Introduction
In the face of mounting pressures as diverse as population growth, economic restructuring, housing supply and affordability concerns, climate change, resource depletion and environmental crises, social polarisation, and shortfalls in transport and other infrastructure, urban regeneration has emerged as a central urban policy across Australian cities (Newton and Thompson 2017). It is likely that this emphasis will remain for decades to come. Yet, urban regeneration is far from a simple process. While the state might view regeneration as a process which delivers economic growth and performance, concerns around social equity emerge as it reconfigures the city, potentially creating winners and losers (Shaw and Porter 2009). The reliance on the private sector to deliver urban regeneration gives it a significant amount of power in determining the form and function of the city. As a result, social polarisation and inequality can be exacerbated as profitable locations across cities are regenerated, often forcing low- and moderate-income citizens out, while other parts remain largely ignored. Yet, urban regeneration also offers a set of opportunities and innovations, as new development addresses concerns around housing supply, infrastructure delivery and environmental sustainability. However, the capacity to realise these opportunities are often constrained by policy, governance, and funding arrangements, as well as wider market conditions. The purpose of the book is to examine the complex processes, tensions and challenges which surround the planning and delivery of urban regeneration. In doing so, the book provides analysis of the multiple scales and locations of regeneration which collectively contribute to the regeneration of Australian cities.
In examining urban regeneration across Australia, contributions to this collection explore two core themes. The first theme centres on the complex planning, governance and funding arrangements which frame urban regeneration. Contemporary urban regeneration projects are enacted within the context of neoliberal governance and financial arrangements which have dominated Australian cities for at least the last 30 years (Haughton and Mcmanus 2011; McGuirk and Dowling 2009; Cook and Ruming 2008; Gleeson and Low 2000). Here the delivery of urban regeneration by the private sector emerges as a cost-effective solution for financially constrained governments, where principles of market efficiencies, entrepreneurialism, private property, and profit emerge as paramount (Evans and Jones 2008; Forster 2006). Thus, urban regeneration takes place within the context of market parameters and needs to meet the objectives of market actors who are increasingly tasked with delivering urban change (Pinnegar and Randolph 2012). Mirroring international trends, urban regeneration is no longer the task of the state alone, but is âcontingent upon the outcomes of a much wider array of processes and actorsâ (Karadimitriou et al. 2013: 1). It is not solely driven by planning frameworks and decisions, but a product of wider economic processes, such as land ownership, project funding and finance, and taxation regimes (Bunker 2007).
Despite a continued reliance on the private sector, rather than the complete âhollowing outâ of the state, the state has been reconfigured as a facilitator of urban change (Jones and Evans 2013). The emphasis is increasingly on how the state can direct or enable market and non-market stakeholders to address wider social and economic challenges. Facilitating development via funding arrangements or the planning system, is a core responsibility of the state. Thus, urban regeneration emerges as a âprecarious mix of market, state planning and local communitiesâ (Ruming et al. 2007: 10). It is here where the notion of the partnership has emerged as the dominant governance arrangement for large-scale redevelopment projects (de Magalhaes 2015; Karadimitriou et al. 2013; Ruming 2009).
The second theme is the re-scaling of urban regeneration. Typically, international literature and policy on urban regeneration has tended to focus on individual sites, primarily large brownfield sites or social housing estates (de Magalhaes 2015; Karadimitriou et al. 2013). While these sites are important, they represent just part of the urban regeneration processes occurring across cities. As such, contributions to this collection provide a wider analysis of urban regeneration, recognising the diverse forms, locations and scales of regeneration occurring across cities. The focus is on the regeneration of cities, not just individual sites. Here the regeneration processes occurring across middle and outer regions are equally important to the ongoing evolution of Australian cities as regeneration sites located in the inner city.
Defining urban regeneration
Urban regeneration is difficult to define. For example, Smith (2012) argues it is often difficult to separate urban regeneration from wider urban policy and processes, while Tallon (2013: 4) characterises urban regeneration as a subset of urban policy, which âat the most general level ⌠has come to be associated with any development that is taking place in cities and townsâ. Along a similar theme, Colantonio and Dixon (2010: 55) suggest:
urban regeneration conjures up different meanings for different people and can range from large-scale activities promoting economic growth through to neighbourhood interventions to improve the quality of life.
For de Magalhaes (2015), urban regeneration represents a âwicked issueâ, given the multiplicity of state and non-state actors involved, as well as the long planning and development timelines, which often span multiple electoral cycles. What is common to many definitions is a recognition of the multidimensional, complex and multiscalar processes it involves.
The difficulty surrounding definition is compounded by the multiplicity of terms which have been mobilised to explain and promote regeneration. In particular, renewal, revitalisation and renaissance have emerged as ideas which cover similar urban processes (de Magalhaes 2015; Leary and McCarthy 2013). These terms are often used interchangeably; however, each has a slightly different emphasis. For example, Lees (2003) suggests renewal reflects a form of urban intervention more likely to be led by the public sector, with an emphasis on addressing sites of social disadvantage. In contrast, regeneration is seen to emphasise economic growth and private development in response to limited public funding (Tallon 2013). For Leary and McCarthy (2013: 2) ârenewal tends to mean physical approaches and regeneration more holistic responsesâ (emphasis in original). Shaw and Porter (2009: 3) illustrate how the notion of renaissance has emerged as a central objective of neoliberal urban policy advocating for âwell-being, creativity, vitality and wealthâ across cities. The use of multiple terms has led to some confusion. However, at the foundation of all of these terms is a desire to reconfigure the form and operation of cities in response to a series of social, economic and environmental challenges.
Internationally, urban regeneration is often mobilised as a policy intervention designed to address the needs of blighted communities and places (Bunce 2004; Furbey 1999). Evans (2005: 967) defines urban regeneration as:
the transformation of a place â residential, commercial or open space â that has displayed the symptoms of physical, social and/or economic decline.
While for Karadimitriou et al. (2013: 9) urban regeneration is:
concerned with dealing with the physical, social and economic consequences of urban change in the context of a retreating welfare state.
The focus of such interventions is often on poor people and poor places, where âinward lookingâ regeneration projects can address local problems (Matthews 2010). This form of urban regeneration typically adopts an area-based approach as a means of focusing limited resources and addressing complex issues facing disadvantaged communities. Historically, urban regeneration projects have been property-led, where the physical transformation is the principal goal. This interpretation of urban regeneration often advocates for a top-down, project-based model of development, most easily enacted via new developments on inner city brownfield sites and large social housing estates (Tallon 2013). Thus, urban regeneration projects which âentail[ed] higher density, mixed-use developments on brownfield sitesââ emerged as the dominant form of development (Winston 2010: 1787).
Evans and Jones (2008: 1418) argue that the regeneration agenda has been adopted by many cities as a âmagic bullet for delivering âbetterâ citiesâ. In this context, regeneration is positioned as a process capable of âfixingâ urban problems, be they abandoned urban land or disadvantaged communities. Urban regeneration has emerged as a normative concept which promotes a vision of what should happen to the city, or locations within it, and how the vision should be achieved (Smith 2012). However, this understanding downplays the diversity of objectives expressed by the public sector, private sector and urban communities. It is unlikely that any urban regeneration vision will deliver the outcomes desired by all stakeholders, resulting in tensions surrounding what a âbetter cityâ might look like (de Magalhaes 2015). Thus, some have argued that urban regeneration has emerged as a lever of neoliberal and entrepreneurial urban governance where the priorities of private sector/markets are given precedence over other concerns (Leary and McCarthy 2013). Further, place-based, property-led forms of urban regeneration have been criticised due to their failure to address the wider societal and economic processes which led to the need for urban regeneration in the first place (de Magalhaes 2015).
In response to some of these critiques, there has been somewhat of a retreat from market-led/property-led definitions and interventions, which are seen to place too much emphasis on the configuration of the built environment. Increasingly regeneration schemes are accompanied by place-based social interventions able to ârehabilitateâ environments and communities (Charmes and Keil 2015). Thus, the definition provided by Roberts and Sykes (2000: 17) recognises the diverse processes and impacts of urban change, where urban regeneration is seen as a:
comprehensive and integrated vision and action that leads to the resolution of urban problems and which seeks to bring about a lasting improvement in the economic, physical, social and environmental condition of an area that has been, or is subject to change.
