There seem to be a few groups involved in the business of regeneration.

It's a bit spaghetti, but the government set up 'English Partnerships'

and then they set up Regional Development Agencies (RDAs)

and helpfully they point out that

They then give money to Urban Regeneration Companies (URCs) or even Urban Development Corporations (UDCs)

New Deal for Community

These are programmes where the emphasis is on involving local people in wide ranging partnerships to improve living and working conditions.

There is some concern over whether some of these projects are actually involving local people enough, as a survey in a Liverpool NDC (New Deal for Community) area in, showed that 3/4 of residents didn't even know that their area was in a partnership zone let alone that they could influence the process. There are also allegations that the community consultation methods are alienating and unclear, and on boards where community residents are represented they have to compete with paid professionals who may be able to express their view on these complex issues easier. Whether these are isolated examples or something inherent in the process of consultation and participation remains to be seen.

In Liverpool, former New Deal Board member Karen Flynn claims residents' wishes are being ignored and projects are held up by bureaucracy.

She said

Last year Ms Flynn resigned, accusing the board of being undemocratic and failing to act in the best interests of the people it serves.

see tenants action http://www.tenantsactiongroup.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/other-docs/council-request.html

This is a housing driven approach where demolition is often the prefered option. It is happening in nine areas across the UK

'The market should determine which areas decline'
Eric Morgan, chartered surveyor

'The outcome of the market renewal process could be a lower population. But this is a price worth paying for a better quality environment and enhanced prospects for the area's population. For the people who are living there it will be fantastic. We should not be hanging onto population for its own sake'
Brendan Nevin, Renew North Staffordshire pathfinder

'What we have at the moment is a market which is not operating. I don't subscribe to the sort of romanticised notion of quaint, Victorian terraces. I was born in an area which was characterised by two--storey workers' cottages. I was happy to get out of it.'
John Glester, New Heartlands Pathfinder chairman.

'I would be very surprised if most of these houses that are proposed for demolition are unfit for human habitation. If they're occupied they may well need significant repair but I don't think these are slum properties.'
Prof Anne Power, a housing expert at the London School of Economics.

Other groups have concerns too, the main one being that the core to the policy is flawed - that the government have got it wrong. It isn't cheaper to demolish than to rebuild as the ever critical 'Tonight with Trevor McDonald' programme shown on ITV, pointed out.

We have summarised the findings of Shelter and the New Economics Foundation in the following tale:

Due to the market driven global economy some of the local banks close and relocate elsewhere where wages are cheaper and they can make more profit. At the same time the local post office closes.

This means that people in the area have to travel outside to get access to cash, meaning there are far more likely to spend it elsewhere.

Local services start to suffer and several small local shops close down. Local wholesale suppliers also start to feel the heat as they have less shops to supply to.

Some people, who have the economic means to do so move out of the area. The empty houses are left empty rather than repaired.The area starts to become run down as more local shops close and the area reaches 'tipping point'

It is decided that the area is eligible for regeneration.

The scheme involves demolishing the "low-demand" housing stock rather than renovation or repair

Shelter points out the paradoxical situation where once an area has been granted regeneration status it benefits from a 'market renewal buzz'. This creates a climate of speculation about the area with more buy-to-let purchasers and investors with large portfolios pushing up prices.

These price rises often encourage private landlords to evict tenants so they too can benefit from the sell off either to the groups detailed above or via compulsery purchase.Some of these tenants will present themselves as homeless.

Some of the owner occupiers may not get adequate compensation when their homes are demolished, some of who present themselves as homeless.

The housing that replaces the demolished buildings may be dfferent in terms of affordability and may not contain enough social housing to meet local needs.

So there is a situation where purchasers from outside the region control much of the housing market, bidding up the prices in the hope of making bigger profits whilst the residents of these 'low-demand' areas are living in insecure present and uncertain future.

Being critical of past and current regeneration practice doesn't mean that we'd prefer things to stay the same, or that we have all the answers, but what is clear is that current methods to encourage participation by communities don't seem to be successfull.Some suggestions by a resident in Spital Hill , Sheffield are:

The New Economics Foundation have coined 2 terms, Ghost Town and Clone Town to describe some of the processes occuring across our cities. They also recommend some ways to regenerate that are designed by and for the whole community not just the development companies and people with the money.

Read more about this in the further reading page.