Issuu

ÉCOLE POLYTECHNIQUE DE L’UNIVERSITE FRANÇOIS RABELAIS DE TOURS Spécialité Aménagement et environnement 35 allée Ferdinand de Lesseps 37200 TOURS, FRANCE Tél +33 (0)247.361.450 www polytech univ-tours fr

Master Thesis 2017 Research Master Planning and Sustainability: Urban and Regional Planning

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments [Marseille, France]

Vardelli, Laura

Arunachalam, Saroja

Title

Abstract : The big idea behind this graduation project is the development of flagship projects. Flagship developments can be defined as “significant, high-profile and prestigious land and property developments which play an influential and catalytic role in urban regeneration”. De-industrialization in industrialized cities of developed countries has led to declining public revenues, poor city images and high unemployment. Flagship developments play a catalytic role in revitalizing the image of the city, creating jobs and attracting tourists and private investors. They are often directed towards aggressive city re-branding or marketing campaigns which seek to launch a new urban vision which generally focus on outsiders, but not on the local community living adjacent to the development, whose lives are affected most by the developments. The most important disadvantage is that it brings spatial fragmentation between the area itself and its surroundings.However, there is also a huge possibility that the flagship areas could offer many beneficial opportunities for the local community, such as providing for housing career, facilities or recreational functions. The proposed research therefore intends to contribute strategies in the planning and design of flagship developments, in order to make these opportunities available for the local community to exploit. It will do so by drawing the attention of flagship developments on the adjacent neighborhoods, thereby breaking down the possibilities for the involvement of local communities.

Keywords : flagship development; regeneration; urban; local; community

Arunachalam Saroja saroja.arunachalam@etu.univ-tours.fr Supervisor: Prof. : Vardelli Laura Date of Submission: 06.06.2017

35 allée Ferdinand de Lesseps 37200 Tours FRANCE Tél. +33 (0)247 361 452 http://polytech.univ-tours.fr/m2ri-planning-sustainability

Saroja Arunachalam | PS-URP | June 5, 2017

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments Saroja Arunachalam Polytech Tours

Supervisor Laura Vardelli

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Abstract The big idea behind this graduation project is the development of flagship projects. Flagship developments can be defined as “significant, high-profile and prestigious land and property developments which play an influential and catalytic role in urban regeneration”. Deindustrialization in industrialized cities of developed countries has led to declining public revenues, poor city images and high unemployment. From the 1980s onwards, flagship projects were developed as an answer to de-industrialization under the influence of neoliberalism. Flagship developments play a catalytic role in revitalizing the image of the city, creating jobs and attracting tourists and private investors. They are often directed towards aggressive city re-branding or marketing campaigns which seek to launch a new urban vision which generally focus on outsiders, but not on the local community living adjacent to the development, whose lives are affected most by the developments. The most important disadvantage is that it brings spatial fragmentation between the area itself and its surroundings. However, there is also a huge possibility that the flagship areas could offer many beneficial opportunities for the local community, such as providing for housing career, facilities or recreational functions. The proposed research therefore intends to contribute strategies in the planning and design of flagship developments, in order to make these opportunities available for the local community to exploit. It will do so by drawing the attention of flagship developments on the adjacent neighborhoods, thereby breaking down the possibilities for the involvement of local communities. Keywords: flagship development; regeneration; urban; local; community

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments Preface This thesis is part of the MRes Planning and Sustainability – Urban and Regional Planning of the Faculty of Aménagement et environnement at Polytech Tours. This project is developed in the CITERES Joint Research Unit. The thesis is the final product of the graduation and forms the step towards obtaining the Master of Research titles, in the field of Urban and Regional Planning. The thesis required me to select a topic of my choice and I was keen on studying a topic related to the image building of a city. Given the advantage of a European context, I intended to utilise its study potentials. This lead me into looking into the subject deeper and giving it more meaning and context. I was initially particularly interested in the potential of the facades in building the city image. As I read more on the topic I came to an understanding that the city’s image varied from one city to another depending on the city’s history and evolution. Mid way, I was motivated to see the relation between the globalising trends and the city image. That motivation developed into this thesis research paper, trying to read in-between the lines of a flagship development. In order to be more specific and to help narrow down the research thesis, it was taken one step further to see the relation between the adjacent neighbourhoods and a flagship project, especially in socio-economic and spatial terms. I would like to thank my supervisor, Ms. Laura Vardelli and my Jury Prof. Abdillah Hamdouch and Prof. Serrano Jose for their input and support during the research project.

Saroja Arunachalam 6 June 2017

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Preface .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Project Framework ........................................................................................................................................ 6 Introduction: Global and Local ................................................................................................................. 7 Rationale ................................................................................................................................................... 8 Location of flagships............................................................................................................................. 8 Critique on flagships ............................................................................................................................. 9 Choice of Location ................................................................................................................................ 9 Problem Statement .............................................................................................................................. 12 Research Question .................................................................................................................................. 14 Hypothesis .............................................................................................................................................. 15 Aims and Deliverables ............................................................................................................................ 16 Project Aims........................................................................................................................................ 16 Deliverables ........................................................................................................................................ 17 Research Framework .................................................................................................................................. 18 Methods .................................................................................................................................................. 20 Relevance of the Subject ......................................................................................................................... 20 Societal Relevance .............................................................................................................................. 20 Scientific Relevance............................................................................................................................ 21 Ethical Aspect ..................................................................................................................................... 21 Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................................................... 22 Flagship Development ............................................................................................................................ 23 Global Flagships, Local Effects .......................................................................................................... 23 De-industrialization............................................................................................................................. 23 Neoliberalism ...................................................................................................................................... 23 Globalization ....................................................................................................................................... 24 The first flagships ............................................................................................................................... 24 Contemporary Flagships ..................................................................................................................... 25 Examples of flagships projects ........................................................................................................... 26 Aim of Flagship Developments .............................................................................................................. 27 Aim of Private Developers .................................................................................................................. 28 Aim of Municipality ........................................................................................................................... 29 Effects of Flagship Developments .......................................................................................................... 29

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Positive Effects of Flagship Developments ........................................................................................ 30 Negative Effects of Flagship Developments ....................................................................................... 31 Potential Barriers for the success of a Flagship Development ............................................................ 32 Analytical Framework ................................................................................................................................ 34 Neighborhoods ........................................................................................................................................ 35 Saint Mauront...................................................................................................................................... 36 Euroméditerranée ................................................................................................................................ 38 Transport ................................................................................................................................................. 47 Buses, Tram and Metro Lines ............................................................................................................. 47 Roads................................................................................................................................................... 48 Land Use ................................................................................................................................................. 48 Public and Private Spaces ....................................................................................................................... 50 Future Visions ......................................................................................................................................... 50 Euroméditerranée ................................................................................................................................ 50 Saint Mauront...................................................................................................................................... 51 Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 53 Research Question 1 ............................................................................................................................... 54 Answer 1 ............................................................................................................................................. 55 Research Question 2 ............................................................................................................................... 57 Answer 2 ............................................................................................................................................. 63 Research Question 3 ............................................................................................................................... 64 Answer 3 ............................................................................................................................................. 66 Research Question 4 ............................................................................................................................... 67 Answer 4 ............................................................................................................................................. 68 Learning from success stories: Roubaix Lille ......................................................................................... 71 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 73 References ................................................................................................................................................... 76

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Project Framework The Thesis is divided essentially into three parts: Project Framework, Research and Urban Design. To begin with, the project is introduced citing its relevance and describing the scientific issue. This illustrates the negative facets caused to the neighbourhood communities from the adjoining flagship development, and the potentials that it holds for the future. Furthermore, the project aims and deliverables are listed. The subsequent chapter would then elaborate the research question and the sub questions. After that the research methodology and the theoretical and analytical framework for the entire thesis is structured and established.

