Keywords

Introduction

Culture, arts and creativity are central to the analysis of urban development and the policy agendas of local governments, international organisations, the European Union, non-governmental bodies and other stakeholders (European Commission, 2018). Therefore, promoting creative spaces and activities linked to culture is an important element in urban regeneration and development initiatives (Bianchini, 1993). These initiatives propose different actions to generate a context or cultural buzz in cities and neighbourhoods that favour certain practices and interactions among inhabitants. These can improve social cohesion in the city and neighbourhoods and could also attract certain types of economic activities and social groups linked to them. But to what extent did the URBAN Initiative incorporate these contents? To what extent did it affect the ‘cultural buzz’ of the neighbourhoods where it was implemented?

In this chapter, we will examine some ideas and try to provide evidence on this issue. We will analyse the change of the neighbourhood as a cultural context before and after urban initiatives applying two perspectives to study this context. On the one hand, considering its volume, the extent to which the projects have given rise within the neighbourhoods to more space and equipment providing more opportunities for cultural consumption. And on the other hand, the type of cultural buzz that characterises them, the lifestyles that such spaces of cultural consumption encourage and promote, using the perspective of cultural scenes (Silver et al., 2010).

Cities and Neighbourhoods as Cultural Contexts: Urban Policies and the ‘Cultural Buzz’ of Neighbourhoods

Urban analysis has pointed out that the shift towards post-industrial societies implies, among other issues, that cultural factors and lifestyles in the city have become just as important as their productive activities. The city is not only a residential space or an economic activity; it must also be understood as a cultural context. City expresses different lifestyles that could promote innovation and creativity, or, more generally, can foster certain social practices and interactions (Silver et al., 2010). Based on this idea, since the 1980s ‘the arts have been given a key role in strategies to deal with urban problems from social exclusion to the rehabilitation of postindustrial sites’, in most cases due to industrial change in urban centres and the economic restructuring of industrial cities (Miles, 2005: 889; cited in Lees & Melhuish, 2015). For example, Scott (2000) and Markusen (1996) highlighted the importance of clusters of cultural industries as promoters of economic development. Florida (2002) emphasised the role of the cultural context, in terms of tolerance and opportunities for cultural consumption linked to the neo-Bohemian lifestyle, factors that would attract activities and creative class, and thus promote territorial development. Clark (2003) analysed the impact of different cultural spaces and services on urban development, along the lines raised by Glaeser et al. (2001), and the study by Navarro et al. (2014) in the case of Spain. Other studies have highlighted that exposure to different kinds of cultural contexts promotes different social practices and lifestyles, somewhat independently of the resources or social position of inhabitants, whether in terms of cultural consumption or healthy habits (Navarro and Rodríguez-Garcia, 2014; Zapata-Moya et al., 2020).

But, if these are their effects, how are these spaces generated or created? On the one hand, the generation of different cultural contexts can be brought about by the interaction between different types of agents who induce significant practices in the space where they live or develop their activities. In this case, the residential location patterns between specific groups seem to play a role, such as young artists attracted by the local authenticity of particular urban spaces (Lloyd, 2002; Zukin, 1995). On the other hand, public institutions can promote these spaces through specific policies or plans to change the cultural context of neighbourhoods by creating new spaces or activities. Whereas the first process involves a ‘demand model’ whereby residents demand and generate specific opportunities for cultural consumption according to their lifestyle, the second would imply a ‘supply model’ with the authorities creating a favourable environment for the development of different cultural activities and practices that would attract specific collectives and activities (Navarro, 2013).

In fact, the second model has played and continues to play a significant role in urban development initiatives through the promotion of cultural and creative spaces, both in the proposals for urban regeneration in the 1980s and the current initiatives for integrated urban development (Bassett, 1993). However, these initiatives can foster different scenarios or orientations depending on the role they give culture in the urban development strategy they promote. Two broad strategies, not necessarily incompatible with each other, can be defined, as shown by analyses of European and Spanish cities: instrumental and planning (Navarro & Clark, 2012; Rodríguez-García et al., 2014). The first approach turns changes in the cultural buzz of the neighbourhood into an instrument to encourage and attract economic activity (businesses, creative groups, or visitors). New cultural spaces, such as museums, galleries or performance spaces, but also convention centres, congresses, or cultural and sporting events, are examples of this strategy linked to the idea of the ‘creative city’. The second approach, more closely related to the notion of the ‘educational city’, aims to make culture more accessible and available to foster cultural practices among residents, seeking to take advantage of the potential effects on social cohesion in the neighbourhood. Neighbourhoods’ socio-cultural and civic centres, open public spaces, or participatory cultural initiatives are examples of the initiatives that would characterise this strategy, linked more to welfare policies than economic development policies. One might expect, therefore, that the presence of these strategies in urban development projects will have different effects on the cultural buzz of the neighbourhood or the city. So what kind of cultural buzz would be created as a result of these strategies?

