Section One – IntroductionOver the last 25 years the cultural industries have taken greater prominence within the mammoth task that is regeneration; in particular areas which had entered the turbulence of de-industrialisation and riversides that needed a major makeover (Garcia, 2005). Following initial highbrow forays by cities such as Bilbao and Barcelona into the culture regeneration mire many other cities embarked on a similar journey into the relevantly unknown.With the advent of globalised competition and economies the task to create 21st century cities was faced by all, from grass root to national government; the need for change, revitalisation and marketing had started to evolve (Miles, 2005. However the inclusion of existing communities can be questioned as cultural regeneration has created gentrified urban space surrounded by deprivation (Wilks-Heeg, 2004). Utilising culture within regeneration has brought finance from public, voluntary and private sectors, the latter elements sourced particulary from the lottery and housing developers seeking to build costly apartments.
Waterfronts quickly became an asset; from being a liability, canals and riversides previously excluded and ignored were suddenly thrust into the limelight. De-industrialised areas, frequently inner city and many located next to water were seen as the salvation to numerous cities revitalisation challenge. Not only was there cash a plenty (via lottery cash and quangos budgets) but the regeneration areas tended to be brownfield also. Housing was added to the cultural mix which yielded further private sector monies. The culture and regeneration composition didn??™t always produce successful results and in others the success of this mix exaggerated (Miles & Paddison, 2005). The alleged vagueness of arts and culture mixed in with a heavily numeric and outcome focussed regeneration ethos clashed at times.
Gateshead Quayside fits firmly within this description, the Gateshead Quayside was frequently seen as the poorer relation to the regenerated Newcastle Quayside. The Quayside was isolated and seldomly used other than for informal usage such as fishing and at times for dumping unwanted or stolen goods. There was no need or reason for people to walk down to this part of Gateshead, apart from that is to access the Newcastle side for the pubs, restaurants and Sunday Market. Now the area is heralded for its aesthetic open space and cultural opportunities that attracts people from far and wide (Guardian, 2003).Research ObjectiveThe transformation that has occurred has been remarkable, but to what cost Whilst there is an obvious financial one I believe that there is also potentially a social one also.
This dissertation aims to explore the hypothesis that the Quaysides adjacent neighbourhoods do not use the Quayside despite improvements in many of the main transportation methods and routes linking the three communities together.The challenge of this question is to ascertain the community perspective in a way that produces viable statistics utilising methods that enable those people that are often labelled ???hard to reach??™ to be targeted and their opinions willingly recorded.The pilot research undertaken for this dissertation will aim to respond to the concerns that more sophisticated data and methods with a longitudinal emphasis are required in order to fully understand the community perspective to Gateshead Quaysides culture led regeneration (Bailey et al, 2004). This will be undertaken by ascertaining opinion from stakeholders and communities from neighbouring areas of the regenerated quayside utilising methods that have been developed over the previous three years.The pilot??™s principle method of primary research is via community developed questionnaires, which will have a strong quantifiable element so that the data will have some quantifiable validity. To achieve this and to target the most hard to reach people in these communities I embarked on a community project with two primary schools, this has resulted in the research being designed, developed and undertaken by forty young people aged nine, ten and eleven in an attempt to overcome barriers that exist between communities and perceived hard to reach groups.This research is a pilot in terms of how data is collated from sources deemed hard to reach. If successful, the research method could be developed further and utilised to develop a wider understanding of additional communities perceptions and their individual and collective usage of the cultural Quayside.
Developing the pilot research methods based on this study could be considered as a possible thesis and an in depth study undertaken by Gateshead Council to ascertain the views of people that public services historically fail to engage with. Whilst the research method is experimental it should be noted that the young peoples work within this dissertation extends beyond the dissertation itself; the young people (regardless of the success of the questionnaire) will be involved in further work ascertaining their ideas, opinions and expectations with the aim of defining what they think their communities need now and in the future. This rationale is adopted for three reasons, firstly the work with the young people is an evolving process, linking this work to young people and schools enables me to develop curriculum based projects that do not rely on one single component or piece of research to work successfully.
This therefore enables components to be undertaken and tested with the outcome (regardless of its success) being added to the developing understanding of these particular communities. Secondly, the questionnaire does not have to succeed from the schools perspective, as part of the evaluation the young people will be involved in analysing the entire process can be linked to the curriculum and the children??™s learning. Thirdly, the process embarked upon is part of a continual learning opportunity for the young people, this questionnaire is a part of a long term piece of work that enables the young people to analyse and evaluate their community, it is this element that creates the longitudinal emphasis, the partnership approach with the local primary schools doesn??™t stop on completion of the questionnaire, further work is planned for the forthcoming academic year and will develop as the next academic year develops.2. Key Debates1. Government PolicyCulture was first mooted by the New Labour Government at the turn of the new millennium, however culture development was seen as something that should be inherent in every individual, a personalised context that would contribute to community benefit and neighbourhood renewal. Smith (2000) heralded culture as a solution towards personal growth, which contributed to social cohesion whilst including health benefits and aiding to the development of communities.
However a shift from individual small scale focus to large scale flagships occurred, thus resulting in new revitalised areas such as Gateshead Quays. Within four years, Government (via the Department of Culture Media and Sport) rhetoric in the document ???Culture at the Heart of Regeneration??? (2004) had moved culture from the individualistic empowering community persona to large-scale (cultural) regeneration schemes that had become to dominate a number of UK towns and cities outlining investment schemes amounting to billions of pounds.Design led regeneration schemes are the key to success according to the Urban Task Force Report (1999) whilst the Urban White Paper recognised the need for more accessible and safer spaces. The 2003 Sustainable communities plan highlights the need for liveability and the need for quality design. However how do flagship developments fit in with the need for sustainable and inclusive communities. The debate is whether these flagship high profile built environments create culture islands whereupon sections of communities are excluded.2.
