more time in the family space of the home and less time in youth spaces in the neighbourhood. Relocation of social networks also led some participants to feel more vulnerable about using public spaces in the neighbourhood:
Janet: I used to have a friend that was in here, that I feel safe going with all the times, but they all moved houses
[Janet, 14 years, Sighthill, w1, home interview]
Similar to Jenny, Janet found that as her friends began to be relocated, she spent less time in the public spaces of the neighbourhood. Janet also described that many of the informal social connections she had in the neighbourhood were linked with her friends who had left, and therefore felt like she was no longer able to rely on these connections.
For other participants, the potential risk of isolation associated with friends relocating was negotiated through a combination of social media and, if the relocation was over a short distance, high school attendance. Girls were more likely to talk about using Facebook or other social media to keep in touch with friends who had moved away. Boys were more likely to talk about keeping in touch through playing in the same football teams, or through walking to meet friends who had moved. For example Mark in Shawbridge described spending most of his time in a nearby neighbourhood since his friend relocated.
6.5.3 Expectations for the future of the regeneration neighbourhood
Similar to other UK studies of regeneration (Fitzpatrick et al., 2000, Goldson, 2003, Goodwin and Young, 2013), none of the participants in this study
described being formally informed by GHA regarding the future of their
neighbourhood. Instead, they described reading letters addressed to their parent (Jenny, 15 years, Shawbridge), or talking to their parents regarding what was going to happen to the family after relocation (Johnny, 11 years, Shawbridge,
Deena, 14 years, Sighthill). They also described hearing other adults in the neighbourhood gossip about the potential regeneration decisions:
Claire: I got told that they were building something for, like, the Olympics, at first, and then I got told they were building houses and selling them. Then they’re telling people, like, they told people if they moved they’ll get a house in Sighthill – so they must be building houses somewhere.
JN: Yeah. So is it just like, kind of, people telling people? Like, no one’s officially said?
Claire: No, nobody’s actually came out and said, “This is what’s happening.”
[Claire, 16 years, Sighthill, w1, go-along]
Due to the lack of formal conversation between those responsible for the
regeneration strategy and young people who experienced the outcomes of these decisions, some of the participants described feeling confused regarding why some of the decisions were made, and relied on rumours heard around the neighbourhood. One of the main questions participants had was why their homes were being demolished in the first place:
Janet: I don’t get this, because this flat is staying, it’s not falling down, I don’t think so. This flat’s not falling down but how come most of the flats are falling down and they’ve just left two? There’s no, I don’t understand that. I don’t, like it doesn’t make sense to me.
[Janet, 14 years, Sighthill, w1, home interview]
Jenny: I’m not quite sure why they did this in the first place, I’m just wondering. The flats might have needed painted and stuff but there was nothing wrong with it.
[Jenny, 15 years, Shawbridge, w1, go-along]
As discussed in the previous chapter, despite the risks experienced in the HRF block, many of the participants were positive about their experiences there.
Rather than demolition, many discussed hoping the blocks would be remodelled rather than demolished, thus reducing physical problems in the HRF, while sustaining the sense of community. This was an opinion often raised by
participants who knew friends who lived in remodelled HRF blocks in North Glasgow:
Claire: The flats were good. I think if they done them up and made them look nice, like the ones over in [nearby neighbourhood] – the people still do want to stay in Sighthill. If you’ve been brought up, you’re used to it
[Claire, 16 years, Sighthill, w1, go-along]
This suggestion highlighted that residents may be of the opinion ‘better the devil you know’, and would wish to stay rather than begin to make new connections in a new neighbourhood due to the presence of social capital resources and other resilience pathways. This sentiment was shared by other participants in Sighthill, including Shelly (14 years, Sighthill) who suggested that even though she was looking forward to moving to a bigger and better home she would miss Sighthill
“probably because I’ve grown up here an’ that”.
Some participants suggested they were cynical about the ability of regeneration to change the social environment of the neighbourhoods:
Patrick: I don’t think anything’ll change, except like the flats getting pulled down
[Patrick, 16 years, Shawbridge, w1, home interview]
Jenny: Erm, I think it’s the same place but new houses. I don’t think there will be a big rise in people wanting to come and see the new flats
[Jenny, 15 years, Shawbridge, w1, go-along]
This may be due in part to the lack of information that participants were given regarding the regeneration strategy for the neighbourhood. For the participants in Shawbridge, who were already witnessing the re-development of their
neighbourhood, the lack of engagement with the decision making process meant that they were unclear as to what else was going to be developed in the
neighbourhood apart from houses. For participants who had strong feelings regarding the levels of ASB in their neighbourhood, this also informed their prediction regarding regeneration:
Johnny: There’s nae point stickin’ something doon in this place, it’ll just get broken again…even if it was a good place, it’ll still be a shitehole after it.
