A Housing Regeneration in the City of Liverpool - Coursework Example

?Neighbourhood Management & Renewal: a housing regeneration case study in the of Liverpool Dear Please understand that I have followedclosely your ORIGINAL INSTRUCTION and to work on your REVISION Instruction will mean I will need to write an entirely new paper. Introduction Many European cities adopted regeneration schemes since after World War II and again in 1970s to address built environment problems, population explosion, sustainability issues and other emerging challenges that can no longer be contained by current status of cities. Growth during the 19th century’s industrial revolution was sustained in some areas but traces of urban decay that is also an accompanying result of industrialism and economic growth could no longer be denied in many cities. Regeneration’s immediate excuses include attraction of more visitors, more businesses, and more opportunities for growth, employment, as well as chance to improve existing natural environment, but the more obvious was to address social and built environment decay. In recent developments, the growing needs to address climate change, pollution, waste management and other global issues has many countries and their international organisations adopt sustainability schemes. This paper will proceed to indicate the adoption of housing regeneration in the city of Liverpool. Liverpool Liverpool is a city port in the United Kingdom which progressed immensely during the 19th century. It is a metropolitan borough of Merseyside, Liverpool became in 1974 a metropolitan borough, and previously a part of Lancashire, with a population of 435,500. It forms the centre of Liverpool Urban Area. It became a city in 1880 during the height of the West Indies trade. For its major role during the 19th century, Liverpool grew to become one of the top UK cities next only to London and there were times that it earned more than London. As a leading port, it attracted a lot of migrants from various localities around the world so that diversity in culture, population, and religion is a characteristic of Liverpool. However, by the end of the 20th century Liverpool was already concentrating on regeneration, a process which still continues today. Redevelopment of Liverpool encompassed mainly economic goals during the past but social and cultural regeneration also caught up. Notably in the 1980s, many British cities have adopted regeneration and re-development schemes to stimulate private investment and property development (Solesbury, 1990). Liverpool's city centre went through significant redevelopment and regeneration with the most ambitious being of the Liverpool One. Some ?1 billion worth was invested to redevelop 42 acres of land which resulted to new retail, commercial, residential and leisure space (Coslett, 2007). Housing Regeneration in Liverpool Housing regeneration was seen as an important vehicle in Liverpool’s redevelopment to address social processes. Liverpool has a “tradition of municipal housing development” since the Victorian period when it experienced massive urban growth which established the relationship between housing and local politics (Tang and Batey, 1996). In-migration during this period increased the Liverpool population to 78,000 in 1801 alone that resulted to accommodation in cheap areas, disease, and death. “This provided the impetus for the city to become a pioneer in municipal housing development,” (Tang and Batey, 1996, 915). The late 1800s had the local government focus on health and sanitation, by 1896, Liverpool had the first municipal tenements in Britain called the St Martin’s cottages, and by 1920s through the 1930s, housing development were spearheaded by the Liverpool Corporation (Lawton and Pooley, 1986). Munich (1970) also observed that Liverpool was a testing ground for many major property-related urban initiatives of the national government such as the Urban Programme, and the Urban Development Corporations and Enterprise Zones. The decrease of private investment also left the local and national governments an almost monopoly to address welfare of the locality for allocation of employment and housing provisions (Tang and Batey, 1996). It was suggested that there are several social processes involved in local housing development and with it are different types of housing development and policy initiatives. In the 1980s onwards, state intervention based on ideological and political changes were evident in urban policy (Gamble, 1989) working hand-in-hand with free-market to remove obstacles and reduce problems where market failure emerged. The local governance was almost left a spectator role in the process viewed as privatisation and centralisation (Parkinson, 1989). In addition, Healey et al (1992) suggested that urban decline was caused by local government while much-needed regeneration can only be provided by private developers so that a new urban