Academic DebateAcademics allege that the resultant regeneration hasn??™t achieved everything they originally embarked upon to achieve (Miles & Paddison, 2005); despite successful regeneration schemes it??™s alleged that whilst tourism, aesthetically better areas and job creation is evident so is gentrification, demographic exclusion, displacement and decentralisation and eradication of community values in these areas (Atkinson, 2000; Miles & Paddison, 2005). An additional argument wagered is the issue of assessment, how should it be done Do statistics really substantiate socially based results and tell the story of the issues that now affect these areas Do statistics actually substantiate the arguments put forward by academics and those who question this form of regeneration Longitudinal research is seen as the resolution to understanding change within cultural regeneration areas despite the New Labour love of targets, statistics, outputs and figures (Bailey, et al 2004).3. Culture Led RegenerationA multitude of research and analysis has been undertaken by academics with the focus of culture and regeneration. This research has identified that there is still a great deal to understand why culture and regeneration work together. Academics have identified that the issue doesn??™t surround culture and regeneration as two separate entities but in terms of how they are put together and how they work together thus three definitions have been identified:|Type |Characteristics |Outcome |Examples ||Culture Led Regeneration |High profile regeneration schemes |High profile often results in |Guggenheim, Bilbao. || |with culture as its focus and aim.
|frequent citings because of | || |Usually includes the obligatory |distinctiveness. |Lowry, Salford. || |???cultural flagship or complex??? | | || |(Evans, 2005 p968) | |Baltic/Sage, Gateshead.|| | | | || | | |Tate Modern, London ||Cultural Regeneration |???Integrated within a regeneration |The creation of site-specific |Covent Garden, London. || |strategy alongside activities in |sites or quarters designated to | || |the environmental, social and |amongst many things culture. Due |MACBA, El Raval, || |economic sphere??? (Evans, 2005 |to strategic planning the process |Barcelona. || |p.
968) |can exclude existing communities. | || | |Replication of schemes. | ||Culture and Regeneration |Cultural activity is not a core |Culture is an afterthought to a |Ouseburn Valley, || |component of a regeneration scheme|regeneration scheme; could be |Newcastle. || |or integrated within the strategic|created by external organisations | || |development, or master planning |to the original master-planning | || |stage with a developing strategic |scheme. For example projects | || |regeneration plan. |created by the voluntary sector or| || | |independent community | || | |organisations who identify an | || | |opportunity.
| |Locating examples within each confined category is not easy, there are a number which overlap or shift from one category to another, particularly as developments change and modify themselves over time, partially due to meeting the needs of communities or as they align themselves to the latest funding regimes. The dissertation will debate why Gateshead Quays is culture led regeneration.Numerous academics have aligned culture regeneration with Fordist idiosyncrasies as some of the culture led regeneration projects are alleged to have a standardised look or standardised composition to them (Miles, 2005), Tate Modern, The Lowry Centre and Baltic whilst offering contemporary art spaces also have a (lottery funded) bridge too. An economic viewpoint is that a standardised approach in the creation of a product has proven to be the most cost efficient method to mass produce a product. Cultural regeneration isn??™t a mass produced product. Cultural regeneration isn??™t a standardised process with standardised outcomes. Whilst the Sage and The Eden Project receive a multitude of recognition and citations for best practice, the impacts of cultural regeneration aren??™t always positive (Miles, 2005) the schemes in Sheffield (Centre for Popular Music) and Doncaster (The Earth Centre) receive little coverage but should offer an insight into how cultural regeneration can fail.
GentrificationWill aesthetically pleasing places attract local people to use them Do cultural regenerated areas require creative clusters to support them Florida (2002) believes that the focus should be the creation of clusters, bringing creative people together, which would support regional economic growth, so that areas can develop organically. This approach would support cities to move away from current regeneration processes; however the timescales associated with cluster development is potentially out of synch with current regeneration budgets, which are frequently governed by rigid timescales. An organic community development approach may also require the regeneration process to be developed outside of the public sector sphere.
Community Development Trusts are a notable example whereby local communities are fully involved in the developing regeneration process.The dissertation whilst deciphering community opinion will look to suggest that clusterisation occurs due to communities of interest utilising the new cultural space at the potential exclusion of the Quaysides community neighbours.However is gentrification bad for all communities Does the gentrification create a safety barrier between the affluent and lower demographics Academics can quantify gentrification as positive (Cameron and Coaffee (2005) or negative as Jones and Wilks-Heeg (2004) states.???Current trends suggest precisely the scenario of a rapidly regenerating and gentrifying urban core surrounded by a ring of intensely disadvantaged residential areas??? (Jones and Wilks-Heeg, 2004, p.
357).If the aim of regeneration is to create the sustainable towns and cities of the future can exclusivity and gentrification be allowed to occur, or is it an inevitable uncontrollable bi-product of the perceived Fordist approach to regeneration This dissertation will look at this particular issue utilising primary research collated from two neighbouring communities in close detail to ascertain whether community perception is equitable to positive or negative regeneration.Section ThreeMethodology ??“ the search for quantitative and qualitative researchIs culture an outcome, numeric friendly, evidence-based concept New Labours Culture at the Heart of Regeneration Discussion Document highlighted this very fact.
