Fables of the reconstruction: Inner-urban regeneration, living and the reinvention of urban space

Chris Allen and Sarah Blandy

Correspondence to first named author at; Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research Sheffield Hallam University Unit 10, Science Park City Campus, Howard Street SHEFFIELD, S1 1WB Email: [email protected] Tel: +44 114 224 4522

Introduction There have been relatively few studies of city centre living in the . However, the limited number of studies that do exist tend to treat city centre dwellers as a relatively undifferentiated mass (e.g. Darbyshire, 1990; Fitzsimmons, 1998; Couch, 1999; Madden et al, 2001; Blackaby et al, 2002; Seo, 2002; Fox and Unsworth, 2003). First, city centre living tends to be characterised in terms of its appeal to young, single professionals as if this social group constituted an undifferentiated mass. Second, these young, single person households are assumed to follow a ‘housing career’ starting in the city centre and concluding in the suburbs. Third, these ‘housing career’ moves to the suburbs tend to be presented in terms of a desire to access better quality facilities (such as schools), greenery and low noise environments.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that city centre dwellers are not undifferentiated masses that are distinguished from other housing markets simply by virtue of the demographic characteristics of their housing consumers. City centre dwellers are shown to be complex and differentiated group of housing consumers that occupy a number of distinct positions within the city centre housing market, which should therefore be seen as composed of a series of sub-markets that operate according to their own unique socio-economic and cultural logic. Two typologies of city centre dwellers and sub-markets are identified, as well as two ‘new’ and emerging sub-markets. First, we argue that previous research has been correct to point out that a large part of the market for city centre living is based on young, single professionals. However, we also argue that this market should not be understood simply in terms of demographics. Our interviewees drew on post-Fordist discourse to describe this part of the city centre housing market which they characterised as made up of ‘city centre tourists’ that are seeking to ‘experience’ living at the heart of things. The growth

of this market should not, then, be regarded as symptomatic of a culture of detraditionalisation (cf. Heelas et al, 1996) because these households tend to be highly ‘traditional’ in their outlook and therefore merely seek to experience the city centre before fulfilling their ‘natural’ preference to live in the suburbs. Another part of this element of the market was composed of ‘lifestyle changers’ that had “done the marriage thing” and decided it was not for them and were attracted into the city centre because of its ability to accommodate their ‘new’ non-traditional lifestyle. Their overall commitment to living in the city centre was similarly lacking because it could easily be usurped by a change in personal circumstances, e.g. falling in love.

Second, we argue that an empirically significant part of the market for city centre living is often ignored in research reports that tend to focus on the majority consumers, i.e. young, single professionals. This part of the market is composed of ‘authentic’ city centre dwellers that ‘buy into’ the city centre because it is able to satisfy their lifestyle. Authentic city centre dwellers in were composed of ‘successful agers’ (that have ‘done the family thing’) and ‘counter-culturalists’ (such as gay and lesbian people). They have a genuine rather than passing interest in what is on offer in the city centre. Finally, we show that the high volume of demand for housing in has resulted in the recent creation of two ‘new’ city centre housing markets which we identify; the first consists of the development of ‘city centre’ living options for ‘city centre tourists’ within inner-urban areas whereas the second consists of the development of a new inner and sub-urban aesthetic for ‘distinguished’ housing consumers.

The paper is presented in four parts. First, we provide an overview of the research study and method. Second, we discuss Manchester as a post-Fordist city and the manner in whcih this has shaped the transient and tourist element of the market for city centre living. Third, we discuss Manchester as a postmodern city and the manner in which this has shaped th authentic element of the market for city centre living. Fourth, we discuss how and why the market for transient and authentic city centre living is currently expanding into inner and suburban areas as well as the consequences of this expansion.

THE RESEARCH STUDY AND METHOD The purpose of the research study was to understand the nature and extent of the demand for city centre living in Manchester. A multi-method research approach was used. First, a ‘systematic review’ of research evidence about city centre living in Manchester was undertaken. This involved an analysis of the existing research evidence base; primarily the findings of previous research into city centre living in Manchester and other UK / world cities as well as ‘housing market’ reports by stakeholders in the field (for example, Halifax plc). It also involved an analysis of archive material at the Local Studies Unit of the City of Manchester library (e.g. key planning documents); a computer search and analysis of news reports about Manchester City Centre in the local and national media; a search and analysis of the web sites of key stakeholders, such as property developers. Second, interviews were undertaken with key stakeholders in the residential property market in Manchester including estate agents and on-site sales offices, lettings agents and managing agents, property developers, mortgage lenders, local authority planners, as well as a small number of focus groups with residents living in different parts of Manchester City Centre.

1

MANCHESTER AS A POST-INDUSTRIAL CITY Manchester is known as the world’s first industrial city (Williams, 1996; Peck and Ward, 2002) and, in many ways, its development, decline and subsequent restructuring epitomises the British experience of industrialisation and de-industrialisation. The name ‘Cottonopolis’ was assigned to the first industrial city (Mellor, 2002) reflecting the nature of the industrial base that emerged in the later part of the 18th century. By the end of the 1830’s, Manchester and its surrounding towns were responsible for 90% of cotton production in the UK whilst cotton accounted for 50% of all export earnings on the GNP (Haslam, 1999). As well as being at the forefront of industrial change, Manchester has also been a driver of social change. It was the ‘home’ of the Anti-Corn Law League, the Suffragette Movement and the Chartist Movement and the origins of the ‘weekend’ (the ‘Manchester week’) can also be found in Manchester. Charles Dickens’ Hard Times and Frederick Engels’ The Condition of the Working Class in were also written about Manchester.

