Culture, Regeneration and Urban Renaissance in ...

David Shaw, Olivier Sykes, Thomas B Fischer

Culture, Regeneration and Urban Renaissance in Liverpool Reflections of Liverpool’s experiences as ‘European Capital of Culture’ in 2008 Liverpool’s decline from a global city to a ‘pariah city’ during the 20th century was spectacular. In recent years there have been signs that a renaissance is under way and today the city’s aspiration is to become a ‘European Inclusive Renaissance city by 2010.’ The designation of Liverpool as one of the European Capitals of Culture in 2008 has provided an important timeline to galvanise a range of actors and agencies to make decisions that drive the physical process of renewal and regeneration forward. In this paper we explore some of the processes and projects that have been developed which have been used to showcase the city on a national and international stage. Whilst the events and activities of ‘Capital of Culture’ focused attention on Liverpool, the momentum gained from the European accolade needs to be maintained if Liverpool’s renaissance is to be sustained.

A

t 8.08 pm on January 8th 2008 Liverpool formally launched its European Capital of Culture (ECoC) celebrations with 50,000 people gathering for a giant street party outside St Georges’ Hall. This marked the start of a year-long series of events taking place throughout the city. The ‘Liverpool European Capital of Culture Yearbook 08’ described some 350 cultural activities taking place throughout the city organised under a series of cultural headings, and it is now claimed over 7,000 events actually occurred. A year on the accolade of ECoC has been passed on to Vilnius (Lithuania) and Linz (Austria). Whilst it is too early to evaluate the full impact of Liverpool’s designation as ECoC, the year is perceived as having had a very positive impact on the image of Liverpool. Visitor numbers have exceeded expectations and the national and international media reported favourably on both, the overall renaissance of the city and the specific ECoC events and activities. There are numerous narratives that are or can be used to examine the changes taking place within the city. In this paper, we draw on the ideas of Anderson and Holden (2008) who argue that events can bring hope and aspiration to urban places that are undergoing change. On June 4th 2003, the then Secretary of State, Tessa Jowell, announced that Liverpool would be the UK’s nomination for European Capital of Culture in 2008. The decision was greeted in Liverpool with a mixture of excitement, enthusiasm and surprise. Liverpool was not the favourite and had beaten six other cities, which had already been shortlisted from an original long list of 12 cities. For Anderson and Holden (2008), this decision was greeted within the city from the perspective of creating hope around three distinct, but inter-related dimensions: – Advent; the designation meant that something good was going to happen at some stage in the future (in this case 2008); – Crystallisation; most of the key stakeholders and actors had a focused deadline by which certain things had to

be done or decisions made. This does not mean that there was universal homogeneous support for the decision; – Blank; different individuals had different hopes and aspirations for what the designation would bring. In this paper, the ‘advent’ was seen to date from the formal announcement that Liverpool had been chosen as the UK’s nomination for ECoC 2008, which galvanised individuals and groups to take action. This provided the ‘crystallisation’ through which key stakeholders ensured that key decisions were taken in anticipation of the year itself. The third element of the story of Liverpool ECoC 2008 is to understand and capitalise on the legacy.

From Pariah to Renaissance City? During the 18th and 19th centuries, Liverpool emerged as a truly global city based around international trade (WilksHeeg, 2003). By the early 20th century Liverpool and the urban centres of the ‘Merseybelt’ (including Manchester) vied with London in terms of global connections and presence (Brown, 2009). From this peak, the 20th century witnessed a reversal in Liverpool’s fortunes with the city in what seemed like a constant downward spiral. The decline of Liverpool’s economy, and of the wider Merseyside sub-region, contributed to a trend of out-migration (particularly of the young and skilled), underutilisation of key resources such as labour, higher than average unemployment and low economic activity rates. Since the 1990s however, there has been a gradual but sustained transformation of the city’s fortunes and a new governance framework has emerged, partly driven by the need for partnership working associated with two rounds of EU Objective 1 funding (1994-1999 and 2000-2006). The Liberal Democrats who have been in power since 1998, have also promoted partnership working, civic boosterism and entrepreneurship. The successive periods of Objective 1 funding have provided an important source of capital funding. The success of winning ECoC for 2008, following RaumPlanung 143

