This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/davehillblog/2013/apr/04/regenerating-london-the-good-city

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Regenerating London: the good city Regenerating London: the good city
(6 months later)
By the end of a day spent in Southwark the other week it was clearer than ever that debate about improving urban lives by changing the uses to which bits of land are put can't be left to market force evangelists or narrowed by the placard pieties of robo-Trots. Even the most admirable regeneration project requires planners and politicians to work through a set of trade-offs between sometimes conflicting goals and generally attempt to manage a social and economic entity – London - that has a way of having a life of its own.By the end of a day spent in Southwark the other week it was clearer than ever that debate about improving urban lives by changing the uses to which bits of land are put can't be left to market force evangelists or narrowed by the placard pieties of robo-Trots. Even the most admirable regeneration project requires planners and politicians to work through a set of trade-offs between sometimes conflicting goals and generally attempt to manage a social and economic entity – London - that has a way of having a life of its own.
There will always be winners as well as losers and a range of views about what is proposed, including among those whose lives might be those most disturbed in the name of making them better. A resident of the Aylesbury estate, one of the 58% who've lived there for more than 20 years, strongly supported the borough's ambition of "transforming the Aylesbury over the next 20 years into a stronger and more vibrant community." That ambition centrally involves having 4,200 homes on the Aylesbury site instead of 2,750, offering a "range of tenure options" including "opportunities for home ownership," as well as residents enjoying "great streets, parks and open spaces, excellent public transport and a wide range of facilities."There will always be winners as well as losers and a range of views about what is proposed, including among those whose lives might be those most disturbed in the name of making them better. A resident of the Aylesbury estate, one of the 58% who've lived there for more than 20 years, strongly supported the borough's ambition of "transforming the Aylesbury over the next 20 years into a stronger and more vibrant community." That ambition centrally involves having 4,200 homes on the Aylesbury site instead of 2,750, offering a "range of tenure options" including "opportunities for home ownership," as well as residents enjoying "great streets, parks and open spaces, excellent public transport and a wide range of facilities."
But, of course, there is disquiet too. And a short walk away, one of the last residents to leave the doomed Heygate estate continues to fight the council and its characterization of the Heygate as a self-contained concentration of self-perpetuating failure that must give way to a more densely built, street-connected, "mixed community."But, of course, there is disquiet too. And a short walk away, one of the last residents to leave the doomed Heygate estate continues to fight the council and its characterization of the Heygate as a self-contained concentration of self-perpetuating failure that must give way to a more densely built, street-connected, "mixed community."
These two estates and the long, slow, often angrily contested approach of both Labour and Liberal Democrat administrations to changing or expunging them are but part of the bigger Southwark picture, as the geographical space between them shows.These two estates and the long, slow, often angrily contested approach of both Labour and Liberal Democrat administrations to changing or expunging them are but part of the bigger Southwark picture, as the geographical space between them shows.
Southwark is London's biggest social landlord and local authority-built blocks of different styles and vintages appear round practically every Walworth corner. Using money secured from developers it plans to build a further 1,000 council homes in other parts of the borough by 2020, claiming this is the biggest such programme in the country.Southwark is London's biggest social landlord and local authority-built blocks of different styles and vintages appear round practically every Walworth corner. Using money secured from developers it plans to build a further 1,000 council homes in other parts of the borough by 2020, claiming this is the biggest such programme in the country.
Importantly, though, the Southwark story isn't only about the quantity and quality of low-cost housing, any more than any other regeneration scenario is. The shops on Walworth Road as you head for Elephant and Castle tell their own story of the economic situation of the neighbourhood: Corals, Costcutter, Albemarle, Flexiloans, Poundbuster, Betfred. Why, it was almost like being at home. Some of the thrift shops, I was told, undercut the traders in the busy East Street market. There is a Marks and Spencer on Walworth Road too. But you are not entering Belgravia.Importantly, though, the Southwark story isn't only about the quantity and quality of low-cost housing, any more than any other regeneration scenario is. The shops on Walworth Road as you head for Elephant and Castle tell their own story of the economic situation of the neighbourhood: Corals, Costcutter, Albemarle, Flexiloans, Poundbuster, Betfred. Why, it was almost like being at home. Some of the thrift shops, I was told, undercut the traders in the busy East Street market. There is a Marks and Spencer on Walworth Road too. But you are not entering Belgravia.
