Asger Munk, MSc (political science), is Director of the National
Secretariat for Urban Regeneration.
Summary
What is urban regeneration
?
Organisation
of the urban regeneration experiment
Urban regeneration
- where ?
Experience from processes:
municipal organisation and resident involvement
Experience
with municipal organisation
Experience
with resident involvement
Urban
regeneration as urban policy laboratory
Just do it -
and what then ?
Literature
Summary
The municipal leaders must lend their active support to urban
regeneration if it is to be a success. In most of the urban
regeneration projects, the residents have played a major role
in the formulation of a plan for their area; however, things
happening on time and sincere cooperation are necessary in
order to maintain the resident participation. These are important
examples of the experience to date from the seven urban areas
that are participating in an extensive urban regeneration
experiment. The purpose is partly to improve the individual
urban areas as a whole and partly to provide models for urban
policy in the future. The article explains the concept of
urban regeneration, and then looks at its history and how
it is organised. An attempt is also made to evaluate –
2 ½ years down the line – the extent to which the municipalities’
integrated approach has been a success and whether the resident
participation has succeeded. Lastly, some examples are given
of what urban regeneration can offer as a laboratory for urban
policy thinking.
What is urban
regeneration ?
The term "Kvarterløft" (urban regeneration) can
be traced back to at least January 1993, when it appeared
in a consultancy report concerning action in the North-west
area in Copenhagen. In the report, the term is used synonymously
with preventive urban renewal and is said to relate particularly
to the so-called grey urban renewal areas. (Cooperative Architects
(1993) p.2). The urban regeneration in the North-west area
was initiated in a cooperation between the City of Copenhagen,
the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Social Affairs,
which concluded a cooperation agreement on urban regeneration
in 1994.
The Government’s Urban Committee subsequently defined
the main characteristics of urban regeneration projects in
a report as follows: "1. The projects concern the area,
and not individual residents or properties 2. The projects
are based on coordinated and integrated action 3. The projects
are based on maximum participation by local forces. In addition,
the analysis and the cooperation between public sector and
private sector players are embodied in a contract. (Ministry
of Housing (1996) p. 1). However, the concept of urban regeneration
evolves as the process progresses. In addition to determining
the content of urban regeneration it is important to underline
that this is not a "scheme", but merely an experiment.
Organisation
of the urban regeneration experiment
At a meeting in February 1997 the Government’s Urban
Committee decided that cooperation agreements were to be concluded
with a total of six out of the eighteen areas which had applied
to be considered for the urban regeneration experiment. Prior
to this, the municipalities had outlined their ideas for action
in the areas concerned, and had defined success criteria for
the action. After this top-down start, a bottom-up process
was initiated, where the question that now required answering
was what the residents and other local forces wanted. The
outcome of this phase, the preliminary project, was urban
regeneration plans for the areas concerned. (The background
is explained in greater detail in Munk (1998)).
The funding of urban regeneration, which can be designated
as negotiated funding, is an element of the so-called cooperation
agreements. Most of the funds come from urban renewal: viz.
a total appropriation of the order of DKK 700 million for
all seven projects (i.e. the urban regeneration project in
the North-west and the six projects initiated by the Governments
Urban Committee) However, a number of other ministries are
also contributing, including the Ministry of Social Affairs,
the Ministry of the Interior, and the Ministry of Labour,
and Den Grønne Fond ("The Green Fund"), Grøn Beskæftigelse
("Green Employment"), traditional Urban Committee
funds, and funds from private foundations, including from
Lokale & Anlægsfonden ("The Premises & Construction
Fund") which has contributed to the planning of sports
and culture and is also expected to contribute to specific
projects. The municipalities also contribute substantial funds.
Lastly, one of the aims is partnerships between public sector
and private sector players in, for example, the area of employment.
Researchers have described the management of urban regeneration,
which, as far as the relationship between State and municipality
is concerned, is embodied in cooperation agreements, as part
of a new form of planning – communicative planning, which
deviates considerably from the more traditional planning process,
as the focus is on the dialogue between the parties, the process.
The same applies at local level (cf. Knud Erik Hansen and
Karina Sehested (1999)). The cooperation agreements are revised
annually. The State relies on framework control, e.g. requirements
that success criteria must be defined or requirements that
the promised action must be followed up within a specific
timeframe, but generally does not involve itself in which
projects should be implemented.
