Urban Regeneration

...

executives.

Environmental regeneration has taken place through the creation of pedestrian and cycle routes in the area with access to the river and dock edge through waterside walkways. This, combined with the planting of 200,000 trees, the creation of pedestrian bridges and 150ha of new open spaces, as well as a water-based ecology park and London’s first bird sanctuary at East India Dock, provides an aesthetically pleasing environment, directly combating physical causes and consequences of decline. The area has now received many awards for architecture, conservation and landscaping, providing a sense of prestige and helping to transform the reputation of the Docklands.

The regeneration of the London Docklands gave a wide range of economic, environmental and social benefits, as outlined above. This addressed the decline in the area, transforming it into a business centre which has attracted migration into the area, as well as providing 24,000 housing units, along with 75,000 new jobs. There were, however, criticisms that despite the improvements, many of these didn’t benefit the original ‘East Enders,’ with many of the locals unable to afford the high costs of new housing. Furthermore, although there was an increase in the number of jobs, many of these required skills that the old Dockers did not have. It has also been said that there was a reduction in community spirit that the old Docklands had – with the ‘yuppie’ newcomers not mixing with the East Enders.

Partnership schemes are an alternative method of regeneration. Local councils work with businesses and local communities to design a regeneration plan for an area. These schemes aim to improve the economy and environment in an area, as well as making social improvements, for example by the building of community centres. In the UK, partnership schemes such as City Challenge aimed to regenerate urban areas. 31 City Challenge partnership schemes were set up in deprived urban areas from 1992 – 1998. City Challenge is a project that was designed by the local authorities in order to gain funding and to address some of the weaknesses of the earlier regeneration schemes, such as the removal of democratic accountability with the use of UDCs, and the lack of local participation. Areas competed with each other for funding, improving the quality of proposals and encouraging more imaginative ideas. The partaking organisations were better organised and much more involved. However, in some cases, neighbouring authorities competed against each other when they could have worked together to try and win the funding. Furthermore, the policy that all successful bidders should receive exactly the same sum of money, irrespective of need, was also criticised. Also, there was no specific criteria to follow so many authorities were unsure of how best to go about creating a successful proposal.

Hulme was redeveloped as part of a slum clearance programme in the 1960’s and a number of high rise flats were built (the Hulme crescents). 98% of the 5500 properties were owned by the council. Over half of the dwellings were part of a deck access system, with many of the poor design features (e.g. no indoor toilet) of prefabricated construction. The housing was damp and the elevators often broke down, rats were also a common problem. The area had a low level of families with children, and a disproportionate number of single person households. There was also some evidence that the local authority had used the area to ’dump’ some of its more unfortunate residents.

In 1992, under the Hulme City Challenge Partnership, Manchester City Council worked with private companies (Guinness Trust and Bellway Homes) to design a £37.5 million regeneration package to redevelop the area. Plans were drawn up to build 3000 new homes, with new shopping areas, roads and community facilities. A more traditional pattern of housing development was designed, with streets, squares, two storey houses and low rise flats which were to replace the mass of concrete making up the crescents. By 1995, 50ha of land had been reclaimed, the majority of the former deck access flats had been demolished, 600 new homes for rents had been built, and more than 400 homes had been improved and refurbished. The main shopping area had been totally rejuvenated, including the addition of an ASDA supermarket. A new community centre (the Zion Centre), including crèche facilities and other social provision was also constructed. This may act as a pull factor and attract families into the area and help to balance the number of single person households. Shared open green spaces and well-lit streets made people feel more secure and increased the sense of community, as well as providing an aesthetically pleasing environment. In addition, crime in the area was greatly reduced and there is more of a social mix of people living in the area.

As a result of this scheme, Hulme became a more desirable place to live, so its population increased (by 3.3% from 1992 – 2002). The revitalisation of industries and services in Hulme and neighbouring Moss Side meant that they went on to receive £400 million in public and private investment, which will boost the local economy and aid the maintenance of the newly improved environment, as well as going towards further development of the area. In addition, unemployment fell from 32% in 1992 to 6% in 2010, raising the socio-economic status of the residents and enabling them to pursue a better quality of life.

Despite these successes, the area is still poor, 47.5% of the population live in social housing, not helped by an influx of professionals into the area leading to a rise in house prices, making them unaffordable to residents on lower incomes. Also, unemployment is still high relative to Manchester as a whole, suggesting that Hulme is still an area to support in furthering its development, despite the progress that has already been made.

Park Hill, Sheffield is another example of a partnership redevelopment scheme. Park Hill is a huge 1960s estate of flats designed to replace the late 19th and early 20th century slums that had housed factory workers. Originally the flats were modern, with running water and inside toilets, but 40 years later, were run-down and dilapidated. As the industry in Sheffield went into decline and unemployment, environmental blight, social problems and poverty afflicted the area, renewal of the flats was made difficult.

The local authority, housing association and private developers (Urban Splash) worked together in the regeneration of Park Hill, as part of a widespread renewal of inner city Sheffield and the Don Valley. The area has been regenerated through a combination of public and private investment. In a £146 million transformation which began in 2007. The estates contained 1000 flats as well as shops, pubs