It was Eric Pickles who coined the term ‘drag anchors’ suggesting that planning was a an unnecessary regulatory burden which spiked the engine of growth. In the context of the poor economic climate and the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Growth and planning have enjoyed a stormy relationship, positioned as adversaries rather than allies.

But how does the relationship between growth and planning, the engine and the drag anchor operate in practice? During the summer I did a bit of research, as part of my PhD exploring the relationship between economic growth and planning in different types of places. These are some of my conclusions:

1. If growth is the answer, what is the question? Economic growth is often seen as the solution to the challenges an area is experiencing whether it be high unemployment, poor physical environment, health inequalities, deprivation and poverty. But in the areas I looked at, the relationship between growth and positive outcomes in the labour market or wider society’s is fuzzy. Growth, when it comes, doesn’t always impact on the challenges in the way that decision makers expect, and sometimes it displaces existing jobs or highlights the mismatch between existing skills and new investment.
2. Using planning policy to create growth is a bit like alchemy: In places where growth is happening, the key jobs of the planer is to help regulate the process in order to maximise the benefits for people living in an area and tackle the negative externalities that growth creates such as congestion and the lack of affordable housing. In places where growth is elusive, the planner’s job is different, its about creating the conditions for growth, enabling, support, and cajoling growth so that it can eventually start to take root. But regardless s of whether you’ve got it or not, growth is the key outcome for economic and spatial policy.
3. Achieving economic growth is not the end, but only the beginning. Whilst documents like the NPPF suggest that the ultimate goal of planning policy is to achieve growth, growth is not the end of the story. In places where economic growth has been achieved with new jobs and business development, rapid inward investment and high land values, the need for planning becomes even greater. Growth when it comes, unleashes a whole set of new challenges, particularly the physical consequences of that growth. Whilst people want the jobs that growth creates, they rarely want the physical consequences of new houses and construction.
4. Growth is about change both positive and negative. Growth as a goal for place is portrayed as an intrinsic good. A cursory glance through documents like the NPPF or the rhetoric from the political conferences illustrates this point. Whilst I’m not saying we don’t need growth, what I am saying is that we’ve got to understand the limitations of growth, as well as the advantages.
5. The institutional cords that bind us to growth. If you are a place which is interested in a different path, other than the standard, growth approach, for example, you want to try a steady state growth path or a shrinking cities approach, there isn’t an option for you. Let’s imagine that a council wants to pursue a planning strategy which is based on a non growth model of development. It is very unlikely this will comply with national policy or be looked upon favourably by the planning inspectorate (even if your democratically elected council has approved it).

What the alternative to the language of growth or decline In the realms of planning and growth, there is a dearth of language which we can used to discuss and explore place-shaping. Planning can actually be a highly creative process which can allow us to do this by understanding the strengths and weaknesses of a place, beyond its propensity to grow.

What is planning, what is it for and what role does it play in supporting and shaping places both in a time of austerity and potentially in the future? Coming from an economic development perspective, I’ve long been interested in the sometimes fractious relationship between local economics and planning.

Current government rhetoric has chosen to characterise planning primarily as a regulatory function which in the coalition’s eyes, acts as a ‘drag anchor’ on growth  At a time when economic growth is conspicuously lacking, it appears that we can’t afford the luxury of planning; the role of planning in austerity is to deliver growth. A simple linear relationship is implied by government, that less planning control equals greater levels of economic growth.

But what can we learn about this relationship from the example of other countries?

SOUTH KOREA – USING PLANNING TO MAXIMISE GROWTH
South Korea, an Asian tiger economy, is relentlessly pursuing a neoliberal approach to planning to free up land and sustain their rapid economic growth.

I visited the Incheon Economic Zone, 30km west of Seoul, which is a vast development stretching for more than 100km and boasting the latest in ‘ubiquitous’ technology, environmental design features and transport infrastructure, including South Korea’s primary international airport, Incheon.  Incheon is zoned into three main areas: Songdo, the best of global business; Yeongjong, the best of global logistics and Cheongna; and the best of global leisure (which includes Robot Land, ‘a mecca for high tech industries’!).

The appetite for investment and growth is also intensifying demand for land in Seoul itself with the government embarking on vast ‘reconstruction’ projects in the centre of the city. The Hang River is at the centre of many of these initiatives and while it may seem more efficient in the mind of Seoul’s planners to reconstruct the city’s existing architectural design in the name of efficiency, may be in danger of jeopardising the city’s distinctiveness.