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Introduction: Global and Local As a result of increasing globalization of economies, in the 1980s, neoliberalism established in developed countries. This system directed the economy towards a more marketoriented setup, privatizing the public sector and eventually lessening the role of the state. (Jessop, 2002) Numerous small companies have given way to bigger Global players. Once established, these companies start playing a major role in the national economies. The big idea behind this graduation project is the development of flagship projects. A massive wave of de-industrialization in the European cities, altered its social and spatial structure. Structural unemployment followed. (Kazepov, 2005). Industrial businesses moved out of the harbor thus abandoning it. Accelerated by the ideas of neo liberalism, flagship projects flourished in the waterfronts of these abandoned regions. Flagship developments play a catalytic role in revitalizing the image of the city, creating jobs and attracting tourists and private investors. They are often directed towards aggressive city re-branding or marketing campaigns which seek to launch a new urban vision which generally focus on outsiders, but not on the local community living adjacent to the development, whose lives are affected most by the developments. The most important disadvantage is that it brings spatial fragmentation between the area itself and its surroundings. However, there is also a huge possibility that the flagship areas could offer many beneficial opportunities for the local community, such as providing for housing career, facilities or recreational functions. The proposed research therefore intends to contribute strategies in the planning and design of flagship developments, in order to make these opportunities available for the local community to exploit. It will do so by drawing the attention of flagship developments on the adjacent neighborhoods, thereby breaking down the possibilities for the involvement of

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

local communities. Besides that, the disadvantage the local communities suffer from, will be researched.

Rationale Flagship developments can be defined as “significant, high-profile and prestigious land and property developments which play an influential and catalytic role in urban regeneration”. (Healey, Davoudi, & Tavsanoglu, 1992). Flagship developments are places where global and local influences intertwine. Globally, these projects deal with tourism, Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), and on national image building. Locally, these projects deal with the users and the residents of the area who are dependent on the development. (Doucet, 2009) Flagship projects are generally mixed-use developments (for example the Canary Wharf area, London) combining residences, offices, and a few tourist attractions, such as a museum or a theatre. Sometimes, a single large investments building can also become a flagship development which in most cases becomes a major tourist attractor for the city. One such example is the Bilbao museum, in Spain. They are most often designed by ‘Starchitects’ which grabs media attention.

Location of flagships Flagship developments are located near the city center, anchored to an outside audience of possible residents, investors or tourists. The flagship areas are usually in sharp contrast with the adjacent neighborhoods. This is mainly because the former industrial lands on which these flagship developments were built were accompanied by neighboring areas, developed for the working class who were employed at the industries. These areas were typically characterized by

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

social housing and low-income housing and hence could be socially sensible or economically deprived areas. After the de-industrialization, a majority of these people were rendered jobless and hence the un-employment rates for such areas are generally high (Healey, Davoudi, & Tavsanoglu, 1992).

Critique on flagships Like any developments, flagships also have their own proponents and opponents. On the one hand, they provide job and investments, attract tourists, develop an attractive image for the city and make the city wealthier. On the other hand, a lot of criticism is made on the fragmentation within the cities caused by these flagship developments (Doucet, 2009). The deprived neighborhoods cause segregation, exclusion of places, social and spatial inequality. With the extremely large inequalities between the flagships and the adjoining deprived neighborhoods, it is seen that the flagships only worsen the problems already in existence in the adjoining residential neighborhoods.

Choice of Location The task is to intervene in a location that knows the context just described. This intervention should strive to balance the benefits of flagships, while eliminating the ill-effects. Taking advantage of the stay in Europe, particularly in the region of France, my search boiled down to the de-industrialized Port towns in France. In that respect, Marseille, is one which deals with a large de-industrializing harbor area, where currently a flagship project is being built. It is called Euroméditerranée and was signed in 1995.

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Figure 1: Location in Marseille

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Euroméditerranée The Euroméditerranée project is said to be the largest Urban renewal project in Southern Europe and is committed to renovating a 480-hectare area in the heart of the City of Marseilles, between the commercial harbor, the Old Port and the TGV station. As an economic, social and cultural development project, Euromediterranee is accelerating the process of making Marseille an attractive and influential city between Europe and the Mediterranean. This is located in an area surrounded by Zone Urbaine Sensible (ZUS) areas such as the Le Canet, Saint Mauront and Cabucelle. (Euroméditerranée, 2010) Euroméditerranée is building a new “city within the city,” respecting the principles of sustainable development and striking a balance of social equity, economic growth and environmental protection. Infrastructure and public spaces — as well as offices, homes, shops, hotels and cultural and recreational facilities — are under construction or renovation. Three Urban Development Zones (Joliette, Saint-Charles and the Cité de la Méditerranée) that Euroméditerranée is directing will help ensure significant urban transformation of the area. It is acquiring the land, landscaping the public areas and establishing the construction schedules. The land is sold to developers and/or operators based on the architectural and project specifications. Euroméditerranée’s institutional partners and the national and local governments decided at the end of 2007 to extend the scope of the project to the north by 169 hectares. The implementation of this second phases began in late 2012 and is under development. This gives room for improvement through this research, which can lead to recommendations in the urban design and planning, in order to achieve mutual benefits between the local areas and the flagship development. (Euroméditerranée, 2010)

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Saint Mauront The neighborhood belongs to the 3rd arrondissement of Marseille and can be characterized as segregated, housing the city’s socially and economically weaker sections. The area is classified under the Zone Urbaine Sensible (ZUS) area in the French jurisdiction. A sensitive urban zone is an urban area in France defined by the authorities to be a high-priority target for city policy, taking into consideration local circumstances related to the problems of its residents such as housing, unemployment, literacy rates, etc. (Delegation Interministerielle a La Ville et au Developpement Social Urbain, 1997). It is also place for the social housing complex of Felix Pyat. The unemployment rate is 50 percent above the national average, and is troubled by a lingering reputation for crime. The flagship Euroméditerranée can have very negative effects on the local community living at St. Mauront, as the research would elaborate. At the same time, it also has a huge potential for providing many opportunities to the local community, which if designed and planned properly can be well exploited by the residents of St. Mauront.

Problem Statement The Saint Mauront region is one of the sensible regions of Marseille. It is a place which is comparatively poorer than the rest of the city economically and most importantly lacking in good quality of life. With the development of a massive flagship development next door, which primarily focuses on the outsiders attracting tourists and investors is prone to cause more problems for the adjoining residential neighborhood by fragmenting it and creating a sense of social exclusion. However, theories prove that flagships can be beneficial for the local community as well by providing amenities and inclusive public spaces. Study is required to

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

analyze how the negative effects can be reduced and create more opportunities for the locals. This study however, in the scope of an urban designer, restricts itself to the avenues of socioeconomic and spatial requirements of the flagship development from which the adjoining areas could derive its benefits.

Figure 2: ZUS Marseille (Michel Abherve, 2016)

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Research Question The proposed research is going to explore the potential possible benefits that a flagship project can have on its surrounding neighborhood and thereby creating socio-economic equality. The main research question is therefore:

How can the residential neighborhood of Saint Mauront benefit from the adjacent contemporary flagship development in Euroméditerranée Marseille, in socioeconomic and spatial terms?

To arrive at an answer to the stated research question, the following set of Sub-Research Questions are developed. i.

What are the possible benefits and disadvantages a residential neighborhood can derive from its adjacent flagship development, in the European cities? Firstly, a list of benefits that could be expected to design for in general needs to be sorted.

ii.

Which of the mutual, local benefits and disadvantages are applicable to Saint Mauront and the Euroméditerranée? Secondly, the list of benefits will be filtered to the ones which are appropriate to the region of study in Marseille. Also, a selection of the ones which are possible to design are made.

iii.

Which recommendations can help the planning process to successfully plan and design mutual, local benefits for the Euroméditerranée and Saint Mauront regions?

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Then a strategical plan is drafted to aid proper planning process which ensures that the listed benefits are implemented. iv.

What socio-economic and spatial requirements are needed to ensure beneficial possibilities in both the regions? After this, research is to be carried on the spatial aspects that needs to be designed in order to make the benefits available.

Hypothesis The research hypotheses can be divided into three parts. i.

Flagship causes misfortune for neighborhood areas. When reading literature on flagship developments, one immediately gets the impression that they cause many disadvantages in general, but especially for the local community living in adjacent neighborhoods. Therefore, it is hypothesized that this could be a serious problem in the key location in Marseille.

ii.

There is a supposed disproportion of global and local needs. The flagship area seems to focus on outsiders, whereas it could answer to local needs as well.

iii.

Opportunities for local communities not exploited. The construction of a flagship developments brings many opportunities. The flagship of Euroméditerranée can bring amenities, housing and jobs to local residents of the ZUS. It can stimulate regeneration in the adjacent neighborhood.

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

But the question is: How can these benefits be ensured for the local community? How can the Euroméditerranée area be designed in such a way that the residential neighborhood of Saint Mauront actually benefit from it? That is the challenge for this project.

