The Social Dimension of Urban Design as a Means

Original Article

The social dimension of urban design as a means ofengendering community engagement in urban regeneration

Sungnam Park

School of Architecture, Planning, and Landscape, Newcastle University, 101–902, Kumho apartment,97 Mullaedong3ga, Yeongdungpoku, Seoul, 150-093, South Korea.E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract This study explores the social dimension of urban design in urban regeneration with a detailedempirical investigation of urban design in urban regeneration practices, principally Scotswood and WalkerRiverside in Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. The two case studies within the umbrella of the Housing Market RenewalPathfinder programme provides a chance to discuss the social dimension of urban design in urban regenerationthrough a comparative analysis of different urban design approaches adopted for two areas and differentoutcome in the social dimension of urban design. This study concludes with a discussion about the socialdimension of urban design as the antithesis of top-down master planning and the potentials of urban designin urban regeneration. It highlights that urban design plays a role in community engagement, as a means ofengendering community engagement in urban regeneration.URBAN DESIGN International (2014) 19, 177–185. doi:10.1057/udi.2013.28; published online 16 October 2013

Keywords: social dimension; urban design; urban regeneration; community engagement; housing marketrenewal

Introduction

This study explores the social dimension of urbandesign in urban regeneration in relation to localcommunities. The social dimension of urban designin urban regeneration is an integrated subject forinvestigation because it requires not only an under-standing of urban design, but also an understand-ing of urban regeneration practices and communityengagement. A relatively small amount of researchhas explored the roles and the process of urbandesign in the practice of urban regeneration.Furthermore, the roles and the process of urbandesign are highly differentiated by the variouscontexts of urban regeneration in practice.

One of the contributions made by academicliterature on urban design in urban regeneration isrecognising various stakeholders involved in theprocess of urban regeneration (Dair and Williams,2006; Williams and Dair, 2007). The complexityof interests of stakeholders raises an importantissue for the process of urban design: negotiationor collaboration among various stakeholders, forexample, the process of creating partnerships to

better negotiate or agree and approve solutions(Rhodes and Murray, 2007). The process of urbandesign is a potential arena to discuss and nego-tiate solutions and to bring opportunities for collab-oration. Urban design in urban regeneration isan ‘ongoing highly values-laden argumentativeprocess’, in Lang (1994)’s description, to negotiatewith the different goals and motivations of variousstakeholders (McGlynn and Murrain, 1994; George,1997; Carmona et al, 2002; Dair and Williams, 2006;Williams and Dair, 2007).

Classifying stakeholder groups involved inurban regeneration, and in urban design from arange of academic literature, various stakeholdersare involved in regulation, production and use,with private, public and community interests(McGlynn and Murrain, 1994; Madanipour, 1997;Carmona et al, 2002; Dair and Williams, 2006).According to Carmona et al (2002), stakeholdersinvolved in regulation are interested in integrationbetween internal and external urban changes, andintegration between aspirations at the differentlevels. They are concerned with the public interestand sometimes control the development process as

© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International Vol. 19, 3, 177–185www.palgrave-journals.com/udi/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/udi.2013.28

http://www.palgrave-journals.com/udi

main regulators. Stakeholders involved in produc-tion are often interested in profitability and man-agement. They are often decision makers, havingmore influence. The interests of user stakeholdersare mainly concerned with community interestsand improving their liveability.

In the practice of urban regeneration, there aremismatches between existing users and end usersin many cases, and their motivations are quitedifferent. The mismatch of their interests oftenleads to serious tensions in the process of urbanregeneration (Amin et al, 2000; Lees, 2003). Thesedifferent motivations of a variety of stakeholdersin the process of urban design in urban regenera-tion are all connected with one another andneed to be integrated in the communication pro-cess (Punter and Carmona, 1997; Sanoff, 2000;Carmona et al, 2002). In relation to giving priorityto aspirations of communities or the wider urbanscale and on internal or external drivers of change,the process of urban design in urban regenerationis associated with the issue of who leads theprocess (McGlynn and Murrain, 1994; Punter andCarmona, 1997).