What is evident about planning in South Korea is the use of land as a commodity to be maximised for the greater economic good.

SAO PAULO – MANAGING RAPID ECONOMIC GROWTH
The informal settlements that surround the periphery of Sao Paulo speak volumes about the city’s rate of growth. These vast settlements house up to 30% of the city’s residents. In contrast with Seoul, planners have to adopt a different planning approach in order to address the challenge of informal housing.

Rapid urbanisation has meant that the demand for housing and services has not been able to keep pace with supply, resulting in the development of informal settlements within the city itself in corticos (slum tenements) and on the city’s periphery in favelas.

Once upon a time, Sao Paulo had a similar approach to Seoul, whereby land was viewed purely as a commodity. People living in the favelas did not exist. They were not part of the city but an inconvenience to be moved on.

However, as time went on the approach changed. Planning in Sao Paulo is now much more about a collaborative exercise whereby the city’s planners work with residents of informal settlements to redevelop these areas and integrate their communities and economy into the ‘formal’ city. This includes the development of basic infrastructure such as roads, sewage and health/school services, but within the existing slum. The slum is not replaced but retrofitted and improved from within.

This approach challenges the traditional urban planning which often views informal or illegal settlements negatively as undesirable. and dangerous. However, in Sao Paulo, the informal city actually provides an alternative forum for planning and designing a city which works with what is already present in the informal structure.

CURITIBA – AN INTEGRATED APPROACH
Of all the areas we visited, Curitiba gave us an example of a place where it appears the priorities of planning and growth have been, to some extent, integrated.

Curitiba’s vision for integrating growth and planning is characterised by a rapid bus transit system which ensures the city’s main thoroughfares are dominated, not by the private car, but by dedicated bus-only lanes which operate in much the same way as an underground rapid transit system. To facilitate this system and maximise its usefulness, planners developed the city in a linear way, that is, instead of concentrating development in and around the physical centre of the city, development is concentrated along the same linear routes taken by the transit.

This has the effect of reducing the pressure on the city centre as the focus for every day transport, helping to minimise congestion and ensuring public transport has priority over cars.

Curitiba’s latest initiative, the Linha Verde or ‘green line’ is a massive project to turn an existing interstate highway into a new rapid transit express bus way. It’s a difficult thing for someone in the UK to imagine as it’s the equivalent of taking the M6 and converting two lanes to bus only lanes with car transport either side.

The route is known as ‘the green way’ because it will literally be green with linear parks along one side comprising native plants and trees to support biodiversity along with bike lanes to encourage alternative forms of transport.

RE-EXAMINING THE PURPOSE OF PLANNING
My experiences in these countries challenged me to reflect on the purpose of planning in the UK and the role that it can play now and in the future. What was clear to me as an economic development professional was the sense that in the UK, we’ve forgotten the purpose of the planning system.

We’d started think of it simply as a dry regulatory burden which was in place to constrain rather than release ideas. While we might not agree with all of the approaches outlined in these projects, they remind us of the transformative power of planning and how it can act as a vital and energising force for places, people and their local economies. 

(A longer version of this blog was published in the New Start ezine at the end of Feburary 2012)

I’ve long been a fan of self-build housing having grown up in a house my father designed and built. I was reminded of his entrepreneurial zeal this week following the announcement of DCLG’s NewBuy Guarantee initiative, which confirmed our reliance on a developer-led model of housing design and construction. 

Baugruppe is completely different model of development which, roughly translated means ‘self-build communities’.  In some parts of Germany, groups of house buyers, work together co-operatively to purchase land and then design and build their own homes together. 

Baugruppe has been actively encouraged within projects like the redevelopment of the Vauban quarter of Frieburg, where it played a crucial role in helping to create the high quality of environmental standards, design and car free environment that are characteristic of ‘Quartier Vauban’ today.  Indeed, the city council actually gave preference to groups of citizens over commercial developers at the site and also fixed the land prices so that commercial developers could not enter into a bidding war.

Through this process, not only did residents get exactly the type of house they wanted (within the parameters of the overall planning guidance and site masterplan) but they also began to get to know their future neighbours even before they moved into the area, building a sense of community from the very start.  Individual families can also add their own design ideas to the building which gives the neighbourhood area a real sense of identity.    

Could self-build co-operatives work in the UK?

