|
1 The practice
2 Hints for an evaluation
2.1 Strenghts
Traditional urban renewal programmes focused very much on the replacement or upgrading of existing infrastructure. They often involved attempts of “social engineering” that disrespected the human potentials that existed even in areas, which were perceived by the outside world as “highly problematic”. Often, these programmes helped only some of the local inhabitants. The replacement of entire areas with new housing led to the destruction of social networks, which had helped to stabilize the situation of people in need. The upgrading of the building stock practiced since the late 1970s had not had such hard effects. However, the improved quality of housing and public spaces led in many cases to the gradual replacement of the initial inhabitants with more affluent populations. And even in places, where the city managed to ensure that the original population mix would “survive” the urban renewal programme, one could observe that the upgrading did not solve the inhabitants´ most urgent problems, such as unemployment or lacking access to education.
The city of Berlin’s area management programme is one example of an urban development programme, which follows a very different philosophy than the above-mentioned traditional programmes. Instead of focusing on existing infrastructure and public spaces, the programme seeks mainly to invest in people. The creation of the “Neighbourhood Fund” allows the local citizen to have a real say about priorities for their neighbourhood. This might not only lead to a more effective usage of resources, but increases also the will of local citizens to participate in the project.
2.2 Critical Points
The designation of “areas with development deficits” and the subsequent establishment of Area Management was not popular in all of the chosen neighbourhoods. In some cases, local residents expressed the fear that this status would rather increase tendencies of stigmatisation.
Since the establishment of area management did not lead to a rapid increase of available resources, the area managers were confronted with the impression that the new instrument would only veil the city´s lack of activity. In some cases, community organisations also expressed the fear that the Area Managers would present long-existing initiatives as their successes.
2.3 Lessons Learnt
• Integrated and Area-based Approach (instead of sectorial approach that would focus city-wide on particular sectors such as education, health or housing)
• People-centred approach (instead of focusing on existing infrastructure)
• Recognition of the important role of local networks
• Effective participation through granting of real power in decision-making)
|