november 2012                ARTICLE
17Naples, Scampia housing estate (2003). Photos: Iván TosicsOne of the most segregated areas of Europe, with concentrated ...
18     Tackling socio-spatial polarisation is a difficult     task for urban administrations. Besides the               Bo...
against divided cities in europe                                                                                          ...
20     geographical scope, i.e. national, regional or          social structure in school catchment areas            In th...
against divided cities in europe                                                                                          ...
22       Box 4: Integrating horizontal and area-based housing and urban policies to tackle socio-spatial       segregation...
against divided cities in europe                                                                                          ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

BACKGROUND MATERIAL FOR AGAINST DIVIDED CITIES IN EUROPE WORKSHOP

432

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
432
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

BACKGROUND MATERIAL FOR AGAINST DIVIDED CITIES IN EUROPE WORKSHOP

  1. 1. november 2012 ARTICLE
  2. 2. 17Naples, Scampia housing estate (2003). Photos: Iván TosicsOne of the most segregated areas of Europe, with concentrated problems of poor neighbourhoods. Some of the buildings have already been demolished but anoverarching solution to this extremely segregated area (far away from the city centre) has still to be foundaGaINSt DIVIDED cItIES IN EUrOPEBY Laura coLini, darinKa cziscHKe and iván tosics,EDItED by PEtEr raMSDENThe aim of the URBACT work stream “Against divided cities” is to help cities rethink existing local policiesconcerning spatial and social segregation in European urban areas. As a first step, this article intends toprovide an overview of the concept of urban segregation and related public policies that have been studiedby experts and academics and experimented by URBACT city partners working on integrated sustainabledevelopment.The challenge: growing increase of migration flows towards Europe processes. As a result, many failures andspatial segregation and its cities (complemented by internal east- externalities occur. Sociological analyses west migration within the EU). show increasing number of examples ofin European cities urban policies becoming harsher towards Since the 1990s there has been an increasing marginalized groups, using neighbourhoodIn the European Commission’s Cities of recognition of these challenges and gradually regeneration in many cases to pay lip serviceTomorrow report a view on European cities as different policy responses have been deve- whilst covering up underlying aims ofplaces of advanced social progress is pro- loped. The reactions at EU, national and local attracting more affluent middle classes backmoted: “… with a high degree of social cohe- level, however, usually aim for direct interven- into the inner city areas. As property valuession, balance and integration… with small tions into those areas which are considered and rent levels increase in the course of re-disparities within and among neighbourhoods to be “problematic”, often failing to address urbanisation, disadvantaged groups are oftenand a low degree of spatial segregation and the wider reasons and drivers of the spatial forced to relocate.social marginalisation…”1 Social cohesion is,however, threatened by the increase of socialpolarisation, which is a consequence of manyparallel processes: an increasing income Social cohesion is threatened by increasing incomepolarisation since the 1980s, a decreasing polarisation, decreasing security of employment andsecurity of employment (due to global a huge increase of migration flows towards European cities.competitiveness challenges) and a huge
  3. 3. 18 Tackling socio-spatial polarisation is a difficult task for urban administrations. Besides the Box 1: The case of Berlin, Lead Partner of the URBACT Co-Net complexity of the issue there is also a big gap networki between politicians and practitioners on the The city of Berlin has been the lead partner 20% of the Berlin population with one hand and researchers on the other. While of the Co-Net network in URBACT II which precarious employment, part-time the former tend in many cases to favour explored area-based and integrated employment); cultural, ethnic and financial short-term, high visibility interventions, the approaches to strengthen social cohesion divisions affect the urban pattern of the city. latter often lack the ability to communicate in distressed neighbourhood. Other forms of self-chosen segregation take their ideas in a way that is easily understand- Berlin has a long standing experience of place in the wealthy areas of the west able by the decision makers. supporting community led development, including Grünewald and Charlottenburg involving people at neighbourhood level in which are hardly ever discussed in the debate The complex nature of the problem makes it community council with participatory about policies regarding urban cohesion sometimes difficult for cities to learn from or budgeting of micro projects. although this aspect is also important. adapt the practice of others. Although there are common trends, each situation is spe- Both ERDF and ESF have been combined The most deprived areas are located both cific, and consequently there is much reinven- in a system of area–based approach which in the former eastern and western part of tion of the wheel. Even when “good practices” involves the neighbourhood, district and the city with a strong