The question I’ve been asking myself this week is “could elements of the Baugruppe approach work in the UK?”   At a time when the supply of private investment in house building is at a low ebb, Baugruppe provides an opportunity for people to take matters into their own hands and can provide cost savings.  Research in Berlin by Chan (2010) found that in contrast with apartments built by a housing developer, Baugruppe could be 25-30% cheaper, partly because the same level of marketing is not required.

Cities and towns with areas of undeveloped land, like Berlin, may also be able to use Baugruppe as way to attract developers and investment and encourage the redevelopment of vacant land, particularly where this land is owned by the public sector. 

Orientating a housing development around the end users in the community also means that much greater attention is given to the outside environment, a real feature of Vauban which is dotted with communal gardens and play areas as well as provision of shops and community facilities.

Individualised budgeting is all the rage in health and social care, why not individualised house building budgets?  In the redraft of the National Planning Policy Framework, why not provide incentives to local authorities and communities to explore the possibilities of an entrepreneurial approach like Baugruppe in the local plan as part of the solution to housing demand.

The example of Baugruppe in Vauban, Frieburg has been critiqued as an ‘intentional community’ where people have the financial capacity to acquire a desirable place to live.  But its also a chance for us to re-evaluate what type of housing developments we want to see in the UK and to think differently about how we might build sustainable communities in the future.

For more information

If you are interested in finding out more about Baugruppe, there are a number of good sources of information:

• Buegerbau is a company based in Germany who specialise in ‘Bauen in Gemeinschaft’ which translates literally as building collectively in the community
• Report on the Phenomenon of Building groups (Baugruppe) in Berlin:
• Report on the Lessons from Freiburg on Creating a Sustainable Urban Community written by Joseph Little

A key theme of my PhD is about economic and spatial strategies for places that find growth difficult, because I think its something we tend to ignore in UK regeneration, planning and economic development.  Currently, the UK has no alternative ideas as to how policy should support places where economic growth can be difficult, other than to say that they should try and grow.  Growth is often cited as the answer when we don’t know what is the question!

There has been some murmuring about managed decline – or ‘smartdecline’ as I’ve also heard it described – and certainly there is a lot of interesting commentary on this from the shrinking cities debate which New Start commented on recently. I’ve also been reading some work this week on depopulation in Japan, which suggests that some regions are thinking beyond growth. This report suggests that ‘many institutional and social and environmental entrepreneurs are instead working towards achieving community stability and sustainability’.

What these examples show very clearly is that place-success is all too quickly and easily aligned with place-growth. A successful  and dynamic place is also a place whose economy grows.

But, what is a good place? Can a place be good, even if it doesn’t have economic growth? We can start to answer that question by taking a look at the type of language we typically use to describe places where economic growth is difficult:

Lags behind

Weak labour pools

Uncompetitive

Peripheral

Undynamic

Vulnerable

Weak

Then in contrast – look at the language we use to describe the places we think are growing!

Can do

Innovative

Competitive

Central and core

Dynamic

Strong

Could the contrast be any sharper, and is it any wonder that regeneration and economic development initiatives often fail to have the desired impact? This type of language not only has the effect over time of problematising place and the people who live there, but it also undermines the very efforts being made to support and encourage new growth and regeneration.

While the economic realities of a place impact greatly on the people who live and work there, the words we use to describe a place may be just as powerful. I’d argue that the dominant discourse in spatial and economic planning has the power not only to blight communities, but also to trap our imaginations in a Weberian ‘iron cage’, which stifles debate and creativity about the nature of a ‘good place’.

A few weeks back I started exploring potential methodologies for discourse analysis in my PhD.   I’m interested in using twitter as a source of data to understand the relationship between place and discourse and perhaps as a research tool in itself.  As a twitter research novice, I got lots of advice from fellow tweeters about how twitter can be used with links to their research and examples demonstrating immediately the potential usefulness of social media for the student.   Here is a quick summary of what I found:

Reading the riots

For the researcher, twitter as @jonhickman pointed out is very rich source of data with the views and idea of thousands of people circulating at any one time.  @flygirltwo sent me a link to her work in a project which used data from twitter (2.6million tweets) to understand the reasons behind the riots in the summer of 2011.  Reading the Riots is a piece of work led by The Guardian and the London School of Economics and full information about this project including the use of twitter can be found here  with links to some impressive graphics to illustrate the spread of rumours about the riots, generated by The Guardian.  This research looks particularly at the role of individual tweeters in spreading information (both real and erroneous) about the riots.

