Urban Reimaging - Yay or Nay?

Cities engage in re-imaging or rebranding, for the main purposes of improving people’s perceptions of the city, to raise liveability in terms of the social, environmental and economic dimensions. Cities endeavor to portray themselves as vibrant, welcoming, conducive for work-play balance and an attractive place to live in. This could possibly land the city in competitive advantage over other cities, and thereby attracting more foreign direct investments, generating more economic growth for the country, and hopefully benefitting its urban dwellers. However, since re-imaging requires the city to make some changes, often drastic ones, it may not be seen in a positive light by all especially urban dwellers, as it often disrupts their way of life or requires them to adapt to changes. Compounding that would be the subjective success of the re-imaging, where sometimes the city over promises or overestimates itself, bringing more harm than good, especially to urban dwellers. This essay will discuss the strategies of re-imaging, and how it brought a varied success to different cities.

Cities could use Property-Led Re-imaging, namely the implementation of flagship projects, to transform a city’s image and identity. Property-Led Re-imaging refers to the assembly of finance, land, building materials and labour to produce or improve buildings for occupation and investment purposes. Flagship development projects are often large scale, and focuses on eye-catching, decorative, spectacular postmodern architecture, to serve as a central icon that the city can be easily identified by. Physically, such developments can bring derelict land back into use, coupled with upgrading of existing land uses. An intended outcome of this strategy would be to catalyse the regeneration of local urban development and economy. In order to evaluate the impacts on urban dwellers, the example of Canary Wharf in London Docklands and Cheong Gye Stream of South Korea, will be examined.

In London Docklands, before the Local Government Planning Act of 1980, the image of the city can be described to be one that is dull, unattractive, easily forgettable and underdeveloped. The London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC) was then formed to secure the regeneration of the area, by bringing land and buildings to effective use, making it more attractive, where Canary Wharf was born. The development of existing and new industries, as well as commerce was encouraged, and the consideration of urban dwellers were seen in their aim to ensure that housing and social facilities were available.

Overall, 600ha of derelict land was reclaimed and 155 million pounds was spent on land acquisition. Its success can be seen in the economic, environmental and social dimensions. With the construction of the Canary Wharf business district, it attracted 1120 million pounds of public investment, and 8420 million pounds of private-sector investment. The number of businesses also doubled together with employment, with 41,000 more jobs available, even merely with the opening of the first stage of Canary Wharf in 1991. Besides the job prospects that Canary Wharf offers that makes it more liveable, 100,000 trees were planted on 130ha of green space, with 17 conservation areas created, alleviating the possible environmental stressors that it may bring. Shopping facilities and 15,200 new homes were also completed. Education opportunities were also made available with a new Post-16 and a Technology College.

Though the Canary Wharf at London Docklands may seem like a perfect urban re-imaging success story, there are certain limitations for the urban dwellers living there. Canary Wharf is not a very inclusive area of living as it neglected the employment opportunities for the relatively low-skilled population, as well as other social groups such as the elderly, with complaints by residents at the lack of hospitals and services for them. Moreover, the new homes were extremely expensive, beyond the price-range of the locals, attracting the wealthy, causing a sharp rise in living costs. As a result, there were also disruptions to the local culture where the close-knit “Eastenders” community had to give way. Therefore, positive outcomes can be observed from property-led re-imaging, but they tend to favor the wealthy and neglect the middle and low income local population that forms the majority. However, if well planned, property-led re-imaging can be even more successful in benefiting more urban dwellers, just like at Cheong Gye Stream in South Korea that sought the people’s opinions before going ahead with development, as the government addressed the concerns of local merchants and shopkeepers by offering them low-interest loans.

Another way a city can re-image, is via City Marketing and Spectacular Events. This refers to the deliberate manipulation of the urban image, with the intention to promote economic development. This can be achieved sometimes through hosting spectacular events, that are large scale, often involving heavy financial investment, logistical support, manpower, intensive marketing and publicity. Some “spectacular events” include the Olympics, F1 Grand Prix and hosting international summits like the ASEAN Summit and UN conferences. These events expose to the cities to a global audience and at the same time, drives local authorities to invest in improving existing infrastructure and stimulating economic growth. The intended outcome would be to make the city recognised amidst the tough competition in the global economy, foster greater national pride and unity, as well as improve liveability through the upgrading of infrastructure. In order to evaluate the impacts of these events on urban dwellers, the Olympic Games in London and Athens will be examined.

In 2004, the Olympic Games was to be held in Athens, Greece. In preparation to host the athletes, spectators and the game venues, over 8 billion pounds was spent, on building new stadiums and facilities. As Greece was suffering the same fate as Barcelona before the 1992 games, in terms of a suffering economy and low standard of living, the 2004 Athens Olympic Games was an attempt by the government, to improve infrastructure, kick-start economic growth and enhance the image of the city. Some measures that aimed at regeneration included building Olympic facilities in deprived areas, in hope of bringing more tourism receipts, recognition and better living conditions for the people. However, the positive outcomes to urban dwellers were dampened by the lack of proper planning. Few detailed plans were put in place to ensure these goals were achieved, as seen in the little evidence of significant impacts to Athens’ urban problems, even 6 months after the end of the games. Newly developed stadiums stood empty, exacerbating the problem of soaring public debt as maintenance of these empty facilities amount to a whopping amount of 50 million pounds annually, with effort made to maximise the use of the area. Also, huge amount of litter and graffiti were left behind as a result of poor maintenance during the games itself, reducing the liveability in Athens for urban dwellers, and making the place less attractive for use. These are evidences of short-sighted planning on the part of the government, bringing more harm than good to urban dwellers.

However, if proper planning had been done and well followed through, these limitations would have been minimised, as seen in the case of the 2012 London Olympic Games, in sharp contrast with the mess made of the games in Athens. London adopted a similar approach as Athens, by basing the Games in the deprived East End. What London did differently was to have sustainability at its core, by intentionally involving local firms to provide building resources, food and cleanup services, so that urban dwellers, who work in these companies, do not lose out. More effort was made in the design of the facilities, to make it world-class, in order to ensure the continued usage of the facilities by serving as a platform to generate more global athletes, and host more spectacular events. This will help to even out maintenance costs and reduce burden on taxpayers. Liveability of urban dwellers was also improved as there was also emphasis on “The Cultural Olympiad”, where plays were staged, catering to urban dwellers who may not be as inclined to sports. Though there is no denying of the limitations, such as multiple deprivation, London’s well thought-out, far-sighted planning brought about more positive outcomes for urban dwellers, as compared to Athens.

In a nutshell, re-imaging strategies such as Property Led Re-imaging through flagship developments, as well as hosting Spectacular Events, are intended at raising liveability and bringing positive outcomes to urban dwellers, and the country as a whole. However, some common reasons why the intended positive outcomes have been dampened are because the city did not engage in proper detailed planning. Therefore, these strategies can only be successful if the country is ready, in terms of ensuring far-sighted goals are met, and not rushing into re-imaging, as urban dwellers may be better off without it if not well executed.