Neighbourhood - Regeneration

7/27/2019 Neighbourhood - Regeneration

1/20

explore

source url

http://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm

neighbourhoods and regeneration - theory,practice, issues

For all the talk of changing lifestyles, neighbourhood still plays a fundamental rolein many people's lives. We explore the nature of neighbourhood, some currentissues associated with 'disadvantaged' neighbourhoods; and what can be done toregenerate them.

Coopers Road Estate, London SE1 - walls removed to deter squatters

contents:introductiongrowing disquiet about neighbourhoods social polarizationsome issues of disadvantagedneighbourhoods disadvantaged neighbourhoods, social capital and informal supportregenerating neighbourhoods defining and assessing regenerationsome issues with neighbourhood regenerationlocal people and regenerationregeneration, localism and the financial crisis in Britainconclusionfurther reading and referenceshow to cite thisarticle

Neighbourhoods local areas within towns and cities recognized by people who live thereas distinct places, with their own character and approximate boundaries (Power 2007: 17) continue to matter to people. As Anne Power's extensive research shows, there is aconvincing argument for us to attend to them and the possibilities that exist withinneighbourhoods to further people's happiness and well-being.

Neighbourhoods frame people's lives, providing a bundle of services that people need, andan environment on which families depend. They also provide a vital anchor to individuallives, the 'container' within which different social groups develop contact with each other;the 'bridge' that should make possible the transition from mother and baby, throughmother and child, to youth and the wider world. If a family is on a low income and the

neighbourhood they live in is precarious and fast changing, then the movement fromchildhood to adulthood within the neighbourhood carries many additional risks....
http://infed.org/mobi/welcome/http://infed.org/mobi/welcome/http://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htmhttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htmhttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#introductionhttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#introductionhttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#introductionhttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#neighbourhoodshttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#neighbourhoodshttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#social_polarizationhttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#social_polarizationhttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#social_polarizationhttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#neighbourhood_issueshttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#neighbourhood_issueshttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#neighbourhood_issueshttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#socialcapitalhttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#socialcapitalhttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#socialcapitalhttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#regenerationhttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#regenerationhttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#defininghttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#defininghttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#issueshttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#issueshttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#issueshttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#localhttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#localhttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#localhttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#financial_crisishttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#financial_crisishttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#conclusionhttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#conclusionhttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#conclusionhttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#bibliohttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#bibliohttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#bibliohttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#citehttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#citehttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#citehttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#citehttp://www.infed.org/mobi/http://www.infed.org/mobi/http://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#citehttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#citehttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#bibliohttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#conclusionhttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#financial_crisishttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#localhttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#issueshttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#defininghttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#regenerationhttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#socialcapitalhttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#neighbourhood_issueshttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#neighbourhood_issueshttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#social_polarizationhttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#neighbourhoodshttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#introductionhttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htmhttp://infed.org/mobi/welcome/


2/20

Neighbourhoods help to shape people's lives because they do more than house people.They form a base for wider activities, providing many of the social services that linkindividuals with each other, giving rise to a sense of community. Thus neighbourhoodsprovide a basic line of support to families. Neighbourhoods form the most immediateenvironment for children to socialize outside the family to build confidence and developcoping skills. (Power 2007: 22)

Furthermore, as Barton (2000: 49-65) has shown, across a range of environmentalconcerns, on grounds of health, safety, equity and access, and 'even economicjustification in terms of capitalizing on the local skills base' the potential ofneighbourhoods is significant. He goes on to argue that not only neighbourhoodsdesirable, they are also feasible (op. cit.: 65). However, as the example of large councilestates has shown in Britain, a number of things need to be present if they are to work -and in this piece we want to look at some of the key issues.

With this this sort of focus there is a danger of over-focusing on neighbourhoodsthemselves. Local experiences need linking to wider social and economic forces. For mostof their history in Britain, Ruth Lupton notes, area-based programmes have been

undertaken without proper attention to macro policy to deal with the more fundamentalcauses of area problems. 'The rhetoric of regeneration', she argues, 'and the local basis ofprogrammes, has given the impression that poor areas could be transformed, or at leastslightly ameliorated by local interventions' (Lupton 2003: 12).

There is also a risk of falling into a sentimental view of neighbourhood. Here one of themost memorable commentaries came fromJane Jacobs:

Neighbourhood is a word that has come to sound like a valentine. As a sentimentalconcept 'neighbourhood' is harmful to city planning. It leads to attempts at warping citylife into imitations of town or suburban life. Sentimentality plays with sweet intentions inplace of good sense. (Jacobs 1965: 122)

Jacobs' warning is worth attending to. We can easily fall into seeing local ways of lifethrough rose-tinted glasses, but at the same time we should not underestimate the socialsignificance of neighbourhood - and the importance of urban environments that act on ahuman scale.

Growing disquiet about neighbourhood

Over the last century or so there has been a fairly constant sense of disquiet about theway in which many local neighbourhoods especially in cities to begin with have notbeen the proper focus of policy and have suffered economically, socially andenvironmentally. In Britain, for example, social investigators likeCharles BoothandSeebohm Rowntree (1901), and in the United States writers like Jacob Riis (1891),

highlighted the concentration of poverty in particular areas. With economic change,segregation on the grounds of 'race' and culture, and basic failures in policy and planningsignificant problems remained. In this process some neighbourhoods flourished, othersdeclined. By the mid-1960's Jane Jacobs (1965: 122) concluded in respect of the UnitedStates:

A successful city neighbourhood is a place that keeps sufficiently abreast of its problemsso it is not destroyed by them. An unsuccessful neighbourhood is a place that isoverwhelmed by its defects and problems and is progressively more helpless before them.Our cities contain all degrees of success and failure. But on the whole we Americans arepoor at handling city neighbourhoods, as can be seen by the long accumulations of failuresin our great grey belts on the one hand, and by the Turfs of rebuilt city on the other.

Problems around city neighbourhoods were exacerbated by the movement of people,retail and work into the suburbs. It createdsprawl(see our piece of sustainable
http://www.infed.org/thinkers/jane_jacobs.htmhttp://www.infed.org/thinkers/jane_jacobs.htmhttp://www.infed.org/thinkers/jane_jacobs.htmhttp://www.infed.org/socialaction/charles_booth_jacobs_island.htmhttp://www.infed.org/socialaction/charles_booth_jacobs_island.htmhttp://www.infed.org/socialaction/charles_booth_jacobs_island.htmhttp://www.infed.org/community/sustainable_communities_and_neighbourhoods.htmhttp://www.infed.org/community/sustainable_communities_and_neighbourhoods.htmhttp://www.infed.org/community/sustainable_communities_and_neighbourhoods.htmhttp://www.infed.org/community/sustainable_communities_and_neighbourhoods.htmhttp://www.infed.org/socialaction/charles_booth_jacobs_island.htmhttp://www.infed.org/thinkers/jane_jacobs.htm


3/20

communities) and effectively robbed many city neighbourhoods of much of their amenity,social mix and political influence. It also helped to break down local networks andfriendships and contributed to a continuing social polarization. The latter is perhaps bestexpressed in the growth of gated communities. They have, according to one study, bothintensified social segregation, racism and exclusionary land use; and they have they havenot provided the sense of community and belonging that many of their residents seek (Low2003: 7-26).

