V E R E N I G I N G
V A N
B O U W K U N S T
T I L B U R G
L04 Herontwikkeling Liverpool One -1-
E X C U EXCURSIE R S I E LIVERPOOL MANCH E S T E R &6 T/M L 10 I VOKTOBER E R P O2010 OL 6 T/M10 OKTOBER – MANCHESTER VERENIGING VAN BOUWKUNST TILBURG
2010
V E R E N I G I N G
V A N
B O U W K U N S T
T I L B U R G -2-
Herontwikkeling van Liverpool One door Grosvenor Kopie van de Architect, april 2008 THEMA
Herontwikkeling van Liverpool One
Op deze rendering van het voltooide Liverpool One is te zien hoe dit nieuwe stadsdeel zich moeiteloos in de omgeving ervan voegt.
In maart 2000 sloten de gemeente Liverpool en de Londense ontwikkelaar Grosvenor een overeenkomst voor de herontwikkeling van het verpauperde gebied rond Paradise Street, gelegen aan de rand van de binnenstad. In dit gebied komen hoofdzakelijk winkels die een toevoeging zijn op het bestaande winkelareaal in de oude binnenstad. Opvallend kenmerk van Liverpool One is,dat het een wirwar van straten met gebouwen is in plaats van een ‘shopping mall’. Dit maakt het mogelijk het nieuwe winkelareaal effectief te verknopen met de binnenstad, de waterkant en het uitgaansgebied van de Rope Walks. Met Liverpool One probeert de stad haar reputatie als ‘city of architectural excellence and innovation’ te vestigen. David Dunster
Winkelen voor een leefbare stad Winkelcentra worden meestal gedefinieerd door iets dat zich buiten henzelf bevindt. Om ze op de kaart te zetten wordt gezocht naar een identiteit die weinig oog heeft voor de specifieke plek, ook omdat in de relatie tussen het winkelende publiek en de koopwaar de nadruk is komen te liggen op de toekomstige consument. Voor even fungeert het winkelcentrum als speerpunt in de stedelijke vernieuwing, maar het blijft steken in de economische belangen op korte termijn en het slaagt er niet in zich verder te ontwikkelen in de richting van een geïnstitutionaliseerde ‘branding’. Het winkelen heeft immers altijd met het nieuwe te maken. Liverpool One is gebaseerd op de stelling dat je louter en alleen met het winkelen een stad nieuw leven in kunt blazen. De plattegrond van het project is gebaseerd op de figuur van het ei, maar het gebrek aan samenhang tussen de bijdragen van de verschillende architecten laat zien hoe moeilijk het is om echte ensemblearchitectuur te creëren. Er is geen sprake van één centraal gebouw, want de gebouwen die door hun hoogte zouden kunnen domineren, zijn naar de rand van de locatie geschoven, waar ze wezenloos op zichzelf staan.
EXCURSIE LIVERPOOL – MANCHESTER 6 T/M 10 OKTOBER 2010
V E R E N I G I N G
V A N
B O U W K U N S T
T I L B U R G -3-
Met dit laatste wordt bedoeld het gebrek aan betrokkenheid van de vorm op iets anders dan zichzelf. Geldt dat ook voor alle andere gebouwen? Misschien lukt het alleen de gelaagde taart van Allies and Morrison om de heterogeniteit op te nemen in een gestreepte, met zigzaggende trappen doorsneden stadsmuur aan het eind van College Lane. Het is een verpakking met geleende architectonische kenmerken, terwijl vrijwel alle andere gebouwen in hout uitgevoerde versies van de architectuur van Giuseppe Terragni blijken te zijn. Is dit het onvermijdelijke resultaat van de architectonische en stedelijke problemen, of had de opdrachtgever zich beter moeten informeren en organiseren? Het ensemblespel is voor het eerst gespeeld door de Duitse architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe op de wereldtentoonstelling van 1927 in Stuttgart, toen het wit schilderen van de gebouwen al bijna voldoende was om de gewenste samenhang te creëren. Voor het Liverpool van vandaag is een dergelijke formule echter niet voorhanden.