In a government preoccupied with outputs, targets and numbers do these targets and indicators emphasise what culture achieves???The general view was that the impact of public art is very difficult to measure, and that DCMS should take the lead on formulating methodologies and frameworks to gather evidence and that these should be made compulsory for all projects.??? (DCMS, 2004, pg.7).The summary then added that qualitative data and anecdotal evidence should be considered. This dissertation will explore the qualitative data/anecdotal evidence in an attempt to gain a qualitative community perspective to the Gateshead Quayside regeneration in an attempt to answer the question have we created a cultural islandEvaluation of the community consultation primary research methods will be undertaken to ascertain whether the approach adopted to ascertain community opinion is one worthy of further development and future usage in the work that I undertake on behalf of the Local Authority.The supposition to this research is to ascertain whether an outcome of the regeneration process that has been undertaken on the quayside has failed to attract people from its neighbouring communities. The term cultural island was created whilst discussing with the Baltic Chief Executive the issue of whether the Baltic??™s neighbouring communities attended and whether since it opened for business has its philosophy reinforced the notion of such an island.In order to test the supposition I have created the research methods utilising qualitative sources with the aim of adding a quantitative element where possible.
The two neighbourhoods that I have chosen are located in the Felling/Bridges and Teams/Dunston wards to the east and west of the Quayside and have excellent linkage to the Quayside. This would enable me to look at potential usage across different age ranges; the majority of these age ranges have some of the best qualitative access routes to the Quayside.Research Methods1. Community consultationConsultation in any community is difficult if the appropriate methods are neither utilised or created in the first place. The two communities share a number of common factors, high deprivation, a strong community focus, a community distrust of public services and a public services perception that these communities are difficult to engage with. Following the inception of Neighbourhood Management in Gateshead communication barriers needed to be overcome. The outcome of which included a number of social related projects varying from community referenda through to community evaluation visits undertaken by school children to locations such as the Isle of Man and Belfast. Focussing on school children and schools enabled access to communities in an environment that was safe for communities to interact with public services.
Following successful projects whereupon children gained valuable learning experiences the communities were receptive to further involvement. In September 2005 young people from Bede Primary School were tasked to create a questionnaire that they had to use to consult with their wider community. Following two months of preparation, research and design (all undertaken by the children with support from Gateshead Council??™s Neighbourhood Management Team) the young people canvassed their community. 250 questionnaires were given to the children to complete by talking to their friends, family and wider family network; the questionnaire yielded 254 returns.Following the success of this questionnaire discussions with the two local primary schools resulted in agreement to undertake a similar process.
A timetable was agreed and agreement with regards to content and wording reached. Over a weekend period in July the children from years 5 and 6 of Tyne View Primary School and Bede Community Primary School were tasked to talk to their family network and friends to ascertain their opinions with regards to the Quayside. The response target response rate agreed between the schools was a combined total of 200 questionnaires.
Rationale for the response rate was two fold; firstly to test the research method we wanted to assess the young peoples ability to complete the questionnaires. Secondly, due to the plethora of other tasks that the young people were undertaking at this time of year it was important to complete the process quickly. This enabled the schools to complete their outstanding pieces of work with a number of children who would be moving onto Comprehensive Schools in September.
2. InterviewsInterviews will be undertaken to ascertain a wider context to the subject matter, the interviews will be focussed on a community service provider perspective. Local authority officers and local community schoolteachers will be canvassed to assess their opinions from both a community/local service provider perspective.Interviews will also be undertaken with the Chief Executives of the Baltic and Sage Gateshead to ascertain their opinions from the alleged cultural islands.3.
Secondary SourcesSecondary Sources will be utilised to ascertain additional perspectives of cultural regeneration per se but also with a focus on Gateshead Quayside also. The revitalisation of the quayside has created huge interest from the media, government and academics alike in their evaluation of regeneration. Perspectives from a social integration (community), capital investment (physical regeneration) and service provision (cultural opportunities and other services) perspectives will be sought to identify positive and negative effects caused by the regeneration of the Quayside.Section FourResearch Limitations and ethical considerations1. CommunityThe timing of the primary research will unfortunately clash with a period of change within the two communities, for many in the Teams community the local primary school is a much relied upon resource. Following closure of local amenities including housing office, church and post office the school is now scheduled to close following Gateshead Councils primary school review.Due to the implications of the review community opinion regarding colleagues who have spent four years developing positive relationships within this community has deteriorated, this in return will likely affect the numbers of completed questionnaires.2.
School childrenThe primary issues regarding the process and questionnaire composition related to: ??? Ability of children to successfully canvass their community The ability of children in the two schools varies slightly; Tyne View School has a Supported Education Need percentage of over 60%. In terms of SATS statistics figures reflect the additional support needs that the children in the local community require. Thus the school works within the curriculum environment with extreme entrepreneurial skill to develop schooling that achieves curriculum output whilst supporting children within a qualitative education process. The questionnaire has to be able to adhere to the needs and abilities of all children involved. This will be achieved through developing ownership of the process with the young people from the commencement of the project. Staff from both schools will be involved throughout the process to allow for appropriate methods to be created and to ensure that the environment that the children will be exposed to is appropriate. Bede Primary School has a higher SATS performance, however this school also has a large percentage of young people who require additional education support needs also. A significant similarity between the two schools is their community integration philosophy.