Another contribution made by academic literatureon urban design is the advocacy of participative/collaborative approaches in the process of urbandesign (Lang, 1994, 1996, 2005; Carmona et al,2003). The process of urban design in urban regen-eration as a collaborative or a negotiative arenahighlights social responsibility and social con-sequences of urban design for urban regenerationwith the notion of multiple clients (Zeisel, 1975).The notion of multiple clients in urban design,especially recognising non-paying clients, high-lights the role of an urban design process as aprocess to enable user involvement and to commu-nicate with disadvantaged groups in the distribu-tion of power. However, the process of urbandesign in urban regeneration also needs to con-sider social, economic and political constraints,and to minimize the risk that makes communityparticipation unrealistic and may reproduce inequal-ity in the practice of urban regeneration, as someliterature has discussed (Levitas, 1998; Amin et al,2000; Cooke and Kothari, 2001; Lowndes andWilson, 2001; Jones, 2003; Bull and Jones, 2006;Blakeley and Evans, 2008).

Methodology

Research strategy of this study is based on thecomparison of a pair of case study in urban design

in urban regeneration in Newcastle upon Tyne,UK, with a detailed empirical investigation ofurban design in urban regeneration practices toexamine the roles of urban design in urban regen-eration practices with very different contexts.

The HousingMarket Renewal (HMR) Pathfinderprogramme in Bridging Newcastle and Gateshead(BNG) supported Scotswood and Walker regen-eration with the objective of bringing people backinto cities of urban renaissance initiative with a focuson improving the quality and choice of housing, inresponse to social deprivation relating to the pro-blem of low demand. Urban renaissance agendaemphasised urban design as a means of improvingthe quality of the physical environment. The HMRPathfinder programme was part of the SustainableCommunities Plan actions (Office of the DeputyPrime Minister (ODPM), 2003b) – a long-termaction plan for delivering thriving communitieswith decent homes and good-quality environ-ments. The Sustainable Communities Plan empha-sised design quality to make ‘place where peoplewant to live and will continue to want to live’(ODPM, 2003a, p. 5). The emphasis on communityinvolvement in the New Labour’s urban policiessupported community engagement to be placed atthe heart of HMR Pathfinder initiative. Therefore,two case studies including Scotswood and Walkerregeneration in the umbrella of HMR programmeprovided a chance to explore the wider dimensionof urban design in urban regeneration, in relationto communities and quality environment dealingwith social problems and physical problems ofregeneration areas. The reason for the selection ofa pair of case study within the same HMR path-finder area, was to compare different urban designapproaches adopted for two areas and differentoutcome in the social dimension of urban design.

Two dimensions of data collection were con-ducted: (i) a literature-based investigation and(ii) a fieldwork-based investigation. For the literature-based investigation, data collection with publishedresearch, secondary sources of information andofficial reports, comprising planning/design docu-ments and the central/local governments’ reportscovering planning of the case areas, policy reports,design guidance including urban design frame-works, master plans and design codes, consulta-tion papers and policy statements, was performed.The fieldwork-based investigation consisted of infor-mal visits and a series of semi-structured inter-views carried out from March 2010 to October2010. Investigation issues in relation to urbanregeneration focus on why urban regeneration

Park

178 © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International Vol. 19, 3, 177–185

was needed, how urban regeneration has beenprocessed so far and how urban regeneration hasbeen affected by changes in urban policies orpolitical/economic condition. Investigation issuesin relation to urban design aspects focus on howstakeholders perceive the role of urban design,how urban design has been proceeded in the widerprocess of regeneration and what kind of tensionsurban design faces in the designing process. Inves-tigation issues in relation to community engage-ment focus on what local communities need andprefer for urban design in urban regeneration, howlocal communities has been involved in the processof urban design in urban regeneration and howurban design responds to community engagement.

The interview questions were designed on thebasis of the investigation issues. The different pro-forma of interview sets for different stakeholderswas set up with the relation to the degree andnature of involvement of each stakeholder. Sixinterviews were conducted by comparing theviews and experiences of stakeholders in differentpositions. Key stakeholders who are involved inurban design were contacted for the interviews.For the case of Scotswood, a representative ofBNG – as a regulator and a producer – an urbandesigner who worked for Newcastle City Council(NCC) – as a regulator and partly a producer ofurban design – and local residents as users weretargeted for the interviews. Similarly, for the caseof Walker, a representative of BNG, an urbandesigner who was working for NCC, and localresidents were targeted for the interviews. Insteadof interviews with local residents, opinions of localresidents presented in consultation papers andplanning documents were explored. Moreover,interviews with two representatives of voluntarycommunity associations for each case of Newcastleupon Tyne were conducted in order to investigateusers’ perspectives.

