A critical evaluation of central government urban regeneration policies since the 1980s in Docklands, London - Essay Example

Introduction Consecutive attempts were launched to regenerate the cities of Great Britain, however the outcome of these attempts have been failure. It is evident that the bridge between the struggling and affluent cities has become shallow. Several contributing factors have been identified inclusive of rising geographical inequality. In the coming years it is suspected that external influence shall "life tough for struggling cities" (Wood, 2004), the contributing reasons include rising demand for highly qualified workers, lower skill levels of the regeneration towns, and the best educated evacuates London i.e. failure of retention schemes (Brownill, 1990). The shift in the political scenario shall also not be advantageous, the future cabinet is expected to comprising of representatives from suburbs and South East, and therefore these representatives shall not share "same commitment to high levels of regeneration funding, particularly if economic circumstances demand a squeeze on public spending" (Cross, 1993). It is important that realistic approach shall be adopted to ensure optimum utilization of the available opportunities. It is important to initially settle the objectives into list of practical and non-practical items. It is evident that the current government "cannot guarantee to regenerate every town and every city in Britain that has fallen behind". Every location has its strategic and economic significance, and two cities at different locations shall never share similar significance, this is natural phenomenon and has contributed towards mass migration of the dwellers in the past. Britain has to face the truth that the locations, which previously exhibited potential for investment in 19th century, are insignificant in the current economic and strategic setup. The general consensus among the legislatives exists that "port cities had an advantage in an era when exporting manufactured goods by sea was a vital source of prosperity; today the sea is a barrier to their potential for expansion and they are cut off from the main road transport routes" (Cross, 1993). The isolation of Britain from the rest of the Europe was previously considered to be strategic success of the country in terms of defence, but economists regarded this is an unfortunate limitation for the great Britain, therefore concrete measures have been undertaken for the establishment of civil structure which shall unite the rest of the Europe with Great Britain, such initiative will definitely give focus to the cities closer to the European continent against the cities British lying on the other side. As per economists, "the economic pull of Europe has boosted the South East at the expense of the North, Wales and Scotland" (Brownill, 1990). In the last century, London was the financial homeland of the country, and Manchester was textile-core. The current status of these cities are remarkably different, London has outshined due to prosperity associated with finance however Manchester has been out of loop as the textile market have downsized due to rising textile trade competition on international scale. London Dockland Development Corporation: Regeneration Plan – Development and Implementation The regeneration plans previously undertaken did not provide futile results, "many re-generation towns are shrinking". The policy of demolition which actually seconds regeneration plans shall be ceased, "it is expensive and is failing to transform local housing markets" (Cross, 1993). The appropriate solution in this regard shall be procurement of the cheap lands by the government on open market, this property then shall be exchanged with other groups or partners in exchange for "an equity stake in the expanded property" (Foster, 1999). As per rule, the houses constructed or restructured in the regeneration towns are relatively small; such scheme "would not have to bear the costs of demolition or pay for compulsory purchase, and increases the average size of a house has obvious appeal" (CRE, 1989). Such practice is recommended in the case of Dockland. In parallel, the government shall create Audit Commission which shall scrutinise the funding provided to the local authorities, "this means ensuring that the voting system makes elections truly contestable, so that all politicians, whether in office or opposition, know that voters can and will hold them to account at the ballot box", the notion of "realism, mobility, diversity, freedom, responsibility and accountability shall thrive for existence and compliance", which shall "unlock the potential that exists in towns and cities" (Foster, 1999). 1. City Challenge During 19th century, the London Docklands were "the busiest in the world"; it was located in the centre of the British Empire, and therefore shared significance. The location was of economic, political and trade significance, "hundreds of ships would call here to load and unload their cargoes before setting off for the colonies" (CRE, 1989). During early 20th century, the port offered employment opportunities to local population; however it was after 1950s when the Docklands experienced terminal decline, "a result of greater overseas competition and out-dated port facilities". The government probably never focused upon expansion and restructuring o the facilities offered at Docklands, rather it was not given prime importance against other ports located in the Britain, the lack of interest and planning attributed towards the decline in the popularity and utilization of this ports by local and foreign companies. The fall of British Empire is regarded as valid reason for the decline of Dockland, this port was busiest when the British Empire was at its peak, and however soon after the collapse of British Empire the port lost its significance. The lack of investment transformed dockland into non-preferred port, "the docks were simply not large enough to cope with the trend for larger and larger ships" (CRE, 1989). In 1970s, the port was "virtually derelict". The dockland was initially of prime significance for companies like Tate & Lyle and Unilever, however once the port emerged as non-feasible location for trade, these companies withdrew their investment, which was responsible for the unemployment in this area. After 1950s, the unemployment of Docklands has been above the average unemployment figures of Britain, the living conditions of its dwellers was inferior than standard maintained by the citizens residing in the other parts. 