Transcript Long-Term Management of an Urban Renewal Process in Malmö, Sweden

Project and Process: Long-term Management of an
Urban Renewal Process in Malmö, Sweden
Denise Maines
What are the long-term considerations for managing an initiative like
Ekostaden Augustenborg?
•
•
•
What types of funding are sustainable?
How can leadership be sustained?
How can reasonable goals be created for a 12 year process?
Environmental Health and Equity: Global Strategies and
Innovation
April 30, 2011
McGill University
Malmö, Sweden
MKB:
a city-owned
housing
company
managing 1/3
of Malmö’s
real-estate
May 24-July 15, 2010
Why Ekostaden Augustenborg?
“People were ashamed of this area. You didn’t mention that you lived in
Augustenborg if you did. …maybe the reputation was worse than the
actual fact, but the reputation was very bad”
Internationally acclaimed example of sustainable urban renewal
 Low-income neighborhood
 Focus on social and environmental sustainability
 Emphasis on maintaining low rent
 High level of collaboration between key actors
 12 years of history (1998-2010)
“You see they kind of used ecological sustainability as a driving force to
also drag along social and economic sustainability”
Three Areas, One Goal
•1800 apartments
•3000 residents
Courtesy of Va Syd
A Series of Projects






Green roofs
Open storm water drain
system
Gardening projects
Traffic calming
Renewable energy
sources such as a
windmill, solar panels
Waste reduction using
biogas, composting,
recycling
Questions and Methods


What are the long-term considerations for
managing an initiative like Ekostaden
Augustenborg?
41 semi-structured interviews
3
key stakeholder groups
 Employees
at the housing company
 Residents
 City
officials
Best viewed as a process
Three Phases:
 Intense phase, 1998-2001
 Phase Out, 2001-2008
 Rejuvenation, 2008-2010
Three key features:
oFunding
oCollaboration
oLevel of Activity
Phase One: 1998-2001

High levels of funding, collaboration and activity
 Three
key stakeholders agree to work together on the
Ekostaden project
 Grants drive project development
 Resident participation is prioritized
 Diversity of projects
“We will not go into this project if not the different departments who
are involved have made an agreement that we should all make this
the highest priority”—City official
Phase Two: 2001-2008

Decreased funding, collaboration and activity
 Programme
funding ends
 Change in personnel
 Resident participation decreases



Maintenance of old projects
International attention
Transfer of initiatives
Problems with the project
“There were some real issues there about the long-term
management, which we didn’t manage well… we didn’t
address [it] properly at the start of the project.” – former
project leader
“When I came, the Ekostaden project almost had stopped.
We were living, what is the correct expression, old merits,
eh, nothing new… and we felt that we had failed.”—
Current housing company manager
Phase Three: 2008-2010

Environmental Project Manager
 Clearer
sense of ownership
 Goal to work with residents

Financing versus funding
 The

Malmo Model
Maintenance plan drives activity
 Laundry
rooms
 Bathrooms
“Ekostaden is never finished, and that is just the way it is supposed
to be.”—City official
Considerations for long-term management

Balancing funding and financing
 Grants
are project-based, not processed-based
 Financing increases rent

Long term leadership
 Importance
of key players
 Creating key roles

Mainstreaming a process
 Loses
cutting edge
 Focusing on a flagship
Discussion

What role should short-term external funding play
in sustainable processes?


Time will tell if funding or financing is a better model
How can processes accommodate shifting networks
of collaboration?

Creating a position may prove to be a long-lasting solution, but
must incorporate organic collaborative structures
Thank you to the IHSP,
staff at the housing
company, residents, and
city officials in Malmo for
making this case study
possible
QUESTIONS?