An epidemic of cynicism and negativity about politics, politicians and democracy are damaging how people view regeneration projects.
I was going to write a blog about plans for a £10m makeover for the much-loved Hackney Marshes playing fields in East London.
According to the Evening Standard, the plans will see the restoration of grass pitches, the creation of all-weather playing areas, improved parking and a brand new two-storey clubhouse.
The restoration is partly intended as a compensation for upheaval caused by the Olympics – part of the marshes will be used as a coach parking area during the games but will be restored and turned back into pitches afterwards.
Sounds good to me. I live in Hackney and the marshes have an air of neglect about them and the current club house is a graffiti-clad bunker stuffed in a forgotten corner. They’re a fantastic resource deep in the city and link to the Lea Valley Park and down to the Thames so surely any attempt to get more people to come along, to see the marshes and possibly spend some money in the local area has to be welcomed?
Apparently not. The comments below the story on the Evening Standard website make me despair.
‘Man U Fan, London’ chips in with: “I can imagine a few years later Hackney Council will say they do not have the money for upkeep and the clubhouse, cafe and community centre will be boarded up and vandalised. Net result one very expensive car park! Sorry to be so negative but the people in the area are let down continuously by their MPs and councillors.”
‘Charlie, London’ adds: “Sounds like all they are going to get is a big car park. End of Sunday League as we know it, and probably the beginning of a large retail park.”
While ‘Paul, London’ says: “Rule One – If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Years of football on Hackney Marshes suggests it ain’t broke.” (the current clubhouse looks pretty broken to me Paul).
I’m not sure what’s gone wrong here. There seems to be a huge amount of cynicism about the 2012 Games and what they’re all about. This is particularly the case in East London, ironically the area that is most likely to see long-term benefits from the project. Here many see the Olympics as just a huge land grab by the rich at the expense of the poor.
It’s a wider problem too. Regeneration is quite often seen as big business riding roughshod over local people’s wishes. It’s eyed with suspicion and written off as ‘ a waste of taxpayers money’ before it’s even come out of the ground.
This all ties in with the wider anti-politician backlash currently sweeping the country. Politicians and anyone in authority are seen as ‘out to line their own pockets’ and anything they propose or champion is therefore, by association, a bad thing.
Of course we should question authority and challenge things we don’t agree with but whatever happened to taking something at face value? A much needed regeneration of an area might actually be just that, not a conspiracy or an attempt to get one over on the general public.
I’m not sure what the answer is to this. Perhaps councils need to better communicate the benefits and need for regeneration? Perhaps the problem is with the politicians themselves and only political reform can ‘reconnect’ and re-build trust between the people and those in authority.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: 2012, hackney marshes, olympics, polictical reform, politicians, politics
Thoughtful piece by Mr Donnelly, and as someone involved in planning in the area for a while, I share his underlying sadness! Unfortunately the desperate arrogance of the Olympic planning teams, if symptomatic of the other aspects of the Olympic operation, provide some clues to peoples’ cycnicism. Any attempt to inject some quality into the proposals, eg the Media Centre, is met with total indifference and worse. The attitude to Councils like Hackney seems to be ‘you’re lucky to get anything at all, so be thankful for the crumbs’.
A change in attitude is much overdue to change peoples’ perceptions that nothing will be allowed to get in the way of the Olympics development. Any attempt to gain some Legacy benefit is seen as an impedance, and not one of the reasons for the success of the bid in the first place.
Sadly, cynicism is likely to grow if present attitudes persist, and East Londoners’ preferred Olympic experience may well become the wish to have been be able to get on a conveniently located Eurostar train to another city where at least they don’t have any illusions about ‘grands projets’!
To ask the public to take a regeneration project on face value is almost criminally naive! The public are only being negative because their experience of such projects is negative.
Many regeneration projects do have high hopes, but as the project goes from idealistic through to planning, through to funding, through to building, through to usage, through to refunding, through to cancellation through to disuse, through to new social problem – the public remember.
Most of today’s social problems have a huge debt to regeneration projects of the past. Obviously, those currently in post are not responsible for those issues, and wash their hands of them. The public, however, just see it all as a council created problem!
If you want to see an end to this kind of cynical approach, start with planning a regeneration project from build, through use through to demolition. Take ownership and plan funding for it over a generation or two. Show the public you mean it, and slowly they will start to believe you.
Until that day, many will wonder about what will happen to the Olympic village by 2020? Will it be bought by developers for a snip, will it house MP’s, will the local community get to live in them- at a lower than market rate?
Or will it all get demolished, and turned into a huge car park?
Politicians do not understand Regeneration, in fact not many people really do its a very specilaist role and a maverick one at that.
Politicians meddle and control regeneration for their own agenda, they even write what goes in the press which is often pure fiction.
