Regeneration as Social Innovation, Not a War Game

the name of ‘empowerment’, such as acommunity event or art project.

In the political sphere, the governmentappears to have shifted from an earlieragenda of seeing involvement as a routeto communal self-determination to oneof giving people confidence, skills andthe power to shape and influence whatpublic bodies do for or with them. Thisis a shift from emancipation toaccountability.1

INTRODUCTIONThere is an emerging new debate goingon as to what is the value and purposeof community involvement in urbanrenewal.

The involvement of the taxpayer inthis field of public policy is usually thatof consultee. Public opinion is sampledon a development scheme, a strategy ispublished for online or offline discussion,or a third-party device is rolled out in

� Henry Stewart Publications 1752–9638 (2009) Vol. 3, 1, 77–91 Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal 77

Regeneration as social innovation,not a war gameReceived: 11th May, 2009

David Barriedesigns and delivers public projects. He works in the regeneration, property, design and media sectors. Clients include iglooRegeneration, BioRegional Quintain, Wakefield Council, Middlesbrough Council, One North East, the Design Council andBritish Council. At present, David is supporting projects in Moscow, Wales and London. He is developing online mediainitiatives linked to urban renewal and creating a new social enterprise that will be the subject of a series of TV programmeson Channel 4 in 2010.

Abstract There is an emerging new debate going on as to what is the value andpurpose of community involvement in urban renewal. At the moment, different parts ofthe urban planning system use ‘consultation’ in different ways. But more often than not,‘consultation’ and ‘engagement’ are democratic-sounding words for a process ofco-option: appointing members of the community to a given strategy or plan. Thispaper outlines two projects which have brought innovation the role and nature of‘community involvement’, but which push to re-frame policy and practice: takemethodology away from two-dimensional public relations, the procedural fetishism oflocal government and the ‘Post-it-itis’ of public workshops — towards the broader ideaof mobilising sustainable networks of local people. Smaller towns and cities haveidiosyncratic characters that can be mobilised to support the social and economicbenefit of a place, but an appropriate strategy needs to be formulated for publicinvolvement. Community engagement needs to give way to ideas of participation andcustomer service. It needs to support long-term values and sustainability that will beintrinsic to the viability of the regeneration sector after recession. This is a matter ofeffective business practice, not just ethics.

Keywords: Public participation, community involvement, networked publics,sustainability, public space, urban agriculture, social innovation

David BarrieDavid Barrie & Associates,First Floor, 148 CurtainRoad, London EC2A 3AR,UK

Tel: �44 (0)777 5945302e-mail:[email protected]

URBAN REGENERATION AS AWAR GAMEUrban regeneration tends to be triggeredby natural disaster, macro-economicstrategy, public or private investmentstrategies or set-piece inventions that aimto trigger economic growth andbehavioural change, such as the OlympicGames or Capital of Culture programme.

Conventionally, these triggers areannounced and then usher in a processof strategic, physical and financial masterplanning. Development frameworks,spatial, business, action, entry and exitplans are drawn up. A cadre of expertsand institutional representatives cometogether and dig in for the long haul. Adocument trail is created that establishespriorities, provenances, value for moneyand return on investment.

In next to no time, regenerationbecomes a complex process that presentsa constant flow of challenges, questions,issues of positioning, politics and timing.Within the management team, much likea game in an amusement arcade on aseaside pier, one frog pops up and is hiton the head, only for another to demandattention. The net effect of this is tocreate a mindset of urban renewal as awar game; a closed professional system ofextensive paperwork, mapping andCobra-style discussions and negotiationsaway from the limelight.

Combined with issues of commercialconfidentiality and local politics, thisapproach can attract and engendercaution, ‘analysis paralysis’, opaqueexternal communications, poor internalcommunications, loss of momentum andan asymmetry of information betweenproducer and audience that createsmistrust.

In this scenario, regeneration becomesa closed circuit — and the communityfast becomes an issue of public relationsand the management of opinion.

This is a problem. For if the purpose

The Conservative Party in the UKnow frames involvement in the contextof returning power to local communities.Part of a larger plan to decentralisegovernment, this builds referenda intolocal political systems. Think ‘freecommunes’, rather than focus groups or‘workshops’.2

At the moment, different parts of theurban planning system use ‘consultation’in different ways. Within localgovernment, it is a formalised, formulaicpart of the framework of planning andregulation. Private property developmentcompanies use ‘consultation’ to supportplanning applications: and it tends tomean public relations, masquerading as‘stakeholder partnership’. More oftenthan not, ‘consultation’ and ‘engagement’are democratic-sounding words for whatis a process of co-option: of appointingmembers of the community to a givenstrategy or plan.

The debate that sits under the bonnetof current political thinking is how andat what stage is it appropriate to involvethe public in local decision making?

