RE-BLOCK Project – Interview with Iván Tosics

There have been many surveys and researches on housing estate rehabilitation; the number of URBACT projects in this topic is also high, what is the innovation value of the RE-Block project compared to these ones? Why is it different, what makes this project different?
A few of the earlier URBACT projects dealt with energy-oriented regeneration of residential buildings or with social housing problems. The speciality of the RE-Block project is its strong orientation to integrate the physical and social aspects. Project partners have recognised that long-lasting results can only be achieved if the residents of their deprived housing area are involved into the renewal of the estate. Moreover, there is a link between the level of physical renewal and the change of the social structure of the estate. It is not easy to find that level of physical regeneration, which means substantial improvement of living conditions, enabling most of the original residents to stay in the neighbourhood.

Methodologically I found two novelties in the RE-Block project. One is the appointment of Knowledge Ambassadors, linked to the two main topics of the project (physical vs. social renewal). This method aims at bringing together expert representatives of the project partners along well defined problem areas. This sounds good, though attention has to be paid to avoid the separation of the two topics from each other (which would be against the integrated approach).

The other methodological novelty is the idea to define 10 Spin-off projects, one by each city, linked to the Local Action Plan (LAP), selected with the help of a thematic expert. These projects will be presented at the final conference as concrete ideas for EU funding. I found this idea an interesting attempt to bring closer the Local Action Plan (developed in a bottom-up way with the lead of the Local Support Group) to the realities of EU funding in the given country. The involvement of an independent expert, not linked to the project at all, ensures a kind of "outside look" to the LAP ideas. Here attention has to be paid that this expert makes enough efforts to get acquainted with the EU funding programmes of the given country and selects the project idea according to the given framework.

You have previously taken part in researches, projects, which were concerned with the Havana housing estate in Budapest. A study visit took place during the kick-off meeting; did you feel any change? If yes, what are these changes? What is it that changed compared to your earlier experiences?

Compared to my earlier experiences from 10-15 years ago it can be seen that a lot of efforts and investments were put into the regeneration of the physical structures. We visited large buildings, which were energetically renewed and we saw many new playgrounds and nicely renovated public spaces.

However, for me, as a sociologist, the social changes and the impacts of the physical improvements on the composition of the residents and on their lives are at least as important. In this regard, it is more difficult to get impressions within the few hours of a study visit, without having the time and opportunity to talk to the residents.

In any case, I hope that the RE-Block project will help the municipality to better connect the physical and social aspects of the housing estate regeneration together.  

There are very few Hungarian tenderers in the URBACT programme. It is not only that they are not considering submitting a proposal as a Lead Partner, but they rarely appear among partners as well. In your opinion, what is the reason for the low activity of Hungarian towns/cities?

In the earlier rounds of URBACT calls there was a higher interest among Hungarian cities and the country had the highest number of cities among all new Member States, performing the not-at-all easy task of being a Lead Partner. However, by the third round of the URBACT calls there has been a significant drop in the interest of Hungarian cities to participate.

In my opinion, this is mainly due to financial problems. The decrease in the budgets of the cities does not allow the pre-financing of expenditures any more, even if at the end of the process almost all costs will be reimbursed by URBACT. Most cities would prefer to get advance payment from the programme, to be able to financially bridge the long period between the claiming and the receiving of the funding. I would say, this is a realistic claim, which should be considered seriously by those who decide the rules of the programme.

One major benefit of URBACT projects is that they point out that traditional structures are not necessarily those that work well for such a complex task like urban regeneration. As a mandatory component of the Programme, a so-called URBACT Local Support Group needs to be set up, whose members - who are basically all local actors - should be involved into every stage of the planning process. How can you motivate the members of the group? How can you maintain/assure their long-term commitment?

The motivation of the Local Support Group members should be based on their real and active involvement into the debates of the Local Action Plan. According to the usual planning procedure of local governments, debates should remain "internal", and information shall be communicated only when almost all decisions have already been made, at a later stage of the process. Contrary to this "closed working method", the Local Support Group offers a broader approach, especially if the city succeeds in getting the most important actors on board. This is the reason why the details on the Local Support Group's work, including the mapping of stakeholders and selection of ULSG members, constitute important part of the URBACT method and are also part of the training activities.

An important additional aspect of motivating ULSG members – but secondary compared to the real involvement into the LAP planning process – might be to set up knowledge exchange between the ULSG members of the different project partner cities and initiate their active participation in the URBACT Summer University. These activities also depend on the language skills of the ULSG members.

Although experiences with ULSGs vary, there is a growing tendency that ULSGs continue to meet even after the close down of the URBACT project or at least some of their members continue to meet regularly. This depends largely on the municipality, how open it is for outside advices and how effectively they managed the work of the group.

In your experience, what are the most effective methods of knowledge transfer, and which of these should be used in this project?

Knowledge transfer is a difficult process with many impediments. During the three years of URBACT projects there are many opportunities to learn examples, good and bad practices from the project partner cities.

I think concrete examples (e.g. during study visits) with detailed background information and explanations are very important. Sometimes there is much more to learn from failures, unsuccessful projects, thus the openness between the project partners is one of the prerequisite for knowledge transfer. It has to be noted, however, that knowledge can never be simply transferred from one place to another; this process always needs an adaptation phase. Thus the role of the Lead Expert and the officials of the local government are crucial to understand the knowledge itself (e.g. a good practice) and to adapt it to the local circumstances.

Read more:

• RE-Block - URBACT website
• Download URBACT II Capitalisation: Cities of Tomorrow, Action Today - Against divided cities in Europe (1.52 MB) - PDF