The negotiations concerning the cooperation agreements are
taken care of, on the government side, by the National Secretariat
for Urban Regeneration, which is also charged with ensuring
that the experience gained is disseminated so that other municipalities
can also benefit from the experiment.
Part of the inspiration for urban regeneration comes from
the experience from the initiatives implemented in various
non-profit housing estates over the years and the experience
from urban renewal, where the trend is towards action over
a broader front. The Urban Committee has also drawn inspiration
from international experience, particularly from projects
in the UK, the Netherlands and Germany (See Flemming Groth-Hansen
1998)
Urban
regeneration – where ?
The areas that have been selected all have serious problems
affecting several sectors. However, if this were not the case,
there would be no need for public action. In addition, the
Urban Committee has stressed that the resources required to
tackle the problems must be available.
However, the areas also differ greatly. Two of the areas,
Avedøre Stationsby in Hvidovre Municipality with just under
6,000 residents and East Aalborg with 15,000 residents, are
relatively new areas – built between 1960 and 1980 –
and dominated by non-profit housing. Two other areas are old,
dating from between 1920 and 1950, more mixed, but with a
very large proportion of non-profit housing. They are: Kgs.
Enghave with 15,000 residents and approx. 50 per cent non-profit
housing and the North-west area with just under 40 per cent
non-profit housing. Both areas are situated in the Municipality
of Copenhagen. The remaining three areas are old urban areas
with very little non-profit housing. They are: the Holmbladsgade
area in Amager close to the city centre, which, with 16,000
residents, is the largest of the areas and also has the largest
proportion of dilapidated buildings; the smallest of all the
areas, Tøjhushaven in Randers with only 1,100 residents; and,
lastly, South-west Kolding with a population of approx. 6,000.
(The areas are described in greater detail in Munk 1998).
Completed projects are still few and far between, but experience
has been gained from processes.
Experience from
processes: municipal organisation and resident involvement
The Government’s Urban Committee has engaged the Danish
Building Research Institute (SBI) to be responsible for the
research evaluation of the urban regeneration action. Although
the results of this evaluation are not yet available, various
preliminary findings can be pinpointed already – after
2 ½ years - partly with respect to the municipalities' ability
to work in an integrated way and partly with respect to resident
involvement.
Experience
with municipal organisation
The municipalities in which the urban regeneration areas are
situated have appointed project managers and established secretariats
to ensure resident participation and coordination.
However, the local action needs to have the support of the
municipal administration in order for ideas and plans to be
realised. The main responsibility for the urban regeneration
action is placed with different administrations in the various
municipalities: in Avedøre Stationsby the principal organisation
is placed under Hvidovre Municipality’s Social Administration,
in Aalborg and Kolding the responsibility is placed with the
Technical Administration, in the City of Copenhagen with the
Finance Administration, while Randers Municipality shifted
the responsibility from the Technical Administration to the
Mayor’s Office at an early stage of the process.
As already mentioned, integrated action is an important element
of the urban regeneration process. As the starting point is
a municipal administration which is divided into sectors,
the desired integrated action requires the various municipal
administrations to work across existing sector boundaries
on the widely varying initiatives described earlier in this
memo. Each municipality has therefore established a number
of bodies that are to ensure cross-sector coordination.
However, the creation and existence of cross-sector bodies
is not per se sufficient to ensure integrated action in practice.
In some cases, the top echelon of the municipal administration
has not actively supported the urban regeneration project,
causing major problems. The single most important criterion
for successful cooperation across municipal sectors thus seems
to be the active support of the municipal leaders for the
action. This is the only way to get the support of often over-worked
municipal employees for the joint project. A good example
of this is Avedøre Stationsby, where Hvidovre’s Mayor,
Britta Christensen, is actively spearheading the urban regeneration
effort. Likewise, the City of Copenhagen’s Chief Mayor,
Jens Kramer Mikkelsen, has clearly demonstrated his considerable
commitment to the urban regeneration action in Copenhagen.
In addition, initiatives have been taken in various places
in the last 2 ½ years, including in Kolding and Randers, to
ensure that the urban regeneration action is more firmly rooted
at the top of the municipal system.
