After the lecture on the 24th October, the Bartlett Urban Planning students also held a seminar last week and the questions raised at both were thought-provoking. I think they can be summarised as follows...
First, there was the issue of how much would be achieved through adopting a community-based approach instead of a growth-dependent approach in various locations. Some could not see real improvements in the well-being and quality of life of low-income communities being tackled without much more structural shifts. Some raised a critique of the capitalist dynamics that create these societal inequalities. In the lecture I did state that a range of policy measures including a revived welfare state and a substantial programme of public sector housing provision were necessary to address societal inequality. I was not seeking to suggest that a community-based planning approach would be a panacea. Indeed I was trying to suggest, in passing, that we too often look to the planning system to solve all urban problems and that we perhaps need to be a bit more modest in our claims for planning. That does not mean we should give up on planning. It does important things but its efforts need to be seen in conjunction with other policies. What I was trying to indicated through the emphasis on community-based planning, is that a reformed planning system could make a small, but not unimportant contribution to improving well-being and quality of life in localities and communities that are largely ignored through the emphasis on growth-dependence.
Second, some raised the question of whether there were not elements of the current government's localism agenda that fitted into the community-based approach. My answer here would be - yes - to a degree. There are indeed elements that could be used as building blocks for the beyond-growth-dependence agenda but they fail for two reasons. The planning system remains attuned to promoting development rather than supporting community initiatives; any clash between the pro-growth stance of the NPPF and local initiatives for local communities are likely to be resolved in favour of the central government policy. And, secondly, there is no mechanism for financial community-based initiatives into the longer-term so that localism may offer much more to local communities with their own resources to invest.
Third, some asked if growth-dependence and community-based approaches were really alternatives. This is an interesting one. It brought home to me that growth-dependence, if successfully implemented, should not mean ignoring communities. Rather it can only really deliver benefits to all sectors of urban communities if such communities are fully involve in and buy into the growth-led plans. And there can be spin-offs from market-led development projects that meet community needs. I would not wish to deny that. I was more concerned to think about those places and communities where market-led development does not reach. Growth-dependence is not an alternative here because it is not being offered by the private sector.
So food for thought. I hope to be back blogging more regularly now that the lecture is done and dusted and the book finally out!
Hello Yvonne,
ReplyDeleteThe lecture was very interesting as is the above post-lecture Q and A blog.
It strikes me that proper 'Regeneration' programmes provide (or should provide) the missing links you are talking about which deal with the places and communities which market-led development does not reach.
Of course, part of the problem is that too many so called 'Regeneration' programmes are not at all what proper Regeneration should be - too often it is just property development using the Regeneration label without understanding (or careing) that proper Regeneration is integrated and holistic, dealing with physical, social, economic and environmental issues.
I think the 'third group' are correct in that growth must be such that everyone benefits from it, rather than the benefits are appropriated by a narrow section of the community. This brings us to the 1% versus 99% issue, and for whose benefit 'the system' has been designed, which is something which many are talking about but few really seem to have the will to address.
I think the Convoy's Wharf, in Deptford, development illustrates one of the points you raise. The Mayor of London has just taken the planning decision away from the local planning authority because the international, globalised, owner has asked him to do so. The local community are not against development but they want it to be more about their needs and less about absentee international investors buying into London but not acutally living there. It will be interesting to see who's interests The Mayor is most concerned with - the existing community's or global investor's.
Thanks, Stephen. Yes, I agree that 'good' urban regeneration should be able to meet the needs of the broader local community but the problems are twofold. First, that such good practice is not universal and is less likely to be observed as local councils feel under economic pressure to accept development as offered by the private sector. And, second, some places seem to be regeneration-proof in that the private sector cannot be tempted there at almost any price. What can planning do in these contexts?
ReplyDelete