A Critical Evaluation of Central Government Urban Regeneration Policies since the 1980s in Docklands, London - Term Paper Example

Assignment title: A critical evaluation of central government urban regeneration policies since the 1980s in Docklands, London General background of the city’s characteristics and urban problems By 1981, Docklands was faced with a multitude of regeneration challenges. For one, a lot of jobs were lost only after a short period of time. In fact, over 12,000 jobs are reported to have been lost for the period between 1978 and 1983 (Brownill 1990). In addition, many of the city dwellers were only in possession of blue collar jobs skills, and this was deemed as being inadequate to foster the rapid growth in the economy of London. Despite public bodies being in possession of large chunks of land, they nevertheless lacked the necessary capital and will to aid in its redevelopment (Church 1988). As such, the private sector was only in possession of limited land, leading to a market insensitive land control. Moreover, some parts of Docklands were experiencing severe dereliction, and this only acted to discourage investors into the area, owing to the ensuing high and uncertain development costs (Brownill 1999). Even then, a lot of development sites lacked proper infrastructure for accessibility, and this further curtailed on development. Owing to the absence of proper linkage strategies between Docklands, the larger part of London, as well as the entire country and the world as a whole, this only served to decrease the investment returns of employers, by leading to added costs (Brownill 1990). The market too, failed to provide the necessary amenities, environment and infrastructure that Docklands so much needed, if at all it was going to attract investor, while also casting off its hitherto diminished image. Ultimately, some hidden gaps were later to emerge, and these were discovered to have been a hindrance towards a positive market operation. A case in point was the lack of a private house developer in the area for a long time. This then acted to discourage would-be house developers, as they lacked a benchmark to gauge their chances of recouping their investments, should they venture into the housing business. During this period of the 1980s, Docklands charged the least charges for commercial rent (less than 5 pounds for every square foot of office space), when compared to other parts of the London city, such as the west end (around 12 pound per square foot of office space) (Brownill 1990). This was despite the fact that Docklands had limited office space. At around 1981, the railway network in Dockland was both slow and inconveniencing, for travelers and transporters alike, who commuted between the town and the other parts of London. First, there lacked a direct railway service to the city center by the two major lines of rail, prompting passengers to switch to the tube, as a way of getting to the city. Secondly, the Isle of Dogs lacked a link and most parts of Docklands lacked rail link that would help connect it to the other parts of the country. On the other hand, the main mode of transport at Docklands then was mostly by bus, especially to the Isle of Dogs (Church 1988). Nevertheless, the journey was longer, owing to poor infrastructure, and the services were usually unreliable. This was despite a regular frequency of the buses. At the same time, Docklands lacked a properly developed network of pedestrians, while the town could only boast of a single cycle-way. In matters environment, Docklands had a river frontage that was on the blink of crumbling, while over 110 historical buildings were in a dire need for restoration (Oc & Tiesdell 1992). Owing to the economic decline witnessed in Dockland during the 1980s there followed a mass exodus of people from the town. In fact, there has been reported a decline of 18.5% drop in the population for a period of 10 years from 1971 to 1981, from 48,352 to 39,429 people respectively (Smith 1991). At the same time, the rate of unemployment was pegged at 10.9%, a figure that was relatively high, when compared to inner London, which stood at 9.6% (Oc & Tiesdell 1992). For the employed, the concentration was more in casual labour (50.1%), while 33% of the working population in inner London was in manual occupations. Prosperity indicators in Docklands were poor, and 83% of the residents were accommodated in council houses. Of these, about 20% were classified as being uninhabitable. Fewer Docklands resident too, owned cars in comparison to inner London (Oc & Tiesdell 1992). Key central government policies implemented in Docklands, London since the 1980s. The ultimate goal of the central government was to make Docklands an urban regeneration symbol. Following a shift of ships from loading and unloading from the sites that were upriver, to coastal harbors, this move led to a decline in the docks at London, during the period between the 60s and 70s (Brownill 1999). Ultimately this led to as much as 40% of the Docklands area being seen as derelict. Consequently in 1981, the then environment secretary, Michael Heseltine, relaxed the control on the planning of more those 194 hectares of Docklands (Church 1988). This portion was thus designated as being an enterprise zone. According to 1981 annual report issued by LDDC, the railway line was seen as a way of benefiting the Docklands area. For one, the increase in the value of land was viewed at as a good way of