From rust to green infrastructure – 50 Years of European Policies for the Regeneration of Industrial Cities

The massive deindustrialisation of the 1970s and 1980s was one of the most challenging issues facing the European Union, resulting in urban decay, high unemployment, and social disintegration. In response to this crisis, EU-member states launched ambitious urban regeneration projects. The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) was established in 1975, celebrating this year its 50th birthday, an opportunity to evaluate the operation and results of the institution. The author discusses how structural funds have been allocated on a case-by-case basis according to the objectives set by the ERDF’s various multiannual programming cycles. In light of the objectives, some of the most significant urban regeneration projects in Europe have been selected, in which the preservation and rehabilitation of industrial heritage have played an important role. The proposed examples offer an innovative narrative of the different sub-periods or stages of industrial adaptive reuse, distinguishing them by the strategies and methods used to conserve and transform former production areas.
The author divides the narrative into five separate periods. The first covers 1989-1999 and ‘Objectives 1 and 2’, focusing on flagship regeneration projects in England (Albert Docks in Liverpool, Castlefield in Manchester), France (Docks de la Joliette in Marseille, Usine Motte-Bossut in Roubaix) and the Ruhr-region in Germany, where the ambitious and visionary IBA Emscher Park program demonstrated that previously ‘impossible’ industrial sites could be adapted and given a dynamic new life. During this period URBAN I program (1994-1999) was developed, targeting small and medium-sized cities for integrated regeneration.
The second period covers 2000-2006 and is one of ‘regional competitiveness’ and innovation. URBAN II, aimed at the regeneration of declining urban areas) and URBACT (aimed at exchanging knowledge and best practice on urban development issues) were developed. Flagship projects include the transformation of the Poblenou district of Barcelona or the bold conversion of Belval steelworks into the new City of Science in Esch-sur-Alzette (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg). Other examples are the renovation of the Plagwitz, a former textile district in Leipzig and the transformation of the tobacco factory into the cultural pool ‘La Belle de Mai’ in Marseille.
The third period (2007-2013) focuses on ‘convergence’, an important theme being the accession of ten new member states, such as the Baltic countries, where deindustrialisation took place twenty years later than in Western Europe. Poland especially developed several ambitious industrial heritage projects in Katowice (Silesia) and surrounding towns. Other projects were realised in the former textile town of ?ód?. More information on Poland can be found in the excellent text by Piotr Gerber, “Industrial heritage in Poland and EU funds”, at the end of the book. Different projects during the 3rd period have been financed partly with funds from the JESSICA program. JESSICA means ‘Joint European Support for Sustainable Investments in City Areas’, providing cities with more flexible funding for urban regeneration.
The project IBA Fürst Püchler Land (launched in 2000 in a part of the former GDR) was a bold plan for the structural transformation of the Lusatia region, where the natural landscape had been devastated by 150 years of opencast lignite mining. This new IBA here was modelled on the previous decade’s IBA, Emscher Park, and also serves as an example for similar projects in other countries.
During the fourth period (2014-2020), ‘integrated and sustainable urban development’ was a core issue. Industrial heritage sites often played a key role in the creation of new social and cultural infrastructures. An example is the Centre for Science and Technology in ?ód?, installed in a former power station. Other examples can be found in Tallinn (Estonia): the Kai Art Centre and ‘Port Noblessener’ (both in the old harbour area), the Rotermann Quarter, an impressive multifunctional reuse of a cluster of more than ten mills and workshops. A recent realisation in Tallinn is the remarkable transformation (for residential use) of the Hoovimaja cellulose factory. The ITI-program (Integrated Territorial Investments) encouraged cities to promote some of these integrated regeneration projects, financed by the ERDF and ESF.
The fifth period covers 2021 to 2027 and the ‘European Green Deal’. A major challenge is the severe reduction of energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and the favouring of the ‘circular economy’. The EUI (European Urban Institute) has been launched to prioritise cities developing sustainable solutions aligned with the EU’s Green Deal and climate objectives. Thanks to the efforts of ICOMOS, Europa Nostra and the Climate Heritage Network, the potential of our built heritage has also been taken into account, thus recognising the value and potential of industrial heritage as an active component of a new urban identity. Examples described in the chapter include ‘Parco Dora’ in Turin, the Rovereto Manufacturing Project (constructed mainly with recycled demolition materials) and the former NDSM-shipyard (‘Nederlandsche Dok & Scheepsbouw Maatschappij’) in Amsterdam, redeveloped into a booming creative, cultural and residential hub.
The conversion of the Officine Meccaniche Reggiane (in Reggio Emilia, Italy) into an Innovation Park (with new functions such as offices, education, etc.) is another interesting case. The warehouses have undergone important adaptations and replacement of roofs and other original elements (‘controlled deconstruction of certain elements’), optimising internal thermal comfort, but diminishing the authenticity and integrity of this heritage. Preite: “We must ask how much of the heritage’s authenticity can be sacrificed in the name of sustainability and fighting climate change.” The author also draws attention to “greenwashing” on re-used industrial sites. Superficial use of greenery on factory facades and input of green in factory interiors, labelled as ‘bio’ and ‘eco’, have nothing to do with respect for qualities of industrial heritage. I can’t help but think about the ongoing ‘deconstruction’ of the coal processing plant in Beringen, Belgium, now transformed into ‘BE-Nature,’ including a greenhouse, after nearly all of the originally ‘legally protected’ machinery was demolished.
Once again, Massimo Preite has produced a very interesting analysis, a reference work about a topic that has seldom been researched. In the last chapter of the book, the author records how and to what extent the period of regeneration has reshaped the concept of industrial heritage with respect to six key aspects: the ‘place’ where production took place, the ‘product’ that was manufactured, the ‘production’ process, the ‘people’ involved in production, the ‘protection’ regime once production ceased and the ‘public’ that benefits from its preservation. We cannot go into further detail here, but we will mention below a few more statements from this interesting concluding chapter.
The most controversial aspect of industrial heritage today is not the threat of physical disappearance through demolition, but the transformation of authentic artefacts into ‘heritage without memory’, in which the industrial past has been erased. Spaces that were originally a working environment full of machines and workers have now taken on an identity completely disconnected from their previous one.
The general indifference to the histories of industrial sites converted to new uses is most evident in how post-industrial cities have handled their designation as ‘European Capitals of Culture’. Often the industrial past is packed as part of the narrative of the rise and fall of the industry, which is replaced by the service economy. The industrial past is framed as a distinct phase in urban history, which needs to be overcome as an obstacle to prosperity, something to cope with in order to flourish in the contemporary world. This is typical of the current way of thinking.
Concerning industrial archaeology, the traditional top-down approaches of the 1960’s and 1970’s, which relied on the expertise of specialists to develop solid value hierarchies, have lost their authority. This also has positive aspects. To any form of official memory, alternative narratives emerged, open to voices of the (multicultural) community, no longer sharing the same perception of the past and often having a different sense of history from the dominant ‘heritage discourse’. The latest trends in heritage studies demonstrate an increasing tendency to link industrial heritage to deindustrialisation and the memory of working-class people.
However, the question of how these aspects can be given more attention in industrial reuse interventions in urban regeneration programs remains unanswered. Those who care about the material nature of industrial heritage and the physicality of its structures must bear in mind that, without the capacity of reclaimed sites to evoke the past, there is a high risk of a divorce between the memory of work and the places where work took place. Conservation and reuse are done for the benefit of buildings and landscapes, but not necessarily for the benefit of people who value the object.