However, the economic buoyancy of Manchester and, in particular, its central district did not last. First, Manchester experienced a process of ‘hollowing out’ from the 1850’s onwards, with the new middle classes moving out of the centre and into suburbs such as and (Williams, 1996; Haslam, 1999). This suburban growth paralleled its inner city decline. Second, employment in the textile industry halved between the wars and, by 1939, a catastrophic decline of the cotton industry had taken place which was followed, in the 1950s, by its near total collapse (Williams, 1996). The period of manufacturing growth following the second world was only a ‘temporary salvation’ for the city and its inner core. Between 1971 and 1989, the number of manufacturing jobs in declined by 249,000 (Beynon et al, 1993). However, during the same period, Manchester began to assume a role of regional importance in retailing and commerce (Williams, 1996). The creation of Central Manchester Development Corporation (CMDC) in 1988 saw Manchester capitalise on this emerging strength as a regional centre for retailing and commerce.

Between 1988 and 1996, the CMDC attracted £350m of investment into Central Manchester, creating 100 000 m2 of new office space and, with it, 4500 new jobs, as well as 2500 new residential units. The Quays area, close to Manchester City Centre, also underwent a similar transformation. Today, Manchester continues to grow as a regional business centre and, between 1971 and 1989, the number of jobs in the service sector grew by 107,000 (Devine et al, 2000). For example, by 1996, there were fifty accountancy firms in Manchester staffed by 6,500 people whereas now:

Manchester’s rejuvenated city-centre economy is dominated by a sought-after, prosperous professional business service core and the knowledge industries such as education and the media. Devine et al, 2000: 523

These industrial changes have not been without wider consequence. The decline of manufacturing industries that once provided life-long employment across generations of entire communities (e.g. Fords of Halewood on Merseyside), and the subsequent growth of service and knowledge industries, has resulted in a growth of young people leaving their community of origin in search of higher education and, subsequently, work opportunities in the new high-tech regional centres such as Manchester, Leeds, Edinburgh or on the M4 corridor (Furlong, and Cartmel, 1997; Jones, 1999; O’Connor et al, 2000). One of the defining characteristics of contemporary society, then, is the increasing level of residential mobility (Burrows, 1999) which has undermined ‘traditional’ ideas about the lifecourse, i.e.

2

‘leave school, get a job, get married, have children’ whilst remaining embedded in a web of established kin and friendship relationships in one’s community-of-origin (Furlong and Cartmel, 1997; Jones, 1999). Young people are now much more ‘footloose’, tending to move between places (e.g. to attend college, find work) and sexual relationships (cf. Giddens, 1992) which means that they adopt a ‘playful’ orientation to the early years of their adulthood, which they treat as a time to accumulate a sequence of ‘new experiences’ (moving jobs, living in different places, meeting new people) rather than a time to settle down, buy a house, get married, have children etc (Urry, 2000; Sprigings and Allen, forthcoming). This background is necessary to understand the first element of the market for city centre living, based on ‘city centre tourism’ and ‘lifestyle change’.

“City Centre Tourists” and ‘Lifestyle Changers’ in the Post Industrial City There have been a small number of surveys into the characteristics of the city centre population in Manchester (e.g. Darbyshire, 1990; Fitzsimmons, 1998; Couch, 1999; Seo, 2002). These surveys show that the population of city centres is distinctive. For example, a study of the Grandby House and India House developments - two of the earliest developments - in Manchester showed that 75% of respondents were single person households and that 80% were under 35 years of age (Darbyshire, 1990). A more recent survey, by Seo (2002) reveals that just over 55% of respondents were aged under 30 years whereas 77% were aged under 40 years with more than 50% of these being single person households. Furthermore, 80% of city centre dwellers originated from areas outside the city limit (Seo, 2002). Sixty one percent (61%) of respondents occupied managerial or other professional positions whereas 28% had incomes over £35,000 per annum.

This population is often characterised as ‘mobile’ though for reasons that tend to over- simplify the way in which they use the (city centre) housing market. Seo (2002) found that the key reasons respondents gave for moving into the city centre of Manchester was to be close to work (25%) and to have a central city location (21%). On the other hand, the availability of cultural and leisure facilities was said to be less important, being cited by only 7% of respondents. This suggests that the choice to move into the city centre is a pragmatic one, concerned with the convenience of city centre living, rather than a purposeful one; something that Senior et al (2001), cited earlier, found. It also makes sense in the context of the findings of Devine et al (2000), whose study of Professional Work and Professional Careers in Manchester’s Business and Financial Sector uncovered a professional culture in which young people would regularly work long hours (e.g. ‘early till late’) as well as to take advantage of the opportunities that were being presented for promotion to high-salaried positions at a relatively young age:

An increasingly profit driven and commercial climate had also affected the nature of professional careers in demanding new skills, longer hours and job insecurity albeit alongside the possibilities of lucrative salaries and rapid promotion. Devine et al (2000: 532)

The attraction of living in the city centre for Devine et al’s (2000) professionals, who come from the same social group as Seo’s (2000) city centre dwellers, certainly appears to be matter of convenience that suits the working practices that many in this social group adhere to. However, this does not fully explain the housing decisions of young professionals. Young professionals work long hours for many years but do not spend all - or even a large part - of this time living in Manchester city centre. A study by Wynne and O’Connor (1998) is interesting in this respect because it found that city centre living in Manchester was about

3

much more than convenience. Many of their (young) respondents moved to the city centre was because they considered it “where it is at” and felt that it involved “living at the heart of things” (see also, JRF, 2001). They had ‘few roots’ and displayed an openness towards non- traditional forms of sociability and so living in the city centre was “approached in terms of a sense of play, sociability and hedonism” (Wynne and O’Connor, 1998: 855). This was re- iterated by the stakeholders interviewed in this study, who articulated:

“a feeling that city centre living is just something that you’ve got to do once. You’ve just got to do it once. So there’s lots of people that rent in the city centre just for the experience of having done it. I’m not sure how long people stay in the city centre but I don’t think it is that long” Sales Office 1