Aims and Deliverables Project Aims The intersection of the flagship development Euroméditerranée and the residential neighborhood of Saint Mauront is the sphere of influence. Literature studies voice out the common opinion that flagships generally focus on the outsiders, such as tourists, visitors, investors and very little on the local community development. Therefor the aim of the chosen field of influence is to make the residential neighborhood be more socio-economically and spatially inclusive of the flagship development. In order to achieve this, the project aims are divided into several parts. Firstly, all the benefits that a flagship development can bring to the local community needs to be researched. From this a list of benefits particular and suitable to the region of Marseille be identified. Thereafter, the socio-economic and the spatial benefits that the Euroméditerranée can provide to the region of Saint Mauront are highlighted. This is to be incorporated in an Urban design of the intervention zone. Finally, recommendations for the future will be made in the form of a strategic plan, to ascertain that the benefits reach the community. The intervention area contains a part of Euroméditerranée and Saint Mauront. The reason is that the Euroméditerranée area is continuing to be expanded and developed and future projects are to be planned and not yet completely determined. Therefore, I would like to utilize the

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

opportunity to propose improvements for the area. A part of the Saint Mauront regions will be redeveloped according to the future development plans of Euroméditerranée and these areas fall under the intervention zone chosen for this project. Hence, I take the opportunity to design it for the better well-being of both sides.

Deliverables A Strategic Plan It will try to put forward a line of thought and strategy based on which the future designing of the flagship development project could be built upon. This would ensure that the local community of Saint Mauront experiences the benefits from the adjacent flagship development. An Urban Design A design of the spatial and socio-economic requirement that needs to be planned in order to ensure equality of opportunities. This area to be designed would take part in both Euroméditerranée and Saint Mauront.

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Research Framework A framework is designed which will be used as a guideline through the research process. The framework consists of finding answers to each of the sub-questions ultimately leading towards the main question. Different methods will be devised to reach the answer to each of the questions. Two of the sub-questions will lead to the deliverables described earlier, which would serve as concrete answers for the research question posed.

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

De-industrialization Neo-liberalization Globalism Flagship development Local community

Inequality of global and local benefits and added negative disadvantages to the local community induced by flagship developments

To make Saint Mauront more socio-economically and spatially inclusive of the Euroméditerranée

What are the possible benefits and disadvantages a residential neighbourhood can derive from its adjacent flagship development, in European cities? Which of the mutual, local benefits and disadvantages are applicable to Saint Mauront and the Euroméditerranée? Which recommendations can help the planning process to successfully plan and design mutual, local benefits for Euroméditerranée and Saint Mauront ? What socio-economic and spatial requirements are needed to ensure beneficial possibilities in both the regions?

How can the residential neighborhood of Saint Mauront benefit from the adjacent contemporary flagship development in Euroméditerranée Marseille, in socioeconomic and spatial terms?

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Methods This chapter will explain the methods used to reach the outcome. The first three research questions in a broader perspective was studied using various literature resources and by conducting open ended interviews with related professionals in the field, The fourth research question being specific to the region of Marseille was approached yet again with literature and interviews with officials. It also included an analysis of Maps created with data collected from site-visits and personal observations. After the analytical maps, case studies helped in developing a research by design for the region.

Relevance of the Subject Societal Relevance We live in a globalizing world that is defining every nation’s economy in recent decades; making the world flat and enabling businesses to collaborate and operate across cross borders without much regard to the local community. Flagship projects only further enforce the gap between the global and the local. The societal relevance is stated by the fact that even after years of flagships being developed for the nation’s economic improvement, no research has been made to ensure its local benefits and development. There needs to be a study done to understand the path to balancing its global and local effects, especially through urban design and planning methods. It would be possible for the key actors to use the developed tools for further development of the Flagship community at Euroméditerranée.

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Scientific Relevance Scientifically, there are available resources on the effects of flagship developments and globalization. Though there is a large stated concern of balancing global and local, there is a lack of literature to prove and emphasize the relationship between the local community and the global flagships. This research would hence contribute to answering the local needs while developing a flagship development. This research could be used for further study in the area of flagships. The research framework provides the module which could be adapted for other areas using Euroméditerranée as a key case for development.

Ethical Aspect We as Urban designers and planners have a huge responsibility to deal issues with an ethical conduct. With a great power of having a hand at the decision-making process, we are bound to respect the needs and sentiments of the local people and contribute to the overall wellbeing. We have to aim to divide the benefits amongst all groups of residents and users. Hence it is required that the decisions we make are ethical and just, influenced by the values of the society such that the local communities that were affected the most by flagship developments will also be able to benefit. Also, a second ethical aspect lies in the fact that a large sum of Municipal resources are paid into developing the flagship community. However, the returns to the municipality from the development are not as high as compared to the private players. Hence, it is more wise for the municipality too to balance its resources by ensuring that even the local community benefits from its investments. It is also the municipality’s duty to ensure equal rights to its residents.

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Theoretical Framework This part describes the theory that lies underneath the entire research project. The theoretical framework will provide the information needed to understand the relationship between flagship development projects and the adjoining neighborhoods. Selected literature resources have been studied to understand and critically analyze the rationale behind flagship projects over the years. Then a list of aims and goals of flagship developments is formulated. This would help to understand whether the flagship developments have any motives for the developments of its adjoining neighborhoods or if it should be modified in order to create cohesive benefits. It will do so by discussing the various critiques for and against and then further highlighting the local effects of these developments according to the various literature resources. It will then go on to explain how this theoretical structure can form a basis for the research work proposed to be carried out.

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Flagship Development Global Flagships, Local Effects Flagship development was based out of three crucial factors, as explained below. -

De-industrialization in developed countries like Europe and North America.

Neo-liberal policies applied to the city administration paved way for nurturing flagship developments.

Globalization created a new spatial demand which could be accounted for by the redevelopment of former industrial areas into flagship areas.

De-industrialization A massive wave of de-industrialization in the European cities, altered its social and spatial structure. Structural unemployment followed. (Kazepov, 2005). Industrial businesses moved out of the harbor thus abandoning it. The results were harsh especially for the heavily industrialized cities: low public revenues, high unemployment and a poor city image. One immediate answer to the crisis situation curated by the city administrators were flagship developments, in order to generate public revenues, create employment, and render a positive image of the city. This development urged for a shift in the public expenses. Neoliberalism Under the policies of Neoliberalism, Flagship developments were bound to prosper economically and politically. With widespread globalization, neoliberalism in the 1980s, became a prevalent form of economy especially in the developed countries. This system directed the economy towards a more market-oriented setup, privatizing the public sector and eventually lessening the role of the state (Jessop, 2002).

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

The deregulation simultaneously opened up more and more available private capital. As a consequence of the de-industrialization and a governmental financial crisis forced cities to contest for resources in the private market capital. This led to private institutions over-seeing the urban development, putting the public regulators in the back-seat. They tend to have greater authority over the cities through the influence of capital movements. Flagship developments are hence financed and steered by private capital investments (Hackworth, 2007). Globalization Due to increased globalization and international play field, many local companies disappeared while global companies established themselves worldwide and started to play a crucial role in the regional and national economy. These global companies demanded a new urban spatial organization, including new office spaces, accessibility and a brand-new image (Rocco, 2008). In response to this need, flagship developments come up with a combination of offices, residential areas and large prestigious office buildings designed by world’s top ‘starchitects’. These properties were marketed globally.

The first flagships The cities where the first flagship projects emerged, were the ones where the industry had taken a major part in, and hence suffered the most from de-industrialization. These cities dealt with high unemployment, poor image and declining public revenues, e.g. Baltimore, Newcastle and Bilbao (Doucet, 2009). These projects were a fundamental response to the declining industries. This was developed as a strategy to diversify the city’s economic base and to attract private investments. As a result of the weakening economies, the affluent households moved out of the city, as there

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

were scenes of unemployment everywhere and a lack of owner-occupied high quality housing. Flagship projects were aimed at attracting affluent households by building according to their housing needs. These projects resulted in a physical restructuring of certain areas to meet with the changing demands of the new production and consumption services (Loftman & Nevin, 1995). With the advent of the new technology and neoliberal policies, productions and services were placed at different locations across the globe(off-shoring) and managed to cut down costs. Another effect of the declining industries was the deteriorating image of the city which called for regenerative measures. The illustrious projects aimed at promoting an attractive city image (Doucet, 2009). Flagships became icons for the city, in the case of Guggenheim museum in Bilbao or the Erasmus Bridge in Rotterdam. Besides economic reasons, in the post-world war scenario, we can find political rationales behind the emergence of flagship projects. A post-Keynesian economy allowed for a convenient deregulation and privatization of urban policy making (Rodriguez, Martinez, & Guenaga, 2001). This economic mode emphasizes the dynamic nature of an economy which uses credit money and which is subject to uncertainty (Pearce, 1992). After the first flagships arose in declining cities, many other cities copied the development. The illustrious projects appeared to be successful in various cities. The cities then became attractive economically, and the envisioned physical transformation was also shaping up well (Loftman & Nevin, 1995).