122

Culture, Regeneration and Urban Renaissance in Liverpool - Shaw, Sykes, Fischer

on from the City’s 800th birthday celebrations in 2007 have all provided a tight and focused time frame for the completion of key flagship projects focused on the city centre and the waterfront. Liverpool has emerged from being a ‘selfpity city’ to a ‘renaissance city’ (Murden, 2006). From decades of decline and a lack of inward investment, today the city is faced with unprecedented new levels of predominantly private sector led inward investment. In or around the city centre, major new developments are rising out of the ground. ‘Liverpool 1’ is a retail led regeneration scheme on a 17 hectare site valued at £920 million. The Kings Dock Development is a new conference centre and indoor arena valued at £400 million. The Mann Island Scheme is worth a further £112 million and includes a new museum costing £33 million. In addition to these realised investments, there are currently ambitious plans for a £10 billion dockland redevelopment investment programme by Peel Holdings, a major regional property developer over a 20-30 year period. Juxtaposed against this huge investment, concentrated in the core of the Merseyside conurbation, significant parts of the Liverpool community are socially excluded. Indeed the most recently published Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD)1 still rank Liverpool as the poorest performing city in the country and an analysis of the 50 worst performing neighbourhoods in the country shows that 17 are in Liverpool (CLG, 2007). For large parts of the inner ring, surrounding the city centre the perception that the housing market has failed has led to the establishment of a government funded scheme to try and create ‘housing market renewal’. ‘New Heartlands’ is Merseyside’s Housing Market Renewal Initiative (HMRI) which, although predominantly focused on Liverpool, also extends into the neighbouring local authority areas of Wirral and Sefton. The way the city’s revival is being managed has moved away from a local government led approach to one where the local authorities become facilitators and managers of change with an emphasis being placed on ‘new localism’ or what has been more recently branded ‘place shaping’ (Morphet, 2008). Within this agenda, the local authority’s role is to facilitate and orchestrate change to meet the needs and aspirations of the local community/ies of interest related to a particular place. What has emerged is a complex governance rather than governmental structure.

Local governance and the capital of culture There are four key partnerships and strategies that co-ordinate and shape the redevelopment of the city, all of which have a City Council input, but are also underpinned by close strategic partnerships and alliances. At the heart of the process is the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP), which was created by the 2000 Local Government Act and was 123

RaumPlanung 143

intended to engage all the key stakeholders involved strategic policy making and service delivery. Through a wide ranging process of community engagement and consultation, the LSP is expected to produce a long term Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) which identifies shared priorities for a particular place and an action plan as to how such priorities will be delivered. The idea is that by working collaboratively beyond professional sectors and ‘silos’, an area’s economic, social and environmental priorities can be addressed (LGA and DEFRA, 2006). Liverpool’s LSP is called ‘Liverpool First’ and its Sustainable Community Strategy is now into its second iteration. Since the first Community Strategy was produced in 2002, Liverpool’s bid to become European Capital of Culture (ECoC) was successful. The bid was promoted around the theme of ‘The World in One City’ which was centred on celebrating and reconnecting Liverpool with its historical global links based on trade and transport (ERM Economics, 2002). The project was intended to deliver three key dimensions – improving the cultural infrastructure of the city; promoting an inclusive approach to culture, thereby facilitating community cohesion, and helping, through renewal, to create a ‘premier European city’. These three objectives were to be realised through three themes of creation, participation and regeneration. The management of the ECoC was overseen by the Liverpool Culture Company which was specially created. This sat within the city council but was not formally part of it and was managed by an independent Board. In its original guise it tried to be as inclusive as possible, although more recently, certainly in terms of its Board structure, it had become much more streamlined and focused on delivery. A third critical agency that has played, and continues to play a significant role in regenerating the city centre has been Liverpool Vision. This was the first Urban Regeneration Company in England. It is a private company set up to work in partnership with the local authority, other public sector bodies and the private sector to attract new investment and help to regenerate the area under its jurisdiction. Liverpool Vision’s initial focus was on 590 hectares in the city centre2. It has created a number of area based strategic zones of activity with a different focus in each area. In a recently commissioned independent review of Liverpool Vision, it is acclaimed as a huge success, having, since 1999, attracted over £3.5 billion of public and private money, over 1 million square foot of grade A office space and 16,000 new jobs (Parkinson, 2008). The final important element in understanding the redevelopment of Liverpool is the planning policy framework within which decisions are being made. The formal planning document is the Unitary Development Plan adopted in November 2002 (Liverpool City Council, 2002). In the fol-