So to Regen Officers politicians are to be watched with much suspician and justifiably so, you get stabbed in the back.
You say “the current clubhouse looks pretty broken to me”,
which suggests to that there is insufficient revenue funding to maintain it, which in turn suggests that Man U fan is correct.
All too often regeneration projects are doomed to failure because they are a substitue for local authorities sorting out management and maintenance of their estate.
Whenever members pf the public raise questions about revenue funding or long-term management they are told that it is not a planning matter.
Unlike many planners who move on after a couple of years or return to the southern hemisphere many residents in Hackney, and other east London Boroughs, have lived there all thier lives. Time and time again they have heard all the spiel from developers, and in recent years town planners, about how wonderful this or that is going to be and then, even if the project matchs the plans, they see it being allowed to rot from the day it is completed.
Experience teachs the people of east London not to take anything that developers, or planners, say at face value and it is quite frankly rather childish for you to denonce thier valid criticisms as cynical. Perhaps councils, including town planners, should actually listen to residents and perhaps they should answer questions about revenue funding and long-term management of projects. To build, or allow to be built, vanity projects in the hope that the Revenue Fairy will appear is the real cynicism.
Beware artist’s impressions, that’s all I will say!
Interesting comments. I haven’t been described as “criminally naive” before! Oli and Bill, you seem to be saying that all regeneration ends in failure? If that is the case should we just give up then? And if all regeneration does end in failure, who’s fault is it? The architects, the planners, the developers, the politicians? Or all of the above?
Michael, you are not actually described as “criminally naive” above.
Neither Oli nor I said that all regeneration ends in failure.
What we both explained is the need for long-term thought at the planning stage; something that most of the planning profession seems unwilling to accept.
The private sector sells on when it has completed a project, so it ensures that it has a marketable product; or they make a loss.
Housing Associations consider the long term financial ramifications of what they, or commercial partners, construct; or they get swallowed up by a more finacially competent HA.
Only public sector regeneration projects are built without any consideration of what happens when construction is complete. The Hackney citizens you denounce as cynics understand the issues but Town Planners are, by turning a blind eye to the long-term implications of a project, all too often complicit in failure.
But how do you suggest that planners deal with this problem? We have no real power to ensure that schemes are properly managed by the local authority or by anyone else.
With regards public sector regeneration, it is financial management of the local authority that causes the problem. WIth the next round of ‘efficiency savings’ nearly upon us, I foresee many other schemes being built, looked after for a couple of years, and being left to rot. If people don’t want to pay more tax to give councils more cash to devote to things like pleasant public places and facilities, they shouldn’t complain when what little money the authority has gets devoted to more ‘important’ things elsewhere (like paying TUFTED wages.)
I AM TUFTED JAKE
I think the response to my comments possibly reveal the problem more than you may care to realise.
Regeneration projects don’t fail because someone lets the side down. They fail because the project isn’t planned properly from idea to demolition. For instance, think of a shopping complex. The first thing they do is work out if it is needed. Regeneration doesn’t do that – it assumes on the word of interested parties – and they are not the best people to ask!
The most important aspect is the funding stream. The shopping complex assumes an initial lifespan based on a lease of 10 years or 25 or whatever. A regeneration project is funded from various sources, none of which are related. Most importantly, there is an assumption by the politicians that the project will be there for ever – regardless of future funding options.
In reality, funding becomes less important to the decision makers, the longer the project continues. This is either because the problem is slowly being managed, or because the problem isn’t headline news anymore.
What this comment thread is demonstrating is that not one person in regeneration has ownership of the whole project. As such, any criticism is taken to be a criticism of their area of a project – and that is not the case.
The blame lies, if anywhere, on the incorrect pricing of the project – usually to satisfy political ends, or worse, to satisfy financial funds.
On that basis, every regeneration project is destined to fail – but who is going to tell the public the real lifetime cost of a community project? No one who wants the project to go ahead!
[...] PlanningBlog: When did everyone get so cynical? « – "Regeneration is quite often seen as big business riding roughshod over local people’s wishes. It’s eyed with suspicion and written off as ‘ a waste of taxpayers money’ before it’s even come out of the ground. This all ties in with the wider anti-politician backlash currently sweeping the country. Politicians and anyone in authority are seen as ‘out to line their own pockets’ and anything they propose or champion is therefore, by association, a bad thing. Of course we should question authority and challenge things we don’t agree with but whatever happened to taking something at face value? A much needed regeneration of an area might actually be just that, not a conspiracy or an attempt to get one over on the general public. I’m not sure what the answer is to this. … Perhaps the problem is with the politicians themselves and only political reform can ‘reconnect’ and re-build trust between the people and those in authority." [...]