In Britain too, there were similar shifts. Three particular strategies, as Hall and Power(2000: 58) have noted, have changed the face of cities and towns:

The abandonment of terraced housing and planned garden cities in favour ofunplanned suburbs.

The adoption of large-scale clearance instead of more incremental renewal. The construction of mass housing estates as the dominant low-income form in

every inner-city area.

Taken alongside major changes and dislocations in local economies, these policies havecontributed significantly, just as in the United States, to growing social polarization andproblems ofsprawl. By the end of the 1990s the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU 1998) concludedthat in England alone there were up to 4000 neighbourhoods where the problems ofunemployment and crime are acute and 'hopelessly tangled up with poor health, housingand education'. The report continues, 'They are no-go areas for some and no-exit zones forothers' (op. cit.: 9).

Social polarization

Social and spatial polarisation can be understood as 'the widening gap between groups ofpeople in terms of their economic and social circumstances and opportunities. (Dorling

and Woodward 1996: 71). In many countries the gap between rich and poor has opened up.In Britain, for example, the pattern of poverty and wealth has changed in important ways:

Over the past 15 years, more households have become poor, but fewer are very poor.Areas already wealthy have tended to become disproportionately wealthier, and we areseeing some evidence of increasing polarisation. In particular there are now areas in someof our cities where over half of all households are breadline poor. (Dorling et. al. 2007:xiv)

In other words, 'Britains population became increasingly polarised with respect to thedistribution of asset wealthy households' (op. cit.: 28) and 'poverty became increasinglygeographically concentrated' (op. cit.: 40).

If we turn to housing conditions we can also see that while in Britain they may haveimproved overall, those living in social housing enjoy less space per person than others,and indeed less than they did ten years before (Hills 2007; see, also, Hills 2004). JohnHills continues:

Social tenants are much more concentrated within the poorer parts of the incomedistribution than in the past... Two-thirds of social housing is still located within areasoriginally built as council estates. These originally housed those with a range of incomes,but now the income polarisation between tenures also shows up as polarisation betweenareas. Nearly half of all social housing is now located in the most deprived fifth ofneighbourhoods, and this concentration appears to have increased since 1991... Further,while new social housing developments are smaller in scale than in the past, new buildingof social housing is still disproportionately in the most deprived neighbourhoods (althoughthere is now much more private building within them). These areas are far more likely to
http://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#sprawlhttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#sprawlhttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#sprawlhttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm#sprawl


4/20

suffer from problems than others, and for tenants to report neighbourhood problems.(Hills 2007: 4)

The way in which many council estates and housing projects were built not just in the1960s, but long before, 'has actively contributed to the reinforcement of class boundaries'(Hanley 2007: 231). It has entailed, 'wresting working-class communities away from the old

lifelines of work, families and friends and forging a new class of alienated and damaged,highly pressurized people whose links with mainstream society range from incomplete totenuous' (op. cit.).

Many people have sought to escape such projects and estates. They look to the suburbsand beyond, or to other, more 'desirable' neighbourhoods with better schools and saferpublic spaces. Those with money (perhaps in Britain having benefited from exercising their'right to buy' earlier enough to have made considerable sums on a rising house prices) areable to move out. If this happens on any scale, local networks and the sense of belongingare weakened. People's perceptions of the neighbourhood change. Alongside this we havealso seen a continuing process of neighbourhood polarization (especially marked in theUnited Sates and Northern Ireland) in terms of ethnic and religious groupings. While this

has always been a feature of migration it is clear that many local neighbourhoods arelikely to remain divided, 'racially' and culturally. As Wilson and Taub (2006: 161) havecommented with regard to the United States, 'this has profound implications for the futureof race and ethnic relations...; national racial tensions cannot be disassociated fromtensions originating in neighbourhood social dynamics'.

Some issues of disadvantaged neighbourhoods

Here we just want to briefly discuss four key issues highlighted in the literature asassociated with 'disadvantaged neighbourhoods '. Within Britain our appreciation of theexperiences of these neighbourhoods has been significantly enhanced in recent years bythe work of CASE (The ESRC Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion) - and in particular

the work of Anne Power (1997, 2007), and Ruth Lupton (2003). Lynsey Hanley has alsoprovided a highly accessible and insightful study of estates (2007).

Ruth Lupton brings out three consistent themes in her study of twelve disadvantagedneighbourhoods:

economic restructuring resulting in enormous job losses; widening inequality (driven in large part by economic changes); and changes in the size and composition of the population (Lupton 2003: 46).

These increased the concentration of poverty in the poorest areas and neighbourhoods.

Here we will briefly examine the movements and dynamics involved with each of these -

and add a fourth theme that appears in a significant number of disadvantaged

neighbourhoods - poor housing and poor design.

Economic restructuring and changing opportunities for work

Many of the neighbourhoods that get labelled as disadvantaged are in areas where therehave been major and long-term disruptions to the local economy often through theclosure or shrinkage of major employers. Lupton (2003: 46) comments that for the

neighbourhoods she studied the 1970s and 1980s were periods of 'catastrophic employmentdecline'. The impact of a mine, dock or large company closing or winding down is felt well


5/20

beyond the loss of work and income for those directly involved. It affects local shops andservices, and can have a profound effect on neighbourhood life especially where thatemployer has been the dominant one in the area. This is made worse by the long time lagbetween closure or loss and the appearance of any concrete benefits for local peoplethrough redevelopment and regeneration. Many of the areas affected by severe job lossesin the 1970s are still feeling the impact.

Such change and loss needs to be set in the context of broader economic change. Withglobalization we have seen a significant decrease in the numbers of people employed inmanufacturing in 'northern' economies such as the USA and UK and an explosion in suchwork within countries such as China and India. At the same time with the continuing riseof multinational corporations decisions about jobs and commercial priorities areincreasingly taken a long way away from the communities they affect (Gray 1999; Landes1999). When all this combined with technical change and innovation the result in manyneighbourhoods has been a fundamental shift in the sorts of employment on offer; a movefrom work in heavy industry and manufacturing to work in retail, distribution, services andadministration. In 1981 one in three jobs held by men was in manufacturing. By 2001 thishad fallen to about one in five. The proportion of female workers in this sector droppedfrom nearly one in five to under one in ten (National Statistics 2002). Financial andbusiness services now account for about one in five jobs in the UK, compared with aboutone in ten in 1981 (op. cit.). A significant proportion of this work has been either part-time or shift-based. Associated with this shift has been the movement from what was inlarge part a male workforce to one that is at least half female (op. cit.). In a number of'disadvantaged' neighbourhoods women have become the main breadwinners (although inmany such neighbourhoods and their surrounding areas employment opportunitiestraditionally taken up by women have either contracted or not grown at the rate theyhave nationally).