Urban Development Strategies and Cultural Buzz: Quantity and Type of Opportunities for Cultural Consumption

The cultural context of neighbourhoods has chiefly been analysed from three perspectives: which economic activity is located in them (existence and concentration of cultural and creative industries), who are their residents (weighting or concentration of creative groups among their inhabitants), and what lifestyles are promoted through the existing opportunities for cultural consumption (Mateos, 2016; Navarro, 2013). This third approach aims to analyse the cultural buzz of places as cultural scenes. These scenes mean the localisation of specific kinds of spaces, equipment and services that facilitate different types of cultural consumption, linked to culture in a more restricted sense (museums, theatres, …), as well as more everyday practices (retail, leisure, or entertainment) (Silver et al., 2010).

More specifically, we will consider the density of the ‘cultural market’, that is, the presence of spaces, facilities and services that provide opportunities for cultural consumption in the neighbourhoods per thousand residents. But we will also look at the kind of cultural scene they represent. Very briefly, the cultural scenes approach analyses what cultural practices might be developed in places through three main dimensions and specific sub-dimensions: the reasons why they are used (tradition, utilitarian, self-expression,…), the aesthetic form or style that characterises them (transgression, glamour, formality, closeness,…) or the identity that they allow to be expressed and/or generated (localist, entrepreneurial, state, ethnic,…). The spaces, services or equipment available in a neighbourhood will be more or less prominent in these sub-dimensions according to the cultural practices that can be developed in them, giving an account of the type of cultural scene in the neighbourhood (Silver et al., 2010).

Various analyses conducted at different geographical scales (local work systems, cities, neighbourhoods…) have shown that this perspective identify two basic orientations: on the one hand, a ‘community’ orientation, where tradition, closeness and localism prevail, thereby generating cultural practices more linked to the classical—communitarian—idea of ‘neighbourhood life’; and, on the other, an innovative orientation, where self-expression or transgression would prevail, which would foster cultural practices more linked to artistic expression, as well as aesthetic and cultural distinction, but also to innovation and economic development (Mateos, 2016; Mateos et al., 2012; Navarro, 2012; Navarro et al., 2014).Footnote 1

In general, the most highlighted strategies in the literature of cultural-led regeneration are the creation of cultural districts, preservation and promotion of urban heritage, the use of art projects and events to generate tourism, and the role of public art, street furniture, landscaping and environmental art. However, there has been much discussion in recent years about the appropriateness of these measures. Currently, the idea that it is convenient to use culture as an impulse for urban economic growth to improve its competitive position is also accompanied by the question of whether we know the nature of the impact of cultural actions in cities, or to what extent these strategies are based on informed analysis or what impacts they have on the lives of their inhabitants? (Miles, 2005).

Based on the above, one might infer that the URBAN initiative could increase opportunities for cultural consumption by promoting economic spaces and activities linked to cultural production and consumption. But also, such projects might promote different types of cultural scenes according to the type of spaces and equipment on which they focus their actions. In this case, the cultural scenes perspective distinguishes between more community-oriented (socio-cultural centres, open public spaces and cultural activities aimed at residents of the neighbourhood) or more innovation-oriented (centres for companies, for large events, museums and heritage to attract visitors, etc.). Some examples point to similar effects through analyses of major cultural events or urban regeneration initiatives in Spain (Navarro, 2013; Navarro et al., 2013) or urban development initiatives in the historical centres of large cities (Bromley et al., 2005).