Both schools utilise their facilities as a community resource, they are community schools located firmly within the intricate structure that exists within their individual communities. This will ensure that the configuration of a children??™s community questionnaire (perhaps more formally known as social action research (Jones, 2004)) that meets each school??™s needs without school staff or children from both schools ever meeting each other a relatively straightforward process. ??? Safeguard of children throughout the process In order to ensure the children??™s safety and well being throughout the process children were tasked as to whom they should consult with. It was agreed that the following people should only be canvassed: ??? Themselves ??? Friends at school ??? Friends in their locality ??? Immediate family members ??? Wider family members with parental permission ??? Others deemed appropriate by parents under the observation of parents.3. Child ProtectionThroughout this process child protection is the key concern; failure to ensure the protection of each child would render the project meaningless. Due to the long-term relationships with both schools the pilot research was developed within each schools child protection policy guidelines.
This ensures that the children come into contact with either trusted family and close friends or council officers who had been CRB cleared.The needs of the young people were considered throughout the process; prior to the creation of the questionnaire process a smaller exercise (that involved the same tasks) was assessed to ensure that the task requested of the children was feasible and realistic. The exercise was also evaluated by children, teachers and local authority officers to ensure that the project: ??? Empowered the children involved ??? Ensured that the school could link the project outcomes and processes to curriculum objectives ??? Protected the children from any external pressures4.
Apolitical Social Action ResearchFonow and Cook (1991) believe that no research is apolitical, others believe that children are exposed naturally to politics (Elshtain, 1997). Irrespective of viewpoint the need to protect the children from entering political environments was considered prior to the creation of the project. The pre pilot project, which focussed on usage of a local sports facility, had an element of politics within it. A community perspective of the sports facility is that the facility is not used sufficiently by the local community. The reality is that the community, the sports centre and public services all have a political element to them.
The children were protected in that the project was primarily about them as individuals with a task to achieve. Officers representing the sports centre were consulted and advised regarding the children??™s role, this ensured added protection from potential harmful political elements.Once the young people had completed the questionnaire and returned the data the information was analysed by both officers and children alike. The decision to forward their information to colleagues was made following discussion with the school and the young people to seek their permission.
If the children refused then the information would have remained with the school. However should children be completely safeguarded (or is it excluded) from the political environment The agreed consensus was that so long as the project did not affect the children??™s learning, experience and well-being then the experience would help them, their families and potentially the local authority and partners in ensuring facilities met the needs of local people it was thus an empowering opportunity not to miss.The children found the thought of their work entering local authority circles as quite ???funny??? and ???weird??? (Reynolds, 2006). It was agreed between parties that the cultural survey information would be constantly monitored to ensure that the children and their work were adequately supported.In terms of the pilot data a decision regarding the exposure of the children??™s work will be considered following the completion of the dissertation. The schools current predicaments require consideration, particularly at this time where change (and closure) are being timetabled.
The depthness of the questionnaire reflects the abilities of the children whilst also recognising time constraints that children will be under to complete questionnaires. Thus the questionnaire is formatted in a child friendly way, pictures are utilised to assist the children and act as prompts to assist them in asking relevant questions. The format does not require a great deal of writing, thus enabling young people to fill them in whilst talking to those being questioned. Additionally the questionnaires format reflects the recognition by the schools that for a number of parents, illiteracy may well be a prominent issue for them so the questionnaire requires formatting to enable children to support parents in completing the questions posed.Section FiveAnalysis and ConclusionsThe analysis will seek to ascertain individual and collective community opinion regarding the regenerated quayside (and some individual components) in order to assess whether the community see a regenerated place or a cultural island. The analysis will aim to achieve more than this single objective. The research will hopefully identify whether generational barriers exist and whether the effects of these barriers prevent the young researchers themselves to access cultural facilities. The dissertation will identify examples of where the non attendance of older generations prevent younger people from attending and gaining a wider social education experience.
Analysis will be drawn from the questionnaires in the following ways:To assess the usage of the two neighbouring communities of the quayside.This will be undertaken in terms of:Quantitative analysis – Numbers of positive and negative responsesQualitative responses – Generation analysis; an assessment of whether responses vary within different age levels.Family clustering: Family cluster networks will be created to assess whether usage of the quayside is directly linked to family networks.Interviews ??“ Qualitative Investigation and AnalysisInterviews will be utilised to gain a wider grasp of issues faced by communities and service providers. Schools and local authority Neighbourhood Management Area Co-ordinators will be interviewed to ascertain an additional community perspective, to readdress balance of argument interviews with chief executives from both the Sage Gateshead and the Baltic will be undertaken.Detailed results from community questionnaire will be forwarded to the interviewees for their response.The following matrix evaluations assess the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats and impacts of each data collection method. SWOT Analysis and Impact Evaluation ??“ Community Questionnaire| | | | ||Strengths |Strength – Impact |Weaknesses |Weaknesses ??“ Impact || | | | ||Community Orientated |Higher % response |Initial questionnaire analyses issues as a snapshot.
|Would have liked longer period to carry out study ??“ will||Local Ownership |Local people will want to support children |Local authority Data Collation resource is poor. |produce responses but not to level that I would have ||Children??™s enthusiasm |Project will create awareness of the issue within the |Main focus is families, will not identify people without |liked. ||School Involvement |community |links to the school children. |Questionnaire had to recognise resource available to ||Ability to reach hard to reach groupings. |Response rate will be higher than any other form of | |analyse and collate data.
