Cultural Regeneration of East London - Assignment Example

Cultural Regeneration of East London/ Creative London for Whom? Description of East London East London is the name commonly used to refer to the north eastern part of London, in the area on the River Thames’ north side. This informal region is made up of several boroughs which include Hackney, Havering, Barking & Dagenham, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest and Redbridge. This group of boroughs comprises a total area of 318.64 square kilometres with a population, as of 2004, of 1.5 million. Today, East London is a regeneration site with a growing population. In the 1980s, work on the Docklands area started; meanwhile, the Thames Gateway project, under the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation, is extending further east. Regeneration programmes have begun in the area due, in part, to London’s successful bid for the 2012 Olympics. However, a negative impact of this is the increase in house prices, proof of which was shown in August 2005 when East London experienced a raise in property prices, one of only three places in England and Wales to do so. Definition of Culture, Regeneration and Cultural Regeneration Lately, culture has meant big business. Administrators who had been searching for ways by which to breathe life back into decaying city centres turned to “culture” and began making “cultural investments”. Culture, in a broad sense, is the way of life of a given society, including its values, norms, practices, traditions, beliefs, and rituals. It gives an individual, a community, or a nation its uniqueness and is essential in preserving its identity. In its consultation document entitled “Culture at the Heart of Regeneration”, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport limits this definition to: “Visual and performing arts (e.g. painting, sculpture, photography, crafts, theatre, dance, opera, live music), audio-visual (including film, TV and radio), architecture and design, heritage and the historic environment, libraries and literature, museums, galleries and archives, and tourism, as it relates to the above”. Regeneration is defined as “the transformation of a place (residential, commercial or open space) that has displayed the symptoms of environmental (physical), social and/or economic decline” (Evans & Shaw 2004). It has also been described as “breathing new life and vitality into an ailing community, industry and area [bringing] sustainable, long term improvements to local quality of life, including economic, social and environmental needs” (LGA 2000). The ODPM/CABE (2001) as cited by Evans and Shaw (2004) states: “Regeneration is not simply about bricks and mortar. It’s about the physical, social and economic well being of an area; it’s about the quality of life in our neighbourhoods. In relation to the physical, this is as much about the quality of public realm as it is about the buildings themselves”. Evans and Shaw (2004) identified three models of the contribution of cultural activity into the process of regeneration: “culture-led regeneration”, “cultural regeneration”, and “culture and regeneration”. In culture-led regeneration, cultural activity is the machine that propels regeneration. It is “likely to have a high-public profile and frequently to be cited as the sign of regeneration” (Evans & Shaw 2004). The activity might be the reclamation of an open space, the construction or renovation of buildings, or the launching of an activity which will become the trademark of a place. The cultural regeneration model fully integrates cultural activity into an area strategy along with economic, environmental and social activities. An example of this is “Birmingham’s Renaissance” wherein the city council’s Arts, Employment and Economic Development Committee was created to incorporate the arts with planning, resourcing, and policy. In culture and regeneration, there is no full integration of creative activity at the planning stage and only small-scale interventions are made. Impact of Culture on Economy Throughout Western Europe, municipal authorities are attempting to boost regeneration of their city centres through the creation of policies that are geared towards the influx of investment and tourism. To do this, “a variety of cultural consumption oriented policies have been developed and marketed” which consist of “investment in hard cultural-infrastructure such as museums or art galleries, and in less physical aspects such as holding events like the European Capital of Culture” (Binns 2005). The European Capital of Culture is a designation given by the European Union to a city for a period of one year, in which time it may be able to display its cultural development and cultural life. A number of awardees have made use of this distinction to completely make over their cultural centres and in so doing, change their international images. In 1990, Glasgow, with its “Glasgow’s Miles Better” campaign, was named European City of Culture (its former name). The city was transformed within ten years. Traditional architecture gave way to modern business establishments – museums, galleries, cafes, and shopping centers replaced the old elaborate Victorian structures and churches. The recognition gave way to the generation of “up to 5,580 new jobs and a £14.3m net economic return to the regional economy” and by the year 2000, Glasgow had come to be known as the “second-biggest shopping city in Britain” (Glancey 2003). As Glancey (2003) said, “a city that had seen its imperious 19th-century industries all but vanish had found something to replace them: culture, in the broadest sense”. No other British city has been given the title after 1990, but the six British contenders for the 2008 European Capital of Culture award – Oxford, Cardiff, Bristol, Liverpool, Birmingham, and Newcastle-Gateshead (Liverpool