HMR programme in NewcastleGateshead

The New Labour government announced a HMRprogramme in 2002, originally for 9 subregionalareas, including NewcastleGateshead (three part-nerships were added in 2005). The HMR pro-gramme was based on research exploring theconnections between dysfunctional housing mar-ket and deprivation and economic decline follow-ing industrial collapse (DCLG, 2009). HMR wasa regeneration programme aiming to tackle lowdemand and to rebuild housing market and

communities in parts of the North and theMidlands that have suffered large-scale housingabandonment (ODPM, 2003a, b). This programmewas established in recognition of a set of seriousissues affecting areas of a number of cities in theNorth and Midlands. These issues included highconcentrations of vacant and long-term vacanthousing, very low house prices, population lossand out migration, leading to residualised commu-nities, high levels of multiple deprivation, highunemployment, crime and other socio-economicproblems, and histories of previously failed hous-ing and regeneration programmes (BNG, 2011).Long-term (approximately 15 years) financial sup-port from the central government was offered. InMay 2002, an initial £25 million of public fundingfor the pathfinder areas was announced to assist inthe development of detailed plans and to begin toimplement practical solutions. In February 2003,the Government’s Community Plan allocated £500million for the nine pathfinders to fund approvedprogrammes over the period until March 2006.In November 2007, funding of £1 billion wasannounced covering the period up to March 2011.The HMR fund finished in 2010 7 years earlier thanplanned when the Department of Communitiesand Local Government had the largest reductionin its capital programme as a result of SpendingReview 2010.

The HMR programme in Newcastle and Gates-head, called BNG, was launched as one of nineHMR pathfinders in 2002. The programme aimedto tackle low housing demand, to improve qualityand choice, and to develop a robust basis forbuilding sustainable communities with centralgovernment’s long-term (approximately 15 years)financial support. The resources of the pathfinderprovided the significant opportunity to deliverlong-term Going for Growth objectives. The path-finder boundary was closely related to the ‘at risk’neighbourhoods on either side of the River Tynewith interventions and support targeted at themost distressed neighbourhoods. It contained77 000 properties and over 160 000 residents.

However, the Audit Commission (2004) wasdubious about the supply-led growth of the Goingfor Growth strategy and the re-population of theWest End in its Scrutiny Report. Some academicsexpressed concern of the approach of ‘restructur-ing the housing stock, in terms of tenure and valueprofile’ (Cameron, 2006, p. 14) of the HMR pro-gramme after BNG was set up in 2003. Cameron(2006) argued that the promise of HMR can besimply the replacement of a substantial part of the

Social dimension of urban design

179© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1357-5317 URBAN DESIGN International Vol. 19, 3, 177–185

existing population by households with higherincomes and social status, with less focus onimprovement for the existing population. Robinson(2005) argued that the HMR should make it clearthat it has faith in the area and the people, that theWest End has a future, that demolition is seen as alast resort and that it values the participation ofpeople in the regeneration of the area. He alsoargued that ‘social cleansing’ of local people whohave stayed to fight for their communities must nothappen in the West End.

BNG’s capital and revenue programme for2003–2004 to 2010–2011 was £224 million to which£105.3 million of other public resources and£31.3 million of private funding were added asmatched funding. Some 7000 homes have beenimproved; 3000 have been demolished, land hasbeen acquired and prepared for the constructionof over 4500 new homes. Scotswood, WalkerRiverside areas were identified as the priority areasfor investment. BNG closed in April 2011 after8 years of work after the HMR fund finished in 2010.

The Background of Urban Regeneration inScotswood and Walker (West End and EastEnd, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK)

Going for growth

Scotswood and Walker are located the West andEast End near the city centre of Newcastle uponTyne. The urban regeneration of the West and EastEnd has been supported by Going for Growth thatwas a vision plan for 2020 adopted by NCC in July1999. Going for Growth aimed to increase thewealth and population of Newcastle to create acreative, cohesive and cosmopolitan regional capi-tal of international significance (NCC, 2000b). Thecitywide vision plan aimed to increase the popula-tion from 275 000 to 290 500 and to provide 30 000of new jobs and 20 000 of new housings until 2020(NCC, 2000a, b). The policy was set out in a GreenPaper published in January 2000 with draft masterplans for the East and West End of Newcastle andthe master plan forWest End was published in July2001 with some changes to the proposal afterconsultation (NCC, 2001).

The vitality and viability analysis of neighbour-hoods in Going for Growth identified the West andEast End as major areas, which need interventionand support (NCC, 2000a, b). The existing state ofcommunities in both areas was assessed as signifi-cant areas of poverty and continuing decline. City

wide urban regeneration, especially in West Endand East End, was addressed as a key activity toachieve the vision of the city by tackling the long-term decline of population, the relative decline oftraditional economies and the social exclusion ofcommunities in Newcastle.

