MES Major Paper William Bedford

Selling “Scousescraper” City: Geographical Networks of Power, Liverpool Waters and the Competitive City Project on Liverpool Waterfront A Major Paper submitted to the Faculty of Environmental Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Environmental Studies York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Student: William Bedford (YU#211808813) Student Signature: Supervisor: Roger Keil Supervisor Signature: Submitted on: Summer Term 2013 1 Selling “Scousescraper” City: Geographical Networks of Power, Liverpool Waters and the Competitive City Project on Liverpool Waterfront Table of Contents 3- Foreword 6- Abstract 7- Introduction 12- Chapter 1: Defining the Competitive City 23- Chapter 2: Establishing the Competitive City 25- 2.1 An Oppositional Space 33- 2.2 Playing the Game 41- 2.3 Local Rivalry 48- 2.4 Back on the Brink 52- Chapter 3: Maintaining the Competitive City 56- 3.1 Centralised Influences 60- 3.2 Peelʼs City 66- 3.3 The Peopleʼs City 74- 3.4 The Globalised City 81- Conclusion 89- List of Interviewees/ Bibliography 2 Foreword The primary objective of this Major Paper is to synthesise the Area of Concentration of my MES Plan of Study: “Planning and Culture in Globalising Urban Spaces”. It also fulfils a number of specific Objectives. In relation to the title of my AOC, the Major Paper discusses “planning” in Liverpool at a broad level, as a practice that has responded significantly, consciously or unconsciously, to imperatives shaped by the processes of “globalisation”. A central theme to the paper is the balance that urban planning has attempted to find between providing social benefits and creating an economically “competitive city”. Within this struggle, “culture” plays a key role. Culture in my POS is partly defined as the representation of local identity in the built environment, which is discussed in this paper in the form of heritage and high-rise architectural styles. Culture- against the backdrop of the urban fabric- is also discussed herein on its own terms, as a place promotional strategy, in the form of Liverpoolʼs European Capital of Culture award of 2008. Many specific Objectives of my POS are fulfilled by this Major Paper. Objective 1.3, within the component “Planning Practice in Ontario and the UK” is “Understand how other private and public actors affect the process and outcome of planning”. Through expert interviews my understanding of the various bodies impacting planning decisions was greatly improved. I was able to gain an understanding of how private and public bodies interact with regard to development decisions in the UK. Through this Major Paper it was necessary to discover how national policies and initiatives have shaped the 3 varying degrees of power that local governments and private sector organisations possess in enacting development projects. Objective 1.4 “Understand the similarities and differences in the way the planning system is organised in the UK and Canada, and the effect this has on decisions surrounding development” was also fulfilled through increased exposure to the UK system through interviews and research, against which my prior education in Canadian planning can be compared. Component 2, “Globalisation and the Advanced Capitalist City” encompasses more theoretical and political economic approaches to the study of urban development. Objective 2.1 “Be able to provide a basic definition of “globalisation” and demonstrate an understanding of key political moments in the history of this process since the mid 20th Century” has been addressed by this Major Paper. A central element of the paper is the discussion the neoliberalisation of British politics and the economy. Some “key political moments” of this process discussed in this paper include the reshaping of London Docklands to accommodate Londonʼs burgeoning financial sector in tandem with the national governmentʼs policies of deregulation. The later sections of this paper, in which Chinese investment in Liverpool is discussed, link global economic with the fallout from the financial crisis, an event both produced by and producing some “key political moments” of recent history. Objective 2.2 “Develop a basic knowledge of political economic theory in the tradition of Marx in relation to the processes of deindustrialization and globalisation in British and Canadian cities” has been addressed through the incorporation of many perspectives of “post-marxist” scholars into this paper as they relate to the reshaping of the UKʼs economy. 