However, there is a subtle and important distinction to note here. For Wynne and O’Connor (1998) the emergence of city centre living can be associated with a breakdown in ‘traditional’ lifestyles and patterns of association so, it follows, city centre dwellers are said to have relatively weak commitments to marriage, child-rearing and so on. In other words, Wynne and O’Connor (1998) are suggesting that city centre living is constituted upon a certain group of individuals that chose to pursue a non-traditional way of life, involving the relegation of traditional concerns with stability to the margins and a “deliberate stand away from a perceived suburban lifestyle” (1998: 855). Yet, the key stakeholders that were interviewed for this study, and other statistical sources, suggest that this is not quite the case. Many young professionals were said to live in the city centre living for “the experience”, rather than because they embrace it as a way of life per se, and therefore tend to live in the city centre for only short periods of time:

“A lot of people want to do the city thing and they tend to do the city thing for 2 to 3 years” Estate Agent 3

This stakeholder perception of Manchester city centre living as an “experience” is supported by the survey findings of Fitzsimmons (1998; see Williams, 2003), who found a high degree of mobility within the housing market in Manchester City centre. One fifth of Fitzsimmons’ respondents had lived in the city centre for less than a year whereas a quarter of respondents intended to move within 12 months. Significantly, the need for a larger property outside the city centre and a focus on family life-cycle were two of the main reasons for respondents’ desire to move out of the city centre (see also, ESRC, 2001). This suggests that a large element of the market for city centre living comes from ‘tourists’, which Featherstone (1990: 102) points out, adopt a playful rather than lifestyle orientation to the experiences they are seeking1:

Tourists have no time for authenticity and revel in the constructed simulational nature of contemporary tourism which they know is only a game. They welcome the opportunity to explore [city centres] and tackle the experience from many points of view.

The ‘lifestyle changers’ used the city centre in a similarly ‘playful’ way, although for very different reasons to city centre tourists. The lifestyle changers were part of the growing numbers of relatively young, well-paid professionals that had either “done the marriage

1 Wynne and O’Connor acknowledge this but they conflate a playful orientation to the city centre with lifestyle. Playfulness implies experimentation whereas lifestyle implies a commitment to a way of life.

4

thing” and decided it was not for them or had deliberately chosen not to commit to a long term relationship (Giddens, 1992). The ‘footloose’ nature of - and thus lack of total commitment involved in - their sexual relationships was counter-balanced by their commitment to the city centre, given its ability to satisfy their lifestyle needs. They were attracted to the city centre because of its ability to accommodate non-traditional lifestyles and because it was said to be a statement about their individuality; they were confident “individuals” that made their own choices rather than traditionalists that followed the conventional lifecourse. The size of this group and nature of their commitment to the city centre are, nevertheless, open questions. This social group has not been explicitly identified in previous research and were not identified by key stakeholders such as estate agents. They were ‘stumbled upon’ in focus groups and so there is no way of predicting its size. Furthermore, even though they claimed to be confident individuals that shunned convention, their negativity towards conventional lifestyles was articulated in terms of their personal experiences (e.g. of marriage) rather than a revulsion of convention per se. This would suggest that they are ‘semi-authentic’ city centre dwellers whose commitment to the city centre could (unlike the successful agers and counter-culturalists) easily be usurped by a change in personal circumstances, e.g. falling in love.

To summarise what has been said so far, then. It would be wrong to characterise city centre dwellers simply by recourse to their demographic characteristics, e.g. as young, single professionals. However, it would be equally wrong to characterise them as a social group that led non-conventional lifestyles and therefore an unconventional lifecourse. Conversely, the evidence seems to suggest that young, single professionals momentarily pursue non- traditional patterns of living and association, but that they eventually tend to opt back into more conventional lifestyles and patterns of association and therefore, rather quickly, seek housing opportunities in Manchester suburbs such as Chorlton and Didsbury. In other words, when ‘city centre tourists’ and ‘lifestyle changers’ make choices to live in the city centre, these choices are infused by short-term and experiential considerations rather than a per se commitment to non-conventional patterns of living and association.

The Housing Choices of ‘City Centre Tourists’ and ‘Lifestyle Changers’ There are two things to note about the ownership of the housing stock in Manchester city centre. First, house prices in Manchester City Centre have, like in other parts of the housing market, risen out of the reach of first time buyers (many of whom are in insecure employment in the service industries: Devine et al, 2000) resulting in a slow down in sales to first time buyers that seek to occupy their properties:

“There has been a slow down in the owner occupied market for city centre living from traditional buyers, such as young professionals. Only wealthy people can afford to buy to occupy in the city centre such as Premiership footballers. A property in number one is now going for £365, 000 compared to a similar property in Salford which is going for £80,000” Estate Agent 1

Second, rising property prices in Manchester city centre, coupled with a large and apparently growing demand for rented property by ‘city centre tourists’ in particular, has seen a growth in the number of investors buying-to-let. Significantly, Sales Offices that were involved in selling apartments in new developments suggested that the level of speculative investment in these developments was anything over 85% whereas estate agents, dealing in second hand property, put the figure at around 50%:

5

“The people buying city centre apartments now are all investors. Between 85 and 99% of people buying apartments in any one of our developments are investors. Three years ago, there was only the odd investor that was buying these apartments. Maybe about only 40% of purchases were by investors then. So, the owner-occupied market has declined and the rental market has increased which pleases managing agents who have seen a growth in business. You are lucky now if one out of every 10 people that come through that door are buying something for themselves to live in” Sales Office 1.

“Half of what is being built now is for buy-to-let so that’s a lot of tenants who will be transient. I would say that about 25-30% of all the people that live in the city centre are permanent residents that are here to stay” Estate Agent 3.