Poverty and growing inequality

Social and economic policy in Britain has, over the last thirty years, led to a widening gapbetween rich and poor. Karen Dunnell (2008), the National Statistician, has reported thatdisadvantage has persisted among minority ethnic groups, disabled people and theresidents of deprived areas.She comments, 'on average in the UK we are richer, but thereis evidence that inequality in income has increased over the last two decades'. This isagainst a background of a significant growth in inequality between 1979 and 1990/91. Aswe have already seen, given the concentration of poorer people in social housing it hasmeant that some neighbourhoods have suffered disproportionately. Alongside the wideninggap in pay, Ruth Lupton (2003: 53) also highlights the impact of changes to the incomesupport system. 'The policy of successive governments to link benefit payments to pricesrather than to earnings', she comments, 'meant that the incomes of those who were not

working fell further adrift from the average'.

While fewer people are very poor, a relatively large number still live in poverty. There hasbeen some improvement in with regard to the numbers of children living in poverty in theUK but more recently there has been little change. This is further exacerbated by the factthat parenting in the sorts of neighbourhoods we are considering here 'requires moremoney than it does in less urban areas and low-income parents struggle to meet evenbasic costs for their children' (Power 2007: 100).

With the world banking crisis of 2008, the associated rise in unemployment, and the large-scale cutbacks in public education and welfare from 2010 onwards, economic inequalityappears to be growing. Moreover, it is children and young people who have

disproportionately borne the burden of this. For example, in 2009 around 2.2 millionchildren lived in absolute poverty. Projections produced by the Institute of Fiscal Studies


6/20

indicate that by 2015 the number of children living in absolute poverty will rise to 3million (Brewer et. al. 2011).

Changing populations, changing families

With job losses came population movement. Those that could afford to move out often did

so. Inner city areas lost population from the 1960s onwards. A significant number ofpeople moved into new estates on the periphery of cities, others out to the suburbs(classic early accounts of this process in England can be found in the work of Young andWillmott). With people moving out of these neighbourhoods, and there being problemsaround finding local work, they became even less attractive to those with at least somemoney and choice. The result was that those moving in were likely to be poor - and wereoften migrants from other countries. There are some strong ethnic patterns with regard topoverty - with people living in 'Pakistani' or 'Bangladeshi' households are more than twiceas likely to be living in poverty than average (58 per cent compared with 22 per cent)(Dunnell 2008).

Along with these changes has come alterations in household size. It has more than halved

in a centurydown to around two today in Britain. Single-person households havesignificantly increased.

As Rogers and Power comment, this shrinkage in family size has a number of causes:

... more elderly people are surviving, but they are living separately from their children;later marriage and childbearing; fewer children per family; more broken marriages andmore lone parents; more economic independence for women.

They continue:

The effects are starker in cities because childless households and lone-parent families areconcentrated there. Cities attract young people and new immigrants, but tend to lose
http://www.infed.org/thinkers/peter_willmott.htmhttp://www.infed.org/thinkers/peter_willmott.htmhttp://www.infed.org/thinkers/peter_willmott.htm


7/20

established working families. They also retain an elderly, 'left-behind' population. (Rogersand Power 2000: 37-8)

The proportion of dependent children in Great Britain living with a lone parent has almostdoubled over the last twenty years (from 14 per cent in 1986 to 24 per cent in 2006)(Dunnell 2006).

Poor housing, poor design

A large proportion of 'disadvantaged' estates suffer from poorly designed and built housingplus a lack of investment over many years in proper maintenance, repair and updating.After the Second World War there had been a brief period when the UK centralgovernment invested in reasonable quality, if sometimes uniform, housing for ordinarypeople (Hanley 2007: 50-96; Kynaston 2007). Sometimes the location of this housing on theperiphery of cities and larger towns was to cause problems; sometimes economic declineturned them into 'hard to let' estates (see Power and Tunstall 1994). However, it has beenthe system-built, large-scale schemes of the 1960s and early 1970s that have caused themost problems. The extensive use of untried building methods and materials, short cuts in

the actual building, and ill-considered design created major maintenance problems, somedangerous structures (like Ronan Point a 22 storey block in Newham a corner of whichcollapsed like a house of cards in 1968), and some very bleak, inhospitable and unsafepublic spaces and shared areas. Crime thrives in areas where there is anonymity, a lack ofeveryday surveillance, and plenty of different escape routes (Newman 1972). Far too manyhave suffered from 'disastrous designs that create a needless sense of social failure'(Coleman 1985: 184). Furthermore, as Lynsey Hanley (2007: 119) comments, few estatesbuilt using concrete 'have been maintained to the standards envisaged and expected bythe architects who designed them and the engineers who put them together'. There aresome larger buildings and tower blocks of this period that have stood the test of time and that people enjoy living in. But many have either had to be demolished or expensivelyredesigned and refurbished.

All this has taken place against a fundamental change in housing ownership. At the end ofthe 1970s around 35 per cent of British households lived in council housing (NationalStatistics 2004). By the 2003/4 the impact of policies such as 'Right to Buy' can be seen.Some 12 per cent of households lived in council housing, with around a further 7 per centrenting from housing associations and the like. Something like 10 to 11 per cent rentprivately. This means that by the turn of the century 70 per cent of housing was owner-occupied (National Statistics 2005). Within these figures there are some marked contrasts.For example, lone parents with dependent children are much more likely to rent theirproperty than own it (50 per cent live in social housing and 15 per cent rented privately(National Statistics 2005).

The lack of ongoing investment in council housing; the tendency to locate it on distinctestates (often away from other housing and amenities); the move into owner-occupation(in part driven in the last two decades of the twentieth century by the government givingcouncil tenants 'the right to buy'), and the growing concentration of lower-income peoplein council housing has fed into a negative public perception of council estates. Yet whilethere are significant problems in many 'disadvantaged' estates and neighbourhoods thereare significant strengths (as we will see).

Disadvantaged neighbourhoods, social capital and informal support

In recent years there has been a lot of discussion aroundsocial capital the quality andscale of social relationships, groups and networks. Evidence from the United States

appears to suggest that it decreased significantly over the last quarter of the twentiethcentury. This is important because we know that neighbourhoods with a good 'stock' of
http://www.infed.org/biblio/social_capital.htmhttp://www.infed.org/biblio/social_capital.htmhttp://www.infed.org/biblio/social_capital.htmhttp://www.infed.org/biblio/social_capital.htm


8/20

'social capital' are more likely to benefit from lower crime figures, better health, highereducational achievement, and better economic growth Putnam 2000). Interaction enablespeople to build communities, to commit themselves to each other, and to knit the socialfabric. A sense of belonging and the concrete experience of social networks (and therelationships of trust and tolerance that can be involved) can, it is argued, bring greatbenefits to people (Field 2003: 1-2). However, there can also be a significant downside.Groups and organizations with high social capital have the means (and sometimes themotive) to work to exclude and subordinate others. Furthermore, the experience of livingin close knit communities can be stultifying - especially to those who feel they are'different' in some important way (Smith 2007).

