4A.11 Flashcards
How can the success of urban regeneration schemes vary
- Urban regeneration strategies are not always successful
- Some schemes are made with particular political motives. These tend to show their age and end up negatively associated with the specific era of their building e.g post Second World War brutalist redevelopment planning to replace urban centre bomb damage
What do modern regeneration schemes aim to do
Modern regeneration schemes aim to take into account a broader range of public opinion in order to create a contested urban space
-They can be either funded by the private or public sector
-Contestation within local communities can involve different groups and attitudes e.g NIMByism and stakeholders that have different criteria to judge the success of a project
Which elements of the Olympic park regeneration were privately funded
- Stratford Westfield is an example of a retail led development
- Westfield (Australian company) has a £50 million pound stake and borrowed £700 million to build it
- It’s recovering it’s costs by leasing retail space
- it has added a £1 billion turnover to the local economy
Which elements of the regeneration can be labelled as public investment
- The London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games resulted after the uk government made a bid
- They cost £9.3 billion to host but costs were recovered on tickets , TV sponsorship and the sale of the athletes village following the games
- The project was delivered on time, within budget and at a profit
- Services and infrastructure are provided where they are needed
(Different views on success of regeneration from private funded Westfield
What is an example of a public- private partnership
- The London docklands was portrayed as a market led regeneration but actually involved government land and financial grants
- Property developers ensured the regeneration would create economic growth, jobs and housing
-The government regarded costs as an economic investment as well as being socially advantageous
What are the views of stakeholders within the people on the Olympic park regeneration project
- Increased prices have made local property unaffordable ~ promoting a negative outlook on the scheme among former residents
- The athletes village replaced social housing (clays lane estate) relocating 450 residents across London and breaking up a community
- The plan to create 3000 affordable houses has been reduced to 800, ultimately not successful for local stakeholders
What are the views of environmental stakeholders
- The Olympic park has been cleaned up and re-landscaped - pleasing environmental stakeholders
- new wetlands, breeding boxed and Greenland has increased the numbers of newts , birds, bats ect -again pleasing environmental stakeholders
How have local economy stakeholders been affected by the regeneration
- Old local economy stakeholders have not benefited from the regeneration
- 207 companies employing 5000 people were forced to move
- Evicted businesses and companies did face compensation for the move however there were still objections as it meant a longer commute post- relocation
- Despite this, it did also allow new businesses to set up and flourish in the area
How was the regional government involved in the Olympic park regeneration
- The mayor of London and London assembley were responsible for ensuring efficient transport
- They had a role in supporting housing expansion and development of the east London economy post 2012
- Overall they would have been pleased with the regeneration due to its success in rejuvenating the east London economy
How did the local government play a role as a stakeholder in the regeneration of the Olympic park
- Four local boroughs shared the Olympic project and all wanted regeneration post 2012
- They however had no planning control due to the power of LLDC
How did the central government agency (LLDC) become a stakeholder in the London Olympics
- The London legacy development corporation is an unelected agency funded by the government to oversee the legacy development
- Success criteria for them include usage of Olympic venues post 2012, increasing employment and more housing
- Positive view as they achieved their aims
Where may there be conflict between different stakeholders in the olympic park regeneration project
- environmental groups vs economic stakeholders
- wanted cleaning up of Lea valley and regreening of Olympic park vs didn’t want industrial sites shut down
- Regional governments vs local governments
- Viewed Stratford international building and Westfield as a success vs viewed breakup of local communities as unsuccessful
- Uk central government agency vs social stakeholders
- Viewed increase in tourism as a success vs increased unaffordable housing , revised housing targets and decreased social mobility = negative
What have the positives of the Olympic park been locally
- Increased access to facilities for sport and leisure
- Attracted investment and created employment
- increased environmental quality
- Increased housing availability
E,g international quarter with 400,000m2 new offices and 25000 new jobs
-residential areas of chobham manor and sweet water providing 9000 new homes by 2025
What have been the negative impacts of the regeneration locally
- Breakup of original communities
- failure to provide affordable housing (target reduced)
What have the positives of the scheme been nationally
- Increased national morale and social cohesion
- Economic investment and increased taxation revenues
- Tourism and a push towards sport and leisure
- international connectivity
