Despite the widespread use of physical improvements as a strategy to regenerate deprived and

run-down urban areas, there is only limited evidence on the precise impact of these kinds of
regeneration activities. A number of conceptual and methodological problems that impinge on
all evaluations of regeneration policies have constrained the required evidence base. This paper
evaluates the impact of publicly funded physical improvements of run-down industrial sites in
the Netherlands and seeks to address several of these challenges; namely, selecting
appropriate comparison areas, attributing change to specific interventions, access to small-
scale, longitudinal data and selecting outcomes congruent with policy goals and rationales.
Pooled data from various sources provide us with information on regeneration initiatives and
other site characteristics for more than half of all sites in the country. Propensity score matching
enables us to systematically compare economic outcomes related to regeneration policy goals
between sites that have been subjected to regeneration and those that have not. The results of
this study suggest that physical regeneration of industrial sites has a negligible effect on
economic outcomes that are related to the most commonly articulated policy goals: the increase
of employment, of firm numbers, of property values and of the intensity of land use on these
sites. These findings add to a small but growing body of work that investigates the economic
impact of regeneration programmes that fund physical investments on commercial and industrial
areas.

The downtown areas and older neigbourhoods of our cities provide powerful symbols of our

cultural heritage. Both buildings and landscapes tell stories about those who came before, and

provide people with an essential sense of connectedness that contemporary commercial

architecture seems unable to achieve. Without knowing anything about the people and history of

a place, we can observe signs within our historic urban centres that tell us where people gathered

for worship, commerce and recreation. Historic built forms also point to the time periods during

which areas were developed, especially periods of prosperity and growth.

Despite the cultural importance of our city centres, they have suffered significant decline. This

pattern has been well documented and correlated with the rise of suburban living and increased

availability and use of private motor vehicles. There is no need to repeat this analysis, except to

say that in most cases, we are now undoing fifty years of neglect and less than successful large-

scale interventions, such as downtown malls. And happily, we have moved from a largely
pessimistic view that suggested that attempts to intervene in the decline of downtown areas were

doomed to failure, to an optimism buoyed by numerous successes. What has made the

difference?

Urban regeneration (a much more palatable expression than “urban renewal”) requires a number

of actors to be effective. Two that play key roles are local governments and private investors.

The local government’s role begins with a clear policy direction that places value on historic

urban centres and supports urban regeneration to that end. This involves identifying what is

important. It continues with identifying obstacles to urban regeneration—social issues,

transportation problems, deteriorating streets and services, neglected public spaces and run-down

old buildings that are no longer economically viable—and developing various plans to address

these issues. Understandably, no private investor will invest in an area where streets, public

spaces and key public buildings show major signs of neglect. Well-thought-out improvements to

those same spaces send a clear message that the local government is involved and serious about

making a difference within the community, and that private investors can move forward with a

greater degree of confidence. There is a clear need for capable developers who have the

specialized knowledge and skills necessary to deal with the challenges of renovating and

restoring old buildings to make them suitable for new uses.

The Cambridge Core Areas Strategy is an example of a comprehensive approach. It

identified priorities for renewing streetscapes, emphasized renewed connections with rivers and

downtown parks, and called for strategic funding of improvements to privately-owned buildings.

Financial incentives for private property owners are widely used to support redevelopment of

existing downtown buildings. Funding programs help encourage renovation and restoration of
older buildings, as well as the redevelopment of vacant properties for new uses. These programs

are typically combined with some form of urban design policies to ensure that new developments

are sympathetic with the historic built form, and that they maximize benefits to the community.

Such programs are often tied directly to the increase in taxes paid on redeveloped properties. In

this way, the higher costs of re-using building sites (compared to clean and vacant sites on the

periphery of a city) are mitigated, and communities benefit in the long term because existing

streets, underground utilities, and other services are used more efficiently.

The historic Hespeler Village area of Cambridge, Ontario illustrates how local government

involvement leads to private investment. A public commitment to this downtown area has been

demonstrated through street improvements, financial incentives such as loans for building

improvements and fee waivers, and notably, a major renovation and enlargement of the historic

Carnegie Library. The City’s Library Board intentionally chose to remain in the downtown as a

public sector anchor.

In the mid-2000s, a plan was developed to take advantage of the Speed River’s proximity. In

addition to making detailed recommendations for improvements to public spaces, the plan set out

ideas and principles for the eventual re-use of obsolete industrial buildings.

The vision for Hespeler Village was realized in a significant way after a circa-1900 stone factory

owned by American Standard was closed. A developer acquired the building, and is now

working toward redeveloping the building for a mix of residential and commercial uses. The

historic architecture is impressive, and its location is superb: on the riverbank, overlooking a

park. The developer, who is investing about $30 million in this venture, is obviously a risk taker,
and he has a reputation for having a heart for his community. This development may prove to be

a catalyst for further positive change.

In some remarkable cases, private sector interests have partnered with public institutions in

powerful ways. The University of Waterloo School of Architecture is an excellent

example. Formerly housed in a rather utilitarian building on the main campus in Waterloo, the

School had long outgrown the space. A number of community-minded business people from

Cambridge, about a half-hour drive to the south, made a pitch to the director of the school that he

simply couldn’t refuse. They would make sure that a suitable building would be provided if he

would work to move the school to Cambridge.

An obsolete 90,000 square foot textile mill built built in the 1920s, located on a prime downtown

site on the Grand River within the former City of Galt, became available at a reasonable cost.

The City of Cambridge agreed to fund a building endowment ($7.5 million over a fifteen-year

period) to satisfy the University’s requirements—to ensure perpetual funding of building

maintenance—and provincial funding was secured to undertake a very thoughtful renovation that

represents a superb example of adaptive re-use and emphasizes natural light and views of the

river for the benefit of the students.

The City also provided project management and procurement expertise, and the same group of

local business people used their networks to secure substantial donations of building materials,

like high-quality modern light fixtures, worthy of a school of architecture. The end result has

been a great success, enthusiastically received by the students who are able to learn their craft in

a unique setting that is distinct from the modern University of Waterloo campus.
This is an excellent example of a partnership—undertaken by willing and enthusiastic people

with the credibility and expertise to make it happen—that is serving to infuse an historic

downtown with interest and vitality. It required a champion—a group of them, in this case—

along with a local government that already had a plan for downtown revitalization and could

instantly recognize the value of the proposal when it was pitched.

Urban regeneration requires partnerships and coordination, where governments work with

private owners to effect positive changes that benefit communities by ensuring that locally

important spaces and buildings continue to be valued and used. We can imagine that this is not

unlike the manner in which many of these places were first created 150 years ago or more, in

times of optimism and dynamic growth.