Contemporary Flagships Even today we find a lot of Flagship projects being built. The developments have progressively changed to an extent, but the most important effects and critiques remain the same.

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

With the increasing pressure from negative criticisms, the municipalities changed their attitudes towards flagships developments. It was witnessed in several cities including the UK, the Netherlands and Spain. In 1998, the social exclusion unit in UK reported against the massive emphasis on physical renewal instead of providing better opportunities for people (Doucet, 2009). Also, a few countries witnessed participation from the local community and incorporated their inputs too. This could be seen as a major shift from the otherwise property-led development that was highly criticized. However, the ideas of the 1980s and 1990s have not completely disappeared. Several authors have pointed the continuing neoliberal approach of the winner-takes-it-all. Several examples of Flagship projects in Europe are still being built along the lines of traditional Flagship development. Much of the regeneration is still predicated on iconic, consumption-led projects that are aimed at a higher-income or visitor audience (Doucet, 2009). Despite the fact that some developments now also pay attention to less fortunate residents, most of the other goals remain present. Critiques still remain similar

Examples of flagships projects Flagship developments are located near the city center, anchored to an outside audience of possible residents, investors or tourists. The area contains mixed functions; often housing, offices and facilities. Well-known examples of flagship projects are London’s Canary Wharf, Dublin’s Docklands and Rotterdam’s Kop van Zuid. Many of the projects also contain a cultural landmark

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

such as a museum. Examples of these are the Guggenheim in Bilbao and the National Museum of Photography, Film and Television in Bradford. These developments function as catalysts for further development nearby. The flagship projects are visible signs of renewal, with a landmark designed by ‘starchitects’ to attract visitors. The flagship areas are most often in enormous contrast with adjoining areas. The adjoining areas usually located next to the industrial area; typically built for the working class who were employed in these industries. These neighborhoods were characterized by small houses which were generally social housing units. The neighborhoods are inhabited by lowincome households, and can be attention or urban sensible areas. Because many inhabitants used to earlier work at the industrial companies, the unemployment-rates of such neighborhoods are generally high. This is for instance the case in neighborhoods adjoining Canary Wharf, Ile de Nantes or Euroméditerranée in Marseille, France.

Figure 3:(Left) Bilbao, Spain (Right) Canary Wharf, London (Web images)

Aim of Flagship Developments The aim of this part is to answer the following question: what are the probable benefits that a flagship development can bring about for the local communities living in the adjacent neighborhoods and how these benefits can be taken advantage of?

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Aim of Private Developers Most flagship projects being planned and initiated by private developers are formulated with certain aims as we can see below. The flagships should: • attract tourists, jobs and investments • restore an attractive image for the city • create more wealth for the city • encourage private investments It is important to note that none of these aims are focused on the residents living in the adjacent areas. They are concentrated on the regional or global level, on the city as a whole, or just on the flagship itself. This ensures that the projects help put the cities on the map, in order to become more attractive for the various target groups and investments (Rodriguez, Martinez, & Guenaga, 2001). They ensure that the project attracts regional as well as (inter)national visitors. That too in particular, they concentrated on luring the high-income class of people into buying or renting a residence in that area (Doucet, 2009). Moreover, with the advent of neo-liberal activities, every city had to defend its position in the global economic chart and hence had to be competitive with other emerging cities (Loftman & Nevin, 1995). In this regard, all the aims focus on the city as a whole. One of these is to boost municipal revenues (Grodach, 2009). However, this is widely discussed and definitely not always the case. In fact, sometimes the project costs more for the municipality than it yields. Furthermore, the projects aim at changing local perceptions (Smith, 1994). During the deindustrialization, many waterfronts became vacant, causing bad perceptions for residents of the city, but also for (possible) tourists and investment.

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Other aims explicitly focus on the flagship area itself. One of the most important goals here, is place-marketing (Doucet, 2009) (Grodach, 2009) (Loftman & Nevin, 1995). Placemarketing then contributes to other goals of higher scale levels, such as the attraction of tourists and investment. Attracting private sector finance is an important aim for developers because these developments needs private financing to equate the costs for such a large urban project which tend to be very high (Loftman & Nevin, 1995). Nonetheless, there are also quite a few aims that focus on adjacent neighborhoods. An important one is for the flagship to catalyze regeneration in adjacent neighborhoods (Loftman & Nevin, 1995) (Grodach, 2009). Also, the project should promote “growth” along with that regeneration (Smith, 1994). Aim of Municipality Many flagship developments are a collaborative initiative of the municipality and private developers. Some municipalities, for example as the one in UK, Netherlands and Spain, seem to add local quality and benefits to the list of aims (Doucet, 2009). To try to help people out of poverty with the flagship projects is also one of the municipal aims, but how exactly they try to reach this goal remains unclear (Doucet, 2009).

Effects of Flagship Developments A reading of the various literature sources boils down to a list of resulting effects of the flagship projects. These are not necessarily the aims of the developers but its true outcomes as pointed out by various critics. First the positive effects will be discussed, folowed by its negative

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

effects. Finally, the various phenomena which threaten the successful development of a flagship will be discussed.

Positive Effects of Flagship Developments Socially, the flagship developments tend to uplift the civic pride among city residents (Loftman & Nevin, 1995). The flagships are generally prestigious projects, displaying signs of renewal. This fosters a sense of pride among the people living in and around that area. This argument is supported by research that measured resident perceptions of the Kop van Zuid, a flagship in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. The results show that residents from the entire city feel more or less proud of the developments. It does not matter if residents live in a deprived area or in an affluent area. Residents living closer to the Kop van Zuid do experience a bit more positive effects than people living farther away, but this is not a significant difference (Doucet, 2009). On the economic front, these developments uplift business confidence by way of building visible symbols of renewal. This gives businesses more confidence to invest in the area or adjoining it. It has been stated that “the potentially beneficial impacts of flagships on local economies should not be underestimated” (Healey, Davoudi, & Tavsanoglu, 1992). A rise of development activity in the adjoining areas can be seen, for example in the UK where Bradford’s National Museum of Photography, Film and Television functioned as a flagship that was crucial for the tourist industry in the city of Bradford. The flagship project was responsible for increasing the annual number of tourists from virtually none in 1980 to around six million in 1988. Flagships can catalyze tourism and convention industries, which can have positive spin-off effects on local consumer service industries, both in and close to the renewed area (Healey, Davoudi, & Tavsanoglu, 1992).

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Another economic effect proponents see, is the raising of property values (Loftman & Nevin, 1995). However, the question remains for whom this is a positive effect. Many neighborhoods adjoining flagships were built decades ago for the working class that lived next to industrial businesses. This means that the dwellings are relatively small, and mainly for low rentprices. Only house and land owners can actually benefit from rising property values.

Negative Effects of Flagship Developments Flagship projects have a high financial risk and is usually financed by several project developers and municipalities. Moreover the economic returns take a long time, and are not always as high as predicted (Loftman & Nevin, 1995) (Healey, Davoudi, & Tavsanoglu, 1992). This when coupled with other economic disadvantages becomes critical. All of the municipality resources are not evenly distributed, and gets concentrated in one particular area. Neither does this resource concentration seem to benefit the low-income residents living nearby, (Healey, Davoudi, & Tavsanoglu, 1992) nor is it spent on other much needed improvements of public services (Loftman & Nevin, 1995). This would result in the residents distrusting the municipality’s expenses (Loftman & Nevin, 1995). The critics argue that the creation of wealth from these developments focus on the city as a whole, and not necessarily for the local community in need. Previous research shows the mismatch between the job offers provided by the developments and the education level of the residents in that neighborhood. E.g. in Canary Wharf, London, only 1800 of the 47,000 jobs go to local residents, and over 70% of these jobs are low-skill, part-time and low-paid (Loftman & Nevin, 1995). Also, high unemployment rates still remained present after the new developments.

