Project and Process: Long-term Management of an Urban Renewal Process in Malmö, Sweden Denise Maines What are the long-term considerations for managing an initiative like Ekostaden Augustenborg? What types of funding are sustainable? How can leadership be sustained? How can reasonable goals be created for a 12 year process? Environmental Health and Equity: Global Strategies and Innovation April 30, 2011 McGill University

Malmö, Sweden MKB: a city-owned housing company managing 1/3 of Malmö’s real-estate May 24-July 15, 2010

Why Ekostaden Augustenborg? “People were ashamed of this area. You didn’t mention that you lived in Augustenborg if you did. …maybe the reputation was worse than the actual fact, but the reputation was very bad” Internationally acclaimed example of sustainable urban renewal  Low-income neighborhood  Focus on social and environmental sustainability  Emphasis on maintaining low rent  High level of collaboration between key actors  12 years of history ( ) “You see they kind of used ecological sustainability as a driving force to also drag along social and economic sustainability”

Three Areas, One Goal 1800 apartments 3000 residents Courtesy of Va Syd

A Series of Projects  Green roofs  Open storm water drain system  Gardening projects  Traffic calming  Renewable energy sources such as a windmill, solar panels  Waste reduction using biogas, composting, recycling

Questions and Methods  What are the long-term considerations for managing an initiative like Ekostaden Augustenborg?  41 semi-structured interviews  3 key stakeholder groups Employees at the housing company Residents City officials

Best viewed as a process Three Phases:  Intense phase,  Phase Out,  Rejuvenation, Three key features: o Funding o Collaboration o Level of Activity

Phase One:  High levels of funding, collaboration and activity  Three key stakeholders agree to work together on the Ekostaden project  Grants drive project development  Resident participation is prioritized  Diversity of projects “We will not go into this project if not the different departments who are involved have made an agreement that we should all make this the highest priority”—City official

Phase Two:  Decreased funding, collaboration and activity  Programme funding ends  Change in personnel  Resident participation decreases  Maintenance of old projects  International attention  Transfer of initiatives

“There were some real issues there about the long-term management, which we didn’t manage well… we didn’t address [it] properly at the start of the project.” – former project leader “When I came, the Ekostaden project almost had stopped. We were living, what is the correct expression, old merits, eh, nothing new… and we felt that we had failed.”— Current housing company manager Problems with the project

Phase Three:  Environmental Project Manager  Clearer sense of ownership  Goal to work with residents  Financing versus funding  The Malmo Model  Maintenance plan drives activity  Laundry rooms  Bathrooms “Ekostaden is never finished, and that is just the way it is supposed to be.”—City official

Considerations for long-term management  Balancing funding and financing  Grants are project-based, not processed-based  Financing increases rent  Long term leadership  Importance of key players  Creating key roles  Mainstreaming a process  Loses cutting edge  Focusing on a flagship

Discussion  What role should short-term external funding play in sustainable processes?  Time will tell if funding or financing is a better model  How can processes accommodate shifting networks of collaboration?  Creating a position may prove to be a long-lasting solution, but must incorporate organic collaborative structures

Thank you to the IHSP, staff at the housing company, residents, and city officials in Malmo for making this case study possible Q UESTIONS ?