Comments

1. 

   Edward Harkins

   March 4, 2011 at 13:34

   James Crabtree utilises his review of the book to, at the very least, infer favourable consideration for some of the contentious material published on the same theme by the Policy Exchange.Of the Policy Exchange’s report, James Crabtree opinions that, “its argument is more reasonable than it at first appears.”Others will hold a different opinion – especially if they re-read the report and the others published around the same time by the Exchange. In parts of the argument, there are elements of unreasonableness, and in some parts, almost irrationality. The Exchange's argument remains, in essence, that we literally plan abandonment of much of what constitutes the UK’s large cities, such as Liverpool. We are then to move in ever more concentrated numbers to the likes of Cambridge and Oxford (made possible by dismantling and ‘liberalising’ the entire planning and conservation system for those latter locations).It may be that there is a growing drift or malaise among some of the players and commentators in the UK's regeneration and development sectors. This is expressed, variously, as a dislike of the term regeneration with its ‘uninspiring’ connotations of poverty and decay, or as a need for public policy to de-prioritise the old and troubled and instead pursue only growth, perceived success and the new and the opportunist.Fine and well at a superficial level; but an untenable basis for public policy, sustainable economic growth and civic cohesion in a highly urbanised society such as the UK.The latter day ‘abandoners’ need to revisit (or visit first time?) why the regeneration perspective gained credence in the UK in the post WW2 period. It was not least because the-then players and commentators saw at close hand how obsolete, unattractive, unhealthy and downright awful our towns and cities had become without adequate public policy and competent governance.The inadequacies and failures of the earlier responses to that predicament have been perceived. The lessons might include, above all, that the state can lead, but must act alongside and in support of a private sector where there are capable and responsible private sector partners (see Infrastructure UK report of Oct 2010 for signposts of the possible in one field).Another lesson is that the state must support and work through, and with, client communities to help them assimilate and respond to the need for change and renewal – in the words of development and planning practitioner, Les Huckfield, ‘things that are embedded in the community work’.I had the good fortune to attend the recent lecture at University of Glasgow on the Detroit experience by visiting Professor George Galster, (Carnegie Trust Centenary Professor). Our conclusion was that many Detroit people, all in all, would probably be delighted to be in the position that Glasgow now finds itself in – notwithstanding all the challenges and problems that beset Glasgow.I suggest that the differing outcomes for these cities reflect the successive failures of the USA to address many of its urban problems in the ways employed by the UK.There has to be public policy that includes intervention by a genuinely partnering state where there is collective recognition of market failure (an erroneous term, since it usually refers to markets that continue to work well – but at a human or environmental cost that a civilised society will find unacceptable).If some players and commentators in the UK today are incapable of applying the lessons, and of working with others to identify, promote and facilitate the change and renewal that is needed, and instead all they offer is advice to abandon the challenge of regeneration, they would do well to themselves abandon the field – and not have the rest of us abandon entire communities the length and breadth of the UK.
2. 

   Rob Stevens

   March 7, 2011 at 15:55

   This is more libertarian anti-planning 'place-making localism': even if of an apparently progressive slant."Why, he asks, do some places grow, while others don’t?" - the obvious answer would be, 'because there's a willingness to let them die (on behalf of local and national government and business), and an ability for their suffering populace to leave for pastures new'.It simply is not feasible- in a UK context- to argue that settlement upon settlement will crash and burn only to be angelically replaced by new settlements that rise to ascendency and replace them in another geographical place. In fact, in so far as that is an accurate snapshot at all of the US it is a past one and does not particularly reflect the outsourcing and off-shoring reality of the last 25 years. It’s hard to move to where the new jobs are when they aren’t actually in the USA...Sure people do still 'move to work' in the USA far more than in the UK (and even more so than in Europe where the 'ties that bind’ and social capital are far more important existentially- both on a communitarian and individual basis).That is part of the collective American legend along with its notion of philosophical (and ultimately socio-economic) "exceptionalism"- the notion that is having such a difficult time in the face of the global economic centrifugal forces that tilt ever remorselessly eastwards.It is also due to the fact of course that the USA is FORTY times the size of the UK- models of labour mobility do not travel well in such unfortunate and unhelpful factual contexts.Even in the post war boom western economic heyday the regional and urban policy of the UK reflected the fact that it is very difficult to move around this country to where local economies are buoyant. In the main because there is not the housing supply (nimbies- and this won’t change under localism no matter what the financial bribes, er, incentives); or because the costs of living are restrictive (small over heated and over demanded local markets): both elements that are not the fault of local planners or the planning system by the way.Places like Middlesbrough- and small western nations like the UK- simply do not have the luxury of a muscular ‘policy exchange’/ Glaeser style policy toolkit of ‘let the place die and let the people move from the corpse’. Indeed this of course does not really exist in the USA now either (in so far as it ever did in such a simplistic tabloid manner).The negative externalities of not intervening are already too high when we reflect upon the industrial ‘policy’ of the 1979 to 1986 period- an epoch from which many UK settlements have not yet recovered from almost 30 years later- let alone from the reflective vantage point of 2020 looking back on the ‘pulling-up-the-drawbridge’ era of the Tory-Lib Dem period in office inspired by the 'genius intellect' of an American academic...So- to be frank- whether this guy and his associates have the ear of the current UK administration or not- the fact that they are so incorrect in both analyses and prescriptions needs to be rigorously communicated.
3. 