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Socially also these projects tend to create fragmentation within the city. This kind of a fragmentation is not just physical but mostly due to the immense spatial and perceptional differences that exist between flagship projects and their adjacent areas (Loftman & Nevin, 1995) (Healey, Davoudi, & Tavsanoglu, 1992). And this is mostly an effect of the design and planning of the project and its cohesion with the surroundings. The planning of flagship projects is not integrated with the entire city planning, resulting in poor neighborhood relationships (Eisinger, 2000). Urban public spaces that are created in the flagship area, are not easily accessible to all residents. Fragmentation between neighborhoods prevents this. More importantly it is found that the newly built flagship areas are not similar to their surroundings or rather the aesthetic seems foreign to the neighborhoods. This makes it harder for the nearby residents to access it and appreciate the new affluent urban spaces. In short, the projects do not display any local characteristics of the city in which it is built-in but rather imitates successful projects elsewhere. Imitation results in “the proliferation of standardized models of flagships which do not take the characteristics of the locality where they are built into adequate consideration” (Loftman & Nevin, 1995). This has the effect that flagships can seem alien and unwelcoming to local residents.

Potential Barriers for the success of a Flagship Development The following three phenomena threaten the success of flagship projects. And these are the ones which are not under the control of the private developers, which could be taken into account for while planning and developing such huge projects.

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Firstly, flagship projects are susceptible to the instability and unpredictability of the national market and economy. This is an often-mentioned critique on property-led regeneration in general (Doucet, 2009). Secondly, in the event of an economic recession, it could lead to the curtailment, delay or collapse of the entire project. The construction process of the site may be put on hold. Or if the project is fully completed it may be unoccupied and not put to use, hence causing a total failure of the development. A third threat that can be mentioned is the super abundance of prestigious projects. The relation between supply of flagship projects and the demand is tenuous. This can lead to an oversupply of the prestigious developments, which were built during optimistic times (Loftman & Nevin, 1995). This phenomenon is fueled by the effects of imitation from elsewhere.

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Analytical Framework With the theoretical background in place, this chapter will analyze the specific case context of the Euroméditerranée and the adjacent Saint Mauront neighborhood. This will enable the research process to filter the possible benefits that are applicable specifically to the regions of interest. The analysis is made by the method of mapping and deriving conclusions from the maps.

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Neighborhoods As can be seen from the figure, the location consists of two neighborhoods – the Euroméditerranée flagship development and the Saint Mauront neighborhood in the third Arrondissement, a former canton of Marseille. The area of intervention would hence be in the intersection of these two places.

Figure 4: Key location and borders (Author, 2017)

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Figure 5: Area of Intervention (Author, 2017)

Saint Mauront Saint Mauront belongs to the 3rd Arrondissement of Marseille and the poorest of of all the municipal districts of Paris, Marseille and Lyon. The borders of the Saint Mauront neighborhood

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments can be seen in the picture in red.

Figure 6: Street in Saint Mauront (Web image)

Figure 7: Building in Saint Mauront (Web image)

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

A view of the typical street from the neighborhood shows old, small and dilapidated houses. The streets are filthy and lined with large scale social housing units. This is because for a long time this region has been a transit area of first installation for migration. The origins could be traced from Italy, Tunisia, Maghreb and some Comorian families. It houses the most important social housing unit called “Felix Pyat”.

Figure 8: Felix Pyat (Web image)

Euroméditerranée The development is a city within a city. The Marseille-Euroméditerranée urban renewal and economic development project was born in the context of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership, in 1995, also known as the Barcelona Process.

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

It was the result of a the Conference of Euro-Mediterranean ministers of Foreign Affairs held in Barcelona. It culminates a series of attempts by European countries to articulate their relations with their North African and Middle Eastern neighbors. According to the 1995 Barelona Declaration, the aim of the initiative was: “Turning the Mediterranean basin into an area of dialogue, exchange and cooperation guaranteeing peace, stability and prosperity”.

Shared prosperity through ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL PARTNERSHIP

Reinforcing POLITICAL AND SECURITY dialogue

Understandg CULTURES AND EXCHANGES between civil societies

Euroméditerranée Figure 9: Conception of Euromediterrranee project (Author, 2017)

The Marseille-Euroméditerranée urban renewal and economic development project was the largest urban renewal project in Southern Europe. It commits to renovating a 310-hectare area in the heart of the City of Marseille, between the commercial harbor, the Old Port and the TGV station. It had five major functions:

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

1. Strategy: To analyze and clarify the strengths of the urban conglomeration, seek businesses to draw to the area, identify priorities for development, and define action plans; 2. Coordinate and guide partner actions; 3. Allocate operational funding; 4. Manage operations in collaboration with partners; 5. Promote the project and make sure that it’s being marketed to financial networks and institutions. The funding objective was to see one euro of public funds committed for every 4 Euros of private investment. The objective has been fulfilled. Through three financial protocols between the national government and the coalitions: 1995-2001, 2001-2006 and 2006-2012: The overall allocation is 531 million Euros through 2012 (Urban Development Agency, 2012).

Supporting Funds • THE STATE, the CITY, the URBAN COMMUNITY, the REGION and the DEPARTMENT (Bouches due Rhone) grant the Public Institution a budget to conduct studies, buy land and begin work. This public investment pays for carrying out the changes and improvements necessary to attract private investment. • Euroméditerranée is financially supported by the EUROPEAN UNION (FEDER Funds). The European Union is also providing financial support on special projects. From 1995 to 2012, the EU has provided approximately 50 million Euros, allocated mainly to the creation of public buildings (Museum of Civilization in Europe and the Mediterranean Coastline Blvd...) but also to long-term programs such as business recruitment and marketing abroad.

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

In offering private investment opportunities for the construction of offices, homes, shops and housing renovation, Euroméditerranée is helping to reposition Marseille as a major real estate market in Europe. Above all, it allows businesses to locate in a place that is very likely to be successful.

Key Projects This service sector business district already hosts 12,000 employees at 800 companies representing target sectors such as services, education, international trade and telecommunications. While strengthening the promotion of the business district to users and investors, Euroméditerranée is creating housing for downtown office workers and residents. New residences, buildings and public spaces located between the city and the port intertwine to make this place a desirable place to live and work (Urban Development Agency, 2012).

Figure 10: Key projects (Author, 2017)

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

The FRAC Building The new Regional Fund for Contemporary Art of Marseille (FRAC) will be located in La Joliette, an area that is in the midst of urban restructuring and has excellent public transit. The building will have several spaces dedicated for exhibitions, conferences, library resources and art restoration. Designed by the Japanese architect Kengo Kuma & Associates, the FRAC is part of the projects named Marseille Provence 2013, European Capital of Culture.

Figure 11: FRAC (Euroméditerranée.fr)

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments The EuroMed Centre The EuroMed Center will be the new cultural flagship of Marseille. It offers new facilities for tourism and recreation: a 4-star Marriott hotel, a multiplex theatre, a convention center, offices and a green space. In total, more than 2,700 jobs will be created here. This building envisioned to take the tapered shape of dolphins as designed by Massimiliano Fuksas was not realized as such post-construction and proved to be an aesthetical disaster as could be seen from the pictures showing the visualizations and reality.

Figure 12: (Top) Design (Bottom) In Reality

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

The Silo The long-unused grain silo, an important vestige of Marseille’s industrial history, will have at its center a 2000-seat theatre, inspired by the Olympia in Paris. The rest of the building will have offices.The City of Marseille and SOGIMA have entrusted the renovation to Eric Castaldi, who is the architect for the nearby Docks, and the theater design to Roland Carta. These offices are under construction.

Figure 13: The Silo (Euroméditerranée.fr)

CMA-CGM Towers Following a 2004 international bidding process, the architect Zaha Hadid was chosen to design the new headquarters building for the world's 3rd largest container shipping company, CMA-CGM, in Marseille-Euroméditerranée. The147 meter high CMA-CGM tower will be the highest building in the city.

