Greenwich Peninsula - Essay Example

Greenwich Peninsula – an individual appraisal of the Regeneration Project Introduction Landscapes may be taken for granted and become so much a part of everyday life that they go unnoticed. A landscape is never static; as cultures evolve, the concept and ideas underlying the landscape construct also change. The word ‘landscape’ finds its roots in visual and aesthetic representations of an artists’ view of the vista presented by nature. It manifested in a style of art which depicted nature as realistically as possible. As we examine a painting by Breugel we see a shift away from just a vista to an altogether more close-up, a more abstracted view where the outward appearance has less importance than ‘feel’ or culturally specific significance. Works of religious art (including architecture) depict a different spatial sense – a three dimensional concept where the heavens above and the underworlds in the depths were at least as important and valid as the simple realities of the topography. Tuan (1978) describes landscape as a ‘diaphor’ as it combines at least two meanings of ‘landscape’ viz. ‘domain’ and ‘scenery’. It is important to understand the aspect of cultural heritage in the landscape. At the core of this discussion is the question of how landscapes may be characterised, especially the non visual features of the landscape. Interpretations of the landscape may be different from the perspective of different assessors, depending on their knowledge and experience. Therefore, the question of restoration becomes even more difficult to resolve especially when the authentic landscape – against which to measure success and the very legitimacy of the restoration – itself is in a hiatus. Humanities and the natural sciences appear to be in conflict in the interpretation of landscapes. Cosgrove (2003) compares landscape concepts and points to an approach that could harmonise the two perspectives, ecological and semiotic, closer. Another way is to increase interdisciplinary approaches in landscape studies. The concept of landscape already implies an interdisciplinary appreciation; its study rarely achieves levels of theoretical integration (Tress et al. 2003). A group exercise was undertaken to examine Greenwich peninsula regeneration project with this inter-disciplinary approach and to critique the work carried out on this development. The findings of the group have been condensed into a ‘group presentation’ which is enclosed for reference. This essay represents an individual assessment of the Greenwich project as viewed by this writer. Choice of the Regeneration Project The group considered a number of regeneration projects currently under implementation in the UK, including the Glasshouses project, Kent coalfields, Spitalfields Market, Limestone House Education and heritage centre. Greenwich Peninsula regeneration project was selected for study, for a host of reasons, the prominent among them being: The reconstruction and regeneration of an area in the urban milieu was of special attraction to the members, especially because of the large variety and (voice) presence of the resident communities; The art and cultural background of the area; The challenge of regeneration in an area that has existed for centuries and has its own and special ‘landscape’; and The proximity of the area. Description of the Development work In 1997, English Partnerships purchased a 300-acre site on the Greenwich peninsula and has invested £225 million to develop the site as a ‘first millennium’ community promising homes to 28,000 people and deliver over 25,000 jobs. In all a quality of life that meets the expectations and challenges of the 21st century. The Greenwich Peninsula is being developed by Lend Lease and Quintain Estates and Development PLC in joint venture under the name and style of Meridian Delta Limited, chosen by English Partnerships and the UK government to lead London’s single largest regeneration scheme. The area has a rich history and has many listed buildings, monuments and places of historical interest. A backdrop of rich culture helps attract a large volume of tourists, domestic and international, to the area. The peninsula enjoys an excellent natural environment with 1.6 miles of riverfront and the rich mix of natural green areas. The development effort incorporates sports and leisure activities, shopping complexes, development of tourist attractions all interspersed with well located parks and open green spaces. The main attraction is, of course, the O2 – an amphitheatre that has had world class facilities to host performances of popular artistes. New office and residential complexes have been incorporated into the development plan to attract business and build a new business district. This will help in the creation of jobs, both during the construction phase as well as later. The residential development – Greenwich Millennium Village – is one of the seven millennium communities being delivered by English Partnerships across the country. As a part of the environmental strategy the Greenwich peninsula is designed to be London’s first low emission zone. Some of the initiatives identified to achieve this include the requirement that all cars owned by residents comply with the Euro4 norms by 2010; maximisation of the use of public transport; no automotive traffic areas; use of sustainable construction designs; and encouragement of use of renewable energy resources. Grey water recycling, rainwater harvesting and designing for lower water demand are focussed at lowering surface and ground water use and contamination. The findings of the group show that: London's exciting new community will embrace the riverside providing wide vistas to let you stretch and grow. The overall strategy for the peninsula includes environmental as well as social