This paper outlines two projects whichhave innovated the role and nature ofcommunity ‘involvement’, but whichpush to re-frame policy and practice: takemethodology away from two-dimensionalpublic relations, the procedural fetishismof local government and the ‘Post-it-itis’of public workshops, towards the broaderidea of mobilising sustainable networks oflocal people.

The projects suggest the value ofinvolving the public in the process ofurban regeneration from the very startand creating new systems and structuresaround them as the client. They arguethat just as the word ‘sustainability’should be replaced by ‘greentechnology’, the phrase ‘communityinvolvement’ should be replaced by twodistinct things: ‘citizen participation’ and‘customer service’.3

78 Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal Vol. 3, 1, 77–91 � Henry Stewart Publications 1752–9638 (2009)

Barrie

planning acknowledges that the builtenvironment is more than just theorganisation of the interests oflandowners and users, but a web ofexperiences and physical, social, culturaland financial relationships.

Government emphasis upon communityengagement, the Third Sector, democraticgovernance and inclusive economics hasset on record the role of users in theprovision of public services.

Social and cultural entrepreneurs havebecome an increasingly important part ofurban development, alongsidelandowners, speculators, planners andarchitects; bringing to regeneration a newcast of characters who have an acute,populist mindset and combine skills inenterprise, thought leadership, stakeholdermanagement and project delivery.

The rise of online social media hasrevealed a consumer appetite forinformal, purposeful and semi-visiblepublic networks.

The increasing use of co-design as amethod for originating and developingideas — from creating a new park to thedevelopment of open source software —has revealed an understanding of theopportunity and value of sharingintellectual, as well as emotional property.

Popular participation in voting forperformers on television by telephoneand text messaging has revealed thatpeople like to engage with and not justconsume products and services. Andpopular take-up of Crazy Frog andonline applications mark the power ofviral advertising and marketing by wordof mouth.

All these strands push towards taking amore open approach to designing anddelivering urban renewal: and suggestthat ‘asking people what they want’ or‘think’ is no longer enough. The peopleknown formerly as the audience need tobe engaged in a different way.

The relationship with the taxpayer

of regeneration is to increase prosperity,this relies upon a contract of trustbetween resident, worker, occupier,tenant and the service provider, be theyin the public or private sectors.

If the purpose of regeneration is touplift values, there needs to be a contractbetween diverse transactional parties, beit the retailer and consumer, investor andresident community or employers andworkforce.

If the purpose of regeneration is toenable the creation of more prosperouscommunities, towns and cities need tobecome, to quote writer HerbertGirardet, ‘energy- and resource-efficient,people-friendly, and culturally rich, withactive democracies assuring the best usesof human energies’.4

And if the purpose of regeneration isto make money, the scale of cost ofdevelopment, the demand of shareholdersfor a return on their investment andinnovations such as tax incrementfinancing suggest that landowners anddevelopers need to place greater emphasisupon the social, as well as physicalinfrastructure of a site.

OPEN-CIRCUIT REGENERATIONIn recent times, certain ideas and ways ofworking and living have emerged thatsuggest the efficacy of taking a moreopen approach to delivering regeneration.

The rise of partnership working,public–private partnerships and localasset-backed vehicles have established anethos of collaborative working.

Privatisation and outsourcing of publicservices, the rise of ‘joined-up’government, consumer choice andtechnological innovation have shiftedhierarchical organisation of governmentto more networked forms of publicmanagement.

The rise of ‘place’ as an organisingprinciple of local government and city


Regeneration as social innovation

groups are prepared to work for thetown, as well as themselves. They cansee beyond their doorstep.

In other words, Castleford has ahuman architecture of identity andattitude. It has ‘character’. The questionis: can Castleford embrace shrinkage, notas decline but as a framework forcreative reinvention?

In 2003, a team of experts inregeneration, design, project managementand community involvement were drawntogether with a common purpose topioneer a new, local, citizen-orientedmodel of renewal for Castleford.

The team were supported by Channel4 Television. Channel 4 maintains anactive programme of corporatephilanthropy, and it wanted tocommission a series of televisionprogrammes that would document theprocess of the regeneration of a townand share it with the viewing public.7

After evaluating several towns andcities across the UK, the group ofprofessionals decided it wanted to workin Castleford, in partnership withcommunity groups, WakefieldMetropolitan Borough Council, regionaldevelopment agencies and nationalregeneration organisations.

The aim of the initiative was simple:to harness Castleford’s assets, especiallythe commitment of its people, find outwhat physical aspects of the town peoplewanted to see improved, and do it.

In parallel, a programme of social,economic and cultural activity would addvalue to the capital programme, and thetwo would act as a larger catalyst tochange.

The methodology hinged uponbuilding social capital, positioning thecommunity as client, not just end user,and using their involvement as thetrigger and foundation of a strategicvehicle for regeneration. The vehicle hadno assets, other than a power to assemble

becomes ever more important, as landasset values collapse, and the search is onto find more sustainable sources of localincome against which to amortise risk.

