POLICIES IMPLEMENTED IN THE RE-DEVELOPMENT OF THE AYLESBURY ESTATE IN SOUTH LONDON, UK

By (Name)

The Name of the Class (Course)

Professor (Tutor)

The Name of the School (University)

The City and State

The Date

Introduction

Aylesbury Estate found in the south London is approximately 28.5 hectares with mix housing including numerous big slab and high rise blocks of flats with walkways. It is resident by approximately eight thousand people comprising the local community from black and ethnic minority groups. Regeneration in regard to gentrification strategy was utilized in launching of the New Labour’s regeneration policy from the slurred Aylesbury Estate within London (Maginn, 2004, 134-7). This strategy is mainly utilized in the class neutral language renewal, recycling, resurgence and regeneration of the estate for creation of an environmentally friendly within the urban landscape (Campkin, 2013.342-9). The Aylesbury Estate possesses a mix of tenures, ages, incomes and household types. The prevailing mixed communities within the estate aids in overcoming the problems related with the areas of dispossession such as reduction of local business activity, partial local job opportunities coupled with employment determinations, downward pressure on the underlying school quality, elevated levels of delinquency and disorder, and health inequalities (Bridge, Butler & Lees, 2012, 341-8). This paper will mainly explore the evaluation policies that are employed in the redevelopment of the Aylesbury Estate in the South London.

The mixed communities policy have been greatly employed in the redevelopment of the Aylesbury Estate since it played a symbolic and ideological role in regard to the signifier of a spatially strenuous ,dysfunctional underclass estate. Social Exclusion Unit has been set up in order to deal with the underlying social problems such as cost of dependency and corresponding social division. The main concern of the council estate is to reduce the level of poverty through the execution of the policy. Poverty is concentrated in individual neighborhoods thus making social exclusion of the Aylesbury Estate to be marked. Moreover, the New Labor stipulates that poverty is high in Aylesbury Estate hence require biggest social revolutions within the modern British in order to offer houses in the Aylesbury Estate.

The concept of social mix is depicted to be the discursive vehicle in planning of the redevelopment of the Aylesbury Estate. The new Aylesbury Estate via application of the mixed communities’ policy have made it to be socially inclusive, better designed and having more social capital (Maginn, 2004, 134-7). Moreover, social mix has assisted setting up of the alternatives of degeneration and under maintenance of the housing stock via mirroring suitable false choice thus resulting to decrease of sink estate amidst gentrification and corresponding neighborhood. The policy for the demolition and reconstruction of the Aylesbury estate as contained in the revised strategy involves the building of 3,200 private new construct homes and corresponding 2,000 social chartered new build homes (Bridge, Butler & Lees, 2012, 341-8). This led to accomplishment of the UDP requirement of forty percent of social housing. Moreover, the policy of demolition of the vast majority of the Aylesbury and creating new build development was to attract middle class incomers thus depicting distinct policy of the state led redevelopment premised on mixed communities’ policy. Nevertheless, the policy does not acknowledge the underlying mix that is previously present on the Aylesbury estate which is extremely socially and anthropologically diverse. It does not also address issues pertaining to the social sustainability (Campkin, 2013.342-9). The policy also undermines the estate operation as a reception for the populace seeking asylum. Progressive clothing of the social mix depicts clear idea and rhetoric of the social mix that is purely utilized in prevention of privatization of the property and land.

The renaissance of the Aylesbury is mainly guided by the underlying community led area action plan that hailed as a prototype in tenant led democracy. Moreover, the anti-redevelopment groups differ and claim about the widespread consultations of numerous tenants. Regeneration policies are mainly community led since the Urban Initiatives support the underlying stock transfer and demolition of the estate from the prevailing tenants (Campkin, 2013.342-9). Moreover, Aylesbury Tenants and Leaseholders depict that loss of social housing is mainly masked by new terms that are affordable housing, which majorly incorporate more luxurious section of rent purchase properties (Bridge, Butler & Lees, 2012, 341-8). The Aylesbury’s future redevelopment is mainly decided within the neoliberal times coupled with neoliberal governmentality that show dissension and dissenters that are mainly depoliticized and cast aside as regressive and insular, tenants, un-supplicated, absurd and unreasonable.

Communicative planning of redeveloping Aylesbury Estate within South London was supposed to respond to the underlying issues that emerged over the social engineering while collaborative planning was purely based on the obviously consensus but did not solve the top down tradition of planning (Bridge, Butler & Lees, 2012, 341-8). Moreover, social engineering planned for the Aylesbury is similar and mainly related with the slum clearances that were part of the history that pertain to the birth of Aylesbury (Rydin, 2011, 211-9). Even though this policy is seen as reminiscent of the previous urban regeneration, the new urban regeneration of Aylesbury is dissimilar in terms of bulk of new properties that are house rich residents.

The context of mobility, information and opportunities are steadily advancing in places where there is risk of fostering unproductive and unsanctionable urban sprawl. Aiming at the more qualified procedure of urbanization mainly based on dense, connected, integrated and comprehensive towns and corresponding cities normally strengthens the connection amidst urbanization and socio-economic advancement via problem leaning roadmaps coupled with strategy international blueprints. The best reason to opt for a new generation of National Urban Policies is seen as a robust base (Rydin, 2011, 211-9). Urbanization has permitted fast growing developing economies to progressively bridge their underlying socioeconomic gaps with more developed nations. Thus, urbanization is positively associated to the economic development, human advancement and poverty lessening as in the case of redevelopment of Aylesbury estate.

Regeneration of Aylesbury estate purely entails implementation of mixed community’s policy that is symbolic and ideological role in regard to the signifier of a spatially strenuous, dysfunctional underclass estate. Social Exclusion Unit has been set up in order to deal with the underlying social problems such as cost of dependency and corresponding social division. The main concern of the council estate is to reduce the level of poverty through the execution of the policy. Mixed communities policies offer a framework for prospect urbanization and corresponding urban advancement. It mainly ensures a maximization of the national and local benefits, urban economies of accumulations and modification of probable adverse externalities. Thus, national urban policies essentially seek to offer practical answers on ways required by the government to accommodate the subsequent generations of urban populations and corresponding challenges in the regeneration of Aylesbury.

Bibliography

Campkin, B. (2013). The regeneration game: urban decline and renewal in London.

Maginn, P. J. (2004). Urban regeneration, community power and the (in) significance of race. Aldershot, Ashgate.

Morrison, J. (2009). Public affairs for journalists. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Rydin, Y. (2011). The purpose of planning: creating sustainable towns and cities. Bristol, Policy Press.

Towers, G. (1999). Shelter is not enough: transforming multi-storey housing. Bristol, Policy.

Bridge, G., Butler, T., & Lees, L. (2012). Mixed communities: gentrification by stealth? Bristol, UK, Policy Press.Hebbert, M. (1998). London: more by fortune than design. Chichester [u.a.], John Wiley.