Would have liked it to be more||High questionnaire rate of return |consultation. | |comprehensive with follow-ups to a sample number. ||Qualitative and quantitative information |Low cost increases possibility of replicating process | |Individuals with perhaps more income may be more ||Low cost |in other communities. | |inclined to attend cultural facilities. || | | | || | | | ||Opportunities |Opportunities ??“ Impact |Threats |Threats – Impact ||To develop format in the future |Replication due to cost and results returned proves a |Generational perception of public services |Particularly in the Teams area perception of public ||To create a longer term assessment and evaluation process |low cost and effective form of consultation. |Consultation fatigue ??“ local community canvassed regarding |services not as high as previously, may lead to ||following same methodology. |Curriculum links enable schools to develop real pieces |variety of public service related issues, including: |reluctance to complete questionnaire despite it being a ||Longer-term project could focus on blanket coverage of a |of work as opposed to textbooks.
|Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder |school owned document. ||community, in order to avoid omitting individuals. |Blanket coverage would enable a full assessment of a |Home Improvements ??“ Decent Homes Standards | ||Potential Thesis or Local Authority long-term evaluation |community ??“ regardless of the issue being questioned. |Operation Goldfinch ??“ multi agency partnership approach in |Consultation fatigue may affect number of responses. ||project based on longitudinal ethos. | |addressing issues affecting local community. | || | |Local people may decide not to respond. | |SWOT Analysis and Impacts – Service Provider Interviews, Schools and Local Authority Service Providers| | | | ||Strengths |Strengths – Impacts |Weaknesses |Weaknesses ??“ Impacts ||Schools in a position to comment on perspectives from a fully |In a position to substantiate community opinion/theories.
|Potential wider regeneration schemes influence opinion. |Opinions can be flawed based on wider impacts of other ||community integrated position. |Possible rationale fro lack of community involvement is |Services located in specific communities can become |regeneration schemes and public service reviews. ||Service providers in a position to comment on perspectives from|that communities in deprived areas have more prevalent |entrenched.
| ||a partial community integrated position. |issues affecting them. |Timing of school review and project unfortunate. | ||Can give a perspective with a wider knowledge base of community|Perspective offered can assist in own service developing | | ||issues affecting whole community |new projects. | | ||Can give perspective based on changing communities over |Developing close links with service providers enable | | ||previous years |future close working relationships to be continued.
| | ||Can give perspective of community opinion alongside that of |Services entrenched in communities can involve and | | ||current issues affecting community. |develop local community involvement. | | ||Perspective can be given with wider knowledge of local | | | ||strategies. | | | ||Services located in specific communities can become entrenched.| | | || | | | ||Opportunities |Opportunities – Impacts |Threats |Threats ??“ Impacts ||To develop involvement of local officers and service providers |To continue the understanding requires longitudinal |Closure of localised bases may in the future reduce the |Closure of Tyne View School will result in modified ||in future waves of culture/regeneration consultation. |methods, schools could provide the localised base to |opportunity to delve into communities utilising this type|research methods in the future, possibility of targeting || |evaluate community opinion and usage. |of research.
|other schools or other resources within the community. || | | |Closure of Tyne view school will result in a school with || | | |strong community links to be lost. |SWOT Analysis and Impacts ??“ Cultural Islands ??“ Sage Gateshead and Baltic| | | | ||Strengths |Strengths – Impacts |Weaknesses |Weaknesses ??“ Impacts ||In a position to comment from the Quayside Service Perspective.|In a position to substantiate community opinion/theories.|Potential wider regeneration schemes influence opinion. |Cultural quayside is not a failure so to recognise ||Involvement in evaluation |Involvement may prompt further consideration to the needs|Cultural providers are attendance achieving targets |improvement may not be seen as a priority in development ||Ability to reconfigure service towards communities of need. |of the wider adjacent communities. |Do the Sage and Baltic have the ability to create new and|of cultural provision.
||Ability to recognise need from new and developing communities. |Reconfigure provision in recognition of need. |groundbreaking projects aimed at increasing inclusivity | ||Ability to create new and groundbreaking projects aimed at |Research will reinforce the need to develop new ways to | | ||increasing inclusivity. |engage with neighbouring communities. | | || | | | ||Opportunities |Opportunities – Impacts |Threats |Threats ??“ Impacts ||To develop involvement of cultural agencies in future waves of |To continue the understanding requires longitudinal |Due to cultural bases attaining attendance targets the |Research and findings may well be overlooked. ||culture/regeneration consultation. |methods, cultural bases could provide long-term |need to treat neighbouring communities differently may |Opportunities to develop projects and programmes linking ||To develop further services in response to issues highlighted |involvement, support and resource to evaluate community |well be ignored.
|neighbouring communities may be lost. ||in dissertation. |opinion and usage. |Lack of disposable income may not prove that appealing to|Low disposable income communities may shift emphasis of ||Possibility of creating new projects to meet needs of |Additional services/opportunities in response to evidence|cultural service providers.
|attention and reinforce gentrification. ||communities |created in dissertation. |Cultural service providers may ignore research due to low|Closure of Tyne view school will result in a school with ||Ability to bend mainstream finance and services to match need |Possibility of creating new projects to meet needs of |priority.
|strong desires to link into cultural services will be || |communities | |lost. || |Ability to bend mainstream finance and services to match | | || |need | | |Conclusions to the dissertation will focus on the outcomes of the analysis and evaluation of all research, it is anticipated that the analysis will identify the need to improve links between the three communities. In particular whether potential approaches could be undertaken to develop this linkage between the neighbouring communities.Reflective evaluation of the consultation method will be considered and whether this form of research supports the longitudinal research ethos that suggests as being the more appropriate method to evaluate cultural regeneration. Evaluation will also be undertaken to assess whether the primary research pilot has potential to be developed and approach widened to include more communities.Ultimately this dissertation is essentially about two communities that can see the changes happening only a short distance away. My personal aim is that this research prompts further thinking as to how we include these communities into a renaissance that at this moment in time seems to be out of the reach of many.Section Six Dissertation Format:Chapter 1 ??“ IntroductionTo analyse, evaluate, explore: Culture and regeneration partnership (CARP) The Child Friendly City (CFC)Map the development of CARP??™s and CFC??™s.