and economic targets. Creating a sustainable community is fundamental to the success of Greenwich Peninsula. Improving the environment also contributes to the health, safety and well-being of everyone. These are at the heart of Greenwich Council’s aims of reinvigorating local neighborhoods, in the process making the borough a better place in which to live. Discussion Landscape: Landscape consists of that aspect of it that we can see, touch, smell and measure (domain of the natural sciences) and the human landscape that is formed in our minds and can only be studied through a wide range of humanistic approaches (domain of social sciences and humanities). In addition two these there is the third face, and that consists of the different driving forces and underlying (spatial) process involved in forming the character of the landscape (Palang &Fry, p3). This third aspect requires study that may involve geology, the arts, and politics. All this leads to the understanding that landscape could be handled as something indicating the quality of life of a society (Palang & Fry, ibid). Olwig (2002) examines the history of the concept of “landscape” in the English language, noting that its usage in English can be traced back to its use in 1605 in “The Masque of Blackness” in the sense of theatre stage design. This, he argues, is of more than antiquarian interest. “The Masque of Blackness” was, in the theatrical staging, a dramatic or aesthetic representation of the land and the “landscape” or setting of the land was designed, utilizing developments in painting and cartography of perspective, to emphasize a representative notion of monarchy. The British gentry saw such landscapes as embodying the height of civilization. The gentry evicted entire villages, wiping out every trace of communities and signs of culture and tradition in order to lay out estates in which the landscape consciously was designed to be, if anything, even more natural than actual nature, and in doing so to reflect notions of abstract natural law, complemented not by any sort of genuine English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish artefact but only with neoclassical art and architecture. The Enclosure Acts of the eighteenth century were a change from 'inclusive' community ownership to 'exclusive' individual rights of property. Fundamental to the materialistic concept of landscape is the outlook of western capitalism. Those who coined the word 'landscape' were the landed gentry of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and those who shared their refined and antiquarian aspirations. But landscape is never static – both the past and the future lay claim on the present. Much of the late twentieth century consideration of landscape has its roots clearly in the 1880s when the threat from increasing industrialisation threatened to envelop the whole of the British Isles. The veneration of the countryside can begin to be found in the writings of a number of late Victorian authors and poets as diverse as Oscar Wilde and Kenneth Grahame's ‘Wind in the willows’. As part of this awareness the National Trust was founded in 1895. By the early twentieth century a well-developed interest in English landscape began to emerge and intensified as the population found increased mobility offered by the development of means of travel. Practical steps using landscape ecological concepts to better integrate nature and culture within new developments began to be adopted. Ecological integrity is now defined both in terms of life processes and indigenous content. Several examples are presented of spontaneous regeneration of indigenous species within the context of familiar landscape elements such as hedgerows, roadsides, woodlots, gardens, and riparian margins. In combination, these elements have the potential to create a new landscape, culturally familiar, non-threatening and productive, yet also achieving biodiversity goals. Creation of such transitional landscapes can reinforce a sense of identity with the unique characteristics of the area, and in the longer term this will transform the way landscapes are perceived, valued and utilised. Debate persists, about whether the mission to preserve landscape should aim at protection of the natural landscape in its pristine form or whether elements of the cultural landscape should be valued, as well. Olwig (ibid) notes that aboriginal burning practices preserved meadows and vistas in Yosemite prior to the displacement of aboriginal communities and the institution of a policy prohibiting such interventions in the natural landscape as burning. Sustainable Tourism and Social Impact Tourism plays a significant part in the Greenwich peninsula and all development has to keep this in constant view. At the heart of all definitions of tourism is the concept of enjoyment; to this are added sustainability and environmental protection. Sustainability is the ability of the system (normally comprising economic, social and environmental subsystems) to deliver continued development. The definition of sustainable development may further be stated as development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Unmanaged tourism can threaten the society, economy and ecology of a region. Sustainable tourism aims to minimise environmental and cultural damage, optimise visitor enjoyment, and maximize long- term economic growth for the region. It is way of obtaining a balance between the growth potential of tourism and the conservation needs of the environment (Hawkes & Williams, 1993). The presence of a tourism centre in an area adds to the quality of life of residents and contributes to their economic well being. However, the economic benefits of the presence of a tourist centre or cost of lack of it have not being seriously considered (Dredge and Moore, 1992). In the