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Figure 14: CMA-CGM Tower (Euroméditerranée.fr)

Parc Habite D’Arenc The "Parc Habité" project conceived by urban planner Yves LION, within the framework of the ZAC Cité de la Méditerranée, is located between Rue d'Anthoine, Bd de Paris, avenues Camille Pelletan and Roger Salengro. In total, there will be 2,000 dwellings, a Regional University of Trades, offices, shops and local services in the new downtown district, served by the metro, the tramway and the recent TER stop. Key figures of the inhabited park: 200,000 m² of housing (20% social), 21,000 m² of shops, 75,000 m² of equipment (including the new European hospital), 130,000 m² of offices. Work is underway and the area is expected to be completed in 2021 (Urban Development Agency, 2012).

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Figure 15: Parc Arenc (Top) Plan (Bottom) View (Euroméditerranée.fr)

This model district has an ambition: to rebuild the "city on the city" by offering the possibility of enjoying views of the harbor and the harbor while favoring at street level the creation of gardens that will modify the current mineral aspect of the district (Urban Development Agency, 2012).

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Transport Buses, Tram and Metro Lines

Figure 16: (Author, 2017)

From the figures, it can be understood that the public transport covers good parts of the latest Euroméditerranée region. However, the disadvantaged Saint Mauront region is not well connected by metro or tram lines excepting a few interior bus lines. Also, it is important to note that the transport network run as parallel lines further segregating the two neighborhoods. To reach the Euroméditerranée from Saint Mauront is possible only by walk which would take approximately 10-13 min walk via the crossroads. This fact could be considered as a pedestrian link between the two areas.

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Roads

Figure 17: Road networks (Author, 2017)

It is easy to reach both neighborhoods by road. The Highways and the main roads run along the peripheries of the region to reach the Euroméditerranée. This helps us to eliminate the fact that the flagship development next door causes traffic congestion in the neighborhood.

Land Use The map shows the current and future planned programmes for the Saint Mauront, Euroméditerranée and the surrounding regions. The southern part of the Euroméditerranée has

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

institutions and industries. The western part along the sea is the high-rise strip lined along a boulevard. These are mixed use or office buildings generating high revenues designed by starchitects. The northern and western part will have the future residential area planned to be developed by 2020 which will extend northward into the Euroméditerranée 2. The residential areas are planned to have green spaces interspaced within the blocks. The Euromed centre and the Regional Centre will be important spaces in terms of economy attracting tourist flows. Pedestrian flows in the boulevard stretches along the promenade are tend to increase.

Figure 18: Land Use (Author, 2017)

At the Saint Mauront region large scale rehabilitation of buildings are noted, renewing a few and relocating the others. The northern parts of the area bordering the Euromediterannean are being converted into green spaces demolishing the already existing structures. Most of the building in the region are old houses and community living. Apart from this, the region has a high school, a neighborhood park and an auditorium.

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Public and Private Spaces The north-eastern part of the Euroméditerranée which closely borders the Saint Mauront neighborhood acting as the first point of contact is planned as a residential zone interspersed with green spaces. However, it is to be noted that most of these green areas and parks are made private and restricted access from the public. As a result, apart from the main streets, most of the open and recreation spaces which are envisioned to be public becomes private and this causes fragmentation of societies.

Future Visions Euroméditerranée Euroméditerranée’s institutional partners and the national and local governments decided at the end of 2007 to extend the scope of the project to the north by 169 hectares. This extension brought the project to 480 hectares, making Euroméditerranée the largest urban renewal project in southern Europe. Only 3,000 people live in this area, mainly made up of major rights-of-way such as the Canet and Arenc train stations. The use of these spaces will be optimized to prevent urban sprawl (Urban Development Agency, 2012). The objective is to have Marseille join the ranks of other major French Metropolitan areas by 2020. As we can see the main aims focus on the regional and international scale. This falls in line with the problem statement made earlier.

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Figure 19: On site works and future expansions (Euroméditerranée.fr)

Saint Mauront The Urban Renewal project has certain objectives in store. It aims to release large parcels of land occupied by hangars and warehouses. The habitat conditions are envisioned to retain

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

local population and receive new ones by new construction of social housing operations, free rental and accession. More so, it looks to remove the dead ends and better integrate the neighborhood. However, we can understand that this urban renewal project is a separate unit headed jointly by the ANRU and the city of Marseille. This project functions independent of the Euroméditerranée (Grand Project de Ville, 2007).

Figure 20: Saint Mauront Urban Renewal (Grand Project de Ville, 2007)

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Results This part will elaborate the results of the research analysis. Each research question posed at the beginning will be answered. The research carried about by studying

the

possible

literature

resources

and

interviews with concerned experts and people has led to a set of understandings and results.

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Research Question 1 What are the possible benefits and disadvantages a residential neighborhood can derive from its adjacent flagship development, in the European cities? To arrive at a concrete answer to the above question, the literature study that was illustrated in the previous chapter will be crystallized as concrete pointers from which the further questions will be analyzed. A general list of the potential benefits that could be bestowed upon the adjacent neighborhoods will be created. Apart from this, another list of the potential barriers that could be preventing the local community to access the services offered by the flagship developments also will be made. Therefore, a two-fold simultaneous process of achieving the benefits and removing the existing potential barriers will be the desired approach to the case scenario, and that is the challenge to achieve. To begin with this listing, I would first point out all the benefits and disadvantages concurrent of the flagship development. After that, a second list will be prepared by filtering the ones that are beneficial to the local community and those that can be intervened by design and strategy alone so that the end result achieves some kind of a tangible solution. The table lists the main aims of the flagship developers and the municipality. It is striking to note that, most of the private developers do not aim for local benefits. And only the municipality to some extent are concerned about the local community welfare. The table also lists out a SWOT Analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Threats which could have a negative impact, opportunities which could bring positive effects but are yet to be implemented) of the flagship developments. As a second step, the ones benefitting or serving as a threat to the local community are alone highlighted.

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments Answer 1 To sum up a list of benefits and disadvantages to the local community that can be intervened on are made. Benefits for adjacent neighborhoods •

Attention towards deprived communities

•

Resident participation in planning

•

Raising development activity in adjoining area

•

Develop more inclusive areas

•

Rethink goal of key actors

•

Provide housing career for residents

•

Recreation

•

Facilities

•

Transport

•

Jobs

•

Housing

Disadvantages for adjacent neighborhoods •

Social Polarization

•

Fragmentation within cities

•

Individual planning, not integrated

•

Alien, unwelcoming appearance of flagship developments

•

No public resources for deprived neighborhoods

•

Residents distrust expenses of government

•

Delay, curtailment and failure of projects

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Figure 21: (Author, 2017)

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Research Question 2 Which of the mutual, local benefits and disadvantages are applicable to Saint Mauront and the Euroméditerranée? This could be answered by reviewing the previous conclusions and the analysis maps of the region to pick out pointers specific to the region of interest. Literature has provided the theoretical framework with the benefits and disadvantages listed. The analysis maps provide onsite information on public facilities, functions, houses, public spaces, transport and land use present now and the future visions. Interviews from the local people from the region also helped to understand the public necessity, their degree of involvement in the planning and development process and to understand what’s missing in the area.

Attention towards deprived communities In France, generally greater attention is paid towards poorer regions termed as ‘Zone Urbaine Sensible’ (ZUS) areas. These are defined by the authorities receive additional attention in terms of public housing, employment and education. Being an ZUS, the municipality allocates funds to the neighborhood. This should be critically analyzed in conjuncture with the disadvantage of flagships stated previously that no public resources are allocated for deprived neighborhoods.

Resident participation in planning flagship project It is important to understand the difference between informing residents and allowing for active participation of residents in the development process. Initially, at the start of the development of the Euroméditerranée project, the local people were informed about the plans for

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

the project but did not participate in the process itself. It is also important to note certain kind of revolutionary movements opposed by the residents against the project. The residents seemed to have a claim as to what could assure them that the development would help reclaim the port for them? This raising concern was mainly due to the lack of information being available to the residents. This makes the residents feel that they are not being taken seriously. However, a section of the people also seems to be positive of the development that it could bring to the nation as a whole.

Figure 22: Resident protests 2000 (Euroméditerranée.fr)

Raising development activity in adjoining neighborhoods The raising development in the adjoining neighborhood can be a benefit for the local community. The ANRU is planning to renew and redevelop the public spaces and renovate the social housing units, refurbishing a few and reconstructing a few. Parts of the neighborhood, with dilapidated buildings are planned to be brought down completely and be converted to public

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

spaces and green parks. Though the houses will be renovated, it is expected that the rents would go up higher than the previous ones. There are two reasons behind the regeneration of Saint Mauront. A large part of the area has dilapidated and worn out structures standing unused. The existing housing in the area has also come under the scanner due to its bad depleted state. The other reason is that, this area suffers from social problems like crime, unemployment and lack of education.