However, the community reactions against large-scale housing demolition (6600 dwellings, includ-ing 5000 dwellings in the West End were proposedto be demolished in the Green Paper) raised a con-troversy. Alongside the controversy on the large-scale demolition in West End, the conflict betweena community-led approach and neighbourhoodrenewal arose from the aim of ‘rebalancing thepopulation of unpopular neighbourhoods throughan engineered gentrification process’ of the Goingfor Growth strategy (Cameron, 2003, 2006, p. 4).The consultation process of Going for Growthwithout any alternatives was criticised, in terms ofcommunity engagement and empowerment, com-paring with the ‘people-focused’ approach ofWestgate New Deal for Communities programmein the West End (Cameron, 2003, 2006).

A Comparative Analysis of the Two CaseStudies

The characteristics of the study areas

The Scotswood and Walker areas have experi-enced continued population decline. The popula-tion in Scotswood, between 1981 and 2001, haddeclined by 40.6 per cent from 11 000 to 6553 (ONS,2001). In Walker Riverside, the area’s populationhad reduced by 41 per cent between 1971 and 2001.BNG pointed out over-supplied social rented hous-ing as one of the major factors of the popula-tion decline with a low demand in the housingmarket. The tenure balance in Scotswood area was45 per cent of stock in the social rented sector,46 per cent of owner occupation and 7 per centof private rented (2001 census). Walker had thehighest level of council rented households at73 per cent, owner occupation at 22 per cent andprivate rented at 5 per cent (2001 census). Thiscompares with a city average of approximately34 per cent of social rented, 53 per cent of owneroccupation and 11 per cent of private rented.

A close investigation of this study reveals thatthe problems in Scotswood and Walker were com-plex problems with dominantly social problemssuch as high unemployment, low income level andlow skill levels and low levels of educational

Park


attainment, fear of crime, limited range and qualityof shops and services, and poor health indicators.On the 2004 Index of Deprivation, the wards ofScotswood and Walker fall within the 10 per centof most deprived areas in England for all sevendomains: crime, education, skills and trainingdeprivation, employment deprivation, barriers tohousing and services, income deprivation andliving environment deprivation. The census datafor 2001 shows that 18 per cent (Walker) and11 per cent (Scotswood) of economically activepopulation are unemployed in comparison to acity average of 8 per cent. 31 per cent (Walker),25 per cent (Scotswood) of the population have along-term limiting illness in comparison to a cityaverage of 22 per cent. The North East residents’survey for 2012 shows that residents in Benwelland Scotswood (36 per cent) and residents inWalker (45 per cent) are much less likely to saythey feel safe in the council area in comparison to acity average of 60 per cent (NCC, 2012). From thesurvey, issues that are significantly more likely toneed improvment compared with NewcastleCouncil overall are clean streets (51 per cent); levelof crime (31 per cent); wage levels (23 per cent) inScotswood and shopping facilities (45 per cent);public transport (32 per cent) in Walker (NCC,2012). To these social problems were added poorexternal image and perception of the areas amongoutsiders and were linked with physical problemsincluding, poor quality housing and poor qualitypublic space. The negative images of the areaswere considered as a characterised problem of‘housing market failure’ in Scotswood and Walker.In particular, the negative image of the West Endincluding Scotswood is long-standing, entrenchedand has been continually reinforced by the media.In Walker, despite the negative perception aboutthe area among outsiders, there is a strong sense ofcommunity based in the solidarity that developedas a result of working and living together for a longtime (Madanipour and Bevan, 1999; Madanipourand Merridew, 2004).

Urban regeneration in the case studies

The government’s policies on urban regenerationand regeneration programmes strongly affectedurban regeneration in the study areas. Urbanpolicies and regeneration programmes acted asexternal drivers of regeneration at the wider level,for example, Going for Growth, urban renaissanceand HMR Pathfinder programme. Internal drivers

of regeneration with different contexts in the casestudies, including aspirations to change the stigmaand riverside view in the Scotswood case andstrong sense of community and strong social net-works in the Walker case, also affected urbanregeneration. The outcomes of regeneration in eacharea were a result of the interaction of theseexternal and internal drivers.

Urban regeneration actions for the case studieshave been mainly focused on housing-led regen-eration and improving the quality of the publicrealm. Scotswood and Walker regeneration wereboth subjected to ‘Going for Growth’ aiming toreverse Newcastle’s population decline and HMRaiming to tackle low housing demand throughcreating a better housing balance to support a morediverse population. In the cases of Scotswood andWalker, the housing-led regeneration with qualityhousing supply seems to be a dominant output ofurban regeneration. However, Scotswood regen-eration included a large scale demolition of socialhousing (1256) and the relocation of residents withinitial clearance proposals using existing Councilresources. The mass demolition has raised a ser-ious tension between NCC and local residents.

