Explore the concept of social sustainability and drawing upon a case study example, critically analyse the extent to which neighbourhood regeneration can contribute to the development and maintenance of sustainable communities Introduction (Manzi et al, 2007, p1) states that “cities need to be emotionally and psychologically sustaining, and issues like the quality and design of the built environment, the quality of connections between people and the organisational capacity of urban stakeholders become crucial, as do issues of spatial segregation in cities and poverty.” These factors work together to create social sustainability; a leading factor which now features heavily in literature concerning urban regeneration. These factors range from physical aspects such as affordable housing and facilities, to non-physical factors such as social inclusion and sense of community (Dempsey et al, 2009). Social sustainability is “development that is compatible with harmonious evolution of civil society, fostering an environment conducive to the compatible cohabitation of culturally and socially diverse groups whilst at the same time encouraging integration, with improvements in the quality of life for all segments of the population” (Polese & Stren, 2000, p229). The successful formation of social sustainability leads to the development of a sustainable community; a place where people want to live and work, now and in the future. They meet the needs of existing and future residents and provide a high quality of life. They are safe, inclusive, well planned and offer good services for all (ODPM, 2006). Analysing social sustainability as a concept Social sustainability can come about as a result of both physical and non-physical factors.
Figure 1 Non-physical and physical factors which effect social sustainability (Dempsey et al, 2009)
To test the success of regenerated areas and to see if they are sustainable communities, a framework was produced, as seen in figure 2. The framework is split in to four sections; amenities and infrastructure which will provide the buildings and services for a sustainable community, the voice and influence of the residents, social and cultural life and change in the neighbourhood which assesses the impact that regeneration has had on the community over a longer period of time. The
Figure 2 The framework produced to test the success of regenerated areas (Woodcraft, 2014)
validity of this framework was then assessed by using it to test the success of four recent housing developments in London. A resident and site survey, as well as 598 interviews, were conducted and then the actual and predicted scores were used to produce a red/amber/green rating system against the framework which developers could use to analyse the success of their work (Woodcroft, 2014). Positive/negative? There is much debate over whether social sustainability is actually a positive or a negative factor. Whilst most of the outcomes of social sustainability are positive, consequences such as a community becoming isolated from surrounding neighbourhoods, as a result of their social inclusion, can be seen as a negative as it actually causes social exclusion from other communities (Dempsey et al, 2009). However, social cohesion, capital and social inclusion, along with an area which has high quality facilities and services, as well as being aesthetically pleasing are all positive outcomes of a socially sustainable community. Social interaction & participation To form the foundations of a well-integrated social community, social interaction is key. With no social interaction, it can be argued that people are merely living close to each other but living completely separate lives, with no sense of community (Dempsey, 2006). When social interaction is present, participation within the community is more prevelant. In the Sustainable Communities Plan set out by Deputy Prime Minister at the time, John Prescot, it states that effective engagement and participation by local people, groups and businesses are essential for a sustainable community (Jones & Evans, 2008). Participation within the community is crucial in creating strong social cohesion and integration between different networks of people, thus giving residents a feeling of safety and strong community (Dempsey et al, 2009). However, it cannot be said that if participation
does not take place, that the community becomes unsustainable as people may simply not want to partake. Pride of place & safety and security "A positive sense of attachment to a place is considered a dimension of social sustainability because it is an integral component of people's enjoyment of the neighbourhood in which they live" (Nash, 2003). Many people living in an area feel a sense of pride as a result of the area being an aesthetically pleasing place to live. In an area where there are large amounts of vandalism and derelict buildings, residents will not feel proud. However, a sense of pride can also come about as a result of a sense of community. This is a feeling of shared emotion through interaction with others as well as a sense of pride (Talen, 1999). If residents feel that the area in which they live has a strong sense of community then they are likely to live there for a longer period of time, thus increasing the sustainability of the community. With pride, often comes safety and security. A lack of crime and buildings which are well maintained, residents feel comfortable to interact and take part in community activities. This is not the case in areas where buildings are run down and not well lit as this often attracts more anti-social behaviour (Dempsey et al, 2009). Case study: Hulme, Manchester Hulme is located directly south of Manchester city centre. Between 1831 and 1874 Hulme saw an increase in population from 9,624 to 74,731 due to an influx of industrial work. This led to an increase in high density terraced house construction. These houses were overcrowded and often unhygienic; many without a toilet of their own. The “slums” were demolished during the 1960s and replaced with the 'Hulme Crescents', deck accessed, block housing flats. However, the crescents fell in to disrepair due to high maintenance costs. In 1985, Manchester City Council decided to regenerate the area; this time with the input of the residents. The crescents, as well as many other areas of Hulme, were demolished to make way for new neighbourhoods. In 1992, a £35m development fund was gained from the City Challenge scheme with a further £24m following in 1997. From 1997 to 2001, the population grew again from 7500 to 10,000 and 46% of properties were now owner-occupied (Guise & Lord, 2015). The Hulme Guide for Development set out a goal of returning the area to a connected urban form from an area which had previously been broken up by the crescents. They also wanted to physically and socially integrate the area with the rest of the Figure 3 Hulme Crescents (Keeling, 2017) city, encouraging movement and providing uses for residents to live, shop, work and relax (Guise & Lord, 2015).