Liverpool One komt in een hoog tempo tot stand. Op de voorgrond het Hiltonhotel en het busstation, in het midden het ovale park, het woongebouw door Cesar Pelli en de winkels op parkniveau. Foto Grosvenor
EXCURSIE LIVERPOOL – MANCHESTER 6 T/M 10 OKTOBER 2010
V E R E N I G I N G
V A N
B O U W K U N S T
T I L B U R G -4-
PSDA masterplan sites
4 De Amerikaanse architect Cesar Pelli speelde een belangrijke rol in de bijstelling van het masterplan. Om het Chavasse park vast te leggen, introduceerde hij twee ellipsen, een op de grond en een in de lucht.
Liverpool heeft nooit een oplossing weten te vinden voor de spanning die bestaat tussen stedelijke topografie en het economisch profijtbeginsel. Uit schuldgevoel zijn twee kathedralen gebouwd, uit trots EXCURSIE LIVERPOOL – MANCHESTER 6 T/M 10 OKTOBER 2010
V E R E N I G I N G
V A N
B O U W K U N S T
T I L B U R G -5-
een nutteloos monumentaal concertgebouw en uit afgunst een stelsel van pleinen dat van elders is afgekeken. Voor een provinciestad als Liverpool zit er blijkbaar niets anders op dan te kopiëren, tenzij het plaatselijke talent kan worden overgehaald te blijven. Maar Liverpool heeft zijn talent geëxporteerd, voornamelijk naar Londen. Dit komt omdat de provinciale elite als de dood is om af te wijken van wat het ten onrechte als normaal beschouwt. Maar dat geldt niet voor Grosvenor, waarvan de hoofdarchitect er plezier in schept om architecten van naam aan te trekken. Iedereen die in zijn web belandde, kwam onder controle te staan van het gerenommeerde architectenbureau BDP dat op zijn beurt door Grosvenor is beloond met wat strooigoed aan de periferie van het plan. Wat heeft dit project de stad gekost? Volgens Rodney Holmes, de directeur van Grosvenor, helemaal niets, al is nooit duidelijk geworden voor hoeveel de stad de grond die ze in eigendom had, aan Grosvenor heeft verkocht of geleast. Evenmin is duidelijk hoeveel baten de stad is misgelopen. Maar als op deze schaal stedelijke verandering moet plaatsvinden met het winkelen als motor, dan is het twijfelachtig of een minder ervaren projectontwikkelaar dan Grosvenor dat voor elkaar zou hebben gekregen. En zonder het charismatische leiderschap van Rodney Holmes is het ook twijfelachtig of de prcampagne een succes zou zijn geworden. Want de stad stond machteloos tegenover deze plannen: ze had noch de politieke wilskracht, noch de planologische kennis van zaken om een dergelijk programma te bedenken en tot een goed einde te brengen. Waarom Liverpool zo lafhartig is maar tegelijkertijd ook zo bovenmatig trots op de stad, is een van die sprookjesachtige mysteries waar we verder maar beter niet bij stil kunnen staan. In de projecten waarbij het stadsbestuur een sterke inbreng heeft gehad, was de architectonische kwaliteit tot nu toe zeer matig. Dit geldt zowel voor de initiatieven ter vernieuwing van de woningmarkt, als de geplande herbouw van ziekenhuizen en de verbouwing van de ‘ouderwetse’ scholen tot academies. Hierbij waren de architectonische ambities van een bedroevend en schandalig niveau, zonder enige inbreng van topontwerpers, van wie er trouwens een liet weten dat hij Liverpool maar een derderangse stad vond. Ook is geen gebruik gemaakt van de twee architectuuropleidingen op de universiteiten van de stad. Als het bovenstaande ook maar enigszins op waarheid berust, dan geldt het niet alleen voor Liverpool, maar voor alle provinciesteden van Engeland. Zelfs Londen heeft nooit optimaal geprofiteerd van zijn eigen architecten. In deze stad mogen dan alle architecten zijn gevestigd die over de hele wereld worden gevraagd, hier zijn ze als ontwerper niet welkom. De opdrachtgevers zijn nu eenmaal bang dat ze te duur zijn en over het budget heen gaan. Anders dan in Duitsland, Oostenrijk, Frankrijk, Nederland, Zwitserland, Spanje, Portugal of Italië ontbreekt het de openbare en gezichtsbepalende gebouwen in de Britse steden aan kracht, inventiviteit en esprit. Aan deze Engelse ziekte lijdt ook Liverpool. Vertaling Bookmakers/Auke van den Berg de Architect april 2008