Although tenure change towards owner occupa-tion and a reduction in voids and housing aban-donment were major issue on housing in theWalker area as in the Scotswood area, NCC had adifferent approach to regenerate the Walker area.The urban regeneration approach in Walkeremphasised a close working with the local com-munity based on a strong sense of community andincluded neighbourhood issues for improvingcommunity services and the selective clearance ofempty social housing, mainly in Walker Riversidearea (599) together with housing refurbishments(497).

There is a need to discuss who leads urbanregeneration in the case studies. HMRP was astate-led regeneration programme aiming to tacklelow housing demand and to rebuild housingmarket and communities. Therefore, the publicsector has been directly involved in the process ofurban regeneration in Scotswood and Walkerregeneration under the Going for Growth andHMR programmes. Although NCC set out strate-gic plans for urban regeneration and participatedin the partnership and BNG directly supportedpublic funding, there were differences betweenScotswood and Walker regeneration. WhereasScotswood regeneration was dominantly led byNCC, a partnership with Places for People (PfP),the strategic regeneration partner, was established



in the early stage of urban regeneration in Walkerand the partnership led Walker regeneration.

The economic downturn has strongly affectedurban regeneration of the case studies. Urbanregeneration in the study areas is facing a high riskof failures in implementation with the economicdownturn. The similarity can be found in thaturban regeneration in the study areas has beendelayed or discontinued because the condition ofhousing markets has not guaranteed the viabilityof regeneration. Political change at national levelalso affected Scotswood and Walker regenerationwith the withdrawal of public funding. Therefore,the challenge of delivery in Scotswood and Walkerregeneration might be how to retain the legacy ofregeneration positively and to minimize negativeeffects on the local community and the whole city.

Urban design approaches in the case studies

Urban design in the case studies attempted to linkdifferent aspirations at the city level and theneighbourhood level. However, there were mis-matches between both sets of aspirations andlinking both levels of aspirations in urban designseems to be difficult. Urban design approaches inthe selected cases show differences in the strategicdesign level and the site-specific design levelrelated to the scales of urban regeneration. Thecontrast of urban design approaches is relatedto whether the urban design process adoptedtop-down interventions or bottom-up approaches.

In the case of Scotswood, it is likely that urbandesign approaches focused more on the aspirationsat the city level with aims for creating a new urbanneighbourhood to tackle population decline bytransforming the image of Scotswood. On the otherhand, the neighbourhood’s aspirations focused onto improve community services including localtransport, shops and public facilities. The publicsector (NCC) dominantly led the process of urbandesign with appointed urban design consultantsand urban designers in NCC. Although a steeringboard was organised to negotiate with other stake-holders, the involvement of local residents werelimited.

The ‘top-down’ urban design process led toenvironmental-focused urban regeneration with aphysical approach to solve urban problems.Although high-quality urban design was empha-sised from the early stage of the master planningprocess, the emphasis on urban design was reallyabout urban design quality in the physical aspect,

which is not so relevant to the focus of a commu-nity-based strategy. The design-led approach withthe Housing Expo idea to change the images of awhole area radically was incorporated in a large-scale demolition and housing-led redevelopmentstrategy aiming to attract middle-class home-owners. However, the neglect of social urbandesign exposed the area to market forces, withnegative results. Criticism from local communitieson large-scale demolition and the top-down regen-eration approach of Scotswood has occurred asseen in the example of the community-based pro-test against a large amount of demolition of socialhousing suggested in the Green Paper (Cameron,2003). Not surprisingly, many of local residentsexpected little local benefits from urban design andconcerns were raised about the loss of existingcommunities. From stakeholder workshops in2006, local residents considered the ScotswoodExpo idea as ‘just an idea’; they were also con-cerned that ‘it will achieve little without improvingother areas alongside it’ (NCC, 2006).