CASE STUDY 1: THE CASTLEFORDPROJECTThe Castleford Project was a programmeof renewal of a town in West Yorkshire,England, which started in 2003 andcompleted its first phase of work in2008. In five years, it helped totransform several of the town’s publicspaces and has been credited withleveraging over £250m of new publicand private investment in the town.5

Castleford was once an importantcoal-mining town. In the 1990s, thetown fell upon hard times as coalproduction in the UK was restructured.The economy of the town collapsed, andits fabric fell into disrepair.

With a population of 40,000, locatedwithin commuting distance of Leeds,Castleford is an exemplar of the crop ofsmaller towns and cities across the worldthat have suffered at the hands ofde-industrialisation. What was once abustling centre of industry and commercewith wealthy patrons committed to civicimprovement has given way to a placethat is neither a service centre for itsnearest adjacent city nor a sure-fireattractor of millions of pounds worth ofinvestment. It is neither a village nor alarge city, so the distinctive and vital roleit might play in the work of a newcentury is not certain.

But Castleford has many things goingfor it. The town has managed tomaintain a distinctive civic pride becauseof a powerful, historic culture ofcommunity and heritage.6

The town has many active citizens’groups, community organisations andyoung and old people committed toliving and working in the town. These


Barrie

advice on regeneration, design,management and project funding.

In late 2005, just two years in, thefirst project went on site: a newplayground in the Airedale/Ferry Frystondistrict of the town. Nine have sincefollowed. The last project, anarchitect-designed pedestrian bridge wascompleted in Summer 2008 (see Figure1). Other projects include four newpublic spaces and a renovated subway(see Figure 2). Almost all the projectswere designed by small andmedium-sized architectural practices.Many involved the contribution of visualartists.

The project programme was supportedby a comprehensive business plan. Withthis plan, a seed grant of £100,000 byChannel 4 Television became a £14.5mcapital and revenue programme, sourcedfrom 23 funding sources. By summer2008, several projects entered secondphase development under their ownsteam, and groundwork has nowadvanced on residential development ofbrownfield sites adjacent to the town’swaterfront and linked to the project’sbridge scheme.8

One key reason for the success of theproject is that it created a cleardevelopment platform for the town,based upon a connected but layerednetwork of community, civic, public andprivate sector organisations:9

• A community network made up of theCastleford Town Centre Partnership,the Castleford Heritage Group,Riverside Community Group, SagarStreet Tenants Association, WilsonStreet Community Triangle, CutsykeCommunity Group and Friends of theGreen.

• A stakeholder network made up ofWakefield Council, Wakefield LSP,Groundwork Wakefield, YorkshireForward, English Partnerships,

people or bridge ‘social capital’. It wouldseek to enable change by designing anddelivering a series of popular projects andbuild a momentum behind them thatwould make them sustainable: a processvery different from three-yearfunding-locked Government initiatives.

In early 2003, the project started witha series of public meetings in bars, clubsand community centres, supported byChannel 4, Wakefield Council and theCommission for Architecture and theBuilt Environment. At the meetings, asimple question was asked: ‘How do youwant to see your town improve?’

A public poll was published in thelocal newspaper and discussed at publicmeetings, eliciting a series of priorityprojects. Community leaders steppedforward to lead individual projects, as‘champions’ or stewards. Three newcommunity organisations were formed insupport of projects. A plan wasconceived to deliver 11 projects in all,from small improvements to derelictopen spaces to a new town square; fromnew children’s play facilities in housingareas to a new pedestrian bridge acrossthe River Aire. A package was createdthat combined several projects indifferent locations. All the sites wereowned by the local authority and bybringing them all together, those projectswith a stronger business case couldsupport the weaker ones.

With its ranks swelled by ‘communitychampions’, the project team ran anopen ideas competition for architects andlandscape designers, and local peoplevoted for their favourite designs anddesigners.

In 2004 and 2005, development teamswere formed in support of each site,made up of local people, their appointeddesigners and local government officials.Concept plans became budgeted designs,and the team of external experts stayedon hand to provide light-touch, strategic



including Gehl Architects (Denmark)— and artists, including Harry Malkin(UK), Chris Campbell (UK), MartinRichman (UK), Pierre Vivant (France),Winter & Horbelt (Germany) andCarlos Garaicoa (Cuba).

• A financing network, featuring all of theabove plus the Heritage Lottery Fund,Big Lottery Fund, the Scarman Trust,Waste Recycling EnvironmentalLimited, Ibstock Cory EnvironmentalTrust, SITA Trust, Edinburgh HouseEstates Ltd, Amenbury Properties Ltd,Xscape (Capital & Regional plc) andNestle UK.

• And a consultant network, includingChris Brown (igloo Regeneration),Alison Nimmo CBE, Peter RogersCBE, Abros Ltd (Ben Denton), AZ

Coalfields Regeneration Trust, Channel4 Television, Environment Agency,British Waterways, the Commission forArchitecture and the BuiltEnvironment, Sure Start Airedale,Eastern Wakefield Primary Care Trust,Wakefield Police, Edinburgh HouseEstates Ltd and Arts Council England,Yorkshire.

