[PDF] REGENERATING URBAN NEIGHBOURHOODS IN EUROPE

View - Download REGENERATING URBAN NEIGHBOURHOODS IN EUROPE

Previous PDF

Next PDF

Eight case Studies in six European Countries

REGENERATING URBAN

NEIGHBOURHOODS IN EUROPE

Aarau Centre for Democracy Studies, Working Paper Nr. 3

May 2014

Céline Widmer and Daniel Kübler (Editors)

IMPRESSUM

Working Paper Series of the Aarau Centre for Democracy Studies at the University of Zurich Series editors: Andreas Glaser, Daniel Kübler, Béatrice Ziegler

ISBN-Nr: 978-3-9524228-2-3

Information

Centre for Democracy Studies Aarau (ZDA)

Villa Blumenhalde, Küttigerstrasse 21

CH - 5000 Aarau

Phone : +41 62 836 94 44 E -Mail: info@zdaarau.ch www.zdaarau.ch

© 2014 by the authors

Table of Contents

Introduction

Urban Neighbourhood Regeneration in Europe

.......................................... 3

Céline Widmer and Daniel Kübler

Berlin Progress Report ............................................................................................................ 9

Melanie Walter-Rogg

Leicester City Report ............................................................................................................. 27

Tomila Lankina

Politique de la Ville in Lille ................................................................................................... 45

Michèle Breuillard

Manchester

Case Study Report ............................................................................................ 65

Catherine Durose

The Politics of Neighbourhood Regeneration in

Paris ........................................................ 81

Sophie Body-Gendrot

Prague Case Study Report .................................................................................................. 131

Tomáš

Regenerating Urban Neighbourhoods (RUN): an overview for

Rotterdam ................... 179

Julien van Ostaaijen

Zurich Case Study Report ................................................................................................... 213

Céline Widmer and Daniel Kübler

Appendix ............................................................................................................................... 241

Introduction: Urban

Neighbourhood Regeneration in Europe

Céline Widmer and Daniel Kübler

National policy programmes aimed at neighbourhood regeneration and renewal have been high on the agenda in many European countries since the early 1990s, most prominently in France (Politique de la ville), Britain (New deal for communities), and Germany (Programm Soziale Stadt)), but also in smaller countries such as the Netherlands (Grotestedenbeleid). They all draw on an area based and cross-sectoral approach to urban problems, seeking to combine physical, economic and community interventions in order to tackle decay, deprivation and social exclusion in a comprehensive and encompassing way. As such an approach had been undertaken in various countries, neighbourhood regeneration strategies also drew increasing scholarly interest. However, the overwhelming majority of the existing studies on neighbourhood regeneration is limited to single cities or provides comparisons between cities within a single national context. Systematic cross-national comparison is rare - a notable exception is van Gent et al.'s (2009) study of neighbourhood regeneration in four different national contexts (Britain, the Netherlands,

Spain and Sweden).

The project "Regenerating urban neighbourhoods" (RUN), initiated by Prof. Clarence Stone (University of Maryland) in 2006, seeks to explore and understand cross-national variation in place -based policy response to neighbourhood distress in Europe and North America. The project brought together European and American scholars in a networked effort to investigate differences and similarities in patterns of policy intervention in distressed urban neighbourhoods across a broad range of countries. The aim of the project is a better understanding of policy intervention that involves sub -city residential areas experiencing distress. It is not concerned with explaining the underlying causes of distressed neighbourhoods or with evaluating the impact of policy initiatives, but with answering the questions of how and why policy choices were made and acted upon. In line with historical institutionalism (Steinmo et al., 1992), it is assumed that urban policy has institutional aspects, both intergovernmental and spatial, that are distin ct (Brenner, 2004). The present working paper brings together eight case study reports on neighbourhood regeneration strategies in 17 deprived urban neighbourhoods, located in eight cities within six

European countries (see Table 1 below).