The success of an integrated approach also depends on whether
the administration with the prime responsibility manages to
create common ownership of the project with the other relevant
municipal administrations. In that connection it is important
that the administration responsible for the coordination emphasise
the interests of the other administrations rather than the
fact that it needs their assistance. Not surprisingly, the
various administrations are normally more interested in what
they can get out of a cooperation than in the concept of "helping"
another administration. The sectors’ own interests are
thus an important factor when it comes to selling the urban
generation projects to the other administrations. For example,
one of the reasons for the problems in Aalborg Municipality
in connection with the urban regeneration action in East Aalborg
was that the other administrations did not have any feeling
of ownership of the project.
There may be several reasons for this. For example, the administration
with the principal responsibility may not be capable of securing
the involvement of the other administrations in a professional
manner. But there may also be other reasons. One factor that
has affected several of the urban regeneration projects is
the fact that the Social Administrations were already working
in the areas as part of the Urban Committee action. In other
words, big sister, the urban regeneration, which is charged
with coordinating the action, was born after its little sister
(the Urban Committee initiatives). And that has caused problems
in several places.
Not surprisingly, it generally has to be admitted that there
are a number of barriers to the binding cross-municipal cooperation
on which an integrated approach normally depends. The easiest
approach is naturally an effort which is concentrated within
a single administration, because it will then largely have
the same culture, and because funds and other resources are
prioritised through the hierarchical system, which is also
designed to solve conflicts, etc. There are thus various "costs"
inherent in working across sectors. That suggests that such
an approach can only be justified if single-sector action
is likely to fail unless concerted, integrated action is taken
in a number of areas, or that a cross-sectoral effort will
at any rate produce substantial synergies.
Experience
with resident involvement
In the following, an account is given of the forms of resident
participation, the successes that have been achieved so far,
the various phases in the participation, the problems that
have arisen, and the steps that have been taken to try to
resolve them. Lastly, factors affecting the process will be
looked at.
From an analytical point of view, the forms of resident participation
and, in that connection, the motive for resident participation
can be divided into two. Firstly, the residents are given
a say in the development of their area, or, put in market
terms, there is a possibility of avoiding services for which
there is no demand. That can be expressed as added quality
in the decisions because "the experts in the life of
the area" are involved. However, this could also be put
in democratic terms: the residents are participating in the
political system and training themselves to become good democrats.
Influence can be achieved at, for example, residents’
meetings, in working or theme groups, or through participation
in coordination groups. However, influence can also be said
to give the residents a greater feeling of responsibility.
This brings us to the second motive for resident participation
in that it increases the residents’ self-confidence,
belief in their own efforts, a feeling of belonging, etc.
This, in turn, brings us to a more socially oriented motive.
This is naturally very important in areas with many people
who see themselves as marginalised. In addition to the fora
that are aimed at giving the residents influence, the more
socially oriented dimension includes forms such as participation
in street parties and events involving some form of activity:
for example, a cleaning day in Kgs. Enghave, manning a stall,
or baking a cake for a street party.
An initial, and very important, success with the resident
participation is that a large number of residents have invested
a lot of time and effort in the preparation of an urban regeneration
plan. This has been done in an interaction between residents,
experts and local politicians. This phase is particularly
important as the urban regeneration plans are the key documents
in the urban regeneration effort. The residents have participated
in the preparation of urban regeneration plans at public meetings,
seminars and in theme or working groups. There has been no
proper mapping of the extent of resident participation.
The first steps have often been taken at very well-attended
public meetings. At these meetings, or later, theme groups
have been set up concerning, for example, traffic problems,
the area’s open spaces, or a community centre. A number
of events have also been very well-attended. In connection
with the work it has been necessary to prioritise between
the various projects. In some of the urban regeneration projects
the residents have participated in the prioritisation of the
projects, for example at weekend seminars. In six of the seven
urban regeneration projects the residents’ views have
played a key role in the design of the urban regeneration
plans. The exception is East Aalborg, where the process has
not worked as intended (cf. below).
Open residents’ meetings play an important part in most
urban regeneration projects. Indeed, the many residents’
meetings have been very well-attended. For example, the first
meeting in South-west Kolding was attended by 170-180 residents.