The attractive investment opportunities presented by apartments in Manchester city centre was said to have further effects. Notably, a growing number of investors were said to come from outside of the city and were ‘quick off the mark’ in purchasing property, therefore ‘squeezing’ first time buyers that were living in the city out of the market for new apartments which, in turn, was fuelling the market for rented property:

“There has been a growth of investors from . these investors have made lots of equity on their properties in London and are using it to buy apartments in central Manchester” Estate Agent 1

“There are three types of buyers .... the third is people buying from London. There are lots of people in this category and it is growing” Estate Agent 3.

“Investors are quick off the mark and buy over the phone. so first time buyers are getting pushed out not only by price but also because investors get there before them because they [first time buyers] understandably want to see the apartment that they might be buying and because they are more choosy” Sales Office 1

“There are so many people renting in the city centre because they can’t afford to get a mortgage. They can’t raise the deposit and haven’t got the income that they need to get the mortgage that they require to be able to buy an apartment, but they can afford to rent” Sales Office 1

The ownership of large parts of the city centre housing by investors is not without consequence. The key issue to note at this point is that the growth in demand from investors is impacting on the profile of dwellings that are now being built. Specifically, the growth in demand from investors was said to have allowed developers to raise the price of new apartments. As prices have risen, there has been a growth of investor demand for smaller, studio, apartments because this allows lower rents to be charged which is particularly important given the intense competition in the rental market:

“Investors want to buy smaller properties, especially studios, because they are relatively cheap and because they don’t have to charge a high rent to cover the mortgage. Investors have to put 15% down and cover the rest of their mortgage with rental income. It is particularly important for them to be able to charge a competitive rent in an increasingly competitive rental market. Hence, that’s why studios are popular. And

6

that also suits the developers because they are able to fit more apartments into each development” Sales Office 1

“You don’t tend to find studio apartments in conversions. Also there is not a high demand for second hand studio apartments as there is with new studio apartments. The market for studio apartments is basically single person and rental”. Estate Agent 3

“investors can rent their apartments easily, but there are so many up for rent that the rent needs to be competitive” Sales Office 1.

MANCHESTER AS A POSTMODERN ‘CITY OF CULTURE’ Between 50% and 70% of the Manchester city centre housing market was said to be based on ‘investment property’ that was rented to relatively transient consumers such as ‘city centre tourists’ and ‘lifestyle changers’. In comparison, “about 25-30% of all the people that live in the city centre are permanent residents that are here to stay” (Manchester City Centre Estate Agent). This diverse group of relatively permanent city centre dwellers can be usefully characterised as ‘authentic’ city centre dwellers that move into the city because they are genuinely interested - and actively consume - the facilities on offer there. ‘Successful agers’ are shown to be active consumers of ‘official culture’ (e.g. high and medium cultural forms) whereas counter-culturalists are shown to be active consumers of ‘alternative’ cultural forms (e.g. gay bars). Furthermore, city centre living is shown to have emerged out of the latter rather than, as is often claimed, the former.

Official culture and the ‘successful agers’ The ‘traditional’ life course involved the three stages of childhood, adulthood and old age (Laslett, 1989). These were largely defined around the productive capabilities of individuals; whereas adulthood was positively defined as time spent in paid employment, old age was negatively defined as a time when people became dependent on family and welfare services. However, research suggests that this ‘traditional’ perception of the lifecourse no longer fits contemporary circumstances. Older people are now much more fit and active and therefore independent for much longer, whereas the spread of occupational pensions and accumulation of housing equity has also ensured that many older people are more affluent (Clapham, forthcoming). They are not so much ‘failed producers’ but ‘active consumers’ that embrace later life as an opportunity.

Over the last couple of decades, Manchester city centre has been reinvented as new urban landscape of high and middle cultural consumption. Much of this has been down to the innovative and entrepreneurial approach of the city council which has been central to the recreation and re-imaging of Manchester. and its partners (e.g. ) have been proactive in re-building the infrastructure of central Manchester including, among other things, the development of the metro system, the hosting of the commonwealth games (which allowed facilities such as the velodrome and swimming pools to be built) as well as encouraging a thriving variety of cultural activities available in venues such as the NYNEX arena, the , Centre and a bewildering variety of new restaurants and bars (Robson, 2002). The city council has also been instrumental in ‘Marketing Manchester’ through, for example, the City Pride initiative which acknowledged that:

7

“it is not enough merely to provide an appropriate infrastructure - equally important is the creation of a positive image for the City Pride area and the promotion of benefits and attractions to diverse audiences .... Our strategy has two key themes - o promote the city on a regional, national and international basis to secure interest, investment and jobs and to promote the City internally to residents to strengthen the case of civic pride and ownership of the city”. Manchester City Council, 1994: 50

The ‘successful agers’ had “done the family thing” and were drawn into Manchester city centre by its thriving ‘high’ cultural scene (e.g. the Lowry, theatre, restaurants etc.) and, given that they had made a ‘big decision’ to move there, they were committed to staying in the city centre which was able to satisfy their lifestyle. The size of this source of demand for city centre living in a city such as Manchester can be inferred - to constitute one-fifth of the city centre population - by interpreting the findings of other studies in combination: One-fifth of Manchester city centre residents are over the age of 50 (Fitzsimmons, 1998); one-fifth of Manchester city-centre dwellers have a serious interest and regular participation in theatre, gallery or film (Wynne and O’Connor, 1998); and theatres, gallery and restaurants have additional and particular significance to Manchester city centre residents over the age of 45 compared to other social groups. That said, the ‘successful agers’ can be said to account for approximately one-fifth of all city centre residents, and thus for the vast majority of ‘authentic’ city centre residents who were said to account for approximately 30% of city centre residents. They tended to use the large amounts of equity in their suburban properties to move into ‘duplex’ apartments in the city centre, which cost £250,000 upwards.