EXCURSIE LIVERPOOL – MANCHESTER 6 T/M 10 OKTOBER 2010
V E R E N I G I N G
V A N
B O U W K U N S T
T I L B U R G -6-
1 De gootlijn van de winkels op het parkniveau maakt deel uit van de ellips in de lucht.
2 Met een winkelstraat op twee niveaus, die doet denken aan de Rotterdamse koopgoot, wordt het binnenstedelijke winkelcircuit gesloten.
EXCURSIE LIVERPOOL – MANCHESTER 6 T/M 10 OKTOBER 2010
V E R E N I G I N G
V A N
B O U W K U N S T
T I L B U R G -7-
3 De bebouwing langs Paradise Street is standaard.
4 Het ‘Bling Bling’ gebouw in Hanover Street is afgelopen jaar door het publiek uitgeroepen tot het beste nieuwe gebouw van Liverpool. Het door de Londense architect Piers Gough van CZWG Architects ontworpen gebouw wordt bewoond door de beroemde kapper Herbert Lowe.
EXCURSIE LIVERPOOL – MANCHESTER 6 T/M 10 OKTOBER 2010
V E R E N I G I N G
V A N
B O U W K U N S T
T I L B U R G -8-
5 en 6 John Lewis en Debenhams vormen de twee ankers van het plangebied.
6 Paradise Street Development Area (PSDA), Liverpool (GB) Opdrachtgever Liverpool City Council (LCC) Ontwikkelaar Grosvenor, Londen Masterplan Team Building Design Partnership, Liverpool; Pelli Clarke Pell; Waterman Partnership; WSP Group Architecten Ainsley Gomman; Allies and Morrision; Austin Smith Lord; BDP (Glasgow); BDP (Liverpool); BDP (London); Brock Carmichael; CZWG; Dixon Jones; FAT; Glenn Howells; Greig & Stephenson; Gross Max; Groupe Six; Haworth Tompkins; Hawkins Brown; John McAslan & Partners; Marks Barfield; Michael Squires & Partners/Aedas; Pelli Clarke Pell/Brock Carmichael; Stephenson Bell; Owen Ellis Partnership; Page & Park; Wilkinson Eyre; Studio Three Constructie Laing O’Rourke; Balfour Beatty; Kier Planners Cushman & Wakefield Healy & Baker; Drivers Jonas; Strutt & Parker; Tushingham Moore; Edmund Kirby Kostendeskundige Davis Langdon Juristen Berwin Leighton Paisner; Boodle Hatfield; Denton Wilde Sapte Oppervlakte plangebied 17 ha (42.5 acres) Totale vloeroppervlakte 234.000 m2 (2.5m ft2) Winkels 154.000 m2 (1.65m ft2) Recreatie 21.500 m2 (230,000 ft2) Woningen 600 appartementen Parkeerplaatsen 3000 Open ruimte 2,2 ha Bouwkosten €595 miljoen (£500 miljoen) Investeringen €1093 miljoen (£920 miljoen) Start ontwerp 2000 Masterplan 2001 Bouw 2004 – 2008
EXCURSIE LIVERPOOL – MANCHESTER 6 T/M 10 OKTOBER 2010
V E R E N I G I N G
V A N
B O U W K U N S T
T I L B U R G -9-
Cities for sale Privatised city centres with no guarantee of public access and patrolled by security guards... a grim vision of the future? No, it's happening right now in London and Liverpool, says Paul Kingsnorth
The Guardian, Saturday 29 March 2008 Chinatown, London, May 2006 I'm sitting on the steps of the feng shui pagoda, hoping I've got the right day. Behind me is a large, long, redbrick building; an ugly thing with an underground car park beneath it and a line of boarded-up shop fronts on its lower level. The shop fronts all have notices stuck on them announcing their closure. Each notice bears a logo that reads "Rosewheel". My phone rings; "Hello," says a voice. "Is that Paul?" "Yes," I say. "Is that Jabez?" As I speak, I see a Chinese man approaching me. Jabez puts away his phone and shakes my hand. He points to the redbrick building behind me. "This is the one," he says. "Let me show you." This building is called Sandringham Court, and it's the reason I'm here. Jabez walks me around the building, showing me the exshops. There was the Golden Gate Chinese Grocer's. There was Chinatown's only fresh fish shop, its only Chinese jewellery shop and its only Chinese kitchen utensil shop. They were run by independent traders, all of whom have now been evicted from the building by the company whose logo is on those signs: Rosewheel. Built in 1985, Sandringham Court was taken over by Rosewheel when its previous - Chinese - owners went bust. Rosewheel is not Chinese and appears to have no previous connections with Chinatown. Some residents say they had never heard of it until the shopkeepers received their eviction notices in spring 2005. None of them wanted to move, but they had little choice. Rosewheel had plans: Sandringham Court was to be demolished and replaced by a spanking new Chinese-themed shopping mall known as the "Chinatown Gateway". The shopkeepers were told they were welcome to apply for floor space in the mall. Unfortunately, their rents would be at least double what they were before. The company then took upon itself the role