4 Regenerating Urban Neighbourhoods in Europe

Table 1: Case studies of neighbourhood regeneration strategies

Country City Neighbourhoods

Britain Manchester Beswick, Hulme

Leicester Braunstone, St. Matthews and St. Marks

Czech Republic Prague South City, Zizkov

France Lille Lille sud, Bois Blancs

Paris Porte de Clignancourt-Porte Montmartre, Portes du sud

Germany Berlin Kotbusser Tor, Marzahn-Nord

Netherlands Rotterdam Pendrecht, Tarwewijk, Afrikaanderwijk

Switzerland Zurich Schwamendingen, Langstrasse

Total: 6 Countries Total: 8 Cities Total: 17 Neighbourhoods

The case studies explore neighbourhood

regeneration strategies in eight large European cities: Berlin, Lille, Leicester, Manchester, Paris, Prague, Rotterdam, and Zurich. The case studies were conducted between 2006 and 2010 by national research teams on the basis of a common research protocol elaborated in the framework of the broader RUN research project in 2006 and further developed during the research process (see the model in the appendix). The common goal is to understand the politics of neighbourhood -based initiatives for the regeneration of urban areas. All eight case studies focus on how and why certain policy choices were made, why a particular neighbourhood approach has been selected over other possible interventions, how neighbourhood working does fit with other aspects of city politics and governance, what mechanisms have been put in place, and how neighbourhood interventions can be explained and interpreted. While all the city-teams collected original empirical data - mainly via documentary analysis and indepth interviews - to respond to these questions, the project guidelines were formulated open enough to allow case-oriented research strategies. Therefore, the structure of the case study presentations may differ quite substantially. But although the eight case studies did not follow exactly the same structure, they basically discuss the following common topics:

Neighbourhood distress as a topic of concern

Legacies of earlier neighbourhood policy

The citywide dimensions of socio-spatial inequality Portrait of neighbourhoods selected for detailed study Policy interventions in neighbourhoods chosen: Agenda standing, strategy, tools, and content

The local structure of politics and government

Resource availability

Institutional structure of intergovernmental supports

Mapping of potential major players

Understanding of the problem

Explaining and interpreting neighbourhood intervention In 2010, the authors of the eight European case studies and the project convenor, Prof. Clarence Stone, met in Zurich to discuss insights from the empirical work and to identify and discuss differences and similarities across the single cases, as well as emerging overarching themes. More precisely, the following overarching themes have been identified as Examples of such themes that emerged and could be investigated further in a cross-national perspective:

Introduction 5

1. The convergence towards area-based policies in neighbourhood regeneration. The

European case studies show a noticeable coincidence in the evolution of area-based regeneration policies. In several countries and cities, at the end of the 1990s, governments introduced, or set a strong focus on, neighbourhood regeneration policies (either at the national or at the local level): E.g. in

German, English, Swiss, and Dutch

cities, so-called integral policies had then a clearly territory-based focus, and were supposed to overcome merely physical interventions and sectorisation. In French cities, area -based regeneration policies have been introduced thirty years ago but neighbourhood interventions changed their focus with the neoliberal turn in European countries. In Prague, there are virtually no neighbourhood regeneration policies that would be territorially targeted and cross-sectoral as opposed to all other cities under scrutiny. Whereas in France an ongoing discussion and critique of place-oriented (in contrast to people-oriented) policies takes place, such policies in the German speaking countries hardly seem to be critically analysed. 2. From physical to more comprehensive neighbourhood regeneration strategies: variations in policy interventions. The case studies conducted in eight large European cities reveal a broad range of different interventions related to distressed neighbourhoods. However, it seems that in almost every city, neighbourhood regeneration policy developed from physical interventions to more comprehensive policies. In this new view, intervention strategies to counteract problems in distressed neighbourhoods intend to cover more than one policy at the same time and seek to go beyond merely physical interventions. Other variations however can be observed: E.g. image improvement strategies emerged as a new instrument for distressed neighbourhoods. And by the end of the 1990s and later on, some cities called for repressive and crime prevention policies instead of inequality and poverty reduction strategies, i.e., there was a shift towards safety policies. A more specific issue concerning variation in neighbourhood regeneration strategies is the role of 'social- mixing' policies. The social mixing approach can be found in almost all case studies, but with different implementations. 3. Evolution and role of community engagement. All the case studies presented in this working paper men tion the evolution of community based approaches or at least a strong discourse of citizens' participation. From 'round table' discussions to the involvement of inhabitants in the development of a community hammam or the support of grassroots movements, different forms of community engagement are taken into account in regeneration strategies. Therefore, participation can be considered as a major tool in neighbourhood regeneration policy since the end of the 1990s. The case studies interpret these tools differently. E.g. citizens' participation is described as a crucial precondition for the emergence of stable community life (Berlin). Others see community engagement - among other things - as a strategic focus on efficiency improvement in service delivery (Manchester). 4. Multi-level governance: role of the central government and the local government. Although neighbourhood regeneration in European cities is primarily conducted by the public sector, different actors on different scales are involved as major players. In most of the countries covered by the case studies at hand, neighbourhood regeneration was initiated at the national scale. National programmes such as the 'New Deal for Communities' in England, the 'Socially Integrative City Programme' in Germany or 'politique de la ville' in France, are main promoters and also funding sources for area- based policy interventions in distressed neighbourhoods. In contrast, neighbourhood

