Outcomes of Urban Requalification Under Neoliberalism: A Critical Appraisal of the SRU Model

Abstract

The context of crisis and austerity has provided a legitimate alibi for the inscription of neoliberal narratives grounded in the virtues of the market in Portugal. In 2004 the state enacted a new model of ‘urban requalification’, enabling the creation of Urban Requalification Societies (SRU in the Portuguese acronym) that initiated entrepreneurial and discretionary models of decision and delivery beyond existing state bureaucracies. Based on both quantitative and qualitative evidence from the cases of Lisbon and Porto, this paper offers a critical appraisal of the efficacy of these organizations to secure the provision of affordable rental housing in situ and to maintain less resourceful families in the city centres. Results show that the SRU model, combined with restrictive funding schemes and neoliberal politics, which have promoted the gradual liberalization of rent controls and real estate speculation, have reinforced processes of social and spatial inequality.

Appendices

Annex 1: List of interviewees

Institution	Position	Roles
Porto Vivo SRU	Senior officer	Project implementation Management
Porto Vivo SRU	Technical staff	Project implementation
Porto Vivo SRU	Administration	Policy making Management
Porto Municipality	Political staff	Policy making
IHRU (Central office)	Administration	Policy making Management
IHRU (Porto delegation)	Senior officer	Management
Lisboa Ocidental SRU	Technical staff	Project implementation Management
Lisboa Ocidental SRU	Administration	Policy making Management
Lisbon Municipality	Senior officer	Project implementation Management

Annex 2: Statements from interviewees according to practical argumentation premises

Goals	“There are companies dedicated to those tasks: social housing, social inclusion, dynamization programs. Not us: our goal is to rehabilitate. Rehabilitate the public space and rehabilitate the buildings” (Lisboa Ocidental SRU—Administration) “Those who are dedicated to make urban rehabilitation are the municipalities and it starts as a basic work which is [to rehabilitate] public space (…) cities are condominiums, and the municipality is their administration” (Porto Municipality—Political staff)
Circumstances	“At this moment, a notable blockage is shortage of funding.” (IHRU—Central office) “[the main blockages to urban rehabiliation are] the financial deficit of the country, if there was money available to push forward, to help, to make partnerships with private actors, all of this would move. There is no money.” (Porto Vivo SRU—Senior officer) “There was a conscience of the need to change. It was important to promote rehabilitation, to mobilize the owners, involve investors and even include international investors and, therefore, all that need for a change in strategy” (Porto Vivo SRU—Technical staff)
Means-goal	“the attraction of new residents is very important, because it rehabilitates patrimony and is an incentive to rehabilitate other occupied [buildings]” (Porto Vivo SRU—Technical staff) “Private actores are in command, firstly because they are more in number and secondly because they have more means to do it that public actors.” (Porto Vivo SRU—Senior officer) “There is a change in our strategic alignement. We no longer have the financial means (…) there is a very importante role to be played by the SRU which is almost an investment agency. I am not talking about large projects, but small projects by small national or foreign investors” (Porto Vivo SRU—Administration)
Claim for action	“Public space is the priority, because public space is what we do alone, private actors don’t rehabilitate public space. It is up to the state to have a rehabilitated and well-maintained public space […] building rehabilitation should be residual and limited to what private actors don’t do.” (Lisboa Ocidental SRU—Administration) “Incentivating urban rehabilitation is an absolutely fundamental strategy (…) this happens in a moment were financial means are scarce, municipalities are much more indebt and the central state has less means to support these operations” (IHRU central office—Administration)