Alternative culture and the Counter-Culturalists Much has been made of the transformation from ‘urban managerial’ (cf. Pahl, ; Dearlove, 1973) to ‘urban entrepreneurial’ (cf. Jessop et al, 1999) models of governance in some British cities, most notably Manchester (see Hebbert and Deas, 2000; Ward, 2000, 2003; Quilley, 2002; Holden, 2002; Cochrane et al, 2002; Williams, 2003). The ‘urban entrepreneurial’ model captures how ‘urban growth coalitions’, consisting of a myriad of (e.g. elected, media, corporate, property etc) elites have been central to the regeneration of city centres such as Manchester. However, in doing so, urban entrepreneurialism theorists tend to overplay the importance of urban elites in city centre regeneration. Yet, the reinvention of Manchester city centre has not simply been pushed from the top-down, i.e. a consequence of the cultural regeneration strategies practiced by Manchester City Councils since the early-to-mid 1990s. Manchester has long had a thriving cultural scene and there have long been:

“hundreds of jobs in the city which depend on pop music: clubs, record shops, leaflet designers, record sleeve designers, studio engineers, fashion retailers .... Where once the Manchester mill-owners and merchants, mill hands and factory operatives created the wealth that financed the empire, now the city dominates English pop culture, trading in music, the sounds from the city’s streets resonating around the globe. Away from the centres of political power ... Manchester’s mavericks and misfits have created a magnificent, unofficial, underground culture. Haslam, 1999: xxv and xxviii.

A number of researchers have thus observed how the cultural revival of Manchester City Centre is associated with the counter-cultural scene and, more importantly, was taking place before the city council began to make its ‘entrepreneurial turn’ and subsequenlty take an interest in cultural regeneration. For example, the Hacienda club was founded in the 1980s by a local media personality and local band, New Order, who turned a bleak old yacht warehouse into a thriving ‘rave club’ that was entrepreneurially pioneering in a number of

8

ways, not least in its ability to attract clubbers from others cities such as London, Leeds, Newcastle and Wales - a new phenomenon at the time (Haslam, 1999) yet initially problematised by the urban establishment. The ‘’ similarly emerged in the late 1980s when cheap property in the city’s decayed warehouse zone was converted and gradually grew into a long street of gay bars (Williams, 2003). Similarly, some of the pioneers of Manchester city centre living first started to convert property in Liverpool city centre in the late 1980s.

Buildings used to be cheaper then and they were cheap to buy, and there was government money available to convert them and we all believed in the renaissance of the towns and cities in the north west, so you kind of put all those together and you end up with redevelopment projects particularly getting people back in the city centres. It was high risk, but some of that risk was offset by grant, but there was still a major risk being taken on whether people wanted to live in the city centre. Yeah, so it was about developing sites, but also sensing whether the market was there. I mean when we started out the prices were about, erm, about £85.00 per square foot. And they are now over £200 so there’s been a massive growth, but in the early days it was high risk, everyone said we were mad. Developer 1

Manchester city council has not so much ‘re-created’ the city centre as a site of cultural consumption and, in doing so, ‘created’ city centre living, then. Conversely, Manchester City Council’s Arts and Cultural Strategy in the early 1990s (Manchester City Council, 1992) recognised how it needed to ‘go with the grain’ - and capitalise on - what already existed. The city council therefore began to ‘accommodate’ the counter-cultures of those that were being attracted into the city centre, as Peck and Ward (2002: 4) have previously observed:

... the much vaunted ‘cultural revolution’ while drawing on very deep and long-established roots, has been mobilised effectively in recent years as an urban asset, as what began as a series of counter-cultural movements [hacienda, gay village] has been appropriated as a cultural ‘industry’.

Since then, there have been regulatory shifts towards tolerance of late night drinking, cafe tables on pavements, dance clubs (and tacitly the drug economy) as well as the gay village (Hebbert and Deas, 2000). A number of stakeholders mentioned how this has assisted the expansion of the gay village and consequently attracted many more gay and lesbian people into the city centre:

“The major thing in Manchester has been the gay community. They are like the traditional market for city centre living which originated around the gay village area. It was important for people from the gay community to live in the city centre because it is like a village, a community if you like. Some people just prefer it here [in the city centre]. The other major part of the market that is stable is from people that have done the family thing. Their kids have moved out and they move into town. They tend to be in their 40s and 50s and they go for property in the higher price range, say, over £250,000” Manchester Estate Agent 3

The pioneering developers of city centre living that were interviewed identified a potential market for city centre living as early as the 1980s, prior to the entrepreneurial turn within the local authority in the mid 1990s that witnessed the mass installation of ‘high’ and ‘middle brow’ cultural facilities. Furthermore, these pioneering developers believed that much of this potential market coud be built upon groups of people that led non-traditional ways of life and

9

therefore had a genuine rather than passing interest in the counter-cultural facilities on offer in the city centre. This theme also emerged out of focus groups that were conducted with residents living near Canal Street, where the gay village is situated. Gay people saw themselves as authentic city centre dwellers that were ‘in it for the duration’. They were attracted to the city centre by the existence of the gay village and an emerging ‘gay community’, which provided a tolerant environment in which non-traditional lifestyles and patterns of association could be fostered and sustained (see also Moss, 1997, who discusses the key role of the gay community in revitalising city centre neighbourhoods in the United States).

The Housing Choices of Authentic City Centre Dwellers Although city centre tourists and lifestyle changers have a tendency to return to the suburbs, and opt back into traditional lifestyles and patterns of association, city centre authentics tend to regard themselves as ‘distinctive’ individuals whose housing choices reflected their high level of social distinction. Thus, the counter-cultural authentics that participated in focus groups were not ‘rich’ in terms of economic resources, but were highly educated and rich in terms of their possession of cultural resources which provided them with a ‘natural competence’ to judge the cultural worth of goods and services such as housing. They tended to associate themselves with trends (such as drinking in particular bars or clubs, and wearing clothes) before they became ‘trendy’, and so regarded themselves as creators rather than followers of fashion. The type of housing that they lived in was therefore a signifier of their taste, distinction and individuality. They tended to look for converted mill properties or ‘innovative’ developments by ‘cool’ developers, such as Urban Splash, and reject ‘off-the- peg’ developments by the large developers as lacking in taste, distinction and sophistication. In contrast to off-the-peg developments, which were primarily purchased by investors, then, a larger proportion of mill conversions and other innovative developments were likened to ‘fashion labels’ that the ‘city centre authentics’ purchased to live in:

“There is a robust market for city centre living that is attached to the Urban Splash name .... People buy the Urban Splash name because of the unique and creative designs that come with it so Urban Splash developments tend to be considered to be good investments” Sales Office 2.

