Identity, politics and conflict in dockland development in Cork, Ireland: European Capital of Culture 2005

doi:10.1016/j.cities.2007.01.006

Cities, Vol. 24, No. 4, p. 311–323, 2007 Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 0264-2751/$ - see front matter

www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

Identity, politics and conflict in dockland development in Cork, Ireland: European Capital of Culture 2005 Cian O’Callaghan

*

and Denis Linehan

Department of Geography, University College Cork, Western Road, Cork, Ireland Received 21 July 2006; received in revised form 8 December 2006; accepted 14 January 2007 Available online 16 April 2007

This paper will explore the politics of waterfront development as it emerged around Cork’s preparation and tenure of the 2005 European Capital of Culture. Many cities in recent decades have encouraged the cultural sectors and the arts as a pathway for urban regeneration. As this strategy unfolded in Cork, the festival enabled new modes of urban entrepreneurial governance to be practiced and new visions of the city projected. Informed by current debates on neo-liberal urban strategies in North American and European cities, the paper explores how these urban strategies were articulated by elite actors, who attempted to appropriate the European Capital of Culture event to support their growth plans for the city, and the docklands in particular. The paper then considers how this pro-growth urban imaginary was contested as it clashed with the experience and expectations of the local arts scene. We argue that an exploration of the strategies for the dockland and the 2005 European Capital of Culture event offers us a way into understanding how economy and culture are inscribed upon the Irish urban landscape. Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Waterfront, urban regeneration, urban governance, European Capital of Culture, Cork, Ireland

Introduction

as key sites for investment and speculation and the focus of attempts to reinvent the meaning of the urban environment as a site for consumption. Marshall (2001, p. 5) suggestion that ‘‘. . .waterfronts became associated with ways to recreate the image of a city, to recapture economic investment, and to attract people back to deserted downtowns. . .’’ has a strong resonance in the contemporary Irish urban scene. Against the background of the economic and political transformation of the Irish ‘Celtic Tiger’ economy, this paper will explore the politics of waterfront development as they have emerged in Cork city (pop. 123,062) (Edwards and Linehan, 2005). These plans for the docklands have become a symbolic testament to the overall vision for the city, a statement of intent and an advertisement for the growing city-region. Soja (2000, pp. 211–212) has argued that attempts by cities and regions to ‘‘. . .reconstitute their

The governance and growth of Irish cities are increasingly shaped by entrepreneurial urban strategies (Punch, 2005; Maclaren and McGuirk, 2001). The growing tendency to centralise planning powers, the increased involvement of the private sector in provision of urban services and a decline in the public provision of housing and recreational facilities increasingly shape the Irish urban landscape. In this context, revitalised docklands in Dublin, Cork and Limerick have become emblematic landscapes of the post-industrial Irish city (Moore, 2002). These developments mirror the recent histories of dockland areas internationally, where they have emerged

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +353-21-490-4288; fax: +353-21-4271980; e-mails: [email protected], [email protected].

311

Identity, politics and conflict in dockland development in Cork, Ireland: C O’Callaghan and D Linehan

traditional behaviour, their fundamental spatiality and lived spaces, as a means of restricting and/or adapting to the contemporary condition. . .is where the cutting edge research and most progressive social movements of the future are likely to be found’’. Sensitive to the potential critical outcomes of this kind of observation, the paper reviews the political and economic developments of the docklands in the context of the city’s re-invention during Cork’s preparation for its year as European Capital of Culture. Many cities in recent decades have encouraged the cultural sectors and the arts as a pathway for urban regeneration (McCarthy, 2005). It is also now widely accepted that ‘‘. . .hallmark events are important redevelopment tools utilised by entrepreneurial governments’’ (Owen, 2002, p. 323). We argue that as this strategy unfolded in Cork, the festival sustained and created the conditions for existing forms of entrepreneurial governance to evolve by creating new opportunities for imagining the future of Cork and shaping the developmental agenda of the city. Informed by current discussions on neo-liberal strategies in the North American and European cities, the paper explores how these urban strategies were articulated by elite actors, who attempted to appropriate the Capital of Culture event to support their growth plans for the city, and the docklands in particular. The paper then considers how the pro-growth urban imaginary was contested, as the re-invention of the city’s material and symbolic urban identities clashed with the expectations of practitioners in the local arts scene. We argue that an exploration of the strategies for the docks and the 2005 European Capital of Culture event offers us a way into understanding how economy and culture are inscribed upon the Irish urban landscape. To consider these issues, we use semistructured interviews with planners, politicians and community activists together with an analysis of planning documentation, online forums and community based documentation through which these new urban strategies were practised.

Gaelic river, global harbor From a nation characterised in the early 1990s by high unemployment and high emigration, the OECD has recently ranked Ireland in the top group of high income countries, along with Luxembourg, Norway, USA and Switzerland. Ireland has the lowest unemployment rate of any country in the European Union (OECD, 2005). The impact of such rapid economic change has inevitably been expressed in the built environment. For example, one-third of the state’s housing stock has been built since 1996. The nature of urban economies and labour markets has shifted, with a growing orientation towards services, and a decline of manufacturing. Until comparatively recently, Dublin and it is metropolitan region reaped most of the dividends of urban 312

growth and regeneration (Bartley and Shine, 2002; Corcoran, 2002; McDonald, 2000; Moore, 1998, 2002; Russell, 2001). Long after Dublin had redeveloped significant sections of its docklands and rejuvenated the cultural quarter of Temple Bar, the city centre of Cork was rundown and the urban realm in general was in poor shape. Despite Cork’s location in the second fastest growing regional economy in Ireland, the city became increasingly polarised, with significant areas of urban deprivation (Linehan, 2005). Cork’s extensive riverside was neglected, and the dockland areas in particular became increasingly redundant and dislocated from the heart of the city. Cork also experienced a steady loss of population reflecting emigration and migration to the outer suburbs from the inner city. In 2002, emerging from this long period of apparent urban obsolescence, it was announced that Cork was being awarded the title of European Capital of Culture, 2005. While Cork City Council had been making piecemeal moves towards regeneration from the early 1990s, this was a watershed event which had profound consequence for how the city was imagined and developed, especially in terms of how it would disturb the material and symbolic landscapes of the city in the years that followed. In the initial bid for the title of European Capital of Culture made in 2001, the cultural and economic history of Cork as port city was being constructed by Cork City Council as a central theme of its reinvention. Under the rubric of ‘‘Gaelic River, Global Harbour’’ the city’s waterfront, its river and its harbour became central spaces through which the city was imagined as simultaneously local and global. In a flourish of rhetoric, the city was practically ‘born again’ as the municipality undertook to reenvision Cork as a European city, anchored in global flows of trade, information and culture. ‘‘Long recognised as the natural capital of Ireland’s Southern coast, our city has always looked outward to the commercial and cultural traffic of the European seas’’ (Cork City Council, 2001a). Within the rhetoric of this imagined geography of economic and cultural exchange, the City Council created a version of the city which emphasised the significance of cultural activities to future prosperity. A key way this was achieved was through linking the Capital of Culture event to the development of the knowledge economy in Cork. This new economy based on research and development has brought unprecedented wealth into the Cork hinterland. . .A new generation of workers, brilliant and educated is everywhere: in restaurants, theatres, concert halls and Art Galleries. (Cork City Council, 2001a) . . .we always recognised that cities now all over the world are in competition with each other. . .for inward investment. . .for tourism. . .And we recognised the value of. . .this nomination as European Cap-

Identity, politics and conflict in dockland development in Cork, Ireland: C O’Callaghan and D Linehan

ital of Culture. . .to all aspects of the city. (Meany, 2005)

elites began to revise their strategy for development. As one local journalist explained,

From the beginning, this approach created a context in which culture and development were to be co-produced. Festival organizers expected that: ‘‘The substantial programme of urban renewal, infrastructural and environmental improvements being undertaken by public and private sector over the 4-year period will create new opportunities for the Cork 2005 cultural programme.’’ (Cork City Council, 2001a). As such, the festival provided a stage on which growth and development were promoted. In adopting this approach, elements of the strategy developed for the European Capital of Culture bid were co-coordinated by the Arts Officer in the city council in association with members of what Florida (2002) has termed ‘‘the creative class,’’ from two key arts-based organizations in the city – the Munster Literature Centre and the National Sculpture Factory. These moves corresponded to trends already observed elsewhere in the world, where urban strategists have recognised how the production of culture is a key way of framing development and attracting inward investment (see Miles, 1997; Gibson and Stevenson, 2004). But such strategies may establish boundaries that are exclusionary. In this regard, Cork was no different from the trend to capitalize on major cultural events seen in other bids for urban spectacles (Hiller, 1990; Owen, 2002). As Chalkley and Essex (1999, p. 369) notes ‘‘. . .this approach offers host cities the possibility of ‘fast track[ing]’ urban regeneration, a stimulus to economic growth, improved transport and cultural facilities, and enhanced global recognition and prestige’’. All developments in the city – such as the redesign of the city’s main shopping thoroughfare by the Barcelonan urban designer Beth Gali – were framed in terms of their contribution to the 2005 event. Subsequently, City Council embarked on a series of capital projects in the arts, tourism and in infrastructure – significant in terms of the city’s size – to the value of €196 million (Cork City Council, 2004a). As a consequence, the Capital of Culture event, as adopted by City Council became entangled with issues of economic and urban development in the city and began to become alienated from issues of social equity and civic participation. These types of projects have their roots back in the late 1990s, when City Council had begun to experiment with an increasingly entrepreneurial policy in its development approach. For instance, it played a key role in managing urban regeneration areas identified through special tax-designations and implemented a new local tax for household waste collection (see Department of Revenue, 2005). Operating out of the context of a rapidly declining city in terms of urban environment and a shallow pool of local property developers with small scale ambitions, city management and local business

. . .about two or three years ago a lot of people realised that Cork was falling behind. . .and nothing was happening. And there was a couple of seminars. Chamber of Commerce, other vested interests, representative bodies, started running events. . .one was called ‘Getting Cork Moving’, there was a second one then, it was called ‘Keeping Cork Moving’. . .part of the reason for that [Cork’s stagnant development climate] I think was you had old families who had pots of money and they owned all the land, they’d no interest, they didn’t need any more money, people like that just ‘storing’ [retaining undeveloped sites] and I think maybe to some extent sitting on lots and lots of money and development wasn’t their priority (Anonymous (a), 2005).

In fact, while new property development was relatively slow, development interests within the city clearly benefited from tax incentive schemes put in place at state level and implemented by the City Council since the late 1980s (KPMG, 1996). In 1986, 327,794 m2 of space was designated for urban renewal in the city. Between 1990 and 1994, a further 471,846 m2 of property in the city was designated. Coinciding with a revision of the urban renewal scheme in 1994, the City Council launched two other initiatives; the ‘Living Over the Shop’ scheme – a plan to convert unutilised space over city centre shops into apartments – and the Historic Centre Action Plan (HCAP). The latter was partly funded by European Commission under Conservation of European Cities Programme and was designed to rejuvenate the historic core of the city. As the first programme of its kind in the country, the HCAD preceded Dublin’s HARP initiative by several years and as a consequence Cork was awarded the Silver Jubilee Cup from the Royal Town Planning Institute in 2000 (Hourihan, 2006, pp. 265–277). As Hourihan (2006, p. 273) suggests, the plan also explicitly ‘‘. . .pump-primed the private sector for city centre renewal, by demonstrating the economic viability of older buildings’’. The success of tax incentive based schemes encouraged renewal activity outside the designated areas. The City Council’s effective management of the tax-incentive scheme nurtured development interests in Cork, and paved the way for the growth of public–private partnership in redeveloping the city; an aim that was explicitly being advocated by other interests in Cork. Along with providing recommendations on the enhancement of road, air and rail infrastructures in the Cork region, the Irish Business and Employers Federation’s (IBEC) Moving Cork Forward report also advocated the use of public–private partnership between City Council and private developers (IBEC, 2000). Through these seminars and activities, an effective partnership was forged between

313

Identity, politics and conflict in dockland development in Cork, Ireland: C O’Callaghan and D Linehan

Cork Chamber of Commerce and other representative business associations and the City Council. Typical of these arrangements was the establishment in January 1998 of Cork City Challenge Ltd., which expanded the partnership between the City Council, the Chamber of Commerce and Cork Business Association. Referred to by the Chamber of Commerce as ‘‘Our City Centre Advocate’’ (Cork Chamber of Commerce, 2005) Cork City Challenge Ltd. policy remit is concerned with the continual development of the city centre, concentrating on economic, cultural and planning related areas. This partnership between city hall and a new business elite hungry to capitalize on the growing economy of the ‘Celtic Tiger’ were given a clear plan for strategic development by the creation of two major urban plans; one for the metropolitan region and the second for the docklands. The ambitious developments envisioned in these plans provided the strategy for new investment as well as articulating a clear bid for a new type of post-industrial economy. The first of these plans was the Cork Area Strategic Plan (CASP). This plan redefined the towns and areas in the immediate hinterland of Cork City as a single integrated zone known as ‘Metropolitan Cork’. Covering an area determined by a time journey of 45 min from Cork city and defined as the ‘Cork City Region’, the CASP provided a strategic approach to developing the region as a ‘‘. . .dynamic and progressive European City Region, which is a superb place in which to live and work’’ (Cork City Council, 2001b). Recognizing Cork city as the major economic driver for the region, the overall goal of CASP was to reinforce a city region, which works collectively in attracting investment and ‘‘improving competitiveness.’’ CASP marked a major turning point. The plan refocused the scales upon which Cork’s urban policy operated and was particularly nuanced in it appreciation of the ways in which the city-region needed to re-shape itself to attract foreign investment. Critically, however, the CASP also established the regional context for the development of the docklands, which was set out as the jewel in the crown for the city’s ongoing development.

Festivalisation, spectacle and speculation in docklands The Cork Docklands Development Strategy (referred to here as CDDS) was published in 2002. Devised by the urban design consultancy, Urban Initiatives, the plan focused attention on Cork’s large industrialised docklands – an area twice the size of the city centre on an expansive waterfront. As imagined in the CDDS, Cork would become a functioning site for the knowledge economy, a post-industrial pleasure zone of consumption and entertainment with mixed-use high-quality urban 314

design and public realm. The imagery the City used throughout the CDDS firmly located waterfront development in Cork within an international aesthetic of dockland regeneration. The vernacular landscape of the dockside was marked for the inclusion of new shops and restaurants, while post-modern office buildings were envisioned on the riverside. The plan’s development strategy took its starting point that the city’s waterfront should be a key site for future expansion and development of the city region. It provided a framework to double the size of Cork’s city centre, while simultaneously re-orientating its urban grain and function. ‘‘The Cork Docklands Development Strategy. . . sets out a vision for a new urban quarter in Cork that will revitalize the city through high quality, contemporary design and a vibrant mix of uses. Building on the unique character of Cork and the dramatic setting of the Docklands, the vision for the area identified the need for a development strategy to compete with other Irish and European waterfronts’’ (Cork City Council, 2002, p. 2). The plan formulated a strategy for the transformation of the industrial docks and working port into a post-industrial waterfront area over a phased period of 25 years. It included a plan for 1.83 million square meters of non-residential uses including office, retail, public, university and leisure space, approximately 6000 new homes, a new university campus, new pedestrian routes, and a public transport system. Its chief aim was to integrate the regenerated docks area with the city (see Figure 1). Given the significant impact the proposed dockland plan would have in the urban area, the development strategy also set out to address a number of issues in the city through the extension of commercial and office space of the CDB and the provision of additional residential units. The overriding concern for City Council was to establish the docklands as the focal point for future investment and development and to act as an economic driver for the region. As a discursive tool, the plan made visible Cork’s Docklands, portrayed an untapped potential in the city, and attempted to position it clearly on the international investors’ map. It visualised a future for an expanded city and sought to re-orientate the urban, commercial and cultural assets of the region. Suggesting a need for a ‘‘development strategy to rival other Irish and European Waterfronts’’ and acknowledging that regeneration in ‘‘other docklands and waterfront locations have brought considerable economic and environmental benefits and vibrancy to surrounding regions and hinterland,’’ the strategy similarly aimed to redevelop the waterfront through private-sector investment (Cork City Council, 2002, p. 2). The complex set of landownership of the docklands made the negotiation of largescale land deals in the site difficult, particularly because the City owned little or no land on the waterfront. Acknowledging the ‘‘market potential’’

Identity, politics and conflict in dockland development in Cork, Ireland: C O’Callaghan and D Linehan

Figure 1 Looking down on Cork docklands and city centre from the east (Photo Toma´s Tyner).

of space within the docklands and the slow pattern of commercial growth within the city, the development strategy aimed to restructure the developmental terrain of the docks by creating a new land-use plan which would be defined through participatory planning and community consultation ‘‘involving local authority, key players and agencies, and community interests’’ (Cork City Council, 2002, p. 2). While the plan for the docks required significant public investment, it was heavily dependent on the private development sector. The plan sought to focus investment on a major regeneration project, which aimed to establish the docks as a site of radically new urban spaces and as an economic driver for the Cork region. This was to be achieved through inviting property developers into partnership to regenerate the waterfront. In effect, the publication of the CDDS was to act as a major catalyst that would attract investment capital and thereby contribute to redefining the property development climate in Cork. However, thus far, communities have not been served well by these changes. The recent contestation over a proposed docklands site on Water Street in the Dockland area suggests that community interests are not being prioritised by the private development sector. The mixed-use development has been the site of ongoing conflict between Cork City Council and Werdna property developers since 2004. Having been refused planning permission by the City Council, Werdna took the case to the national appeals board, An Bord Pleanala, in May 2005. The local community voiced its opposition to the scale and height of the proposed mixed-use development and, during the

oral appeal for the case, stated that its interests were not being taken into account. The Water Street site is of key strategic importance to the future of Cork’s Docklands initiative for a number of reasons. After the Clarion Hotel, it is only the second major development in the docklands proper and it contributes to one of the main objectives in the CDDS – that of bringing density to the area – in that its primary focus is residential. In addition it is to be developed on a brown field site that is an amalgamation of McMahon Timber Merchants and the Port of Cork site. Despite these positive credentials, the site became the focus of much controversy. The revised plans for the site include 304 apartments (originally 400), along with a business centre, offices, cre`che and a riverside plaza and boardwalk. The inclusion of a 17 story tower as a ‘landmark building’ has proved to be the major source of conflict. The idea of ‘Landmark Buildings’ was conceived in the City’s 2004 Development Plan, where it was suggested they would provide dramatic entrance points to the city (Cork City Council, 2004b). The area around Water Street however was not zoned for a ‘Landmark Building’ and the City Council were skeptical of its introduction. The City Council felt that the design of the building lacked architectural merit, that it would obscure strategic views of the Montenottee Ridge and that it would have an adverse impact on access to natural light for the residents of Lower Glanmire Road, which stands behind the development site. In an unusual move, the City Council split the Water Street site in two, granting permission for one section and denying permission for the section 315

Identity, politics and conflict in dockland development in Cork, Ireland: C O’Callaghan and D Linehan

including the tower block. Subsequent to Werdna taking the appeal to An Bord Pleanala, the case was presented in an oral hearing featuring representatives from the City Council, Murray O’ Laoire Architects and the Lower Glanmire Road Residents Association. The importance of the site in terms of the future of the city was acutely pronounced during this hearing. That the site would set future standards – of height, design and infrastructural provision – was acknowledged by both the applicant and City Council, but their notions of best practice in this regard differed. While the interests of the City Council often overlapped with those of the residents association – particularly on the issue of height – they were nevertheless more adamant that they wanted to see the development go ahead. In contrast, the local community argued that the development was too large in scale and that instead of seeking to integrate it with the existing area, it was imposed on them without consideration for their interests. One representative suggested; It’s all fine for the people living in the apartments looking out onto the river, but you need to think about those behind (Lower Glanmire Road Residents Association, 2006).

Given both its symbolic and strategic importance to the continued re-development of the docklands area, the Water Street site can be viewed as a benchmark for the city in terms of both the future of urban design and infrastructural provision and the future of relationships between City Council, development interests and community interests. In this way the outcome of the appeal will have a significant impact on the future development of the docklands and on the place of communitarian interests in the urban political structures of re-generation in the city. A decision on the case is currently due December 2006, after having been pushed back on a number of occasions.

European Capital of Culture: new modes of governance From 2000 onwards, Joe Gavin the new City Manager, became a central figure in reshaping the urban ‘growth machine’ in the city (Barker, 2000). In Ireland, the City Manager holds an administrative position. He or she will delegate to other offices and carry into policy decisions passed by the elected City Council, in addition to having ultimate responsibility for the running and management of the various departments within the Council. Though unelected, the City Manager holds the most powerful position within the local government system and have historically played an highly directional role in shaping the urban and economic strategies of Irish cities. In this context, Gavin was a prominent fixture in the local and national 316

media, promoting the city and citing the Docklands Strategy as the city’s magnus opus. He portrayed Cork as a city on the way up, one that was open for development. Photographs of Gavin, in heroic pose, back dropped by the vast expanse of Cork’s docks became regular fixtures in the local and national media, along with glowing reports suggesting great things for the future of the city. (see for example Barker, 2004a,b; O’Sullivan, 2004; Roach, 2005) (see Figure 2). The Docklands became Cork’s development agenda writ large, while at the same time determining what that agenda was to be. Using this plan, one of Gavin’s key initiatives was to tackle the city’s dilapidated and abandoned sites and houses, particularly in key developmental areas, through the utilisation of the powers of the 1990 Derelict Sites Act (see footnote for further discussion).1 The powers of the Derelict Sites Act, which had been rarely used in the country outside of Dublin, permitted City Council to obtain property that had been left derelict for a number of years from the land owner under a compulsory purchase order if the landowner refused to develop or sell the site for development. Gavin used these powers to stimulate the property market into action, clearing up pockets of dereliction in the city. Within the five years that followed, Cork’s skyline featured cranes towering over new developments throughout the city centre. Amongst other things, Gavin promoted higher density and high-rise buildings in the city centre. Within some groups these transformations were widely welcomed. For example Archiseek – an online architectural discussion forum, which had a number of active chat-threads concerning Cork – was characterised by posts such as the one below; . . .Great news about Eglinton Street!!! Finally Cork is starting to look like a city and a lot less like a collection of tool sheds with some churches thrown in for good measure! Only messing, sure amnt (sic) I proud of the old girl myself but its (sic) good to see Eglinton street get planning (pier39, 2005).

Under Gavin’s gaze, the networks of developmental, corporate and commercial interests trumpeted the development agenda in Cork in visible ways. Gavin’s development trajectory facilitated development of the first docklands site, which represented both the new style of architecture and mode of governance in the city. The Clarion Hotel on Lapps Quay offers a four-star experience with bar, restaurant, spa, pool and gym and with ‘‘nothing over-

1 In the wake of deindustrialisation significant sites in the city were left vacant and undeveloped, while the main shopping thoroughfare was congested by traffic and provided a poor pedestrian environment.

Identity, politics and conflict in dockland development in Cork, Ireland: C O’Callaghan and D Linehan

Figure 2 A city on the up: City Manager Joe Gavin photographed in front of developments on Cork docklands (Photo The Irish Times).

looked but the [River] Lee’’ (Clarion Hotel, 2005). As the first major development on the docklands, the site was considered to be of major importance to both City Council and property developers in terms of its position as a benchmark for future development in the docklands and the planning authority was anxious to ‘get it right’. The impressive design of the building, along with a treated boardwalk, was used as leverage by developer Howard Holdings’ to secure planning permission from the local authority for additional height and a number of other concessions (Anonymous (b), 2005). The structure is architecturally reminiscent of an international waterfront aesthetic, while the treated boardwalk frames the river as a site of consumption, leisure and ambiance. As a primary site in the docks, the redeveloped Lapps Quay succeeds in re-interpreting the waterfront in both economic and symbolic terms. Surrounding sites such as Howard Holdings office development on Lavvits Quay and O’ Flynn Construction’s development on Eglinton Street help to achieve similar results (see Figure 3). For some however, the range of new buildings, their design and their impact on the city centre was a matter of some dispute. Frank McDonald, the environmental editor of the Irish Times criticised the range of new developments sponsored under Joe Gavin’s administration as largely ‘‘humdrum,’’ ‘‘vulgar’’ and ‘‘dreadful’’ (McDonald, 2005). However, local property developer Owen O’Callaghan was scathing in his rebuttal of McDonald’s criticism and affected a level of civic pride and confidence, suggesting that,

In recent years, Cork has emerged from being a city where nothing happened to one in which there has been an unprecedented level of development and economic prosperity. The city’s previous atrophied state largely arose from Frank McDonald-type ‘‘values’’ being forced on a city that was full of dereliction and wasted promise. (O’Callaghan, 2005)

O’Callaghan had been a major player in the development of Cork since the late 1980s when he developed the first major shopping mall in the city centre on Merchant’s Quay. He has been a primary actor in ensuring consumption-led urban regeneration initiatives have been supported by the city council. More recently his projects include a new shopping mall in Mahon – one of Cork’s suburbs – and at the time of writing he is developing a large site for retail activities in the city centre. O’Callaghan’s strong civic sentiment was emphasised by his active participation in the Cork 2005 event. Gavin took the view that the Cork 2005 event and the property developments such as the Dockland initiative could be leveraged to meet similar goals. He was fully supportive of the Capital of Culture event as a way of re-imagining Cork and attracting local investment (Cork 2005, 2004, p. v; O’Sullivan, 2004). The festival was marked by Cork City Council as a major catalyst for change and was used as a vehicle for both urban renewal and city marketing. Following his lead, a number of property developers with interests in dockland and riverside properties became active participants in the Capital of Culture event though corporate sponsorship. O’Callaghan for instance

317

Identity, politics and conflict in dockland development in Cork, Ireland: C O’Callaghan and D Linehan

Figure 3 Howard Holdings’ Clarion Hotel development on Lapps Quay (Photo Cian O’Callaghan).

generously provided free exhibition space at a riverside gallery and a prime retail unit on St Patrick’s Street for the 2005 information office. In total, €6.5 million was donated by corporate sponsors to Cork 2005, which represented 31% of the total €21 million budget. In the context of the overall development of the city, a number of issues emerge from these activities which demonstrate the ways in which culture and developments such as docklands, were intertwined and politicised. The first is that despite Cork 2005 aspirations to equity with the inclusion of several community-based projects in their programme, corporate sponsorship privileged a claim to the city which promoted prosperity and growth over social inclusion and citizenship. In many ways, this reimagination of the city and its growth potential, mirrored the sentiments established in the CDDS, by making a partial claim to history and heritage as long as it could facilitate a regime of capitalist accumulation: It [Cork 2005] comes at a moment of renewal and optimism. In recent years we have become a much more open society and a more open city. Encouraged by the City Manager, Joe Gavin, people have a sense of a new kind of city, a vibrant city, a Cork of the future. Cork 2005 will not only make the new city better known, but will create a legacy of knowledge;

318

a model of what a city can be if we all work together. (Dinan, 2004, p. xvi)

These sentiments sought to use Cork 2005 as a platform for creating consensus around the development trajectory promoted by Gavin and privileging strategies that more broadly resituate Cork in the knowledge economy. Recent developments in Cork aim to take advantage of new knowledge-based ‘industries’ and the dominant discursive climate created around new development promotes this transition by presenting it as the inevitable (and only possible) trajectory of Cork’s development. As we will conclude below, this discourse continues to have consequences for how ongoing docklands development is projected – essentially for large office development and retailing. In addition, many critics have noted how the upshot of increased city marketing and branding has led to a crisis of social equity and how the concentration on creating a marketable image for a region often detracts from initiatives to deal with real social problems (Albet, 2005; Bunnell, 2002a,b; Hannigan, 1998; Neill, 1993). Ward’s (2003) work on East Manchester in the UK suggests that with the regeneration of this area, local residents were, both by blatant and covert means of regulation, forced to modify their behaviour to accord to new images and ‘identities’ ascribed to this space.

Identity, politics and conflict in dockland development in Cork, Ireland: C O’Callaghan and D Linehan

The remainder of this paper is concerned with exploring how opposition to the production of Cork’s image as portrayed in the Cork 2005 event was mounted, and how the regulatory space of developmental politics in the city was marked as a contested terrain, entangled with issues of inclusion and exclusion and a right to the city.

European Capital of Culture: contestation and the right to the city For many of the city’s populace, the Cork 2005 programme represented an over concentration on ‘high art’. Although there was a strong emphasis on community projects in the programme, large sections of the population felt the festival bypassed the kinds of culture they appreciate (English, 2004). This was highlighted in one instance by the establishment of the ‘Where’s Me Culture?’ (Referred to here as WMC?) group in late 2004. Taking its name from a play on the song ‘Where’s me Jumper?’ by a cult Cork band, The Sultans of Ping FC, the group was set up as a ‘popular cultural initiative for 2005 and beyond’. With a tagline reading ‘Anything Can Happen, Everyone is Welcome!’ the group was established as a reaction to a perception that certain aspects of Cork’s culture – including the local music scene – were neglected by the official programme. Building on a socialist iconography of the popular internet initiative ‘The People’s Republic of Cork’, the group’s manifesto was based on inclusiveness, cultural and civic participation and belonging. Its website proclaimed (Where’s Me Culture, 2005), We believe that responsibility for celebrating Cork as a cultural city is neither the sole preserve nor the sole responsibility of the Cork 2005 office. Cultural expression is the responsibility of all. We believe that imagination and energy and a willingness to help each other is more important than a large budget. . .As a collective we wish to work alongside and not against Cork2005, however, it is fair to say that individuals within WMC? are critical of Cork2005 to varying degrees and for a variety of reasons. But we believe that being critical is not enough and, at this stage, is beside the point. We wish to do things for ourselves, to make cultural interventions, to have fun, to give expression to the rich cultural life of the city we have chosen to live in. (WMC?,2005)

As local governmental structures increasingly manoeuvre towards a neo-liberal political context, WMC? in its embracing of a participatory and nonprofit appreciation of art and cultural expression, directly confront some of the recent globalization directions taken by the City. WMC? events were generally directed less toward the culture of a global elite and more toward the interests of local residents. In particular, their ‘Big Party’ – involving live

music, stand up comedy, DJ sets, performances by local artists – and family orientated ‘Big Picnic’ events, which took place a number of times during 2005, were well attended and highly successful. Some WMC? members used these events to discuss how Cork 2005 was being used to orient development toward global interests. As we have suggested previously, there was a strong relationship between Cork 2005 and the developmental profile of the city. But, many authors (Chalkley and Essex, 1999; Hiller, 1990) have criticised the use of mega-festivals as a way of raising the investment profile of a region. In particular, some sections of Cork’s artistic community criticised this strategy (see Figure 4): Cork 2005 was built on a corporate structure, it had a director, it had a board, the whole lot, and it showed. They didn’t really engage with what I would call the other independent, the more left of field artists. . .Speaking for myself, I was more unhappy with the corporate vibe, I mean the logo, you couldn’t use the logo without paying for it, that was very corporate rubbish stuff (Anonymous (c), 2006).

Several artists staged protests at public seminars, suggesting Cork 2005 had been constructed fundamentally as an economic development strategy. In addition, a series of posters displayed throughout the city centre during 2005, but created anonymously, claimed that regulatory forces had restricted the types of art ‘permitted’ in Cork. One poster declared that local artists were ‘‘harassed, arrested and prosecuted’’ for selling their work and depicted City Hall draped in Coca Cola banners.2 These protests dramatised concerns in the city about the commodification of cultural activities and argued for a stronger emphasis on ‘the local’ rather than ‘the cosmopolitan’ as represented in the headline activities in the Cork 2005 programme. Some people involved in WMC? felt that the Cork 2005 director should have been from Cork rather than Dublin. Director John Kenny, they argued, had little indepth knowledge of local culture and the art scene. Keohane (2006) traces these types of dichotomies from Cork’s position as a provincial city. He claims that as the merchant families rose in social status, they affected the lifestyles of the nobility through appropriating cultural capital, much of which he explains was already appropriated from abroad. Looking to another cultural horizon for their tastes, Keohane suggests is a process that continues today with Cork’s native elite; a point that is clearly illustrated through much of the Cork 2005 programme of events. It is important here however not to over-stress the role of WMC? The establishment of the group was

2 A second poster implied (somewhat incredulously) that online media are critical of Cork 2005 was being blocked by state security.

319

Identity, politics and conflict in dockland development in Cork, Ireland: C O’Callaghan and D Linehan

Figure 4 Poster advertising the Where’s Me Culture? Big Picnic (Image Where’s Me Culture?).

symptomatic of a desire to challenge the representation put on the Capital of Culture event by the City Council. This does not suggest however that the representation put forward by WMC? was more ‘authentic’ than that of Cork 2005, although for those involved in the group or at the fringes of such activity it would have been seen as such. While WMC? offered a ‘way in’ to the culture year for many groups and individuals within the city, its activities would have gone unnoticed by large sections of Cork’s population, whose cultural interests were not represented through either group. Nevertheless, while the events promoted through WMC? tended to be somewhat blinkered in their range, they challenged the dominant claim to the city – based on commerce and development – that was expressed by Cork 2005. A local Socialist Party Councilor, Mick Barry, dramatised similar issues through more conventional 320

political channels. He leveled criticisms at the City Manager over property developers’ funding of Cork 2005. Referring to the City Manager’s claims that he had personally approached local property development companies to sponsor Cork 2005 in the previous Council meeting, Barry put forward a motion at a City Council Chamber meeting (seconded by a Green Party representative) proposing that the City Manager’s action was an ‘‘error of judgment’’ and that he should make a public apology. An unfriendly amendment to the motion immediately followed, put forward by a Fianna Fail (Ireland’s largest political party) representative. That amendment, ‘‘. . .thanks and commends the City Manager for his active involvement’’ in shaping Cork 2005 (Cork City Council, 2005a). The amended motion passed by a wide majority. Media coverage of the event adds an additional dimension. The Irish Examiner (a daily national

Identity, politics and conflict in dockland development in Cork, Ireland: C O’Callaghan and D Linehan

newspaper based in Cork), reported the Socialist Party Councilor’s initial reservations regarding the City Manager’s admissions – which he had voiced in Council Chambers on 14 November 2005 – with the headline ‘Manager attack claims over funding’ (Barker, 2005). Such rhetoric defends the actions of the City Manager, while relegating Barry’s concerns to sensationalism and scandal. We believe, however, that this event should be seen as symptomatic of Cork City Council’s move to a more entrepreneurial approach. Barry’s motion to Council indicates a concern for an increased influence of private-sector interests on public policy in the development processes of the city. As he suggests, You’ve also got a situation in recent years, where the [state] government have given increased powers to the Council of Bureaucracy and in particular to the City Manager at the expense of the power of the Council and in the city here we have a City Manager who is very much pro development and works very closely with the big developers in the city. . .I think that where you have a clash of interests between a big property developer and a community, particularly if it’s a working class community, that the [elected] Council will tend to side with the big money interests unless they’re put under massive grassroots pressure or opposition. (Barry, 2006)

During the current neo-liberal period, many authors have expressed concerns about democratic processes in cities (see, for example, Purcell, 2002, 2003; Harvey, 2003). They suggest that an entrepreneurial governance approach can have negative impacts on the rights of citizens. In this case, Barry’s concerns provide a clear example of how these concerns have taken shape in Cork: a worry that the public sector has become increasingly dependent on the private sector giving rise to negative impacts on local – especially working class – communities. An interrogation of the shifts in governance structures of Cork opens up a host of contentious issues about social equity and social inclusion. The Cork 2005 event is emblematic of the increasingly central role that cultural policy has played in developmental politics of the city and, in particular, of the marketing of selected aspects of its cultural and artistic scene. The city’s new governance structures have used these policies for novel methods of place promotion. But these polices have given rise to major concerns of cultural appropriation and have been resisted. Resistance has taken two interrelated forms. In the first instance, the artistic communities have asserted their rights to self representation. Facilitated to a large extent by WMC?, various individuals and groups launched their own projects of art and culture during the cultural year. This is not to suggest that WMC? represented a set of radicals. Indeed, according to the City’s Arts Officer Liz Meany, the Cork 2005 committee had anticipated

and welcomed the establishment of such a group (Meany, 2005). WMC? demonstrated the potential of challenging the appropriation of the cultural sphere by City Council and business interests in Cork. Secondly, there is overt opposition in the city’s independent art scene and in some independently owned businesses to increasingly neo-liberalised governance structures in Cork City Council and the influences of globalization on the city. As ever more entrepreneurial strategies at local level help place Cork in the grasp of the post-industrial knowledge economy, critics have focused on the accelerated economic drive of the city’s developmental policies, protesting the scale, type and function of contemporary developments geared toward property development and consumption. The city then can be recognised as a space of contested politics, competing identities and a battle for meaning as the urban environment is re-negotiated and reclaimed. As the festival drew to a close, the contestations it brought to the fore were left unresolved. In the absence of the European Capital of Culture year, the public forum for alternative voices in the city has diminished, and although dissent voices are still evident, they are not as coordinated. During early 2006, WMC? dissipated and is now defunct. A thriving independent art scene, however, remains and some of the ideals of WMC? continue. At the same time, some recent moves by City Council in relation to the docks serve to further complicate waterfront development matters. In June 2006, Cork City Council published the Cork Docklands Economic Study, a document that distilled much of the original docklands strategy to the provision of large-scale and generic office space and a bid for a museum to draw in tourists (Cork City Council, 2006). This report, along with individual Local Area Plans for the North Docks (Cork City Council, 2005b) and for the South Docks (due in March 2007), are representative of Cork City Council’s pursuing its entrepreneurial agenda, heedless of protests about the vision of the city encapsulated within it. In June 2006, however, the Arts Office announced plans to publish a report by the end of the year examining the possibility for constructing art and cultural spaces within the docks. Although this may be positive, the extent to which these intentions are merely place promotion tactics on the part of City Council remains to be seen. Despite other areas in the city being in dire need of urban regeneration – notably the city’s Northside – following lobbying at national and European level by the City Council and the Cork based Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Michea´l Martin, T.D., in October 2006 the Cork Docklands was designated as an urban regeneration area under the European Commission approved Ireland’s Regional Aid Map for 2007–2013. This designation will permit state-aid to small and medium firms in the Docklands until the 321

Identity, politics and conflict in dockland development in Cork, Ireland: C O’Callaghan and D Linehan

end of 2013, in addition to opening the door to further and as yet unidentified state-aids to support urban regeneration.

Conclusion ‘‘Irish cities ‘must brand themselves’ to thrive’’ (Pat Cox, Former President of the European Parliament, quoted in Barker, 2006)

Political and economic restructuring at the level of the Irish state has opened up new forms of entrepreneurial governance in the country’s cities (Haidar, 2005; Moore, 2002). As a consequence of these contemporary conditions new modes of planning, strategizing and profiting from the urban and cultural assets of the city have materialised. As this paper has shown, major developmental trajectories in Cork have been underwritten by the emblematic initiatives focused on regenerating the docklands and on re-imagining the identities of the city through the Cork 2005 event. Both the docklands plans and the Captial of Culture can be regarded as spectacles that restaged the city and facilitated entrepreneurial forms of urban governance to emerge. Cork’s economic and developmental trajectory mirrors that of many other western cities. As Swyngedouw (2000, p. 136) notes, the contemporary city has emerged as strategic site for these kinds of processes as ‘‘. . .city imaging, city marketing and the packaging of city life as chunks of commodified units for sale to a burgeoning tourist and business service industry has taken root. . .’’. As such, the spectacle of growth imagined in Cork’s dockland plans and the Cork 2005 event demonstrates the ways in which economy and culture are inscribed upon the urban landscape. It is clear also that attempts to harness the heritage of the city for property-led-development and consumption-led-regeneration has been challenged. The festival acted as a focus for debate and crystallised public opinion into discernable protests. Contestations emphasised through the event were characterised by anti-neoliberalization debates (see Brenner and Theodore, 2002, p. 353) and resistance to a top down appropriation of culture. In this way, the redevelopment of Cork, as represented by the CDDS, dramatizes issues on the ‘right to the city’ (Harvey, 2003; Lefebvre, 1996; Purcell, 2002, 2003). Protests dramatised citizens’ attempts to assert their ‘right’ to have an input in how the city is both shaped and imagined. As a city in transition, in both spatial and political terms, the outcome of these events on Cork is a matter of ongoing concern. The power of property developers in shaping both the urban landscape and stimulating City Council’s development agenda continuously undermines any communitarian and redistributive approaches in the public realm. Urban regeneration in Ireland is dominated by property 322

developers’ interests and the governance of the Irish city has been entrenched in entrepreneurial approaches. That is not to say that reclaiming the city is impossible. An alternative to the corporate landscapes imagined in the Cork docklands plans is not beyond reach. As Euchner and McGovern (2003, p. 307) have argued ‘‘. . .using political institutions and organizations to revitalise cities consistent with a communitarian vision of politics is complicated and difficult but not impossible’’. However, as the docklands continue to be developed, the challenge to create what Friedman (2002) terms ‘The Good City’ – one that is committed to public accountability, equality, inclusiveness and empowerment – remains a critical challenge for the people of Cork.

Acknowledgements The authors thank Gene Desfor and Susannah Bunce for their editorial comments on the paper. Thanks also to two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on advancing the paper. We thank Toma´s Tyner, Where’s Me Culture and the Irish Times for the use of their images in the text. We would also like to extend our thanks to the Irish Research Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences for funding this research. References Albet, A (2005) Barcelona 1979–2004, Between the model and the spectacle. In C Minca (Ed.), Lo spettacolo della citta`/The Spectacle of the City. Cedam, Padova, pp. 1–34. Anonymous (a) (2005) Interview with authors, local journalist Cork., 25 March. Anonymous (b) (2005) Interview with authors, Planner, Cork City Council., 25 May. Anonymous (c) (2006) Interview with music promoter Cork., 27 May. Bartley, B and Shine, K T (2002) Competitive city: governance and the changing dynamics of urban regeneration in Dublin. In Urbanising Globalisation: Urban Redevelopment and Social Polarisation in the European city, E Swyngedouw, F Moulaert and A Rodriguez (eds.), pp. 145–166. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Barker, T (2000) Gavin takes over from Higgins as City Manager. Irish Examiner, 9 May 2000. Barker, T (2004a) Holding back the tide on quay to success. Irish Examiner, 5 February 2004. Barker, T (2004b) City Quarter to reflect Cork’s new image. Irish Examiner, 5 February 2004. Barker, T (2005) Manager attack claims over funding. Irish Examiner, 15 November 2005. Barker, T (2006) Irish cities ‘must brand themselves’ to thrive. Irish Examiner, 13 February 2006. Barry, M (2006) Interview with authors, City Councillor, Socialist Party Cork. 30 January. Brenner, N and Theodore, N (2002) Cities and the geographies of ‘actually existing Neoliberalism’. Antipode 34(3), 356–386. Bunnell, T (2002a) Cities for nations? Examining the city–nation– state relation in information age Malaysia. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 26(2), 2284–2298. Bunnell, T (2002b) (Re)positioning Malaysia: high-tech networks and the multicultural rescripting of national identity. Political Geography 21(1), 105–124.

Identity, politics and conflict in dockland development in Cork, Ireland: C O’Callaghan and D Linehan Chalkley, B and Essex, S (1999) Urban development through hosting international events: a history of the Olympic Games. Planning Perspectives 14(4), 369–394. Clarion Hotel (2005) Clarion Hotel Cork website. http://clarionhotelcorkcity.com/important/html (accessed 03.07.2006). Cork 2005 (2004) City of Making: The Cork 2005 European Capital of Culture Programme, Cork City Council, Cork. Cork Chamber of Commerce (2005) Monthly newsletter for Cork Chamber of Commerce, June 2005. Cork Chamber of Commerce, Cork. Cork City Council (2001a) European Capital of Culture Bid, Cork City Council, Cork. Cork City Council (2001b) Cork Area Strategic Plan, http:// www.corkcity.ie/casp/strategic_plan/ (accessed 13.02.2006). Cork City Council (2002) Cork Docklands Development Strategy, http://www.corkcity.ie/docklands/draft_report.shtml (accessed 13.02.2006). Cork City Council (2004a) Cork City Council Capital Programme, http://www.corkcorp.ie/news/pdf/Capital_Programme.pdf (accessed 13.06.2006). Cork City Council (2004b) Cork City Development Plan, http:// www.corkcity.ie/ourservices/planning/developmentplan/download.shtml (accessed 29.11.2006). Cork City Council (2005a) Council Minutes, 28 November 2005. Cork City Council, Cork. Cork City Council (2005b) North Docks Local Area Plan. http:// www.corkcorp.ie/ourservices/planning/pdf/northdocks (accessed 03.07.06). Cork City Council (2006) Cork Docklands Economic Study: Draft for consultation. http://www.corkcity.ie/docklands/pdf/pdf/ CorkDocklandsEconomicStudy_Main_Report.pdf (accessed 07.03.06). Corcoran, M (2002) On the waterfront. In Ireland Unbound: A Turn of the Century Chronicle, M Corcoran and M Pellion (eds.), pp. 200–214. Institute of Public Administration, Dublin. Department of Revenue (2005) A Guide to Section 23 Relief. http://www.revenue.ie/leaflets/s23.pdf (accessed 14.06.2006). Dinan, A (2004) Thomas Crosbie Holdings: Official Partner. In Cork 2005 City of Making: The Cork 2005 European Capital of Culture Programme, Cork City Council, Cork. pp. xvi–xvii. Edwards, C and Linehan, D (2005) City of Difference: Mapping Social Exclusion in Cork. Cork City Council, Cork. English, E (2004) Is anyone listening to Cork’s claim to culture? Irish Examiner, 22 November 2004. Euchner, C and McGovern, S (2003) Urban Policy Reconsidered. Routledge, New York. Florida, R (2002) The Rise of the Creative Class. Basic Books, New York. Friedman, J (2002) The Prospect of Cities. Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Gibson, L and Stevenson, L (2004) Urban space and the uses of culture. International Journal of Cultural Policy 10(1), 1–4. Haidar, H A (2005) Urban planning and the shifting discourses of governance: the case study of Dublin. Progress in Irish Urban Studies 1(1), 17–26. Hannigan, J (1998) Fantasy City: Pleasure and Profit in the Postmodern Metropolis. Routledge, London. Harvey, D (2003) Debates and developments – the right to the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27(4), 939–941. Hiller, H H (1990) The urban transformation of a landmark event. The 1988 Calgary winter olympics. Urban Affairs Quarterly 26(1), 118–137. Hourihan, K (2006) Cork City in the twentieth century. In Atlas of Cork City, J Crowley, R J Devoy, D Linehan and P O’ Flanagan (eds.), pp. 265–277. Cork University Press. Keohane, K (2006) The Accumulation of Cultural Capital in ‘Cork: European City of Culture 2005’. Irish Review 34, 130–154. KPMG (1996) Study on the Urban Renewal Schemes, Department of the Environment, Dublin.

IBEC (2000) Moving Cork Forward. http://www.ibec.ie/ibec/ buspolicies/buspoliciesdoclib3.nsf/551907fc1606913080256f240 04edf54/f26b95c411b6a33280256bf4004af6f2/$FILE/Cork.pdf (accessed 07.03.06). Lefebvre, H (1996) Writings on Cities Translated and Edited by Kofman, E and Leban, E. Blackwell Publishers, Great Britain. Linehan, D (2005) Urban difference. In Atlas of Cork City, J Crowley, R J Devoy, D Linehan and P O’ Flanagan (eds.), pp. 403–416. Cork University Press. Lower Glanmire Road Residents Association (2006) Oral hearing for the mixed use development on Water Street, An Bord Pleanala. Maclaren, A and McGuirk, P (2001) Changing approaches to planning in an ‘entrepreneurial city’: the case of Dublin. European Planning Studies 9(4), 437–457. Marshall, R (2001) Waterfronts in Post Industrial Cities. Spon Press, London. McCarthy, J (2005) Promoting image and identity in ’cultural quarters’: the case of Dundee. Local Economy 20(3), 280–293. McDonald, F (2000) The Construction of Dublin. Gandon Editions, Kinsale Co., Cork. McDonald, F (2005) Little to show for year as European Capital of Culture. Irish Times, 10 November 2005. Meany, L (2005) Interview with authors, Arts Officer, Cork City Council, May 10, 2005. Miles, M (1997) Art, Space and the City. Routledge, London. Moore, N (1998) Docklands: the future of Dublin City. Geographical Viewpoint 26, 27–33. Moore, N (2002) From indigenous industry to foreign finance: the changing face of Dublin Docklands. Land Use Policy 19(4), 325–331. Neill, W (1993) Physical planning and image enhancement: recent developments in Belfast. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 17(4), 595–607. OECD (2005) Ireland,OECD Observer, No. 252. November 2005. O’Callaghan, O (2005) Cork in the midst of one of the most exciting phases of its history. Irish Times, 17 November 2005. O’Sullivan, D (2004) The capital of change. Irish Examiner9 February 2004. Owen, K A (2002) The Sydney 2000 Olympics and urban entrepreneurialism: local variations in urban governance. Australian Geogaphical Studies 40(3), 323–340. pier39 (2005) Look at the state of Cork like. Thread on Archiseek, http://www.archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?p=36510. Punch, M (2005) Problem drug use and the political economy of urban restructuring: heroin, class and governance in Dublin. Antipode 37(4), 754–774. Purcell, M (2002) Excavating Lefebvre: the right to the city and its urban politics of the inhabitant. GeoJournal 58(2–3), 99–108. Purcell, M (2003) Citizenship and the right to the global city: reimagining the capitalist world order. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27(3), 564–590. Roach, B (2005) Martin opens Cork’s €100m development. Irish Times. 7 April 2005. Russell, P (2001), Integrated urban renewal in Ireland: constraints to achieving integration in H.A.R.P. Project Dublin, http:// www.sbi.dk/eura/workshops/papers/workshop2/russell/pdf (accessed 07.03.06). Soja, E (2000) Postmetropolis: Critical Studies for Cities and Regions. Blackwell, Oxford. Swyngedouw, E (2000) Authoritarian governance: power and the politics of rescaling. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 18(1), 63–76. Ward, K (2003) Enterpreneurial urbanism: state restructuring and civilizing ‘New’ East Manchester. Area 35(2), 116–127. Where’s Me Culture (2005) Where’s Me Culture website. http:// www.wheresmeculture.com/news/9/frequently-asked-questions (accessed 18.0.2006).

323