Shaw, Sykes, Fischer - Culture, Regeneration and Urban Renaissance in Liverpool

low-up draft plan (Local Development Framework – LDF), which is currently being prepared by the City Council, the overall vision of ‘Liverpool [being...] a world class city by 2024’ has been formulated. In this context, it is worth remembering that the city’s waterfront has a UNESCO World Heritage Site and that Liverpool has more than 2,500 listed buildings, 34 conservation areas, 10 historic parks, and 4 Scheduled Ancient Monuments. The Mersey river estuary is a Wetland Ramsar Site and a Special Protection Area (SPA). It is important to emphasise that even before the successful bid for ECoC 2008, there were signs of a renaissance in the city with key partners working towards a common goal. The Capital of Culture accolade provided a reason to get projects in place, but not necessarily completed by 2008. However, it does seem clear that the timeline between designation and the start of 2008 galvanised partners in the need for quick decisions. Furthermore, many of the agencies involved in Liverpool’s renaissance recognised the importance of place and culture as assets shaped by history and the identity of places. In the key strategies framing the city’s development, culture was recognised as an important driver of change, with the ECoC bid seen as being important in contributing towards broader goals (Griffiths, 2006).

Early reflections on Liverpool’s Experiences as European Capital of Culture In the immediate aftermath of the Capital of Culture, many commentators have hailed the event as a success. Indeed, in a recent presentation at the University of Liverpool, Andy Burnham, the UK Government’s Culture Secretary, announced the idea of a ‘British City of Culture Prize’ as a “worthy legacy, capturing the benefits seen by Liverpool […] to change people’s perceptions of how the city sees itself and how it is seen by the rest of the country”. Clearly central government sees the cultural event as a huge success, but in some respects it is too early to really evaluate the impacts and disentangle the effects of Capital of Culture on

other ongoing regeneration initiatives. Furthermore, the downturn in the global economy means that some of the hoped for external benefits will not be realised in the near future. It is important therefore to evaluate in a longitudinal manner the impacts of major events, rather than has been usually the case, evaluating impacts as a post event ‘snapshot’. This is precisely the task currently being undertaken by the ‘Impacts 08’ evaluation project, which is a joint venture between the University of Liverpool and Liverpool John Moore’s University, and seeks to explore the impact of culture-led regeneration before during and after the key events (Impacts 08). Kunzmann (2004: xxx) has argued that creativity – or the ‘cultural turn’ – has swept through Europe as a ‘friendly virus and is the new guiding force in city development or redevelopment’. Bearing in mind that it is important to avoid assuming simple causal relationships between the ECoC and Liverpool’s renaissance – and with the inevitable caveat that it is too early to determine lasting outcomes, the remainder of this paper uses seven themes on culture and city (re)development proposed by Kunzmann (2004), to reflect on the experience of Liverpool ECoC 2008. Culture promotes image. City marketing is dependent on culture (cultural infrastructure, events, urban and rural setting, sporting facilities, etc). Whilst Liverpool has always enjoyed a good reputation within the international media, the national media has by contrast tended to highlight the negative stereo types of crime drugs, violence, unemployment and urban decay. Already by 2005 the national media was beginning to paint a more positive picture of the city (Garcia, 2006) and this momentum has been maintained throughout 2008. ■

Culture strengthens Identity. Throughout the last century, the continued decline of Liverpool also impacted on the self confidence of its inhabitants and external perceptions of the city (Boland, 2008). Port cities such as Liverpool, particularly those which are situated on the ‘edge’ of their countries, not infrequently have an ‘exceptionally strong sense of their own cultural identity, shaped by influences such as immigration and emigration, and by distinctive religions and political traditions’ (Bianchini, 2008: 98). One of the themes which the ‘Impacts 08’ research programme has explored has been ‘Image, Identity and Place’, with initial research on this being conducted before the commencement of the Capital of Culture year (Melville et al., 2006). ■

