastructure and businesses created will help counter to unemployment, so this may just be an issue for the short term. Overall, the benefits of partnership schemes such as in Hulme outweigh the weaknesses, and we can see the changes purely as a result of the scheme; it would promote future changes if it continued. It is also a beneficial scheme to help communities get together and put forward their views and attitudes for the future, giving cities a positive community vibe.Another manner in which urban areas can be improved through regeneration schemes is by property-led developments. In the UK in the 1980s and 1990s, urban regeneration was largely property-led. The most successful scheme was the Urban Development Corporation (UDC) programme. The focus was physical regeneration as a catalyst for economic revival. These types of schemes involve building or improving property in an area in order to change its image and improve the local environment. These changes encourage further investment and the return of people and business. They are set up by UDCs who plan and coordinate development. An example of such development is the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation; a 10 year programme that was set up in 2005 to regenerate the North and East of London. It aims to ensure land and buildings are being used and are not left derelict; to encourage existing and new industry and businesses to develop in the area and create an attractive environment. It also aims to improve housing and social facilities so that people want to live and work in the area. The scheme was needed because loss of heavy industry and changes in shipping led to its rapid decline as a production centre, leaving many buildings in need of repair. The Thames Gateway area represents a major opportunity to address the shortage of affordable homes in London and the south-east, and the regeneration of the eastern corridor into London and out along the Thames Estuary. Major investment was required to clear up most of the brownfield sites upon which 80% of new homes were to be built.  In November 2007, the Thames Gateway Delivery Plan was published and set out proposed spending programme for 2008-2011 which includes £500 million for regeneration and £100 million for local transport improvements within a total Government investment commitment of over £9 billion. The plan had 3 driving forces for positive change- A strong economy, improvements in quality of life and development of the Gateway as an eco-region. Environmentally, the scheme was a success. The production of 80% of homes on brownfield sites helps to reduce the use of greenfield, thus preserving the natural beauty of the countryside. Many behind the planning have made sure the recent suburban sprawl will be stemmed as a result of building on brownfields.  Heat energy is also being recycled as waste heat from Barking Power station will be used to heat neighbourhood houses, thus reducing the extra power required to be generated from the power station. This is beneficial in the long term since, if replicated on a larger scale, it will help to reduce the volume of fossil fuels used by the UK as a whole. The benefits to the environment also ensure sustainable development in this area, as the regeneration scheme will be long-lasting and also more widespread the more sustainable it is. However problems with the scheme include the fact that despite provision of £850 million has been made to improve quality of life and to create 180,000 new jobs, these would only be temporary in terms of construction and management. Moreover, the work required in these new jobs have required a different skill set than what is offered by some of the local residents. This mismatch in service provision has meant that locals do not benefit to a great extent as planned, because of the fact that they would have to undergo training to then get the jobs. Further problems for the local people includes the fact that the decision-makers were accused of not listening to residents’ opinions e.g. Gave planning permission for a temporary nightclub to be erected close to the Olympic Park despite objections from local residents. This highlights a flaw not seen in the partnership scheme, where local resident’s views were considered, not just the ultimate decision-makers. Whilst property-led developments help in renovating the area, the successes do not reach to as much of an extent as with partnership schemes, especially due to the fact local resident’s views are taken into account with partnership schemes.