2 Literature Review
2.1 Culture and Urban Regeneration
In discussing the relationship between culture and urban regeneration, the term by combining culture into a city’s regeneration process has been frequently used during the previous decades. In particular, culture as an element in the field of urban regeneration has been frequently utilised and has become an ‘indispensable tool’ since the 1970’s which many policy-makers believe this combination would create multiplier effects in the regional economy and city marketing (Evans, 2001; Mooney, 2004). In other words, the term culture, which includes the patterns of behavior and the potential for the different field of goals (Comedia, 2003), has been transformed and simplified as ‘cultural resources’
for urban regeneration use. Some remarkable results were shown in many European cities.
This cultural planning, as Smith (2006, 2009) noted, is aiming to transform physical space and it is also one of the methods of government planners to integrate cultural resources into the everyday lives of people. If this cultural urban regeneration planning process has been strategically planned, it will be considered that those cultural resources can bring to a community diverse benefits, including development, pluralistic, social inclusion, improve the quality of life, and aspects of culture (Smith, 2006). Moreover, the ERM Economics (2003:2) adopted that this method of using culture in regeneration planning can create not only urban competitiveness but also emphasise the fact that
‘excellence and critical mass in culture, art, sport, heritage […] are all essential prerequisites to a competitive city and national economy’.
While the concept of culture in urban regeneration use has been frequently discussed, Evans (2004:5, 2005) identified the cultural context of urban regeneration and divided the concept into three major models for a clearer classification between the different levels of the cultural activity incorporation.
Culture and Regeneration: Culture activities are not fully integrated into the urban development strategy process and they are excluded from the
regeneration sector—in this term, culture is only a part of the regeneration, not the core. Moreover, the size of the intervention has been often small-scale without comprehensively planned provision, for example, a business park or a public art programme.
Cultural-led Regeneration: Cultural activities are considered as a catalyst of the regeneration process. Those activities are mostly height exposure signature projects due to its immediate affection on cities’ image. Also, it may be designed for public or business use or a reclamation of open space. For example, establishing flagship infrastructures, or holding mega-events. The activity itself may also be cited as the sign of regeneration.
Cultural Regeneration: Cultural activities are completely combined into the regeneration strategy, including environmental, social and economic sphere. In this model, the relationship between cultural planning, cultural policy, and regeneration development is closely associated.
According to Evans’s brief definition of the three models by using culture as a key player in the progress of urban regeneration, this thesis focuses on the major content of a
‘culture-led regeneration’ model which it is by including cultural activities as becoming engines for the revitalise movement in places. To be more precise, cultural projects could become the medium for regenerating economically depressed cities and regions (Degen
& García, 2012; Middleton and Freestone, 2008), for fostering a new image for cities with cultural activities (Doucet, 2007; Evans, 2005; Middleton & Freestone, 2008; Smith, 2006, 2009), for encouraging social cohesion with corresponding culture planning (Evans, 2005; García, 2004; Miles and Paddison, 2005; Lin & Hsing, 2008), and for building up a political process which includes a connection between local community identities and socio-cultural diversification to globalisation through culture (De Frantz, 2013). Hence, the following paragraph will be analysing the concept and effect of a cultural-led regeneration.
2.1.2. Culture-led Regeneration
Being seen as a magnificent vision for urban planning, the method of a culture-led regeneration has been widely spread from country to country through the perversion of policy knowledge (Lin & Hsing, 2008; Miles & Paddison, 2005). While facing stagnant economies after the industrial decline since the 1980’s, these cities were wishing to solve problems of unemployment and deprivation as a result of globalisation, especially for those post-industrial city policy-makers such as Glasgow, Bilbao, and Liverpool. The impact of globalisation was tremendous that increased competitiveness between cities to struggle for recourses (Bianchini, 1993; Lin and Hsing, 2008; Middleton & Freestone, 2008). Therefore, the attractiveness of cities using a culture-led regeneration was irresistible when it has been confirmed by scholars its possibilities of resolving multi-dimensions of political or socioeconomic problems, for instance, declining urban areas, financial crises and economic restructuring (Bianchini, 1993). On the other hand, according to the strategy of culture-led regeneration that could renovate the quality of living standards and lighted the amuse of specific cultures, cities could also attract different investors and fascinate various tourists willing to spend time and money which could facilitate local development. Due to these concepts, expounded by Keating and De Frantz (2003), they claimed that:
“In a crowded international market, [by the use of a culture-led regeneration] can mark the city as distinct, giving it a brand image. This can indirectly promote its economic competitiveness by increasing its position in the quality-life indexes of international investment rankings. It may also have a psychological effect within the city, building self-confidence and civic pride among the population and even boosting optimism among investors.” (p.189)
However, the prospect of integrating cultural elements and activities into the regeneration process is far more luscious. Evans (2003) describes the use of a cultural-led regeneration as an ‘irresistible cocktail’ as it could bring foreseeable profits in both
environment and employment situations in a city, for instance, make changes to their city’s image, prevent further job and population loss, create a high-quality environment, and produce advantages for economic developments. Moreover, Vickery (2007) claimed that this flavor, therefore, becomes the common and recurring aspirations in four important dimensions:
To create an interaction between culture and commerce, social and institutional life.
To inspire visionary ideas providing impetuses for cultural change and social participation without traditional social divisions.
To express a visible international cultural consciousness.
And the most important one, to reconstruct civic identity and to express collective aspirations.
As a result, these notions draw out the fact that a culture-led regeneration could not only bring multidimensional benefits in economic spheres but also in social dimensions.
The effect is advantageous.
Discussing the affection of the social sphere in the use of culture-led regeneration, on the contrary, some scholars believe that emphasising on culture would spur the area and create closeness. For example, promoting grassroots cultural activities including arts and performance could have a strong evidence of attempting community groups into the process of social cohesion (Binns, 2005; Jones & Wilks-Heeg, 2004). To be more accurate, the motivation of improving social cohesion, reinforcing the identity of place and providing various opportunities for new and old local communities would also be influenced by this term and generate social capital if suitably planned. Moreover, Carnegie and Norris (2015) argued that the process of cultural-led regeneration has the potential to generate social benefits, especially for those disadvantaged communities.
They claimed that cultural-led regeneration could also combat stigmatisation, build local capacity and improve community cohesion in an area with a condition that the participation of local communities in the cultural activities process is the decisive key
point. In other words, this process somehow could become a turning point to those communities, allowing them to have an opportunity to develop their own form of cultural capitals.
Many researchers have claimed the positive effects of a cultural-led regeneration in the process of social cohesion within the embedding of local cultures based on some reasons. The potential of engaging local culture in the process is powerful. For example, local culture could be collaborating with creativity to demonstrate the uniqueness of the place; furthermore, it can strengthen the cohesion of the area’s civil-society and foster local identity by ‘reviving’ the resources and cultural activities of the place (García, 2004;
Miles, 2005; Miles and Paddison, 2005; Lin & Hsing, 2008). To be more accurate, a cultural-led regeneration project needs to include the locality’s cultural-historical meanings during the revitalising process or else it would become an elite-dominated and commercially driven cultural project (Miles, 2005). Negative influences may generate vicious cycles to dilute the local meaning and its cultural values (Carey & Sutton, 2004;
Miles & Paddison, 2005; Lin & Hsing, 2008). Hence, while cities are approaching different strategies of culture-led regeneration, there are three major preferences when local governments adopt cultural resources for intervention in post-industrial urban regeneration establishment: cultural quarter, mega-events, and flagship projects for economic development. We will discuss the pros and cons of the above preferences with combining a heritagisation process together in the following chapters.