In the case of Walker, urban design approachesseem to focus more on aspirations at the neigh-bourhood level than the Scotswood case. TheGoing for Growth strategy for the East End empha-sised the importance of community involvement.Community organisations, including the Networkand East End Community and Voluntary SectorForum influenced the selection of the developer,the Places for People consortium. A joint steeringgroup of NCC/PfP led the process of urban designwith appointed planning consultants, LlewelynDavis. The process of urban design emphasisingclose working with local communities contributedto bottom-up approach and captured the aspira-tions of local people. Urban design approachesfocused on improving the design quality of newhousing and the façade of refurbished housings,providing design guidance for speculative futuredevelopments, and improving community services,including the provision of school, the improve-ment of public transport and the development ofthe local centre. Suggestions for improving com-munity services in a series of urban design guidesand a phased approach for small-scale new hous-ing developments, and refurbishments in Walkerfocused on improving the quality of existing builtenvironments based on the locality.

The difference between two approaches used inScotswood and Walker communities affected theresidents of two neighbourhoods in their attitudes.For the majority of residents in Scotswood, aninevitable consequence was frustration and refusal

Park


to be involved in the regeneration process. As theurban designer commented about a lack of localpeople’s support for Scotswood regeneration:

No people were involved in the beginning;nobody talked. And they expected a fewrather than a large amount of demolition. So,the problem for Scotswood regeneration waspeople’s support. (Urban designer 1, 2010)

Conversely, there was an agreement in the inter-views that community engagement in Walkerregeneration was considered as being very positiveto local residents as Audit Commission’s (2009)report highlighted active community involvementas one of the strengths of Walker regeneration:

Residents have been heavily involved inregeneration planning in Walker and resi-dents recognised the opportunities they haveto influence decisions.

Why Walker regeneration is seen as a relativelymore successful case of community engagementthan Scotswood regeneration?

The two Newcastle study areas were both sub-jected to Going for Growth and the HMR Pathfin-der programme. As reviewed, HMR Pathfinderemphasised community engagement. Therefore,the urban design process attempted to includecommunity engagement. However, the masterplanning process in the case of Scotswood was astate-led approach with the form of top-downdecision making. For example, the whole processof developing, the Scotswood Masterplan and theScotswood Expo design competition was led byNCC and appointed urban design professionals. Ithad little room for negotiation or the community asGiddings and Hopwood (2006) argued on publicsector master planning. The range of mechanismsfor community engagement was limited to con-veying information about urban design, which wasalready decided by the public sector rather thandesigning in collaboration with the community.Moreover, local communities are likely to beunable to be actively engaged because of thefundamental mismatch between the objectives ofurban regeneration and local residents’motivations.

In the case of Walker, with bottom-upapproaches to enhance engaging community, localcommunities seemed to be engaged actively in theprocess of urban design. A partnership approachwith the community network in the Walker’s case

was a useful step in facilitating coordination andcommunication and in providing information. As aform of partnership with the local community,various channels for engaging local communitieswere used in the master planning process. Thechannels were to identify communities’ viewsand to adopt their view in the decision making. Agood working relationship with local residentswas established. Community engagement enabledurban design in Walker regeneration to have thebroad support of the community and to reflectthe community’s preferences and aspirations forthe future of Walker. Particularly, the dialogue onurban design, including the Enquiry by Designevent in developing the preferred option for theArea Action Plan (AAP), and the Heart of Walkerplace making event, were used to engender com-munity engagement through the interactive com-munication with local communities.

The strong sense of community and ‘socialcapital’ in Walker, as Madanipour and Bevan(1999) highlighted, appear to enable local residentsto involve themselves actively in the urban regen-eration process. In the typology of social capitalcategorised by Harriss and de Renzio (1997), ‘poli-tical capital’ is created by the relation between civilsociety and the State through the norms and net-works, which enable society to mediate conflictby ‘hearing, channelling and composing multiplecitizen demand’ (p. 933). The role of the commu-nity organisations such as the Walker RiversideCommunity Network, East End Community andVoluntary Sector Forum and partnership bodiesappears vital in providing direction and focus forcommunity engagement in urban regeneration asseen in the example of the ‘key principles’ and the‘strategy for community involvement’ in theWalker case. Local drop-in centres with supportworkers working directly with community groupsappear to be crucial for community engagementand the subsequent building of ‘political capital’(Hibbitt et al, 2001) with confidence and trustbetween local residents and the development part-nership including the state (NCC, BNG) and PfP.

Conclusion: What is the Social Role of UrbanDesign in Engendering CommunityEngagement in Urban Regeneration

The empirical work in this study shows how dif-ferent urban design approaches influence commu-nity engagement and bring about the differentoutcome of urban regeneration. State-led top-down



approaches in the urban design process in the caseof Scotswood regeneration restricted the channelsof community engagement and have not necessar-ily provided acceptable benefits to local residentsthemselves. Physical solutions for urban regenera-tion turned to large-scale demolition and radicaltransformation as a strategy in urban design. Theneglect of social urban design exposed the regen-eration area to market forces, with negative resultsin the social aspect. Not surprisingly, concernswere raised about social consequences and the lossof existing communities. Conversely, the commu-nity-based bottom-up approaches in the urbandesign process in the case of Walker regenerationprovided various channels for undertakingengagement and enhancing the ability to identifycommunity views.

One of the contributions of urban design inurban regeneration investigated in the case studiesis that urban design can be used as a mechanismfor public control represented by the master plan-ning process and the provision of design guidancefor future applications. The urban design mechan-ism for public control enhances the influence of thepublic sector on the quality and the effectiveness ofurban design products. This focus of urban designon public control emphasises setting out designstandard for improving the design quality of thebuilt environment. The public control of urbandesign appears to be linked with the significanceof urban design from the regulator’s perspective(Madanipour, 2006), which can be found in howit makes the city more competitive by helpingshape the future of the city and managing change.Considering the built environment as a product ofurban design, if providing design guidance is oneof the political mechanisms for providing publiccontrol through urban design, the public sector canbe an important contributor to improving andmaintaining the quality of the built environment(Carmona et al, 2003).

According to Madanipour (2006), another sig-nificance of urban design from the regulator’s per-spective is helping to develop better governancearrangements. Community engagement is crucialto develop better governance in urban regenera-tion. Urban regeneration, especially applied toresidential areas, faces issues related to existingcommunities. Setting priorities for the existingcommunities in urban regeneration inevitablyrequire ‘the mechanisms for identifying commu-nity views and the channels for undertakingengagement’ (Russell, 2008) in the process of urbandesign in urban regeneration.

The social dimension of urban design wouldbe the antithesis of top-down master planning.According to Lang (1994), urban design is ‘anongoing highly value-laden argumentative pro-cess’. The argumentative nature of the process ofurban design in urban regeneration requires inter-active communication between the state andcommunities to respond to the various tensionsidentified in this study. With an emphasis on theparticipative/collaborative approach (Punter andCarmona, 1997), urban design plays a role incommunity engagement, as a means of engender-ing community engagement in urban regeneration.Urban design dialogue, for example, the ‘planningfor real’ exercise, the ‘community enquiry bydesign’ event and the ‘place making’ event, as theWalker case shows, can be used as a means ofcommunication with local communities. Two-wayinteraction with urban design dialogue causes orgives rise to a feeling of inclusion and enhanceslocal communities’ awareness and perception ofurban regeneration through genuine participationin decision making to create actual design based ontheir priorities and preferences.

The distinctiveness of urban design in urbanregeneration, if urban design plays a role as‘a place-shaping mechanism’, would be that itshould respond to the questions of ‘place-shapingfor whom?’ and ‘whose place in relation to existinglocal communities?’. Urban design in the form ofinteractions with communities also acts as a chan-nel for engaging community to interlink betweenthe existing users of place and the end user ofplace as ‘the second-order client of urban design’(Zeisel, 1975, George, 1997). The tension of gentri-fication as cited by the interviewees in the casestudies would be a key challenge in the socialdimension of urban design in urban regeneration.Urban design dialogue enhances the chanceto help local communities communicate their ownresponses to the fear of gentrification and negotiatevia design alternatives, which provide more com-munity benefits.

References

Audit Commission (2004) Bridging NewcastleGateshead –

Walker Riverside Area Action Plan.Audit Commission (2009) Neighbourhood renewal: Newcastle

City Council.Amin, A., Massey, M. and Thrift, N. (2000) Cities for the Many

Not for the Few. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.Blakeley, G. and Evans, B. (2008) ‘It’s like maintaining a hedge’:

Constraints on citizen engagement in community regeneration

Park


in East Manchester. Public Policy and Administration 23:100–113.

BNG. (2011) Creating the foundations of transformation: HousingMarket Renewal in Newcastle Gateshead, the BNG legacy.

Bull, A.C. and Jones, B. (2006) Governance and social capitalin urban regeneration: A comparison between Bristol andNaples. Urban Studies 43(4): 767–786.

Cameron, S. (2003) Gentrification, housing redifferentiation andurban regeneration: ‘Going for growth’ in Newcastle uponTyne. Urban Studies 40(12): 2367–2382.

Cameron, S. (2006) From low demand to rising aspirations:Housingmarket renewal within regional and neighbourhoodregeneration policy. Housing Studies 21(1): 3–16.

Carmona, M., De Magalhaes, C. and Edwards, M. (2002)Stakeholder views on value and urban design. Journal ofUrban Design 7(2): 145–169.