2. Urban Development Grant In 1981 the Conservative government headed by Margaret Thatcher established autonomous London Docklands Development Corporation. The main objective of this institute included "reduction of the physical decay in the Docklands and improvement of the environment by restoring derelict land and buildings, maintenance of the docks and creation areas of open space; improvement of the economic conditions by attracting new businesses and improvement of transport systems to and within the area; the improvement of social conditions by creating new housing and recreational amenities, as well as shopping facilities". The intent of such measure was to improve the physical and economic conditions of Dockland; this will translate into improvement in the social conditions of the area. The London Docklands Development Corporation was given "extensive powers to purchase and sell land compulsorily" (Hall, 2006); the body was successful in receiving more than GBP 300million on annual basis through land deals and central government. The British government wanted to invoke the private sector, and maximise their investment in this regeneration plan of Docklands. Several tactics were employed by London Docklands Development Corporation to attract the private sector, "planning permission was relaxed and the Isle of Dogs was designated an Enterprise Zone; this meant property companies in the area avoided paying tax on their investment, thus subsidy of GBP 2billion was given indirectly to the private sector through such approach" (Foster, 1999). 3. Single Regeneration Budget The measures and initiative of LDDC revealed the success of their regeneration plan of Docklands, more than 2million square meters of new floor space was developed, and foundation of Docklands Light Railway project, Jubilee Line Extension project, and Canary Wharf project took place, along with the establishment of residential compounds of new 30,000 houses. These projects resulted in the drop of unemployment figures, and 80,000 jobs were created against the available 27,000 jobs (Robinson, 1989). The regeneration plan was considered success by the private sectors, and private companies related to finance, retailing, leisure and journalism decided to locate their offices in this region. The outlook of the regeneration plan undertaken by the Conservative government appears positive; however some fingers were pointed out by the critics against the outcome of the project. It was criticised that the plan did not successfully translated the impact of economic and political development to the local residents, the expensive housing scheme launched was not meant for the local, the job opportunities were not provided to the locals, rather the migrants from other progressive parts benefited from the outcome. It in on record that, "around half of the new houses built were expensive luxury flats, beyond the means of ordinary people" (CRE, 1989). The project undertaken by LDDC received resentment from the locals, "more than 70percent of the new jobs were relocations from other parts of London" (Hall, 2006). As per analysis conducted in 1998, "only 20percent of the jobs of the jobs created in the Docklands were due to LDDC policy", the remaining jobs were created due to the change in the dynamics of business and market. Success and Failure of LDDC The London Dockland Development Corporation created "the rapid extension of the service sector, particularly financial services, and the increased demand for owner-occupied housing" (Peck, 1994). Initially the land values of the location were negative, but it reached GBP 4million after the implementation of the charter envisaged by LDDC. The corporate "was able to create a major source of income independent; income from land and property sales reached GBP 115million in 1988-89 alone, this is more than half of the level of Urban Programme expenditure for the particular year" (Coulson, 1993). The property boom provided financial gains to LDDC, and the agency was less dependent upon the central government, this offered "ambitious scheme of regeneration than had been envisaged in the period 1981-85". Previously the scope of LDDC was limited to "light manufacturing and affordable owner-occupied housing", however soon after the launch of the Canary Wharf proposal in 1985, an economic and social transformation introduced "vision of an Emerging City". In 1980s, the LDDC independently handled the task linked with the development of the transportation infrastructure for Canary Wharf. During the same period, "Thatcherism had arguably emerged as a clear ideological project, at least in part because the philosophy of the enterprise culture was tied closely to the movement of the proper cycle" (Peck, 1994). The rise on the investment towards property and construction sector, warranted the "the peak of Thatcherism, and Canary Wharf became the most prominent landmark to the enterprise solution". The property evaluation of "LDDC state subsidy was rapidly matched by a growth in damaging criticism from uncomfortably respectable sources including the House of Commons, the National Audit and the Audit Commission" (Pacione, 2005). The investment towards "Enterprise Zones served to discredit further the thrust of government urban policy which, by the early 1990s, was clearly reaching a point of crisis" (Smith, 1991). The findings of the Audit Commission specified that "urban policy programmes inclusive of LDDC were a patchwork quilt of complexity and idiosyncrasy with few resources to match the attendant problems". The LDDC and Conservative regime suffered significant blow when debacle of Canary Wharf took place in 1992. It was in 1989 when the prospects of LDDC took u-turn, "the property slump exposed in full the ideological contradictions of the enterprise experiments, particularly their heavy dependency on state subsidy". The event developed strong perception against "the potency of these initiatives" (Peck, 1994). The shift in the material conditions was responsible for the imposition of new restriction on the "UDCs as their income from land and property sales became negative and as fresh private investment in property reached an almost total standstill" (Coulson, 1993). The LDDC was left with no other choice but to seek closer affiliation