Create some context to the overall area of study.Chapter 2 ??“ Child Friendly Cities and Culture Led Regeneration ??“Key Debates from the last decadeCulture and regeneration ??“ from individual to global competitionChild Friendly Cities ??“ What makes a place a CFCCulture ??“ 1997 concerned with empowerment, involvement and community development.Shifts from original policy. Influence of developers and plannersHas this occurred Is the original community empowerment focus out of sync with timescales of public agencies/developersThe inclusivity/exclusivity debateGentrification and exclusivity is a major issue within the culture led regeneration philosophy.
Gentrification and exclusivity is necessarily negative.How does this compare contrast to a CFCKey issues, comparisons/contrasts to be analysed.Chapter 3 ??“ NewcastleGateshead Quayside Cultural renaissanceGateshead ContextOverview of the change that has occurred in the three areas of focus: Gateshead Quays Old Fold TeamsCommunity Assessments to be undertaken using statistical data. IMD, Vitality Index.Boundaries and Barriers ??“ Assessment of physical, spatial and generational barriers that exist between the three communities.
Does the area currently meet CFC standardsChapter 4 ??“ Case Study Interviews and Research ? Community Perspective ??? Questionnaire quantitative ??“ evaluation of statistics will be undertaken. ??? Questionnaire qualitative ??“ qualitative information will be assessed and evaluated. ? Service Provider PerspectiveInterviews undertaken with two head teachers with over 30 years experience of working within the Teams and Old Fold communities. ? The ???Island??™ PerspectiveAttempts at interviews will be made. Responses to community questionnaire will be included.Evaluation of whether the two organisations recognise areas for improvement with regards to community involvement and need for new linkages.
Photograph Analysis ??“ evaluation of photographs taken by young peopleLikesDislikesBoundary/Barrier Analysis ??“ evaluation of barriers/boundaries as highlighted by young people.Chapter 5 ??“ Conclusion and RecommendationsBased on findings from analysis gained from the research.The findings and analysis will be used to evidence whether the research reflects the hypothesis that a cultural island has been created.Have the new developments contributed to CFC standardsWould a commitment to CFC status enhance the possibility of the cultural island being interlinked to adjacent communities.Recommendations will identify potential approaches that could be adopted in order to counteract and overcome the cultural island exclusion hypothesis.
CFC status, what steps need to be taken and by whom.BibliographyAdorno, T. W. & Horkheimer, M. (1947/1997) Dialectic of Enlightenment. London:Verso.Arts Council (2006) Cultural Sector Development Initiative.
Arts Council, England.Atkinson, R. & bridge, G. (Eds) (2005) Gentrification in a Global Context: The new Urban Colonialism.
London:Routledge.Audit Commission (2007) The transition from CPA to CAA. Audit Commission CW Print Group.Bailey, C. Miles, S. Stark, P. (2004) ???Culture Led Urban Regeneration and the revitalisation of Rooted Identities in Newcastle, Gateshead and the North East of England??™, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 10(1), pp. 47 ??“ 66.
Bailey, C. (2006) cultural values and culture led regeneration ??“ the case of Newcastle-Gateshead. 14th International Conference of the ACEI. Vienna, 6-9 July 2006.Beckett, Andy. (2003) Can Culture Save Us The Guardian. Retrieved from: www.society.
Bennett, O. (2006) Rethinking the social impact of the arts: A critical-historical review. Centre for cultural Policy Studies. University of Warwick.
Betterton, J. (2001) Culture and Urban Regeneration: The Case of Sheffield, Sub Regional Commentary, S. Yorkshire, p.11.Bianchini, Franco. (2006) City in transition. Fostering Resilient Communities. Retrieved from: www.
theRSA.orgBinns, L. (2006) Capitalising on Culture: An evaluation of culture led urban regeneration policy. Retrieved from: www.dit.ie/DIT/built/futuresacademy/publications/docs/CAPITALISING-ON-2005.docBocock, R.
(1992) The cultural transformations of modern society, in S. Hall and B. Gieben (Eds) Formations of Modernity, pp. 229 – 274. Milton Keynes: The Open University and Policy Press.Bridge, G. (2006) Perspectives on Cultural Capital and the Neighbourhood Urban Studies, Vol 43(4) pp.
719 ??“ 730)Burton, Paul. (2003) Community involvement in neighbourhood regeneration: stairway to heaven or road to nowhere CNR Paper 13. Retrieved from: www.neighbouroodcentre.org.ukByrne, D. (1999) Is the North of England English in Northern Review, 8, pp.
18-26.Castells, M. (1997) The Power of Identity, The Information Age, Economy, Society and Culture, Vol.2.
Oxford: Blackwell.Catterall, B. (1998) Culture as a Critical Focus for Effective Urban Regeneration. Town & Country Planning Summer School, University of York.Comedia (2003) Releasing the cultural potential of our core cities: culture and the core cities retrieved from: www.corecities.com/coreDEV/comedia/com_cult.
htmlComedia (2004) Culture and regeneration. An evaluation of the evidence. retrieved from: www.corecities.
comCommission for Social Care Inspection. (2007) Children??™s services CSCI findings. Commission for Social Care Inspection.Communities and Local Government. (2007) process evaluation of plan rationalisation; formative evaluation of community strategies. Retrieved from: www.communities.gov.
ukCommunities and Local Government. (2007) Regeneration through culture, sport and tourism. Retrieved from: www.communities.
gov.ukCommunities and Local Government. (2007) Monitoring the Sustainability of Buildings. Retrieved from: www.communities.
gov.ukCommunities and Local Government. (2006) Strong and prosperous communities. The local government white paper. Retrieved from: www.communities.gov.ukCommunities and Local Government.