In Tøjhushaven in Randers, the smallest of the areas, with
a population of 1100, meetings attended by more than 100 residents
have been held in the course of the process. At some of the
residents’ meetings there have been as many as 300 residents.
The number of attendees will vary considerably, and can reflect
several factors. A high participation rate may also be a sign
that there is a conflict and the residents may be participating
because they want to avoid, say, specific municipal proposals.
Theme or working groups have also been established in which
the residents have submitted specific project proposals in
interaction with project coordinators, the municipal administration
(politicians). In Kgs. Enghave, a total of 17 working groups
was originally established. Working groups concerning resolution
of traffic problems are probably the most usual working groups.
Moreover, traffic problems seem to "mobilise" more
people in the area, across traditional social-group boundaries.
With the exception of East Aalborg, the residents in all the
areas have been involved through working groups. There are
no numbers available for the resident participation in these
groups, but between 100 and 500 residents have probably participated
in the various urban regeneration projects.
Street parties in connection with the signing of cooperation
agreements and inaugurations of community centres, etc., have
also been attended by large numbers of residents. A party
celebrating the opening of the Stejlbjerg facility in South-west
Kolding was apparently attended by between 500 and 1,000 residents
from the area.
The residents also participate in the implementation of the
urban regeneration plans. For example, an exciting cooperation
has been established in the Holmbladsgade area, where a residents’
group is working actively with architects about the design
of spaces and streets. The same applies to the work on business
development, where local businesses play an active part.
Resident participation has gone through various phases. As
described above, participation was considerable during the
preliminary projects that resulted in the urban regeneration
plans. After the preparation of these plans, the negotiations
entered a "bureaucratic phase", partly internally
in the municipalities and partly in relation to negotiations
with government bodies, including the National Secretariat
for Urban Regeneration. Since then, resident participation
has not generally been at the same level as it was during
the preliminary projects. This trend is probably both natural
and unavoidable, but continued substantial resident involvement
is vital in order to ensure that the residents’ wishes
are realised as far as possible and that the residents remain
committed to the development of their area. However, resident
participation in the Holmbladsgade area is higher now, in
the implementation phase, than it has been at any other stage
of the process.
Resident participation has also – not surprisingly –
been associated with problems; however, these are also an
important part of the learning process. As will be seen from
this account, the greatest problems have been experienced
in East Aalborg, where one of the reasons for a reorganisation
of the project was the lack of resident involvement. The various
administrations will now be responsible for the future resident
involvement in cooperation with the local urban regeneration
secretariat. In Tøjhushaven in Randers there have been conflicts
despite extensive resident involvement in the urban regeneration
project. Efforts to solve the problems include the establishment
of a formalised organisation for the resident involvement
(the "Kvartel"), with elections and distribution
of authority. In Avedøre Stationsby a conflict has arisen
particularly on whether a Government grant was to be used
for a "Unique Building" or for a network of footpaths
combined with activity areas. However, the municipality is
prepared to base the final proposal on the residents’
wishes, as far as possible. In Kolding, the residents are
dissatisfied with the slow progress of the urban regeneration
project. The municipality has accepted the criticism and indicated
that it intends to play a more active role in the urban regeneration
project.
However, the question is which background factors determine
whether the resident participation is a success. The area’s
previous experience with the municipality – whether there
are any skeletons in the cupboard – seems to play a part.
Part of the conflict in East Aalborg is probably due to the
residents having had bad experiences with earlier projects
in the area.
Another criterion for successful resident involvement is
whether or not the residents’ expectations are met. In
that connection transparency is important. If the residents’
proposals are merely seen as part of/an input to the process,
and not as a determining factor, it is important for this
message to be passed on clearly to the residents. In Randers,
the so-called "Kvartel" has been set up with a view
to establishing clear organisational lines, so that conflicts
can be solved. In other areas it has also been unclear who
was responsible for which decisions.
All else being equal, a condition for successful resident
involvement is that the urban regeneration project is rooted
locally, i.e. that it has an organisational presence in the
local area. In a number of urban regeneration projects the
residents’ access to influence is facilitated by community
centres, with two eminent examples being the community centre
in the North-west area and the community centre in Jemtelandsgade
in Amager. In most of the other urban regeneration projects
small secretariats have been placed in the local area.