   Julian Dobson

   March 10, 2011 at 23:43

   I'd echo much of what Edward and Rob have said. One other thing, not mentioned so far: UK cities' natural resources are much more constrained than in many parts of the US. This prompted the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution to call for a regional economic policy in order to lesson the growing strain on the southeast. The coalition government's approach, of course, is to abolish the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.
4. 

   michael reardon

   March 14, 2011 at 23:05

   While I would like to agree with Rob, I am worried that we haven't been able (even after 13 years of relatively benign public policy ) to identify and build a future for the people of Stoke on Trent and Burnley that will persuade the more mobile and 'able to choose' residents of those towns to stay put and contribute.And within Manchester the agglomeration effect is felt even more keenly as people and jobs increasingly choose to locate in the city centre and southwards, leaving areas of north and east Manchester still searching for a renewed sense of purpose .Our approaches to urban planning and regeneration are all predicated on the existence of work and employment within and across existing patterns of settlement and the transportation that reflects that.In many northern towns and cities that work and transportation is at best partial, at worse non existent.That is not to argue for abandonment as a policy prescription, but left to the market that could be the outcome .
5. 

   James Smith

   March 20, 2011 at 21:02

   May I draw your attention to a city that for many years was in Detroit's shadow: Toronto. Similar location & climate three & half hours apart, prior to the riots in the '60's Motown was the bigger & richer of the two, now Toronto often get placed on Top 20 lists of cities of the world to live in, why? Race relations has something to do with it, Detroit imported the racism of the south prior to the 2nd World War & so called White Flight just made it worse. Toronto has made multiculturalism work & immigrants have changed the city for the better; but it goes deeper. As Toronto's manufactures moved to the suburbs or off shore, the economy changed & the creative, service, finance & other soft businesses grew. In part dumb luck, in part good(ish) urban planning, Toronto has prospered remaining the cultural capital or English Canada, & financial capital of the country despite the movement of people & investment west. Detroit had nothing like this to fall back on, as the US car industry has become more & more morbid, the city has shrunk, become more & more poor & dangerous. The question, should we let these cities die is disingenuous. As what is happing now in Detroit could be a model for other cities; if they can pull it off. Locals & new immigrants are involved in some interesting experiments in urban agriculture & artist co-ops. Land & housing is cheep, with a little support they can remake the city. My suggestion is that rather than grand schemes, if locals are given a little seed money, any blighted urban landscape can be remade; even the vacuous suburban landscape of North American Cities.
6. 

   Edward Harkins

   March 21, 2011 at 18:33

   James you make telling points about Toronto.Some years ago I had the privilege of mentoring a young Canadian research student who was doing comparative work on Toronto and Glasgow (Scotland, UK). I learned, consequently, much about the endeavors of all sectors in Toronto to face up to the challenge of decline, and indeed reverse that decline.I like your points about giving assets to the local people. The people are a remaining great resource for Detroit. Along this theme there are a couple of specific points made by Glaeser that I think he gets right; first that the municipal authorities in declining cities are commonly deluded into thinking that ‘great projects’ are what will save their city (Atlanta Olympics anyone?).The second is that those same authorities need to comprehend that interim investment for the amelioration of the worst effects of decline should go to poor people rather than (the fabric of) poor places.But I would not agree if he were to take that a step further, and say it’s one or the other. A properly empowered and resourced community will eventually be capable of moving onto identifying the most appropriate and efficacious investments for their ‘place’.