regeneration projects it is also reasonable to expect that the impact that tourism and the other developments have on the local environment, social and physical, is negative and if adequate care is not taken degradation will set in and lead to a drying up of the very source of the economic well being, or loss of sustainability (Glasson et al, 1995). Sustainable tourism has to be holistic in its outlook in order to create a common vision and produce strategies that recognize the contributions of all stakeholders (Bramwell and Lane, 2000). Also at this level, where traditional industries have declined, local tourism industry helps to create alternate sources of jobs and employment (Bramwell and Sharman, 1999). Positive and negative aspects of tourism and the physical development of the area have the most profound impact on the economy, society and ecology of host communities. Whenever such activity ignores community input, ‘seeds of discontent’ are sown (Haywood, 1998). When the local communities’ tolerance levels are exceeded the industry has a tendency to peak, fade and self-destruct. Collaboration involves a number of stakeholders working interactively on a common issue. Typically, this process involves an exchange of ideas and expertise and/or pooling of financial resources. The issue may be a complex one that cannot be solved by one agency acting on its own, but instead requires a multi-organizational response. Stakeholders are the actors with an interest in a common problem or issue (Jamal and Getz 1995:188). Bramwell and Sharman (1999) focus on the factors that might affect the actual working of a collaborative venture. They point out that the scope of the collaboration, such as whether the range of participants is representative, whether membership includes facilitators as well as implementers, and the level of support for the project is vital for effective functioning of such ventures. The views of ‘‘strong voices’’ can often prevent alternative perspectives, held by ‘‘weaker’’ or even unarticulated positions, from being aired (Mason, Johnston and Twynam, 2000). Time constraints often allow only a ‘‘partial consensus’’ to be reached among interested parties (Bramwell and Sharman, 1999). Transformational outcomes at the network level can be better achieved through hands-on practical activities at the level of individual businesses and through events that incorporate two-way communication and foster real cooperation. Long-term initiatives that promote projects of modest size and produce visible and tangible outcomes are also more likely to achieve progress than short-term schemes, which are more likely to breed frustration about the possibilities of sustainable development at the local level (Halme, 2001). The new developments, involving the ‘neighbourhood’ and the ‘community’ necessitate not just a new language of regeneration but also a shift in thinking (Diamond & Liddle, 2004) for the regeneration initiatives involve much more than the physical redevelopment of the area; it also has profound social, organisational and political implications (ibid). Architecture: “Architects who think only in terms of the power of scenic space, ignoring the exigencies of community and place, run the risk of producing landscapes of social inequality like those of the great eighteenth-century British estates……… It is also possible, however, for architects to shape environments that foster the desire to maintain the continuities that maintain a collective sense of commonwealth, rooted in custom but open to change.” (Olwig, 2002, 226-7) Olwig, in ‘Landscape, Nature, and the Body Politic’ examines the history of certain geographical concepts. The theme that is woven through the various essays is that notions like “land”, “country” and “landscape” entail more than a single meaning, referring to the people, society and state and simultaneously to features of the natural environment and physical topography, and that there exist both relations and tensions between these different meanings. The quoted statement leads us to consider how, regeneration and development can ignore any of the ‘meanings’ of landscape, and not lose the balance between these vital ingredients of the complete landscape. Developers need to consider all aspects of the delicate balance between the vista, community and society, and the historical imperatives that have shaped the current landscape and ensure that sight is not lost of any while planning. Earlier in this essay we have seen the need for involvement of the local community at the very start of the planning for development and throughout the actual process. Only such active collaboration will allow for a balanced development and prevent the ‘seeds of discontent’ from being sown (Haywood, ibid). Olwig states that in his view there is a tendency towards disciplinary specialization, and few political scientists, geographers or historians are so capable of leaping disciplinary boundaries and synthesizing such diverse phenomena. The earlier estates developed in the UK imposed an interpretation of nature on the landscape that did not consider the social and historical backdrop and thus the unnatural was created. Olwig shows that the opinion of such people as Muir, who founded the Sierra Club in the US, that the landscape should be preserved in a natural state, even to the point of removing cultural features of the landscape associated with either aboriginal peoples or early non-aboriginal settlement, has no real foundation in modern times. To this day, the debate continues whether parks should exist to make it possible for average people to experience nature or to protect nature from average people, limiting the experience of nature to the few who may be physically fit. We need to draw attention to the interpretation of the future landscape to complete