won) – have all gone to great lengths and made significant investments in “cultural industries”, as the government calls them. The driving force behind this is urban regeneration. Winning the coveted European Capital of Culture award does not necessarily suggest a greater appreciation of culture and the arts but more investments, jobs, business opportunities, tourism, and modernization. Even the formerly neglected Clydeside city was able to utilize investment in culture to revive its deteriorating economy. It proved, to a point, that culture could be converted into economic gain. Impact of Cultural Regeneration on Residents and Communities In a report to the Department of Culture, Media, and Sport reviewing evidence of the contribution of culture to regeneration, Evans & Shaw (2004) use the following indicators of regeneration: “neighbourhood renewal, social inclusion and community cohesion: reduced levels of crime, increased health and well-being, increased educational attainment, reduced unemployment, greater community cohesion, greater environmental quality and quality of life (or liveability)”. In terms of economic contribution, a Creative Industries Economic Estimates Statistical Bulletin released by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport in October 2005 reported that in 2003, the creative industries accounted for 8% of Gross Value Added (GVA). Also, between 1997 and 2003, the creative industries grew by an average of 6% per annum, and in the summer of 2004, creative employment amounted to 1.8 million jobs (DCMS 2005). However, because of the onslaught of these creative industries, communities have suffered through a loss of traditional crafts and skills and many have lost jobs in traditional industries. This may also result in the loss of identity of a community formerly recognized for its particular craft. The creation of heritage areas to celebrate former industries is not enough to compensate for the actual loss of these trades. Issues have been raised regarding the impact of cultural regeneration programmes on residents and communities, the most common being that the urban development of cities are often made at the expense of its original residents. The creation of new apartments, art galleries, cafes, and museums are usually for the more wealthy middle class, with the working-class being overlooked. In an interview with Jonathan Glancey (2003), film director Alex Cox said that “it’s often just about builders making money”. This reflects a sentiment commonly shared by many residents. Cultural regeneration strategies need to guarantee that the majority of the residents will benefit economically. Steps must be taken to ensure that communities will not be displaced by increased property values and that enough jobs will be created. In East London, these measures have not been enforced well. Regeneration projects are ongoing and the area is now experiencing rapid social renewal; however, local citizens lack the skills needed to qualify for the new employment opportunities being presented. A study conducted by the University of East London (2006) showed that “the proportion of the adult population in Thames Gateway with a degree/level 4+ qualifications is below the national average and substantially lower than the proportion for the rest of London”. This means that because the majority of the jobs produced are professional or managerial (level 3/4+), there will be “significant job loss at level 2 and below” (University of East London 2006). Not enough jobs are being created to replace the ones from traditional industries that have been lost, and those that are created are not accessible to the local residents. Marginalised communities may be particularly vulnerable to large scale development projects brought on by regeneration programmes. One unavoidable part of the process of urban regeneration is the displacement of the working-class in favor of the construction of residential and commercial buildings that cater to the middle class. Another effect of regeneration programmes on a community is that the developments made to cater to the middle class incomers will drastically change local facilities (schools, leisure areas, shops, etc.) and eventually, the character of the area. Impact of Cultural Regeneration on the Character of the Area It used to be that great cities such as Glasgow or Liverpool made use of profits made from international trade to construct brilliant and bountiful centres of urban culture – grand architecture, museums, libraries, parks, as well as educated citizens. In Glasgow, industries such as textile, medicine, automobiles, ship-building, engineering and science gave way to infrastructure and culture. The same occurred in Liverpool with its sugar and tobacco industries. But in recent decades, the process has been reversed. Culture is now used as the springboard by which cities are made, instead of being the product of the inner mechanisms of cities. Investments – gambles – are being made on this “new-look, 24-hour culture” (Glancey 2003). The goal is more profit from businesses that cater to middle-class activities such as shopping, tourism and leisure. However, the industries to back these up are neglected. Unlike other European countries such as Germany and Italy – where the traditional production of things are still considered cultural, and not just economical, activities – Britain left behind industry in the 1980s. Today, traditional economic activities are separated from culture. The impact of cultural regeneration on the character of an area is such that it causes a fissure between the traditional activities that used to fuel a community’s economy and give it its unique identity, and its present culture whose character does not rely so much on traditional activities. The traditions of a given area may be lost in the process of regeneration. Despite the economic growth