• A creative network made up of theCastleford Heritage Group, ArtsCouncil Yorkshire, Yorkshire SculpturePark, Yorkshire Culture, YorkshireFilm, Media Trust Productions,participating architects — McDowell+Benedetti, Sarah Wigglesworth,DSDHA, Allen Tod, Carey Jones,Estell Warren, Parklife and MarthaSchwartz Inc. — creative advisors,


Barrie

Figure 1: Castleford Bridge

Design: McDowell+Benedetti. Image courtesy of Channel 4 Television. Photographer: Glenn Dearing.

Figure 2: Tittle Cott Underpass

Design: DSDHA. Lighting: Martin Richman. Image courtesy of Channel 4 Television. Photographer: GlennDearing.

generally the better persuaded by thereasons we discover ourselves than bythose given to us by others.’12

What was required was a programmeof revenue activity that re-sensitised thelocal population to the opportunity ofparticipation, extended the power of thecore capital programme, but alsocountered ‘consultation fatigue’. For inthe words of an anonymous marketer:‘Consumers are like roaches. You spraythem and spray them and after a while itdoesn’t work.’13

The team decided to run a processthat might also self-consciously exploitand engineer spectacle — be a ‘tiny epic’— a facet of renewal exemplified by theGuggenheim Museum, Bilbao, anddescribed by writer Hal Foster as: ‘Tomake a big splash in the global pond ofspectacle culture today, you have to havea big rock to drop.’14

The project refurbished a shop in thetown centre and turned it in to ameeting and arts space. It ran events forlocal businesses and volunteerorganisations. Wakefield Council ranenvironmental projects in schools. ArtsCouncil England, Yorkshire enabled thecommission of new work by local andinternational artists. The CoalfieldsRegeneration Trust and Sure Start ranlinked projects in local communities.Channel 4 held ‘Regeneration’ dancenights in clubs.

The entire programme was designedto create a regeneration project in thebusiness of people, not land assembly —and, in all, over 15,000 people took part.

There is no evidence whatsoever thatthe ancillary programme of activityhelped the improvement of the localeconomic environment directly.However, the combination of investmentin revenue as well as capital activityextended public participation anddemonstrated to the outside world abroader commitment to change —

Urban Studio Ltd (RogerZogolovitch), Mace Ltd, Gleeds Ltd,Lee Mallett, Nick Wates and theauthor.

For three years, the ‘connective tissue’ ofthese networks was a permanentcoordinating staff of two, supported by aseconded officer from the local authority.In 2005, these management functionswere novated to the local authority asthe capital programme was implemented.

By enabling community representativesand local councillors to hold keypositions in the management andgovernance of the project from an earlystage, the process of regenerationengendered trust. But an addedingredient helped cement this trust andadd momentum and effectiveness to thecoordinated effort. Inspired by the ideaof Town Fairs, the ‘whole community’ethos of participatory planning in the USin the 1970s, the successful ‘Main Street’movement in America and the strengthsand weaknesses of initiatives such as theLiverpool Garden Festival, the Projectimplemented an ancillary programme oflocal social, economic and culturalactivity.10

On one level, this was set uponleveraging the energy and enthusiasm ofthe core programme and its participantsand applying it elsewhere to the town.This was founded upon a basicunderstanding and appreciation of thepower of common cause. In the wordsof geographer Yi-Fu Tuan: ‘Whenpeople work together for a commoncause, one man does not deprive theother of space; rather he increases it forhis colleague by giving him support.’11

But it was also founded upon thevalue of ‘recommender technology’ — aprominent feature of the Internet — butwhose principles were best expressed bymathematician Blaise Pascal in the 17thcentury, when he wrote: ‘We are



in breadcrumbs and deep-fried.16

In recent years, Middlesbrough hasexperienced an ‘urban renaissance’, ledby a local authority and regionaldevelopment agency who have prioritisedimprovement of the town’s urban design,support for creative industries such asdigital technology at Teesside Universityand the application of skills acquired insteel and chemical production to thenew green economy.

The town benefits from a mayoralstructure of local government and thecommitment of the local authority to anagenda known as ‘Raising Hope’,centred on key themes of creating clean,safe environments, improving run-downlandscapes, reducing obesity, deaths fromheart disease and CO2 emissions.17

Like many towns and cities in theUK, however, Middlesbrough’s health,efficiency and the sustainability andresilience of its future growth iscompromised in part by the globalised,not localised, supply chain of some keyresources.

The percentage of people in the towneating ‘five-a-day’ servings of fruit andvegetables is lower than the nationalaverage; and yet to the south of thetown lie the fertile, agricultural lands ofYorkshire and Lincolnshire. The townhas a high proportion of people who feel‘in poor health’; yet it has extensive andwell-maintained parks and open spaces.While the town seeks to increase thedensity and sustainability of its towncentre, key sources of self-sufficiencysuch as its allotment sites are located onthe periphery of the town, like shantytowns on the approach to an airport.