dominance of the municipality under the national programme southern zone where Kreuzberg and are exchanged, these are often applied with- Socially Integrative City. Since reunification mostly Neukölln are located. Berlin has a out the much-needed adaptation to the spe- in 1990, the city is no longer politically long tradition of urban regeneration cific local circumstances. In the following divided, however a new, social form of programmes to address such sections we will explore different manifesta- separation has been observed. Ethnic, neighbourhoods. In 2011, Berlin launched tions of segregation in selected European ci- religious, social, economic division are the programme “Action Areas Plus” as an ties and the approaches employed to deal evident in the way people access basic umbrella around various thematic with their related issues. facilities and services, the housing sector, interventions to reconnect those areas that the health and social assistance and the have been identified as most deprived labour market. according to a multidimensional social Different experiences monitoring system. Migrants– guest workers who arrived in in dealing with segregation the 1960s (many from Turkey and The objective is to improve the opportunities Vietnam), refugees who fled civil wars of their residents and to create a new since the 1990s and increasingly vehicle to promote inter-departmental Spatial segregation is the projection of the economic migrants from within the EU cooperation for more effective intervention. social structure on space2. This is why almost grew a multicultural population in Berlin Berlin has followed other cities identified all European cities face growing problems of resulting in a patchwork of communities in the URBACT Project Results publication spatial segregation. Although Europe still has (around a quarter of Berlin inhabitants in 2011iii by bringing in a monitoring system relatively less polarised and segregated urban have a foreign background, a figure that to measure spatial effects of socio structures compared to cities in other parts of rises to 40% among childrenii). economic deprivation. the world, it is in cities where the contradic- Rental cost have been rising rapidly in the (i) http://urbact.eu/en/projects/disadvantaged- tions of development are most visible, with neighbourhoods/conet/homepage/ last few years whilst unemployment the fast-paced development of rich areas (ii) http://www.berlin.de/lb/intmig/presse/ remains at a high rate (the risk of being (gentrification, gated communities, and sub- archiv/20080702.1000.104149.html poor is above national average with a high (iii) http://urbact.eu/fileadmin/general_library/ urban sprawl) and the growing deprivation of level of social transfer payments: about Rapport_Urbact_II.pdf poor areas and a trend towards them Berlin, Kreuzberg (2009). Photos: Iván Tosics The pictures illustrate the mixture of population: the diversity of shops and the big number of dish antennas refer to high share of migrants
  4. 4. against divided cities in europe 19becoming ethnic and immigrant ghettoes. more concentration of deprivation into the internet facilities, a copy shop and job andThis trend affects prosperous and growing central urban area. housing information points), and to startcities and shrinking cities alike. involving the younger generation. The main intent of current public policiesSocial exclusion and the manifestation of seg- against segregation is to break the vicious Both cities are in countries with well-regation are mostly the result of wider eco- circle of urban disadvantage. Therefore, developed social welfare systems. The levelnomic restructuring, changes in the welfare greater cooperation has been initiated at of socio-spatial segregation in these cities isstate, flexibilisation of labour markets and neighbourhood level, with local job offers not among the highest in Europe but is on thework relations, and the weakening of social and employment agencies in order to rise. Mixed use working class areas close tonetworks and solidarity. These are all prob- develop services and measures to promote the inner city and large scale housing estateslems that exist at city level beyond the neigh- employment among long-term unemployed at the periphery are where disadvantagebourhood. It is therefore important to people (e.g. Malmö’s Local Action Plan3 as tends to concentrate. Looking more closely,understand how cities can rethink under these part of the Co-Net project). These policies segregation follows through distinct patterns.circumstances existing local policies with new against segregation focus on combining Berlin has dispersed areas of deprivation butmodes of integrating multi-scalar challenges. integration and employment services, and the level of social polarization is not extreme. on building cooperation and coordination Malmö, on the other hand, shows more con-The cases of Berlin (box 1) and Malmö (box 2) between individual and family care, between centration of the poorer people in a fewshow that even in countries with a strong the Labour and Integration Centre, and with neighbourhoods of the city.welfare state there are different manifesta- the Work Centre and associations. A keytions of growing spatial segregation. In Berlin aspect is to lower the barriers to access ser- These differences can partly be explained bythere are multiple issues of deprivation in vices (e.g. decentralised municipality ser- historic factors – such as the different rolesmore than one area while Malmo shows vices with meeting venues, computer and the large prefabricated housing estates play in the cities. In Eastern Berlin these areas had a