We don't have reliable national evidence as to whether these figures have increased ordecreased in the UK however, we do know that with changing household patterns, andincreased difficulties around children getting housing in the same areas as their parent(s)and extended families there have been some issues around support. We also know thatthere appears to have been a decline in community cohesion and the extent to whichpeople trust each other (National Statistics 2003). This said, as Bookman has argued interms of the USA, new forms of "social capital" - 'just as important as money in the bank -are developing among working families in both urban and suburban environments'(Bookman 2004: 19). She charts the ways in which working families reach out to eachother and to community-based programmes to address the issues they face - especiallyaround caring for children and relatives (ibid.: 25).

Across the UK we can say that in surveys:

Two-thirds (66 per cent) of adults say they have a satisfactory friendshipnetwork. 'That is they saw or spoke to friends at least once a week and had a close

friend living nearby. Just over half (52 per cent) had a satisfactory relatives

network. Twenty per cent had neither' (National Statistics 2008b).

More than half of adults say they have at least five people they could turn to in aserious personal crisis (58 per cent), 18 per cent have less than three people they

could turn to. One in fifty (2 per cent) said they have nobody to turn to (op. cit.).

We also know through the work of Anne Power and others that social capital is anundervalued asset of low-income neighbourhoods. This asset reflects:

... the value residents attach to links with other residents, to the support offered byfamilies and friends, to the familiarity, sense of security and mutual help that comes with

frequent social contact. These areas are mines of social capital, in large measure createdby the families who live here because they need it in order to survive. (Power 2007: 5)

Rather too often, as we will see, this asset is not attended to, or actually destroyed, inregeneration initiatives.

Regenerating local neighbourhoods

Over the last decade or so there has been a shift in urban policy in the UK. The buzzwordhas become regeneration. While the decade or so following the Second World War couldbe conceptualized as 'reconstruction', terms like 'redevelopment' and renewal came to thefore in the 1980s and 1990s. As Rob Imrie and Mike Raco (2003: 3) have identified, theassociated approach in the 1980s and 1990s to urban policy was largely property-led. Theconcern was to make particular areas more attractive to corporate investors. The statedrationale for this was that such investment would create a 'trickle-down' of wealth into


9/20

local communities (op. cit.). A classic expression of this philosophy came in the activitiesof urban development corporations such as the London Docklands DevelopmentCorporation (LDDC). With New Labour coming to power in 1997, the expressed aims ofurban policy shifted - with a stronger focus on combating social exclusion, and a growinginterest in more comprehensive and strategic approaches to regeneration. Thegovernment began to lose faith in the power of standalone, special initiatives to combatpoverty and disadvantage (Hastings 2003: 85). 'Joined-up' thinking was necessary.One of the first fruits of this was revealed in the work of the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU)and the attempt to develop a national strategy for neighourhood renewal.

Four main areas of concern were identified with regard to disadvantaged neighbourhoods:

Improving the skill base and overcoming barriers to employment. Improving housing and neighbourhood management. Improving access to public and private services. Giving better opportunities and motivation to young people. (SEU 1998. Discussed

in Kearns 2003)

With regard to the issues affecting disadvantaged neighbourhoods that we have alreadydiscussed this was still something of a limited agenda. For example, the focus tended toremain on individual skill development and employability, rather than the development ofemployment (a classic case of looking to locate the problem as a private trouble ratherthan a public issue). Put another way, it was evident that neighbourhood economicproblems were 'not conceived in structural terms, rather as local micro-issues' (Hastings2003: 92). However, there was some appreciation of the significance of cultivating social

capital and this was reflected in, for example, the Scottish Executive's CommunityRegeneration Statement (2002). Unfortunately, it wasn't often properly expressed inconcrete terms in regeneration efforts.

A further important discourse has involved 'community cohesion' - especially following theriots in a small number of English towns (Bradford, Burnley and Oldham) in spring andsummer of 2001. In the reports that followed there was some recognition of the scale ofsocial polarization that had taken place. There was also advocacy of cross-communitywork (to some extent modelled on northern Ireland) - bringing together people from'ethnic minority' and 'majority white' communities (Home Office 2001).

Defining and assessing regeneration

Peter Roberts provides an initial definition of urban regeneration as:

...comprehensive and integrated vision and action which leads to the resolution of urbanproblems and which seeks to bring about a lasting improvement in the economic, physical,social and environmental condition of an area that has been subject to change (2000: 17)

As he comments, this definition brings in many of the key elements that have been part ofthe discourse of regeneration professionals. He also sets out some principles ofregeneration.

Some principles of regeneration

What follows is our summary of the key principles that Richards argues are the hallmark of


10/20

urban regeneration.

Urban regeneration should:

Be based on a proper analysis of local conditions.

Be aimed at simultaneous change of physical fabric, social structures, economic base and

environmental conditions.

Generate and implement a comprehensive, balanced, positive and integrated strategy.

Be consistent with the aims of sustainable development.

Set clear, quantified objectives.

Make the best possible use of available natural, economic, human and other resources.

Seek participation and consensus amongst stakeholders. This may be achieved through

partnership working.

Properly measure the progress of strategy and monitor changing internal and external

forces that act upon local areas.

Recognize that programmes will change in line with altering conditions and circumstances.

Recognize that different elements of strategy will progress at different speeds.

Adapted from Roberts 2000: 18

Regeneration programmes can claim some success in terms of the physical renewal ofpublic space, the development of commercial properties in some areas, and the provisionof new and refurbished homes (although not necessarily on the scale and in the formsneeded). As Rogers and Power (2000: 201) comment, 'Truly crafted redesign, particularlyof the public areas, open spaces and ground floors - along with bottom-up communityinvolvement can work wonders'. There were also some knock-ons from investment inhousing, for example, around creating more mixed neighbourhoods. Regenerationprogrammes, especially when they involve the provision of homes for 'owner-occupierswith better qualifications and stronger connections to the wider world outside theneighbourhood, can attract aspirational residents with relatively high incomes'(Green et.al. 2004). Green et. al. go on to comment:

Initially at least, this investment in fixed assets has laid the foundations for a virtuouscircle of sustainability. On the other hand, these new residents tend to be critical of theneighbourhood environment and socially distanced from the tenants of social housingnearby. There are therefore some doubts about whether successive waves of incomers into

such properties will sustain the neighbourhood as envisaged by regeneration partnershipspromoting mixed development. (Green et al 2004)


11/20

As a result of regeneration initiatives there are large numbers of people living in betterquality homes; there has been some much needed addition to the housing stock; and theenvironment of some neighbourhoods and estates has improved. However, this has notbeen without problems.

Some issues with neighbourhood regenerationHere I want to focus on three aspects of regeneration initiatives that have proved to beproblematic within local neighbourhoods. There are, of course, other issues but thefollowing problems appear with some regularity.