6 Regenerating Urban Neighbourhoods in Europe

regeneration has only very recently become a topic in Switzerland for the national government. The case studies show interactions, conflicts and cooperation between different levels of government (state/local/community/district) when it comes to neighbourhood regeneration strategies. Therefore, they reveal interesting multi-level aspects of neighbourhood governance. These preliminary thoughts show that the insights brought together in these eight case studies uncovers a variety of interesting insights for a more general, cross-national perspective on issues related to neighbourhood regeneration strategies. This working paper presents updated versions of all eight case study reports discussed in the Zurich meeting in 2010. The aim of this working paper is to make the comprehensive, in- depth research work on neighbourhood regeneration in eight European cities available to a wider audience, so to enable further analyses. The structure of the working paper arranges the case studies of the eight cities Berlin, Lille, Leicester, Manchester, Paris, Prague, Rotterdam, and Zurich in an alphabetical order. The editors would like to thank the authors of the case studies to enable the publication of this working paper and for their willingness to support the publication process. Last but not least, a very special thank you goes to Su Yun Woo for editing all the case studies.

Introduction 7

Literature

Brenner, Neil (2004):

New State Spaces. Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Durose, Cahterine und Vivien Lowndes (2010): Neighbourhood Governance: Contested

Rationales within a Multi

-Level Setting-A Study of Manchester. Local Government

Studies 36(3), 341-59.

Steinmo, Sven, Kathleen Ann Thelen und Frank Longstreth (1992):

Structuring politics :

historical institutionalism in comparative analysis. Cambridge England ; New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Van Gent, Wouter P. C., Sako Musterd und Wim Ostendorf (2009): Disentangling neighbourhood problems: area-based interventions in Western European cities. Urban

Research & Practice

2(1), 53

- 67.

8 Regenerating Urban Neighbourhoods in Europe

Berlin Progress Report

Melanie Walter-Rogg

1 Introduction

1 Fundamental socioeconomic change has aggravated a new type of social and (urban) spatial inequality in German cities in the last decades. One of the symptoms is the emergence of disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Districts with particular development needs are usually beset by a combination of problems. Given the complex interaction between these problems they no longer seem amenable to the traditional sectorial political and administrative solutions. The idea of social sustainability has fundamentally redefine d city planning since the mid

1990s. In 1996, the ARGEBAU Construction Ministers' Conference (a consortium of the

Construction Ministries of the 16 German states) launched the nationwide "Socially Integrative City" initiative. This initiative also generated the federal/state programme "Districts with Special Development Needs - the Socially Integrative City" in 1999 which took a new approach in developing and promoting integrated problem-solving strategies in

German cities. It was based on the coalition pac

t between Germany's Social Democratic Party (SPD) and Alliance 90/The Greens. Not only "classical" investment project funding is envisaged but also self-help, private initiative, and collaboration by the people concerned, thus stimulating and supporting essential local development resources. Neighbourhood management is a crucial tool in implementing this new programme. North Rhine-Westphalia was the first state in Germany to open an agency for Neighbourhood Management (Quartiersmanagement) as part of this initiative, followed by similar projects in Hamburg, Hessen, Bremen, and Berlin.

The federal/state "Socially Integrative City"

programme started in 1999 with 161 neighbourhoods in 124 German cities and municipalities. By 2009,
the programme had provided financial support to 571 neighbourhoods in around 355 cities and municipalities. The "Socially Integrative City programme" of Berlin is coordinated by the Department of Urban Development of the Senate of Berlin. Working together with the affected borough s of Berlin, the Senate supports 34 socially unstable areas of Berlin by providing neighbourhood management, intervention and prevention programmes. The "Socially Integrative City programme" is funded by state, federal and European (European Funds for

REgional Development) resources.

1 This case study report includes information as per September 2010.

10 Regenerating Urban Neighbourhoods in Europe

The programme fosters participation and cooperation and represents a new integrative political approach to urban district development.

All the disadvantaged districts require

special development and have indicated different scopes/forms of intervention. Nevertheless, the recommended selection procedure was useful to select two of them as highlighted below:

1) Helping people to help themselves

2) Creating self-reliant civic organisations and stable neighbourhood social networks to

enable the neighbourhoods to function as independent communities again (Argebau

2000: 4ff).