mixed population structure before the fall of the wall, while in Malmö the few “million pro- Box 2: The case of Malmö, partner in the URBACT Co-Net network i gramme” areas sank quickly to the bottom of the housing market. The differences in levels The city of Malmö was involved in the As a result, disadvantaged groups have of segregation are partly explained by the Co-Net network with the aim to develop moved to other areas of the city. operation of social housing policies. community life in an integrated way on Today, Malmö can be described as three levels: building bridges between ethnically and socio-economically The cases of Berlin and Malmö underpin the inhabitants in the neighbourhoods, segregated, with middle class hypothesis of Murie and Musterd4 that there between the different neighbourhoods of neighbourhoods in the west and working are unique context-related combinations of the larger districts and between the whole class neighbourhoods in the south and market opportunities, welfare provisions, city and the disadvantaged district. east. social networks and neighbourhood features Today Malmö, the third largest city in Unemployment, higher crime rates and which offer potential means to reduce and Sweden, has the highest proportion of growing number of households in need of overcome the negative effects of segregation immigrants in the country (citizens social benefits are the usual patterns in the and exclusion. On the other hand, we assume represent 174 nationalities and speak 147 poor neighbourhoods. Rosengård is the that in our later work when we include the different languages and about 40% of the district with the highest unemployment cases of a French city and a south European population has a migrant background). rate where low income people end up city, also the effect of the welfare state will Strong public interventions ensure that all living. show prominently. young citizens have equal access to They dream of moving out whenever there schools regardless of the area they live in. is a chance to catch a better working Housing data are accessible and opportunity and higher income. Policy interventions transparent to everybody and the level of unemployment is not among the highest in Fosie is a nearby neighbourhood, which is to tackle socio-spatial likely to become trendier in the future due urban Europe. to its large parks. This might in turn reduce segregation Nevertheless, Malmö is a city in which the volume of housing available in the segregation is rising and its most evident future for new migrants. Ever since tackling segregation became a form is the ethnic segregation in key policy objective in the 1980s, a wide range of The eastern part of the city which includes neighbourhoods. In the mid-20th century types of interventions started to develop. Rosengård and Fosie plays the same role the most deprived area was located next The most frequent way to classify these poli- as the harbour used to for newcomers. to the port. cies is by distinguishing between “horizontal” This would not be a problem in itself but However, after the construction of the and “area-based” types of interventions. Rosengård was built as a monofunctional Oresund link to Copenhagen and massive Horizontal interventions refer to policies that residential area in the heyday of the investments into urban renewal the are not linked to any particular spatial level, Swedish “million homes policy” and is harbour zone has turned from brownfield but focus on improving the situation of indi- difficult to adapt to new circumstances. into a trendy residential and mixed-use viduals or households with low income and area including offices, restaurants and specific needs. Such policies – sometimes university departments. (i) www.urbact.eu/conet, also called “people-based policies”, or “sector” policies – may apply to different ■■■
  5. 5. 20 geographical scope, i.e. national, regional or social structure in school catchment areas In the field of labour market integration, the city wide. Area-based policies, on the other and reflect this in the size of classes and example of Berlin’s Local Pacts for the hand, do not focus on individuals but on a number of teachers. Public health policies Economy and Employment stands out as specific geographical unit, most often a can be reinforced in areas that are particularly an approach that complements citywide po- neighbourhood. Typically, they include urban affected by environmental hazards or show licy. The main aim of this policy is to foster and social regeneration programmes and high levels of lifestyle related health problems “intelligent networking” of existing areas of other interventions whose main goal is to or substance abuse. Housing policies and in strength and development potential in order improve the situation of the people living in particular social housing policies often aim at to increase employability and occupational the given areas. Area-based policies rest on providing affordable housing for low-income and social integration of disadvantaged the assumption that by focusing on places households. Instruments include supply-side groups of persons, create new jobs and train- with specific problems, the situation of the subsidies to increase social/affordable hous- ing opportunities and enhance local eco- people living in these areas will improve. ing construction and statutory quotas of nomic structures. It works by developing social/affordable housing in every new hous- partnerships with boroughs to tap local The distinction between these two types of ing development. potential for economic growth. policies is not always clear-cut. For example, employment or training