Housing The rebuilding of housing in Hulme created smaller neighbourhoods within an urban area. Housing was built with an average density of 90 units per hectare to ensure that the area kept a large urban population whilst not becoming overcrowded and keeping a community feel. The new housing stock was built to a much higher standard with a choice of both flats and houses. The aim of providing different types of tenure was met with 42% public sector housing, 22% housing association and 36% privately owned. However, affordable housing was built on the outskirts, displacing people on low incomes. Figure 4 Google Maps showing the new housing areas built in estates (Google, 2018) Properties come in a wide range of styles, however, this left Hulme without a distinct character (Hulme City Challenge, 1994). Despite this, Hulme has seen the return of previous residents as well as new younger tenants such as students and young professionals. The number of people currently living in Hulme who want to relocate has dropped by 63%. The higher standard of the built environment has given the residents a greater sense of pride for their area; an important factor for residents involved in the redevelopment. This new sense of pride has consequently led to a lower level of anti-social behaviour (Mackay, 2006). Community The buildings of the Community Arts Centre, Hulme Community Garden Centre and Hulme Park have all created places where social interaction can take place. Local Action Partnership groups are in place for residents to give their opinion on local matters. This gives residents a strong sense of ownership and pride of place. Furthermore, the building of the Hulme Arch Bridge acts as a point of interest for Hulme, providing Figure 5 Hulme Arch Bridge (WilkinsonEyre, 2018) the area with a focal point and also giving residents a sense of place. The Hulme Arch Bridge is vital in connecting Hulme to other local neighbourhoods, ensuring the area does not become isolated (WilkinsonEyre, 2018).
Safety The neighbourhood was designed with the absence of cul-de-sacs so that all streets have buildings looking on to them. Houses are 450mm above pavement level so that visibility in to lower ground rooms was minimal, increasing safety (Hulme City Challenge, 1994). Since 1990 general crime levels in Hulme have decreased by 40% , with a 43% reduction in robberies. However, crime is still more than three times higher in this area than the UK average. (Hulme City Challenge, 1994). Conclusion The regeneration of Hulme has been successful in creating a sustainable community. The positive benefits of social sustainability far outweigh any negative aspects; the area is now safer, aesthetically pleasing and has a stronger community feel. However, whilst schemes are in place, employment will continue to be an issue with 16.5% unemployed compared to the Manchester average of 7.9% (Mackay, 2006). Word Count: 1528
Bibliography (2018, November 13). Retrieved from Google: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Hulme,+Manchester/@53.4642365,2.2536764,684m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x487bb1e4d8705ba5:0x2b633bf81e59e9b1! 8m2!3d53.4641796!4d-2.2498294 (2018). Retrieved from WilkinsonEyre: https://www.wilkinsoneyre.com/projects/hulme-arch Dempsey, N. (2006). The Influence of the Quality of the Built Environment on social Cohesion in English Neighbourhoods. Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S., & Brown, C. (2009). The Social Dimension of Sustainable Development: Defining Urban Social Sustainability. Guise, R., & Lord, J. (2015, July). Retrieved from Academy of Urbanism: https://www.academyofurbanism.org.uk/hulme/ Hulme City Challenge. (1994). Rebuilding the city. A guide to development in Hulme. A Guide to Development. Hulme High Street, Manchester. (2018). Retrieved from Muse Developments: https://www.musedevelopments.com/sites/default/files/styles/carousel_active/public/Hul me%20High%20Street%2C%20Manchester.jpg?itok=U1ygwrPC Jones, P., & Evans, J. (2008). Urban Regeneration in the UK. Keeling, N. (2017, September). We moved to Hulme and we were in heaven: a Manchester story of happy childhoods and broken dreams. Manchester Evening News. Mackay, L. (2006, February). New Urbanism: Hulme Case Study. Retrieved from Viva City 2020: http://www.vivacity2020.co.uk/vivacity-toolkit/new-urbanism-hulme-case-study/index.html Manzi, T., Lucas, K., Jones, T. L., & Allen, J. (2007). Social Sustainability in Urban Areas. Earthscan. Nash, C. (2003). Making Sense of Community. ODPM. (2006). UK Presidency: EU Ministerial Informal on Sustainable Communities Policy Papers. Polese, M., & Stren, R. (2000). The Social Sustainability of Cities. Talen. (1999). Sense of community and neighbourhood form: an assessment of the social doctrine of new urbanisms. Woodcraft, S. (2014). Understanding and measuring social sustainability.