[Ssf] Today's exercise...

[robin&amparo]

> The prospect of considerable demolition for some parts of Pathfinder
> areas, for example, may crystallise these tensions – especially where
> such schemes include private sector properties or dwellings (in any
> tenure) that are unpopular but otherwise sound. A forceful
> justification for radical intervention at neighbourhood level is
> likely to be needed to carry any chance of community support. More
> than any other issue, demolition is likely to bring forward the
> contrast between ‘private troubles’ and ‘public issues’ (Wright
> Mills, 1959, p. 8) in market renewal – between the immediate
> community interest and the wider strategic imperative.


yes it sounds terrifying , what is this "wider strategic imperative"?


Just turn it up into an inter- national scope, the creeps!
Demolish and bomb, to rebuild and reconstruct.. (?)
R



Dan wrote:

> OK class, is everyone sitting comfortably? Then we'll begin.
> 
> Your task: you have one hour to read through the excerpt below, from
> the catchily entitled:
> 
> The road to renewal: The early development of the Housing Market
> Renewal programme in England by Ian Cole and Brendan Nevin
> 
> It's been written by Sheffield's very own Centre for Regional &
> Economic Research: the body that does all the government's research
> into New Deal as well. So - what do they have to say about the
> Pathfinder Programme? (That's the programme of which the Burngreave
> and Fir Vale Masterplan is a part, if you don't know.)
> 
> Well, this is just one little bit from it. the task is to:
> 
> a) Manage to read it without falling asleep b) Translate it into
> easily understandable sentences. c) Fall off your chair when you
> realise what they're saying.
> 
> The bit I've cut out says some bloody startling things: of course, it
>  wasn't written for the unwashed masses, but for policy wonks, so it
>  takes some unpicking. But give it a go - I'll send my interpretation
>  tomorrow or the day after; I look forward to reading other people's!
> 
> 
> p.s. I'm really getting into this patronising, teacher-like 
> control-freak role. I think it suits me. :)
> 
> Dan ----
> 
> In a review of programmes in the mid-1990s to assist peripheral
> housing estates, Peter Hall made a general distinction between
> ‘inward-looking’ and ‘outward-facing’ approaches to regeneration
> (Hall, 1997; see also Hastings, 2003). The first type of approach
> tends to emphasise the dynamics, resources and priorities within the
> neighbourhood concerned; the second approach concentrates on how such
> neighbourhoods might be better connected to nearby areas of growth
> and economic vitality. The implications at neighbourhood level for
> ‘outwardly focused’ sub-regional strategic market assessments
> undertaken by Pathfinders may therefore look quite different from
> those derived from community consultation and discussion in
> resident-led and ‘inward’ neighbourhood renewal programmes.
> 
> The ‘inward-looking’ approach to regeneration will tend to give a
> high priority to an ‘action-oriented’ approach, through the
> appointment of new staff for the programme, a commitment to ongoing
> community involvement, a visible inter-agency presence in the
> neighbourhood and so on. It will focus on building up the capacity of
> the existing community through initiatives focused on developing
> training and skills. The need to make a clear difference to the area,
> often through physical changes and new investment, will be
> highlighted, in order to set in train, it is hoped, a virtuous circle
> of rising aspirations, community stability and more responsive local
> governance and service delivery. These objectives operate, however,
> within a clearly bounded geographical area, and so the impact of any
> programmes may be limited, or even undermined, if the problems are
> simply displaced to adjacent neighbourhoods.
> 
> ‘Outward-looking’ approaches tend to operate on a more strategic
> plane, structuring their interventions around a future-oriented
> conception of the neighbourhood, so that the views and priorities of
> members of the existing community need to be balanced against those
> of households who need to be attracted into the area in the future.
> This approach is focused on connections – actual and potential –
> between the neighbourhood and other resources, services and
> opportunities in the wider district, city or sub-region. The HMR
> programme clearly has more in common with this kind of approach.
> 
> This perspective offers a more calibrated view of how much progress
> can be made in improving the circumstances of a specific
> neighbourhood if it is framed by social and economic disadvantage in
> the wider geographical area. This approach may be better attuned to
> assessing the possibilities of creating change locally given the
> constraints of underlying long-term trends. However, the initial
> strategic focus may struggle to gain support from members of the
> community in question, as they will understandably be more exercised
> about improving conditions in the here and now than in more ethereal
> visions of their neighbourhood in ten years’ time.
> 
> Some of the tangible consequences of these differing philosophies to
>  effecting neighbourhood change have been explored in a recent review
> of the links between some HMR Pathfinders and New Deal for Community
>  partnerships, undertaken as part of the national evaluation of the
> NDC programme (Cole et al ., 2003). This study found that
> relationships between NDCs and Pathfinders were still at a formative
> stage, but, in some cases, joint approaches had already begun to
> develop (notably, in Liverpool Kensington, East Manchester and
> Newcastle). However, there was evidence of a different interpretation
> of the causes of urban decline and the interventions required in
> response. The HMR programme stemmed from an appreciation of the
> effects of spatially uneven economic development and the housing and
> labour market dislocations that follow in its wake. NDCs, by
> contrast, were more focused on immediate community priorities and how
> internal resources could be enhanced to strengthen community dynamics
> and help ‘reconnect’ the ‘excluded’ neighbourhood.
> 
> Recently, a joint approach by ODPM and NRU has suggested that the
> Chairs of Pathfinders and NDC partnerships should be ex officio
> members of each other’s Boards to help strengthen links between
> sub-regional and neighbourhood working, and harmonise forward
> planning. This is an important step in attempting to bring together
> these contrasting perspectives.
> 
> In many areas, it will be a major task to bring together the
> prognosis for a neighbourhood stemming from the application of these
> contrasting approaches. The prospect of considerable demolition for
> some parts of Pathfinder areas, for example, may crystallise these
> tensions – especially where such schemes include private sector
> properties or dwellings (in any tenure) that are unpopular but
> otherwise sound. A forceful justification for radical intervention at
> neighbourhood level is likely to be needed to carry any chance of
> community support. More than any other issue, demolition is likely to
> bring forward the contrast between ‘private troubles’ and ‘public
> issues’ (Wright Mills, 1959, p. 8) in market renewal – between the
> immediate community interest and the wider strategic imperative. 
> _______________________________________________ Ssf mailing list 
> Ssf at lists.aktivix.org http://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssf
>