European experiences with urban regeneration programmes

Based on a comprehensive survey of international experience in urban development policy, this report makes recommendations for enhancements of the German system of urban development grants, which is co-funded by the Federal Government and the Länder. Additionally it presents conceptual approaches, instruments, procedures and regulations, which may provide opportunities for learning, adaptation and inspiration, as well as information on the contexts from which they evolved. Experiences were drawn from a variety of sources and discussed with national and international experts in order to appraise their relevance for the German context. The assessment of transferability considered the respective framework conditions and limitations, which must be taken into account in a synthetical appraisal of complex elements of urban policy systems. The outline reflects the opinions of the consultant but also incorporates the results of a workshop with the constituent, which focused on questions of transferability. The evaluation is also informed by critical aspects, which are discussed in the relevant national contexts and provide the background for a potential advancement of urban development grants on the basis of international experience.

Recommendations refer firstly to the organisation of urban development funding, secondly to the ressources and cooperation partners involved, and thirdly to the subject matter of grants. In relation to the organisation, the long-term effectiveness of grants, grant efficiency and the evidence-base for grant-making decisions are discussed. With regard to resources and partners, the focus is on the mobilisation of public funds in times of severe budget constraints, the involvement of non-government actors, and interdepartmental cooperation during the conceptual design and implementation of funding measures. The chapter on subject matters relates to the role of housing policy, mobility and transport as well as climate protection, and the respective potential to strengthen the links of urban development grants and these sectoral policies.

Long-term effectiveness of urban development grants: Despite follow-up support, some renewed neighbourhoods continue to be perceived as problem areas for decades. The achievements of upgrading are partly offset by general social trends, structural economic change and increasing housing consumption. Against this backdrop, it is recommended to continue and broaden the integrated approach of the „Socially Integrative City“ (Soziale Stadt) programme. There is a need for a more consequent area-based, cross-departmental cooperation like it was practiced in the Danish Kvarterløft programme and is now attempted by the Scottish regeneration strategy. Assistance measures, which have been succesfully tested in the „Socially Integrative City“ programme, should be continued and budgeted for by the relevant departments, as it was the case with innovative education projects in Amsterdam-Bijlmermeer. Where social problems cumulate, it is as important to remove impediments to endogenous development potential as it is to strengthen social capital and other local resources. The lack of repair in historical neighbourhoods with a high degree of vacancies can partly be dealt with by subsidized small-scale renovation carried out by owner-occupants.

Increasing efficiency of urban development grants: The German system of urban development grants faces efficiency limits linked to the duration of rehabilitation procedures, the accuracy of area delimitation, the targeting of upgrading efforts and their impact on the social environment. Urban development policy basically remains a long-term, demand-driven task, which requires integrated and area-based programmes, where tight time limits and grant competitions are only appropriate under exceptional circumstances. The long-term effectiveness of such approaches is seen as problematic as increases in efficiency tend to be temporary. Relatively short-term funding periods make sense where grants are supposed to enable the implementation of concrete, small-scale projects, which were designed together with service users and dwellers. In this context, deadlines cannot only increase the momentum but may even make it easier to use volatile social capital and to form action-oriented networks. Where serious deficits of urban development can only be overcome by a combination of public and private capital spending, a pooling of resources can become necessary. Pooling may not always require competitive bidding, but, if used appropriately, competition does provide more transparency than other award procedures and more incentives for innovative concepts. In the context of urban development grants, competitions seem to be especially useful in experimental programmes. Where unconventional, tailor-made solutions are sought for, and especially in low capacity municipalities, preliminary funding should be provided for the elaboration of urban development concepts.

Evidence-base for grant-making decisions: The development goals of areas subject to urban renewal are often defined in a cloudy manner, and the selection of areas receiving urban development grants is rarely based on a large-scale comparison of the needs of potential recipient areas. Therefore, evaluating the effectiveness of funding measures is very difficult. The selection of the areas to be assisted should be informed by uniform socioeconomic, demographic and housing market indicators. Support for the introduction of local systems of data collection could be an important first step towards more transparent criteria of area selection. Monitoring systems at the level of the Länder can make grant-making decisions more understandable, without requiring coordination between the regional statistical offices. In the long run, city-wide analyses should inform about the trends and framework conditions of neighbourhood development, and serve as the basis for area-wide action plans funded with urban development grants.

Mobilisation of public funds: Municipalities, which are in financial distress and have low administrative capacity, require more support in order to use urban development grants efficiently. Additional support for concept and project development would be useful, especially if grant-making programmes adopt competitive approaches. Within the framework of urban development grants a cross-departmental initiative for disadvantaged areas following the example of the Irish RAPID-programme should be developed. At the neighbourhood level, multisectoral planning and monitoring teams should include the local employment agency, local educational institutions, civil society groups and citizen representatives. Funding from different departments should be pooled, while urban development grants cover the costs of coordination. In regions that are economically underdeveloped the introduction of implementation agencies should be considered. As long as the principle of local autonomy is respected, implementation agencies may either be based on inter-municipal cooperation or established by the Länder.