successfully marketing land. As such, there was an increase in the price of land found in the enterprise zone to 4 million pounds per hectare in 1989, from 30,000 pounds 7 years earlier (Pacione 2005). At the same time, the environment secretary helped set up a development corporation of London’s Docklands (LDDC). This body was charged with the responsibility of land buying and selling. In addition, the corporation was armed with the powers to have a control over that land which had hitherto been held in trust by such public bodies as area authorities. This corporation was set up with a view to aiding in an effective use of the available land (Brownill 1999). At the same time, the corporation also charged with the responsibility of developing commerce and trade, and a creation of a business environment that was conducive. In addition, there was a need to ensure the availability of decent housing and other social amenities, as a way of discouraging the local workforce from migrating. Originally, LDDC had the intention of being actively involved in community development and housing, as well as in health and education. Rather than being elective offices, the members of the LDDC have always been appointed by the government. Towards the improvement of public transport in Docklands, the transport department, LDDC, London transport and the council of greater London were all involved (Brownill 1999). On its part, the government, through the transport department viewed the building up of roads in Dockland as a way of encouraging regeneration. At the same time, the department was also not ready to give approval to new railways that were lacked the economic backup of the private sector (Foster 1999). However, one drawback to the view head by the department of transport is that even the building of more roads as it were, could not encourage more investor that would adequately fill up the available office space in Docklands. At the same time, there was a conflict of interest, given that LDDC had a policy that worked towards limiting of parking areas. This was aimed at encouraging people to use public transport for commuting. The city of London is heavily dependent on public means of transport, and Docklands thus acts as a microcosm to it. In fact, it has been documented that 74 percent of the commuter s to London, especially during the rush hour in the morning, commute by train (Brownill 1999). The reason behind this is due to the limited parking spaces in the city. Based on this, the planners of Docklands were also estimating that approximately 60 percent of the working population will eventually result to railway commuting. When the authorities were commuter routes in Docklands, the options that were extensively explored includes the use of express buses, automated railway lines, and a street tramway (Church 1988). On its part, the corporation was going for a high-technology, yet affordable railway line. However, the engineers from the transport department of London saw this as being impractical. Eventually, the arguments of the corporation prevailed, backed by the 50% financial support from the government. In a bid to alleviate market failures in Docklands, this has led to an incurring of costs on the part of the public sector. To this end, LDDC has incurred direct costs, such as the land disposal receipts. At the same time, the corporation has also had to forego tax revenues that emanated from the Isle of Dogs, following its allocation as an enterprise zone (Brownill 1999). In addition, the transport department of London also incurred numerous costs. Consequently, it has been estimated that upon its completion, the regeneration of Docklands cost the public sector a total of 3,900 million pounds. Out of this, LDDC spent 1,868 million pound on net receipts. On the other hand, the bodies of the public sector, such as the London Transport, are estimated to have spent 985 million pounds, and the remaining 1,060 million pounds is attributed to foregone tax revenues. A 44% gross expenditure by the LDDC has been towards the improvement of transport, in a bid to regenerate Docklands (Brownill 1990). At the same time, the private sector is believed to have invested in the upwards of 7,658 million pounds by the end of March 1998. This was towards the construction of houses, as well as premises meant for commercial purposes. At the same time, the private sector also injected a further 650 million pounds towards the infrastructure (Church 1988). Enterprise zones The aspect of having enterprise zones in Britain was more of an experiment in terms of origin. In this regard, a certain area would normally be delineated, meaning that it would not be included in the planning act of the local authority. By extension, this also means that the regulations that govern developmental standards are not applicable in this case (Hall 2005). As such, this helps to create an atmosphere that is more or less connected to creativity aesthetics. In the case of Docklands, the enterprise zone that was identified was the Islet of Dogs. With the enterprise zone having been created, the planning regime for the designated area was hence simplified, and this acted to provide a fertile ground for the entry of developmental partner. Such developments thus initiated had also to comply with set standards, with regard to height, accessibility and the use of land meant for development. Ultimately, investors and other developers were particularly enticed by this attractive offer (Hamnett 2003). With the enterprise zone for Docklands having been designated as being the Islet of dogs, this was in keeping with a resolve to change some of the conventional policies, which had so far failed to produce an environment of economic activities that were sustainable. In order to entice developers and investors, they were offered such economic incentives as the relief of taxes on the land meant for development. This was done for a given number of years, and the ensuing taxes were eventually paid out to the local authority by the treasury. At the same time, there was also an up to 100 percent allowance that was awarded to developer of commercial as well as industrial properties (Hall 2005). This offer eventually proved to be a very attractive incentive to developers. Urban Development Corporation (UDC) The idea of having UDC was so that urban areas, such as Docklands could witness a fast regeneration process. To this end, the corporation was charged with the mandate of bringing an effective use to land and buildings (Hamnett 2003). In addition, they were also supposed to endorse the development of both the existing, as well as new building that were coming up. Also, the corporation was supposed to ensure that Docklands had an environment that would attract investors, while also ensuring the local population had access to affordable and decent housing, and social amenities. The goal of UDC was to fist offer security towards land and property development. This way, the corporation reckoned there would be a regeneration in Docklands, which was fast becoming a declining area (Brownill 1990). Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) This project that emerged in 1993 is an initiative of the central government, and is normally administered through their integrated offices that are regional. The idea behind such an initiative was to enable the central government to integrate all regeneration programs that were in existence then, so as to form a single framework (Brownill 1999). This is the government arm that funds the UDC, as well as the English partnerships, as well all other government corporations. When all the corporations have been financed, the remainder of the money is offered to the winning corporation, following a competitive bidding process that has been dubbed ‘SRB Challenge’. City challenge fund As the only policy budget for the urban areas, CCF enables the local authorities, private enterprises, a couple of other bodies of the public and voluntary groups have a competitive bidding for partnership funds. At the same time, the local authority receives a crucial role; that of helping to design regeneration plan for an urban area, in this case Docklands (Pacione 2005). These are the vital areas that need planning if at all the region is to resurrect. However, only those areas that enjoys a partnership of the community, voluntary groups, the private and public sectors, is liable to getting the CCF funds. New Initiatives These include the city challenge, a program for the European funding the single regeneration budget and the new deal for communities. These were all launched in the 1990s. The collective objective of these establishments is so as to ensure that they help in the realization of a bottom-up approach; in as far as the regeneration process of a region is concerned (Oc & Tiesdell 1992). At the same time, these establishments have always been based on a comprehensive and partnership-oriented framework. It is also important to note that these programmes are a representation of the commitment that is there of enabling locals to participate in community affairs. A case study of London’s On Your Bike (OYBike) rent scheme. The On Your Bike (OYBike) project was launched by the mayor of London in the august of 2004, in the Boroughs of London that included Fulham and Hammersmith. The goal behind the initiation of the rent-a bike scheme in the city of London, was to relieve of those routes that had congestion, as a way of supplementing public means of transport, and also as an alternative mode of transport, besides the use of cars. It was hoped that such a move would further lead to a reduction in the demand for cars at stations. Rent-a-bike schemes have become quite popular currently (Dunne 2007). This is because most major cities in the developed world see them as one of the best solutions towards combating road traffic. Rent a bike schemes work by placing bicycles at strategic places, normally referred to as bike stations, for public rental purposes. Users are able to rent out the bikes from the bike stations after paying for the service (Henley 2005). Customers are able to ride off with the bikes to wherever they are going and drop them off at other bike station. Most rent-a-bike systems usually offer a free ride for limited time duration, after which, one incurs a certain fee for any subsequent hours the bike is utilized. For instance a customer can get to ride the bike for free for the first thirty minutes or the first hour, which after they are required to pay about $18 an hour. But since in most instances people use the bikes to travel short distances, the rides end up being free. Most rent-a-bike companies prefer that customers pre-pay for the services. This is usually through credit and debit cards. They may also issue out travel cards or vouchers which can be utilized by customers. Some companies like the OY Bike utilize mobile phones (Dunne 2007). Where, the customers are able to