Puesta en marcha de un cuadro de mando integral para la gestión municipal

While policies of regeneration may promote neighbourhood change as a way to address the negative issues of the neighbourhood, in the interim period where this study positions itself, regeneration may provide another ‘risky’

environment. The transition of a neighbourhood from deprived and ‘risky’ to the desired regeneration outcome may involve the social environment getting worse before it gets better. For the participants, the interim period was associated with derelict housing, relocation of friends and subsequent decrease in within-neighbourhood social capital, and the perceived or actual rise in antisocial behaviour.

6.5.2.1 New ‘risky’ spaces

The regeneration of the neighbourhoods also led to an increase in ‘risky’ spaces.

One of these spaces was the derelict buildings due for demolition. The exterior of these buildings were often vandalised, with windows smashed, or signs of forced entry. The images below illustrate two examples of these buildings in Sighthill.

Figure 17: Photography by JN of derelict flat in Sighthill

Figure 18: Photograph by Theo (11 years, Sighthill) of derelict flat

The process of relocation had decreased the population of the neighbourhood, leading to an increase in the number of empty or ‘cleared’ flats. Due to the decrease in residents, the informal social control of the neighbourhood also decreased, and the empty flats began to represent a new risk:

Christina: [shouting] OOH THE WINDAE’S FELL OOT! [Referring to the building in Figure 17]

Shelly: Someb’dys been in that Christina: Aye ye can well tell

JN: What do you mean? Like recently?

Christina: Aye because that windae wisnae away Shelly: That wisnae like that last week

Christina: That wisnae there two nights ago either, so that’s only happened last night or the-day

[Christina, 12 years; Shelly, 14 years; Sighthill, w1, go-along]

Patrick: The doors have been blocked off and everything.

Adam: Want to know something? There’s still lights in there, going on and off.

Patrick: Yes, but how are they meant to get in and out?

Adam: Back door.

Patrick: No, it’s all been blocked off. I walked past it yesterday.

[Patrick, 16 years; Adam, 11 years, Shawbridge, w1, go-along]

After all residents had been relocated from a building, doors and ground-floor windows would be blocked with steel shutters to ensure no entry was possible.

This can be seen in Figures 17 and 18. Despite this, some of the participants described the derelict buildings in their neighbourhood in a similar way to a haunted house: seeing shapes or shadows through the window although there was no one there, or seeing lights go on although there was no way to enter the building. This, for the participants, signified the presence of some unknown

‘Other’, or a new social risk for the young people to accommodate into their already complex understanding of risk within the neighbourhood context.

The estimation of who might be in these derelict buildings also reflected the participants’ views of social risk within the wider neighbourhood. For example, Shona (18 years, Sighthill, go-along) described feeling vulnerable when walking past the derelict buildings at night “I was scared in case somebody came an’

attacked me”. While the participants never actually seen the ‘risky people’

within the derelict buildings, they had seen the signs that there may be someone there. Due to this, it was not possible to clearly identify who or what was

causing their feelings of vulnerability, which further increased their concerns.

These stories appeared to feature mainly in younger participants discussions of the neighbourhood, and were similar to spooky stories told at sleepovers: seeing lights switching on and off when there is no one there, seeing shadowy figures move at night, and implicit risk of being attacked if these unknown figures see you. Reflecting on the definitions of risk introduced in chapter two, these ghost stories may be an example of socio-cultural risk. These stories are shaped by the younger participants’ existing anxieties of the neighbourhood: fear of being attacked, fear of unknown ‘Others’ and fear of walking alone at night. By

sharing these stories, young people are also sharing the best way to manage this risk: avoidance of the unknown.

6.5.2.2 Relocation and reduced informal social control

While the derelict buildings presented a new risk location for the participants, others described that the existing risks were more prevalent as more residents were relocated:

Shona: there’ll still be people there who’s going to be like dead lonely and they’ll need to like, when they walk about the street they’ll be dead empty and I think it’ll make it quite dangerous…I think people just like junkies and all that, just sort of hanging oot in the flat because they know it’s empty.