Resident involvement and management of projects of a scale
such as the urban regeneration projects is a complicated process,
and experience from similar projects can facilitate the process
considerably. In that connection the Copenhagen urban regeneration
projects seem to benefit from the experience from, among others,
housing projects with a social dimension and the urban renewal
process in both Nørrebro and – probably especially -
Vesterbro, as several of the urban regeneration coordinators
were previously engaged on the urban renewal in Vesterbro.
It is also important that the residents feel that they are
getting something out of participating, such as better conditions
for their children; for example, good playground facilities
or less risk of the children being hurt in the traffic; or
getting to know new people. For exposed groups, participation
may also make them feel important, that they have a function
in the community. This aspect of resident participation seems
to be well appreciated in most urban regeneration projects.
One of the most difficult aspects of resident involvement
is to live up to the residents’ expectations with respect
to the timeframe. In some phases, a lot of time is required
for discussions, while in other phases things must not take
too long. This is a particular problem in connection with
the many construction projects to be implemented. Irrespective
of how sympathetic the municipality may be towards the urban
regeneration project, construction projects often have a very
long time horizon. The residents’ time horizon is normally
relatively short, and visible results make the residents feel
they are gaining something from participating. In the urban
regeneration project the problem was anticipated by the establishment
of a pool for small, certain, visible successes for which
grants are made after a very short processing period, but
this naturally does not solve all problems. It is important
that municipalities make serious use of the possibilities
of minimising the time it takes to process applications, for
example by simultaneous processing of several cases in several
administrations.
Urban
regeneration as urban policy laboratory
The urban regeneration plans that have been prepared in cooperation
between, for example, residents and experts feature a very
large number of specific projects – approximately 300
– just over 20 in Tøjhushaven in Randers, and as much
as 70-90 in the Holmbladsgade area and the Kgs. Enghave areas.
Obviously, only a few of these projects will be considered
in the following.
The community centre can be an important element of an urban
policy strategy for strengthening local identity and pride.
It can have the function of gathering local societies and
associations, etc., which have so far had poor amenities locally,
i.e. function before space. But it could also be one of several
elements of building up local societies and associations of
which only the seeds exist so far, i.e. space as catalyser
for function, as, for example, in the North-west area of the
City of Copenhagen. In the Holmbladsgade area the community
centre Jemtelandsgade has not yet been completed. Common to
both houses is a wish to gather cultural activities in one
place, an obligation-free meeting place for residents and
central municipal functions associated with the area, such
as library, green guide, urban renewal and "healthy city"
activities. Similar combination of activities in one location
is taking placing in some projects in Avedøre.
Another promising instrument for strengthening local pride
and at the same time beautifying the area is resident participation
in area clean-ups and cleaning. Two such events have been
staged successfully in Kgs. Enghave. This could at the same
time act as an incentive for the residents to take an interest
in the area’s general appearance: signs, shop facades,
fences, etc.
Interesting innovations can also be observed in the organisational
democratic area. The urban regeneration projects are based
on special action precisely in the selected areas and on active
resident participation (see above). Kgs. Enghave is in the
special situation that an experiment with a "Bydelsråd"
(neighbourhood council) is also going on in the area. This
is manifested in an elected political representation corresponding
to the urban regeneration projects’ area orientation,
and direct resident involvement in various working groups.
Randers does not have a neighbourhood council, but a "Kvartel",
which is the area’s decision-making body. This is a good
example of how a conflict can lead to interesting innovations.
A large proportion of the relatively informal urban regeneration
organisation requires extensive consensus among the players.
If there is no longer consensus, conflicts and differences
may have to be resolved within a more formalised structure,
and the "Kvartel" may be a model for other municipalities.
In some of the areas a Youth Council has been appointed or
is planned to ensure greater involvement by young people in
the urban regeneration. That applies in the Holmbladsgade
area and East Aalborg.
Several of the urban regeneration projects feature plans
to create a new structure and unity in the area by establishment
of new networks of footpaths and shopping precincts. The new
footpaths and streets are primarily intended to tie the areas
more closely together by creating natural and easier connection
between various important places and functions in the area.