With the onset of climate change,‘peak oil’, ‘food security’ and increasingfood price inflation, food and the extentto which it is locally sourced is anincreasingly important aspect ofresponsible urban development.According to the environmental

making a pound spent in Castleford amore confident investment.

What was the role of master-planningin the regeneration programme? Whenthe project started, there was no masterplan for the regeneration of the town.There was a jigsaw of strategies in placedevoted to small-scale areas of the townand a broad commitment by RegionalDevelopment Agency Yorkshire Forwardto develop a strategic framework plan forthe town, in line with other places inthe region.

In effect, the Castleford Project was apopular, design-rich process ofnetworking that gathered these strategiestogether and delivered a series of ‘earlywins’ — projects that since became‘tent-pegs’ in a larger and nowcompleted strategic plan for Castlefordand its district.15

In other words, a culture andcommunity-led programme ofnetworking created and delivered aprogramme of work that becameembedded in the wider and longer-termplans for the town.

What were the problems in the processof implementation? Time. Originating aproject programme by popular mandatecaptures attention and establishesexpectations of a human timeline; whilecomposite public/private finance andtechnical planning don’t.

CASE STUDY 2: DOTT 07 URBANFARMING, MIDDLESBROUGHMiddlesbrough in the Tees Valley is oneof the most deprived towns in the UK Ithas a population of 140,000 and aquarter of those of working age are onstate benefits. The district ofMiddlehaven has the lowest lifeexpectancy in the country. The townsuffers from poor health and high levelsof obesity. Its native dish is the Parmo: aslab of pork or chicken beaten flat, rolled


Barrie

by the Design Council and One NorthEast, which sought to explore what lifein a sustainable region might be like —and find ways and means for design toshape and influence the process.19

The aim of the Urban Farming projectin Middlesbrough was to prototype ahealthier, more resilient and local foodsupply chain.

In autumn 2006, supported by theDott 07 programme, a team ofconsultants led by the author, andincluding designers Nina Belk and DebraSolomon, talked to people living andworking in the town.

By March 2007, over 60 communitygroups, voluntary organisations andschools in Middlesbrough elected togrow fruit and produce in over 250different sized containers across the town(see Figure 3) in school yards, thewindowsills of hospitals, the foyers ofoffices and open plains of the town’suniversity campus. The EnvironmentDepartment of Middlesbrough Councilagreed to grow food in public parks.

Across the growing season, the Dott07 project enabled the town’s new‘urban farmers’ to learn cookery skillsusing their harvest in a series of ‘kitchenplaygrounds’ — chef-led classes inneighbourhood centres. In September2007, in the town’s main square, thegrowers came together and ate the finalharvest in a large-scale ‘town meal’ (seeFigure 4). This was part of a larger‘country fair’ event — The Really SuperMarket — organised by MiddlesbroughCouncil and Middlesbrough Institute ofModern Art and curated by artist Boband Roberta Smith.20 The final ‘harvest’was brought in from containers acrosstown. School cooks and youth groupsprepared soup and salad from theproduce. Local farmers sold produce atstalls.

Alongside the initiative, architecturaldesigners Katrin Bohn and Andre Viljoen

organisation BioRegional DevelopmentGroup, around 23 per cent of ahousehold’s carbon footprint arises fromits food choices.18 Recent export bansand food controls in Argentina, Pakistanand Russia mark the increasingimportance of self-sufficiency. There is anincreasing popular awareness of the needfor food to be traceable. There is amovement to make people aware of andenable them to discriminate betweenfactory and farm-produced food. In otherwords, there is an increasingunderstanding that healthiness andsustainable living is not just in theingredients, but in the system thatsupplies our food.

The challenge is to find ways andmeans to enable people to participate in‘food systems’, connect their livedexperience to the broader system andhelp people to change their habits.

Conventionally, the response of theregeneration community to the issue ofhealth and food has been to break theissues down into silo initiatives linked to‘healthy eating’, business support forfarmers and environmental projectslinked to ‘growing your own’. These areoften delivered by different agencies,such as the local Primary Care Trusts,Regional Development Agencies andNGOs. Food, however, is more thandiet. It is about living; and livedexperience cuts across the stove-pipedorganisation of public services and theirdelivery.

As in the Castleford Project, the Dott07 Urban Farming project inMiddlesbrough sought a route forwardby exploiting the power of networkingand citizen participation.

The initiative was part of a largerprogramme of activity in the regionknown as Dott 07. Dott 07 (or Designsof the time 2007) was a year ofcommunity projects, events andexhibitions in North East England, led



coordinated the growing project inpartnership with community groups,schools and other ‘farmers’.Middlesbrough Council andMiddlesbrough Primary Trust coordinatedthe ‘kitchen playground’/cookery strandof work. And the town meal was createdand coordinated by the local authority inpartnership with the MiddlesbroughInstitute of Modern Art.