of saviour of Chinatown. The Chinatown Gateway, said the company's founder, Robert Bourne, would be "110% Chinese-focused". Rosewheel would arrest the "decline of Chinatown" with an "exciting retail development" - "a showcase for the cultural heritage and economic power of China", which would attract "new customers and opportunities". It would feature "100 shops, restaurants and concessions in an innovative setting". It would be good news for Chinatown and its Chinese people, he said. Many in the local Chinese community are furious about Rosewheel's evictions, and its self-appointed role as the saviour of Chinatown. But what has probably angered them most is what Rosewheel wants to do to the pagoda I have been sitting on. The pagoda is not just a pretty piece of street furniture. Its positioning is said to affect the feng shui, and thus the fate, of Chinatown itself. But Rosewheel intends to annex the pagoda as part of the Chinatown Gateway. Which may or may not affect the feng shui. The company wants to enclose part of the street on which the pagoda sits, demolish it and rebuild it as the centrepiece of its mall. It is also rumoured, according to Jabez, to want to fence in what is currently a publicly accessible colonnade on Charing Cross Road, and possibly also enclose the adjacent Newport Court, transforming it from a public road to a private covered walkway. The fear is that the public streets of Chinatown are to be privatised. Jabez Lam is the founder of the Save Chinatown Campaign. "It's not just going on in Chinatown," he says. "It's all over the country. The high streets, the loss of character: whether it's in London, or in the country, whether it's an ethnic or a village community, independent people are being driven out. In this case, it is about a minority community that has made an investment of 50 years. Money, time, blood and sweat have been put in to build this place." This, he says, is what makes people here really angry; that their hard work is being not only overlooked, but piggybacked on. "It's the work that the Chinese communities did that has made this place desirable now, and that's why the property developers want to come. More than 70% of Chinese businesses here are rented. Think what will happen if developments like this start to push those rents up. This would be the end of Chinatown as we know it." "In Camberwell, recently," he adds, "the council were evicting black businesses from their shops, and there was an outcry. They had an inquiry headed by Lord Herman Ouseley, who used to run the Commission for Racial Equality, and his report concluded that what they were doing was the equivalent of ethnic cleansing. So I ask you, what is this? The same thing is happening here. Small Chinese business owners are being pushed out by the council and a rich developer. Trying to get an answer from Rosewheel doesn't get me very far. Its website has a message declaring that it is "currently being updated". I check with Companies House, but it has no phone, fax or email for the company, just a postal address. I discover that Rosewheel was incorporated in 2003, just before it bought the 200-year lease on this building. It appears to have no other projects, and no stated previous history. Its accounts are overdue. I telephone Westminster city council five times. Eventually I am told that it has no contact details for the company. Then I discover that Robert Bourne, Rosewheel's founder, is a multimillionaire property developer, known for his closeness to the government. He has multiple business interests: as well as being a director of more than 50 other companies, he was also involved in a failed bid to buy the Millennium Dome and turn it into "London's silicon valley". He's not a man, though, who seems to want to shout about it. All my efforts to talk to someone from Rosewheel are in vain. Jabez wants to show me something. He walks me around the corner to Gerrard Street, where he points to a dingy staircase. To one side is a red plaque with gold Chinese lettering on it. "This used to be a brothel," he says with a slight smile. "Now it is a family club. Most of the people in Chinatown came from Hong Kong and the New Territories, where there are five major surnames. When they
EXCURSIE LIVERPOOL – MANCHESTER 6 T/M 10 OKTOBER 2010
V E R E N I G I N G
V A N
B O U W K U N S T
T I L B U R G - 10 -
