NATACIÓN EN EL ECUADOR

Many concepts such as Prestige and Flagship Project, entrepreneurial urbanism, gentrification and many more have gradually found their expression in the vocabulary of urban regeneration in recent years. Unfortunately, some of these terms generate debates regarding their underlying principles in aiding to deliver regeneration approach that promotes urban sustainability. This section reviews two of such concepts namely flagship projects, gentrification, and their role in urban regeneration. In so doing the researcher will be informed by policy proposition behind the

54| P a g e continuous use of gentrification and flagships/prestige projects in the delivery of urban regeneration.

4.4.1. The role of flagship and prestige project in urban regeneration and sustainable inner city creation

A flagship entails smaller projects implemented strategically to induce organic growth by changing the perceptions about particular urban areas, and to boost the local economic development. Prestige projects which Loftman et al. (1995) termed “a hybrid form of flagships” is employed in regeneration initiatives to attract investments, influence decision makers in business on both the local and international pedestal and to improve the image of previously economic depressed areas. Both approaches are perceived to play a catalytic role in urban regeneration (Bianchini et al., 1992).

Flagships emerged in the 1980s and early 1990s in Britain and in North American and European cities around the 1970s (Loftman et al., (1995). This kind of urban regeneration was mostly executed through public and private partnership. They emerged out of the popular central role of the private sector as the economic engine for reactivating declined urban areas, and the ancillary role of the public sector in ensuring the proper condition for private sector wealth creation (Temelová, 2006). Accordingly, property-led approach to urban revitalization often termed property - led regeneration became a dictate tool in facilitating this kind of approach to urban regeneration. Temelová (2013:3) indicated that this approach is “designed to encourage private investment and to direct it towards the regeneration of distressed urban areas”. Its advocators hold the assertion that this kind of approach produces evident of tangible signs of renewal; it is an undeniable place making mechanism and a catalyst of regeneration. In principle, they are meant to generate a multiplier effect beyond their immediate surrounding as a centre of investment attraction (Loftman et al,. 1995; Smyth, 1994). It is pursued with the notion that the implementation of prestige projects within the urban realm triggers a rippling effect and spin-off profits for the urban areas through investment attractions, job creation, increase property values, and emergence of new developments (Bianchini et al., 1992; Smyth, 1994). No wonder it is still adopted by policy makers as an effective tool to turn around the predicament of decline inner cities areas. Among the factors believed to have triggered the proliferation of flagship and

55| P a g e prestige projects are; the global restructuring of industries, increasing of global inter - urban competition, policy shift from social welfare towards economic development, unprecedented restrictions on the resources and functions of local government and duplication of apparent success stories on prestige and flagships projects (Loftman et al., (1995).

This approach has been condemned by many authors. Firstly, it is condemned on grounds of insufficient assessment of the true beneficiaries of prestige and flagship project. Furthermore, it is alleged for not addressing issues related to social equity. Other authors have argued that it promotes segmentation of spatial economy in the cities, by focuses on prime areas, which are strategic to private sector investment. Furthermore, it turns to be a vulnerable approach in this volatile global property market, which renders it a risky stimulus in creating a sustainable local economic regeneration (Barnekov et al., 1989; Boyle & Meyer, 1990; Hambleton, 1991). Harvey (1989) reckons that this kind of approach was a shift from managerial to a more entrepreneurial form of urban governance, which has made urban regeneration to evolve into banal flagship projects. This making cities more open to swift shifts in private capital and ownership to proactive private-led urban investments to maximize economic returns that do not solve intended problems present in the inner-city realm (Granger, 2010).

This kind of entrepreneurial strategic regeneration approach loaded with prestige and flagship projects has reframed the inner city areas with projects targeted to rebrand the image of inner cities, with prototype designed projects like shopping malls, water fronts and gated residential communities which now litters the cities, without addresses social and poverty related problems(Granger, 2010; Smyth, 1994).“ Like fashion in clothing, it has become a way of defining oneself to receive recognition, honour, and respect” likewise, flagships projects seem to be defining the image of the inner city to attract global investment, and not necessary facilitating the long-term creation of sustainable inner cities (Vandergrift, 2006). It is evident that despite the criticisms levelled against this approach to urban regeneration delivery, policy makers still adopt it as an effective tool to address inner city decline. City network, (2009:5) argue “South African‟s inner city renewal initiatives tend to emphasize on property-related interventions to the detriment of social and economic strategies.”

