지역재생이 지역특성을 반영한 개별성이 강한 정책인 이상, 예외 없이 효과적인 단일의 해결책은 존재하지 않는다. 본 연구가 지방자치단체 관계자는 물론 널리 주민들이 각각의 지역과제를 다시 발견하고, 독자적인 지역재생을 검토하는 참고자료의 하나가 되었으면 한다. 영국에서는 1977년 정부의 정책보고서 “중심 시가지를 위한 정책(Policy for the Inner Cities)”이 공표된 이후 수많은 지역재생 정책이 실시되었는데 그 분석에 있어서는 지역재생 정책이 몇 가지 점에서 우리나라와 기본적 조건의 차이가 있음을 충분히 유의해야 한다. 첫째, 영국에서는 주민 전체에서 차지하는 소수민족 출신 비율이 높다는 점이다. 외국인 등록자 수의 총인구 중 비중이 1.3%정도에 불과한 우리나라와 비교할 때 잉글랜드의 비백인 거주자의 비율은 약 9.1%, 런던에 한해서 보면 약 28.9%에 달한다. 소수민족 출신자는 특정구역에 집중 거주하는 경향이 있어서 지구에 따라서는 인구의 3분의 2이상을 차지하는 사례도 드물지는 않다 이처럼 영국에서는 지역재생 정책이 경제적 측면에서만 실시되고 있는 것이 아니라 다른 민족 간의 통합과 평등의 확보라는 사회복지 정책의 요청에 입각하고 있다는 점을 이해해야 한다. 둘째, 정부차원에서의 재정지원 조치 여부이다. 기존의 과소 벽지 대책이나 특정지역 진흥 대책 등 정부의 재정조치 정책수단으로서는 예도 많이 있지만, 구조개혁 특구의 도입에서 보듯이, 현재 정부가 추진하고 있는 지역재생 정책의 기본 틀이 지역을 한정하고 규제를 완화·철폐하는 규제개혁의 일환으로 자리 잡고 있다. 이에 대해서 영국의 지역재생 정책은 사회적 경제적 황폐지역(deprived area)의 개선을 통해서, 지역 간 격차를 시정하는 데 초점이 맞춰졌다. 본고에서 소개하는 인근지역 재생자금 제도는 대상 지자체에 대한 집중적인 재정지원 조치를 따르는 점이 특징이다. 이러한 황폐지역의 개선이라는 목표만 붙잡고 무조건 영국의 지역재생 정책을 사회복지 정책이라고 결론짓는 것은 성급하다. 현재 영국은 비교적 견고한 경제성장을 이루고 있지만 황폐지역의 지리적 확대는 수준 높은 노동력과 안전성 확보라는 투자 대상국으로서의 매력을 심각하게 훼손하여 국제 경쟁력이 약화될 수 있다는 지극히 현실적이고 경제적 동기도 읽을 수 있다. 지역재생 정책의 목표의 양면성이라는 특징이 여기에도 나타나고 있다. 반대로 지역재생 정책을 실시하는데 있어서 우리나라와 공통되는 과제도 적지 않다. 그 중에서도 가장 중요한 점은 장기적인 의미에서 지역발전에 이해관계를 가진 주민의 적극적인 참가를 얻지 못하면, 아무리 뛰어난 지역재생 정책이라 하더라도 지속적인 효과를 거둘 수 없다는 과거의 교훈을 현실의 정책에 어떻게 살릴 것인지 그 대책의 수립이다.

The concept of the urban village was first promoted by the Urban Villages Group in the late 1980s as a means to achieve more human scale, mixed-use and well-designed places. The term urban village has since entered the planning discourse, and a number of developments known as urban villages have appeared across the country. In urban planning and design, an urban village is an urban development typically characterized by medium-density housing, mixed use zoning, good public transit and an emphasis on pedestrianization and public space. This article draws on ongoing research into the phenomenon of the urban village, and focuses on the origins, definitions, and meanings given to the term in the literature, in interviews with key players, in planning documentation and in the professional press. Urban villages are seen to provide an alternative to recent patterns of urban development in many cities, especially decentralization and urban sprawl. They are generally purported to: (i) Reduce car reliance and promote cycling, walking and transit use, (ii) Provide a high level of self-containment (people working, recreating and living in the same area), (iii) Help facilitate strong community institutions and interaction, (iv) The concept of urban villages was formally born in Britain in the late 1980s with the establishment of the Urban Villages Group (UVG). Following pressure from the UVG, the concept was prioritized in British national planning policy between 1997 and 1999. It appears that the urban village concept is variously interpreted and applied depending on the context in which it is used, and on the knowledge, role and interests of the individual reflecting on the term. Urban village ideals have been applied to new greenfield and brownfield developments and urban renewal projects. The concept has been widely adopted in many countries and used by both government development agencies as well as private enterprise as a guiding concept for many projects. The ideas of the urban commentators are widely regarded as having had the largest influence on the urban village concept. The commentators rejected the modernist views that dominated urban planning and architecture in the 1950s-60s and constructed an alternative philosophy that values traditional neighborhoods and the role of the inner city. Proponents believe that urban villages provide a viable alternative to the social ills that characterize modernism in cities, such as freeways and high-rise estates. Another strong impetus for urban villages has been growing disenchantment with the urban sprawl that has characterized the development of many cities since World War II. Urban villages are seen to create self-contained communities that reduce the need to travel large distances and reduce the subsequent reliance on the automobile. The decline of noxious industry and the emergence of the service economy allows the mixing of employment and residential activities without detriment to residents. This is in contrast to the single-use zoning that helped fuel urban sprawl during the industrial and manufacturing eras. Through more consolidated development, urban villages can reduce the intrusion of urban growth on the countryside. These environmental consequences of urban sprawl have come to dominate discussion promoting urban villages in recent years. Urban villages are widely seen to provide a solution to the demise of community that is often associated with modernism and sprawl. The concept uses the social and physical morphology of the traditional rural village as an inspiration for creating better functioning communities. Urban design techniques such as public space and pedestrianization are employed to facilitate the development of community by encouraging human interaction. This philosophy shares many attributes with the new urbanism school of thought. Many urban village developments, both Government and privately initiated, have been seen to depart from the original ideals of the concept. Private developments often use the `urban village` label as an advertising pitch or to win Government support for their project. Many developments, although intended to create a true urban village form, have not achieved their objectives. Some planners question whether a genuine urban village has actually been built. The objectives of urban villages are often criticized as unrealistic because they ignore broader social and economic realities. The ability to create self-contained villages is questionable as employment and activity patterns continue to become more complex. The viability of creating a variety of employment and activity within an area with a small population base can also be questioned. It has been suggested that the demise of the neighborhood community is a function of “conscious economic and social choice” rather than a product of urban form. Some urban commentators believe that urban villages are not a new concept and are simply a re-formulation of ideas that have been prevalent in urban planning for decades. The article will attempt to unravel the significance of this, while also drawing some conclusions about how concepts frame, and are framed by, prevailing discourses.