Many regeneration initiatives have been largely housing-led and have neglected other keyneighbourhood dimensions. As already noted, insufficient attention has often been givento economic regeneration (creating the conditions for wealth creation and satisfyingemployment) and to the cultivation of social capital and community withinneighbourhoods. Indeed, regeneration programmes are often seen as destroying localnetworks and community. As Anne Power found in her research into the problems ofdisadvantaged neighbourhoods:

Some families see large-scale, expensive regeneration by public bodies as destructive ofcommunity. Families whose homes are under threat of demolition experience heightenedfeelings about their community. Parents often express a fear of moving to where they donot know anyone, where they will have to make new contacts all over again. Demolitiondisrupts communities, because poorer people know they will be displaced and funding toimprove conditions often displaces the activity local people most need. (Power 2007: 58)

Power continues:

It is in regeneration that the distinction between neighbourhood conditions andcommunity becomes clear. Public interventions aim to improve poor neighbourhoods bytrying to eradicate visible problems; but this cuts across families trying to create a sense

of community by holding on to familiar places and people. Reconciling thesecountervailing needs of regeneration and community may be the biggest challenge facinglow-income communities and government approaches to neighbourhood renewal. (Power2007: 59)

In other words, community has been undermined by over-rapid physical change.

A significant proportion of the housing built has not met people's needs. There are severalfactors in play here. First, not enough homes are being built. Government policy has beenover-reliant on private sector home building. This sector has, for various reasons, not beenable to supply housing on the scale needed. Currently within the UK the government hasargued that around 250,000 new homes are required each year - and yet the private sector

has never built more than 150,000 a year (with the occasional blip) since 1952. Housingassociations have not been able to make up the shortfall, and local councils have not hadthe powers for some time to build housing on any scale. Second, commercial builders havelooked for the most profitable markets - and this has resulted in a large number of homesbeing built for 'buy to let' and to an inappropriate specification. In 2005 Propertyfinderreported that 41 per cent of new units were two-bed flats or starter homes with only 20per cent of buyers wanting such properties. Third, there has been significant under-investment in what has come to be described as 'social housing' - affordable homes torent. Last, there have been too many instances of poor design (one of the currentcriticisms of developments in the Thames Gateway), and with the emphasis on 'brownfield'development and urban renewal the density of development has increased significantly ina number of areas. While the latter is desirable if we are to avoid the problems of sprawl

and to sustain local public services, it is leading to some housing schemes that look likereproducing the problems associated with some of the council building of the 1960s. This


12/20

includes inadequate common spaces; too many families with children placed in flats a longway from the ground; and design that does not allow for community.

Insufficient attention has been given to restoration and reintegration. As commentatorssuch as Lynsey Hanley have shown, approaches to rebuilding local neighbourhoods thatfocus on a 'clean sweep' - demolishing housing and other buildings, decanting residents,

and then building new units and facilities - has had a sad history in Britain since theSecond World War. Indeed, many of the areas that are subject to regeneration are thevery estates that were built on this pattern (see Power 2007: 186). As Rogers and Power(2000: 83) comment:

Adding new and adapting old buildings keeps neighbourhoods alive. Some demolition isinevitable, but most inner-city estates could be renovated for around half the price ofbuilding a new home, providing twice the homes on half the land... The politicians' love of'flagship projects' takes precedence over the daily needs of low-income communities andthe demand for constant care of urban environments.

This situation has been complicated by central government housing policies that have

restricted the ability of local authorities to engage directly in large-scale housing renewal.These policies favour the interests of developers (and hence new-builds) and work againsthuman scale and piecemeal developments - even though they make more sense (Duay et.al. 2000). Regeneration and renewal are largely driven by finance.

Local people and regeneration

Most people living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods tend to feel they have very littleinfluence over what happens to their estate or area. They believe that even when thechance to participate in meetings and consultations is offered within regenerationinitiatives, for example, that what they have to say will not be listened to (Power 2007).They believe that the interests of those funding the development will come first.

Encouraging and facilitating community participation is time-consuming - and this issomething that those concerned with furthering regeneration often believe they don'thave. It also demands a fundamental shift in attitude by politicians, policy-makers anddevelopers (Atkinson and Cope 1997: 212-3). As a result, we see the expressed interests oflocal people regularly disregarded. Thus, Dave Adamson and Richard Bromiley's evaluationof an important attempt to promote 'community empowerment', the Communities Firstprogramme in Wales, found that:

...the statutory sector has largely failed to respond to the community agenda and there islittle evidence of community influence over budgets and service delivery, and no evidenceof bending mainstream services to reflect the partnership process.

Examples of this abound within regeneration initiatives. For example, one of the requests

often made by local people within regeneration initiatives is for a much larger proportionof homes to have three bedrooms. In many regeneration initiatives this is notaccommodated. Another key demand is around the way in which their housing andneighbourhood is managed. However, regeneration is often linked to a change in sociallandlord (away from local councils to housing association) - and this rarely addresses theissues that tenants, leaseholders and home-owners are concerned with.

Lynsey Hanley argues we need a different approach:

The redevelopment of estates whose surface problems - remoteness, graffiti, loiteringyouths, ugly buildings - are caused by bad design and planning will only work, however, ifphysical and cosmetic improvements are carried out alongside a serious and prolonged

investment in tenant's potential to participate in managing their homes and estates so thatthey attain a sense of ownership and control. If tenants feel the estate is theirs, it doesn't


13/20

matter whether or not they physically own their home: they treat it with the same carethey would if their home was something they would someday sell to the highest bidder. Allthis requires an investment of a different kind: an investment in the idea that people whorent are of equal worth to people who own, and that just because they haven't bought ahome doesn't mean that they have done something wrong along the way. (Hanley 2007:220)

In a similar vein Anne Power (2007: 188) makes a convincing case for the role of families inregenerating cities: 'Families are a positive force in cities because they need each other,use social spaces frequently and go out of their way to create social contact'. Theycontribute in small but very significant ways but this is rarely harnessed nor properlyrecognised in regeneration initiatives.

Regeneration, localism and the financial crisis in Britain

The banking crisis of 2008, continuing issues around economic growth, and reductions inspending by the Coalition Government from 2010 onwards have impacted significantly onregeneration initiatives and upon the building of new homes. In particular, the withdrawal

of Housing Market Renewal Funding has created significant problems in England, leavingmany residents trapped in half-abandoned streets (House of Commons Communities andLocal Government Committee 2011: 3). In addition, with significant local spendingreductions many community groups that are central to regeneration are under significantfinancial pressure and are unsure about their future.

The Coalition Government set out set out its approach to regeneration in England inRegeneration to enable growth: What Government is doing in support of community-ledregeneration (2011). They argued that the need to reduce the government budget deficit,and with less money available for investment in regeneration, a new approach wasneeded. Alongside their localism agenda (see below) the role of central government wasto be strategic and supportive:

reforming and decentralising public services providing powerful incentives that drive growth removing barriers that hinder local ambitions, and providing targeted investment and reform to strengthen the infrastructure for

growth and regeneration and to support the most vulnerable (DCLG 2011

This approach has come in for serious criticism by MPs sitting on the Communities and

Local Government Committee. They argue that regeneration is a long term,comprehensive process which aims to tackle social, economic, physical and environmentalissues in places where the market has failed and that the Coalition Governments policiesare problematic in this respect. According to the Committee, they have little confidencethat the Government has a clear strategy for addressing the countrys regenerationneeds. They continue:

It lacks strategic direction and is unclear about the nature of the problem it is trying tosolve. It focuses overwhelmingly upon the achievement of economic growth, giving littleemphasis to the specific issues faced by deprived communities and areas of marketfailure. (House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee 2011: 3)

Their criticisms of the measures include that they are:


14/20

Unlikely to bring in sufficient resources. Funding for regeneration has beenreduced dramatically and disproportionately over the past two years, and unlessalternative sources can be found, there is a risk of problems being stored up forthe future.