4 Component 3 “Culture and urban development” contains objective 3.1: “Be able to identify reasons for the popularity of “creative city” thesis as an economic development strategy in cities in Canada and the UK and critically assess its effects”. This objective has been addressed by the Major Paper. The popularity of the model relates to the establishment of competitive city discourse discussed in the paper, as a means of attracting investment. This is particularly applicable to Liverpool, with both a famous history of cultural production and a decline in the cityʼs traditional economic base. The effects include the physical rebranding and transformation of neighbourhoods, as well as a broader shift towards upscale development in culturalised spaces. Objective 3.3 “Explore the way globalisation has impacted architecture and urban form in the UK and gain a solid understanding of the different perspectives from academics and members of the public surrounding this issue” relates directly to this paper in the way Liverpool has emphasised its historic architectural assets to appeal to a more “global” clientele of tourists and investors, as well as the emergence of skyscrapers on the cityʼs skyline, which are central to the Major Paper. 5 Abstract This paper focusses on the role of key political relationships influencing Liverpoolʼs pursuit of “competitive city” status since the early 1980s, drawing on interviews with local experts and actors in urban development. A focus lies on the objective of the aesthetic revitalisation of Liverpool Waterfront for the purposes of place promotion and economic development under neoliberalism. In the time period covered by this paper, central governmentʼs role in producing the terms by which regional cities compete is shown to be intimately bound up with a prioritisation of London as a global economic centre. It is argued that Liverpool Waters represents a new phase in an inconsistent trajectory of urban entrepreneurialism, distinguished by major private sector investment and appeals to localism. The relationship between Peelʼs spectacular vision for Liverpool Waters, local political agency and processes of class realignment in the city are critically assessed. 6 Introduction Fig 1. An image from the Masterplan for Liverpool Waters (source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/ mar/05/liverpool-waters-redevelopment-green-light). Since 2007 waves of excitement and concern have emanated from barren tracts of disused land on the banks of the River Mersey. The source of these shockwaves is the spectacular vision of “Shanghai-on-Mersey” presented by The Peel Group in their renderings for the Liverpool and Wirral Waters dock redevelopments. As word of the plans has spread into the broader national consciousness, they have provoked controversy over threats to architectural heritage at a UNESCO World Heritage Site and confusion over the scale of the development in a challenging economic climate. The decision not to call the proposals in for a public inquiry by the Secretary of State for 7 Communities in March 2013 has generated a new level of engagement with the project locally, as Peelʼs vision begins to be realised over a period spanning three decades. Official figures put forward by Peel reveal the scale of the scheme; the organisation intends to regenerate 650 acres of redundant dockland in Liverpool and Birkenhead, at an expected cost of £10bn. This will create 3 million square metres of new building floor area for a mixture of uses, including 25,000 new homes (The Peel Group, 2013, “Peel Waters” webpage). This paper hopes to situate the Liverpool Waters development within a trajectory of waterfront revitalisation in the city, focusing on the agendas of local, regional and national actors to construct “Competitive City Liverpool”. The study highlights the interrelationships that have shaped the strategies and capabilities of private and public agencies in Liverpool to enact physical image-led redevelopment strategies in line with perceived imperatives of urban entrepreneurialism. Much of the focus will be on the cityʼs relationship with London as Britainʼs global city and seat of centralised power. Two other cities in the psychological landscape of Liverpool residents will also feature; Manchester, as the primate city of Englandʼs North West, and Shanghai, as a city whose historic linkages with Liverpool have taken on a new significance in the 21st Century. A focus lies on the waterfront both as the location for the Liverpool Waters scheme and as a space which physically embodies the cityʼs relationship to global economic shifts. Lehrer and Laidley (2008) identify the paradigmatic features of waterfront 8 redevelopment practices through their study of Toronto, claiming; “many Western waterfront cities have been impacted by similar processes of ʻsuburbanizationʼ, deindustrialization and the decline of port-related activities that accompanied economic restructuring and technological change, opening up these waterfront spaces for new, highly globalized uses and

Load more