Culture and space. Since 2003, the city centre and the waterfront have been transformed and it is really in the physical appearance of these areas that the most dramatic changes are evident. For many years the Liverpool waterfront (Figure 1), despite its iconic buildings and the regeneration of the Albert Docks was disconnected from the city centre. The Strand, a major dual lane road, cut the waterfront away from the city centre. Furthermore, many of the city centre ■

Fig. 1: The ‘Pier Head’ part of the city’s UNSECO ‘Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City’ World Heritage Site [Source: C. J. M. Sykes 2009]

RaumPlanung 143

124


Fig. 2: New public space as part of the ‘Liverpool 1’ development, providing a link between the retail core of the city centre (in the background) and the waterfront [Source: C. J. M. Sykes 2009]

Fig. 3: New public space as part of the ‘Liverpool 1’ development, providing a link between the city centre and the waterfront (the Albert Dock visible in the background) [Source: L. McGowan (2009]

buildings literally turned their backs on the waterfront. Today, the major Liverpool 1 development has sought to reconnect these two important elements of the city. Two large curved blocks, one a major hotel, the other office and residential accommodation provide a link between the city centre and the Albert Dock. Between the buildings a new park space has been created which will be managed by the Grosvenor estate (the owners of Liverpool 1) for many years. This new open space acts to guide people between the city centre and the waterfront and there is now a steady flow of people moving across this space (Figures 2 & 3). Whilst undoubtedly there are new attractions on the waterfront, the new international arena and conference venue, major new exhibitions in the Tate Art Gallery, new restaurants etc, it was reported that in the weeks following the partial opening of Liverpool 1 in May, the Albert Dock area was receiving over 100,000 extra visitors a week. On the waterfront, further changes are being made, not only in terms of new developments (the Echo Indoor Arena and Convention Centre, the new cruise liner terminal, the new Museum of Liverpool and the Mann Island residential and commercial developments), but also the waterfront area in front of the current buildings. This had traditionally been a fairly bleak and windswept open space which is in the process of being transformed. A project led by British Waterways, but supported and partly funded by other public and private sector agencies, has reconfigured this space. At the heart of the project is the extension of the Leeds Liverpool canal. Currently this canal, 127 miles in length, ends in Stanley Dock. In March 2009 the first narrow boats travelled along the new link (Figure 4). The surrounding public realm is being transformed by the project, and the formerly bleak windswept environment is being redefined. The Capital of Culture provided the key decision makers involved in the realisation of such physical transformations with a time line (or deadline) to try to get decisions made quickly, but without compromising quality. In an evaluation of ECoC on invest-

ment decisions, most developers made the point that their decisions had been made based on the improved business conditions in Liverpool, and that while ECoC would be positive for the city, it should not be seen as the only reason for new development (Garcia et al., 2008). It is also worth noting that some of the most hotly-contested issues surrounding the ECoC relate precisely to the relationships of culture, and in particular cultural policy/regeneration, to space. In built environment terms, perhaps one of the greatest ironies of the year was that, whilst official literature and place-marketing vaunted the distinctiveness of jewels of Liverpool’s built heritage (predominantly seen as being located in the city centre), many of the city’s inner Victorian suburbs continued to be subject to decay (Figure 5), sometimes as a result of delayed (and some would argue) misplaced ‘regeneration’ proposals (Brown, 2009).

125

RaumPlanung 143

Culture and Entertainment. With some 7,000 events the city was certainly entertained. Several events attracted over half a million visitors. The start of the tall ships race and the La Princesse (a 50 ft mechanical spider crawling through the heart of Liverpool) were two of the free highlights (Figure 6). ‘High culture’ in terms of art exhibitions and classical concerts (including the return of Simon Rattle with the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra to Liverpool for two concerts), was ■

Fig. 4: The new canal link across the Pier Head and the new Museum of Liverpool due to open in 2010 [Source: C. J. M. Sykes 2009]

Shaw, Sykes, Fischer - Culture, Regeneration and Urban Renaissance in Liverpool

balanced with more ‘popular’ events such as Paul McCartney playing to 34,000 people at the Anfield football stadium. Culture and Education are closely intertwined and this theme ranged from engaging young people in events as a means of promoting education. Standard measures of educational attainment in Liverpool show that its young people that are underperforming at all levels. Throughout the year, some 70,000 young people had been engaged in various projects with the hope of raising their self awareness and esteem. ■