landscape will emerge together with its new economic activities and new social groups. Nature of property-led developments had been dependent on local conditions as well as property market (Tang and Batey, 1996). Liverpool’s housing redevelopment was influenced heavily by the Merseyside Development Corporation as it was noted that there was less demand for other types of property development (Tang and Batey, 1996). A shift was also seen in the power-play of housing development as local government initiatives were restricted whereas private development was encouraged. The ‘right to buy’ provision of the Housing Act 1980 provided a backbone for the restriction imposed by the central government on public sector housing development efforts, where privatization of existing council houses was accelerated. Initiatives of the public were made apparent through housing associations. This marked the decreased public sector housing development from 60% in 1979 to 13% by 1989 (DoE, 1990). The 1980s was also greatly defined by the Urban Regeneration Strategy when one out of twenty council houses built in the UK were located in Liverpool (Boyne and Powell, 1993). This led to changes in the political environment: from urban regeneration to municipal socialism to urban entrepreneurialism (Liverpool City Council, 1990). A partnership between municipality and the private sector has since become the ideal approach. Challenges (nature and extent of the local problems and issues needed to be addressed) Decline in Liverpool was brought about by advances and opening of other dock ports in the UK and other parts of world that drastically affected the local economy and all other aspects of the city. Despite all the efforts of housing regeneration in various approaches, many pockets of decay remained long-term or perceived as neglected in Liverpool such as the Garston Under the Bridge (Mann, 2002). Three types were identified as problematic in Liverpool housing: buoyant where private housing development in concentrated and there is little public support; marginal where there is potential development under cooperation of private and public sector; and derelict where private sector has abandoned an area and the public sector cannot muster enough support to revive it (Tang and Batey, 1996). It was also observed that such projects of housing re-developments designed by remote architects and done in haphazard manner only to meet building requirements, were problematic: construction and design were unsatisfactory, inhumane environment, problematic communal areas, and difficult to sustain (Stewart and Rhoden, 2001). On the social side, stratification and inner city gentrification result from urban regeneration projects where residents may either refuse to be removed due to economic and social reasons or move out to more affordable areas, specifically in the city or development outskirts; hence, there is the apparent failure on said projects. As Uduku (1999) observed, “The ensuing influx of new, relatively rich residents to the inner-city and the emigration of many poorer residents to “left-over”, lower-cost blighted or derelict urban areas thus repeats the clearance-gentrification cycle,” (95). A specific case of the cyclical problem has been seen in Toxteth or L8 of which regeneration successes meant higher property costs for the target beneficiaries, mainly, Black ethnic groups, who were forced to either give up their upgraded residences to the more affluent, or be gentrified on the un-regenerated side of the community (Uduku, 1999). Other negative result of this has been the series of violent protests in the area (Uduku, 1999). More recent observation on Liverpool’s regeneration programme encompass mainly economic approaches as its most important project has been defined as Liverpool 1.Liperpool 1 is mainly a shopping destination for residents and daytime visitors, thus appealing to big businesses settlement. In addition to Liverpool 1 is The Kings Waterfront, launched in 2008 with a 9500 capacity arena, multi-purpose hall and 70,000 square feet of exhibit area. Other developments in Liverpool include the Central Village for leisure and shopping, with high-end residential areas; Museum of Liverpool near the World Heritage Site Three Graces; Bluecoats Arts Centre; Mann Island mostly of retail space; Cruise Liner Facility; Baltic Triangle for 300 apartments, international hotel and business centre; Pier Head Canal Link connecting the waterway through the Albert Dock and the south docks; Lime Street Gateway for retail, office and residential use; Littlewoods building for apartments, hotel and landscaped piazza; West Tower for office and residential accommodation; New Anfield Stadium; New Everton Stadium; and the Mersey ferry terminal for shops, restaurants, and waiting area (Coslett, 2007). Quite obviously, residential development and affordable housing seemed to be afterthoughts for these major projects. This paper will