Social sustainability is a multifaceted concept and it is as complex and complicated as the concept of urban renewal. These two concepts are tightly interconnected and has been that way from the very beginning of urban renewal, from those very first thoughts in the 19th century; that the slums needed to be renewed to provide better living conditions. One can argue, thought, that even if the social issues initially were voiced in projects such as those in the U.S.A. in the 1950s and 1960s and those in China in the late 1980s – they tend to be forgotten in the process. In fact it seems that in many cases that the initial people the project aimed to benefit, later were excluded and forced away from the areas once they had been renewed. Karen Leeming (2010) p. 152, argues that: “It can
hardly be considered a successful urban renewal when the needs and whishes of a group of people never actually make it onto the agenda of the redevelopment agencies because they do not fulfill the criteria to live there after regeneration has taken place.”
Urban renewal developments are meant to improve the city for its people, to efficiencies the areas that no longer are used, to provide e.g. new residential areas. Urban renewal is a way
Results
for cities to grow through densification instead of urban sprawl and it is a way for cities to distinguish themselves worldwide and show their success and innovations. With urban renewal there is a possibility to build away issues such as socioeconomical differences and segregation, and it is a way to develop a city into becoming more socially sustainable. When discussing the cities of Melbourne and Stockholm one can argue that they are very different from each other - a new city vs. an old located a world apart. However, they share a common problem; they are both cities with a large socioeconomic gap. With the large and innovational urban renewal developments of Melbourne Docklands and Hammarby Sjöstad the cities had an opportunity to start changing into becoming more socially sustainable with less of a socioeconomic gap. Both of the projects could have shown the way for future projects and been role models in this matter, both within the cities but also nation- and worldwide.
It is, however, my conclusion that neither Melbourne Docklands nor Hammarby Sjöstad can be called socially sustainable neighborhoods and although one can argue that Hammarby Sjöstad might be the better of the two – mostly for its more abundant public green spaces and its closeness to
a large recreational area, better environmentally sustainability, a local environment planned for walking rather than driving and its low crime rates, the city district is still not socially inclusive. One can argue that the issue of social exclusiveness, in fact, is the largest flaw in both Melbourne Docklands and Hammarby Sjöstad and the poor social mix in the areas due to this, the city districts most regrettable part.
To whom is the city built? In the cases of Melbourne Docklands and Hammarby Sjöstad it seems like the neighborhoods have been built for a rather small group of people in the city, hence excluding a large group of people and mainly those unable to afford living in the areas. Of course one can discuss the necessity of a social mix in a neighborhood, but to quote Björn Cederquist (2014): “The mixture is certainly more important
than we really understand…” In the example of
London Docklands the lack of a social mix has - arguable, caused the area to lack sociability and being less socially sustainable why it is unfortunate that Melbourne Docklands and Hammarby Sjöstad does not have a better social mix.
Key points to consider in URD
117
established that should be considered in urban renewal when wanting to create a socially sustainable neighborhood. Of all the key points to consider it was one of them that stood out more than the others because it was established in both of the case studies: The cost of living in
an area is the most crucial factor when creating a social mix in a neighborhood since expensive living (more than anything) exclude the marginalized people of the society. As obvious as this statement
might be it has still been proven to be truthful and important in the cases of Melbourne Docklands and Hammarby Sjöstad, and one can argue that social sustainability cannot truly be accomplished without the consideration of this one statement.
The key points, that all are presented on the next spread, can be divided into the four groups of contributing factors to social sustainability, 1-8 concerns social services & accessibility, 9-15 concerns social mixing & social inclusion, 16-23 concerns the overall form & function and 24-27 concerns social networks & stability. The key points are either pink, blue or white, the pink representing the key points learned from the case study of Melbourne Docklands, the blue presenting the key points learned from case study of Hammarby Sjöstad and the single white key point, number 9, is the one mentioned previously that was established in both of the case studies.
