19-06-2007

Is a European trend visible in the report?

Physical measures are considered very important throughout Europe. But what you see is that physical interventions are occurring particularly in northern and western Europe. There are various reasons for this situation.

A lack of money is an important factor in eastern Europe. Both southern and eastern European countries devote less attention to post-war neighbourhoods. Here, different from northern and western European countries, the post-war neighbourhoods are more often considered as favourable neighbourhoods to live in. People in Madrid and Milan, for example, have become accustomed to living in high-rise buildings. Post-war flats are much sought-after dwellings here, unlike in most northern and western European countries. That is why many housing units in flats are owner-occupied.

Good quality housing is very important. But it is important to examine carefully why decisions are often taken to demolish dwellings in rundown areas. What is the driving force behind a decision to alter the existing housing stock in an area? In most European countries you see that flats are not demolished until they really do reach the end of their life, for instance because of concrete rot or some other uninhabitable situation. Similarly, dwellings are sometimes pulled down because of large-scale disuse, as happened in eastern Germany, for example.

But in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Denmark and now France as well you see that good quality dwellings are being demolished to achieve socioeconomic objectives. This causes surprise in other European countries. Why would you demolish houses when there's nothing wrong with them? I'm one of those with doubts about this matter.

That does not alter the fact that physical interventions are very important in an integrated approach. By taking physical measures you can improve the quality of life in, and raise the image of, a neighbourhood for its residents and for outsiders alike. Residents become a lot happier if they live in an attractive environment. Physical interventions offer residents a positive outlook on the future, they have the idea that something is happening in their neighbourhood, that things are getting better. Physical improvements can most certainly improve people’s faith in the positive future of an area.

However, it is very important to remember that physical interventions can improve a neighbourhood, but not the socioeconomic position of its residents, or at least not the original residents. By building new, more expensive houses you can enhance a neighbourhood’s socioeconomic profile, but the problems of the original residents are not addressed that way.

Another point is that physical interventions cost a great deal of money relatively speaking. So it is important to look carefully at exactly what problem needs to be solved. In many cases, measures other than physical interventions prove more effective and more efficient.

You should not expect too much from physical interventions. You can't solve all problems with better houses or more attractive outdoor spaces. Many investments fail to achieve their goal. If you want to improve the socioeconomic position of residents, physical interventions should not be the first option to consider. Physical interventions can improve neighbourhoods, but not people.

Something that really struck me was the prominent role that local authorities - municipalities - play in every improvement project. Municipalities are typically the accelerators of just about every project in Europe. To my mind it is very important for municipalities to remain in a position to play this role w ith verve. Higher levels of government should enable them to do so. At the same time, given their prominent role, local authorities must stay well informed of the latest results and insights of scientific research.