proceed to define the proposed housing solution undertaken by Liverpool to address current issues including the cyclical regeneration cause and effect. Proposed Solution The current Liverpool Green Infrastructure Strategy has in its action plan the top priority to build “A sustainable city – supporting business, regeneration and housing growth within environmental limits.” The other four of its top five priorities are provision of a city with natural choices for health that supports improved physical and mental health; a cool city capable of addressing climate change; a green and biodiverse city that supports quality life for all; and a city with well-planned green infrastructure (Liverpool Action Plan, 2011). It also aims to “maximise the benefits that the city can gain from the sustainable management of its natural environment” in consideration of its role in the economy and health of the city (Executive Summary, 2011, 1). For the project, green infrastructure is meant to include all vegetation, open water, private or public parks and trees with a thrust on planned approach that centres on the delivery of benefits (Executive Summary, 2011) as commissioned by Liverpool City Council Planning Service, funded through an Area Based Grant. In the housing are, the expected outcome of the strategy will produce robust evidence base for the Local Development Framework to address areas for growth. As with many other cities and localities around the globe, aspiration is focused on becoming the elusive utopian “…one of the best places to live, work, invest and enjoy life” (Executive Summary, 2011, 3). Sustainability is a key word in almost all initiatives at current urban and municipal developments due to the exhaustion of resources, eroded public trust, suspicious private investors, and other challenges that in reality requires cooperation and vigilant enforcement of plans by both private and the public sector in order to achieve goals. It has gained a range of varying catch-all definition for successful urban regeneration. Environmental concerns are often encompassed on the regeneration agenda such as Liverpool’s of which plans to re-establish natural features and ensure environment-friendly planning and building strategies are employed (Uduku, 1999). Stewart and Rhoden (2001) suggested for the social inclusion and new accountabilities that result to continued improvements in housing and policy development. Specifically, social inclusion should be initiated with flair, resource, and commitment; leaders and authorities should not only focus on numbers, brick and mortar construction, but on the lives, opportunities, and health of the local population,; and that a partnership approach with the residents must be established (Stewart and Rhoden, 2001). In consideration of the action plan and summary of what the Liverpool authorities have laid out for the current regeneration program, focus was on green infrastructure which was seen to comprise 62% of the city. Interestingly, green infrastructure was also seen to be directly related to the wellness of individuals. Its social, economic and environmental benefits were also highlighted. The city also acknowledged to address inclusion but providing greater ability for the neighbourhoods to determine developments in the areas they inhabit (Action Plan, 2011) but this has been limited to provision of information. Under Appendix A, it is suggested that the multi-target of influence has little to do if any at all with the residents. The composition of key actors and agencies and their role in the Partnership The private sector plays a key role in the re-development efforts for housing regeneration in Liverpool. Specifically, private property developers in cooperation with the City Council and their planners will provide the baseline for development as their studies for the betterment of the residents will provide a guideline for the programme. The residents, and prospective migrants who will afford the new housing costs, however, can only be served as consumers for newly-developed units. In addition, “targeted” marginalised urban dwellers will hardly be accommodated again as higher costs will either drive them away to more affordable outskirts if not continue being gentrified in slum areas that will rise again after the regeneration projects were completed. How the local city government will address inclusion was still not clear as this scheme has been employed before through public consultation but failed to fully realise the noblest of regeneration goals: affordable and sustainable housing for the marginalised city dwellers. The proposed and actual outcomes of the scheme/project/programme There were mainly economic outcomes of the regeneration programme. While many of the redevelopments focussed on accommodating new businesses and more economic activities, housing units and their costs parallel the cost of these new developments that will make them less