More Inclusive Spaces According to literature the public spaces at the Euroméditerranée have to be accessible by both its local residents and also the local community living in the adjacent neighborhood. The public spaces being created in the Saint Mauront neighborhoods are free to be accessed by all people. However, the open and green spaces designed as part of the Euroméditerranée are often corded off as private or restricted access for its entry. As you can see from the picture, the open spaces are within the residential blocks focusing inwards and entrance located via the building’s entry which is gated and restricts entry. Hence the open spaces are not inclusive of all and is unwelcoming of users other than its owners.

Figure 23: Exclusive spaces as seen at Parc Arenc (Author, 2017)

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Rethink goal of key actors Interviews of the decision makers of the Euroméditerranée point out the most important goal of the project 1 public euro should generate 3 private euros, and of course, the objective to revive the city’s image with the creation of jobs.

-Renaud Muselier

Figure 24: Excerpt from interview (Euroméditerranée, 2002)

The above statement from the former president of the Euroméditerranée goes out to show that the needs and development of the local community are not what is placed as an important objective but rather the nation’s image uplifting and economically improving the situation with the development of private investments. Their goals seem to be concentrated on achieving profits alone. In this view, most of the local jobs vanished to make way for the creation of development. The one busy fish market serving as a means of job and living for many local people was shut down to create a pedestrian promenade disregarding local cultures. We can now conclude that the present goals of developers need to be reposition to accommodate mutual benefits of both the

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

development and the local neighborhoods. How this will be done will be elaborated in the next chapter.

Possibilities for housing career The rents for the Saint Mauront region are around 2500 Euro/sqm/mo. In the Euroméditerranée region 20% of the houses are allocated for social housing which is rented out at 8600 Euro/sqm/mo and the rest are sold out as private properties in the free market at exorbitantly high prices in the entire city. Therefor there seems to be no possibility for a housing career with such huge price differences. The tenants can always request for subsidy and lower the rent costs. It is important to provide for a housing career from social housing towards a little expensive market apartment so that the neighborhood residents can find better homes within the vicinity of their current dwelling and hence able to retain ties. This helps to keep together the social cohesion for the area.

Recreational Amenities The recreational amenities for the Euroméditerranée are planned along the boulevard strip by the sea. These look towards the sea and are concentrated away from the Saint Mauront neighborhoods. It pushes the visitors further outwards towards the sea creating more seclusion. It is important to create recreational facilities connecting both neighborhoods to allow for social cohesion and interaction.

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Figure 25: Recreational Strip (Author, 2017)

Delay, Curtailment and Failure of projects The best example for this is the Euromed centre designed by Masimiliano Fuksas. The multiplex cinema theatre designed to replicate the slenderness of a whale, due to budget and technology constraints ended up as an ugly box building.

Individual Planning, Not integrated The design and language of the new buildings are totally in contrast with the existing adjacent neighborhoods which are single family houses. As can be seen in the picture the periphery of the Euroméditerranée is a residential zone composed of high-rise blocks facing the ea and away from he neighborhood. Also the design of these areas are such that they focus in wards and into the community living and hardly integrate the surrounding spaces. The

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

regeneration plans of both areas are independent of each other and not linked. The design and appearance of the new development appears alien to the existing city fabric. This causes fragmentation within the cities and thus social polarization.

Answer 2 The Euroméditerranée is expanding and hence its exact effects on the neighborhood cannot be stated. However, it is understood that every benefit or disadvantage of the flagship development is applicable to the Euroméditerranée and can be seen as either opportunities or threats. The local benefits and threats are thus separated into spatial and non-spatial aspects. The non-spatial opportunities and threats are framed into strategic plan which will be elaborated in the following chapters. These include: •

Resident participation in the planning of flagship projects

•

Reposition goals of key players.

•

Eliminating the distrust on government expenses

•

Integrating plans of Euroméditerranée and Saint Mauront

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

The spatial aspects are designed into tangible solutions and design suggestions. •

More inclusive spaces

•

Provide opportunities for a housing career and growth

•

Facilities and amenities required by neighborhoods to be provided

•

Eliminate the fragmentation caused

•

Make the place appear welcoming of all.

Figure 26: (Author, 2017)

Research Question 3 Which recommendations can help the planning process to successfully plan and design mutual, local benefits for the Euroméditerranée and Saint Mauront regions? The previous parts provide valuable information for developing a framework which would ensure cohesive benefits. Based on that, four recommendations are made which would ensure the benefits are available to the local community and the threats are being eradicated. The recommendations are made for the area indicated as the area of interference. This is the area

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments basically of the Euroméditerranée where the construction has been halted for now due to deficient funds. Hence any intervention suggestion made could be considered for future developments and there is scope for improvement. The intervention area also contains parts of both Euroméditerranée and Saint Mauront.

Figure 27: Strategic Location (Author, 2017)

The strategic plan helps to create cohesive benefits for Euroméditerranée and Saint Mauront neighborhoods. It is thought of to be a shift from the globally oriented flagship to balancing global and local needs. This will ensure that not only the local and adjav]cent neighborhoods benefit from the plan but also the developers themselves can benefit by the

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

utilization of such planning. The following are the benefits that the developers can achieve by the implementation of such a cohesive plan. •

Concentrating on local benefits falls under the category of Corporate Social Responsibility. It is advantageous for the private establishments to make use of the CSR as they are beneficial for a sustainable business development and create a better corporate image among other areas. It will also help the company to be an attractive employer and hence improve productivity and employee satisfaction. Most importantly, companies with greater CSR are favored most by governmental agencies, placing them on a higher pedestal with a larger reputation.

•

Creating mutual benefits for the local residents, is a way of gaining public approval for the large projects and thereby boosting their enthusiasm and participation. This will help avoid any unnecessary upraising.

•

Creating equal opportunities and benefits is a fitting characteristic of a democracy.

•

It improves the quality of life.

•

Most importantly cohesive benefits ensures the project viability without any oppositions.

Answer 3 The strategic framework essentially consists of four pointers to achieve mutual cohesive benefits. Pointer 1 – Reposition aims Resetting the goals and aims of the private developers to focus on cohesive beneifts and then taking this to reach the people.

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Pointer 2 – Inform local community This has to be done on a regular basis and the information kept clear and transparent. Periodically tours around the development can also be made so that the locals are familiar with the place. Pointer 3 – Local Community Participation The involvement of the local community should not just stop with the passing of information but should also ensure their active participation and their concerns valued. A closed framework questionnaire can be prepared to understand the exact opinion of the local community and this has to be carried out from time to time across the several stages of development. Pointer 4- Integrate Development Plans The individual regeneration plans of both the neighborhoods needs to work closely with each other and coordinate benefits to integrate it. This will ensure that the social cohesion is maintained and helps prevent fragmentation. The new programmes can be integrated within the existing urban fabric, not causing alienation. This integration with the existing fabric has to be done spatially, socially and economically. This will also help plan future developments for the city as a whole.

Research Question 4 What socio-economic and spatial requirements are needed to ensure beneficial possibilities in both the regions? The Urban Design should work two-folds: provide the beneficial possibilities and remove the negative effects of the flagship development. The following pointers are taken towards the development of one such design.

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Pointer 1 – Provide economic opportunities Pointer 2 – Provide housing career Pointer 3 – Provide facilities and amenities Pointer 4 – To design spaces more inclusively focusing outwards Pointer 5 – Connect the neighborhoods

Answer 4 The Parc Arenc area where the construction has been halted for a while is the major area of intervention. The residential unit layouts are redesigned to be more socially and spatially inclusive. With the addition of a large park connecting the two neighborhoods, more and more accessible public spaces are created. The highlights of the Urban design are as follows. Economic returns With public buildings bordering the area, and also a large park, it will offer jobs to even the not so highly educated locals from Saint Mauront for labor works. It will work as a better job opportunity as it is close to their homes and hence will reduce transportation costs.

Figure 28: Job Opportunities (Author, 2017)

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Create a housing career The social housing units are placed near the neighborhood, in such a way that if someone decides to put a little effort and plans to buy house from the market, they will still be in close proximity to their original place of stay and this will help maintain cohesion.