Wrong to place so much emphasis on funding streams which are not focusedprimarily upon regeneration.

Lacking a strategy for attracting private sector investment: the Governmentshould consider possible sources of gap funding and the potential for the alignment

of public spending streams to encourage private investment.

Assigning too much prominence to changes to the planning system and do notacknowledge the benefits effective planning has brought to regeneration.

Failing to consider how its approach to regeneration will be evaluated; this is anew way of doing things and, without some form of evaluation, there is a risk that

investment could be wasted. (op. cit.)

They also conclude that the Government has apparently paid little regard to the lessonsfrom previous approaches to regeneration and that recent legislation resulting in theLocalism Act (2011) falls short in not assigning a stronger strategic role to localgovernment. They also conclude that the Government has apparently paid little regard tothe lessons

ConclusionNeighbourhood still matters for a lot people - especially families with children.Neighbourhoods help to frame people's lives, and provide an environment in whichservices, networks and relationships can develop. However, policymakers have tended toneglect, or treat as trivial, key aspects of what they offer. Furthermore, a significantnumber of neighbourhoods suffer from social polarization and multiple disadvantages.Attempts to regenerate such neighbourhoods in the UK have met with limited success.There has been a continuing emphasis upon housing renewal that is dominated by theinterests of developers. There has been an associated lack of attention to the cultivationof social capital and community; the continuing provision of housing that does not meetthe needs and wishes of families; and a tendency, for various reasons, to go for 'clean-

sweep' schemes at the cost of restoration and reintegration. In a number of respects, themistakes of the past - especially around the development of estates in the late 1950s and1960s - are being repeated in new schemes. Crucially, because successive governmentshave chosen not to act to close the gap between rich and poor (through for example, moreredistributive taxation), nor sought with others to contain the negative impacts ofglobalization, deep-seated problems will remain in many neighbourhoods (Lupton 2003:149-152).

There are limits upon what local neighbourhood organizations and groups can achieve inthe face of the various interests that dominate the regeneration agenda, however there issome room for manoeuvre - and some spaces that can be exploited. While communityparticipation in regeneration 'largely takes the form of 'commenting on and working

towards the achievement of other people's agendas and not developing communityownership' as Peter North (2003: 137) has shown, 'well-organized and politically
http://www.infed.org/biblio/globalization.htmhttp://www.infed.org/biblio/globalization.htmhttp://www.infed.org/biblio/globalization.htm


15/20

sophisticated activists can survive to fight another day'. Here I want to highlight areas thatcan, in my experience, be exploited.

First, it has been possible for local groups and organizations to put pressure onpolicymakers, developers and politicians to up the proportion of social housing inneighbourhood regeneration initiatives. Here groups can make use of any requirement for

local consultation and participation within government funded initiatives. One meansutilized is to raise the profile of the issue socially and politically so that those chargedwith setting out the criteria for the development are pushed to go for mixed forms oftenure with a good proportion of homes for rent by those on lower incomes; and for homesfor key workers and those wanting to take a capital stake in their properties. A furtherlever here in the consultation process is organize so that local people and theirrepresentatives consistently 'vote' for those interested developers that offer the best dealon social housing.

Second, local groups and organizations have been able to lever improved public spaces,facilities and services in regeneration schemes. This has taken the form of increasedoverall resources being devoted by developers and local authorities to public provision;

and through direct participation by local people in the forms of provision required - andtheir design. The concrete outcomes have included improved play facilities, saferwalkways, new community rooms, and funding for community activity.

Third, some tenants in England have taken the opportunity to set up tenant managementorganizations (TMOs) and to take over the running of their blocks and estates. The scopeand scale of these organizations vary but there have been some very significant gains fortenants and leaseholders. These include practical benefits such as cleaner and safercommon areas in blocks, and quicker and more effective minor repairs. Alongside thesebenefits come social and political gains. People can see a direct benefit in becominginvolved in TMO meetings and events. That participation increases people's sense ofownership of their block or estate and the network of people they know. This has the dual

benefit of fostering social capital and giving their representatives a stronger voice indiscussions with policy-makers, politicians and developers. They are people with visibleand real constituencies.

Regeneration initiatives often promise far more than they can 'deliver'. They frequentlysell short the interests of those living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. But there can besome real gains in terms of the physical environment - and in creating a density of housingthat allows local services to function. The importance of local participation and organizingin all this needs to be recognized (Richardson 2008).

Further reading and references

Hanley, Lynsey (2007) Estates. An intimate history. London: Granta Books. A veryreadable and insightful exploration from first-hand experience of living on council estates.

Lupton, Ruth (2003) Poverty Street. Causes and consequences of neighbourhood decline.Bristol: The Policy Press. Study of 12 disadvantages neighbourhoods with a significantdiscussion of regeneration.

Power, Anne (2007) City Survivors. Bringing up children in disadvantaged neighbourhoods.Bristol: The Policy Press. Based on a major study of people's experiences over a number ofyears this book brings out the significance of neighbourhood and the problems that peopleface in increasingly polarized areas.

Rogers, Richard and Power, Anne (2000) Cities for a small country. London: Faber and

Faber. Excellent overview of the problems of cities and discussion of the sort of radicalsolutions required.


16/20

References

Adamson, Dave and Richard Bromiley (2008) Community empowerment in practice.Lessons from Communities First. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.[http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/2157-community-wales-empowerment.pdf. Accessed April29, 2008].

Atkinson, Rob and Steven Cope (1997) 'Community participation and urban regeneration' inPaul Hoggett (ed.) Contested Communities. Experiences, struggles, policies. Bristol: PolicyPress.

Barton, Huw (2000) Sustainable Communities. The potential for eco-neighbourhoods.London: Earthscan

Bookman, A, (2004) Starting in our own backyards. How working families can buildcommunity and survive the new economy, New York: Routledge.

Brewer, M. et. al. (2011). Child and Working-Age Poverty from 2010 to 2020. London:Institute of Fiscal Studies. [http://www.ifs.org.uk/comms/comm121.pdf. Retrieved 11 October

2011].

Coleman, Alice (1985) Utopia on Trial. Vision and reality in planned housing. London:Hilary Shipman.

Congress for the New Urbanism (2007) 'How Urbanism Slows Global Warming', CNU.[http://www.cnu.org/node/946. Accessed January 9, 2008].

Department for Communities and Local Government (2006) Strong and prosperouscommunities. The Local Government White Paper. London: HMSO

Department for Communities and Local Government (2007)An Action Plan for CommunityEmpowerment: Building on Success. London: Department for Communities and Local

Government.