The role of twitter in an emergency

Tweeters also pointed me in the direction of a report by researchers at the Centre of Excellence for Creative industries and Innovation (CCI)  led by @snurb_dot_info.  This work explored how social media had been used to disseminate information during the 2011 Queensland floods in Australia.  Like the Reading the riots project, the research analysed tweet data, particularly focusing on the use of twitter by the Queensland Police Service during the crisis using the hashtag  #qldfloods.   The CCI report is an engaging read and I found the sections on existing research which document the rise of twitter in social research particularly interesting.   They describe how a number of new research areas are emerging in relation to how social media is impacting upon our lives.  From the use of twitter to “harvest civilian sentiment” to the emerging theme of “collaborative resilience” where “technology users respond to disruptions of their life during a crisis (e.g. the use of their cars, workplaces, or even homes), leading to a greater reliance on IT and collaborative networks” (CCI 2011).

Other links for twitter research

B Hunter @socialBedia tweeted that they’d used twitter to undertake their MA thesis which analysed tweets about museums for patterns of interaction & content analysis, again using twitter as a source of data.  The data can be organised and analysed using tools like rowfeeder.  @SocialBedia has a usefulwebsite with links on the blog page to the latest ideas in using social media in business development and particularly for engaging with new and existing audiences in the creative and cultural sector

But if you are not interested in analysing big data, then its probably worth speaking to @jonhickman and @stinelomborg who work qualitatively with small data using ethnographic research design and interviews.  However, in general with regard to using social media, its worth heeding @johnhickman’s advice which was “don’t forget what is not happening on Twitter”.

I’ve only scratched the surface of twitter research but I’m looking forward to exploring these and many other thoughts on Discourses of Place at a #popupseminar with @garethmorris @jennacondie @odobob @yasminah_b @annkol and @lovestoke.

In attempt to ward off the post Christmas blues, I had a read of the Scottish Government’s regeneration strategy published in December 2011; Achieving a sustainable future: Regeneration strategy.    It’s a comforting bed time story type of read because it reassures us that there are still people out there who believe in the notion that we should and can support those who are most marginalised, even in a time of financial constraint.  Just because we’re in the middle of an economic crisis, doesn’t mean to say that regeneration is simply a luxury that we can do without, regeneration is for life, not just for Christmas (sorry, I couldn’t resist!) 

The strategy defines regeneration as a “holistic process to reverse economic, physical and social decline of places where market forces alone won’t suffice” thereby acknowledging the (pretty obvious) limitations of traditional trickle down model and highlighting the clear role that government can play in supporting communities.  Their vision is a Scotland where the most disadvantaged communities are supported and where all places are sustainable and promote wellbeing.  The strategy also emphasises the clear role for government, both at the Scottish parliament and locally in showing leadership to support disadvantaged communities, whilst at the same time recognising that all parts of society need to be involved; pubic private and third sector (something CLES have always advocated in their resilience work).    

In contrast, aside from the fact that they offer no clear definition of regeneration,  DCLG seems more wedded than ever to the idea of trickle down and in the all giving power of economic growth.  In their definition regeneration is about “driving economic growth” and in turn economic growth will “regenerate and breathe economic life into areas”.  However, economic growth, when we had it, far from breathing new life, was often sucking the oxygen out of some of our most marginalized people and places.    Sometimes because of the might of big business or short term economic expediency and often as a result of property rather than people fuelled investment.  What about the role of big bad government in regeneration?  Well as far as DCLG are concerned, that seems to have gone into hiding, but never fear because localism is here.  This means that local people, businesses, civic leaders and community groups all have the chance (but of course no funding) to support the process.  Sorry but was that a goat escaping through the back door?

I’m not trying to suggest that Scotland has got it all worked out and certainly some of the strategy’s sections read a bit like a “regeneration for dummies” handbook.  But at least they recognize the role of the state, the importance of solidarity and cohesion in communities and that the answer is not simply a question of economic growth, If only it was that simple!

