Evaluations of a Community Regeneration Project: Case Studies of Cruddas Park Development Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne

Abstract

Five evaluations of the same community regeneration project in Newcastle upon Tyne are compared. It is argued that the separate evaluations are weak in method, atheoretical, ahistorical and lacking in a sense of social structure. To progress, community evaluations must typologise communities rather than treat community as a nebulous quality of relationships. A typology is offered. Further, it is suggested the community regeneration in this case was an extension of urban governance which artificially constructed what is called an ‘inverse’ community.