affordable to the city’s marginalised sectors. Aside from this, it also seemed that massive housing regeneration to address those who need it most was a universal problem in many urban regeneration projects including Liverpool. Liverpool’s history for mass housing provides a hopeful case for the vulnerable residents but actual positive results are yet to be confirmed. The extent of community involvement Community involvement will be limited to consumption, and probably, enjoyment of new green infrastructure. How the residents who will be driven outside the skirts of the city will benefit from the green infrastructure will still be indicated. Community cooperation among marginalised members cannot be doubted in inner cities including Liverpool. They have to unite in order to make a voice which was equivalent to voting count. Where minorities will be eclipsed by bigger organisations or groups, problems emerge as insurmountable. Aside from the political and economic disadvantage, many of the urban city marginalised citizens are hardly recognised in decision-making as public consultations usually focus on well-placed individuals in the society, or those who are economically competitive. Conclusion: Housing regeneration has been seen ever since as cyclical. Urban decay sets in, regeneration follows. However, the targeted marginalised sector will soon be gentrified or driven out of their original environment for the new “urban” development, thus, a new area nearby will be occupied again to decay. There is a need to fully address affordable but sustainable housing among the marginalised in an urban area. While it is true that employments as well as services are needed in every community that is being developed, the locals should be prioritised to handle their own matters and for a while, exclude “big” corporations and politics from these areas. A sense of community must first be established in a given area, in order to instil responsibility, unity, and the voluntary contribution of every member or residents to the sustenance of the community. It is not enough that people are given a space where they will reside. All aspects of living from health, social, economic, to political are addressed in every development project. Aside from the positive attitude-building among residents, it is also important that the government and the business sector become cooperative in matters that have to do with residents. Genuine efforts to address their needs should be considered not only for profit purposes but also for sustainable growth that would benefit all. Reference: BOYNE, G. A. and POWELL, M. 1993. Territorial justice and Thatcherism, Environment and Planning, C, 11, pp. 35±53. Coslett, Paul. 2007. Regeneration in Liverpool. BBC, June. Accessed from entioned, http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/content/articles/2007/05/29/building_britain_liverpool_feature.shtml DOE (1990) Housing and Construction Statistics 1979± 1989. London: HMSO. Executive Summary. 2011. Liverpool Green Infrastructure Strategy. GAMBLE, A. (1989) Thatcherism and the new politics, in: J. MOHAN (Ed.) The Political Geography of Contemporary Britain . London and Basingstoke: Macmillan. HEALEY, P., DAVOUDI, S., O’ TOOLE, M., TAVSANOGLU, S. and USHER, D. (Eds). 1992. Rebuilding the City: Property- led Urban Regeneration. London: Spon. Liverpool Action Plan. 2011. Liverpool Green Infrastructure Strategy. LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL. 1990. Urban Programme Annual Report 1989/90 .Mann, Petra. 2002. Urban Decay. Echo, March 22. Accessed from http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2002/03/22/urban-decay-100252-11726559/ MUCHNICK, D. M. 1970. Urban Renewal in Liverpool: A Study of Politics of Redevelopment. London: Bell & Sons. PARKINSON, M. 1990. Leadership and regeneration in Liverpool: confusion, confrontation or coalition?, in: D. JUDD and M. PARKINSON (Eds) Leadership and Urban Regeneration: Cities in North America and Europe . London: Sage. Sharp, Laura (2009-05-12). "Liverpool Central Village regeneration plan approved". Liverpool Echo. http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2009/05/12/liverpool-central-village-regeneration-plan-approved-100252-23598263/ SOLESBURY, W. (1990) Property development and urban regeneration, in: P. HEALEY and R. NABARRO (Eds) Land and Property Development in a Changing Context. Aldershot: Gower. Stewart, J., and Rhoden, M. 2001. A review of social housing regeneration in the London Borough of Brent. The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health 2003 123: 23 Tang, Zilai and Peter Batey. 1996. Intra-urban Spatial Analysis of Housing-related Urban Policies: The Case of Liverpool, 1981-1991. Urban Studies 33: 911 Uduku, Ola. 1999. Beneficial urban redevelopment: a Cape Town-Liverpool comparison. Environment and Urbanization 11 (2) October. 95 Appendix: A: Targets to influence: Source: Action Plan, 2011 Read More