56| P a g e

4.4.2 Gentrification: an Approach to Urban Regeneration in sustainable Inner city creation

Generally, gentrification penetrated the inner cities in the 1970 and 1980s, and sunk down in the 1990s, this trend stirred countless scholarly predictions suggesting the ends to the phenomenon. Nonetheless, the phenomenon has escalated as inner cities still experiences regeneration delivered through gentrification (Smith & DeFilippis, 1999).This has ignited the debate on the detrimental effect of gentrification on urban reggeneration .

Debates on gentrification have expanded both in definition and in the nature of the gentrifier and the gentrified. The definition has expanded from “concentration on middle-class individuals who buy homes in poorer neighbourhoods for personal consumption, to broad definition of the production of space for progressively more affluent users” (Heeji et al., 2013). While, the nature has transcended from the original emphasis on young middle-class gentrifying working class termed „yuppification‟ (Criekingen, & Decroly, 2003) to include a variety of initiatives as office development, and commercial enterprise which are considered as gentrifies (Vandergrift, 2006 ; Heeji et al., 2013; Kloosterman & Leun, 1999). However, this reivew is not concerned with the debate regarding the definition of this concept, but instead on the impact of gentrification in of sustainable inner city creation. The then question is does gentrification which has now manifested in urban regeneration implimentations truly promote the long-term sustainability of the gentrified or they are fix quick initiatives aimed at quick economic returns, to eclipse the longterm sustainability of inner-cities?

Drawing from the works of Criekingen & Decroly (2003:2452) it is eveident that gentrification is alleged to transform “deprived inner-city neighbourhoods into new prestigious residential and consumption areas taken up by a new class of highly skilled and highly paid residents” at the detriment of the disenfranchised low income inner-city dwellers. The phenomenon creates evolutionary processes in neighbourhoods where wealthy households migrate to regenerated neighbourhoods to displace original residents mostly the low-income groups, due to high rental rates or excessive increase in property rate associated with gentrification. The primary subject regarding the debate on gentrification has always lingered around the resultant catastrophe displacement of original residents by entirely different residents with dissimilar socio economic and demographic characteristic (Bostic & Martin, 2003).

57| P a g e Premised on this assertion it is apparent that the phenomenon, does not promote social and economic sustainability, which unarguably are basic essentials for sustainable inner cities creation. The negative impact of gentrification in the inner-city realm is indistinguishable from its impact in neighbourhoods, perhaps with the only difference being the magnitude of impact. Nybor (2008:5) alluded that the “detrimental consequence of gentrification in the inner city has been displacement” of the urban poor not to mention the special inequalities it also perpetuates. Unfortunately gentrification which is becoming synonymous to urban regeneration is portrayed as a positive tool to effect dynamic changes in the inner city realm through reinvestment however, some literatures alludes that the phenomenon remains “a negative spatial expression of capitalism” (Granger, 2010 : 11; Lees et al., 2008 ). Moreover, it promotes socio spatial fragmentation and polarization of the inner city micro-spatial economy. As Granger, (2010: 11b) rightly put it as a phenomenon that mandates the „expression of class inequality‟ or „class revanchism‟. It could be argued that gentrification of inner city does not promote long-term sustainability of the city but a fix quick reinvestment initiative for economic returns. Nonetheless, Atkinson (2003) argues that gentrification appears to be much better than city decline since it is a proactive initiative to salvage a decaying district whose current land use pattern is out of touch with current trends.

4.4.3 Considerations

It is evident that gentrification is a better option than city decline; many view it as a proactive intervention, which realigns former incompatible, incongruous, unsustainable, outdated land use model to current trends with the intension of maximizing returns from investments. If this objective is presumed to be true, then the next question will be to find out who benefits and who loses in gentrification. Unfortunately, most urban regeneration approaches, which adopted gentrification as a tool for spatial realignment ends up regenerating the interest of the affluent while the poor suffers. Gentrification has gained the empathy of the entrepreneurial city that employs commercial gentrification, office development, and commercial enterprise to address decline in the inner city, as Zukav, S. (1982) has indicated. Certainly there is a dichotomy between urban revival of (depressed inner city areas) associated with urban regeneration and the

58| P a g e conscious effort to commercialise cities, raise land values Granger, (2010: 11) and to leverage on competitiveness

4.5. Correlation between Inner-City Decline and Urban Regeneration