The methodology of the urbanfarming project in Middlesbrough wassimilar to that in Castleford in that itplaced an emphasis upon participationand a dispersed programme of activity. Itestablished a partnership of publicagencies to fund, support and coordinatethe overall programme of work. And itplaced exceptional emphasis upon thenetworked endeavour of both thecommunity and agencies alike.

One thousand people participated inthe growing project in Middlesbrough,and 8,000 people attended the townmeal event. In 2008, 2,000 people grewfood once again, without the

created an ‘edible map’ of Middlesbrough— a spatial plan known as a ‘Continuousproductive urban landscape’ — thatconnected land in the town that mightbe made available for cultivation withexisting allotment sites, places in whichpeople had grown food as part of theproject and places where people said thatthey would like food to be grown in thetown in the future.21

The territory of the Dott 07 Projectwill be familiar to those working insocial and environmental regeneration.The approach that the project took,however, was unusual. In effect, theproject programme was designed toenable participants to experience a singlenarrative journey: growing, cooking andeating. The project team established thejourney, set logistical and fundingparameters, but then threw participationof the project open to dispersed,self-organising communities.

Strands of the project were deliveredby different public or non-governmentalorganisations: Groundwork South Tees


Barrie

Figure 3: Linthorpe School ’urban farmers’

Image courtesy of Dott 07 (Designs of the time), Design Council and One North East.

characters that can be mobilised tosupport the social and economic benefitof a place, but that that strategy mayneed to find terms of engagementdifferent from those applied to globalcities. There is a metropolitan, boutiquebias to urban renewal that isinappropriate to many post-industrialplaces.

A third implication is to thinknetwork, not project: and be informedby the explosion of public involvementin platforms that promote bridging capitaland dynamic engagement, such as onlinesocial media.

It is worth noting that some of themost profitable investments in venturecapital have been in ‘mid-level’technologies, in circuit design and chiplayout, rather than high-level know-howon the laws of solid-state physics or themanufacture of semi-conductors.23

It is also worth noting that an excitingdevelopment in urban renewal at presentis in the the organisation of resources tosite, such as bundling and ‘rentalisation’

coordinating effort of an externalconsultancy team. ‘Urban farming’became a core strand in a larger,successful bid by the town for £8m ofnew external public funding. The localauthority has now put in place a plan tocreate ‘pocket allotments’ across thetown and support the development of asocial enterprise restaurant to purchaseproduce grown locally in future andrealise revenue to invest in futuregrowing seasons.22

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICEThe implication of the projects inCastleford and Middlesbrough is thatthere are routes to regeneration that aremore closely aligned to local identity,local taxpayers and human behaviour —and that innovative involvement ofcommunities on a town-wide scale canact as a catalyst to a longer-termsustainable shift in policy and values.

A second implication is that smallertowns and cities have idiosyncratic



Figure 4: The Middlesbrough Meal

Image courtesy of Dott 07 (Designs of the time), Design Council and One North East.

good customer service, to residents andtaxpayers alike.

It is also vital that the area in whichthe initiative takes place has strategicambition and confidence, reflected in aclear understanding on the part of localauthorities and regional development ofthe strategic case for larger-scaleregeneration.

There are also three key strands ofthinking that any initiating agent needs tounderstand. First, the agency needs tohave a broad, enlightened understandingof what constitutes the asset base of anarea and be committed to innovative waysof unlocking and exploiting its value. In2005, policy thinker Geoff Mulgan wrotean important paper for the Commissionfor Architecture and the BuiltEnvironment that drew an analogybetween building spaces, trust and themodern financial markets. Mulgan wrotethat derivatives markets ‘Recognise andthen organise hidden values and assets inways that allow new value to becaptured’.24 Just as developers such asigloo Regeneration and Blueprint havepioneered new forms of public–privatepartnership, and local authorities such asCroydon have invented broader-basedinvestment vehicles for the regenerationof their centres, Mulgan hints at — andthe projects in Castleford andMiddlesbrough represent — an innovativeplatform for renewal and a newcombination of human and land assets.

Second, the agent needs to be inspiredby the value of communication and itsdesign. In the 1970s, John Gardnerfounded the non-profit, non-partisancitizen’s lobbying organisation CommonCause. He was also the former USSecretary of Health, Education, andWelfare under President Lyndon Johnson.In a book published in 1970, Gardnerwrote: ‘Communication in a healthysociety must be more than a flow ofmessages; it must be a means of conflict

energy supply via third-party providerssuch as Energy Services Companies.

Projects similar to Castleford andMiddlesbrough can be achievedelsewhere by local authorities or privatesector developers by connecting top-levelstrategy and grassroots activity bydesigning and delivering humanresource-rich, mid-level programmeslinked to the redevelopment oflarge-scale sites.