this discussion. The disputes that rage from time to time over different development plans and activities reveal that much of our modern mentality and how it perceives the future may be interpreted as seeing a future landscape that will still contain a variety of under-developed countryside, with historically important micro-environments and archaeological remains preserved anachronistically. Does this imply that every part of Britain should be conserved in its present state? The answer, obviously, is a resounding no. Development has to take place but instead of ‘slash and burn’ the regeneration projects must allow for a conscious consideration of the societal and political imperatives and “to shape environments that foster the desire to maintain the continuities that maintain a collective sense of commonwealth, rooted in custom but open to change.” The European Landscape Convention The European Landscape Convention (ELC) is the first international treaty specifically on landscape. It became effective from 1 March 2004. It is a Europe-wide agreement supported by the Council of Europe. It aims to promote the protection, management and planning (including active design and creation) of Europe’s landscapes, both rural and urban, and to foster European co-operation on landscape issues (ICOMOS-UK/IUCN UK ELC Workshop). The following is an extract from the leaflet printed for the cited workshop working papers. The Convention reminds us that well-looked after and highly valued landscapes are essential to social well-being and to an economically healthy society; landscapes, too, lie at the heart of European identity, and are a vital part of the common European heritage The ELC stresses the following principles: Put people – from all cultures and communities - and their surroundings, at the heart of spatial planning and sustainable development Recognise that landscape exists everywhere, not just in special places and, whether beautiful or degraded, is everyone’s shared inheritance Increase awareness and understanding of landscape and its value, as a unifying framework for all land-use sectors Promote a more accessible, integrated and forward-looking approach to managing inherited landscapes and shaping new landscape The ELC is relevant to our contemporary view of landscape. It puts emphasis on the whole landscape, not just on the “best” bits; it puts people at the heart of landscape protection, management and planning; it takes a democratic rather than elitist view of landscape. It also adopts a realistic view about the inevitability of change in landscape. Conclusion In the investigation of the regeneration project undertaken at the Greenwich peninsula we observe that the development has been undertaken with the total participation and consensus of public opinion. However, the involvement of the local populace appears to have come in at a stage when a large part of the planning process had been completed. The developers have their own opinion of what is right for the area and planned the development accordingly. The end result – an undeniably successful one – leads us to reconsider how relevant all the above arguments about the community participation really are. The time that would be required to listen to and consider all the ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’ voices and to align all opinions to a single direction may become a real hindrance to actual development activity and progress. Perhaps there is a need to develop an expert pool of talent that has within its ambit the ability to meld all aspects of a regional regeneration process which accounts for all the concerns about preserving the environmental and cultural heritage and the needs of the future identified here and in the research of scholars. References: Cosgrove, D. (2003): Landscape: ecology and semiosis, in Palang & Fry (eds.) Landscape Interfaces: Cultural Heritage in Changing Landscapes, Springer. Bramwell, B., and Sharman A. (1999): Collaboration in Local Tourism Policymaking. Annals of Tourism Research 26:312–328. Bramwell, B., and Lane, B. (2000): Collaboration and Partnerships in Tourism Planning. In Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships: Politics, Practice and Sustainability, Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. eds., pp. 1–19. Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Diamond, J. & Liddle, J. (2004): Management of Regeneration; Routledge. Glasson, J.; Godfrey, K. and Goodey, B. (1995): Towards visitor impact management, Aldershot, Avebury, UK. Halme, M. (2001) Learning for Sustainable Development in Tourism Networks. Business Strategy and the Environment 10:100–114. Haywood, KM (1988): Responsible and responsive tourism planning in the community. Tourism Management, 9(2):105-118. Hawkes, S. and Williams, P. (1993): The Greening of Tourism: From Principles to Practice. Burnaby, British Columbia: Simon Fraser University Press. Jamal, T. and Getz, D. (1995): Collaboration Theory and Community Tourism Planning. Annals of Tourism Research 22:186–204. Mason, P, Johnston, M. and Twynam, D. (2000): The World Wide Fund for Nature Arctic Tourism Project. In Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships: Politics, Practice and Sustainability, B. Bramwell and B. Lane, eds., pp. 98–116. Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Olwig, K (2002): Landscape, Nature and the Body Politic; University of Wisconsin Press. Palang, H. and Fry, G. (2003): Landscape Interfaces: Cultural Heritage in Changing Landscapes, Springer. Tress, B.; Tress, G.; van der Valk, A. and Fry, G. (Eds) (2003): Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary landscape studies: Potential and limitations. Delta Series 2, Wageningen. Tuan, Y.-F. (1978): ‘Sign and metaphor’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 68:3, 363-72 Read More