 George Osborne’s Autumn Statement failed to give us any hope for the future, any vision for the development of our economy, other than to say that if we reduce the deficit and reduce the role of the state, the private sector will miraculously emerge. This, coupled with the relentless media focus on the austerity, pain and misery that we’re all going to face over the next five years; why don’t we just cancel Christmas and be done with it! Hope is not about false optimism, we all know the next few years are going to be a struggle, but hope is about giving ourselves a sense of direction, about giving us the capacity to deal with what is to come and, perhaps most importantly, about ensuring that those sparks of ingenuity, enterprise and creativity, are not starved of oxygen or crushed by the weight of the unhappiness in our economy. As Marcus Aurelius said, “Why see more misfortune in the event than good fortune in your ability to bear it”

Last week, I had the opportunity to explore a hope-giving project in Glasgow, just 10 minutes walk north of Glasgow City Centre in Speirs Lock, part of the Forth and Clyde Canal, constructed in 1790. This is a brilliant illustration of just how the economy in Glasgow and indeed the rest of the UK has changed over the last 30 years. Once a major centre for heavy industry, nowadays, Speirs Lock produces ballet dancers, opera singers and fashion designers. Glasgow City Council and their partner ISIS Regeneration, hope that this is just the start and that the cultural and creative transformation of the area will ensure that the area’s economy begins to thrive once more.

I spent a couple of days in one of the brand new ballet studios in the Scottish Conservatoire, based at Speirs Lock, where I was facilitating the Future City Jobs Game. Future City Jobs is a new project, devised by the British Council which aims to address youth unemployment by harnessing the potential of the creative and cultural industries. Being there gave us great inspiration as to the possible sources of future jobs and business for young people in the future. Speirs Lock is a vision of what is possible with a little imagination and belief. It is a vision of a different type of economy. One that still produces jobs and new businesses, still relies on traditional skills and still demands hard work. Its also a sector that is much wider than simply the headline acts of musicians, singers or dancers. The supply chain embraces many other aspects of the economy, including construction, security, lighting/sound engineers, catering, hospitality and even wigmakers! Not that I’m trying to pretend that cultural and creative industries are going to solve all our problems, or even begin to generate enough jobs for all those who find themselves out of work in Glasgow. At least, in the current gloomy atmosphere, projects like Speirs Lock give us a modicum of hope, a sense of direction and an alternative vision for our economy which is not simply about the sanctity of the financial services, big business takeovers or public sector cuts.

In spite of the government’s best efforts over the last year, Britain’s not growing.  They’ve tried public sector cuts, increasing taxes and tinkering with a half hearted growth policy but nothing seems to be working.  Obviously what we need to do next is shake up the planning system which is “slowing the delivery of much needed new jobs and new business”.   This sounds serious; after all, planning is simply about more bureaucracy, permissions, controls, regulations, guidelines and forms.  Wouldn’t it be great to live in a Britain without any of this planning policy nonsense?

Obviously the economy would grow much faster, unfettered by the chains of state intervention.  Currently planning policy is a ‘serious brake’ on growth because it protects areas of outstanding natural beauty, manages urban sprawl and tries to drive up environmental standards on new buildings.  It also meddles in the housing market by trying to convince cash strapped developers to build new social housing. 

If you want to get a feel for an economy without planning, why not take a trip to Venezuela? The capital Caracas is, despite its socialist street cred, totally devoid of planning policy.  The free market has been completely liberated with all manner of economic activity, from the big global players’ downtown in their attractive breezeblock offices, to the barrio entrepreneurs who recycle the city’s rubbish, find their own electricity and hook up their own wireless internet.   60% of the city’s population are housed informally in the Barrios and they represent the ultimate in big society and free economy where citizens provide their own services.  Perhaps Barrios would be a good model for social and economic development in Britain?  Apart from this economic success, Caracas has also benefited from endemic smog, unending traffic jams where carjacking is a fact of life, excruciating inequality and a public transport system that looks as if it is trapped in the 1950s.  Local government in Caracas are busy trying to develop and, more importantly, to enforce a planning system.  We spent an afternoon at Chacao Council where they’ve been trying (in vain) to explain why having even a modicum of planning policy might just be a good idea.  They realise that the costs of NOT having a planning system are also significant with the public sector picking up the tab for among other things, poor health, reduced tourism revenue, crime and policing.  If you don’t have the time to go to Caracas – just hop over the sea to Ireland and see how effective a weak planning system has been at supporting sustainable growth…

The problem with the government’s approach to planning reform is that it has decided to turn it into a one dimensional argument – growth versus planning.  Planning does need reform.  There is a need for greater integration between spatial and economic policy and greater involvement of citizens in the planning process.  Crucially we need much greater boldness on the part of planners to generate new ideas as to the future look and feel of their place, particularly at a time when the temptation is to become more, not less risk adverse.  In the absence of support for economic development and regeneration strategy, planners have also got a responsibility to support those communities which are most vulnerable.   Effective planning policy is not simply a bureaucratic burden but a powerful tool which can be used to realise new social and economic visions for our communities – if only we’d learn how to use it imaginatively.