From the key points concerning social services & accessibility the necessity for some social services i.a. mentioned and especially that of schools and day care centers. The key points stress the fact that social services such these should not be overlooked, that they need to be planned early in the project and that the lack of such services can lead to that people forces to move from the area or that it even can prevent people from moving there in the first place.
From the key points concerning social mixing & social inclusion are the issues of unoccupied housing i.a. declared as well as the conversion of rental housing to condominiums. Moreover, these key points state that urban renewal should not merely be seen as a way to expand the city and make a profit but rather as a second chance and an opportunity to improve the social situation of the city.
The key points concerning the overall form & function of urban renewal states, i.a., that urban renewal developments have the power to
greatly impact how the issue of sustainability is handled in a city. That one should consider the human scale when planning and that in order to create a good local environment in an urban renewal development aesthetic goals needs to be established and money invested to create good parks and public areas.
Finally the key points concerning social networks & stability states i.a., that a well- established community center is the heart of a neighborhood, that the community activities need to reach all different groups of the society and that when working with urban renewal development one should realize that an area can be planned in a way that crimes can be minimized.
In the following spread all of the key points are presented as the final results of this thesis.
Social sustainability in urban renewal -
the viewpoint of a landscape architect
Many of the key points that was established from the case studies are influenced by the physical structure of the neighborhood. As a landscape architect the physical structure and form of an urban renewal development is particularly interesting to study. This is what our profession most can affect and alter and therefore it is important to understand how the physical structure of a neighborhood can make it more socially sustainable. One can argue that a well-planned physical structure of a neighborhood can make it more likeable and livable, hence more socially sustainable. A strong identity and a sense of place contribute to the creation of a soul within a neighborhood, which is crucial for the well-being of people.A poor physical structure can have the opposite effect to a neighborhood. Taking the city district of Bijmermeer as an example, where the physical structure was considered the biggest flaw of the area and the main reason to its social issues and deterioration. To be able to improve the situation in Bijmermeer the physical structure needed to be renewed – it was not enough to improve e.g. the social services in the area. The effect of the physical structure is very hard to change without actually changing the layout in itself e.g. fact that Melbourne Docklands has very tall buildings is something that is very hard to correct without tearing the buildings down. Since the physical structure is difficult to alter, one can argue it should be carefully planned in an urban
renewal development.
The projects of Melbourne Docklands and Hammarby Sjöstad were approached very differently. Hammarby Sjöstad was planned much more in detail than Melbourne Docklands where the developers more or less were (and continuing to be) free to do what they wanted. One could perhaps say that this represent the countries in which the projects are situated, where Sweden is much more restricted and structured, Australia is more free spirited and not as bound by restrictions. Arguable, these approaches both have positive and negative features, however (and perhaps I am a bit biased), one can argue Hammarby Sjöstad have a better physical structure indicating that in these two cases its approach is to be preferred. Arguable, many of the issues with the physical structure of Melbourne Docklands such as the lack of green spaces, the (to the most part) poor local environment and the too large of a scale resulting in a neighborhood better planned for people driving than walking are all due to the fact that the market was allowed to develop Melbourne Docklands seemingly as they pleased.
With the physical structure or layout one can also question whether there is a good balance between private- and public spaces, whether it is a good balance between the functions of the buildings and whether there is enough public green spaces in the area. The importance of sufficient public green spaces in a neighborhood cannot be overstated since it is one of the few places within the city where people of all background can meet without e.g. needing to purchase something. The public green spaces contributes to an increased integration and social cohesion and provides conditions for improved general health conditions as well as democracy and welfare. From the example of the Cheonggyecheon stream the importance of a public green space is attested, since the presence of the recreational area made the living conditions better for the people living close by as well as it improved the air quality and reduced the noise pollution in the entire city. Whether Melbourne Docklands and Hammarby Sjöstad has enough public green spaces is hard to determine, however Hammarby Sjöstad has less than half the amount of public green spaces than the city of Stockholm while Melbourne Docklands has almost only a third of the amount of public green spaces as Hammarby Sjöstad has.