[Shona, 18 years, Sighthill, w1, home interview]

For Shona, the ability of the community to ensure safety was diminished as more residents were relocated. She described being concerned that, given the slow process of relocation, residents who are among the last to be moved would be increasingly vulnerable. Shona also linked the ‘risky’ people discussed earlier in

the chapter (e.g. “junkies”) as a source of vulnerability, especially as the social control of the neighbourhood reduces (a point discussed in section 6.5.2.2).

Feeling increasingly vulnerable in public spaces was predominately discussed by girls in Sighthill, with three participants discussing a rise in physical attacks and muggings in the period 2010-2011:

Claire: it was never, like, somebody, you wouldnae hear, like, people getting mugged and that, and then, like, last year, four people within, like, the space of a month got mugged walking up that path.

[Claire, 16 years, Sighthill, w1, go-along]

The path (the so called ‘muggers lane’) was an existing risk location (and discussed above in section 6.2.1) but three Sighthill participants’ described hearing more stories of mugging and opportunistic crime as the relocation process continued. Their reasoning was that as fewer residents used the pathway, there were fewer opportunities for informal social control or monitoring of behaviours.

Shawbridge participants discussed a rise in arson within the neighbourhood during the same period:

Jenny: there’s been quite a few recent, there’s been quite a few fires. I’ve kinda noticed ‘cause I’ve seen so many fires, like, so

many, in two months. There’s one neighbour underneath us, a month ago, and just near to the station, there’s been quite a few fires up there… I don’t know why. It just keeps happening and I’m not quite sure.

[Jenny, 15 years, Shawbridge, w1, home interview]

Jenny and Johnny both describe fires occurring in the neighbourhood, although while Johnny refers to them as being caused by “junkies”, Jenny is not sure who causes them or why they keep occurring. However, both Jenny and Johnny suggested that arson increased in the neighbourhood as the clearing process progressed. This again highlights the potential explanation that the lack of informal social control within the neighbourhood led to an increase in ASB.

The reason why some participants perceived higher, and others lower, risk of violence since the beginning of regeneration and relocation of residents, may

have been be due to differing levels of pre-existing knowledge of social risk in the neighbourhood, or how well the participants were integrated into the neighbourhood. For example, ‘new’ risk appeared to be discussed more by long-term residents of the neighbourhood. Understanding of these ‘new’ risks

appeared to be a combination of seeing problems occur more (e.g. increased arson) which required participants to use the public spaces of the neighbourhood frequently, but also hearing stories of crimes committed (e.g. mugging in the lane) which required participants to know different members of the community in order to hear these stories of neighbourhood socio-spatial risk.

In terms of management, while they had a complex set of strategies to negotiate the existing risks of the neighbourhood: “junkies”, young people, dangerous parks etc, they did not have a set of strategies to negotiate the new risks. They were unsure who poses a risk, what the risk is, and, at times, where it occurred.

This may have created a sense of renewed vulnerability about moving around the neighbourhood, leading to their assessment that the neighbourhood is now more risky.

6.5.2.3 Relocation of social network

The last significant risk examined in this chapter is the relocation of

participants’ social networks. As explained earlier in the thesis, the relocation process in the neighbourhoods affected all residents who lived there. Given the strong bonds associated with the neighbourhood, and the concentration of participants’ friends within the same small geographic space, relocation threatens to weaken social ties.

For some participants, the relocation process meant they lost contact with some of their friends:

Jenny: Emmm…most of my time is spent in here [Shawbridge]

actually! But eh, I don’t really walk this way often, just to walk to school or coming back. I used to walk this way a lot because I had some friends here, we used to go outside and go to the park and hang about, but now they’re further away. But now I just go shopping with my mum.

[Jenny, 15 years, Shawbridge, w1, go-along]

Relocation of Jenny’s friends had a negative effect both on how much time she spends in the neighbourhood, and also on her ability to access