with "public-sector agencies in order to meet their output targets since leverage from the private sector became increasingly difficult to obtain" (Smith, 1991). It has been verified that in 1994 a shuffle in the urban and regional policy took place, "major re-organisation of urban and regional policy took place" (Williams, 2005), which incorporated the establishment of ten integrated regional offices in England. The lead of the entire project has been given to environment department, and no regional or local regeneration department enjoyed autonomous status after the failures of LDDC were identified. The officials from environmental department were integrated with the officials from transport, trade, and employment department; the regeneration scheme was deemed to be monitored by "Ministerial Committee for Regeneration" (Williams, 2005). The intent of such measures was the consolidation of the economic focus upon urban policy; the failure of LDDC has warned the government against any such autonomous body working for the specific interests, excluding the translation of the social benefits necessary for the town. Conclusion The LDDC plan failed to bring social transformation, the economic and political restructuring of the Docklands did not influenced the social setup of the local population, primarily because they were not the real beneficiary of the regeneration plan. A thorough evaluation of the employment figures reveal that, "during 1980s, the overall unemployment rate was 28percent; in 1998 it stood at 7percent, which is an impressive reduction" (Ogden, 1992), however there has been rise in the local population of the Dockland i.e. from 28percent to 32percent, inclusive of the migrants which are suspected as the primary beneficiary of the LDDC plans. A survey of the local population was conducted, "28percent of the local population agreed that LDDC had made no difference to their standard of living in the past 12-15 years, and 22percent said life had actually got worse" (Wood, 2004). The government has confessed that the projects undertaken by LDDC ran in trouble during implementation. The corporate established Canary Wharf building, however the construction did not receive positive response either internally or externally, "with builders Olympia & York going bankrupt". The failure of LDDC can be realised from the fact that "the flagship Tobacco Wharf shopping outlet now lies empty and desolate: the specialist shops there did not cater for the people in the surrounding area" (Hall, 2006). The Labour government has adopted different and positive approach on the subject of urban regeneration. The LDDC was rolled-back, and concrete plans were developed to ensure "social inclusion and neighbourhood renewal, against the trickle-down approach". The new policies have emphasised upon the resolution of the social issues, "the focus is now on a much larger area, the Thames Gateway which extends 40miles from London to Barking, Tilbury, Maidstone and Kent; the Thames Gateway Initiative plans to build 80,000 new houses in a new linear city, the infrastructure will be prepared before other building work takes place" (Ogden, 1992). The running government has already developed "Millennium Dome and its associated projects" which have the potential to bring "the Docklands back into the public eye" (Pacione, 2005). The interesting aspect associated with the Millennium Dome project is the massive hiring of the local population, this job does not require "highly skilled or specialised and so are suitable for some of the people living in the more deprived areas of the Docklands without many job skills". The London Docklands Development Corporation has played definite role in the restructuring of the Docklands, however this project failed to translate the perks of the project to the local population, "the LDDC only exacerbated the differences between rich and poor, luxury flats and council housing, the haves and the have-nots", and the gap was profound. It is therefore important to realise that investment on public and private projects is not sufficient unless the project "meets with favour with the local populace" (Ogden, 1992). References 1. Brownill, S. (1990). Developing London’s Docklands: Another Great Planning Disaster?, London: Paul Chapman 2. Brownill, S. (1993). The docklands experience: Locality and community in London. British Urban Policy and the Urban Development Corporations. London: Paul Chapman. 3. Brownill, S. (1999). Turning the East End into West End: The lessons and legacies of the London Docklands Development Corporation. British Urban Policy: An Evaluation of the Urban Development Corporations. London: Sage. 4. Foster, J. (1999). Docklands: Cultures in Conflict, Worlds in Collision. London: UCL Press 5. Hall, T. (2006). Urban Geography. London: Routledge. 6. Hamnett, C. (2003). Unequal City: London in the Global Arena. London: Routledge 7. Tiesdell, S. (1992). The London Docklands Development Corporation - 1981-1991. Town Planning Review Vol 62. 8. Ogden, P. (1992). London Docklands: The Challenge of Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 9. Pacione, M. (2005). Urban Geography: A Global Perspective. London: Routledge. 10. Smith, A. (1991). Political transformation, urban policy and the state in London’s Docklands. Geo-Journal Vol 24. 11. Williams, A. (2005). Discovering Cities: Inner London – Spitalfields and the South Bank. Sheffield: Geographical Association 12. Wood, P. (2004). Discovering Cities: Central London. Sheffield: Geographical Association 13. Peck, J. and Tickell. (1994). Searching for a new institutional: the after-Fordist crisis and the global-local disorder. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 14. Peck, J. and Tickell. (1994). The future for regeneration partnerships. Local Economy 9(3). 15. Robinson. (1989). Urban regeneration policies in Britain in the late 1980s. Who benefits? University of Newcastle. 16. Robinson, F. and Shaw, K. (1994). Urban policy under the Conservatives: In search of the big idea? Local Economy 9(3). 17. Coulson, A. (1993). Urban Development Corporations, local authorities and patronage in urban policy. British Urban Policy and the UDCs. London: Paul Chapman. 18. CRE (COMMISSION FOR RACIAL EQUALITY). (1989). Inner Cities and Ethnic Minority Communities: The Equal Opportunities Role of UDCs. London: CRE. 19. Cross, M. and Keith, M. (1993). Racism and the City. London: Routledge. Read More