The city of Berlin is a good example of different strategies of neighbourhood management in the frame of the Socially Integrative City. The programme provides four categories of support depending on local needs:

Strong intervention

Middle intervention

Prevention

Long-term sustainability

These four categories of support are translated into the following programmes and initiatives to implement strategies of neighbourhood management. Category 1: Neighbourhood Management (15 neighbourhoods) Category 2: Locality Management (5 neighbourhoods) Category 3: Locality Management (10 neighbourhoods)

Category 4:

From Neighbourhood Management to local resident responsibility (3 neighbourhoods) Intervention (both strong and middle forms) includes methods previously tested in the Neighbourhood Management programme (category 1) as well as new district management methods (category 2). Programmes in these categories are carried out mainly in areas of the city with high percentages of unemployed people and social aid recipients as well as highly mobile and declining populations using the instruments employed up to now within the

Neighbourhood Management prog

ramme.

The district management programme for

prevention and networking (category 3) is designed to create measures that put a stop to further negative developments. It includes areas with a large percentage of unemployed persons, usually combined with severely declining populations in specific social strata (above-average selective mobility).

Achieving long

-term sustainability means moving the structures created through neighbourhood management to the local level and anchoring them in resident-run processes and structures (category 4) following successful intervention through the Neighbourhood Management programme. The practical work of neighbourhood management should, in a transitional period, be handed over to local residents.

Berlin 11

The following

intervention tools have been utilised:

Guidance services

Outreach

Streetwork

Networking and mediation between individual players

Public and private organisations

Organisation of meetings, festivals, events and campaigns

Site and facility inspection tours

Publications and briefings

Neighbourhood public relations through multilingual newspapers, posters, flyers, brochures, websites

Use of logos and slogans

We decided to choose the neighbourhood Kottbusser Tor in the town-centre district of Kreuzberg and Marzahn-NordWest in the district of Marzahn on the outskirts. Both are members of the Socially Integrative City programme since the beginning in 1999 and both are in category of strong intervention strategies.

Wherea

s in the

Kottbusser Tor

project the main focus is on ethnic integration and public order issues like drug policy or prostitution, the

Marzahn-NordWest neighbourhood deals

above all with issues of housing and physical renewal. Funds provided for the Berlin Neighbourhood Management programme

1999-2005 2007-2013

City of Berlin 53 million € 68 million € Federal Government 21 million € 29 million € European Union (EFRE) 49 million € 54 million €

TOTAL 123 million € 151 million €

For Berlin's Neighbourhood Management areas, funding is provided not only through the Socially Integrative City programme but also through "Local Capital for Social Purposes" (LOS).

This nationwide programme allocates funds to so

-called "microprojects" active at the local level in fostering the participation of all social groups in the development of their neighbourhoods and especially in promoting these groups' integration into the local labour market.

12 Regenerating Urban Neighbourhoods in Europe

2 Policy Intervention as the Dependent Variable

2.1 Clarification - public policy intervention

The aim of the

Socially Integrative City

programme was to counteract the widening socio- spatial rifts in the cities. The programme seeks to foster participation and cooperation and represents a new integrative political approach to urban district development. Neighbourhood Management with respect to public policy intervention is devised by the German integrative approach of the

Socially Integrative City

is reflected in the fact that measures and projects are realised in all policy areas and often cover more than one policy area at the same time. Realisation of measures and projects in substantive activity areas requires the establishment of effective coordination and efficient management of multilateral participation in instrumental strategic fields of activity. Neighbourhood or district management is one important tool of the

Socially Integrative City

which differs very much from previous handling of problems caused by poverty and their spatial concentration in certain neighbourhoods (Alisch 1998: 12ff). This new form of management is based on cooperation and consensus between legislative and executive branches, the market, the third sector and the society. The following key actors of neighbourhood management and their interests have been defined in the report of the German Institute of Urban Affairs (2003):

2.1.1 Supra-local politics and administration

Implementation of the complex and ambitious

Socially Integrative City

programme required a great deal of experience sharing, knowledge transfer, cooperation and PR work. That is why the Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Affairs (BMVBS), represented by thequotesdbs_dbs27.pdfusesText_33

[PDF] BO ANPE n°2008-9 du 19 février 2008 - France

[PDF] BO Arpajon A5.indd - France

[PDF] BO authentifié - 997.8 kOctets - PDF

[PDF] bo biarritz olympique cyclotourisme 05 59 01 61 45

[PDF] Bo Christian Larsson

[PDF] BO Consult, une société de Services Informatiques - bo

[PDF] BO Desktop Intelligence - Expert

[PDF] BO EMUL NF

[PDF] BO Enim 4-2014

[PDF] BO Events Animations 20150522

[PDF] BO Lille - E-orthophonie - France

[PDF] BO N 30 du 30.04.2016

[PDF] BÔ NOËL A ENCHANTÉ LAUSANNE !

[PDF] bô noël, la magie de noël enchante la capitale vaudoise

[PDF] BO N° 005 AGO - Ligue d`Alger de Judo