Culture and creativity. Liverpool’s position as a site of cultural production and creativity was established long before the Capital of Culture bid. Elements of this, including the legacy of the flourishing of popular music, art, poetry and theatre in the city from 1960s onwards, were clearly among the place-based attributes which contributed to its successful candidature for the title. In the early years of the build-up to 2008, and particularly following the resignation of Robyn Archer the Liverpool Culture Company’s Artistic Director in 2006, there was a debate about the balance which ought to be struck during the cultural year and in the cultural programme, between external or international events and cultural productions and more ‘home grown’ or endogenous culture. At times certain positions taken within this came close to caricaturing imported forms of art and cultural as being primarily ‘highbrow’ or elitist and as unlikely to appeal to the people of the city. The view which emerged from such debates recognised that, for it to be a success, the year ought both to foster the engagement and development of locally-based cultural producers and the cultural life of city communities, as well as attracting highquality cultural events and productions to Liverpool. Perhaps inevitably, the extent to which a balance between these elements was achieved remains a matter of debate (Burrage, 2009). The Impacts 08 project is currently running a survey to assess how local artists and creative practitioners ■

Fig. 6: ‘La Princesse’ – the mechanical spider built by the Breton company ‘La Machine’ that entertained the crowds in September 2008 [Source: L. McGowan (2009]

have experienced the Capital of Culture Year (Impacts 08). What is clear is that creativity is regarded by policymakers as one of the significant dimensions of the city’s distinctive ‘territorial capital’ on which it must build in coming years. Culture and the economy. Undoubtedly there is a link between culture, the economy and jobs (Figure 8). The expectation for 2008 was that Liverpool would attract 11.1 million visitors generating spend of £547 million. The year delivered 15 million visitors, spending £800 million. There is also some optimism that new perceptions of the city will continue to attract visitors, but this needs to be balanced with other forms of development. Whether the new cultural offerings are sufficient to attract new inward investment or how sustainable an economy based on patterns of consumption will be remains to be seen. ■

figure has still to be placed

Fig. 5: Delay and decay in the city’s inner suburbs makes a striking contrast with the large-scale redevelopment of the city centre [Source: xxxxxxxxxxxx]

Fig. 7: Culture promotes image, strengthens identity, entertains, and impacts on the economy – a photo of the Beatles embellishes the façade of a new music and entertainment store [Source: C. J. M. Sykes 2009] RaumPlanung 143

126


Conclusions Less than two months after the culmination of Liverpool’s European Capital of Culture programme, it is very difficult to evaluate what the impacts have been, and indeed will be. Certainly visitor numbers are reported to be significantly up on previous years, with the city welcoming 15 million cultural visitors, and an additional million bed spaces sold. The interest in Liverpool and its events are said to have generated £800million of additional economic benefit to the region. Whilst these are impressive outputs, the real question is whether the city can continue to capitalise on the success of the past year. For Liverpool, culture, however defined, serves as an economic activity in its own right, and also as a means to sustain Liverpool’s renaissance. What the year has done is to raise awareness of, and reposition, what Liverpool has to offer as a destination. Whether for leisure, tourism and culture, or for inward investment, the city now has additional facilities that can be marketed. Equally, the ECoC year was undoubtedly successful in acting as an agent of what Anderson and Holden (2008) term ‘crystallisation’ for stakeholders in their decision-making. Key partners worked together to ensure key projects were either completed or at least in construction by 2008. The city centre has been transformed through such concerted action. Perhaps the real question today, is how, despite the downturn in the global economy, the city can capitalise on the success of the past year and use the momentum generated to sustain its economic renaissance and tackle long-standing challenges, particularly those associated with the social and environmental dimensions of sustainability.

Footnotes 1 The Index of Multiple Deprivation combines seven domains of deprivation in a weighted manner (income deprivation; employment deprivation; health deprivation and disability; education and skills; barriers to housing; living environment deprivation and crime) to arrive at a composite score. These are calculated at Super Output Area Level, the smallest geographical unit for analysis, and can be amalgamated to correspond with local authority boundaries. 2 Recently Liverpool Vision’s remit has been extended. Three organisations – Liverpool Vision, Liverpool Land Development Company and Business Liverpool – integrate economic and physical development and business and enterprise support within a delivery focused private sector company, with a remit to work across the city as a whole.