It is important that there is acommitment to open public planningand that the project programme isallowed to grow organically. What is alsoimportant is for local governmentleadership to press for work acrossservice delivery arms. The new Housingand Communities Agency and UrbanRegeneration Companies could apply asimilar methodology to priority schemesand areas by enabling initiative thatconnects strategy with the grassroots viaarea-wide action planning, and cross-silopublic participatory initiative. Inspired byparticipatory budgeting, local authoritiescould also set in train town-wide publicprocesses that set priority for theirspending.

Large-scale private investors in townsand cities could abandon conventional‘community consultation’ programmesand seek and capture the power andreturn of investment in socialinfrastructure by ensuring that theirSection 106 payments and othercontributions and levies are used todevelop networks of local people andorganisations.

What is important is that words like‘consultation’, ‘engagement’, even‘involvement’, are abandoned in favourof something else; that marketing playssecond fiddle to establishing and creatingnew alliances of people and organisations;that any initiative is seen as an adjunct tothe existing statutory, democraticfunctions of government and is seen as


Barrie

infrastructure. Parkinson underlined thevalue of local efficiency and innovation.27

On one level, this has to mean thedesign and development of moresustainable projects. Most public andprivate sector organisations involved inregeneration, however, continue tobelieve that sustainability meansadditional cost and the sacrifice of value.

Hundreds of millions of pounds worthof new investment in Castleford and theincreasing supply of locally grown foodto Middlesbrough — one of thecountry’s unhealthiest towns — proveotherwise.

These returns suggest that bigger andbetter regeneration results can beachieved by setting up comprehensive,popular, participatory regeneration‘vehicles’.

And the fact that second-stage work istaking place in successive years in bothplaces suggests that, once such a processhas been set in motion, it can beself-sustaining, provided that it is allowedto follow its own momentum and notbound tightly into Treasury spendingcycles.

Is it time to stop seeing regeneration asa war game, but an opportunity to carryout profitable, self-sustaining innovation?Is it also time to stop seeing supportingrate and taxpayers as ‘communityinvolvement’, but as ‘customer service’?Working constructively and imaginativelywith customers is not a matter of ethics. Itis good business practice — and paysdividends.

David Blood is managing partner ofGeneration Investment Management, aboutique asset management firm that hefounded in 2004 with former AmericanVice-President Al Gore. Blood believesthat a sustainable approach to business isin the best interests of shareholders.

‘Sustainability issues around the environment,climate change, corporate culture, community

resolution, a means of cutting throughthe rigidities that divide and paralyse acommunity.’25

Finally, the agent needs to appreciatethe value of networks to effective publicmanagement and see their role asmediators, not just managers of the publicrealm. In 2004, the former mayor ofIndianapolis Stephen Goldsmith andWilliam Eggars, global director at DeloitteResearch, Public Sector wrote apioneering book on managinggovernment in the digital age. Goldsmithand Eggars emphasised the role ofnetworks in a world of privatisedgovernment, services and sprawlinglogistics chains and the role and value ofprivate integrators in rationalising and actingas a catalyst to change. They wrote:

‘A network that delivers effective public servicesdoesn’t just happen. Someone must first figureout how to fuse a collection of private andpublic organisations into a seamless servicedelivery system. The job of the networkdesigner is to identify possible partners, bring allof the relevant stakeholders to the table, analyzethe current in-house operations, determine andcommunicate to all members the expectationsof how the network will function, assemble andenmesh the pieces of the network, devisestrategies to maintain the network, and, finally,activate it. The designer faces the challenge ofcreating a model malleable enough toaccommodate each partner, dynamic enough toadjust to changing circumstances, but fixedenough in mission to serve the common goal.’26

CONCLUSIONIn his recent report on the impact of therecession on urban regeneration,Professor Michael Parkinson highlightedthe importance and value of taking along-term view of development. Hedrew attention to the opportunityslowdown affords the public sector toreview and develop its approach tocommunity, as well as physical,



Trust’, available at http://www.castlefordheritagetrust.org.uk/ (accessed 7th May, 2009).

7. For Channel 4 Television and public servicebroadcasting see ‘Next on 4’, available athttp://www.channel4.com/about4/next_on4.html, last accessed on 7th May, 2009. TheCastleford Project was broadcast on Channel 4Television in August 2008 in a series of fourone-hour programmes, presented by KevinMcCloud.

8. Additional new investment in Castleford includesplans for commercial development of the towncentre by Edinburgh House Estates Ltd andlarge-scale residential development by AmenburyEstates and Paloma Ltd. More at ‘£50m faceliftfor former pit town’, available athttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/4025073.stm (accessed 7th May, 2009).

9. An independent evaluation of the Project hasbeen prepared by the Young Foundation — notavailable at time of publication.