(2006) Strong and prosperous communities. The local government white paper. Making it happen: the implementation plan. Retrieved from: www.communities.
gov.ukCoote, A., Allen, J. & Woodhead, D. (2004) Finding Out What Works: Building Knowledge about Complex, Community Based Initiatives. London:Kings Fund.
Crawford, L. (2001) Bilbao Thrives from the ???Guggenheim Effect???, Financial Times Weekend, 28 April, p.2.Culture.Info (2007) Cutlture.info ??“ sharing knowledge for culture. Retrieved from: www.regen.
culture.info/Culture North West (2004) Culture at the Heart of Regeneration. Manchester, 30th September retrieved from www.culturenorthwest.co.ukCulture Policy Collective.
(2004). Beyond Social Inclusion Towards Cultural Democracy. Scottish Arts Council. Retrieved from www.culturaldemocracy.netDargan, L.
(2002) A new approach to regeneration Reflections on the new deal for communities in Newcastle. Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies. University of Newcastle Upon Tyne.Department Culture, Media and Sport (2001) Draft Guidance for Local Cultural Strategies, London:DCMS.Department Culture, Media and Sport (2003) Building Tomorrow: Culture in Regeneration, The Lowry, Manchester, 25th February retrieved from www.culture.
gov.ukDepartment Culture, Media and Sport (2004) Culture at the Heart of Regeneration, Consultation Report, London:DCMS.Department Culture, Media and Sport (2004) Culture at the Heart of Regeneration Summary of Responses, London:DCMS.Department Culture, Media and Sport (2004) Getting Serious about play.
A review of children??™s play. London:DCMS.Department Culture, Media and Sport (2006) Nurturing creativity in young people. A report to government to inform future policy. London:DCMS.Department Culture, Media and Sport (2006) Government response to Paul Roberts??™ report on nurturing creativity in young people. A report to government to inform future policy.
London:DCMS.Department Culture, Media and Sport (2007) Making the case for public investment: A summary of recommendations. London:DCMS.Department for Education and Skills (2006) Every Child Matters. Retrieved from: www.
everychildmatters.gov.ukDepartment for Education and Skills (2006) Building a culture of participation. Retrieved from: www.
everychildmatters.gov.ukDepartment for Education and Skills (2006) Better places to live. Government, identity and the value of the historic and built environment.
London, DCMS.Department for Education and Skills (2005) Department for Culture, media and Sport Five Year Plan. Living life to the full.
London, DCMS.Department for Education and Skills (2007) Aiming high for children:supporting families. HM Treasury.
Department for Education and Skills (2007) Laying the Foundations. Using the built environment to teach. DFES.Dinham, A. (2005) Empowered or over powered The real experiences of local participation in the UK??™s New Deal for Commuities. Community Development Journal.
Vol. 40. No.3.
pp. 301 ??“ 312.Eshtain, J (1997) Political Children: Reflections on Hannah Arendt??™s distinction between public and private life, in M.L.
Shanley and U. Narayan (eds) Reconstructing Political Theory: Feminist Perspectives. Cambridge Polity Press pp. 109-127.Evans, G. (2001) Cultural Planning: An Urban Renaissance London: Routledge.Evans G. (2001) Culture and Regeneration: Measuring Impact, Arts Professional, 84, 4 October, pp.
5-6.Evans, G. (2004) Measuring Impact: Culture and Regeneration. Arts professional, 83 (November), pp.5 ??“ 6.Evans, G.
(2005) Measure for Measure: Evaluating the Evidence of Cultures Contribution to Regeneration. In Urban Studies, 42(5/6). Pp. 959 ??“ 983.Evans, G.
& Foord, J. (2000) European Funding of Culture: Promoting Common Culture or Regional Growth Cultural Trends, 36, pp. 53-87.Evans, G.
& Shaw, P. (2004) The Contribution of Culture to Regeneration in the UK: A Review of Evidence. London: Department for Culture Media and Sport.Florida, R. (2002) The Rise of the Creative Class.
New York: Basic Books.Fonow, M. & Cook, J. (1991) Beyond Methodology: Feminist Scholarship as Lived Research, Bloomington and indianapolis, Indiana University Press as cited in Jones, Adele Involving Children and Young People as Researchers in Fraser et al (Eds) (2004) Doing Research with Children and Young People, London:Sage Publications Ltd.Forrest, R. and Kearns, A. (1999) Joined Up Places Social Cohesion and Neighbourhood Regeneration.
York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Garcia, B. (2005) Deconstructing the City of Culture: The Long Term Cultural Legacies of Glasgow 1990, in Urban Studies, Vol. 42, May 5/6 pp. 841 ??“ 868.General Public Agency (2004) Culture at the heart of regeneration. A response by General Public Agency to the DCMS Consultation Paper. Retrieved from: www.
generalpublicagency.com/lib/PDF/GPAresponse.pdfGibson, L. and Stevenson, D. (2004) Urban Space and the Uses of Culture, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 10(1), pp.1-4.Government Office North West (2004) Bringing communities together through sport and culture. DCMS.
Hewitt + Jordan (2004) I Fail to Agree. Sheffield: Site Gallery.Hughes, R. (1998) Culture Makes Communities Conference. Leeds: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 13 February.International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies (2006) Arts and culture in regeneration. Retrieved from: www.ifacca.
orgJayne, M. (2004) Culture That Works Creative Industries development in a Working Class City, Capital & Class, 84, pp. 199 ??“ 210.Jones, T. (2006) Thinking big about culture led regeneration. Vision 2011. Artscape, Canada.