Carmona, M., Heath, T., Taner, O. and Tiesdall, S. (2003) PublicPlaces-Urban Spaces: The Dimension of Urban Design. NewYork: Architectural Press.

Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. (2001) Participation: The New Tyranny?London: Zed Books.

Dair, C. and Williams, K. (2006) Sustainable land reuse:The influence of different stakeholders in achieving sustain-able brownfield developments in England. Environment andPlanning A 38(7): 1345–1366.

DCLG (2009) Key messages and evidence on the HousingMarket Renewal Pathfinder programme 2003–2009.

George, R.V. (1997) A procedural explanation for contemporaryurban design. Journal of Urban Design 2(2): 143–161.

Giddings, B. and Hopwood, B. (2006) From evangelisticbureaucrat to visionary developer: The changing characterof the master plan in Britain. Planning Practice and Research21(3): 337–348.

Harriss, J. and de Renzio, P. (1997) Missing link or analyticallymissing?: The concept of social capital. Journal of InternationalDevelopment 9(7): 919–937.

Hibbitt, K., Jones, P. and Meegan, R. (2001) Tackling socialexclusion: The role of social capital in urban regeneration onMerseyside – From mistrust to trust? European PlanningStudies 9(2): 141–160.

Jones, P.S. (2003) Urban regeneration’s poisoned chalice: Isthere an impasse in (community) participation-based policy?Urban Studies 40(3): 581–601.

Lang, J. (1994) Urban Design: The American Experience. NewYork: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Lang, J. (1996) Implementing urban design in America: Projecttypes and methodological implications. Journal of UrbanDesign 1(1): 7–22.

Lang, J. (2005) Urban Design: A Typology of Procedures andProducts. Oxford: Architectural Press.

Lees, L. (2003) Visions of urban renaissance. In: R. Imrie andRacoM. (eds.)Urban Renaissance? Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.

Levitas, R. (1998) The Inclusive Society. London: PalgraveMacmillan.

Lowndes, V. and Wilson, D. (2001) Social capital and localgovernance: Exploring the institutional design variable.Political Studies 49(4): 629–647.

Madanipour, A. (1997) Ambiguities of urban design. TownPlanning Review 68(3): 363–383.

Madanipour, A. (2006) Roles and challenges of urban design.Journal of Urban Design 11(2): 173–193.

Madanipour, A. and Bevan, M. (1999) Walker: A neighbour-hood in transition. CREUE Occassional Paper no. 2, Unpub-lished paper.

Madanipour, A. and Merridew, T. (2004) Neighbourhoodgovernance, social exclusion and urban renaissance: A casestudy of Walker. A Research Working Paper funded by theEuropean Commission, Newcastle upon Tyne.

McGlynn, S. andMurrain, P. (1994) The politics of urban design.Planning Practice & Research 9: 311–320.

NCC. (2000a) Draft masterplans for the East End and West Endof Newcastle: Consultation and Participation, Newcastle.

NCC. (2000b) Going for Growth: A Green Paper.NCC. (2001) Regeneration Plan West End, Newcastle.NCC. (2006) Area Action Plan for Scotswood and Benwell,

Stakeholder Workshop 15 February, Consultaion Report.NCC. (2012) North East Residents’ survey.Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2003a) Market

Renewal Pathfinders-Learning Lessons.Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2003b) Sustain-

able Communities: Building for the Future.ONS. (2001) 2001 census, Tyne and Wear Research and

Information.Punter, J. and Carmona, M. (1997) The Design Dimension of

Planning: Theory, Content, and Best Practice for Design Policies.London: E&FN Spon.

Rhodes, M.L. and Murray, J. (2007) Collaborative decisionmaking in urban regeneration: A complex adaptive systemperspective. International Public Management Journal 10(1):79–101.

Robinson, F. (2005) Regenerating the West End of Newcastle:What Went Wrong? Northern Economic Review 36: 15–42.

Russell, H. (2008) Community Engagement: Some Lessons fromthe New Deal for Communities. A research report for Com-munities and Local Government.

Sanoff, H. (2000) Community Participation Methods in Design andPlanning. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Urban designer 1. (2010) Interview with an urban design whoworked for NCC. 18 March.

Williams, K. and Dair, C. (2007) A framework for assessing thesustainability of brownfield developments. Journal of Envir-onmental Planning and Management 50(1): 23–40.

Zeisel, J. (1975) Sociology and Architectural Design. New York:Russell Sage Foundation.



Documents

The Social Dimension of Urban Design as a Means