Figure 29: Housing Rents (Author, 2017)

Inclusive spaces focusing outwards The building blocks are redesigned to maintain visual and physical connectivity. The previous design focused inwards, while this enables the design to connect with the surroundings. All blocks will be designed to have not one but several openings leading to an inner public space. This place will be visible from outside while passing by. It will open up to the recreational activities of the block. With many entrances, the place will feel welcoming and tend to be more inclusive. This helps creating inclusive spaces within the space already planned. As a result, it creates a network of public spaces.

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Figure 30: Inclusive Spaces by creating Networks (Author, 2017)

Figure 31: Building block layout prototype (Author, 2017)

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Neighborhood Connectivity It is not just the streets which are now public. The network of connected entrances work as subsidiary streets allowing for pedestrian movement creating a complex web of movements within the neighborhoods.

Figure 32: Neighborhood Connectivity (Author, 2017)

Learning from success stories: Roubaix Lille A similar migrant exclusion situation of Marseille, seemed to exist in Roubaix Lille. With the redevelopment programme, strategies were devised within the already existing framework to develop a coherent plan for the entire region. The vulnerable groups were identified and their problems stated. Then each of the interests were taken into account specifically keeping in mind the cohesive responsibilities (Colomb, 2007). Roubaix today is one of the most successful flagship developments favouring all parts of the society.

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Figure 33: Roubaix-Lille - Its singularity is in its plurality (Northernfrance tourism,2017)

We need to learn from such examples and work towards not just benefitting one or the other but a cohesive whole, satisfying every need. This essentially requires just to fill the gaps in the existing framework and not totally revamp the whole model which may not be accepted and will cause failures. In order for it to be taken into account and peacefully be established, the existing dots needs to be connected.

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Conclusion The project began with stating a two dimensional problem of availing the benefits while eliminating the disadvantages the flagship developments cause to the adjacent neighborhoods. A list of all benefits and disadvantages was created. This was then filtered to suit the ones applicable for the region under consideration and then again being filtered to concentrate on the ones that an be affected by design and planning. A comprehensive final list was made which was taken forward to create a strategic plan in order to strive towards cohesive benefits. The benefits that the private developers would have by following the plan for cohesive benefits was pointed out. This will provide enough reason for the authorities to take charge of such a framework. After that certain design consideration were made in order to make the place more spatially and socially cohesive. The case of Euroméditerranée is one among many flagship developments around the world, facing problems concerning the local vitality. Literature highlights the many impacts of flagship developments on the adjoining areas. This research agrees with the existing theories by studying one such case. If Euroméditerranée is continued to be built as planned it is going to have adverse impacts on its surrounding neighborhoods. This research presents concrete recommendations for the authorities on how to deal with flagship developments in a cohesive manner. By implementing the strategy proposed, not only will the local neighborhood benefit but also the private developers themselves will be successful. This will also be a key start to future flagship developments to learn from and create mutually benefitting environments.

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Table of Figures Figure 1: Location in Marseille..................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2: ZUS Marseille (Michel Abherve, 2016) ........................................................................ 13 Figure 3:(Left) Bilbao, Spain (Right) Canary Wharf, London (Web images) .............................. 27 Figure 4: Key location and borders (Author, 2017) ...................................................................... 35 Figure 5: Area of Intervention (Author, 2017) .............................................................................. 36 Figure 6: Street in Saint Mauront (Web image) ............................................................................ 37 Figure 7: Building in Saint Mauront (Web image) ....................................................................... 37 Figure 8: Felix Pyat (Web image) ................................................................................................. 38 Figure 9: Conception of Euromediterrranee project (Author, 2017) ............................................ 39 Figure 10: Key projects (Author, 2017) ........................................................................................ 41 Figure 11: FRAC (Euroméditerranée.fr) ....................................................................................... 42 Figure 12: (Top) Design (Bottom) In Reality ............................................................................... 43 Figure 13: The Silo (Euroméditerranée.fr) ................................................................................... 44 Figure 14: CMA-CGM Tower (Euroméditerranée.fr) .................................................................. 45 Figure 15: Parc Arenc (Top) Plan (Bottom) View (Euroméditerranée.fr) .................................... 46 Figure 16: (Author, 2017) ............................................................................................................. 47 Figure 17: Road networks (Author, 2017) .................................................................................... 48 Figure 18: Land Use (Author, 2017) ............................................................................................. 49 Figure 19: On site works and future expansions (Euroméditerranée.fr) ....................................... 51 Figure 20: Saint Mauront Urban Renewal (Grand Project de Ville, 2007)................................... 52 Figure 21: (Author, 2017) ............................................................................................................. 56 Figure 22: Resident protests 2000 (Euroméditerranée.fr)............................................................. 58

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Figure 23: Exclusive spaces as seen at Parc Arenc (Author, 2017) .............................................. 59 Figure 24: Excerpt from interview (Euroméditerranée, 2002) ..................................................... 60 Figure 25: Recreational Strip (Author, 2017) ............................................................................... 62 Figure 26: (Author, 2017) ............................................................................................................. 64 Figure 27: Strategic Location (Author, 2017) ............................................................................... 65 Figure 28: Job Opportunities (Author, 2017)................................................................................ 68 Figure 29: Housing Rents (Author, 2017) .................................................................................... 69 Figure 30: Inclusive Spaces by creating Networks (Author, 2017) .............................................. 70 Figure 31: Building block layout prototype (Author, 2017) ......................................................... 70 Figure 32: Neighborhood Connectivity (Author, 2017) ............................................................... 71 Figure 33: Roubaix-Lille - Its singularity is in its plurality (Northernfrance tourism,2017) ........ 72

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

References (2010). Retrieved from Euroméditerranée: http://www.euromediterranee.fr/districts/introduction.html?L=1 Colomb, C. (2007). Making Connections: Transforming People and Places in Europe. Case Study of Roubaix, Lille (France) for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Delegation Interministerielle a La Ville et au Developpement Social Urbain. (1997, January 1). Retrieved from SIG Politique de la Ville: https://sig.ville.gouv.fr/Atlas/ZUS/fichiers/zus354.pdf Doucet, B. (2009). Global flagships, local impacts. Urban design and planning, 162(1357-4809), 101 - 107. Eisinger, P. (2000, January). The Politics of Bread and Circuses: Building the City for the Visitor Class. Urban Affairs Review, 316-333. Grand Project de Ville. (2007). Retrieved from Logement & Urbanisme: http://logementurbanisme.marseille.fr/grand-projet-de-ville-gpv/saint-mauront Grodach, C. (2009, December 21). Beyond Bilbao: Rethinking Flagship Cultural Development and Planning in Three California Cities. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 29(3), 353-366. Hackworth, J. (2007). The Neoliberal City: Governance, Ideology, and Development in American Urbanism. Cornell: Cornell University Press. Healey, P., Davoudi, S., & Tavsanoglu, S. (1992). Rebuilding the City: Property-Led Urban Regeneration. London: Chapman & Hall. Jessop, B. (2002, June). Liberalism, Neoliberalism, and Urban Governance: A State–Theoretical Perspective. Antipode, 452-466.

The vitality of neighbourhoods adjoining flagship developments

Kazepov, Y. (2005). Cities of Europe: Changing Contexts, Local Arrangement and the Challenge to Urban Cohesion. Blackwell. Kesteloot, C. (2006, June). Urban Socio-Spatial Conﬁgurations and the Future of European Cities. Cities of Europe: Changing Contexts, Local Arrangement and the Challenge to Urban Cohesion, 123. Loftman, P., & Nevin, B. (1995). Prestige Projects and Urban Regeneration in. Planning Practice & Research, 299-316. Pearce, D. (1992). The MIT Dictionary of Modern Economics. MIT Press. Rocco, R. (2008). An urban geography of globalisation: new urban structures in the age of hyper-connectivity. Delft, International Forum on Urbanism. Rodriguez, A., Martinez, E., & Guenaga, G. G. (2001, April). Uneven RedevelopmentNew Urban Policies and Socio-Spatial Fragmentation in Metropolitan Bilbao. European Urban and Regional Studies, 161-178. Smith, H. (1994). Marketing the City: The Role of Flagship Developments in Urban Regeneration. E & FN Spon. Urban Development Agency. (2012). Retrieved from Euroméditerranée: www.euromediterranee.fr