Evaluación del módulo Procesos de venta

During the period 2004-2011 the Spanish Government undertook activities consisting of the development of acts, propositional and guideline documents, creation of networks of exchange and benchmarking initiatives, and regeneration instruments (such as the Urban Initiative - Iniciativa Urbana- or the National Plan of Housing and Rehabilitation 2009-2011 -Plan Nacional de Vivienda y Rehabilitación 2009-2011) for the regeneration of deprived neighbourhoods. This set of actions was based on a reflection on the urban fabric and revealed a new interest in urban regeneration in stark contrast with the previously passive role played by the Central Administration. The focus and intensity, of this programme of activities had no precedent and made a significant contribution to the practice of urban regeneration. Indeed, a review reveals that the action undertaken by the Central Government could be seen as initiating real transformation in Spanish urban regeneration practice. It put urban regeneration in the centre of sustainable urban development in order to stop

but it is a necessary step towards change in a country traditionally characterized by a fragmented, sectoral and non-participative approach in urban rehabilitation initiatives (De Gregorio, 2012).

The mentioned Urban Initiative and the National Plan of Housing and Rehabilitation, launched by the Central Government in 2007 and 2009 respectively, are based on the URBAN Community Initiative¹³, reproducing explicitly its collaborative and integrated approach, as well as other methodological aspects (such as the area-based approach, which concentrates economic and technical resources in deprived areas; the competitive bidding; or the six years timeline). As in URBAN, the most powerful transformative elements in both initiatives are the assumption of an integrated approach (that entails to act in the social, economic and environmental dimensions of urban decline) and the collaborative approach (that entails multi-level collaboration in the implementation of the regeneration initiatives, the cooperation of the relevant departments of the different levels of governments and public participation in order to open the regeneration project and its implementation to the local community). The combination of these elements aims to transform governance structures through the implementation of regeneration instruments in cities.

The 46 Iniciativa Urbana programmes (2007-2013) have not yet finished¹⁴, and so it is not possible to undertake an analysis based on their final results. Looking at the outputs of the round of projects to which the Iniciativa Urbana aims to give continuity (the 10 programmes of the URBAN II Community Initiative implemented in Spain during the period 2000-2007), it is possible to say that the development of the integrated and collaborative approach in the Spanish case have given place to the transformation of all the dimensions of governance regarding urban regeneration, acting as a

“seed” of slow transformation. It has been particularly successful in the case of inter-departmental governance, which has benefited the inter-sectoral approach of the programmes, delivering more holistic strategies able to tackle the different dimensions of urban depravatio. In the case of the multi-level governance, the role of the regions was minimised, something that the Iniciativa Urbana has tried to avoid from the beginning, trying to involve regions in the implementation of the instrument as crucial stakeholders. This is a key aspect in a country where the competences on urban areas were devolved to cities and regions at the end of the 70’s and the beginning of the 80’s.

Regarding public participation the results show that a different approach was applied by the 10 cities where the URBAN II programmes were implemented: a minority of cities implemented real participation, giving the local community the opportunity to have a say in the development of the proposal and the implementation of the measures; most of the cities developed participation processes that integrated the request of the local community in the proposal for action, but didn’t allow it to act as an active actor during the implementation of the regeneration programme. Finally a minority of cities implemented participation processes that consisted only in the provision of information to the local community. The strategies developed by the different programmes were implemented on the base of criteria that minimized, biased or reduced to information the participation processes, making visible the inertias that operate in the Spanish case regarding this particular matter (De Gregorio, 2012). The observation of the URBAN II projects identifies the necessity of supporting the transformation of the urban governance framework in the Spanish case, particularly regarding: the integration of the action developed by the different tiers of government,

13 The evolution of the Spanish practice of urban regeneration has being highly influenced by the urban policy of the European Union, and specially by its more specific instrument, the URBAN Community Initiative, that was implemented in the country through the development of 39 programmes from 1994 to 2007 (De Gregorio, 2012).

14 They will be completely finished in 2 years.

and the openness of the planning processes to all the actors with a stake in the areas where the regeneration programmes are implemented.

2.3 UK: Beyond the ‘Urban Renaissance’ and ‘Neighbourhood

Renewal’

Since the late 1990’s urban regeneration in the UK has been significantly driven by two policy strands - these are commonly referred to as ‘Urban Renaissance’ and ‘Neighbourhood Renewal’.

The distinct but broadly complimentary approaches arose principally from the documents ‘Towards an Urban Renaissance’ (Rogers 1999) and ‘Bringing Britain Together: A national strategy for neighbourhood renewal’ (SEU 1998).

Urban Renaissance emphasised increased densification of urban development in declining towns and city centres as a means to encourage inward commercial investment and urban living. Coupled with a significant focus on design, it sought to achieve this with the creation of high quality and attractive urban environments. This was a distinctly European vision of the city with Barcelona explicitly being heralded as an ideal model. Positive change through good design and the regeneration of urban fabric underpinned this approach. The focus of Neighbourhood Renewal strategies differed somewhat in the sense that regeneration was more explicitly socially-driven specifically targeting deprived neighbourhoods. This was less about material renewal and more about tackling education, worklessness and health, and was in many ways a direct response to the

‘top-down’ approach to urban regeneration as typified by the Urban Development Corporations (UDCs) of the previous decade (Deakin and Edwards 1993). UDCs were essentially private planning bodies with the power to grant local planning permissions, compulsory purchase land for development, and to manage the land as necessary for their objectives. Whilst this was deemed necessary at the time to attract private investment UDCs were not strategic plan-making bodies and were also not bound by the strategic plans of local authorities. The partnership approach adopted both in Urban Renaissance and Neighbourhood Renewal policies a decade later sought to address this.

Whilst Urban Renaissance adopted a relatively targeted approach to city centre regeneration of architecture and public realm, Neighbourhood Renewal incorporated local partnerships (between local communities, local and national government agencies and private industry) as a mechanism to bid for resources to finance more community-focussed regeneration. By including social and environmental dimensions along with the economic, a more holistic approach to tackling urban deprivation was sought. However, reflecting upon renewal strategies and the associated gentrification of urban centres, Grainger (2010) asks:

"[...] whether urban areas have improved beyond flagship and amenity developments and new retail centres and water-fronts. In other words, is urban renewal, which is captured in its most explicit form in construction works and aesthetic investment in city centres, leading to actual lasting change or resolution of problems in those localities?" (Ibid 2010, p.9)

whether there is sufficient capacity across multiple governance layers within local authorities to deliver these aspirations:

“Urban regeneration appears to have returned to the 1980s with the driving force being economic growth in response to the credit crunch and resulting global financial crisis and economic recession in the UK. At the same time, the philosophy of localism has been promoted and the regional level governance has been abolished. Limited additional resources have been provided by central government for these policies, with the emphasis being on encouraging market forces and attracting development to particular areas of cities.” (Tallon 2013, p.114)