How do you make this part of Southwark a better place? How do you improve any part of London where lots of people have little money, are in need of more jobs and homes and would welcome change of the right kind? How do you order your priorities and set your goals within the context of London's soaring population, many-sided housing crisis and government spending cuts? How do you ensure that the greatest benefits accrue to the people who need them most?How do you make this part of Southwark a better place? How do you improve any part of London where lots of people have little money, are in need of more jobs and homes and would welcome change of the right kind? How do you order your priorities and set your goals within the context of London's soaring population, many-sided housing crisis and government spending cuts? How do you ensure that the greatest benefits accrue to the people who need them most?
I posed much the same questions at the start of this mini-series of articles, which was inspired by reaction to the disclosure of the sum Southwark received from property developer Lend Lease for the Heygate estate site. But such questions have nagged at me throughout my four years of covering the progress of the Earls Court project, a regeneration scheme which aspires to redeveloping land in Kensington and Chelsea and Hammersmith and Fulham in a manner its political backers claim will help most of all some of the area's least prosperous people.I posed much the same questions at the start of this mini-series of articles, which was inspired by reaction to the disclosure of the sum Southwark received from property developer Lend Lease for the Heygate estate site. But such questions have nagged at me throughout my four years of covering the progress of the Earls Court project, a regeneration scheme which aspires to redeveloping land in Kensington and Chelsea and Hammersmith and Fulham in a manner its political backers claim will help most of all some of the area's least prosperous people.
They aren't straightforward to answer. Southwark's regeneration recipe – the earliest versions of which appeared in the last century – and that of those two Tory-led inner west London councils are different in many ways, not least because the neighbourhoods concerned are very different. But both fit within the same broad paradigm, which holds that more homes, better shops, enhanced streets and transport links and the creation of virtuous "mixed communities" in the place of harmful "ghettoes" can best be secured by doing large deals with property developers.They aren't straightforward to answer. Southwark's regeneration recipe – the earliest versions of which appeared in the last century – and that of those two Tory-led inner west London councils are different in many ways, not least because the neighbourhoods concerned are very different. But both fit within the same broad paradigm, which holds that more homes, better shops, enhanced streets and transport links and the creation of virtuous "mixed communities" in the place of harmful "ghettoes" can best be secured by doing large deals with property developers.
Adherents to this paradigm – and they come in every mainstream shade – acknowledge if they're honest, as Southwark's leader Peter John was when I spoke to him, that its results include some people losing out. These can include some of those least prosperous local people, and others further up the income scale. Neighbourhood upgrades result in higher prices and rents, adding to pressure on budgets and causing some people to reluctantly move. Estate demolition, by definition, involves the stress and sometimes pain of displacement, if only as far as a different part of the same borough.Adherents to this paradigm – and they come in every mainstream shade – acknowledge if they're honest, as Southwark's leader Peter John was when I spoke to him, that its results include some people losing out. These can include some of those least prosperous local people, and others further up the income scale. Neighbourhood upgrades result in higher prices and rents, adding to pressure on budgets and causing some people to reluctantly move. Estate demolition, by definition, involves the stress and sometimes pain of displacement, if only as far as a different part of the same borough.
Overall, though, a big future win is claimed, not only for the great majority of locals but also for London as a whole, which by 2020 is expected to have to cram a million more people into the same acreage, masses more journey-makers into its transport network and will need to provide a lot more jobs. And objectors to this paradigm need to acknowledge that many gain from it, including some of the poorest locals for the same reasons that some gain from gentrification, regeneration's irresistible companion phenomenon. Neither the pros or cons are uniformly spread.Overall, though, a big future win is claimed, not only for the great majority of locals but also for London as a whole, which by 2020 is expected to have to cram a million more people into the same acreage, masses more journey-makers into its transport network and will need to provide a lot more jobs. And objectors to this paradigm need to acknowledge that many gain from it, including some of the poorest locals for the same reasons that some gain from gentrification, regeneration's irresistible companion phenomenon. Neither the pros or cons are uniformly spread.