Department for Communities and Local Government (2011) Regeneration to enablegrowth. What Government is doing in support of community-led regeneration. London:Department for Communities and Local Government.

Dorling, Daniel and Woodward, R.(1996) Social polarisation 1971-1991: a micro-geographical analysis of Britain, Progress in Planning 45.

Dorling, Daniel et. al. (2007) Poverty, wealth and place in Britain, 1968 to 2005. Bristol:The Policy Press/Joseph Rowntree Foundation. [http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/2019-poverty-wealth-place.pdf. Accessed January 31, 2008].

Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E. and Speck, J. (2000) Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl andthe Decline of the American Dream. New York: North Point Press.

Dunnell, Karen (2008) Diversity and different experiences in the UK National StatisticiansAnnual Article on Society. London: Office of National Statistics.[http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/nojournal/NSA_article.pdf]

Field, J. (2003) Social Capital, London: Routledge.

Girardet, H. (1999) Creating Sustainable Cities. Dartington: Green Books.

Girardet, Herbert (2004) Cities, People, Planet, Liveable cities for a sustainable world.

Chichester: Wiley Academic.
http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/2157-community-wales-empowerment.pdfhttp://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/2157-community-wales-empowerment.pdfhttp://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/2157-community-wales-empowerment.pdfhttp://www.ifs.org.uk/comms/comm121.pdfhttp://www.ifs.org.uk/comms/comm121.pdfhttp://www.ifs.org.uk/comms/comm121.pdfhttp://www.cnu.org/node/946http://www.cnu.org/node/946http://www.cnu.org/node/946http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/2019-poverty-wealth-place.pdfhttp://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/2019-poverty-wealth-place.pdfhttp://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/2019-poverty-wealth-place.pdfhttp://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/2019-poverty-wealth-place.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/nojournal/NSA_article.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/nojournal/NSA_article.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/nojournal/NSA_article.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/nojournal/NSA_article.pdfhttp://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/2019-poverty-wealth-place.pdfhttp://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/2019-poverty-wealth-place.pdfhttp://www.cnu.org/node/946http://www.ifs.org.uk/comms/comm121.pdfhttp://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/2157-community-wales-empowerment.pdf


17/20

Green, Geoff, Grimsey, Mike and Stafford, Bernard (2004) The dynamics ofneighbourhood. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Gray, John (1999)False Dawn. The delusions of global capitalism, London: Granta.

Halpin, D. (2003) 'Hope, utopianism and educational renewal', the encyclopaedia ofinformal education,www.infed.org/biblio/hope.htm. [Accessed January 8, 2008].

Hanley, Lynsey (2007) Estates. An intimate history. London: Granta Books.

Hastings, Annette (2003) 'Strategic, multilevel neighbourhood regeneration: an outward-looking approach at last?' in Rob Imrie and Mike Raco (eds.) Urban Renaissance. NewLabour, community and urban policy. Bristol: Policy Press.

Hills, John (2004) Inequality and the State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hills, John (2007) Ends and Means: The future roles of social housing in England. London:LSE/Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion.

[http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cr/CASEreport34.pdf. Accessed January 31, 2008].

Home Office (2001) Community Cohesion. A report of the independent review teamchaired by Ted Cantle. London: Home Office.

House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee (2011) Regeneration.Sixth Report of Session 201012 Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral andwritten evidence. London: The Stationery Office.[http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmcomloc/1014/1014.pdf. AccessedNovember 25, 2011].

Huckle, John (1996) 'Realizing sustainability in changing times' in John Huckle and StephenSterling (eds.) Education for Sustainability. London: Earthscan.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Fourth Assessment Report. Geneva:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Jacobs, Jane (1965) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. The failure of townplanning. Harmondsworth: Penguin. (First published by Random House 1961)

Kearns, Ade (2003) 'Social capital, regeneration and urban policy' in Rob Imrie and MikeRaco (eds.) Urban Renaissance. New Labour, community and urban policy. Bristol: PolicyPress.

Kynason, David (2007)Austerity Britain, 1945-1951. London: Bloomsbury.

Landes, David (1999) The Wealth and Poverty of Nations. Why some are so rich and some

are so poor, London: Abacus.

Longworth, Norman (2006) Learning Cities, Learning Regions, Learning Communities.Lifelong learning and local government. London: Routledge.

Low, Judith (2003) Behind the Gates. Life, security and he pursuit of happiness in fortressAmerica. New York: Routledge.

Lupton, R. (2003) Poverty Street. Causes and consequences of neighbourhood decline.Bristol: The Policy Press.

McKnight, J. (1995) The Careless Society. New York: Basic Books.
http://www.infed.org/biblio/hope.htmhttp://www.infed.org/biblio/hope.htmhttp://www.infed.org/biblio/hope.htmhttp://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cr/CASEreport34.pdfhttp://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cr/CASEreport34.pdfhttp://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cr/CASEreport34.pdfhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmcomloc/1014/1014.pdfhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmcomloc/1014/1014.pdfhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmcomloc/1014/1014.pdfhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmcomloc/1014/1014.pdfhttp://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cr/CASEreport34.pdfhttp://www.infed.org/biblio/hope.htm


18/20

National Statistics (2002a) 'Living Next Door. Social capital: support and involvement'Office for National Statistics. [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=183. AccessedApril 13, 2008].

National Statistics (2002b) 'The Jobs People Do', Office for National Statistics.[http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=11. Accessed April 13, 2008].

National Statistics (2003) 'Social capital', Office for National Statistics.[http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=286. Accessed April 13, 2008].

National Statistics (2004) 'Living in Britain. Housing tenure a summary of changes overtime'. Office for National Statistics.[http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=821&Pos=4&ColRank=2&Rank=224. AccessaedApril 14, 2008]

National Statistics (2005) 'Housing tenure', Office for National Statistics.[http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=1105&Pos=&ColRank=1&Rank=374. AccessedApril 14, 2008].

Newman, Oscar (1972) Defensible Space. New York: Macmillan.

North, Peter (2003) 'Communities at the heart? Community action and urban policyin the UK' in Rob Imrie and Mike Raco (eds.) Urban Renaissance. New Labour, communityand urban policy. Bristol: Policy Press.

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2003) Sustainable communities. Building for thefuture. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.[http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/146289. Accessed January 7,2008].

Power, Anne (1997) Estates on the Edge. London: Palgrave: Macmillan.

Power, Anne (2007a) City Survivors. Bringing up children in disadvantagedneighbourhoods. Bristol: The Policy Press.

Power, Anne and Willmot, Helen (2007b) Social Capital within the Neighbourhood.London: Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion.[http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cr/CASEreport38.pdf. Accessed January 11, 2008]

Putnam, R. D. (2000)Bowling Alone. The collapse and revival of American community, New

York: Simon and Schuster.

Reader, John (2005) Cities. London: Vintage.

Richardson, Liz (2008) DIY Community Action: Neighbourhood Problems and CommunitySelf-help. Bristol: Policy Press.

Riis, Jacob A. (1891) How the Other Half Lives: Studies Among the Tenements of NewYork. New York: Scribner. [http://www.cis.yale.edu/amstud/inforev/riis/title.html. Accessed April29, 2008].