“There is no difference in the market for new builds or conversions as far as we are concerned. That’s because people buy into the Urban Splash name and the new developments are unique designs rather than the off-the-peg stuff that most developers are building in city centres” Sales Office 2

The authentic nature of their commitment to the city centre meant that they were more likely to purchase their ‘trendy’ properties, which was confirmed by the ‘cool’ developers whose properties were more likely to be purchased for owner occupation:

“The new development at Timber Wharf was bought by about 50% investors and 50% buyers” Sales Office 2

Significantly, many of these counter-cultural authentics had bought their apartments at low prices before city centre living had become ‘trendy’ amongst young professionals (i.e. tourists and lifestyle changers) more generally. This meant that they had a significant amount of equity in their properties. It should be said, however, that ‘authentic’ city centre dwellers split into two groups. In contrast to the ‘counter-culturalists’ that were rich in cultural

10

competence, and who had accumulated economic resources mainly as a consequence of rises in the price of their apartments, the authentics that were ‘successful agers’ were those that had ‘cashed in on’ large amounts of equity by selling their suburban properties in order to move into ‘duplex’ apartments in the city centre (which were said to cost £250,000 upwards) when they had “done the family thing and the kids had all left home”. In contrast to the counter-culturalists who had obtained economic resources as a consequence of possessing cultural competence, then, the lifestyle changers were able to further develop their cultural distinction as a consequence of their possession of economic resources.

THE DEVELOPING ‘ART’ OF CITY CENTRE LIVING The Inner-Urbanisation of ‘City Centre Tourism’ In mature city centre housing markets, such as Manchester, large scale builders have recently been finding that opportunities for development in the city centre are diminishing. The consequence of this is that they are now beginning to develop sites, using off-the-peg designs, within inner-urban areas whilst marketing them in such a way that they are associated with ‘city centre’ living. These developments tend to be located in some of the most deprived wards in the country (e.g. Weaste in Salford) that are close - and have good transport links into - city centres, and are designed to cater for the tourist market for owner occupation that has been squeezed out of the city centre.

“There has been a growth in the market for apartments in places out of the city centre but close to it, such as in Salford and Cheetham Hill which are big growth areas for young professionals” M/cr Estate Agent 1

The success of this development strategy, with first time buyers, is evident in the speed with which such properties sell, mainly to tourists that are first time buyers and that have been squeezed out of the city centre by investors, but also by investors as well:

“There were new properties in [Salford] recently and they were going for £90,000 with parking and they went like hot cakes.” M/cr Sales Office 1

“Anything that comes on the market for under £100,000 and you sell it within days” M/cr Estate Agent 3.

It is important to note the particular characteristics of this ‘new’ market for inner-urban living. The first time buyers that procure properties within inner-urban areas tend to be those that are seeking a city centre experience and who are therefore seeking to purchase a property in close proximity to the city centre. This has two consequences. First, in the wider housing market, the value of a dwelling is often considered to be a product of the area that it is located within and is captured in the popular mantra “location, location, location”. In contrast, this new form of inner-urban dwelling is based on a disconnection between the dwelling and the area it is located in / associated with. Thus, new inner-urban developments are being marketed in such a way that they become associated with the concept of ‘city centre living’, even though they are spatially disconnected from city centres. Conversely, this association with the city centre results in these dwellings being conceptually disconnected from the areas that they are actually located in. The presence of young, single professionals within inner- urban areas is therefore unlikely to have a major regenerating impact on those areas because these ‘new’ dwellers tend to regard the city centre - rather than their actual neighbourhood - as the location where they live and spend their income.

11

Second, unlike ‘authentic’ city centre dwellers that buy city centre apartments because they are committed to city centre living, the motivation of these buyers is simply to ‘get on the property ladder’. They are likely to live in inner-urban areas for only a short amount of time because their ‘natural preference’ is to live in the suburbs, as Harding et al (2002: iii) appeared to find in a recent study of , Manchester:

The last five years have seen a dramatic diversification of the housing stock compared to the situation in 1992 .... Hulme has therefore become a much more attractive area to live. It is estimated that its population has grown by 3.3% since 1992, compared to a 0.2% increase in the city .... [However] there are also larger than expected numbers of transient households living in Hulme temporarily. Big price rises in the private housing stock have brought many more professional and managerial households to the area .... New private homes have been more popular with childless households than with families. These factors mean that Hulme’s population is more varied and fragmented and less stable, ‘normal’ and committed to the area in the long term than was initially hoped for.

The Inner and Sub-Urbanisation of the ‘City Centre Aesthetic’ The main factor pushing large-scale builders into inner-urban areas appears to be an emerging shortage of development opportunities in maturing city centre housing markets such as Manchester. This has resulted in the emergence of inner-urban flat living which is being associated with city centre living. Similarly, the smaller innovative developers that tended to cater for ‘authentic’ city centre dwellers felt that intense competition for - and rising cost of - development sites had pushed them out of city centres. However, this has not stymied their development opportunities. Smaller to medium sized developers regarded themselves as ‘market leaders’ that had created new concepts in urban living, and large-scale builders as followers of those fashions that ultimately squeezed them out of the very markets that they had created:

“We create the trends and fashions whereas other developers are just into following the fashion and catering for it rather than creating it. They are following today’s soon to become yesterday’s fashions that will get left behind” M/cr Sales Office 2.