The URBAN Initiative: ‘Culture’ as a Project Objective and Its Potential Impacts

Before examining the potential effect of the URBAN Initiative on the cultural buzz of neighbourhoods, the following question needs answering: What is the presence of the two strategies outlined above in URBAN Initiative projects? Are they more oriented towards an instrumental strategy or a planning strategy? So far, we have seen that these projects are mainly structured around three major policy sectors: the physical environment, the promotion of economic development, and social integration (see Chapter 4). But what specific issues are the objectives of the actions included in URBAN I projects focused on these three major areas? Fig. 10.1 shows the percentage of projects in the URBAN I Initiatives that have among their objectives issues more directly related to our object of study, as well as those that are most frequently found in these three areas of public policy. Concerning territory, actions tend to focus on providing basic urban infrastructure and services, and to some extent, creating or improving public spaces, with policy measures that include heritage among the established objectives being present to a lesser degree. Economic activities focus mainly on the promotion of commerce, which can include different types of activities. Some of them could be more closely linked to innovation and creativity, which could account for more innovative scenes, but also proximity commerce, which would probably be more linked to community scenes. However, the promotion of cultural industries is rare. In the field of social integration, the key objectives include employability or social policy actions (specific groups and processes of social excision), and, to a lesser extent, the creation of socio-cultural spaces and activities for residents.

Fig. 10.1
A horizontal bar graph of the percentages of social policy, socio-cultural, employability, innovation and development, cultural industries, entrepreneurship, commerce, heritage, public space, and infrastructure. The percentage is high for employability and zero for innovation and development.

(Note In each policy sector, only the issue with the highest score and those related to culture, creativity and innovation are included)

Objectives of policy actions in URBAN I projects (Percentage over the total number of projects [n = 514 policy actions])

Full size image

This analysis would show that the initiatives developed are more oriented towards using culture as a ‘planning strategy’ than an ‘instrumental strategy’. Nevertheless, the volume and nature of opportunities for cultural consumption could also change by combining policy actions oriented to improve the physical environment of neighbourhoods to attract economic activities, creative groups or tourism and motivational tools to promote commercial business (grants, subsidies,…).Footnote 2 In the longer term, these improvements could enhance other results and changes in the neighbourhood. Better socio-spatial conditions could attract new social groups with higher socio-economic status or creative sectors demanding other kinds of cultural consumption opportunities as well as new businesses focused on more innovative and unconventional cultural consumption patterns (Lloyd, 2002; Navarro et al., 2014).

The Impact of the URBAN Initiative on the Cultural Buzz of Neighbourhoods: Sort and Long Time Effects

In order to analyse the impact of the URBAN I Initiative on the cultural buzz of urban areas, we have applied a quasi-experimental design based on the propensity score matching technique and the application of repeat measures models. The dRM indicator is used to compute the effect size of the interventions.Footnote 3 Specifically, the intervention impacts have been analysed by comparing change trajectories in experimental and control urban areas concerning two issues: the density of the cultural market, as the number of facilities by residents, and the nature of the cultural scenes, from more community-based to more innovative (according to the definition and methodology mentioned above). We shall analyse the trends of change by considering three moments in time: pre-intervention (1991), post-intervention in the short term (2001), and post-intervention in the medium to long term (2011). Firstly, we will present the results for the whole period considered (1991–2011), and then for two more specific periods (1991–2001 and 2001–2011).

Results indicate an increase in the density of opportunities for cultural consumption in both control and experimental areas. However, it was more accentuated among the latter (differences of 0.9 and 1.3 points, respectively: see Table 10.1). If we focus on the orientation of cultural scenes, we see that it tends to be more community-based than innovative in both types of urban areas, although there is a tendency to move towards less community-based scenes in experimental areas than in control areas (differences equal to 0.03 and 0.02, respectively).

Table 10.1 Cultural environment in experimental and control areas: volume and scenes orientation (1991–2011) (Means [standard deviations])
Full size table

Thus, analysis of the period 1991–2011 shows an increase in the density of the cultural market and a slight trend towards less community-based cultural scenes, but without a strongly prevalent innovative orientation either. Is this due to the impact of the URBAN Initiative? Analysis of the effect size using the dRM indicator shows that there does appear to be an impact in the first case, but not in the second. Although the difference is fairly small, the changing trend in the density of cultural consumption opportunities is higher in experimental areas (dRM = 0.34, CI90%: 0.5; 0.65). This means the densification trend in about 63% of the experimental sites is higher than that of the control areas. In contrast, the URBAN Initiative does not appear to have had a clear impact on the nature of cultural scenes, as the effect size value is smaller and not statistically significant (dRM = 0.24: CI90%: −0.06; 0.54).