got to London, they formed their own clubs - five clubs for the five surnames. This is one of them. All of this took decades to build up, but it could be uprooted in a day. This is what makes Chinatown, not the golden dragons. This can't be replaced." What's happening in Chinatown is, in one sense, happening all over the UK, as supermarkets advance and local boozers are swallowed up by PubCos. Yet it is more, too. What's happening in Chinatown is an act of enclosure. And it is not the only one. Urban public space is at the heart of city and town life. It is the essence of public freedom: a place to rally, to protest, to sit and contemplate, to smoke or talk or watch the stars. No matter what happens in the shops and cafes, the offices and houses, the existence of public space means there is always somewhere to go to express yourself or simply to escape. Yet this, too, is under assault. From parks to pedestrian streets, squares to market places, public spaces are being bought up and closed down, often with little consultation or publicity. In towns and cities all over England, what was once public is now private. It is effectively owned by corporations, which set the standards of behaviour. These standards are the standards that are most congenial to their aim - getting you to buy things. So there will be no begging, no being homeless, no wearing hoodies. There will be no busking, and often there will be no sitting either, except in designated areas. You will eat and drink where you are told to. You will not skateboard or cycle or behave "inappropriately". And as for political demonstrations - don't even think about it. Throughout history, urban space has been a source of danger to those in authority, a place where dissidents gather. So, for a cashstrapped local authority, handing over control of public streets can seem like a boon. Private companies provide security guards to police them and keep them tidy. It saves money and time. The battle Jabez is fighting may be much bigger than he knows. But the good news for him is that he may have allies he doesn't even know about. Liverpool, April 2006 The place is a mass of cranes and concrete; at its centre, a gaping hole. Collapsing buildings around the edge are hung with giant banners reading, "Requisitioned for the Paradise Project". "By what right?" asks Don. "That's the key question. And who's asking it?" Donald Lee and I are in central Liverpool, walking the boundaries of the biggest retail development in Europe - the Paradise Project. The walk takes 40 minutes, which gives some idea of its size. What's happening here is a familiar story: a vast shopping centre being carved out of a city; a shopping centre that will be filled with chain stores, chain restaurants, chain cinemas. But again, this is different. Liverpool is not short of shopping space already. The retail centre of the sixth-largest city in England is a grey wilderness of underpasses and branches of H&M (a typical example of the mess created in the 60s by planners and architects who believed that they, too, were creating paradise). But in the years since it was built, the growth of out-of-town retail parks has sucked shoppers away. Paradise, its advocates say, will re-establish Liverpool as a "premier retail destination". Architecturally, the Paradise Project will certainly be an improvement on what went before: something the city council, and the developer it is working with, is trumpeting from the roof-tops. What they are less keen to trumpet is that Paradise requires the first privatisation of a city centre anywhere in England. Liverpool city council has sanctioned the corporate enclosure of the 42-acre city-centre site, which encompasses 34 streets and a public park. The development company Grosvenor, owned by the Duke of Westminster, the country's third-richest man, has been given a 250-year lease on this area. Grosvenor, with the enthusiastic blessing of the council, is putting into practice the kind of massive, consumer-focused re-engineering of the landscape previously seen only in private malls such as Bluewater. At the centre of the development, on Paradise Street, will be a 280,000 sq ft John Lewis department store together with "a host of major high-street names" comprising 1.6m sq ft of new shopping space. Nearby Hanover Street will be a "lifestyle-focused district with an eclectic atmosphere", while South John Street will be the "family-orientated district". Then there is Chavasse Park. Previously a publicly