Roberts, Peter (2000) 'The evolution, definition and purpose of urban regeneration' inPeter Roberts and Hugh Sykes (eds.) Urban Regeneration. A handbook. London: Sage.

Rogers, Richard and Power, Anne (2000) Cities for a small country. London: Faber andFaber.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=183http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=183http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=183http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=11http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=11http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=11http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=286http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=286http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=286http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=821&Pos=4&ColRank=2&Rank=224http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=821&Pos=4&ColRank=2&Rank=224http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=821&Pos=4&ColRank=2&Rank=224http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=1105&Pos=&ColRank=1&Rank=374http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=1105&Pos=&ColRank=1&Rank=374http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=1105&Pos=&ColRank=1&Rank=374http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/146289http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/146289http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/146289http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cr/CASEreport38.pdfhttp://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cr/CASEreport38.pdfhttp://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cr/CASEreport38.pdfhttp://www.cis.yale.edu/amstud/inforev/riis/title.htmlhttp://www.cis.yale.edu/amstud/inforev/riis/title.htmlhttp://www.cis.yale.edu/amstud/inforev/riis/title.htmlhttp://www.cis.yale.edu/amstud/inforev/riis/title.htmlhttp://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cr/CASEreport38.pdfhttp://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/146289http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=1105&Pos=&ColRank=1&Rank=374http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=821&Pos=4&ColRank=2&Rank=224http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=286http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=11http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=183


19/20

Rowntree, Seebohm (1913) Poverty, A Study of Town Life 2e. London: Nelson. [Firstpublished 1901).

Schumacher, E. F. (173) Small is Beautiful. A study of economics as if people mattered.London: Abacus.

Scottish Executive (2002) Better Communities in Scotland: Closing the gap the ScottishExecutive's Community Regeneration Statement. Edinburgh: The Scottish Executive.

Sierra Club (undated) 'The cost of sprawl'.http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/community/costs.asp. Accessed February 1, 2008].

Siranni, C. and Friedland, L. (2001) Civic Innovation in America. Communityempowerment, public policy and the movement for civic renewal, Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.

Smith, M. K. (2007) 'Social capital', the encyclopedia of informal education,

www.infed.org/biblio/social_capital.htm.

Social Exclusion Unit (1998) Bringing Britain Together - A national strategy forneighbourhood renewal. London: Stationery Office.

Speth, James Gustave (2005) Red Sky at Morning. America and the crisis of the globalenvironment. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Stern, Nicholas (2006) The Economics of Climate Change. [The Stern Review]. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. [Downloadable from:http://www.hm-

treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/

sternreview_index.cfm. Accessed January 8, 2008]

Tett, Lyn (2006) Community Education, Lifelong Learning and Social Inclusion 2e.Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press.

Tonnies, Ferdinand (edited by Jose Harris and translated by Margaret Hollis) (2001)Community and Civil Society, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Venkatesh, S. A. (2006) Off the books. The underground economy of the urban poor.Harvard University Press.

United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) (2003) The Challenge ofSlums. Global report on human settlements 2003. Nairobi: UN-Habitat.[http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/getPage.asp?page=downloads. Accessed: January 8, 2008].

World Bank ( 2007) World Development Indicators. Washington D.C.: The World Bank.

World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future. Reportof the World Commission on Environment and Development (The Brundtland Report). NewYork: Oxford University Press. [http://www.anped.org/media/brundtland-pdf.pdf. AccessedJanuary 7, 2008]

Links

How to cite this article: Smith, Mark K. (2011) 'Neighbourhoods and regeneration. Theory,practice, issues', the encyclopaedia of informal education.[www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htm].

Mark K. Smith2006, 2008, 2011
http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/community/costs.asphttp://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/community/costs.asphttp://www.infed.org/biblio/social_capital.htmhttp://www.infed.org/biblio/social_capital.htmhttp://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfmhttp://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfmhttp://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfmhttp://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfmhttp://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfmhttp://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfmhttp://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/getPage.asp?page=downloadshttp://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/getPage.asp?page=downloadshttp://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/getPage.asp?page=downloadshttp://www.anped.org/media/brundtland-pdf.pdfhttp://www.anped.org/media/brundtland-pdf.pdfhttp://www.anped.org/media/brundtland-pdf.pdfhttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htmhttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htmhttp://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htmhttp://www.markksmith.com/http://www.markksmith.com/http://www.markksmith.com/http://www.markksmith.com/http://www.infed.org/community/neighbourhoods_and_regeneration.htmhttp://www.anped.org/media/brundtland-pdf.pdfhttp://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/getPage.asp?page=downloadshttp://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfmhttp://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfmhttp://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfmhttp://www.infed.org/biblio/social_capital.htmhttp://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/community/costs.asp


20/20

infedis a not-for-profit site [about us][disclaimer] provided by theYMCA George Williams College. Give usfeedback;write

for us. Check ourprivacy policyand, when copying, ourcopyrightnotice. Join us onFacebookandTwitter.

Hosting byMemsetDedicated Servers[CarbonNeutral].
http://infed.org/mobi/aboutus/http://infed.org/mobi/aboutus/http://infed.org/mobi/aboutus/http://infed.org/mobi/aboutus/http://infed.org/mobi/aboutus/http://infed.org/mobi/disclaimer/http://infed.org/mobi/disclaimer/http://infed.org/mobi/disclaimer/http://www.ymca.ac.uk/http://www.ymca.ac.uk/http://www.ymca.ac.uk/http://infed.org/mobi/feedback/http://infed.org/mobi/feedback/http://infed.org/mobi/feedback/http://infed.org/mobi/call-for-contributors/http://infed.org/mobi/call-for-contributors/http://infed.org/mobi/call-for-contributors/http://infed.org/mobi/privacy-policy/http://infed.org/mobi/privacy-policy/http://infed.org/mobi/privacy-policy/http://infed.org/mobi/the-copyright-page/http://infed.org/mobi/the-copyright-page/http://infed.org/mobi/the-copyright-page/http://www.facebook.com/pages/London-United-Kingdom/infed/92438201333http://www.facebook.com/pages/London-United-Kingdom/infed/92438201333http://www.facebook.com/pages/London-United-Kingdom/infed/92438201333http://twitter.com/infedhttp://twitter.com/infedhttp://twitter.com/infedhttp://www.memset.com/http://www.memset.com/http://www.memset.com/dedicated-servers/http://www.memset.com/dedicated-servers/http://www.memset.com/dedicated-servers/http://www.memset.com/dedicated-servers/http://www.memset.com/http://twitter.com/infedhttp://www.facebook.com/pages/London-United-Kingdom/infed/92438201333http://infed.org/mobi/the-copyright-page/http://infed.org/mobi/privacy-policy/http://infed.org/mobi/call-for-contributors/http://infed.org/mobi/feedback/http://www.ymca.ac.uk/http://infed.org/mobi/disclaimer/http://infed.org/mobi/aboutus/http://infed.org/mobi/aboutus/

Documents

Neighbourhood - Regeneration