The process of urban regeneration in : Before the crisis, after the crisis

DR NIAMH MOORE SCHOOL OF GEOGRAPHY, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN

Presentazione al Dipartimento di Architettura, Università degli Studi di Palermo Seminar Overview

 The urban context  The general development of Dublin  The ‘urban crisis’ in the 1980s

 Framing regeneration  Entrepreneurialism and governance  Changing policy environment: area-based interventions  Strategic urban projects & the public-private relationship

 Before, during and after the boom:  Case study:

 After the boom: Where to now? The Urban Context Dublin, Ireland Dublin and Irish urban change

 1970s /1980s: Global economic change, decline BUST of inner city

 Mid-1980s to 2007: Global growth, return to the inner city, redevelopment and regeneration, BOOM gentrification etc.

 2007 to present: Global recession, national economic decline, construction slump, recovery? BUST 1950s onwards:

 Context for change:  Global economic transformation  National government policy: Wright Plan, 1966  Suburban expansion to the north, west and south

 Urban decay in 1970s and early-1980s  Out-migration of industry to locations on the urban fringe  New companies chose to locate operations in attractive suburbs  Unprecedented rise in unemployment of 97,000 (1971- 1981)  Changing distribution of economic functions and a redundant inner-city.

Population change in Dublin

 Dublin 2011: 1,270,603  Dublin City: 525,383 (+3.8%)  Fingal: 273,051 (+13.8%)  DunLaogh: 206,995 (+6.7%)  South Dublin: 265,174 (+7.4%)

 Comparison with Palermo:  Dublin city centre smaller  Urban Functional Area larger Framing regeneration Context for change

 National economic crisis  Government intervention

 Market-oriented US / UK influence:  Allowed tax incentive areas to be designated by Minister  Promoted creation of special bodies for redeveloping special areas  Kick-started redevelopment  Changing role for local authority Regeneration: The Dublin approach

 Partnership a key concept

 Method:  Role of fiscal (tax) incentives of significant importance  De-regulation / ‘light touch’ regulation to create a ‘favourable business climate’  Streamlined planning  Spatially targeted (Harvey, 1989)  Focus on ‘new economy’ Public-private relationship in Dublin

 1986-1994: State dependent on private funding, relaxed power over developers/property interests provided incentives/good environment for business

 1994-1998: State increased power over private sector by restricting designated areas, channelling attention into specific sectors and types of development

 1998-2007: State reduced tax incentives to adopt a more sustainable approach; in turn the private sector more opportunities to gain from major developments through PPP approach Phase 1: 1986-1994

 Economic context – local and national recession  Out-migration of industry to locations on the urban fringe  New companies locate operations in attractive suburbs  20% rise in unemployment in Dublin 1971-1981  Changing spatial distribution of economic functions

 Rise of the neo-liberal agenda:  Local authorities financial difficulty  ‘Inefficiency’ a key metaphor  Private sector need to be engaged  Government intervention  Urban Renewal Act 1986

 Guiding principles:  Leverage of private sector investment  Spatial integration of culture, economy and ecology in the new urban region  The ‘urban’ to be developed in the national interest  Designation of areas for special incentives – tax related  Governance and goals  Promoted creation of special bodies for redeveloping special areas – new state actors  Changing role for local authority  Emphasis on physical renewal especially new build with just one exception Example: Temple Bar (left bank’)

 Special agency in collaboration with local authority (1991)  Culturally based regeneration / distinctiveness  Involvement of state cultural agencies: a ‘cultural quarter’  IR£40m (€50m) funding under cultural development programme  Enhanced incentives for refurbishment  Central & local government partnership: ‘creative industries’ Phase II: 1994-1998

 Changed economic context: Recovery and growth gaining momentum

 Renewal proceeding but needed reform  Success in stimulating property-based urban renewal  Large areas of city under construction  Less progress in employment, amenities, education and training  Unintended consequences of policy  Displacement and relocation of commercial users  Shadow effect of new developments on old  Conservation/refurbishment hard as policy favoured new build  Single-use commercial favoured over MXD  Incentives overheating property market?? Evolution of regeneration in 1990s

 Urban Renewal Act, 1994:  OPLURD: EU funding and area-based partnerships

 Enterprise Zones:  East Point & Grand Canal  Incentives for development of Enterprise Units and R&D facilities  East Point:  Sun Microsystems, Oracle, Yahoo  Grand Canal Street:  Google, eBay A new context for planning

 Formalisation of frameworks for partnership

 Major Urban Initiatives: HARP (Historic Area Rejuvenation Project) in Dublin  109 hectares in inner central area.  Based on strategy of creating four local cells within the area.  Retail cell focused on Henry Street/Mary Street, The Markets cell, The Smithfield cell and the Collins Barracks cell.

 Opportunity for the local authorities involved, to reassert their position as the lead agencies in urban renewal

 Direction of regeneration:  Deficiencies of the property led approach, and the failure of benefits to trickle down to local communities  KPMG report, 1996:

“...there has been little benefit to date from the redevelopment to the neighbouring communities in terms of employment, amenity and facilities. Social problems such as drugs, poor education attainment and marginalised communities remain" (1996: 91). Phase III: 1998-2007/8

 One of strongest European economies in economic and employment growth

 Necessity to stabilise demand rather than boosting demand, sustainable development

 New approach to regeneration from 1998 – Integrated Area Plans

 Public-private partnerships (PPP’s) - commitment to principle of engaging private sector in delivery of what were predominantly state activities Public-private partnerships in practice

 State reduced tax incentives, adopted a more sustainable approach; private sector opportunities to gain from major developments through PPP approach

