Tuesday, 10 January 2006

Transience in cities

Platform High levels of transience can be problematic for community development and the viability of neighbourhoods.

In terms of cities, which attract high numbers of transient people, there are complex issues to do with the provision of services.

Greater London Enterprise published last month the report of a European project which sought to understand the implications of population mobility. The main themes of the recommendations are:

  • Making neighbourhoods attractive places to live through more responsive services
  • Breaking barriers to accessing services, and
  • Recognising the impact of population mobility.

More on the project on the URBACT site.

The Social Exclusion Unit is due to publish a report on 'people who move frequently' fairly soon.

10 Jan 2006 16:40:41 | Mobility and change

1 Comment

Interesting stuff. We've just published some research on city centre living, which finds very transient communities in our shiny new Northern cities. Churn in places like Liverpool and Manchester is 30% a year, three times higher than the national average.

We're not sure this is a problem though. Outside London, city centres are good, viable communities for (mostly) young single people. They're generally not good places for families, and this is why people tend to leave after a few years. The challenge for policymakers is to encourage working families into the deprived inner suburbs around the city core, which are better geared up for people with children. They're also the priorities for regeneration. So there's potential for a big win here.

Anyway, enough advertising. The report is here ... http://tinyurl.com/b6dev.

Posted by: max | Monday, 16 January 2006 at 17:09

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
Government WILL manage behaviour And here it is. The Respect Action Plan and the respect website now published. Tony Blair's speech is here. A quick read-through of the plan suggests it's more thorough than I had been led to believe but seems to confirm the sense of almost unrelieved negativity that we got from the publicity trail. Enforcing respect is seen emphatically as an issue of democracy: 'what the majority wants.' Various points of interest: "Within the next year we will ensure that all Government funded regeneration schemes are accompanied by measures to manage behaviour." (Empahsis added). OK, that's pretty clear. As for the scrutiny process: "We will place a duty on district level ward councillors to consider issues, and respond within a prescribed timescale. The majority of problems should be resolved at this stage." On Local Area Agreements: "By 2007, all upper tier local authorities will have an LAA, including a mandatory outcome on Respect and anti-social behaviour." This provision will include a requirement for all authorities to ensure that intensive family support projects are in place where they are needed. And yes, there are proposals for activities for children and young people (see chapter 2) - although they look pretty skinny from here.
PREVIOUS POST
Neighbourliness in theory and in practice Yesterday to a Young Foundation seminar on neighbourliness, which reminded me of a note I wrote a couple of years ago about the need to explore the connection between neighbourliness and engagement with governance. Low levels of neighbourliness do not necessarily mean disengagement from democratic processes, but in many residential areas they suggest an impoverishment of the public sphere. The balance between cohesion and heterogeneity can be critical, which is why we need to keep pressing for clear understanding of community cohesion and not treat it as some policy fad that has been and gone. Neighbourhoods with strong internal ties may be precisely those where there is the greatest suspicion of, or simply detachment from, the wider civic society and its governance processes. Thinking about the most active neighbourly people I know, none of them is involved to my knowledge in any official governance role, far from it. By the same token, neighbourhoods where place-based relationships are less in evidence can have relatively high levels of participation in formal governance. And again, looking at gated communities in the USA raises concerns about the fracture between island-building local governance and contributions to governance in the surrounding areas. I seem constantly to be banging a drum about the understanding of informality in social relations. The eruption of the Respect agenda, or the re-invigoration of interest in neighbourliness through JRF funding the Young Foundation to look at it, to me just serve to highlight this peculiarly-ignored need. Another point on neighbourliness occurs to me. There's a tendency to imply that what we might call traditional close-knit local neighbourhoods (such as those described by Young and Willmott, let's say) were communities in which people lacked choice in their social relationships. We assume that the car and the television in particular, plus the distribution of employment, greater wealth and mobility, have allowed us to develop what Talja Blokland has described as a diminished need to be neighbourly, the possibility of being neighbourly more at one's own discretion. I have no doubt that this is true but I wonder sometimes if we don't rather exaggerate it. Perhaps it's my age, and the fact that I grew up in a suburb with what were then unremarkably high levels of neighbouring. Last night I drove into my neighbourhood (shame!) coming back from a car trip to the supermarket (shame!). Between car and front door I exchanged a wave with one next-door neighbour and had a five minute chat with a neighbour a few doors along... He was keen to get a few of us together for a drink and a chat to thank us for our active support over a series of incidents that affected his family in the autumn. I'm lucky enough to live in a cul-de-sac (shame!) where such relations are pretty much routine and expected.

Kevin Harris

Search

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments