Urban policies, planning and retail resilience

Cities xxx (2012) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Cities journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

Urban policies, planning and retail resilience José Rio Fernandes ⇑, Pedro Chamusca University of Porto/CEGOT, Via Panorâmica s/n, 4150-564 Porto, Portugal

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Available online xxxx Keywords: Retail Public policies Spatial planning Resilience Europe

a b s t r a c t Retail trade is a private-sector activity: its structure and location result mainly from the action of individuals and firms in a given time and space. However, planning and regulations, which translate the way collective interest relates to private interest, have a significant effect on the activity. When examining the relationship between retail and urban space in the last three decades, in what may be regarded as a process of general deregulation, it is possible to identify the continued relevance of public policies, plans and projects, although with differing intensity. This finding applies considering either those rules specifically designed for retail or those with a spatial focus on places where retail plays a significant role, as is the particular case of the ‘‘city centre’’. Policy and planning are seen in this article in their relationship with retail and urban resilience, as the text deals with the way in which they influence the situation in the countries which were the object of study in the Replacis Euro-net research project: France, Portugal, Sweden and Turkey. The article intends to examine the role of the countries’ cultural framework in policy design and to demonstrate how regulations, planning systems and practices contribute significantly to understanding the differences in urban retail structure between these countries (and, in particular, in some of their cities). Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction Retail is a private-sector activity, the structure and location of which result mainly from the actions of individuals and firms in a given time and space: however, in order to be able to understand spatial retail dynamics, the articulation of retail with public authorities is a very important factor which must also be taken into account. This seems to have been particularly true in the last few decades, since the way in which retail and private interests have been related with planning, regulations and policies (and all that is understood as collective interest) has had a very important effect on this activity. The comparative research undertaken in selected countries from Northern, Southern and Eastern Europe demonstrates that Europe has a very diverse pattern of national retail structures, which presents different characteristics with regard to the type of facilities, the shopping environments, the profile of retailers and the spatial distribution of retail units in urban space. France is considered one of the first countries in Europe to know the economic concentration and spatial suburbanization of retail and also one of the first to have strong political measures for the activity; Sweden, acclaimed as the social democratic lighthouse of Europe, is also included in this study. In addition to these more ⇑ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.R. Fernandes), pedrochamusca@ hotmail.com (P. Chamusca).

developed countries, Portugal and Turkey have been included as spaces on the periphery of the continent (with Turkey also a non-EU country) where the ‘‘retail-urban revolution’’ has taken place more recently. In both countries the effects have been different, but also dramatic: in the case of Turkey, it may be related to the different cultural background and the geographical context, with closer relations with other Muslim countries; in the case of Portugal there is a certain proximity with North American attitudes, with more liberal public policies than in most other European countries and with easy-going consumers who are seen to be more susceptible than most in Europe to publicity, technological gadgets and fashion. Within this diversity and heterogeneity of retail structures, and based on the research carried out in the countries that were studied in the Urban-net project Replacis, we argue that the influence of the neoliberal political context is still important, but it is increasingly limited by the socio-economic and cultural contingencies of each territory. In fact, the cultural and socioeconomic specificities of each country influence governance and planning structures and, therefore, the plans and policies produced are very important in explaining different retail structures and patterns from country to country. In this context, globalization and neoliberal principles continue to play an important role (visible, for example, in the strong links that exist between urban regeneration, retail planning and retail resilience where the private sector and its capital strongly influence the policies and plans which are designed) but are being increasingly challenged by a new ‘‘urban

0264-2751/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2012.11.006

Please cite this article in press as: Fernandes, J. R., & Chamusca, P. Urban policies, planning and retail resilience. J. Cities (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.cities.2012.11.006

2

J.R. Fernandes, P. Chamusca / Cities xxx (2012) xxx–xxx

management’’ attitude (marked by the growing incorporation of governance principles on territorial planning and management and by the empowerment of local stakeholders and the involvement of civil society on public policies decision-making): this leads to a heterogeneity of the relation between retail and urban spaces. Although differences between countries exist and are important, we should also notice that there are significant common aspects, related to the so-called globalization process and to similarities that can be identified in policy principles (or to the globalization of policies?). It is an indisputable fact that over the last decades, sustainability and sustainable development (first) and resilience (later) – as well as governance and regeneration (which have already been mentioned) – have emerged and been consolidated as key principles within territorial planning and governance (Chamusca, 2011; Fernandes, 2011). In the context of urban areas, policies became more and more concerned about producing sustainable cities, where social and economic dimensions are balanced with a more natural and healthy environment. This also takes into account the role of retail activities and its importance for the city’s economic health (in terms of employment and in supplying people’s needs) and for social inclusivity (diversity, product-service quality and similar prices available for all), as well as its effects on the environment (especially those related to transport). This article deals with policies and spatial planning in their relationship with retail: and it is connected to the research project referred to above which considers resilience to be a central concept. Resilience has many different meanings. It stems from the areas of physics (where it means the ability of an object to return to its original position after being displaced) and of psychology (signifying the ability to recover from a shock), which associate resilience with the idea of equilibrium. These perspectives have evolved and accept that after a shock or crisis the ecological systems may not return exactly to their former condition, but rather achieve a new state of balance. In this context, the system’s resilience is measured either by the speed of its return to a state of equilibrium (the old or a new one) or by the intensity by which they are able to absorb change (Hudson, 2010). Given this conceptualization of resilience, technical literature provides no consensus regarding its application with regard to cities or urban areas, as these are understood as dynamic products of human processes where places evolve with different rhythms and patterns but do not return to their previous state. Therefore, social sciences have rejected the perspectives of equilibrium and have provided new approaches to resilience, understanding it as an on-going process of adaptation to constantly changing situations which can be considered in different systems, such as urban spaces or retail structures. Simmie and Martin (2010), for example, defend an evolutionary approach, where space (as a product of human action, social and power relations) is constantly changing and adapting, more or less successfully, to all the threats and pressures that arise from market forces, technological trends or environmental challenges. Therefore, within social sciences, particularly in Geography and in Economics, planning and policies (as well as all the political and economic processes) are seen as central elements of resilience. Thus, Foster (2006, p. 14) argues that resilience lies in ‘‘the ability of a region to anticipate, and prepare for a disturbance’’ and Godard (2005, pp. 2–4) defends the idea that ‘‘resilience lies in the capacity to overcome disturbances, catastrophes and crises by drumming up resources and undertaking an internal reorganization’’. Resilience is associated to reorganization and to new modes of working, either at institutional level (in new ways of planning and governing in the political, economic and urban areas) and at social level (with regard to the roles citizens and local actors should play in shaping initiatives, spatial strategies and decision-making processes).

This global and holistic perspective of resilience requires an understanding of the various sub-systems that make up communities, cities or regions, considering the various elements they comprise and the numerous interrelations established between them (Callaghan & Colton, 2008). However, this position highlights the independence of each of the sub-systems or components (infrastructures, retail systems, school systems, etc.), noting that there is no synchronization in their cycles (Barata-Salgueiro, 2009; Perrings, 2006). Therefore, in the same system expanding and contracting components, or resilient and non-resilient elements, may co-exist. In this formulation, a system is more resilient when it is in a state of reorganization, growth and innovation, since it is more vulnerable to stress when it is rigid, static and conservative. From this perspective, which is accepted by several social scientists, the resilience of urban retail is considered as being very important in order to understand the dynamics and sustainability of urban systems, as well as the way in which certain urban areas or individual shops may adapt to change. In addition (as defined in the Replacis project final report), urban retail resilience may be understood as ‘‘the ability of different types of retailing at different scales to adapt to changes, crises or shocks that challenge the system’s equilibrium, without failing to perform its functions in a sustainable way’’ (Barata-Salgueiro, 2009). As an example we may consider that following a shock, such as the intense suburbanization of retail, the city centre may either simply resist, without any significant change, modernize with changes that significantly alter its character, in some cases with the centre becoming similar to the shopping centre, or be resilient, keeping its main attributes and identity but adapting to the changing conditions and to the new economic, social and cultural contexts. The role of urban planning (which enhances resilience), the importance of the evolutionary perspectives and social learning processes may reduce vulnerability and the risk of collapse of the system (i.e. of a given urban area or that of an individual shop). As such, resilience is much more than just a new buzzword, as the management of the existing stock is seen as essential, and policies tend to favour the introduction of novelty as a simple addition and not as part of a (new) dramatic urban revolution. Thus, in urbanism in general and in its relation with retail structure or retail spatial organization in particular, proposals for a ‘‘new city’’ and for important renovation give way to a more respectful attitude towards the urban fabric and existing activities, with particular regard for the capacity of shops, and specific city areas (taken as an integral part of the urban system), to react, adapt, cooperate and promote continuity and change.

Retail, planning and urban space: a recent history of increasingly complex relations It is well known that retail has suffered significant changes in recent decades, as the small traditional retail shops – located on main streets, run by families and dealing normally with neighbourhood customers – that have dominated in Europe until the 1960s have progressively lost importance and have sought to add new value to their merchandise, in an attempt to attract the more demanding consumer. Specializations, locations, forms and formats have been multiplied and diversified, and the modes of operation, the financial dimension of firms and the interactions among producers and consumers have also changed considerably. Public authorities have long devised instruments and political measures, on diverse levels and of different types, to guide and exert some measure of control over the development process of retail and on its spatial distribution. In recent years, however, societies and territories have become increasingly more complex and fragmented: this has motivated important changes in their relations

Please cite this article in press as: Fernandes, J. R., & Chamusca, P. Urban policies, planning and retail resilience. J. Cities (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.cities.2012.11.006

3

J.R. Fernandes, P. Chamusca / Cities xxx (2012) xxx–xxx

with retail trade and also in the way in which politics and planning policies relate to the activity. As commercial companies began to develop new strategies to bolster their position in the market (Wood, 2002), new spatiallybased problems emerged, mainly connected with a new pattern of retail location, marked by the growing importance of suburban areas (which are able to create centrality) and the decline of city centres. As the system became more complex, these new developments and the dynamics linking retail and urban spaces motivated different retail planning policies, which tried to respond mainly to the significant changes in trade methods and location and to establish planning principles and guidelines that conciliated short-term demands with long-term guidelines (Brown & Dant, 2009; Guy, 2007). Therefore, as planning diversified its methods, it tried to learn how to work with the community, subdividing it into different themes and spaces. With regard to retail, planning policies maintained a relevant spatial emphasis, given the strong historical relationship between the city and the supply and distribution of (and access to) goods and services. Planning for retail development suffered significant changes, as its role in territorial dynamics and its importance in creating jobs also became more apparent. Consequently and as a result of a politically more liberal environment, focus on public–private cooperation grew, such as when public authorities made use of private investment in new shopping malls as part of a city centre revival strategy to improve ‘‘traditional’’ shopping streets, as was the case in Manchester, Porto, Lisbon and a large number of North American cities (Fillon & Hammond, 2008). In general, when examining the relationship between retail and urban spaces, it is possible to identify the continued relevance of public actors, policies, plans and projects in the last few decades, although the process is also one of general deregulation with different scales of intensity over time and space (Table 1). In the 1960s, a period when retail was dominated by small shops and spatially shaped by a hierarchical system of shopping centres (Berry, 1969) (which was in accordance with central government ideals), local authorities were required to develop effective zoning plans (Davies, 1995; Davies & Baxter, 1997). But even though retail planning was active and pro-town, it had limited impact on retail changes and development, as spatial dynamics promoted the redevelopment of new and larger urban areas. In the following decades, a ‘‘free-for-all’’ context emerged, as the focus moved from the city centre to new forms of retailing, large new stores and out-of-town shopping areas (Davies, 2003), in what was seen as a ‘‘retail revolution’’. The hypermarket and the spread of neoliberal principles in several European countries (in the 1980s) played an important role in the shifts occurring in retail planning during this period. Although national differences exist and were very significant in some cases, it is possible to speak of policy uncertainty, of a general weakness in retail planning and of public authority incapacity (or inability) to control the transformations of the retail system. The previous principles of retail hierarchy were generally abandoned (or considered in a more flexible

way) and retail operators were, in most cases, allowed to open their shops or shopping centres where they wanted. Thus, public policies became more reactive than pro-active, more pro-developer than protective of any hierarchical ‘‘perfection’’, and started encouraging competition over other economic and societal values. The effects of globalization (Amin & Thrift, 1994; Coe, 2004) became increasingly clearer at local level, especially in capitals and other large internationally well-connected cities, particularly through ‘‘touristification’’, ethnic specialization and multiplication and diversification of shops and retail spaces. In many cases, and especially in old industrial cities, there was a noticeable decline of the city centre, with the disappearance of an important number of small shops, partly compensated by the emergence of specialized areas and new retail-leisure-service concepts in a much more complex and extended urban space. Thereafter, as liberalism began to reveal some of its limitations, and as the ‘‘sustainability’’ and the rhetoric of ‘‘creative cities’’ gained relevance, a new public (and citizen-consumer) focus on what was regarded as the general interest arose, sometimes giving way to private sector-led urban regeneration initiatives and publicly-supported residential and functional gentrification, and/or promoting particular attention to the need for public support for what (still) needs to be collectively identified as the general interest. In any case, since the 1990s, as the decline of independent retail and of the city centre became increasingly more pronounced, a new opportunity emerged for retail to play a role in urban planning, now associated to new strategic and collaborative approaches, and to a growing concern with the principles of fairness, balance and sustainability in their economic, social and environmental dimensions (Fernandes, Cachinho, & Ribeiro, 2000; Reynolds & Cuthbertson, 2003). Thus, it has become more frequent in Europe for central and local authorities to share their responsibilities more clearly (even though the relationship is not free of conflicts), and to design active planning policies involving different agents, with plans and actions that especially target the city centre and other new areas of cosmopolitanism, as well as deprived spaces. At the same time, retail policies take account of the objectives of innovation and social inclusion: equally, spatially-based planning more frequently regards retail as a significant part of urbanism. Retail, urban space and planning in France, Portugal, Sweden and Turkey In the following section retail reorganization is analysed from a comparative perspective based on those countries which were studied in the Replacis Urban-net research project: special attention is paid to the specificities of the relation between retail reorganization and planning policies and urban resilience. All limitations are considered: they may also not be ‘‘perfect’’ as representative of retail policies in Europe, but it is believed that, by bringing together a group of different cultural and political approaches, this comparative analysis will contribute to a better understanding of the situation in each country; it is hoped that this

Table 1 Retail planning policies and development (Fernandes & Chamusca, adapted from Guy, 2007). Issue

Post-war period

‘‘Free-for-all’’ period

Tightening-up period

Retail planning policy Planning the location of new developments Planning the amount of new development Attitude of central government Other government objectives incorporated into policy

Active Local government Local government and retailers Pro-town centres –

Reactive Retailers and developers Retailers and developers Pro-developer Competition

Active Central government and local authorities Central government and local authorities Pro-town centres Competition, sustainable development, urban regeneration, and social inclusion

Please cite this article in press as: Fernandes, J. R., & Chamusca, P. Urban policies, planning and retail resilience. J. Cities (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.cities.2012.11.006

4

J.R. Fernandes, P. Chamusca / Cities xxx (2012) xxx–xxx

will in turn contribute to a wider understanding of what happens elsewhere. Change is permanent, although it is seen as having been particularly intense over the last few decades. In the case of retail, the system has been thoroughly reorganized in terms of its principles of composition, spatial organization and location (Borchert, 1998), with enterprises having a much more proactive attitude, incorporating services and promoting pleasure and/or utility with a view to a globalized and more complex city and consumer (Table 2). The economic and social milieu in which enterprises operate (Davies, 1995), as well as property investments and technological innovations are considered major factors of change. However, public policy is also highly relevant and can be the key driving factor, since it has significantly influenced the reorganization and spatial distribution of retail activity in each city and nation, reflecting a set of political choices and decisions which are often contradictory and controversial in the context of a general tendency for deregulation. In order to understand the deregulation process that has characterized the policy for the relations between retail and urban space in the last few decades (as well as their spatial differences), it is the intention of this article to focus on two main fields of public action: policies especially designed to regulate the retail sector and spatial planning related to retail in urban spaces. These issues will be analysed in the context of retail changes and legislative transformations and innovations, using as a comparison France,

Portugal, Sweden and Turkey, in an effort to contribute to a broader understanding of how the system and its different actors have gone through periods of change, innovation, reaction and adaption, and how urban retail resilience has been shaped within different national frameworks. Policies and rules especially designed to regulate the retail sector In all four above-mentioned countries, regulation and other planning measures are particularly intense with regard to free trade agreements, consumer interests and enhancement projects. An important part of this legislation was mainly created in response to the continuous growth of large retail units, normally in suburban areas, and intended to prevent, control and/or regulate new developments. In this case, it is possible to see how laws evolved from a zoning approach, which usually favoured the location of large stores on the urban fringes, to the promotion of the specificities and revitalization of city centres. It is in this context that during the 1970s the French Government decided to integrate all retail activities previously under private law within the urban planning process (Soumagne & Grellier, 2009). This is particularly evident with the Loi Royer (1973), establishing strict criteria for commercial expansion, defining guidelines for new commercial urbanization and dealing with issues of retail urbanism (Moreno, 2008). After a long period during which retail was of little interest to public authorities, it is noticeable that leg-

Table 2 Major changes in urban retail (adapted from Barata-Salgueiro, 2009). Post industrial revolution traditional/modern (Post-war period)

The retail revolution Post-modernity (‘‘Free-for-all’’ period)

Hyper diversification hyper-modernity (tightening period)

 Up to the 1960s (the 70s in Portugal and the 80s in Turkey)  Hierarchical  City centre domination

 The 1960’s – 80s

 From the 1990s

 Suburbanization  Centre vs periphery

 Traditional stores relying on a narrow range of goods  Novelties: self-service (Sweden, Portugal), department store (France and Sweden) and variety store (France)  Hierarchy associated with consumer socioeconomic status  Highly dependent on producers, according to standardised mass production lines  To satisfy mass consumer needs  Price and quality of goods and services are central  Inner city

 Emergence of new retail concepts such as hypermarkets, megastores, discount stores and shopping malls (France – 1969; Portugal – 1985)  Department store boom (Sweden)  Decrease in convenience food  Segmented according to lifestyles and values

   

Location principles

 Proximity  Centrality

 Car oriented accessibility (related to circulation and parking facilities)

Retailers profile, key agents and concurrence

 Small independent  Multiples and chain stores  Cooperatives

 Retail chains and corporations

Consumers and retail environment

 Owner occupied homes  Reduction in working hours

Meaning of retail spaces

 Commercial spaces

 Increase in income, consumer expenditures and car ownership  Consumption as a symbol of status  Social function of shopping centres and other retail areas as meeting spaces and evidence of social distinction  Places of consumption

Time period

City retail structure

Kind of stores

Retail offer

Target and strategy

Location of shopping areas

 Much influenced by the consumers, according to a wide variety of lines and market segments  To satisfy needs and desires  To fulfil dreams and fantasies  Socio-cultural values and lifestyles are very important  Suburban sites

Post-hierarchical Urban renaissance Retail-led regeneration Diversification of retail concepts (big boxes, hard discount warehouses, retail parks, fun shopping areas, retailtainment spaces, experience stores)  Fragmented according to themes and consumer experiences

 Marketing-oriented to answer ecological, social and economic values, giving relevance to prices, brands, signs, ambiences and life experiences  Creation of spectacle and promotion of social values (conviviality, happiness, ecology) with relevance of signs and ambiences  Rediscovered inner city places, especially tourism oriented old areas and waterfronts  Different shopping areas are available by individual and collective transport, in slow and fast circulation systems as à la carte urban fragments  ICA & KF oligopoly (Sweden)  Retail chains and small shopkeepers  Municipalities and central state, with increasing restrictive rules and active policies in favour of small local businesses and city centres (France1989; Portugal-1991)  Income polarisation  Increase in leisure time  Collective and individual varied forms of consume over time, place and retail format

 Spaces and places of life experiences

Please cite this article in press as: Fernandes, J. R., & Chamusca, P. Urban policies, planning and retail resilience. J. Cities (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.cities.2012.11.006

J.R. Fernandes, P. Chamusca / Cities xxx (2012) xxx–xxx

islation became restrictive, imposing limitations on the expansion of large-scale retail stores. Later, in the 1990s, protection of the environment emerged as a key factor for retail development control and the Loi Raffarin (1996) established the need for formal permission from the regional committees for all commercial units with more than 300 sq.m. as well as public discussion for all commercial projects contemplating areas over 6000 sq.m. In Portugal, there was also a restrictive stage which was followed by a neo-liberal phase in which the proliferation of largescale structures in suburban and peripheral locations was allowed and even favoured in some municipalities. After the huge success of hypermarkets and malls, and a severe city centre crisis, the first law with clear restrictions on the licensing of large-scale retail stores (with more than 3000 sq.m.) was approved in 1989. Amended in 1992, it considered several limitations on licensing commercial areas with more than 2000 sq.m., although it was more open for improvements and enlargements to the existing attractive, comfortable and easily accessible ‘‘spaces of consumption’’ (Fernandes, 2006) well located in significantly expanded Portuguese cities which were car dependent. In Turkey, the 2004 draft law on supermarkets, hypermarkets and chain stores applicable to commercial areas with more than 5000 sq.m. intended to determine that large-scale premises should only be created in the suburbs. This attempt is regarded as the result of the Turkish public authorities’ interpretation of the general interest as the promotion of modern urbanization in extended urban areas, a convenient balance in the competitiveness of the various components of the retail sector and the promotion of a better, more diversified offer to consumers (Erkip, 2009). Contrary to France and Portugal, Sweden (as well as Turkey, despite recent proposals that have not yet been approved) does not have a clear policy regarding large-scale structures or out-of-town retail (Vagverket, 2008, cited by Kärrholm & Nylund, 2011), an aspect which can be better understood if we consider the historical relevance of local planning. However, between 1999 and 2006, several reports were issued by the Housing, Building and Planning Board on commercial development, and recently (in 2008), the Swedish Road Administration published some guidelines for shopping centre location. Apart from location and dimension, another important matter of legislative production for retail concerns opening hours. In this respect, it should be noted that they were liberalized in Sweden in 1972; in Portugal laws have changed back and forth, with a liberal attitude prevailing, whereas a much more conservative approach is adopted in France and in Turkey the legislative effort has been directed to limit opening hours. Together with different fiscal attitudes, legislation regarding recruitment of workers, and easy access by public transport and car (as well as free or paid parking), opening hours also contribute to explain some significant national (as well as regional and local) differences in retail systems and in the commercial geography of cities, with an especially significant increase in the dimension and relevance of peripheral shopping centres in both Portuguese and Turkish cities; a significant affluence at weekends is also visible in Sweden. Spatial planning policies related to urban retail With few exceptions, all plans, projects and initiatives with a spatial emphasis have a direct or indirect impact on retail activities. Therefore, to understand the commercial geography of each city – and how resilient it is – we need to understand how spatial planning measures deal with retail. All four countries have created (or adapted) important policy instruments which reflect a growing concern for the relationship between retail and urbanism, with urban regeneration projects and city revitalization strategies having special relevance.

5

France introduced important institutional and legal changes in 1996, when the government decided to provide support for the protection of crafts and the independent retail trade. In addition, Territorial Coherence Plans (Schémas de Cohérence Territoriale – SCOT) and Local Urban Plans (Plans Locaux d’Urbanisme – PLU) progressively translate retail and inter-communal commercial objectives into spatial planning systems. The approval of the Economy Modernization Law (Loi de Modernisation de l’Économie – LME) in 2008 represented a major qualitative change which could lead to the merging/assimilation of retail development in general planning (Moreno, 2008, p. 27). It altered both the Royer and the Raffarin laws in response to European objections on conditioning fair competition, and replaced the previous criteria to assess the economic impacts and the environmental quality of plans (introducing a higher threshold in retail floor space from 300 sq.m. to 1000 sq.m. and allowing more flexibility in the required conditions for new department stores). The LME has also introduced major alterations in the criteria for retail development, since spatial planning and sustainable development principles became more important than the traditional economic and competition criteria of previous legislation. In the next few years further important changes may take place, as the available information indicates that the current retail commissions will be closed, and retail urbanism becomes a responsibility exclusive to municipal and inter-municipal authorities. The latter will have to develop a Retail Development Document (Document d’Aménagement Commercial) that is fully integrated in a Territorial Coherence Plan (Schéma de Cohérence Territorial), with the State only being responsible at national level for legal control and supervision. Sweden is one of the few countries in Western Europe that has not yet developed a national retail policy regulating how and in what way retail should be developed (Kärrholm & Nylund, 2011; Lansstyrelsen & Skane Lan, 2007, cited by Kärrholm & Nylund, 2011). Indeed, a municipal planning monopoly was introduced in 1947 with every municipality obliged by law to develop an overall plan that has to follow national guidelines under the Planning and Building Act (PBL), on environment, noise, climate change and consumer protection, and should set the goals for future development, stipulating future land uses and reserving areas for different uses, including retail. This overall plan is designed as strategic and includes prospective guidelines for action but is not legally binding, and municipalities must also develop a detailed plan that specifies uses, densities and accessibilities for a limited area, to be approved by the Building Committee and liable to appeals by citizens. Although two documents are produced in each municipality, recent research shows that most of the municipalities do not have a retail policy and do not even have official policy statements concerning the retail system as an overall or a detailed plan, as they are mainly focused on competition. The Portuguese context is similar to the Swedish one. The most important planning and spatial regulation actions were delegated to the municipalities during the 1970s, although national authorities continue to establish a number of overall guidelines on the most important spatial planning issues, and have the final say before plan approval. However, despite the importance that municipal planning achieved in the 1990s (with all municipalities obliged to prepare comprehensive plans), retail is often forgotten, as the views of planners were conditioned by a hierarchical, zoning approach which failed to consider the ‘‘commercial revolution’’ that was taking place. It must also be noted that, as in Sweden, Portugal lacks strong regional powers and has a very centralized political system which is unable to regulate municipal competition and contradictory views between the modernization of existing structures and the support for established commercial areas, or a

Please cite this article in press as: Fernandes, J. R., & Chamusca, P. Urban policies, planning and retail resilience. J. Cities (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.cities.2012.11.006

6

J.R. Fernandes, P. Chamusca / Cities xxx (2012) xxx–xxx

preference for new investment and economic/geographical concentration. In Turkey, urban planning is developed and implemented by municipalities and central authorities and it must guide and supervise the location of shopping malls and retail in general. However, the lack of stability for the proper implementation of urban development plans leads to the absence or at least insufficiency of spatial planning instruments which have a real impact on retail location. And even though existing spatial plans create significant difficulties for any new development, changes can often be obtained through revised plans: these are often brought about by developers who tend to produce well-structured feasibility studies. The approval of the revised plans normally means that they can build what they want, when and where they want it (Erkip, 2009). However, in Europe in general and in all four countries in particular, despite measures taken to control new developments, much of the discourse and action of the 1980s was directed towards city centre revitalization and ‘‘urban renaissance’’: these measures were usually adopted and developed by local authorities, mainly with a view to physical interventions, with a special interest in pedestrian precincts, lighting, safety, and street furniture. Later, these projects and actions were part of more ambitious urban programmes within the framework of more strategic, integrated regeneration efforts which generally targeted central areas and other special spaces (such as waterfronts), thereby presupposing a significant link between the retail system and the vitality of the city. These programmes were especially intense and important in Portugal, as the aspirations of the municipalities to regenerate cities were easily identifiable and significant public financial support was channelled within EU-funded national programmes such as ‘‘Polis’’ and, more recently, ‘‘Parcerias para a Regeneração Urbana’’ [=Partnerships for Urban Regeneration] (PRU). However, urban regeneration was also very significant in other countries, such as in France where it has been actively encouraged by the government since the 1990s (Nappi-Choulet, 2006). In fact, retail-led regeneration initiatives are implemented to promote ‘‘success’’ in restricted areas of many French (as in other European) cities, in an integrated intervention which usually combines private investment in buildings and activities with public investment directed towards the rehabilitation of public space. This is frequently complemented by the introduction or reinforcement of so-called soft or eco-friendly transport (on foot, by bicycle or light rail), the development of regular events and activities which ensure animation, and training and support for retailers. The need to consider the preservation and promotion of retail activities in the city centre was clearly expressed in France with the 1989 Circular on Urban Policy for Commercial Development (reinforced in 1991 by the Blueprint Law on the City) which connected public interest to the preservation and development of plans for land-use (Plans d’Occupation des Sols – POS) which determine the areas of commercial settlement. The Pacte de Relance pour la Ville (City Revival Pact), approved in 1996, was also important, acting as the basis to launch a fund aimed at the preservation of crafts and commerce in urban operations. In Turkey and Sweden programmes were not particularly designed for retail. If in Sweden a lack of strong public action with the retail sector helps to explain this absence of public interest, in the case of Turkey the city centre is not perceived as being considerably affected by large-scale retailing in peripheral areas, as an increased supply is compensated for by increased income and also by population growth, as well as by the continued preference shown by most locals and visitors for bazaars and central shops.

Cultural and socioeconomic factors in the design of policies, planning systems and practices There are considerable differences between the French, Portuguese, Swedish and Turkish urban retail structures: these can be partly explained by their specific cultural frameworks and the socioeconomic contexts that are at the basis of distinct policies, planning systems and practices. By cultural frameworks and socioeconomic contexts we understand all the traditions, value systems and symbols that are common to a given society (Landman, 2009), the multiple and complex forms in which values interact and deal with internal and external social and economic trends and pressures, and the way they shape and condition the management of territories and activities. In the four countries it is possible to identify three major cultural and socioeconomic factors that have influenced the principles underlying planning and have been dominant in the last couple of decades, especially in the process of policy making in retailing: (a) the relevance of the European Union and European values and policies; (b) political values and conceptions of local and regional planning systems; (c) social and ideological transformations such as market liberalization, changes in consumer behaviour and the increasing relevance of private stakeholders. Relations with the European Union and the attraction and polarizing effect of the EU regulatory policy, funds and programmes are certainly dominant factors influencing recent retail developments in many countries, since national legislation reflects political action for change to promote the adaption to a general European interest. This Europeanization process has different timings, rhythms and characteristics: among other factors, they result from the different actions by national governments and by differing situations of socioeconomic development. In many countries of Eastern Europe the last couple of decades were characterised by a strong liberal – western oriented – shift which has been strongly connected in the case of Turkey with its long negotiations for EU membership. In this case, very important transformations were introduced in order to get closer to EU values, principles and guidelines (Erkip, 2003; Tokatli & Boyaci, 1998, cited by Erkip, 2009). In addition, in most east European countries legislative and institutional changes were introduced; equally, innovative policies and planning instruments were clearly influenced by these countries’ relations with the European Union and ‘‘the West’’ in general, as well as by a long-standing dependence on international trade. We may note in this respect that some institutional and legislative innovations have been related to the economy and mainly directed at attracting foreign investment and capital, thus strengthening European links and networks and, also, national competitiveness. In most of the countries of Central and Western Europe, a different process can be identified as older forms of capitalism and earlier accession to the Community may help to explain a more inclusive, participated and strategic planning culture. Portugal and France are paradigmatic examples of this situation (Fernandes, 2006; Soumagne & Grellier, 2009). In Portugal, new planning guidelines were promoted within EU programmes and an extensive set of projects targeting retail in city centres were supported, with debates and action focused on commercial modernization and urban rehabilitation. In France, the general EU guidelines on changes in the planning and retail system have been of particular relevance (as with the 2008 ‘‘Law of Modernization of Economy’’, introducing several changes to respond to European directives regarding commercial freedom) which were accompanied by strong municipal interest in urban regeneration. This Europeanization process has been accompanied by another important issue: market liberalization and the rise of powerful pri-

Please cite this article in press as: Fernandes, J. R., & Chamusca, P. Urban policies, planning and retail resilience. J. Cities (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.cities.2012.11.006

J.R. Fernandes, P. Chamusca / Cities xxx (2012) xxx–xxx

vate groups in the retail sector. This has been particularly evident since the 1980s with the emergence and consolidation of a period of economic liberalism (Brenner, 2004) as a result of the expansion of globalization through processes of increasingly rapid social and economic change, with large economic groups becoming more and more influential in the governance of both territories and activities. Once again, the cultural and socioeconomic background explains some of the national differences. Countries like Turkey, whose economy until the 1980s was essentially producer-driven and mainly based on import substitution with distribution activities being less important and therefore controlled by weak, independent and family-owned enterprises underwent a revolution with a new approach to a more liberal (export oriented; Erkip, 2009) policy. This and outward-looking promoted the absorption of foreign capital and progressively reduced the subsistence basis of traditional sellers and local distributors (Tokatli & Boyaci, 1998, cited by Erkip, 2009). On the other hand, in countries with advanced processes of European integration, with thriving economies, or easy access to special funding mechanisms (France is a prime example), there was a reinforcement of strong partnerships between public and private actors, and important changes were introduced in planning practices with the emergence of sustainable development as the key paradigm, extending sub and periurban attractiveness, and increased spatial competition for activities and residents. As mentioned above, the 1980s and 1990s were generally characterized in Europe by deregulation and an intense internationalization of the economy: this followed on from the post-war period, in which planning policies were dominated by the principles of functionalism and the retail sector was regarded as a mere consequence of urbanization, where shops emerged as populations increased and new buildings were built in the city centre or along the most frequent transportation routes (Fernandes, 2009). Liberalization and Europeanization movements intensified at the end of the 20th century, with big cities in the richer countries becoming global centres of consumption and media spectacle (Albet-Mas, 2004; Cachinho, 2006); however, other large or medium-sized cities in poorer countries also required significant investment in the qualification/’’spetacularization’’ of the cityscape (translated in the built-up and the public space) and the mindscape (and the spatial nature of daily practices). Consumers became both spectators and actors (as Cachinho, 2006, proposes in his concept of the ‘‘consumactor’’), who combine the role of tourist and contemplative traveller with acts and experiences of consumption. Therefore, some planning policies and public and private investments are directed towards seduction and providing the consumer with aesthetic pleasures and multiple consumption experiences and opportunities: these have been fuelled by the introduction of the euro, an easier and more popular access to credit and the positive evolution of average purchasing power in the 1990s and early 2000s, with much higher increase of shops than that of population. The political and administrative values and characteristics of the countries certainly influence the design of policies, planning systems and practices (Kärrholm & Nylund, 2011). That is clear in the case of Sweden, where the overall changes and characteristics of the retail structure are strongly connected to a weak planning system and strong competition between municipalities, and also of Portugal, where there is very weak inter-municipal cooperation and a lack of regional administration. In this context competition is exacerbated, and the municipalities challenge guidelines and tend to accept all major commercial initiatives. As a result, planning tends to be oriented mainly to strengthening the competitiveness and economic growth of municipalities, with important action in urban regeneration (Kärrholm, 2008), downplaying social and environmental issues and leaving retail policies adrift in a context of uncertainty (or ‘‘free-for-all’’ market deregulation).