As smaller to medium sized developers are being squeezed out of Manchester city centre, they are beginning to embark on a project to create a new inner and sub-urban aesthetic and, with it, re-create inner-urban areas such as Langworthy in Salford, and suburban areas such as Todmorden in :

“Urban Splash is now moving out of Manchester city centre because of a scarcity of development opportunities and because prices are just too high to cater for the variety of demand that exists. Urban Splash want to cater for the whole market. That’s why we got involved in the Langworthy project and that’s why we are involved in other areas just outside the city centre because it offers the potential to develop at lower prices. We are also involved in in East Manchester” M/cr Sales Office 2.

“Five or six years ago you wouldn’t even drive through Hulme. But in the three years since I’ve been here prices have doubled because there is cheaper housing out there in Hulme [compared to the city centre] that people want. is looking like its going to be the next to benefit because there are lots of Victorian properties and that’s a good thing for people that want to buy” M/cr Estate Agent 3.

12

The success of this inner and sub-urbanising strategy was illustrated by Sales Offices of these developers who reported:

“... a massive demand for the new developments in Langworthy” M/cr Sales Office 2

And that;

“[Urban Splash] sell a lot of our apartments at the planning stage” M/cr Sales Office 2

However, it is important that the nature of this ‘new’ market is properly understood. Two factors are pertinent in respect of the inner-urban aesthetic. First, the new inner-urban aesthetic is based on culturally distinctive design (e.g. the planned re-development of terrace properties in the Langworthy area of Salford) and designed to cater for the distinctive tastes of ‘authentic’ city centre dwellers. Second, the new inner-urban aesthetic locates within reach of the city centre (e.g. on the tram line) and is thus being marketed as a form of ‘city centre living’. Whether the emergence of the inner-urban aesthetic will have an impact on areas such as Langworthy is therefore open to question, because the ‘authentic’ dwellers that are likely to buy into it are likely to be attracted to the city centre.

On the other hand, the sub-urban aesthetic appears to be a different phenomenon altogether and is likely to have an impact on the areas where is locates. There are several reasons for suggesting this. Although the sub-urban aesthetic tends to locate in suburban areas with good transport links to the city centre, and is associated with city centre living2, the temporal and spatial distance between these areas and city centres was large in the examples given. Thus, the sub-urban aesthetic is unlikely to appeal to the ‘city centre’ housing consumers that we have so far identified in the report. Conversely, the sophisticated and distinctive form of suburban living on offer is likely to appeal to a ‘new’ market of suburban housing consumers that have been attracted by the aesthetic aspect of ‘loft living’ but probably not its location in the city centre. Furthermore, although the sub-urban aesthetic has emerged out of the city centre (i.e. as small, innovative developers have been ‘pushed out’ and because it appeals to households that like the idea but not practice of city centre ‘loft living’), the temporal and spatial disconnection between it and the city centre is likely to mean that it will have a greater impact on the areas in which it locates, i.e. residents are more likely to spend their income locally. Nevertheless, even if this is regarded as a positive outcome, it is unfortunate that the of the ‘city centre living’ concept is more likely to contribute to the economic development of already wealthy sub-urban areas rather than deprived inner-urban areas.

“Manchester, so much to answer for ...”: A Concluding Comment In this paper, we have endeavoured to show that the markets for city centre living are many, complex, differentiated and operate according to distinct economic, social and cultural logics. First, what have been conceptualised as post-fordist socio-economic and institutional changes (e.g. Lash and Urry, 1994; Giddens, 1992) have resulted in a growth of well-paid, professional single person households that are ‘footloose’ and therefore only attracted to

2 A good and common example of this occuring can be found in advertisements for apartments that are available in new developments within suburban areas, such as West Didsbury, that are on the fringe of the city of Manchester and approximately 6-7 miles away form its city centre. For example, one recent advertisement went as follows “Close to Manchester City Centre, these contemporary apartments combine the perfect blend of modern living, space and security” (source: Manchester Metro News, Friday 4th June 2004, page 57). Interestingly, advertisements for conventional houses that are for sale in the same area never mention proximity to Manchester city centre and, in fact, distance themselves from it by talking up their suburban location.

13

Manchester city centre as ‘tourists’ that are seeking to ‘experience’ what it is like to ‘live at the heart of things’. Generally speaking, these households tend towards conventional housing choices over the long term of the lifecourse. Second, what has been conceptualised as postmodern socio-cultural change (e.g. Featherstone, 1990) has resulted in the growth of active-agers as well as the emergence of a conspicuous counter-cultural scene that has been appropriated by the mainstream. This has resulted in a growth of ‘authentic’ city centre dwellers that follow non-conventional patterns of living and association and who tend to have a long-term commitment to Manchester city centre. Finally, the large demand for city centre living in Manchester has recently seen its expansion into inner and even sub-urban areas. This is significant because many regeneration practitioners hold out some hope that this can assist in the regeneration of such places. Yet, we have shown that the conceptual disconnection of ‘city centre living’ from the inner and suburban areas in which it is beginning to locate is likely to mean that it has little economic or social effect on those areas.

REFERENCES

Beynon, H., Elson, D., Howell, D., Peck, J. and Shaw, L. 1993. The Remaking of Economy and Society: Manchester, Salford and , 1945-1992. University of Masnchester, Manchester International Centre for Labour Studies (Working Paper 1)

Blackaby, B., Murie, A. and Barber, A. (2002). City Living Birmingham: an Independent Review. Birmingham, Birmingham City Pride.