get the access code for unlocking the bikes through a confirmation call and a text message from the company. To this effect, most bikes have either a swipe or a keypad somewhere on the handle bars. Companies usually provide various subscription options. For instance customers can chose to subscribe for a long time like a year or for a shorter term like a week. There are also one time user options for infrequent users (OY Bikes 2008). In this case, the ticket can be bought from ticket stations that are located on various streets. This process involves inserting a credit or debit card, then choosing options indicating how long one would wish to subscribe for and one gets a ticket. This ticket is then waved on the keypad of the bike and the right code keyed in. After which the machine indicates which bikes are free and the customer picks one (OY Bikes 2008). The customer presses a button and the bike is then released from the station. The customer has one minute or less to free the bike, failing which, the bike will be relocked. When the bike is returned to the biking station, it has to be relocked. A light or some other indication has to show that the bike has been well locked. However, in other instances, some companies accept cash payments. Successes and achievements of Docklands project Through a detailed and proper planning, coupled with finances, Docklands managed to have enterprise zones, in the region of the Isle of Dogs, during the 1982 to 1992 period. At the same time, there was a sharp rise in the employed population fro this region, from a figure of 27, 213 in 1981, to one of 69,975 in 1996. In terms of housing and home ownership, more that 20,000 new homes came up at during this period/ on the other hand there was sharp increase in terms of the population in Docklands who owned homes (Williams 2005). In 1981, 5 percent of the population in Docklands owned homes, and the figure then rose to 40 percent by 1996. In addition, there has been witnessed a rise in tourism, with over 1.5 million tourists having been recorded as visiting Docklands. In terms of the rise in population, Docklands has continued witnessing an increase in the number of people who works and lives there, a sharp contrast to the late 70s, when people were leaving the area in large numbers, as a result of lack of jobs, decent housing and other social amenities (Williams 2005). As such, the population in 1996 was estimated to have been at 76,849, up from 39,429 in 1981. In addition, it was also estimated that by 2006, this would have risen to 106,715. With regard to infrastructure, the London airport has since been built in the area. In addition, the Light Railway of Docklands (DLR) has also been erected, as has been the extension of the Jubilee line, and other new roads that have been built (Woods 2004). Failures To start with, the regeneration project was not always a darling for the locals, seeing that they did not all benefit equally. In fact, the project failed to provide cheap and available housing. Even for the few that were there, they were not enough to accommodate the population. Also, there was witnessed a slump in the property market, for the period between 1989 and 1992 (Woods 2004). Following this development, there are some companies in Dockland that filed for bankruptcy. Analysts are also warning that a similar property slump could as well occur again in future. In as much as employment has been created in Docklands following the regeneration project, such employment has always served to help commuter into and out of Docklands, as opposed to the local population (Hamnett 2003). In addition, there has been a feeling of the Docklands community Bibliography Brownill, S. (1990). Developing London’s Docklands: Another Great Planning Disaster? London: Paul Chapman Brownill, S. (1999) ‘Turning the East End into West End: the lessons and legacies of the London Docklands Development Corporation’, in R. Imrie and H. Thomas (eds.) British Urban Policy: An Evaluation of the Urban Development Corporations, London: Sage, 43-63 Church, A. (1988) ‘Urban regeneration in London’s Docklands: a five year policy review’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 6: 187-208 Dunne, J. (2007). Rent-a-bike. The London paper, 9, August [online]. Available at http://www.thelondonpaper.com. Retrieved October 09, 2008. Foster, J. (1999) Docklands: Cultures in Conflict, Worlds in Collision, London: UCL Press Hall, Hall, T. (2006) Urban Geography, London: Routledge, 3rd Edition Hamnett, C. (2003) Unequal City: London in the Global Arena, London: Routledge Henley, J. (2005). Rentable moves up a gear from curiosity to runaway success. The Guardian, 20, August [online]. Available at http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2516 Retrieved October 09, 2008. Oc, T. and Tiesdell, S. (1992) ‘The London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC), 1981-1991’, Town Planning Review 62: 311-330 Ogden, P. (1992) (ed.) London Docklands: The Challenge of Development, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Pacione, M. (2005) Urban Geography: A Global Perspective, London: Routledge, 2nd Edition Smith, A. (1991) ‘Political transformation, urban policy and the state in London’s Docklands’, GeoJournal 24: 237-246 Williams, A. (2005) Discovering Cities: Inner London – Spitalfields and the South Bank, Sheffield: Geographical Association Wood, P. (2004) Discovering Cities: Central London, Sheffield: Geographical Association Read More