programmes that run in In France, the law called Solidarité et a specific neighbourhood will address a cer- Renouvellement Urbain (Solidarity and Area-based interventions tain target group (e.g. early school leavers or long- urban renewal – SRU), which came into force term unemployed) but are also to the benefit in 2000, promotes tenure mix through legal Area-based interventions rest on the assump- of the community as a whole (most visibly if requirements: in urban areas, every com- tion that living in specific areas has an addi- the training scheme is about maintaining pub- mune (municipality) should reach a minimum tional and independent effect on the life lic space or improving social infrastructure). of 20 per cent of social housing in its housing chances of individuals. The rise of this type of stock before 2020. strategy is linked to the development of new governance arrangements in cities across Horizontal interventions Europe particularly in the context of increas- ing decentralisation of power from national to Horizontal interventions operate according to Policy responses usually regional and city levels of government. As a the domain of intervention. These can be, for further step in decentralization, the neigh- example, citywide policies on school and aim for direct interventions bourhood level is seen as “attractive” from a adult education, job training, citizen participa- into the “problematic” policy implementation perspective, because tion in planning policies, health, etc. They do areas, failing to address it allows for relatively easy experimentation in not aim at reducing spatial segregation per se new forms of participatory governance. but focus on social issues and can thus have the wider reasons and Moreover, it provides a manageable areal an effect on segregation or make a special drivers of the spatial focus while avoiding the much higher costs of effort in segregated areas. Educational processes. intervening throughout the city or more uni- polices, for instance could be sensitive to the versal policies. Montpellier (2008). Photos: Iván Tosics Tenure mix may also be achieved with new construction. The first picture shows the scale-model (mock-up) of three newly built buildings, one of them private, the other social housing while the third student hostel – from outside people can not see which has which function. The second picture shows a part of the newly built central area of the city where half of the housing belongs to the social rental sector
  6. 6. against divided cities in europe 21 It should be noted that, unless extreme cir- Segregation can be tackled by “horizontal” interventions, cumstances, demolition usually represents a policy failure5 with enormous cost implica- focusing on households with low income and specific tions. The prevention-type of approach is less needs, and by “area-based” interventions, focusing frequently found due to, amongst other rea- on problem areas. sons, the difficulty in anticipating social and urban decline of an area. Overall, “hard” interventions have the advan-The actions within area-based interventions gained prominence in policy-making over the tage of being more visible and relatively easierare often divided into “soft” and “hard” mea- last decades, at the same time it has stirred to carry out (though with high cost andsures. “Soft” interventions include strengthen- considerable controversy both in public and high levels of social fracture), while “softer”ing networks and interaction between people academic debates, as explained in more interventions have a more complex, long-in the area (for example through work integra- detail in the box 3. It is worth noting that, while term and process-oriented character buttion and training programmes in specific in some contexts social mix is regarded as a may be cheaper and more effective in theareas, street work, local festivals where the policy objective in itself (notably, in France), in long term.community can gather), while “hard” inter- other contexts it is considered one policy toolventions are typically physical restructuring amongst others to achieve less segregatedor upgrading programmes involving demoli- urban areas. Integrating horizontaltion and new infrastructure and/or housingdevelopments. The “hard” version of area-based interven- and area-based policies tions, notably demolition, tends to act moreA specific manifestation of area-based poli- as a cure-type approach to the problem Area-based policies have received a faircies is the “social mix” approach. Whilst it has rather than prevent it from happening. amount of criticism. However, there is also recognition that areas facing extreme social and urban decline are in need of spatially tar- geted interventions in order to prevent the Box 3: Social mix in a nutshell formation of ghettoes and to provide anyone Since the 1980s social mix has been a Some commentators raise “normative” living there access to the full range of oppor- widespread approach amongst urban policy arguments (i.e. whether social mix is a tunities that cities have to offer. makers across Europe to tackle areas with desirable policy objective), as well as high levels of socio-spatial segregation. pragmatic questions (i.e. does social mix When designing policies to tackle socio- Although the definition of social mix work?). spatial segregation, it is important to under- varies between countries, broadly stand the structural factors underlying social Amongst the former are, for example, the speaking these policies aim at changing urban problems in local areas, such as dilemma between implementing social mix the social composition of areas with high