The analysis of the two specific periods shows that between 1991 and 2001, the density of opportunities for cultural consumption increased in both experimental and control areas, although the increase was somewhat higher among the former (Fig. 10.2). This trend continued in the period between 2001 and 2011. In fact, differences in change patterns are similar in both periods (dRM1991–2001 = 0.34; CI90%: 0.04; 0.65; dRM2001–2011 = 0.33; CI90%: 0.031; 0.64). However, there is a small impact as regards cultural scenes between 1991 and 2001 (dRM1991–2001 = 0.15; CI90%: −0.14; 0.46), but in the long term, although the pattern of change of that period is maintained, the differences between experimental and control areas again widen as a consequence of more intense change among the latter (dRM2001–2011 = 0.31; CI90%: 0.01; 0.61).

Fig. 10.2
Two graphs of urban 1. A U H density and orientation depict density: less to more and orientation: communitarian to innovative for control and experimental versus the years 1991, 2001, and 2011. The values of density and orientation are almost identical in the control and experimental.

The impact of URBAN I on the cultural environment of neighbourhoods: density and cultural scenes orientation of their cultural consumption opportunities (Marginal means estimated by repeated-measures models)

Full size image

In sum, the result for the analysed period shows what might be expected of the kinds of actions developed by the URBAN I Initiative regarding opportunities for cultural consumption. The density of the cultural market shows an upward trend since commerce of proximity is encouraged, as well as facilities to favour residents’ access to cultural activities. However, the effects are less obvious for cultural scenes: there appears to be a shift towards less community-based scenes with a short-term ‘boost’ (1991–2001), which continues later, but points to a generalised and similar change in the two types of areas than to an impact of the URBAN Initiative.

Final Considerations: On the ‘Sustainability’ of Impacts

The results presented above appear to be in line with the foreseeable outcomes of the URBAN I Initiative, aimed more towards the planning strategy, where culture is understood in terms of promoting facilities and services aimed at residents, ‘culture for all’, rather than as an instrument of economic development. This strategy results in increased opportunities for cultural consumption in terms of their density, which is greater in the experimental neighbourhoods. However, it does not appear to produce a significant change in the character of their cultural scenes; they remain community-based and oriented towards the neighbourhood’s daily life. This result does not imply that the projects have not generated an effect in terms of the closeness, involvement and participation of their residents in cultural activities, an issue that could be analysed using other data sources and analyses. Or that, over the longer term, the increased density of the neighbourhood’s ‘cultural market’, by means of this ‘supply model’ of opportunities for cultural consumption, does not make these urban spaces more attractive for other economic activities or new groups of residents. Or even more, improvements in the living conditions or socio-economic status of its traditional residents (as seen in chapter eight), do not generate some (albeit minor) increase in the demand for new, less community-based spaces for cultural consumption.

These patterns could means that the sustainability of the changes generated by urban development projects in the cultural buzz of neighbourhoods over time might depend not only on specific initiatives in this regard, but also on changes in other policy areas and goals, such as space, economic activity or the social composition of neighbourhoods, thereby evidencing the integrated nature of these initiatives and the possible interrelationship between the effects, direct or indirect, derived from different types of actions over time.

By including a broader time perspective, the reinforcement (in density) or absence of change (in cultural scenes) as an impact of these projects becomes evident. From this, it would be possible to analyse whether these effects are associated, at different moments in time, with other effects in other spheres of action and proposed goals tackled by projects. In addition, this could combine with the possible existence of composition effects linked, for example, to differences in the position occupied by neighbourhoods within the general dynamics of their respective cities or potential differences in project strategies (according to the importance of policy actions oriented to culture). Or perhaps, because the impact of the projects does not reside so much in the nature of cultural scenes in the short and medium-term, but above all, in the changes they can bring about in the social composition of the neighbourhood and the effect this could have on the cultural buzz in the longer term. This would mean that projects would actually promote a ‘demand model’ for the cultural buzz of the neighbourhood rather than a ‘supply model’. Undoubtedly, this issue requires further investigation to better understand culture as a tool in sustainable and integrated urban development initiatives promoted by the EU.