More involvement of non-state actors: Apart from the conventional participation of citizens, property owners and civil society organisations in area-based urban development, non-state actors should play a greater role in funding, goal formulation, spending decisions and implementation. Despite the great variety of participatory processes and partnership models that exists in Germany today, they still need to be expanded, formalised and, in some regards, harmonized. In all programme phases, local civil society and market actors could be taken on board and undertake tasks in a subsidiary manner. This is especially true where non-state actors can contribute additional knowledge about the need for assistance and success factors or increase acceptance for urban development measures. Even outsourcing of urban development tasks to nonprofits is an option where state funding does not yield the desired results but mainly creates incentives for the market or lifts blockades created by competition. Housing associations, cooperatives and non-profit organisations have an important role to play in the provision of social and affordable housing. The activation of non-state actors which are not yet involved in urban renewal is ridden with prerequisites, not to mention the establishment of new third sector organizations. Especially British experiences could inspire more support for volunteer work and the creation of local networks by urban development programmes.

Inter-departmental cooperation: The combination of urban development grants and other sectoral and international funding programmes is a very complex task for local administrations. A lack of coordination during the conceptual design of funding programmes may create a duplication of funding mechanisms for similar subjects, a lack of complementarity of different programmes and overburden municipalities with parallel procedures. Therefore, a better alignment of subsidies between grant-making agencies and more consequent cross-departmental cooperation is called for, especially if classic approaches of neighbourhood renewal are to be combined with personal or case-by-case subsidies. International experience shows that cross-departmental coordination around urban policy at the national level is possible. Of course, the federal constitution of the German state and the local autonomy of municipalities need to be taken into account whenever one tries to transfer such experiences. Both, at national level and in relation to municipalities, further efforts for improving coordination need to be made in order to increase the effectiveness of state funding. Especially at the level of the Länder, new forms of cross-departmental cooperation could be explored since programme design and implementation are very concrete at these levels. A better alignment of departmental approaches at the Länder should enable municipalities to deal with a very limited number of grant-making authorities by creating a system that bundles application procedures even beyond the realm of urban development funding.

Housing policy and urban renewal: In times of reurbanisation the existing toolset of urban development grants is not able to complement upgrading trends in funded areas with housing policy measures and, thus, may compound displacement, especially in the bigger cities. It seems sensible to stipulate that a long-term housing policy is drawn for the entire city before urban development grants are awarded. Such a policy needs to analyse both sides of the local housing market, name the existing imbalances, including spatial ones, and derive an adequate programme for urban development and renewal. Where a lack of affordable housing exists, it should also be countered by awarding land for social housing below the market price, but on the basis of open tendering procedures and in return for well-defined contractual obligations. Housing cooperatives and non-profit operators should be drawn into the preparation of urban renewal interventions and receive funding for the construction of social housing. Examples from the US show that civil society groups are able to carry out urban renewal in a way that benefits existing inhabitants, but need substantial state support.

Mobility and transport: Despite of a clear commitment to sustainable mobility policies in urban renewal, apart from the upgrading of central public spaces, linkages between transport infrastructure provision and urban renewal are rarely explored. In order to improve the integration of transport and settlement structures in Germany‘s urban agglomerations, but also for the rehabilitation of neighbourhoods alongside major urban thoroughfares and their conversion into truly urban environments, urban development grants and municipal transport funding need to be coordinated. Ideally, this would be done by a joint programme, but can also work on the basis of separate programmes if urban and transport planning requirements are mutually respected. A third possibility would be a separate component within transport infrastructure funding, which caters for accompanying urban renewal measures.

Climate protection and urban renewal: Municipal climate protection policies receive a lot of funding, especially the energy efficient renovation of the building stock, but are not very prominent in neighbourhood renewal. At least at the national level, there are no ready-made recipes in other European countries either. Examples from Sweden and Scotland show innovative possibilities for local climate protection, which are not strictly area-based. A combination of classic tasks of urban renewal and local climate protection measures makes a lot of sense. Thus, urban development grants should be aligned with funding for local climate protection measures by the Federal Ministry for the Environment, and urban renewal should become part of the existing National Climate Initiative. The main aim should be to avoid the emission of Greenhouse gases by improving the city structure and intervening where market mechanisms hinder desirable investment into climate protection, e.g. in the real estate sector. In this context, a broad understanding of urban renewal must be applied, one that goes beyond physical changes and recognizes the importance of support measures, which do not directly impact the built environment but invest into infrastructure, networks, active citizenship and behavioural change.

Subsequent to the recommendations, the reports includes detailed accounts of the 30 selected international examples, which were regarded as especially relevant for reflecting on the advancement of German urban development grants and serve as the basis for the recommendations. Finally, a short summary of the survey of European and Northern American experiences and additional innovative potential in the policy field under scrutiny is provided.

Prof. Dr. Uwe Altrock
+49 561 804-3225
altrock​@​asl.​uni-kassel.​de

Dipl.-Ing. Gerhard Kienast
+49 561 804-2413
kienast​@​asl.​uni-kassel.​de