unemployment, poverty and lack of partici- at the expense of the right to housing; the concentrations of a particular social group. destruction of local social support pation. There is consensus on the limitations networks and community identities and; of area-based policies to solve these wider While in most cases this involves the the pricing-out of local residents by the structural problems that underpin social introduction of better-off residents in arrival of better-off residents problems at the local level. This raises the deprived areas, in some cases this policy (gentrification). Pragmatic questions raised need to develop policies that integrate hori- takes the opposite shape, for example, about social mix include whether social zontal and area-based interventions. This through the introduction of statutory mix can improve the situation of residents was also reinforced by the findings of the quotas of new social housing construction in these areas or whether it just moves URBACT NODUS6 and REGGOV7 projects. in well-off areas. As in the case of area- “the problem” to another area. As Andersson & Musterd state: “Area-based based policies, social mix is based on a number of assumptions. interventions might well be considered as a Furthermore, available evidence is complement to more universal and sector Specific assumptions commonly used to inconclusive on whether living in close policies”8. justify social mix policies include the proximity to a different social group really expectation that proximity of different social fosters social interaction. In Europe, we have found few attempts to groups to one another will foster social Last but not least, one of the key achieve this integration. Nantes Métropole interaction amongst them, thereby challenges for practitioners remains how (France) provides an example (see box 4). improving social cohesion, and that a more to manage socially mixed areas. “balanced” social composition will, In our future work we will look in more detail amongst others, “calm” crime-ridden areas. to understand how area-based and horizon- (i) Atkinson, R. & Kintrea, K. (2001) Disentangling In addition, it is expected that the physical area effects: evidence from deprived and non- tal interventions can best be combined to maintenance of the area will improve deprived neighbourhoods, Urban Studies, 38(12), achieve the most results. We will pay special through the influx of well-off residents. pp. 2277–2298 attention to the framework conditions for Blanc, M. (2010) The Impact of Social Mix Policies in However, these assumptions as well as the France, Housing Studies, Special Issue: Housing local actions, i.e. to what extent national and very objective of social mix are widely Policy and (De)Segregation: An International EU-level policies are needed to help incenti- contestedi. Perspective, Volume 25, Issue 2 vise municipalities to deal with their most dis- advantaged areas. ■■■
  7. 7. 22 Box 4: Integrating horizontal and area-based housing and urban policies to tackle socio-spatial segregation: the case of Nantes Métropole i Nantes Métropole is an “Urban Community Nantes Métropole adopted its first Local Overall, the last decade has seen urban of Municipalities” that defines its housing Housing Plan in 2004, followed by a policy objectives and strategies being priorities according to a Local Housing Plan second one for the period 2010-2016, formulated at the metropolitan level, – housing objectives and principles for which is more ambitious (5000-6000 deemed the most appropriate level to metropolitan districts and towns. dwellings built per year). integrate the populations’ employment and The Nantes approach to socio-spatial The latter has amongst its priorities the residential needs. segregation combines top-down, national- increase in new construction and the However, urban social cohesion strategies level horizontal policies with the design and diversification of new dwellings affordable and area-based policy remain limited to implementation of a set of metropolitan to low-income households either by “priority urban zones”. and local (i.e. district-level) area-based increasing the social housing stock or by One aspect that stands out in the policies. In addition to the national funding and reserving up to 30% of approach of some local social landlords legislation about social mix and the dwellings in new building programmes. supported by Nantes Métropole to tackling enforceable “Right to Housing” law, the Furthermore, the plan aims to improve the socio-spatial segregation is the conurbation has several regulation tools geographical distribution of the development of analytical tools to such as the integration of social and urban construction funding efforts between the understanding “residential trajectories” mix areas in the Local Urbanism Plan. different municipalities, with a particular and “life-cycles” of residents, and the Moreover, in order to guarantee social mix, focus on reducing the deficit of social integration of this knowledge in the it promotes a partnership with social housing stock in some parts of the design and implementation of its landlords (that own and manage social Metropolis. housing and social mix (rehousing) housing). This shared construction effort has to be policies. Nantes Métropole developed an related to the objective of improving the “experimental” rehousing policy for social mix, in response to the process of inhabitants from neighbourhoods social polarization in urban areas. (i) URBACT SUITE The Housing Project Baseline concerned by urban regeneration, tested in Additional actions in this domain are an Study available at: http://urbact.eu/en/projects/ the Malakoff and Pré Gauchet urban renewal programme in social quality-sustainable-living/suite/homepage/; City neighbourhoods. housing neighbourhoods. Report: Nantes, WILCO Publication no. 25 (2012) Nantes (2010). Photos: Iván Tosics The segregation of social housing estates can effectively be reduced with public transport. In Nantes most of such estates are linked to the city centre with newly built tram lines
