On the waterfront: Neoliberal urbanism and the politics of public benefit: Fid-Bau Portal

On the waterfront: Neoliberal urbanism and the politics of public benefit

Dr. Boland, Philip / Bronte, John / Dr. Muir, Jenny

AbstractThis paper responds to the empirical and conceptual challenges concerning public benefit. In an era of neoliberal urbanism the waterfront has become a focal point of planning intervention; however, this raises important political issues concerning the distributional consequences of redeveloping large tracts of derelict land and dilapidated property. The central line of inquiry concerns what benefits, for whom and where emerge on the waterfront under neoliberal urbanism? In grounding the empiricism we focus on the neoliberal planning of Belfast's waterfront through a detailed discussion of Laganside (1989–2007) and Titanic Quarter (2001–present). Despite major transformation in Belfast city centre and on the waterfront, plus the ongoing peace process, the imprints of volatile identity politics and severe social deprivation are entrenched in other areas of the city. Given this, Belfast provides a unique and instructive case to critically explore the socio-spatialities of public benefit in a neoliberalised, politicised and polarised urban landscape. More broadly our research talks to ongoing debates on the conceptual merit and practical utility of public benefit as a central organising principle for spatial planning.

HighlightsThe core findings of this paper are:•Our research contributes to debates on whether public benefit has practical utility (‘grounded in reality’) and conceptual merit (‘valid or usable concept’) for spatial planning. We show that defining, understanding and measuring public benefit is a far from straightforward and challenging endeavour. In so doing, we present a theoretically informed analysis of the construction and operationalisation of public benefit in the context of an urban waterfront, through the creation of five categories/types of public benefit.•Our contribution to knowledge is that in one sense public benefit could be regarded as a ‘valid/usable concept’ for spatial planning as it rhetorically captures a wide canvas of positives for the city and its people. However, when we unpack the concept and apply it to different demographic groups it becomes more challenging as an operational concept. Given this, its practical utility is less effective as it does not deal efficaciously with the differential, material and distributional consequences of competitive waterfronts.•We call for future research to drill down and excavate further the empirical realities of waterfront redevelopment schemes in relation to different socio-economic groups; this can generate a more accurate grasp of public benefit, and more specifically who benefits?