accessible green space, the park is now a giant hole in the ground. This will be filled with a 2,000-space car park with a new landscaped park put back on top of it. This is not a development that will allow the area's own character to evolve over time. Its character has been predetermined by architects, marketing specialists and planners. No room is left for responsiveness to people and locality. This is not about those things. It is about money, and in that sense it has already been a great success. This is the way the deal works. The city council gets an expensive, flashy renovation of a rundown area, costing almost £1bn, for which it has to pay virtually nothing. In return, it must give up - or rather the public must give up - its rights to it. Don Lee is from the Open Spaces Society, a campaign group founded in 1865 to protect common land and public rights of way, and he is not happy. "In Des Moines, in Iowa," he says, "there is a network of underground tunnels and walkways. You can only access them with a password, and only people who can afford to pay for it get a password. It's absolutely true. It's the ultimate privatisation of public space. What is happening in Liverpool is a step towards this kind of thing. You think that sounds extreme? Come back in 10 years, and see where we are." The thing that bothers Don, apart from the Paradise Project itself, is that no one else in Liverpool seems to care. Perhaps no one in Liverpool: Don is from Manchester. About the only other significant opposition to the Paradise Project comes from the place where we're headed now – Quiggins. Quiggins is a three-storey shopping centre. A Liverpool institution, it's a chaos of clothes shops for teenage goths, secondhand clothes, furniture and books. It's about to be demolished to make way for Paradise. Quiggins' founders, brothers John and Peter Tierney, set up the centre 18 years ago as a conscious attempt to keep alternative culture alive in an increasingly corporate city centre. They kept rents deliberately low, and provided a space for creative talent to flourish. The city council says it will find Quiggins another home, but the brothers are not satisfied. "Quiggins is committed to Liverpool's cultural industry and has been since its formation..." they write on their website. "It houses 45 local businesses, employing 25 local people, all helping to recycle within our local economy." It doesn't matter much what the brothers say, though. Quiggins has already had a compulsory purchase order issued against it. In the noisy, wholefood cafe on Quiggins' third floor, Don and I sit down to talk. "It took me a long time, and a lot of correspondence with the developers and the council, before they finally admitted what was happening with this project," he says. "There was a very low-key public announcement - you had to know where to look to find it - that they were removing the rights of way from 33 streets
EXCURSIE LIVERPOOL – MANCHESTER 6 T/M 10 OKTOBER 2010
V E R E N I G I N G
V A N
B O U W K U N S T
T I L B U R G - 11 -
in the city centre. It took a lot of to-ing and fro-ing, but I finally got them to admit to me that they were replacing these rights of way with something called 'public realm agreements.' " He looks at me with raised eyebrows. "Well, I'd never heard of these things, so I kept pressing them, and it turned out that these 'public realm agreements' would give the public very limited access to the streets, on Grosvenor's terms." They would be within their rights, Don tells me, to begin access half an hour before the shops opened and end it half an hour after they closed. There would be nothing to say that they had to allow you in outside those times. "Remember, these are streets - this is not some private shopping centre. Yet now you will have no right to use them unless you're shopping. While the public are winning new rights of access in the countryside, they're having these rights taken away in towns and cities. After I meet Don, I go to Liverpool's city council, to meet councillor Peter Mullen. Mullen is responsible for maintenance and repair in the city centre, and he is an enthusiast for the Paradise Project. He's an affable Scouser who takes pride in his city and believes the project will improve it. He waxes lyrical about the money it will bring in and how it will allow Liverpool to compete for shoppers with Manchester and Chester. What Grosvenor is doing, he