Those objectors must acknowledge too that some primarily social housing estates have been badly built and are expensive to refurbish and maintain for councils facing huge demands from a dozen different directions with diminishing resources, and that some tenants' reluctance to leave may be due more to their fear of the alternatives than any deep love for what they have and its setting.Those objectors must acknowledge too that some primarily social housing estates have been badly built and are expensive to refurbish and maintain for councils facing huge demands from a dozen different directions with diminishing resources, and that some tenants' reluctance to leave may be due more to their fear of the alternatives than any deep love for what they have and its setting.
Challenging the mainstream regeneration model means recognizing that housing associations cannot now begin to meet the demand for genuinely low-cost housing in London, thanks to grant cuts and the advent of "affordable rent". But it also means taking proper note that London's housing crisis is so deep and wide that it engulfs not only the very poorest but non property-owning middle-income London too, and that if the new economics of house building deals means a few more of that group getting a helping hand out of the private rented sector, of itself that might be no bad thing. Neither are the better road junctions, nicer parks or the odd new school.Challenging the mainstream regeneration model means recognizing that housing associations cannot now begin to meet the demand for genuinely low-cost housing in London, thanks to grant cuts and the advent of "affordable rent". But it also means taking proper note that London's housing crisis is so deep and wide that it engulfs not only the very poorest but non property-owning middle-income London too, and that if the new economics of house building deals means a few more of that group getting a helping hand out of the private rented sector, of itself that might be no bad thing. Neither are the better road junctions, nicer parks or the odd new school.
The problem with rejecting the prevailing regeneration paradigm is that true alternatives exist mostly in the realm of ideal world abstraction. Nothing wrong with that, but not a lot of help if you're sitting in a town hall in the capital in 2013 trying to devise spatial development policies that simultaneously address the problems of poverty, of population growth and churn, and a range of demands that you yourself can't begin to meet alone, even if you'd dearly love to. If you were in that situation, what would you do? What would I?The problem with rejecting the prevailing regeneration paradigm is that true alternatives exist mostly in the realm of ideal world abstraction. Nothing wrong with that, but not a lot of help if you're sitting in a town hall in the capital in 2013 trying to devise spatial development policies that simultaneously address the problems of poverty, of population growth and churn, and a range of demands that you yourself can't begin to meet alone, even if you'd dearly love to. If you were in that situation, what would you do? What would I?
My best answer, a work very much still in progress, is that the paradigm itself might be the best option there is – or, to be more pessimistic, the least bad - but that it's got its priorities list upside down. The Earls Court project - the regeneration scheme I'm most qualified to comment on - illustrates this usefully.My best answer, a work very much still in progress, is that the paradigm itself might be the best option there is – or, to be more pessimistic, the least bad - but that it's got its priorities list upside down. The Earls Court project - the regeneration scheme I'm most qualified to comment on - illustrates this usefully.
Hammersmith and Fulham, supposedly a crucible of Conservative localism, speaks the language of giving its most deprived people a hand up through this hugely ambitious redevelopment scheme. Yet its actions have been habitually top-down. The local Tory slogan is "residents first" but its approach to those residents it wants removed from two estates that stand on a chunk of valuable land has been to put its property developer partner Capital and Counties first.Hammersmith and Fulham, supposedly a crucible of Conservative localism, speaks the language of giving its most deprived people a hand up through this hugely ambitious redevelopment scheme. Yet its actions have been habitually top-down. The local Tory slogan is "residents first" but its approach to those residents it wants removed from two estates that stand on a chunk of valuable land has been to put its property developer partner Capital and Counties first.
Some local Tories complain that opposition has been mobilized by political foes, but so what? And what did they expect? The project has the great advantage over most others that propose estate demolition of being able to offer new, alternative homes nearby with no need to "decant" tenants to somewhere temporary, yet these promises appear mistrusted.Some local Tories complain that opposition has been mobilized by political foes, but so what? And what did they expect? The project has the great advantage over most others that propose estate demolition of being able to offer new, alternative homes nearby with no need to "decant" tenants to somewhere temporary, yet these promises appear mistrusted.