In South-west Kolding for example between allotments, community
centre, park and open spaces. In Randers the network of footpaths
will also feature cultural experiences in connection with
the park Tøjhushaven. In Avedøre Stationsby the proposal for
a network of footpaths is intended to link various activity
areas and public spaces in Stationsbyen and to link the town
and the surrounding urban community more closely together.
Urban spaces play a vital part in several urban regeneration
projects. In Randers, plans are underway for improvement of
squares and streets by means of new surfacing in warmer colours
and the establishment of a counterpart to the Spanish Steps
in Rome. In the Holmbladsgade area much attention is also
being paid to the work with open spaces, but also on gable
paintings and the use of light as function and decoration.
Traffic is an area in which planning at area level fails,
simply because of the high risk that the traffic problems
will be off-loaded on to other areas. At the same time, this
is one of the themes that has attracted the greatest interest
among the residents. Traffic problems therefore naturally
also play a key role in the urban regeneration plans. In South-west
Kolding, the traffic group was thus the top scorer when the
residents were given the opportunity, at a residents’
conference, to join theme groups. Traffic plans are also underway
in all the Copenhagen urban regeneration projects.
On the social front, some of the areas score very high on
almost every index of social problems, although here, too,
there are interesting innovations. That also applies to the
integration area, where the large EU-supported project "Underværket"
(The Miracle) in Randers is now underway. This project combines
cultural, employment and educational activities. In Kgs. Enghave
and in East Aalborg the urban regeneration plans include projects
aimed at integrating mentally ill people in the residential
areas. Following the closure of most psychiatric beds, people
with mental problems have been an increasing problem in many
non-profit housing areas. There are two aspects here: firstly,
professional support and advice must be provided to give the
residents greater knowledge and understanding of the predicament
of mentally ill people; secondly, the services available to
mentally ill people must be expanded. In Kgs. Enghave, for
example, wishes have been expressed for the "Væresteder"
(drop-in centres) to stay open during weekends. In East Aalborg
it is envisaged to build up the action around housing communes
for mentally ill people, while Kgs. Enghave operates with
voluntary "Opgangsfællesskaber" (stairway communes)
Unemployment problems, too, are being tackled in innovative
ways. One of the starting points is the fact that there is
a general risk, despite growing employment, that some weak
groups will be left behind. These groups are often concentrated
geographically. Here, too, the perspective is to think in
terms of integrated action. Jobshops will have to be established
in order to unify various otherwise separate schemes. It is
important to create better cohesion between employment initiatives
and social initiatives. However, it is also important to integrate
local businesses in the initiatives, possibly through public-private
partnerships. A Jobshop will be opening in Avedøre in October.
Similar initiatives are in the pipeline in the urban regeneration
in Copenhagen, in the Holmbladsgade area, on the basis of
an already close cooperation with local businesses, while,
in Randers, the possibilities of combining housing and businesses
in Tøjhushaven are being considered.
Just
do it – and what then ?
As will be known, urban regeneration is an experiment. The
question that now needs to be addressed is how to root the
experiment locally, so that everything does not collapse once
the urban regeneration project comes to an end after five
years. We have started addressing that question now. Another
question is whether integrated urban renewal can take over
the task of new urban regeneration ? Should more urban regeneration
projects be started up, perhaps on a slightly smaller scale
financially ? At present, the answer is blowing in the wind,
as Bob Dylan put it long ago.
Literature:
Ministry of Housing (1996) (Urban Committee) Demand specification
concerning "urban regeneration model projects",
Cooperative Architects (1993): "Kvartersløft, Muligheder
for sammenhænge" (Urban regeneration, Possibilities for
creating cohesion), January 1993
Groth-Hansen, Flemming (1998):
Hansen, Knud Erik & Karina Sehested (1999): "Udviklingen
i planlægningens karakter – fra mål og midler til organisering
og demokrati" (The development in the nature of planning
– from ends and means to organisation and democracy),
in Urban policy, urban regeneration and welfare, an anthology.
SBI - report 312.
Munk, Asger (1998): "Kvarterløft – perspektiver
og praksis" (Urban regeneration - perspectives and practice),
Town Plan No.1, 1999