7

Resilience, urban retail policies and planning. Some lessons to be learned from France, Portugal, Sweden and Turkey The existing characteristics of urban policies, planning system and retail structures, as well as their recent changes in Europe, point to significant national differences and to a strong diversity of relations between retail and urban spaces. This finding is supported by the existence of very diverse national retail structures and by highly differentiated patterns of spatial distribution of retail units in urban spaces in France, Portugal, Sweden and Turkey. This diversity that arises from the cultural and socioeconomic contingencies of each country also demonstrates that, through a series of policies, plans, laws and regulations, public authorities play a crucial role in the characteristics of the retail structure and the spatial distribution of its units. However, despite the impact and effects of public policies and all kind of instruments, projects and actions, evidence highlights the fact that several challenges are in place to the resilience of urban retail structures, urban areas and shops. In fact, the relationship between retail, planning and urban spaces is complex and often problematic, especially because globalization and neoliberal principles tend to dominate and to favour deregulation processes. In addition to these factors, a lack of regional entities and/or deficiencies in articulation between municipalities seems to promote and encourage strong competition at local level (based on the interest in private investment), which sometimes neglects environmental and/or social issues, as private interests become more associated with spectacular, short term actions and public action is relegated to a regulatory role which in some cases may be mistaken for that of a simple spectator. This generalized deregulation process tends to activate competition: it is not, however, immune to different cultural frameworks, which have proved to influence public policies and the resilience of retail structures. The role and power of the cultural framework are specially reflected in national policies and planning systems and help to explain some of the significant differences between countries with regard to their retail structures, as well as to the spatial distribution and vitality of shops. Some of the key factors that contribute to this heterogeneity in Europe are the particular details of macroeconomic trends (as seen in the differences between Turkey and France, for example); the way EU policies, guidelines and opportunities are interpreted in different countries (especially in France and Portugal, in opposition to the non-EU member Turkey); the way municipal (dis)articulation and the lack of regional planning authorities helps to understand (de)regulation (whereby the situations in Portugal and Sweden are very different from that of France), and the growing link between the retail sector and city centre regeneration and revitalization (where France and Portugal are very similar). All this has to be seen in a context characterised by different economic situations and in a more ‘‘urban’’ attitude to spatial management – including the diversification of city centre management (Coca-Stefanik & et al., 2009) – versus a city marketing and privately-led approach based on a ‘‘star-system’’ and urban projects of ‘‘huge change’’). Changes in the attitudes of consumers and retailers, alterations in the global socioeconomic milieu, diversity of time–space contexts and the modifications in urban-regional spatial conditions (such as those associated with metropolization, suburbanization, fragmentation and polycentrism) have causal effects on retail and territorial dynamics. However, national cultures and policies, and the way planning systems translate them, have also to be considered as being very important in order to be able to understand what is happening with retail structures and urban areas of retail concentration (and even with individual shops) as well as the way they succeed (or not) in being resilient to spatial and socioeconomic change, economic crisis and global competition.

Please cite this article in press as: Fernandes, J. R., & Chamusca, P. Urban policies, planning and retail resilience. J. Cities (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.cities.2012.11.006

8

J.R. Fernandes, P. Chamusca / Cities xxx (2012) xxx–xxx

Generally, national differences and similarities cannot be excluded from the debate on the relations between public and private interests and on the advantages and limitations of planning in the (de)regulation of relations between retail and urban spaces. Furthermore, the way in which resilience is expressed in the retail systems of each country and of different cities must be as strongly related to planning and legislation, highlighting not only their potential but also their limitations in view of wide-ranging change (as was the case of Portugal during the 1980s and 1990s when it faced city centre problems as retail surfaces and formats expanded considerably). However, significant funding by EU programmes has led to a better performance on the part of ‘‘traditional’’ shops and retail areas in Portugal (arguably better than ‘‘pure market’’ competition), while in Turkey increasing consumption and cultural connections to traditional forms helped maintain the independent retailer and area, as new developments arrived. In France a particularly significant diversity of situations exists both in cities (with an independent retail which is more dynamic in those cities where tourism is more important versus those where industrial decay is more evident) and internal urban areas (with historically attractive, regenerated areas contrasting with ‘‘no-go’’ spaces). In short, national differences and respect for cultural identity interact with a certain Europeanization of policies and the globalization of products, formats and consumers. On the basis of the cases that were studied (both nationally and in the case of some of the cities of France, Portugal, Sweden and Turkey) it has been demonstrated that recent (hard) times have promoted a new ‘‘urban management’’ attitude, with a stronger link between city centre regeneration and retail resilience, a better integration of the retail sector in urban planning and the improvement of the governance of retail systems at local and regional level. This new attitude, although variable from country to country and from city to city and always imperfect, is promoted and developed through what seem to be more effective forms of horizontal and vertical partnership and cooperation for resilience and for spatial development, with retail being increasingly recognised on its contribution for more qualified urban areas, a more diversified urban economy, and social complexity and cohesion. The cultural and socioeconomic specificities of each country (and those of each region, city or urban area) strongly influence the design and elaboration of public policies, plans and programmes regarding urban spaces and the urban retail sector, affecting the resilience of the retail system and of each particular area in each city. This legal framework, which is established by public authorities, plays a decisive role in the development and location of retail structures, and is to a great degree responsible for European diversity, even if the context is now characterised by general acceptance of neoliberal principles, and a certain Europeanization of retail and urban and regional planning. In fact, the relation between urban spaces, retail activities and planning and governance structures and actions tends to be very diverse, and not only from country to country, as even at a local level, within the same street where the same public policies and cultural frameworks are applied, we can find different responses from the retail sector and different reactions/action from the consumer. So that we can find shops that merely resist (i.e. they do not adapt to new challenges but are still able to keep their activity running, even if they are not prospering) and shops that operate revolutionary modernization processes (thus giving place to a new business or undertaking such a physical restructuration that it is not regarded as the same business) side by side with resilient shops that go through different processes of adaptation, whereby change coexists with the maintenance of those characteristics which make up its identity.