For Roberts and Sykes (2000), the movement away from property-led regeneration in the UK has seen the emergence of three new pillars, represented by the concepts of sustainability (economic, social and environmental), strategic visions and partnership. This interpretation is more holistic, with notions such as partnership, integration, competition, empowerment and sustainability becoming increasingly important. Many of the chapters in this book map how these ideas are enacted across Australian cities.
For the purpose of this book, a broad definition of urban regeneration (and renewal in some chapters) is adopted. Here urban regeneration is considered any process which reconfigures the city and contributes to its ongoing evolution. This definition recognises urban regeneration as a process occurring simultaneously at the local, project scale, and at a wider urban scale. This approach recognises that the regeneration of an individual site changes the nature of the city. Regeneration projects (no matter what their size) should not be viewed in isolation, but collectively as drivers of city-wide change. With some exceptions (Baxter and Lees 2008), most urban regeneration research fails to grasp the connections between official, large-scale regeneration and the regenerative capacity of less-recognised sites, such as middle-ring infill development and greenfield suburban developments. Thus, in this book, urban regeneration is not confined to large-scale brownfield projects; rather it is a multiscalar process which acknowledges the vital role that small and medium-sized projects, such as knock-down and rebuild or shopping centre-led regeneration, play in reconfiguring the city. The city emerges as a mosaic of regeneration projects and processes, be they initiated by the state or private sector, or a partnership between them. Each chapter in this book offers a detailed exploration of one or more forms of urban regeneration. Yet collectively they present an overarching picture of the complex, multiscale, contradictory and controversial processes of regeneration occurring across Australian cities.
Australian urban regeneration: an urban mosaic
In contrast to urban regeneration in the UK or the USA, Australian urban regeneration projects tend to be driven by capitalising on the commercial or strategic value of land rather than issues of poverty and area-base disadvantage. Typically, policy, public and academic debate around urban regeneration has coalesced around two primary types: high-value brownfield sites and large social housing estates. However, focusing only on these sites ignores the diversity of regeneration processes occurring across the city. Beyond large post-industrial sites and social housing estates, a new wave of urban regeneration has emerged across the middle and outer parts of Australian cities. This new form of regeneration comes in response to the ageing of Australian suburbia, as suburbs emerge as viable redevelopment opportunities. Across these diverse geographies of regeneration, complex planning, governance and funding arrangements emerge to shape and direct regeneration. In order to examine the complex urban regeneration process occurring across Australian cities, this book is divided into three parts.
Part I: Planning and funding urban regeneration
Beyond the occasional foray into urban policy by the Commonwealth Government â such as the Department of Urban and Regional Development under the Whitlam government (Oakley 2004), the Better Cities Program under the Hawke/Keating government (Neilson, 2008) or the City Deals program recently introduced by the Turnbull government (AHURI 2017) â it has been largely left to state and local governments to manage urban regeneration. The planning system has emerged as a central mechanism for governments to promote and direct urban regeneration across our cities. In Chapter 2, Ruming reviews contemporary metropolitan strategies across all state capital cities. Across the strategic plans, ideals such as urban consolidation or the compact, polycentric or 30-minute city emerge as central ambitions. The emphasis on infill development, densification, activity centres, nodes, transport corridors and transit oriented development (TOD) promotes a new form of Australian urbanism which comes in direct opposition to historical dominance of fringe development (Newton and Thompson 2017; Dodson 2010). Concentrating development within designated centres emerges as a panacea to many of the social, economic and environmental challenges facing cities. These strategies aim to set the framework for urban regeneration across Australian cities, identifying a hierarchy of regeneration sites, ranging from large-scale brownfield regeneration sites to small local centres.
However, urban scholars have highlighted the inability of state governments to implement these visions on the ground, with the link between metropolitan strategic planning and local development processes historically weak (Bunker et al. 2005). As such, it is through a series of regulatory measures that state and local governments seek to manage urban regeneration. At the highest level, large regeneration project...