experienced by Glasgow after it was named European City of Culture in 1990, Mooney (2004) points out that not all Glaswegians were pleased by the new image that their city had acquired – artsy, fashionable, sophisticated. Certainly those residents living in rundown housing projects and suffering unemployment and many other social ills would not have enjoyed the newfound glory that their city was basking in. It seems that Glasgow lost its identity after the events of 1990, and now there were two Glasgows: “an official sanitized version which overlooked or deliberately blotted out the existence of another ever poorer and more deprived section of society” (Mooney 2004). With the type of cultural regeneration programmes being enforced, what happened in Glasgow may well occur in East London. The current worry is that regeneration may adversely affect East London’s culture, and the area may lose its identity as the artistic hub of London. The identity of East London rests on its cultural and creative diversity, and any attempt to implement transformations on the area’s communities may lead to the loss of this identity. One of the key issues is the homogenization of cultures or the building of “social bridges” between social classes (rich and poor) and between different cultures (white, black, Asian, etc.). This stems from the desire to make London into an integrated whole. The Thames Gateway project, which aims to facilitate local regeneration (to give easier access to jobs and education and to provide mobility for the residents), is not only seen as a venture to physically bridge fragmented areas of land but also as an attempt to bestow a single regional identity on the disjointed morphology of the area. The character of the area as being culturally diverse would be lost if this “integration” were to occur. The Department of Culture, Media and Sports (2005) cites “the use of culture to refresh neighbourhoods, improving the physical environment through good design, offering places to go and things to do, increasing local pride and a desire to stay in that place, and building stronger communities – culture has a vital role in helping to restore the soul of a community and to nurture a sense of self-confidence and new possibilities” as one of the drivers that motivate cultural activity at the community level. The trouble lies with the transformations that the urban planners plan on promoting. If the methods they use to “refresh neighbourhoods” or “improve the physical environment” go against the unique qualities of the community, the transformation will fail to achieve its objective of re-establishing the soul of the community. London as a Global City and its Effect on Cultural and Creative Diversity in East London Due to the acceptance of globalisation and the new liberal economic census, London will have to fight against other global cities to ensure its position. Looking back on Britain’s history, it can be seen that since the days of the empire, London has clearly had an effect on the political, socioeconomic, and cultural affairs of the world. But to sustain its position as a global city, London had to let go of some of its industrial past. This endeavour began in the 1970, continued into the 1980s and the 1990s, and is ongoing today. One example of this is the creation of development corporations like the London Docklands Development Corporation, the agenda of which was “not the revitalisation of London’s docklands for the benefit of the local residents but the complete social and economic transformation of the area” (Amis 2005). The ultimate goal was for London to secure its role as a global city and be able to conduct trade in a globalised world. Responsibility to the local citizens “was seen as a liability and something that had to be bypassed to enable this to be implemented” (Amis 2005). If London were to sustain its global city status, chances are that East London will not be able to sustain its creative and cultural diversity. The image of London has been redefined – now it is seen as “an enterprise in competition with other global cities desperate to attract investment and wealth” more than just a metropolis of people. (Amis 2005). It is this motivation to guarantee London’s marketability that compels the regeneration process rather than any sense of responsibility to the citizens. Work Cited Amis, Dave. 2005, Urban renewal, gentrification and the impact on the working class in London - Initial findings, Independent Working Class Association, London, Available at www.iwca.info/cutedge/gentrification.D.Amis.2005.05.pdf. Binns, Luke. 2005, Capitalising on Culture: An Evaluation of Culture-Led Urban Regeneration Policy, Futures Academy, Ireland. Department of Culture, Media and Sports. Culture at the Heart of Regeneration. DCMS, London. Evans, G. & Shaw, P. 2004, The Contribution of Culture to Regeneration in the UK: A Review of Evidence (A Report to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport), London Metropolitan University, London. Florida, R. 2005, The Flight of the Creative Class, HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., New York, NY. Glancey, J. 2003, ‘Bright lights, big city’, The Guardian, March 29. Local Government Association. 2000, A Change of Scene: The Challenge of Tourism in Regeneration, LGA/DCMS, London. Mooney, G. 2004, Cultural Policy as Urban Transformation? Critical Reflections on Glasgow, European City of Culture 1990, Local Economy, vol 19, no. 4, pp.327-340. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. 2001, Towns and Cities: Partners in Urban Renaissance. Breaking Down the Barriers. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister/Center for Architecture and Building Excellence, London. University of East London. 2006, Proposed Access Agreement. University of East London, London, Available at www.offa.org.uk/acc_agr/statemnts. Read More