  8. 8. against divided cities in europe 23Preliminary conclusions long-term commitment to the proper combi- Acknowledgements to… nation of these different types of interven-Our article shows that the issue of socio-spa- tions. The example of Nantes gives a flavourtial segregation is complex. The same symp- of how this integration of different policies People involved in the workstreamtoms of segregation in different cities might might be organised, especially at the spatial activities so far:be present in areas that are very different in level of the functional urban area where nega-their dynamism and include people at diffe- tive externalities can best be mitigated. Workstream coordinator:rent stages of their life trajectories. As we • Iván Tosics, URBACT Thematic Polehave shown, seemingly similar segregation X New ways of working across disciplines Manager on urban sustainablepatterns might be the results of totally diffe- should be promoted at city level and at the developmentrent factors and reasons. All areas are hetero- level of smaller areas to improve the know-geneous and generalisations might be ledge of what is at stake and what needs to Workstream core group members:misleading. be done. Such knowledge needs to be main- • Peter Ramsden, Lead expert of the tained over time to avoid repeating mistakes URBACT Smart Cities network andOur URBACT Work stream aims to analyse and reinventing the wheel. A solid information former URBACT Thematic Pole Managerfurther cases to elaborate useful suggestions base, such as the social monitoring system • Darinka Czischke, Delft University offor cities. We emphasise how to understand in Berlin, is necessary for informing policy Technology (The Netherlands) anddifferent forms of socio-spatial segregation making and for allowing balanced and effec- former Thematic Expert of the URBACTand how to start addressing it. At this point tive interventions. SUITE networkwe have formulated some preliminary • Simon Güntner, Hamburg University ofstatements: All these questions will be discussed at Applied Sciences the URBACT Annual Conference on • Laura Colini, IRS Leibnitz Institute forX The phenomenon of socio-spatial segre- 3-4 December in Copenhagen at the two Regional and Structural Planning, Berlingation needs to be properly analysed and on workshops on socio-spatial segregation. and former Lead Expert of the URBACTthat basis the objectives and spatial aspects After the conference a final paper will be pub- URBAMECO projectof interventions need to be determined. The lished with practical suggestions for city pra- • Reinhard Fischer, Berlin, former Leadfirst task is to understand, analysing the ctitioners dealing with these problems and Partner of the URBACT Co-Net networkdynamic processes, the type and problems of with an update on how cities can deploy new • Thierry Baert, Lille, former Leadgiven areas (e.g. are they dead-end or transi- approaches set out in EU regulations such as Partner of the URBACT Joining Forcestory areas). This has to be followed by the community led local development and inte- projectanalysis of the reasons behind the dynamic grated territorial initiatives.mobility processes of population groups. Witnesses and advisors:A typical mistake cities make is to judge Acknowledgement to Simon Güntner and the • Pia Hellberg-Lannerheim and Bertilneighbourhoods on the basis of static mea- URBACT Secretariat for valuable remarks on Nilsson, Malmo, partner in the URBACTsures and deciding on policies which mightundermine the role the area plays in the city in this article. • Co-Net network • Jan Vranken, Antwerpen Universitydynamic sense. • Paul Lawless, Sheffield Hallam UniversityX At the level of policy design, local adminis- • Ronald van Kempen, Utrechttrations should require up-to-date information Universityand analysis on the socio-demographic, eco- • Georg Galster, Wayne University, USAnomic and geographical dynamics of their • Reiner Aster, GSUB Berlin (1) DG Regio 2011 Cities of Tomorrow, page 10 http://local populations in order to design policies ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/conferences/that meet current and future needs citiesoftomorrow/index_en.cfmeffectively. (2) Haussermann-Siebel, 2001, quoted in Cassiers- Kesteloot, 2012X In addition, on the implementation level it is (3) http://urbact.eu/fileadmin/Projects/CoNet/advisable to involve users so as to achieve documents_media/Malm%C3%B6_URBACT_CoNet_ LAP.pdfmaximum impact through their input andcooperation. Furthermore, local partnerships (4) Musterd, S – Andersson, R, 2005: Housing mix, social mix, and social opportunities. In: Urban affairsand other efforts of cooperation across review, Vol. 40, No. 6, July 2005 761-790sectoral and organisational boundaries are (5) At least of the original housing construction andcrucial for the success of this type of sometimes of efforts to deal with current problemsintervention. (6) www.urbact.eu/nodus More inForMation http://www.conference2012.urbact.eu/ (7) http://urbact.eu/en/projects/disadvantaged-neigh- workshops/about-conference/themes/X In most cases both horizontal and area- bourhoods/reg-gov/our-outputs/ against-divided-cities-in-europebased interventions are needed, with a (8) Andersson & Musterd 2005 pp. 387

×