says, is emphatically not privatisation of the streets; it's more a kind of cleanup. "Grosvenor will employ its own security people and they will patrol the streets, but that will be in addition to the police," Mullen says. "They will take responsibility for maintenance and repair, and I'm quite pleased that that's the case... For the pedestrian going into the district, the shopper going into the shops, you really won't notice the difference. It's not as if the security guards are going to stop and search people." Will the abolition of public rights of way prevent public access? "I'm assured that they will not," Mullen replies, but he doesn't sound certain. He says there will be 24-hour shopping some days, so it won't be in Grosvenor's interests to prevent access. "People going about their lawful business have nothing to worry about," he says. So will Grosvenor be preventing people from wearing hoodies on their streets, as Bluewater does? "I don't think they'll be allowed to do that." But, again, he doesn't seem sure. He's a nice guy, Peter Mullen, but what he tells me is not reassuring. What's happening in Liverpool city centre might sound like an isolated case. It isn't. One of the things that Mullen was keen to tell me, in fact, was that Paradise-style arrangements were "nothing new". He was right: they are becoming increasingly common all over the country. In 2006 the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) produced a landmark report on precisely this subject. What Kind Of World Are We Building? examined the growing private ownership and management of the public realm, and showed that places such as Paradise - "over-controlled, sterile places which lack connection to the reality and diversity of the local environment" - are proliferating. In London, the Broadgate Centre, adjacent to Liverpool Street station, is a 30-acre site owned and managed by development company Broadgate Estates. The Broadgate Centre is patrolled 24 hours a day by private security, and is aimed specifically at attracting "high-earning people". Also in London, 70 acres of land in the King's Cross redevelopment area has been farmed out to Argent Developments, which hopes to control, brand and market the public spaces as prime destinations for visitors. Then there are Business Improvement Districts - or Bids. Bids are a way to get more private finance into urban areas, and councils all over the country are adopting them. A tax is raised from local businesses and spent on improving the local environment. In return, the businesses decide what the environment looks like. But Bids are also a means of homogenising and controlling that environment: focusing it on consumption and taking the day-to-day running of it away from publicly accountable authorities. The RICS report quotes one city-centre Bid manager, who "made it clear that he is keen to encourage more high-earning shoppers and fewer less affluent customers. 'High margins come with ABC1s, low margins with C2DEs,' he said. 'My job is to create an environment which will bring in more ABC1s.' " This job frequently involves, for example, moving homeless people out of Bid areas for fear that they will deter shoppers. Seen in its wider context, said RICS, this was starting to look like the beginning of "a quiet revolution in land ownership, replicating Victorian patterns". Our urban streets are becoming "malls without walls", a trend that has been evident in the US for decades. The end result, suggests RICS, could be very unfortunate indeed: "Today's developers are more concerned with the principles of the shopping mall than with creating places able to stand the test of time... This is because they are too narrowly focused simply on creating places that would generate maximum returns in terms of shopping and spending... The drive towards creating a place purely as a consumer product contradicts the creation of that sense of place, as the aim of property-led regeneration is higher property prices and higher rents, out of reach of local residents and local shopkeepers." What is happening in Paradise looks like a clear indication of where many more of our urban public spaces may be heading: not just clone towns, but private clone towns. This is an edited extract from Real England: The Battle Against The Bland, by Paul Kingsnorth, published next week by Portobello Books at £14.99
EXCURSIE LIVERPOOL – MANCHESTER 6 T/M 10 OKTOBER 2010