€950m upgrade of M50 (Dublin ring €104m road) Former Spencer Dock railyard SIAC/Ferrovial Treasury Holdings/SISK/CIE Opened Sept 2010 Opened Sept 2010 Partnerships and regeneration

 Key policy mechanism - Integrated Area Plans  Strengths and weaknesses of areas  Apply for designation  Target sub-areas or key projects with incentives only where proven barriers to development exist  Area of high social disadvantage, monitoring and implementation

 PPP approach worked as property market was strong  Dependency on PPP schemes to replace or refurbish obsolete social housing estates  PPP scheme at Spencer Dock (CIE and Treasury Holdings) Integrated Area Plans Challenging specialisation

1. Liberties Digital Hub 2. Kilmainham Residential, community 3. Heuston Gateway Mixed use 4. Smithfield / HARP Markets, leisure ✓ 5. Temple Bar Cultural, tourism ✓ 6. Docklands Financial, ICT, Mixed use Heuston Gate

 2-hectare (4.5 acre) state- owned site to the south-west of

 Balance to the Docklands developments at the eastern end of the

 Two landmark buildings

 Cultural flagship development – Exploration Station Digital Hub: Accommodating Creative Industries

 Digital Hub Development Agency established in 2003  Enterprise and social development strategies  Ensure creators and innovators of next generation digital media products and services have an opportunity to grow.  Leveraging the project to provide social and educational developments and reform.

 Board level integration with Dublin City Council, Enterprise Ireland and the Industrial Development Authority. The turn to community

 1980s urban regeneration:  Assumption that economic development ‘trickle down’  Community development in opposition to central government

 Early 1990s softening of approach  UK City Challenge policy - partnership and consultation

 Mid 1990s, tackling social exclusion a key theme  European Union influence  Arrival of slightly Left-leaning government in Ireland  Late 1990s : More scope for community involvement  Language of community and partnership  Community involvement in partnership poor outcomes  Range of difficulties in engaging

‘In all the work I’ve been involved in, it’s us who have to put the effort into reaching the council’s level ... They never come down to ours’ ‘With so many men in suits, it was difficult to find the courage to speak up’ ‘ The officers pay more attention to questioning whether we are representative or not than they do to what it is we actually say’ Before, during and after the boom: Dublin Docklands

Docklands in the 1980s

 Similar to rest of the city  Gregory Deal  Nationalisation of Port & Docks Board site

 Key legislation:  Urban Development Areas Bill (1982)  Urban Renewal Act (1986) Custom House Docks, mid-1980s Early regeneration in docklands

 International trend in urban waterfront regeneration

 A ‘flagship’ project for Dublin:  National economic development & tax revenue  Prevention of ‘brain drain’ & harness high education levels  Physical regeneration & post-industrialisation  International Financial Services Sector  Financial incentives and flexible regulatory environment A “jewel in the crown”

 Custom House Docks Area:  Initially a 27-acre site, then extended  Planning power removed entirely from local authority  Custom House Docks Development Authority (CHDDA)  Benjamin Thompson & Associates architects (Boston, MA)  Master Plan agreement with development consortium

Achievements: 1986-1997

 Economic:  International Financial Services Centre (IFSC)

 Physical improvements

 But social rejuvenation?  Skills mismatch – no retraining  Failed to improve quality of life for locals A sea-change?

 Re-prioritise (‘turn to community)’:  Polarisation a necessary feature of capitalism?  Tackle disadvantage /exclusion  Social, physical and economic change  Accountability / democratic deficit

 Dublin Docklands Development Authority (1997)  1300-acre area; six village districts  Public-private partnership - £350 million: £1.25 billion  Change in organisational structure The extended docklands A zone in transition Economic-social

OBJECTIVES ACHIEVEMENTS

 Increased employment &  Apprenticeships (65)

retraining  Schools Job Placement  Increased educational Programme (140)

attainment  National College of Ireland &  20% new jobs to locals & new Third Level Scholarships

housing policy  Parents in Education Initiative  Promotion of Financial (49)

services  Community Development Project Initiative (200 community projects at a cost of €5.25 million. Other

OBJECTIVES ACHIEVEMENTS

 Transportation  extension

 Land use:  20% of all new stock for  Residential & Community social and affordable housing  Commercial & retailing  Distributed across the  Tourism / Amenity developments

 Festivals

retailing etc. Challenges

“There is nothing to reflect the culture or history of the area. When you look at the Albert Docks in Liverpool with its Maritime Museum, reflecting the great seafaring history and tradition of Liverpool […] you can get a sense of what could have been achieved in Stack A” (North Wall Community Association, 2005). Partnership in docklands  €50 million on remediation

 €200 million in land sales Architecture: Global competition but recession means …

U2 Tower: Norman Foster Zaha Hadid: North Wall Quay After the boom: Where to now? Population

 Re-populated city  But sustainability of growth pattern  Edge of city primarily  Sprawl a major issue Who retains responsibility?

“Dublin City Council proposes to provide €8.5 million from its annual capital allocation in 2009 to make an immediate start on the regeneration of St Michael’s Estate, O’Devaney Gardens and Dominick Street. The projects are no longer viable under the Public Private Partnership process that had been envisaged”. Housing and built environment

 Housing issues:  Affordability  Negative equity (-57%)  Landscapes of dereliction: the ‘ghost estate’

 Urban politics & corrupt practice  Legitimacy of certain agencies  Cost to tax-payer  New agents: NAMA? Summary

 Rapid changes in Ireland over the last 25 years

 Economic transformation  changing policy environment

 Range of scales & ways in which intervention occurs but partnership and area-based approach are key themes

 Flagship projects to leverage social / community gain with mixed success

 Impact of boom (political, economic and social) still unfolding but responsibility back to state