10. For more on participating planning exemplars,see Wates, N. (1996), ‘Action planning’, ThePrince of Wales’s Institute of Architecture,London. For the Main Street movement, seehttp://www.mainstreet.org

11. Tuan, Y. F. (1977), ‘Space and place: Theperspective of experience’, University ofMinnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.

12. Quoted in Riedl, J. and Kostan, J. (2002), ‘Wordof mouse: The marketing power of collaborativefiltering’, Warner Books, New York.

13. Anonymous quote sourced from the Internet.No reference available.

14. Foster, H. (2001), ‘Why all the hoopla?’, LondonReview of Books, available athttp://www.lrb.co.uk/v23/n16/fost01_.html

15. Yorkshire Forward (2005), ‘Five towns strategicdevelopment framework’, Yorkshire Forward,Leeds.

16. ‘Parmo’, available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmo (accessed 7th May, 2009).

17. ‘Raising hope’, available athttp://www.middlesbrough.gov.uk/ccm/navigation/council--government-and-democracy/mayor--councillors-and-political-structures/mayor/?page=5# (accessed 7th May,2009).

18. BioRegional’s breakdown of the UK carbonfootprint is available at http://www.bioregional.com/programme_projects/opl_prog/principles.htm (accessed 17th May, 2009).

19. A full account of the project and of Dott07 isavailable at ‘Designs of the time 2007: urbanfarming’, available athttp://www.dott07.com/go/food/urban-farming(accessed 7th May, 2009).

20. ‘The really super market’, available athttp://www.visitmima.com/media/News.php?id=17 (accessed on 7th May, 2009).

21. For more on continuous productive urbanlandscapes, see Viljoen, A. (2005), ‘Continuous

engagement and how companies attract andretain employees are drivers of businessperformance.

The very best businesses can usesustainability to drive revenues, profitabilityand competitive positioning.’28

In their support and involvement inprojects in Castleford andMiddlesbrough, Wakefield MetropolitanDistrict Council, Middlesbrough Council,One North East, Yorkshire Forward,English Partnerships, British Waterways,the Design Council, Arts Council andmany other organisations have pledgedallegiance to this flag.

Is it time for all of us to follow suit?For local government to understandsustainability as effective publicmanagement, not just a route tocountering climate change; for privatesector property developers to see publicinvestment as an instrument of long-termvalue, not just public relations; and forall of us to see urban regeneration as aprocess of social innovation, not war?

Notes and References1. See Dobson, J., ‘The great community

empowerment heist’, available athttp://livingwithrats.blogspot.com/2009/05/great-community-empowerment-heist.html (accessed7th May, 2009).

2. Conservative Party (2009), ‘Control shift:Returning power to local communities’, PolicyGreen Paper No. 9, Conservative Party, London.

3. For more on ‘green technology’, rather than‘sustainability’, see work by design writer JohnThackara, via http://www.thackara.com/(accessed 7th May, 2009).

4. Girardet, H. (2007), ‘Schumacher briefings 2:Creating sustainable cities’, Green Books, Totnes,p. 73.

5. ‘Castleford Regeneration: Kevin McCloud andthe Big Town Plan’, available athttp://www.channel4.com/4homes/on-tv/kevin-s-big-town-plan/ (accessed 7th May,2009).

6. More on community engagement in issues ofheritage in Castleford can be found in Smith, L.(2006), ‘The slate wiped clean? Heritage,memory and landscape in Castleford, WestYorkshire, England’, in ‘Uses of heritage’,Routledge, Oxford. Also ‘Castleford Heritage


Barrie

confidence’, W. W. Norton, New York.26. Goldsmith, S. and Eggers, W. D. (2004),

‘Governing by network: The new shape of thepublic sector’, The Brookings Institution,Washington.

27. Parkinson, M., Ball, M. and Key, T. (2009), ‘Thecredit crunch and regeneration: Impact andimplications’, Department of Communities andLocal Government, London.

28. Willman, J. (2008), ‘Never a need to sacrificereturns: Interview with David Blood’, FinancialTimes, 3rd June, available athttp://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/616021fe-3109-11dd-bc93-000077b07658.html (accessed 17thMay, 2009).

productive urban landscapes: Designing urbanagriculture for sustainable cities’, ArchitecturalPress, London.

22. ‘Middlesbrough Meal 2008’, available athttp://www.visitnortheastengland.com/site/whats-on/mm08-middlesbrough-meal-08-p158241/site/bookonline (accessed 7th May, 2009).

23. For more on this, see Bhide, A. (2008), ‘Theventuresome economy’, Princeton UniversityPress, Princeton, NJ.

24. Mulgan, G., Matarasso, F. and Madanipour, A.(2005), ‘Physical capital: how great places boostpublic value’, Commission for Architecture andthe Built Environment, London.

25. Gardner, J. W. (1970), ‘The recovery of



Date post:	17-Nov-2014
Category:	Documents
Upload:	david-barrie
View:	373 times
Download:	1 times

Regeneration as Social Innovation, Not a War Game

Documents