Kawashima, N. (2004) Planning for equality Decentralisation in Cultural Policy. Centre for Cultural Policy studies. Retrieved from: www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/theatre_s/cp/publications/centrepubs/ccps_paper_1.pdfKeating, M.
de Frantz, M. (2004) Culture-led strategies for urban regeneration: a comparative perspective on Bilbao. Retrieved from: http://www.intellectbooks.co.uk/journalarticles.phpissn=1364971X&v=16&i=3&d=10.
1386/ijis.16.3.187/1Kerevan, G. (2000) The Sick City, Sunday Herald, 12 March, p.
9.Klunzman, K. (2004) Keynote speech to Intereg III Mid Term Conference, Liulle, in: Regeneration and Renewal, 19 November, p.2.Lansdown, G.
(2005) Can you hear meThe rights of young children to participate in decisions affecting them. Bernard van Leer Foundation.Landry, C. (2000) The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators. London:Earthscan.Landry, C., Gren, F. Matarasso, F.
& Bianchini, F. (1996) The Art of Regeneration: Urban Renewal through Cultural Activity. London: Comedia.Lim, H. (1993) Cultural Strategies for Revitalising the City: A Review and Evaluation, Regional Studies, 27(6), pp. 589 ??“ 594.Lovering, J. (2006) Cultural strategies and urban-regional regeneration.
Cardiff University. Retrieved from: www.cardiff.
ac.uk/cplan/downloads/jl-cultureregen.pptLynch, K. (1960) The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.MacClancy, J. (1997) The Museum as a Site of Contest: The Bilbao Guggenheim, Focal Journal of Anthropology, 1(7), pp. 271 ??“ 278.
Macmillan, R. Marshall, F. (2005) Promoting community involvement through regeneration: exploring the configurational comparative approach.
Sheffield Hallam University. Home Office Civil Renewal Research Programme.Madden, C. (2005) Indicators for Arts and Cultural Policy: A Global Perspective, Urban Studies(3), pp.217 ??“ 247.
Matarasso, F. (1997) Use or Ornament The Social Impact of Participation in the Arts. Stroud:Comedia.Matarasso, F. Landry, C. (1999) Balancing act: twenty one strategic dilemmas in cultural policy. Belgium, Council of Europe.McAllister, J.F.O. (2004) Secret capitals Stars of Regeneration. Time Magazine. Retrieved from: www.time.com/time/europe/secret/newcastle.htmlMcGuigan, J. (1996) Culture and the Public Sphere. London: Routledge.Miles, M. (2005) Interruptions: Testing the Rhetoric of Culturally Led Urban Development, in Urban Studies, 42 (5/6), pp. 889 ??“ 911.Miles, S. (2005) ???Our Tyne??™: Iconic Regeneration and the Revitalisation of Identity in NewcastleGateshead, in Urban Studies, 42, May, 5/6, pp. 913 ??“ 926.Miles, S. & Paddison, R (2005) Introduction: The Rise and Rise of Culture Led Urban Regeneration, in Urban Studies, Vol 42, 5/6, May, pp. 833 ??“ 839.Minton, A. (2003) Northern Soul: Culture, Creativity and Quality of Place in Newcastle and Gateshead. London: DEMOS.Morgan, R. (2007) Policy by children. A children??™s views report. Retrieved from: www.rights4me.orgNational Children??™s Bureau (2006) Consulting Children About Play. Retrieved from: ncb.org.uk/Page.asporiginx6051sw_80528368537615y43c3011485129Newman, T. Curtis, K. & Stephens, J. (2003) Do Community Based Arts Projects Result In Social Gains A Review of the Literature, Community Development Journal, October, pp. 310 ??“ 322.Northern Arts (1991) Strategic Review Paper, Northern Arts Board Archive, Newcastle upon Tyne.ODPM (Office for the Deputy Prime Minister) (2001) Towns and Cities: Partners In Urban Renaissance. Breaking Down the Barriers. London: ODPM/CABE.Paddison, R. (1993) City Marketing, Image Reconstruction and Urban Regeneration, Urban Studies(2), pp. 339 ??“ 350.Peter, L. (2005) Community Development and Engagement in Culture led Initiatives. Sustainable Community Regeneration, Liverpool.Plaza, B. (2000) Evaluating the Influence of a Large Cultural Artifact in the Attraction of Tourism: The Guggenheim Museum Bilbao Case, Urban Affairs Review, 36(2), pp. 264 ??“ 274.Reynolds, Jack (2006). Personal Interview. Bede Community Primary School, Gateshead.Riggio, E (2002) Child Friendly Cities: Good governance in the best interests of the child. Environment and Urbanization. Volume 14. No.2. Retrieved from: www.eau.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/14/2/45.pdfRogerson, R. J. (1999) Quality of Life and City Competitiveness, Urban Studies, 36(5/6), pp.969 ??“ 985.Seargent, J. (2005) Culture at the heart of regeneration ??“ a North East perspective. The Ideas Mine Limited.Scott, A. (2000) The Cultural Economy of Cities, Sage, London.Smith, C. (2000) Creative Britain. London: Faber and Faber.Stevenson, D. (2004) ???Civic gold??™ rush: cultural planning and the politics of the Third Way, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 10, pp. 119-131.Urban Task Force (1999) Towards an Urban Renaissance: Report of the Urban Task Force. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.Urry, J. (1988) Contemporary transformations of space and place??™, in The Globalisation of Higher Education, ed. P. Scott, HRE/Open University Press, Buckingham, pp. 1-