References Albet-Mas, A. (2004). La cultura en las estrategias de transformación social urbanística de las ciudades. Barcelona del modelo al espectáculo. Cidades – Comunidades e Territórios, 9, 15–25. Amin, A., & Thrift, N. (1994). Globalization, Institutions and Regional Development in Europe. Oxford University Press. Barata-Salgueiro, Teresa (coord.) (2009). Retail planning for cities sustainability – Replacis Final Report. Berry, B. (1969). Geography of market centers and retail distribution (2nd ed.). Prentice-Hall, Inc.. Borchert, J. G. (1998). Spatial dynamics of retail structure and the venerable retail hierarchy. GeoJournal, 45, 327–336. Brenner, N. (2004). Urban governance and the production of new state spaces in western Europe, 1960–2000. Review of International Political Economy, 11(3), 447–488. Brown, J. R., & Dant, R. P. (2009). The theoretical domains of retailing research: A retrospective. Journal of Retailing, 85(2), 113–128. Cachinho, H. (2006). Consumactor: Da condição do indivíduo na cidade pósmoderna. Finisterra, XLI, 81, 33–56. Callaghan, E., & Colton, J. (2008). Building sustainable and resilient communities: A balancing of community capital. Environment and Development Sustainable, 10, 931–942. Chamusca, Pedro (2011). Polis XXI, Governância e Planeamento Urbano no Norte de Portugal: Impactos do programa de Regeneração Urbana. in Santos, N. e Cunha, L. – Trunfos de uma Geografia Activa (pp. 453–460). IUC, Coimbra. Coca-Stefanik, J. A. et al. (2009). Town centre management models. A European perspective. Cities, 26, 74–80. Coe, N. M. (2004). The internationalisation/globalisation of retailing: Towards an economic-geographical research agenda. Environment and Planning A, 36(9), 1571–1594. Davies, R. (Ed.) (1995). Retail planning policies in Western Europe. London & New York. Davies, W. K. D., & Baxter, T. (1997). Commercial intensification: The transformation of a highway orientated ribbon. Geoforum, 28(2), 237–252. Davies, R. (2003). Planning policy for retailing. In J. Reynolds & C. Cuthbertson (Eds.), Retail strategy: The view from the bridge. Elsevier. Erkip, F. (2003). Shopping mall as an emergent public space in Turkey. Environment and Planning A, 35, 1073–1093. Erkip, F. (2009). Retail policies and urban spatial planning in Turkey. REPLACIS Malmo Meeting Paper. Fernandes, J. (2006). L’urbanisme commercial et la crise du commerce indépendant et du centre-ville au Portugal. Sud-Ouest Européen, 20, 107–114. Fernandes, J. (2009). Retail policies and planning: The case of Portugal. REPLACIS Malmo Meeting Paper. Fernandes, J. R. (2011). Area based initiatives and urban dynamics: The case of Porto city centre. Urban Research & Practice, 4(3), 285–307. Fernandes, J., Cachinho, H., & Ribeiro, C. (2000). Comércio tradicional em contexto urbano. GEDES. Fillon, P., & Hammond, K. (2008). When planning fails: Downtown malls in mid-size cities. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 17(2), 1–27. Foster, K. A. (2006). A case study approach to understanding regional resilience. University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Urban and Regional Development. Godard, O. (2005). Le développement durable, une chimère malfaisante? Cahier de la chaire développement durable EDF. École Polytechnique (Vol. 2005015). Guy, C. (2007). Planning for retail development: A critical view of the British experience. Routledge. Hudson, R. (2010). Resilient regions in an uncertain world: Wishful thinking or a practical reality? Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy & Society, 3(1), 11–25. Kärrholm, M. (2008). The territorialisation of a pedestrian precinct in Malmo: Materialities in the commercialization on public space. Urban Studies, 45(9), 1903–1924. Kärrholm, M., & Nylund, K. (2011). Escalating consumption and spatial planning: Notes on the evolution of Swedish retail spaces. European Planning Studies, 19(6), 1043–1060. Landman, T., & Robinson, N. (2009). The SAGE handbook of comparative politics. SAGE Publications Ltd. Moreno, D. (2008). Commerce et urbanisme: Entre liberté et régulation. La Documentation Française. Nappi-Choulet, I. (2006). The role and behavior of commercial property investors and developers in French urban regeneration: The experience of the Paris region. Urban Studies, 43(9), 1511–1535. Perrings, Ch. (2006). Resilience and sustainable development. Environment and Development Economics, 11, 417–427. Reynolds, J., & Cuthbertson, C. (Eds.). (2003). Retail strategy: The view from the bridge. Elsevier. Simmie, J., & Martin, R. (2010). The economic resilience of regions: Towards an evolutionary approach. Cambridge Journal of Regions Economy and Society, 3(1), 27–43. Soumagne, J., & Grellier, A. (2009). The retail evolution in France – Changes, actors, planning and policies. REPLACIS Malmo Meeting Paper. Wood, S. L. (2002). Future fantasies: A social change perspective of retailing in the 21st century. Journal of Retailing, 78(1), 77–83.

Please cite this article in press as: Fernandes, J. R., & Chamusca, P. Urban policies, planning and retail resilience. J. Cities (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.cities.2012.11.006