The working group is made up of six of the largest local authorities in North West Europe: Lille Metropolis, the towns of Valenciennes, Manchester, Birmingham, Rotterdam and Brussels-Capital Region. The financial management and co-ordination of the project are handled by Lille Metropolitan Development and Town Planning Agency under the authority of Lille Metropolitan Urban Community. It is funded by ERDF, via Interreg IIC, and also by the French government (FNADT) and Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations (urban renewal programme). The working group is assisted by a scientific committee of experts, mostly academics, who help to define the problems and contribute their
knowledge of the experiences of other towns, cities or regions.



The general aim, to use European jargon, is to exchange information on "good practice" in the field of urban regeneration. The group differs from most existing initiatives in that it encourages operational exchanges of experience "in the field", over a period of time. The aims of the working group are:
- To disseminate practical results, which could encourage the development of local actions, although it is obvious that most experiences are not directly transferable.
- To make recommendations: the working group aims to define the common features of European cities and towns and to make recommendations for proposals to Member States and the European Union, which could increase the effectiveness of the urban regeneration policies implemented.
- To act as a catalyst to a network of towns in North West Europe committed to implementing urban renewal policies, the aim being to improve the way in which towns are taken into consideration in European planning and development strategies, which are being devised by the Member States.

TWO YEARS OF EXCHANGES

Although all the partners agree that urban regeneration policies must necessarily be transversal ("integrated") and global ("holistic"), in order to be most effective, the method used has mostly been to organise successive meetings combining "thematic" and local approaches. During the two years, discussions have been held focussing on eight of the most crucial urban problems; each one was the subject of a seminar organised in one of the partner towns (or by one of the financial partners). In this way, the problems facing the various towns in the group and the original initiatives they have adopted have been examined "in vivo".
Initially, it was necessary to identify the actions implemented, in each of the "subject areas" involved. However, it was also necessary to measure the need for transversality more accurately, by evaluating the effectiveness of sectorial measures against the scale of the problems.
During the first year, the seminars therefore considered "vertical" themes:

Economic development in Manchester,  Social cohesion in Rotterdam,  Housing and living environment in Valenciennes,  Culture in Lille Metropole.

At a recapitulative seminar, at the end of this initial phase, the achievements of the first year of discussions were reviewed, and the working group was able to move forward, on the basis of the experience gained, to more transversal, more "horizontal" themes:

Working methods, and among other, the partnership between the public and private sectors, in Paris,(part 1)  Working methods, and among other, the partnership between the public and private sectors, in Paris,(part 2)  The geographical and institutional levels of implementation in Brussels,(part 1)  The geographical and institutional levels of implementation in Brussels,(part 2)  Powerment and residents participation in Birmingham,(part 1)  Powerment and residents participation in Birmingham,(part 2)  The role of urban regeneration in polycentric and balanced European development, in London

URBAN REGENERATION: A COMMON NECESSITY

The seminars have provided the various partners and associated experts, with an opportunity to exchange in-depth information on the situation in their towns, their actions and their conception of urban renewal. This has enabled them to discover urban realities, which are very diverse in context, yet at the same time very similar, in terms of the problems and issues at stake. Beyond their various differences, in language, culture, local context (history, geographical location, economic structure), institutional framework (position and role of local authorities), political culture (local resources and respective roles of the public and private sectors, among other), it soon became apparent that the six towns in the group were facing similar challenges. They were all faced with massive de-industrialisation, resulting in a significant decrease in the number of jobs in traditional economic sectors, and had been affected by mass unemployment, with all the social repercussions it has. The six towns have seen a significant increase in the range of housing available and in mobility, which, combined with the impoverishment of an increasing number of inhabitants, have led to more and more obvious spatial segregation.
Some areas have become unattractive to investors, which has consequently accelerated their deterioration, so that they have entered a downward spiral, with its repercussions extending to the whole town. In this situation, the six towns have designed and implemented ambitious urban renewal strategies, based on "urban policies", defined by but transcending the Member States themselves; they have all benefited, within this framework, from European Union aid, from the URBAN programme in particular.
A SHARED VISION OF URBAN REGENERATION

A SHARED VISION OF URBAN REGENERATION

The similarity of problems and initiatives helped to promote a shared culture of urban renewal in general within the working group. It is probably even more significant that, despite real cultural differences between the participants, it has been possible to draw common conclusions – without any real difficulty - on most of the different subjects covered.
All the participants share a vision of urban renewal in Europe, whose dual aim is to stimulate local economies and to improve the quality of urban life; they emphasise the need to implement actions that not only aim to re-evaluate the overall image of towns but also to reduce internal inequalities. The conception of urban regeneration thus described is therefore much more ambitious and far-reaching than mere local "social development" policies. It covers every area of urban development, and all policies. Indeed, the members of the group stress the need for more "integrated" urban renewal policies, with three dimensions:
- The disciplines involved (economics, social affairs, culture, equipment, ecology, etc.);
- Geographical and institutional areas of definition and implementation;
- The various time scales (for the inhabitant, for the investor, for the politician, etc.).
They all agree that if urban renewal is to be more effective, the project rationale must prevail over the one-stop-shop rationale. They agree that projects must be defined, directed and implemented by means of an "ascending" rationale under the responsibility of local elected representatives, but with, and if possible by, the inhabitants most directly involved. Nor should the role of private investment be neglected: its contribution is indispensable, if only because it means that common urban development rationales may be stimulated in areas that the market has previously ignored. It is also indispensable that the link between urban renewal and town planning be clearly re-defined: urban renewal cannot be considered the only way to rebalance the internal development of towns, other than in exceptional circumstances. It is also necessary to strike a balance between different towns: towns do not all have the same qualities, and rare are those that have all the essential resources.
Urban regeneration is also a very complex process. A number of obstacles must be removed if we want the measures adopted to be really effective.
These obstacles include the large number of actors involved, and the wide range and diversity of sources of finance. It is also necessary to understand the fact that we are working with a "living material". We must be able to measure its endogenous developments, if we want to change it successfully. The constraints of existing conditions and the consequences of past decisions have to be accepted, whether in terms of the architectural heritage, social relations or cultural achievements.

A PROCESS TO BE BUILT ON AND CONTINUED

With two years' work behind them, the members of the working group feel that they have only done a part of what they set out to achieve together. Despite having collected and compared considerable amounts of information, and although they now have a more accurate idea of the similarities and differences in their methods, they still have a far from perfect knowledge of the procedures implemented by their various neighbours. Nevertheless, the working party members are agree that greater effectiveness in urban regeneration requires a number of conditions to be satisfied and consider that a wide range of different aspects of urban regeneration should be further analysed. They have also developed an actual experience of exchanges in a different cultural and linguistic context and they can draw lessons on the way to carry out effectively such exchange processes.

Conclusions and recommendations of the working party on urban regeneration were setting out on the 15 March 2002 : - Conclusions and recommendations - Final report - Conclusions and recommendations - Final report : annexes Such exchange processes are indeed worth continuing, as is proved by the keen interest in the working party's achievements shown by the Eurocities network as well as by the representatives of the member states and of the European Commission.