[Johnny, 11 years, Shawbridge, w1, go-along]
As much of their neighbourhood experience was connected to the negotiation and management of ASB, it was unsurprising that for some of the participants, the negative “nothing will change” attitude was related to their current
experience of the neighbourhood. Johnny suggested that while the regeneration may result in positive environmental changes, the ‘risky’ people in the
neighbourhood would remain in the neighbourhood.
6.6 Discussion
Due to its slow pace, the experience of regeneration was interwoven into participants’ everyday lives; the changing population, the sight of demolished buildings, and cleared sites were the backdrop of their adolescence. The
changes and consistencies of the neighbourhood brought about by regeneration enabled participants to make new meanings within the neighbourhood spaces (Kraftl et al, 2013). This meaning making included the creation of new youth spaces through demolition of old buildings, but also the creation of new risk spaces including the derelict buildings awaiting demolition in both
neighbourhoods.
On the other hand, the negotiation of the regeneration of the neighbourhood was often described and discussed as a continuation of what has always been:
young people continued to attend the youth club, meet their friends, play games, and hang out. While the regeneration of the neighbourhood created new risk spaces, their fears and understandings of social risk were also seen as a continuation: “junkies”, dangerous teenagers, strangers, and anyone who goes to the park at night.
The effects of social change caused by regeneration on young people’s everyday lives appeared to manifest itself in fluctuating perceptions of risk and changes to their resources for resilience in the neighbourhood. While participants described being “used to” the older and more established social issues of the
neighbourhood (such as high crime rate, vandalism and other ASB such as public drinking), the presence of new risk caused new vulnerabilities. This was
connected to relocation of existing tenants who had previously provided the informal social control in the public spaces of the neighbourhood, and the introduction of people in the HRF block who were unknown to the participants.
The lack of knowledge regarding these individuals meant their behaviour was perceived as more unpredictable. Due to the unpredictable nature of the risk, they feel more vulnerable. On the other hand, other participants felt that the reduction of the resident population meant the neighbourhood was quieter and less risky because those who posed a risk in the past were relocated.
One of the other risks of regeneration was that of friends relocating outside of the neighbourhood, thereby reducing the bonding social capital of the
neighbourhood. However, some participants described being able to cope with these changes by keeping in contact with friends through social media or, if the relocation was over a short distance, travelling to meet them.
Therefore to examine how participants experienced both the neighbourhood, and the changes within the neighbourhood, I return again to the “ordinary magic” of resilience (Masten, 2001). The resilience of participants can be seen as a complex web of social interactions, social and cultural capital, place belonging, and family relationships (Lerner and Benson, 2003, Masten, 2001).
Rather than being passive members of the community, or being victims of their circumstances, the participants in this study highlighted the different ways in which young people actively make, and re-make, meaning within their lives in reaction to the changes currently being undertaken at the macro-level.
Until now, these results have focused on the interactions between the individual and their wider surrounding contexts, the home and the neighbourhood. The following chapter takes a more in-depth look at the participants and discusses their own individual transitions that occurred during the fieldwork period (2011-2012) in order to place regeneration in the wider context of the participants’
lives. Focusing on the interviews conducted in wave two, the chapter suggests ways in which the resources identified as important in negotiating risk in
Chapters five and six, were also important when discussing personal change and critical moments in the participants’ individual biographies.
Chapter seven: Individual experience of change
As mentioned throughout this thesis, these young people’s everyday lives were being experienced within and through neighbourhood change. While the previous chapter discussed this in terms of the participants’ experiences of living in a neighbourhood undergoing physical and social change, the current chapter examines how change was experienced and negotiated at the individual level.
The chapter explores change in a number of ways: relocation of participants to their new home (examining both expectations and experiences), and other significant biographical changes that occurred during the 2011-12 fieldwork period. While most experienced relocation, their individual experiences of this change differed, often due to variations within their ability to access resources.
Within this chapter, these changes are discussed using the concept of “critical moments” (Thomson et al., 2002). Previously, Thomson et al used the term to highlight biographical events in young people’s lives that have important
consequences of their lives or for their identity. In Thomson et al’s studies, they described that the critical moment was sometimes an event that was outside of the young person’s control, although the consequences of the event were influential and longlasting, and were often seen as having the power to impact on overall transitions or wellbeing. In terms of the current study, relocation of family can be seen an example of this. The decision to relocate families came from the macro policy level, and was outside of the control of the residents in the neighbourhood. However, it is likely that by relocating young people to different neighbourhoods, it may have a longlasting effect on their lives. This chapter examines the immediate impact of relocation and how participants negotiated and experienced the consequences and outcomes of relocation.
Thomson et al’s concept of critical moments also highlighted that these events may occur in tandem with other life events. Of interest to the current study is whether, in addition to relocation, whether other life events occurred that could be defined as “critical moments” and how young people adapted to these. Also whether the experience of biographical critical imoments was influenced by, or influenced, the experience of relocation. Therefore the chapter begins by examining participants’ experiences of relocation, before moving to discuss