Burrows, R. (1999) Residential mobility and residualisation in social housing in England, Journal of Social Policy, 28(1), pp27-52

Clapham, 2004/5. Housing and support in later life: a pathways perspective, Housing Studies, forthcoming

Cochrane, A., Peck, J. and Tickell, A. 2002. Olympic dreams: visions of partnership, in Peck, J. and Ward, K. (eds) City of Revolution: Restructuring Manchester. Manchester, Manchester University Press

Couch, C. 1999. Housing development in the city centre, Planning Practice and Research, 14(1), pp69-86

Darbyshire, 1990

Dearlove, J. 1973. The Politics and Policy of English Local Government. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Devine, F., Britton, J., Mellor, R. and Halfpenny, P. 2000. Professional work and professional careers in Manchester’s business and financial sector, Work, Employment and Society, 14(3), pp521-540

DTZ Pieda Consulting (1998). City Centre Homes, Manchester. Manchester, DTZ Pieda Consulting.

Dutton, P. (2003). “Leeds Calling: The Influence of London on the Gentrification of Regional Cities”. Urban Studies, 40 (12): pp 2557-2572.

Economic and Social Research Council (2001) ESRC Press Release: Suburban Space Still More Popular than City Centre Living. www.esrc.ac.uk/ESRCcontent/news/jul5.asp

14

Featherstone, M. 1990. Consumer Culture and Postmodernism. London, Sage

Fox, P and Unsworth, R. (2003) City Centre Living in Leeds: Here to Stay? Leeds, University of Leeds

Fitzsimmons, J. 1998. City Centre Living: A Study of Residents of Central Manchester. Manchester, Library (Postgraduate Dissertation)

Furlong, A. and Cartmel, F. 1997. Young People and Social Change: Individualisation and Risk in Late Modernity. Buckingham, Open University Press

Giddens, A. 1992. The Transformation of Intimacy: Love, Sexuality and Eroticism in Late Modern Societies. Cambridge, Polity

Harding, A. et al. 2002. Hulme, ten Years on: Draft Report to Manchester City Council. Manchester, SURF Centre

Harding, A., Peake-Jones, S., Allen, C., Hodson, M., Kyng, E. and Sprigings, N. (2003) Evaluation of Moss Side Single Regeneration Budget Programmes. Manchester, Manchester City Council.

Haslam, D. 1999. Manchester, England: The Story of the Pop Cult City. London, Fourth Estate

Heelas, P., Lash, S. and Morris, P. (eds) 1996. Detraditionalization: Critical Reflections on Authority and Identity. Oxford, Blackwell

Hebbert, M. and Deas, I. 2000. Greater Manchester - ‘up and going’?, Policy and Politics, 28(1), pp79-82

Holden, A. 2002. Bomb sites: the politics of opportunity, in Peck, J. and Ward, K. (eds) City of Revolution: Restructuring Manchester. Manchester, Manchester University Press

Jessop, B., Peck, J. and Tickell, A. 1999. Retooling the machine: economic crisis, state restructuring and urban politics, in Jonas, A.E.G. and Wilson, D. (eds) The Urban Growth Machine: Critical Perspectives Twenty Years Later. Albany, State University of New York Press

Jones, G. (1999) ‘The same people in the same places’? socio-spatial identities and migration in youth, Sociology, 33(1), pp1-22

Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2001) Residents’ Views of CASPAR Developments (City Centre Apartments for Single People at Affordable Rents). York, JRF Findings

Lash, S. and Urry, J. 1994. Economies of Signs and Space. London, Sage

Laslett, P. 1989. A Fresh Map of Life. London, Weidenfield and Nicholson

Madden, M., Popplewell, V. and Wray, I. (2001) City Centre Living as a Spring Board for Regeneration? Some Lessons from Liverpool. Liverpool, University of Liverpool (Department of Civic Design Working Paper 59)

Manchester City Council. 1992. Arts and CulturalStrategy. Manchester, Manchester City Council

Mellor, R. 2002. Hypocritical city: cycles of urban exclusion, in Peck, J. and Ward, K. (eds) City of Revolution: Restructuring Manchester. Manchester, Manchester University Press

15

Moss, M.L. 1997. Reinventing the central city as a place to live and work, Housing Policy Debate, 8(2), pp471-490

O’ Connor, J., Banks, M. and Lovatt, A. (2000) Cultural Industries and the City, ESRC Cities Summary No.5

Peck, J. and Ward, K. (eds). 2002. City of Revolution: Restructuring Manchester. Manchester, University Press

Quilley, S. 2002. Entrepreneurial turns: municipal socialism and after, in Peck, J. and Ward, K. (eds) City of Revolution: Restructuring Manchester. Manchester, Manchester University Press

Robson, B. 2002. Mancunian ways: the politics of regeneration, in Peck, J. and Ward, K. (eds) City of Revolution: Restructuring Manchester. Manchester, Manchester University Press, pp34-49

Seo, J.K. 2002. Reurbanisation in regenerated areas of Manchester and Glasgow: New residents and the problems of sustainability, Cities, 19(2), pp113-121

Sprigings, N. and Allen, C. 2004/5. “The communities that we are regaining but need to loose”: a critical commentary on community building in beyond-place societies, Community, Work and Family, forthcoming

Urry, J. 2000. Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-First Century. London, Routledge

Walker, D. (2004) ‘The return of high-rise Britain?’, BBC News Online Magazine, 1.3.04, accessed at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/magazine/3490580.stm

Ward, K. 2000. Front rentiers to rantiers: ‘active entrepreneurs’, ‘structural speculators’ and the politics of marketing the city, Urban Studies, 37(7), pp1093-1107

Ward, K. 2003. Entrepreneurial urbanism, state restructuring and civilizing ‘new’ East Manchester, Area, 35(2), pp116-127

Williams, G. 1996. City Profile: Manchester, Cities, 13(3), pp203-212

Williams, G. 2003. The Enterprising City Centre: Manchester’s Development Challenge. London, Spon

Wynne, D. and O’Connor, J. 1998. Consumption and the postmodern city, Urban Studies, 35(5/6), pp841-864

16