Bibliography Anderson, B.; Holden, A. (2008): ‘Affected Urbanism and the Event of Hope‘; in: Space and Culture 11(2), pp. 142-159 Bianchini, F. (2008): ‘Photography on the Edge’; in: Davies, J. (Ed.): Cities on the Edge. Liverpool, pp.98-100 Boland, P. (2008): ‘The construction of images of people and place: Labelling Liverpool and stereotyping scousers, Cities, Brown, J. (2009): ‘Liverpool Betrayed: From Post-War to Pathfinder’; in: Triumph, Disaster and Decay – The SAVE Survey of

127

RaumPlanung 143

Liverpool‘s Heritage, SAVE Britain’s Heritage, London, pp. 23-27 Burrage, H. (2009), ‘Was Liverpool a Truly Inclusive Capital of Culture in 2008 ?’, http://www.hilaryburrage.com/2009/01/was_ liverpool_a_truly_inclusiv.php Communities and Local Government (CLG) (2007), Index of Multiple Deprivation http://www.communities.gov.uk/communities/ neighbourhoodrenewal/deprivation/deprivation07/ (accessed 17/02/09) ERM Economics (2002), European Capital of Culture: Socio-Economic assessment of Liverpool’s Bid, ERM Economics; Manchester Garcia, B. (2006), Press Impact Analysis (96, 03, 05) – A Retrospective Study: UK National Press Coverage on Liverpool Before, During and After Bidding for European Capital of Culture Status. Impacts 08,Liverpool, 2006. www.liv.ac.uk/impacts08/Papers/Impacts08%28Dec06%29Press_ analysis-96-03-051.pdf B. Garcia, R. Melville, P. Campbell and S. McEwan (2008), European Capital of Culture and Liverpool’s Developer Market: Impacts and Interactions, Impacts 08, Liverpool. http://www.liv.ac.uk/impacts08/Papers/Impacts08%28Mar2008%2 9ECoCImpactDeveloperMarket.pdf R. Griffiths (2006), ‘City/culture discourses: Evidence from the competition to select the European capital of culture 2008’, European Planning Studies, Volume 14, Issue 4, 2006, pp. 415 – 430 Impacts 08 – European Capital of Culture Research Programme: http://www.liv.ac.uk/impacts08/index.htm Impacts 08, (2009), Survey on Impact of European Capital of Culture on artists and creative practitioners on Merseyside, Impacts 08, Liverpool. P. Jones and S. Wilks-Heeg (2004) ‘Capitalising culture: Liverpool 2008’, Local Economy, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp. 341 – 360. K. Kunzmann (2004), ‘Culture, Creativity and Spatial Planning’, Town Planning Review, Volume 75, Issue 4. Local Government Association (LGA) and Department of Food and Rural affairs (DEFRA) (2006), Sustainable Communities;A shared agenda, a share of the action, a guide for local authorities DEFRA, London, http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/ publications/documents/sustainable-communities-guide.pdf (accessed 20/06/08) Liverpool City Council (2002), Liverpool Unitary Development Plan, Liverpool City Council. Melville, R, Selby, M and Cliff, M (2007), Re-telling the City. Exploring Narratives of Liverpool. Impacts08, Liverpool. European Capital of Culture Research Programme. Miah, A. and Garcia, B. (no date) ‘Liverpooloh!8’ http://www.beatrizgarcia.net/LiverpoolOh8/home.htm Morphet, J (2008) Modern Local Government Sage;London Murden, J (2006) ‘City of Change and Challenge: Liverpool since 1945’, in Belchem, J (ed) Livepool 800; Culture Character and History, Liverpool University Press. Parkinson M. (2008), Make no little plans: the regeneration of Liverpool City Centre 1999-2008, European Institute of Urban Affairs, Liverpool John Moores University. Wilks-Hegg, S., (2004) From World City to Pariah City? Liverpool and the Global Economy, 1850-2000, in Munck, R., (ed), Reinventing the City?: Liverpool in Comparative Perspective, Liverpool University Press.

David Shaw, Olivier Sykes and Thomas B Fischer Department of Civic Design University of Liverpool [email protected]; Liverpool. ■