Comment: 02.02.2010

Julian Dobson

If you wanted to invent Google, you probably wouldn’t start in a reference library.

If you wanted to invent Google, you probably wouldn’t start in a reference library. If you were trying to create an instant messaging service, you might find the carrier pigeon inadequate. Yet our discourse about regeneration continues to be dominated by concepts well past their best-before dates.

In recent weeks I’ve talked to many bright, creative and intelligent people who understand that and agree that it’s time to rethink regeneration. At the same time it’s been clear that many of our leading lights are stuck in yesterday’s ways of thinking.

A couple of weeks ago Professor Michael Parkinson released the blockbusting sequel to last year’s report on regeneration and the credit crunch. Published under the auspices of the Northern Way, it highlights the effects of the recession, argues for continued public investment, and pushes for a shift from physical to economic development (see pages 26-30 of February's New Start).

So far, so sub-national review. It presses the right buttons with government: that the emphasis should be on jobs and growth. But it misses the longer term issues.

At the heart of these is that globally, we’re living at a scale that consumes the resources of 1.3 planets. If everyone lived like the average European, we’d be consuming the equivalent of three planets. This wouldn’t be a problem if we had a few spare planets we could draw on, but the environment isn’t like a bank: you can’t live on the never-never.

You might have thought this would be at the heart of any discussion about the future of our towns and cities, not an afterthought. But you’ll find scant reference to it in Professor Parkinson’s report. There’s little evidence that regional development agencies or local authorities are seriously stepping up their demands for the sustainability of the developments they’re helping to prop up. Elected politicians shy away from suggesting we must find different ways of living, especially when different sounds like a euphemism for less comfortable.

That’s why we need to bring the debate about wellbeing, quality of life and alternatives to traditional models of growth from the sidelines to centre stage. Those who have worked in regeneration projects that have grown from the aspirations of communities know this already: there are values and hopes that can’t be captured by checking numbers of jobs created or homes renovated.

This could and should mean the end of the regeneration programme as we know it. Many of the capital-intensive interventions favoured by the likes of Michael Heseltine will be unfit for purpose in a world where long-term sustainability and quality of life, not quantities of stuff, are paramount.