Are our regeneration policies complacent?

Ras Adams Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 11:21:12 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Centre for Cities, which is an urban policy group that's just split off from the IPPR, has released some interesting new research that should make us less complacent when it comes to regeneration policy.



They've measured towns and cities across the UK over the past ten years and how they've fared on a variety of indicators such as job growth, how many people are actually in work, wages growth and salary levels overall.

What's interesting is that as well as the usual suspects in the south east, half of the UK's most improved cities, in terms of employment growth, are in the north, including Derby, Doncaster and Sunderland, in 4th, 6th and 7th place.  However for four of these five northern cities employment rates are still considerably below the national average.  Sunderland ranks almost bottom with 31% of the city's working age population not in employment compared 26%, nationally.

The report highlights the inequalities within as well as between UK cities up and down the country.  Manchester, Birmingham and London each appeared in the report's ranking of the ten most unequal urban areas, measured in terms of wealth and deprivation. Across the city regions, the disparities are stark:

Greater Manchester: 35% of Manchester's working-age population are not employed, compared to 20% in Stockport.

Greater Birmingham: In Birmingham 37% of the working age population are not in employment, compared to 21% in neighbouring Solihull.

Greater London: 47% of Tower Hamlet's working-age residents are not in employment, compared to over 22% in Sutton.

While these city centres have been physically transformed and regenerated, less than a mile from Manchester's new Piccadilly Station and London's Canary Wharf, entrenched pockets of worklessness and underperforming housing markets remain.

It shows we need to move beyond physical city centre redevelopment towards the next wave of regeneration by skilling up workless residents in the surrounding areas and by investing in transport networks, linking people to jobs.

 



tags: , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Are our regeneration policies complacent? | 2 comments (2 topical)

Re: Are our regeneration policies complacent? (#1)

by NeilF on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 01:01:11 PM GMT

Thanks for this, a very interesting report. 

I think that there are different phases of thinking between physical and social regeneration that come and go in and out of fashion. Looking back over the last couple of decades the SRB programme was a positive start in its insistance of voluntary and community sector involvement.  The Neighbourhood Renewal Fund been enormously helpful but has perhaps located a little too much power within the local authorities which historically haven't ceded a huge amount of power and funding to communities.  Many European funded projects were excellent at focusing on the skills development and promoting enterprise within  the poorest areas but had ridiculous reporting requirements. On the other hand I've noticed that many New Deal for Communities programmes have focused on asset building as part of their exit strategies as they approach the end of their ten year period. Will they avoid the temptation to empire build?

Clearly both physical and social aspects of regeneration are essential, but it's the mix that has to be right as this report shows.   I think the temptation recently has been to focus on iconic buildings or flagship developments partly because they're easier to arrange, control and deliver on time.  That's understandable. It is certainly easy to point at a building and recognise the achievement rather look at the skills and empowerment of individuals in deprived areas. Often these take a lot of time, but the benefits will aguably be felt for just as long as a landmark building. Measuring this success isn't as straight forward.  It's harder to keep track of individuals and their families as they progress and use their skills in decades to come. Patience from funders and political masters is important in measuring the softer regeneration approaches. 
My own view is that the emphasis within physical regeneration should now be less on the 'shiny buildings' and more on new social housing and possibly greater architecture within the public realm. Overall I'm a Keynesian when it comes to economic regeneration and would like to see more jobs earmarked for local people in deprived areas.  As well as giving a foot up on the career ladder they're more likely to spend their money locally, thereby keeping more of the cash in the local economy than commuters from elsewhere.  
The Government is certainly on the right track with arrangements with big employers in the private sector for taking on people most vulnerable in the labour market. I'd like to see more of a light touch from the public sector and creativity of how they recruit and procure services - the difficulties facing Remploy is a good case in hand. This could certainly help narrow some of the inequalities within cities and tackle worklessness. 


I wouldn't say our policies are complacent, but that we've overlooked the bureaucratic and political barriers preventing them work like they were intended.  I'd certainly like to see more funding devolved to the voluntary and community sector - particularly the smaller organisations in the sector - but the partnership approach of Government has to be the correct one for major developments. 

Ultimately, Labour is trying to revive the fortunes of many towns and cities that relied on manufacturing industries that were decimated in the 1980s and 1990s by the policies of the Thatcher and Major governments. It's a long process in turning that around, but I'm positive about the progress made in the first 11 years of Labour Government. The most important lesson of the future has to be patient, not look for headline grabbing results and be prepared to regularly listen to those working on the ground.

Ed Miliband had exactly the right approach at the Office of the Third Sector and I really wish he could have stayed there longer.  Similarly David Miliband was really getting into interesting territory with community asset management at DCLG before being whisked to DEFRA. I do wish our decent Ministers could be allowed to follow through their ideas and not be reshuffled to 'greater' things!



Re: Are our regeneration policies complacent? (#2)

by AlanJi on Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 02:25:27 PM GMT

Well, that rather depends on what you mean.

Private sector investment in buildings doesn't necessarily help people learn skills and earn a living.

Public sector investment in buildings also doesn't help people learn skills and earn a living. That's why some Council estates, less than 40 years old and built with central heating and fitted kitchens, are to be found in the 10% most deprived "Super Output Areas" published from the census of 2001.

Is it, or is it not, more or less of a problem for poor and long-term unemployed people if lots of their neighbours are or are not in the same situation?

Can we free our minds from the gossip and shallow-minded nonsense that dedevills comment in this field, like:
Inner City, and
Deprived Area.
These expressions are used by some people precisely because they do not mean anything. Those people are not usually our friends.


Are our regeneration policies complacent? | 2 comments (2 topical)