A truly localist approach would have made securing such trust a top objective before any deal with a property developer was seriously explored. It would have first warmed to the tenants and residents' associations' ambition to take ownership of the estates themselves, following the model of Walterton and Elgin Community Homes in Westminster, which has just been given planning permission for its own building plans. Instead, the council's now former leader lobbied ministers to water down potential powers to make this possible and a "media strategy" has been put in place to contain voices of opposition.A truly localist approach would have made securing such trust a top objective before any deal with a property developer was seriously explored. It would have first warmed to the tenants and residents' associations' ambition to take ownership of the estates themselves, following the model of Walterton and Elgin Community Homes in Westminster, which has just been given planning permission for its own building plans. Instead, the council's now former leader lobbied ministers to water down potential powers to make this possible and a "media strategy" has been put in place to contain voices of opposition.
Every regeneration situation is different, and every borough has a different set of issues, often conflicting ones, to weigh. But there does seem to be a too-comfortable consensus that the only way out of the problems faced by people on social housing-dominated estates is to obliterate those estates and "create mixed communities" in their place. The attractions of replacing poor and unpopular housing with a larger number of homes of a variety of types on the same area of land shouldn't be dismissed out of hand - research shows that mixed-income communities are popular with all who live in them, and London's housing shortage is acute.Every regeneration situation is different, and every borough has a different set of issues, often conflicting ones, to weigh. But there does seem to be a too-comfortable consensus that the only way out of the problems faced by people on social housing-dominated estates is to obliterate those estates and "create mixed communities" in their place. The attractions of replacing poor and unpopular housing with a larger number of homes of a variety of types on the same area of land shouldn't be dismissed out of hand - research shows that mixed-income communities are popular with all who live in them, and London's housing shortage is acute.
But the same research shows that mixed communities do not, of themselves, make poor people better off and may even penalise them in some ways. Sometimes, the "mixed communities" defence of demolition seems deployed to dignify a fundamental dislike of social housing or a failure to recognise that the cultures of the communities living it can be valuable and wise, and should be nourished where possible rather than dismantled in the name of curing urban blight. Hasn't that mistake been made before?But the same research shows that mixed communities do not, of themselves, make poor people better off and may even penalise them in some ways. Sometimes, the "mixed communities" defence of demolition seems deployed to dignify a fundamental dislike of social housing or a failure to recognise that the cultures of the communities living it can be valuable and wise, and should be nourished where possible rather than dismantled in the name of curing urban blight. Hasn't that mistake been made before?
London's boroughs and its mayor - sadly, it will have to be some future mayor - could do worse than pause and reflect on the way regeneration in London has come to be pursued and defined. Ensuring that bigger is also better must include fixing its social problems, not just moving them around. Potential long-term employment gains from redevelopment need to be properly measured against the loss of existing businesses.London's boroughs and its mayor - sadly, it will have to be some future mayor - could do worse than pause and reflect on the way regeneration in London has come to be pursued and defined. Ensuring that bigger is also better must include fixing its social problems, not just moving them around. Potential long-term employment gains from redevelopment need to be properly measured against the loss of existing businesses.
Many believe that the accommodation problems of those many who will never qualify for social housing can be far better pursued if more political will was directed towards building on vacant public land that doesn't already contain housing, expanding and reforming the private rented sector, and exerting existing powers to see neglected plots developed and bring empty homes back into use. And property developers aren't always a destructive influence. Goliath has his strengths, he just shouldn't be given the run of the place.Many believe that the accommodation problems of those many who will never qualify for social housing can be far better pursued if more political will was directed towards building on vacant public land that doesn't already contain housing, expanding and reforming the private rented sector, and exerting existing powers to see neglected plots developed and bring empty homes back into use. And property developers aren't always a destructive influence. Goliath has his strengths, he just shouldn't be given the run of the place.
None of this is to neglect the vital importance of helping the people most in need of it to take advantage of the good things regeneration - and gentrification - can bring, and to protect them from those of its effects that can hurt them. Let's develop, rather than destroy. To think big, let's think smaller. That is in the common interest of the majority of Londoners seeking the stability and security they need in order to enjoy the kaleidoscopic pleasures of a fast-changing metropolis. That is what a good city should do.None of this is to neglect the vital importance of helping the people most in need of it to take advantage of the good things regeneration - and gentrification - can bring, and to protect them from those of its effects that can hurt them. Let's develop, rather than destroy. To think big, let's think smaller. That is in the common interest of the majority of Londoners seeking the stability and security they need in order to enjoy the kaleidoscopic pleasures of a fast-changing metropolis. That is what a good city should do.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.